Marx and Darwin

[Alfred001]

I just read that when Marx first read Darwin's Origin of Species in 186o, he wrote to Engels that "although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

 

How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"

 

Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

Edited May 14, 2013 by Alfred001

[michel123456]

I just read that when Marx first read Darwin's Origin of Species in 186o, he wrote to Engels that "although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

 

How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"

 

Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

Is this an allusion to Lysenkoism?

[Alfred001]

Is this an allusion to Lysenkoism?

 

Yes.

 

I don't see why this view, that traits which individuals acquire through life under the influence of the environment are the mechanism of evolution, was accepted by socialist and Darwinism not.

[EdEarl]

There are two main reasons people believe the things they do.

 

1) They are taught the things they believe.

 

2) They use their brain to decide for themselves the things they believe.

 

Either of these methods can result in a person believing either science or otherwise.

 

Marks was an athiest; thus, he tended to believe science rather than religion and myth.

 

Socialists???

[michel123456]

Marx

Lysenkoism flourished under totalitarian stalinism. Other totalitarian governments of the time (the fascists) also wanted to influence everything in the society, including science. It is not a privilege of socialism.

Lysenko was presented as a new kind of scientist coming from the proletarian mass, his ideas look successful, it may have been sufficient. The rest is most probably just a monumental error (like WW1 and WW2).

[overtone]

Neither the Stalinists nor the NAZIs understood Darwin, and neither one accepted actual Darwinian theory. This has nothing in particular to do with socialism (or fascism, either can in theory embrace most any scientific discoveries).

 

My guess at why the Soviet State rejected Darwinian theory is that it was a political reaction against the propaganda association of the name with capitalistic political factions, especially fascism in Nazi Germany. The same general bizarre authoritarian take on science was visible in Nazi Germany, when the Theory of Relativity was rejected as Jewish. Bateson coined the term "schizmogenesis" for this pattern - I've been in towns where the white boys drove ugly primer-painted cars jacked up in the back and with powerful smooth engines, while the brown boys drove cars with beautiful and ornately painted and decorated bodies jacked up in the front and barely running junk for engines. Principle is the same.

 

To be fair, in the early years of Darwinian theory its advocates and defenders tended to emphasize competition, predation, violent assertion of superiority, as the major advantages and central mechanisms of evolutionary selection leading to progress. So it may have superficially appeared to support alissez faire capitalism over socialism somehow, if one didn't think too carefully.

[Ophiolite]

My guess at why the Soviet State rejected Darwinian theory is that it was a political reaction against the propaganda association of the name with capitalistic political factions, especially fascism in Nazi Germany.

Russian biologists in the second half of the 19th century, while accepting evolution, rejected the Darwinian interpretation. This was based upon their perception of the inter-relationship of species in hostile environments, such as the tundra and taiga. Thus the hostility to Darwinism preceded by half a century the Leninist and Stalinist rejection.

[moreinput]

How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"

 

First of all, I might be able offer a more concise answer to this if you can tell me the context this quote is being used in.

 

If I had to take a shot in the dark,it would be that evolution results from adversity. It is important to understand that what he was grappling with was a very diverse and expansive topic. One door only leads to 15 more, and so on. Marx was an individual who saw the forest and not just the tree in front of him, but that didn't mean he could define every single tree and it's corresponding branches, only that he was aware of them. Chances are when he read Darwins findings it helped him to label something he had been trying to understand.

 

Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more
consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

 

I find myself agreeing with overtone on this matter. But, I also think that formulating a definitive answer to this question would be impossible.

[Dekan]

Perhaps Lamarckism appealed to Lenin and Stalin for this reason - it was "fast" and "revolutionary". As opposed to Darwinism, which is by nature "slow" and "evolutionary"

 

Such Darwinian slowness did not appeal to Lenin. In 1917 he went for a controversial fast Revolution. Thus throwing out the slow process envisioned by Marx, who'd seen Socialism evolving gradually along Darwinian lines.

 

Marx thought there'd be a steady growth of a new class, the "Industrial Proletariat". This class would, over the course of the years, grow in numbers. Until they became the majority, which would then assume political power. So leading to the introduction of a socialist society. And ultimately, to pure and perfect communism, and Utopian bliss.

