Re: Population, Eugenics and more such folklore

I find myself agreeing with very much of Dr. Barendse's general world
analysis. But then he launches into a full scale attack on Marxism.  He, and
everyone else, certainly has a right to declare that he disagrees with
Marxism. Do we have to repeat the old quote by Marx that Marx, himself, "was
not a Marxist?"  (Is Milosevic a "Marxist?" The political origins of both
the Eritrean and Ethiopian nationalists now killing tens of thousands in a
border war originally used "Marxist" language, and even Hitler felt
compelled to use the language of "Socialism.")

Anyone who has studied this knows that the broad body of social thought that
calls itself "Marxism" replicates almost the entire range of ALL
contemporary human debates, from "free will versus determinism (agency vs.
structure)", one that Engels thought was important -- to debates about
Freud!-- to attempts to concretely analyze the tension between the "limits"
of a process and the "internal forces (contradictions?)" that drive the
process. This last one is, of course, related to "biology" and
"political-economic class struggle".  Insofar as people's theories about the
past, present, and future developments of world politics and economics (a
proper subject for WSN) are influenced by assumptions about biological
limits, it certainly is appropriate to discuss them on WSN.

I've seen this scenario before:  A debate emerges between a set of "more
Left" or "Marxist" positions and a set of positions that is less critical of
capitalism. Both sides write with passion, although often the "moderate"
side camouflages its political standpoint by using rhetoric that appears to
be "balanced" and "data-driven", even though the selection and
interpretation of that data are also affected by broader assumptions about
the way that the world functions.  Then, at a certain point, some observers
get tired/bored/irritated by the debate (which is a legitimate response),
and then PUT ALL THE BLAME ON THE MARXISTS!

(see following quote:
>>By the way, speaking to the present incrowd of this list: many World
>>System theorists are avowedly perhaps `progressives' but not Marxists, let
>>alone Leninists, so I'm not even sure all this
>>Maoist/Marxist/Leninist/Gramscian/Althusserian/Spivakian/what other
>>generally `Marxisant' folklore have you belongs on this list at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, it is the Marxists, and not the "Social Darwinists", "free
marketeers" and others who supposedly do not belong on this list.  Why?
Because some of the rhetoric attempting to point out connections between
past latent pro-fascist, ideology that declares that some people are worth
less than others and the well-intentioned writings of some of today's
liberals uses words like "fascist" negates their whole argument. Why?
Because certain words "ring a bell" in the head of otherwise very
sophisticated thinkers and causes a reaction that makes them want to dismiss
the entire argument of the offending rhetoric while being more conciliatory
towards the argument that uses "softer", more "professional" language.

(As a side point, if the KPD --German Communist Party-- had MUCH EARLIER put
more effort into fighting some of the ideological trappings of fascism, such
as racism/anti-Semitism, it might have more substantially weakened the
ability of the Nazis to build a base of support in Central Europe. Not
stopped them utterly, of course, but weakend them.)

Dr. Barendse --

I personally find that your posts are often very informative in presenting
information and, more important, often present an analysis that illuminates
that information in ways that provoke us to deepen our understanding. Those
are the best kinds of posts to put on WSN. In general, if someone doesn't
like the tone of a debate, the best thing to do is to start another topic.
If it's a good topic, it will supplant the other debate. While nobody
can/should agree on everything, I often find myself more in agreement with
your data AND ANALYSIS than some of what I read from people who call
themselves "Marxists."   So keep your international analysis coming; there
are a lot of illusions that "globalization" will bring "peace."  The
conservatives believe it will bring a free-market heavenly peace with U.S.
hegemony, and many on the Left, including some "Marxists" believe it will be
bring a repressive "peace" with U.S. hegemony dominating everything.  Your
postings (such as the ones on Russia) remind us, with data and interesting
analysis, that everything changes and that instability is inherent in the
present system because people are active agents who can make their own
history, for better or for worse.

One last point: This comment is coming from the only person in recent weeks
who explicitly defended Lenin! in a WSN post.

Cheers,

Alan Spector
(Past two term chair of the Section on Marxist Sociology of the American
Sociological Association, and co-author of "Crisis and Change: Basic
Questions of Marxist Sociology" 1991)**

**Note: the above citation was not intended as an advertisement, but was
listed for identification purposes only!

============================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. R.J. Barendse <r.barendse@worldonline.nl>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:05 AM
Subject: Population, Eugenics and more such folklore


>It's probably best if I repeat something I wrote on January 21 (`More
>Comments on Chase Dunn'):
>
>
>A.)
>
>>The discussion on this list, - I'm loath to say to the small incrowd
>>presently only writing on this list - has been filled with utter rubbish
>>postings recently, or is written in such
>>torturous jargon that I have no idea what the writer is trying to express.
>>
>And B.)
>
>>    By the way, speaking to the present incrowd of this list: many World
>>System theorists are avowedly perhaps `progressives' but not Marxists, let
>>alone Leninists, so I'm not even sure all this
>>Maoist/Marxist/Leninist/Gramscian/Althusserian/Spivakian/what other
>>generally `Marxisant' folklore have you belongs on this list at all.
>
>Note that I also made a prediction in January, which was proven by
Clinton's
>visit to Moscow this week - for the Russian parliament was to put it mildly
>hostile to Clinton and Putin was to say the very least not very
cooperative:
>
>
>>    So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Cold War has only
>>ended in Europe and after Kossovo has reemerged in Europe too.  Now, the
US
>>may tamper with the GNP-statistics, to comfort itself, as much as it may
>>like in order to prove Russia is not a great power anymore but sadly there
>>are lies, there are big lies and there are statistics. Does the US really
>>think Russia's massive industries, mineral resources and armed forces -
>>which made the USSR into a super-power in the first place - have somehow
>>suddenly miraculously disappeared off the face of the earth if they don't
>>show up in statistics? Of course not - the US has made itself appear more
>>powerful than it is by a statistical trick in which Russia dropped from
>>second industrial power of the world to twenty-fifth but, statistics or
>not,
>>Russia's productive capacity, brainpower and armed forces are simply still
>>there.
>>
>>    And, furthermore, Russia is in some ways stronger now than it was in
>the
>>1970's. For, first, even apart from `strong' allies like Mengishtu's
>>Ethiopia even its European allies (GDR perhaps excepted) weakened rather
>>than strengthened the USSR. After all in COMECON the USSR was to
`exchange'
>>to a favorable rate its valuable oil with shoddy products from Eastern
>>Europe. The USSR netly made a loss on its satellites. The same is true for
>>the republics (Ukraine, Kazakhstan and sometimes the Baltic states
>excepted)
>>which had to be heavily subsidized from Russia. Since most republics have
>>nowhere to go but Russia in the future instead of the `losing' Union of
>>Socialist Republics we will probably witness a more profitable
>>`neo-colonial' arrangement in which Russia only invests in the republics
if
>>it's profitable and in a few republics - notably Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan
>>and Uzbekistan - who really cares for Kirgizistan or Tajikistan ? As the
>>Russian say: "What has Asia ever done for US ?". Second, in the 1960's the
>>USSR was faced with a hostile 1 billion Chinese on its southern border -
>>this situation has meanwhile changed completely. Since both Russia and
>China
>>(not to speak of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) rightly fear US- and so called
>>Muslim terrorist subversion (But in substance that's not really `Muslim
>>fundamentalism' but armed smuggle which is why equally fundamentalist Iran
>>has concentrated almost 300.000 soldiers on the Afghan border). Both
>>have to collaborate if only to safeguard their southern/western border. A
>>common threat has united
>>them. Thus - although it was not considered `news' in the media -
>>immediately after Kossovo (mind you !) Russia and China staged military
>>maneuvers together for the first time.
>>
>>    Long term trends notwithstanding we can not predict the distant future
>>for there are simply too many imponderable factors and then - as I wrote
>>before - Germany may very well again emerge as a rival to the US. For the
>>foreseeable future though - partly as a result of Kossovo but more because
>>of
>>Middle Eastern and Central Asian entanglements, which are perhaps rightly
>>perceived as a threat by both Russia and China  -
>>the `Cold War' between the US and Russia/China has recommenced. A Cold War
>>in which the favorable factors to some extent compensate for unfavorable
>>changes to Russia in the last decade. Russia is certainly much weaker but
>it
>>has much less to protect too. It is always possible this may lead to an
>all-out war but the more likely prospect are further regional
>conflagrations, which still - because of the extreme destructive power of
>even a modern submachine gun - will  involve millions
>>of casualties.
>>
>Now, THAT is the real world and that is the real world we ought to be
>discussing - with all these repetitive postings on socio-biology,
population
>etc - and all of the calling your opponents `fascists'  `anti-human' and
>more of such old communist folklore - for if this list was really a threat
>to the `global elite' its normal contributors would surely long have had
`an
>arranged accident', and, Mine, you would have been expelled from the US as
>`unwanted foreigner' -  anybody noted that Russia just put the prototype of
>a new supersonic long-distance bomber - to replace its 1970's supersonic
>long distance- backfire - bombers - into use?
>
>Do n't be mistaken for a single moment any correspondent of this lists in
>the US - these bombers carry nuclear warheads and they are targeted at YOU.
>And the new missile defense-system the US wants to take into use is not
>directed against `rogue states' but against Russia - note that this means
>the USA unilaterally revokes the ABM - treaty of 1972, which was about the
>only disarmament treaty which worked.
>
>That means we're heading straight towards a new nuclear- armaments' race
>which might still very well ensue in a nuclear exchange by accident - for
>Russia is going to counter that system with multipile tragetting missiles
>based on nuclear submarines, based a few miles from the US' coast - so that
>warning times will again be down to a few minutes. - But of course the
>in-crowd on this list `has more urgent things to discuss'.
>
>R.J. Barendse
>
>Amsterdam/Netherlands
>
>