Superabound posted:RedMaistre posted:The notion that life only has rights, not by reason of need, but by reason of merit and capacity, is a foundational principle of aristocracy and the negation of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Eugenics is this denial applied to the processes of social reproduction.
Counterpoint: Uncontrolled third-world reproduction rates are the literal grease that Global Capitalism relies upon to keep its gears from grinding to a halt
You are blaming the poorest sections of the laboring classes for perpetuating capitalism, instead of the bourgeoisie themselves, who find a way to profit and preserve their power by both corralling reserve armies of labor and promoting population control according to situation and convenience?
RedMaistre posted:Superabound posted:RedMaistre posted:The notion that life only has rights, not by reason of need, but by reason of merit and capacity, is a foundational principle of aristocracy and the negation of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Eugenics is this denial applied to the processes of social reproduction.
Counterpoint: Uncontrolled third-world reproduction rates are the literal grease that Global Capitalism relies upon to keep its gears from grinding to a halt
You are blaming the poorest sections of the laboring classes for perpetuating capitalism, instead of the bourgeoisie themselves, who find a way to profit and preserve their power by both corralling reserve armies of labor and promoting population control according to situation and convenience?
Blame is a social construct
RedMaistre posted:the poorest sections of the laboring classes [perpetuate] capitalism,
but uhh, yeah, thats literally how Capitalism works. Which is why labor strikes are so effective. And paradoxically, why the people who so violently oppose them are usually, themselves, members of the poor working classes
Superabound posted:Shrinking Capital's available labor pool will force the emergence of the very contradictions and reconfigurations that will inevitably lead to its annihilation. And when Global Socialism is born from its ashes we can once again take off the uterine shackles, unleash the full reproductive force of Mankind, and reach for the literal AND figurative stars....
'Too many' mouths is just as much a cause for inconvenience for capitalism as too few. Hence the existence of the Gates Foundation.
And what's the purpose of democracy and socialism if its cause is not that of the vast multitude of people that have always been written off as an excessively grasping mass of mouths and bellies?
RedMaistre posted:'Too many' mouths is just as much a cause for inconvenience for capitalism as too few. Hence the existence of the Gates Foundation.
This assumes that Capital requires (or even desires) the majority of these mouths to actually be fed. In actuality, it is the surrounding view of the suffering of their fellow Have Nots and "how much worse it could be" that causes third world workers to drive their own labor value below even what the market determines it should be, via Desperation
Superabound posted:RedMaistre posted:the poorest sections of the laboring classes [perpetuate] capitalism,
but uhh, yeah, thats literally how Capitalism works. Which is why labor strikes are so effective. And paradoxically, why the people who so violently oppose them are usually, themselves, members of the poor working classes
Capitalism is not the poor working, living, moving about and multiplying, its the system of ownership and accumulation that encloses these processes, which are not harmful in and of themselves, and then harnesses them to private gain.
RedMaistre posted:Capitalism is not the poor working, living, moving about and multiplying, its the system of ownership and accumulation that encloses these processes, which are not harmful in and of themselves, and then harnesses them to private gain.
But they are harmful under Capitalism. And benign under Communism. Which is why they should be curtailed under Capitalism, and then allowed fully under Communism.
RedMaistre posted:Does your anti-capitalism involve banning immigration and deporting workers without papers too?
Yes. Americans should not be allowed to leave their country.
Superabound posted:RedMaistre posted:Capitalism is not the poor working, living, moving about and multiplying, its the system of ownership and accumulation that encloses these processes, which are not harmful in and of themselves, and then harnesses them to private gain.
But they are harmful under Capitalism. And benign under Communism. Which is why they should be curtailed under Capitalism, and then allowed fully under Communism.
How is this essentially different than someone saying chronically unemployed blacks and Latinos in American major cities are harmful under capitalism and thus should be the object of critique and suppression as a matter of public policy?
Edited by RedMaistre ()
Superabound posted:RedMaistre posted:'Too many' mouths is just as much a cause for inconvenience for capitalism as too few. Hence the existence of the Gates Foundation.
This assumes that Capital requires (or even desires) the majority of these mouths to actually be fed. In actuality, it is the surrounding view of the suffering of their fellow Have Nots and "how much worse it could be" that causes third world workers to drive their own labor value below even what the market determines it should be, via Desperation
Capital doesn't desire the majority of these mouths to be fed, it at all possible--that's the reason why it fears them. It wishes to restrain the mounting social demands that could lead to a radical curtailment of bourgeois power from above or below, and one weapon for pursuing that is the promotion of eugenics and population control.
Superabound posted:What is Cancer, but the uncontrolled proliferation of cells, twisted by error into performing malignant duties and purposes? And what is Healing, but the properly regulated and guided proliferation of cells to repair the damage caused by the Cancer? Sicut Supra, Ita Infra
The consistent epochal tendency of Modern liberty has been to insist that no part of the Human race can be treated as a disease to be eliminated instead of as a rights bearing end in and of itself. Assuming otherwise reduces what it demands to an absurdity.
Again, good riddance to Utopia.
RedMaistre posted:Does your anti-capitalism involve banning immigration and deporting workers without papers too?
immigration quite obviously is used by capitalist producers to lower the price of labor and for that reason should be opposed. but immigrants themselves are not to blame for trying to improve their own condition.
NoFreeWill posted:RedMaistre posted:Does your anti-capitalism involve banning immigration and deporting workers without papers too?
immigration quite obviously is used by capitalist producers to lower the price of labor and for that reason should be opposed. but immigrants themselves are not to blame for trying to improve their own condition.
At least that's a step up from comparing the poor and their children to cancer...
NoFreeWill posted:first world workers must be protected!!
First World workers need to find (or be enabled to find, whatever comes first) ways of subsistence and mutual aid outside of both the welfare state and the market that can supplement the declining spoils accruing to membership within the labor aristocracy. Or else they are going to continue to move down a disastrous path of increasing chauvinism and racial bigotry in their efforts to compete for scraps within the rotting edifices of post-war social democracy.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:.custom285540{}NoFreeWill posted:first world workers must be protected!!
First World workers need to find (or be enabled to find, whatever comes first) ways of subsistence and mutual aid outside of both the welfare state and the market that can supplement the declining spoils accruing to membership within the labor aristocracy. Or else they are going to continue to move down a disastrous path of increasing chauvinism and racial bigotry in their efforts to compete for scraps within the rotting edifices of post-war social democracy.
we'll get fascism b4 first world workers learn 2 subsistence farm or whatever
NoFreeWill posted:RedMaistre posted:.custom285540{}NoFreeWill posted:first world workers must be protected!!
First World workers need to find (or be enabled to find, whatever comes first) ways of subsistence and mutual aid outside of both the welfare state and the market that can supplement the declining spoils accruing to membership within the labor aristocracy. Or else they are going to continue to move down a disastrous path of increasing chauvinism and racial bigotry in their efforts to compete for scraps within the rotting edifices of post-war social democracy.
we'll get fascism b4 first world workers learn 2 subsistence farm or whatever
Given how the last 15 years have gone, your probably right.
RedMaistre posted:NoFreeWill posted:RedMaistre posted:.custom285540{}NoFreeWill posted:first world workers must be protected!!
First World workers need to find (or be enabled to find, whatever comes first) ways of subsistence and mutual aid outside of both the welfare state and the market that can supplement the declining spoils accruing to membership within the labor aristocracy. Or else they are going to continue to move down a disastrous path of increasing chauvinism and racial bigotry in their efforts to compete for scraps within the rotting edifices of post-war social democracy.
we'll get fascism b4 first world workers learn 2 subsistence farm or whatever
Given how the last 15 years have gone, your probably right.
Superabound posted:Weird how, in the First World, birth control is a Necessary Woman's Right, which gives her the power of Self-Determination and allows her to pursue a career, while in the Third World its a form of eugenics/genocide which Kills Brown Babbys and blames the poor for their own exploitation. I guess the Catholic Church was right....
a lot of the "birth control" that is promoted in the Third World by Gates Foundation et al is long-term or permanent sterilization. i personally think that providing Third World women w/ access to the pill, condoms, abortion services and similar things is good as long as it is in no way coercive.
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
RedMaistre posted:How is this essentially different than someone saying chronically unemployed blacks and Latinos in American major cities are harmful under capitalism and thus should be the object of critique and suppression as a matter of public policy?
And yet, the people most likely to engage in the critique and suppression of blacks and Latinos are also the people most likely to engage in the critique and suppression of access to birth control, abortion, and other forms of Non-Reproductive Rights. makes u think
RedMaistre posted:The consistent epochal tendency of Modern liberty has been to insist that no part of the Human race can be treated as a disease to be eliminated instead of as a rights bearing end in and of itself. Assuming otherwise reduces what it demands to an absurdity.
no PART of the Human race
RedMaistre posted:That so many socialists have advocated for it only goes to show how much of leftist politics (particularly in the metropoles) is determined by the habits of bourgeois ideology, the ambition for prestige and position found in certain subgroups within the petite bourgeois castes, and the influence of outright reactionaries like Nietzsche, not by the interests of the masses in general or the weakest elements thereof.
First, Nietzsche is certainly typical of petite bourgeois philosophy, and I don't deny that Nietzsche and other petite bourgeois philosophers are used by fascists towards their own ends, but to associate his actual philosophy with eugenics doesn't make any sense. His denunciations (perhaps only second to his denunciations of anti-semites) against nationalists and "racial purists", his denunciations of not only Social Darwinism but Darwinism in general, his advocacy for the acceleration of the dissolution of nations into a greater European culture, his hatred of the bourgeoisie... All of these are in direct contradiction. The only possible connections that exist are due to deliberate misreadings. One is the concept of the ubermensch. The Ubermensch is not a superhuman that is breed, it is a form of life created by an artist. It is morphology against Darwinism. Similarly, the will to power is not about power accumulation, but about a will to create and give. There is an element of aggression, but as a dissipation of forces. Nietzsche does not advocate for master morality against slave morality, but rather describes how the struggle between these two (in the recurring symbolism of the snake and the eagle, neither with priority) represents the triumph of the charm of culture over our baser instincts. This does result in an order of rank, but of a spiritual kind among artists.
Of course Nietzsche certainly has problems that are typical of petite bourgeois philosophy and allow for misreadings by fascists. Part of it is a utopian atittude (not denying the denunciations of utopia, but I think these are in the name of a utopia of constant self-overcoming and creation against a stable concept that is seen as limiting), part of it is a romanticization of the premodern, part of it is a general hatred of politics and the division of labor. Same as can be said of many others: Heidegger, Foucault, Bataille, Deleuze, Arendt. On the other hand, none of these people are actually fascist in essence. That is because fascism is not fundamentally a movement of the petite bourgeoisie, or of the labor aristocracy in embryo. These are certainly parts, but fundamentally fascism is a movement of the bourgeoisie as an entire class, with its main representatives being the most important. It makes no sense for Leninists to claim the necessity of working with petite bourgeois elements while in the same breath denouncing all petite bourgeois philosophy as fascist. I think this even applies to Heidegger. Not only was Heidegger's philosophy rejected by the Nazis themselves, but the trajectory of his thought from the late 30s onwards was a clear attempt to rectify what he saw as a mistake. Of course this was incomplete because Heidegger was a coward and a narcissist, leading him to never apologize for his Nazism (despite privately admitting it was a mistake). But still, what kind of fascist lectures on Antigone in fuggen 1942? The point is that the case is ambiguous as fuck, and with a proper dialectical investigation perhaps something can be salvaged, as is the case with petty bourgeois "Beautiful Soul" - ism in general.
And there really are ways these philosophers can be salvaged for the purpose of the oppressed. For example, Heidegger's rejection of the correspondence theory of truth in favor of truth being a direct disclosure and concealment played out in our dealings with the world. Everyone has direct access to the truth but no one is 100% right, and interpretation is endless task of taking responsibility for one's own viewpoint. In relation to the man himself the theory is pretty damn ironic, but I think it's easy to see how such a theory can help facilitate democratic discourse and disrupt positivism. Or with Nietzsche, Nietzsche was really great at pointing out all the ways morality is dishonestly used to shut down discourse. Seems like another great tool for democracy. And both emphasized the way that art can help us see how the world can be different in a way irreducible to other ways of thinking. A bit utopian sure, but it's nice.
Second, a cursory glance at the history of women's resistance to colonialism and primitive accumulation will show that cessation of reproduction has been a strategy taken up by the oppressed themselves. The establishment of capitalism literally required the separation of women from birth control. I don't understand why the idea is worthy of such vitriol when most of you have read Silvia Federici or Maria Mies. Perhaps that isn't the case today, and Bill Gates' eugenics program is certainly a convincing counterpoint, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate strategy worthy of proper dialectical investigation.
Anyway, I just wish people would be more charitable. Which perhaps is a silly thing to say in the eugenics thread but uh
Edited by marimite ()
