Re: population and praxis

WSN,

It is the typical stance of social Darwinists to present themselves as
"ideologically-free" hard-nosed empiricists. Whereas those whose values
lead them to oppose the imposition of population control strategies on
poor, racialized people are "ideological," those who support population
control are "rationally" responding to "crisis" of "overpopulation."

After ridiculing justice and democracy as "utopian," the social Darwinist
articulates a concern for engineering the perfect "ecosystem," a
bio-social project that requires a "radical ecocentric" worldview. The
goal of maximizing "diversity" to produce a "healthier" biosphere  
requires restricting the reproductive patterns of human beings. We have
to, as the nazis put it so matter-of-factly, "weed the garden."

One of the tactics of those supportive of the current system imperatives
is to feign a passion for justice and democracy by patronizing the
communist as having the best intentions but being "fool-headed." They
desire these goals, too, of course, but their "ideologically-free" and
"practical" minds lead them to support "reformist" projects like "thinning
the ranks." Eugenics (and that is what we are talking about in this
thread) is thus characterized as a "reformist" measure.

Might I suggest a few references? (1) a little known article in American
Sociology Review, 10 (1945), by Morris Edward Opler, in "The Bio-Social
Basis of Thought in the Third Reich." (2) Stephen Kuhl, The Nazi
Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994). (3) Georg Luk cs, The Destruction of
Reason (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981). See the chapter
"Social Darwinism, Racial Theory, and Fascism."

I realize there is a Marxist among those cited, but hopefully the list
will not be too "ideologically-laden." Steve Rosenthal and Alan Spector
have pointed out the inherent fascist orientation of social Darwinism. I
think it is important for people to understand the basic bio-social
thought that underpins much of the "ecocentric" rhetoric that passes on
this list.

Although the "ideologically-free" social Darwinist will tell us otherwise,
their opponents are not anti-environmentalist. This is probably the most
important thing for us to recognize. The "ecocentrists" are stage
managing a discussion wherein those opposed to their eugenical policies
are characterized as those who do not care about a "diverse ecosystem."
No ideology here!

In fact, it is the Marxist who offers the only solution to environmental
destruction, since we advocate the dissolution of the capitalist system
that causes that destruction. We believe that putting history under the
rational control of the people organized for democracy brings people in
harmony with nature. Our relationship to nature is currently one of extreme
alienation brought about by capitalism. We do not desire democracy only
because we think it is better - we demand democracy because it is
ultimately what will save the planet.

Nothing could be crueler that justifying the continued deprivation of
human freedom on the grounds that capitalism is intractable. The charge
that transforming the world rather than reducing numbers is not practical
and that therefore for the latter is the humanitarian option (read
*ecocentric* option) open to us is the moral equivalent to wishing in 1790
there were fewer Africans to be enslaved because abolishing slavery was
then impractical. Couched in faux-sympathetic rhetoric - a concern for
other species - the claim is that much more racist.

The social Darwinist is emboldened, however, by this apparent historical
constant: In every age the majority think of dramatic changes in their
circumstances as impractical. The handful who think beyond the pale are
"day dreamers," the "purist ideologues," their "utopian" ideas to be
dismissed by the more practical.

Yes, in every age day dreamers do exist, and, on the other side of
tyranny, they are often regarded as the few who conducted themselves
morally responsibly. Hopefully those who now oppose the tyranny of
eugenics will one day be viewed this way, not so that we can say "I told
you so," but because this would mean that we arrived at a more or less
universal condemnation of such terrible policies.

When psychosurgery was being widely performed, there were those who
opposed it. When the trans-Atlantic governments aggressively pursued
programs of sterilization, there were those who opposed it. Those who
opposed sterilization were going to "choke the nations" with their
"ill-placed compassion." The "socialists" (and trade unionist with bad
practices) did not recognize that governments, by lowering the death rate
and improving the lives of the "defectives" and the "bad stocks," were
committing "race suicide." Equality was impossible because of natural
inequality. The "levelers" were planting the seeds of "civilizational
destruction." Indeed, it was the eugencists who were the "real
humanitarians" because they refused to sacrifice the "race" for the
"defective" and the "racially degraded." All of this was cloaked in
"value-neutral" language. Galton, Stoddard, Davenport, and Goddard could
not apologize for the "facts."

When the majority of US states had laws criminalizing "interracial"
marriages (until the 1960s), there were those who opposed it (the NAACP
was able to stop it in 10 states). One man on the US Supreme Court in 1896
even argued that separate but equal was an impossibility (Plessy v.
Ferguson).

Perhaps it is obvious, but the minority of thinkers in every instance was
correct. They were correct because they put justice at the center of their
thinking. They recognized that no position was value-free. The social
Darwinist is not just "giving us the facts." They are marshaling "facts"
(if we can call them that) to advance a particular point of view, one
whose values are clearly apparent. This is not what makes it ideological
(it is ideological because it is not objective). But it does make it just
as value-laden as the opposing position. The battle is, after all, over
what we value. Chalk me up for valuing people.

Today, we look back at slavery as an abominable institution. Almost every
historian of slavery feels obligated to condemn the practice as they go
about writing about it. Their reader requires their moral indignation. If
for a second the writer puts their words in a way that appears to put
slavery in a good light, the reader feels uncomfortable. Those who have
written about slavery in a positive light defend their work by claiming
that the upset reader is just "too ideological." No, the reader has a
healthy reflex of moral indignation. One can write about slavery without
approving of it, and an essay about slavery is properly constructed when
it condemns that violent institution.

Where is the moral indignation over capitalism? When we go about our
analysis of capitalist history and society, why do some among us fail to
condemn it with the same conviction they would slavery? Why is it now -
right now - considered acceptable argue that it is "impractical" or
"utopian" to desire abolition of the wage-labor system? How can the
wage-labor system be a legitimate alternative? It is because that constant
is at work again. There is a colossal failure of imagination.

I think that one of the most important areas of research is to reckon the
process whereby those who offer themselves up as progressive thinkers can
at the same time advocate capitalism, in any form, as an acceptable
long-range course of social life. That they are not individually
hypocrites but collectively (and belligerently) confident points to a
deeper process at work that lies beyond hypocrisy. Here we get down to
the real ideological terrain.

For those who wish to characterize my comments as those of a person who is
"self-righteous," a "moralist" trying to paint others as "immoral" and
therefore wrong, they might consider that if I were talking about
racialized slavery they would not these things to say. That's because we
would all be on the same page and the objects of our shared moral
indignation would be dead white men. But if were having this conversation
in 1790 about the unfreedom of slavery, those characterizations of me
would be made and believed by a great many people who consider themselves
forward-looking thinkers. (No need to speculate about any of this, just
read what they said.) 

As much as some on this list openly desire, this discussion is not about
me. It is about policy choices and the fate of an immoral social system,
and, in the long-run, a self-destructive historical system. Part of doing
something about that immoral and self-destructive way of life is to come
to a clear understanding that it is not the victims of history who need
eliminating. We cannot in good conscience target the impoverished and
marginalized and characterize this as "reform" (if you can, then you need
to check your conscience). Our desire must be to improve *all* their
lives, to "reform" the system (strive to overthrow the system), to make
the correct "choice of comrades," as Silone put it - these are central to
our doing something about the future and the here-and-now.

Putting the oppressed, the downtrodden, the weak and disabled, central to
our morally concerned plans will guide us to choosing the correct
alternative to capitalism. Cloaking fascist ideology in the sterility of
positive scientistic discourse will strengthen tyranny over against us.

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN