Overpopulation of Straw People (fwd)

>The main people that I see being overpopulated on the WSN list are "Straw
>People" (formerly known as "Straw Men", a figure of American-English
>speech that refers to pretending to defeat an opponent's argument by
>defeating an argument that the opponent never put forward.) 

Yes, Alan!!! isn't this falsification by association in the name of
ideology free social analysis?

Mine



==================================================================================
RichardHutchinsonpostedthis:

"Mary, Mine & List-

Obviously population control should be voluntary, both on ethical grounds,
and because it will be more effective.

But I want to challenge what I see as faulty logic -- just because
population control is being pushed by evil forces, it does not follow that
unrestricted population growth is good!

It seems an obvious irony to me that some on the left apparently side with
the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and other well-known progressive
forces on this issue.

Now I can see the emotions kicking in and overriding logic.  Be very
clear, I'm not saying you share their ideology, but you wind up
advocating the same dangerous position -- unlimited population growth.
After all, the only problem is capitalism, not population.  (It would be
refreshing if you could make the same distinction that I'm making between
advocating a position and the ideology behind it.)"
======================================================

Now, THAT'S what I call overpopulation of "Straw People". Nobody on the 
list, not Andy Austin, not Steve Rosenthal, not Mine Doryan, not Jim Blaut, 
not Paul Gomberg, not Colin Cavell, not me, nor anyone else that I've read 
on WSN has taken the position of advocating "unlimited population growth". 
The common thread that seems to tie together these posts is an utter 
distrust of the capitalist class to determine whether or not there are too 
many working class people. I'm sure all the above writers would strongly 
agree that coerced pregnancy is similarly a tactic by capitalist elites to 
control the labor market by oppressing the working class, and in 
particular, women. 

Saying that population control "should be voluntary" evades the question of 
"What is voluntary under capitalism?" Marx was not the only person to 
understand that the whiplash of hunger can be just as coercive against the 
working class as the rifle.  Governmental policies to "encourage" 
population control in the context of poverty, hunger, and disease, could 
hardly be called "voluntary."

As a separate point, Richard Hutchinson's comment asking his opponents to 
make: "the same distinction that I'm making between advocating a position 
and the ideology behind it" seems a little odd after accusing his opponents 
of having the same "dangerous position" as the Catholic Church and the 
Mormon Church. Nobody accused Richard Hutchinson of being a Nazi, a 
fascist, or even a stooge for those racists who want to limit the number of 
non-European people in the world, but some did point out that his ideology 
did have the potential to support the "same dangerous position" as those 
groups. He didn't  like that accusation, but how is his comment about 
having the same "dangerous position" as the Catholic Church any different? 

In my opinion, BOTH types of opinions are legitimate TYPES of arguments. If 
someone's position, however well-intentioned, strengthens the position of 
anti-social, (anti-working class) forces, it is appropriate to point that 
out and let the readers decide if the "trade-off" of this or that 
compromise, including being seemingly allied with certain forces,  is worth 
it.  

But it is inconsistent, at best, for Richard Hutchinson to condescendingly 
ask his critics to not discuss "the ideology behind" a position when he 
himself does the very same thing.


Alan Spector