 

Such bliss had an obvious drawback: it would at least 2 or 3 generations to come about. So it was no good to Lenin. He was impatient and went for the fast burn to the Atlantic, in Apollo 13 terms.

 

Lenin threw out orthodox Marxist theory, made a blatantly premature revolution, retreated shamefacedly into NEP, died soon enough to avoid the blame, got a worst successor in Stalin, who created a personality cult, and the whole thing went Animal Farm.

 

So, Marx and Darwin were both thinking along broadly similar scientific lines, ie slow gradual evolution. Whereas revolutionaries like Lenin and Stalin, preferred the "quick fix" of Lamarckism.

 

Can the Lamarckian line be altogether dismissed?

Edited May 20, 2013 by Dekan

[overtone]

 

Russian biologists in the second half of the 19th century, while
accepting evolution, rejected the Darwinian interpretation. This was
based upon their perception of the inter-relationship of species in
hostile environments, such as the tundra and taiga

Thanks - I never knew that.

 

That's a better basis than schismogenesis from rightwing authoritarian adoption of a misunderstanding. But it is based on that same misunderstanding, no? - Darwinian theory is perfectly compatible with tundra and taiga biology, after all.

[PeterJ]

Neither the Stalinists nor the NAZIs understood Darwin, and neither one accepted actual Darwinian theory. This has nothing in particular to do with socialism (or fascism, either can in theory embrace most any scientific discoveries).

 

... To be fair, in the early years of Darwinian theory its advocates and defenders tended to emphasize competition, predation, violent assertion of superiority, as the major advantages and central mechanisms of evolutionary selection leading to progress. So it may have superficially appeared to support alissez faire capitalism over socialism somehow, if one didn't think too carefully.

Hmm. I would say it does support a liberalised economy over socialism of the Stalinist kind. But not a liberalised economy as we know it, Scotty, for it is hardly liberalised at all.

 

About Lamarckism, I would recommend Erwiin Schrodinger's essay 'What is Life?', where he disusses what he calls 'pseudo-Lamarckism' and makes a case for it that seems very sensible to me. He has some interesting things to say about the physics of genetic mutations also.

Edited May 21, 2013 by PeterJ

[SamBridge]

All these controversies with Darwin and Marx are overrated, they are nothing more than misinterpretations laced with misplacement of emotions. The DNA of a species changes slightly over time via chance in an ever fluctuating environment possibly killing those off not suited for that environment, not a basis for all of history but rather it just explains why there are specific species of animals. People can try communism if they want, the US and Britain made more enemies trying to prevent communism and not living by their own words rather than letting a country try it out if it wanted, and it's not totally wrong either, every time a government is destroyed, one or two more are build in their place, there's a reason for that, governments exists and it's because their purpose is to help it's members, plus we aren't going to stop a giant meteor from hitting Earth or explore space if we're very fragmented.
This doesn't all necessarily pertain to the topic but I've seen many debates pertaining to those things and how they seemingly conflict but don't actually have much to do with each other.

Edited May 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[arc]

People can try communism if they want, the US and Britain made more enemies trying to prevent communism and not living by their own words rather than letting a country try it out if it wanted, and it's not totally wrong either, every time a government is destroyed, one or two more are build in their place, there's a reason for that, governments exists and it's because their purpose is to help it's members

 

I don't want to start a debate or hear a rehash about the bad things we did while we fought communism. I'm sure everyone we hurt in that fight would be justified to blame us. But the west did not operate with malice as a core value. After WW2 we liberated western Europe, communists "liberated" what became the Soviet eastern block. Estimates are they killed 40-60 million of there own "comrades" inside and outside the soviet central. Without the west's solid counter action to this ruthless "survival of the fittest" politic, this self feeding environment gulags and forced labor of tens of millions of innocent captives would have continued unchecked. Does anyone want to imagine what would have happened if America would have been a continent of several dozen separate self interested countries similar to South America? arc

[SamBridge]

I don't want to start a debate or hear a rehash about the bad things we did while we fought communism. I'm sure everyone we hurt in that fight would be justified to blame us. But the west did not operate with malice as a core value. After WW2 we liberated western Europe, communists "liberated" what became the Soviet eastern block. Estimates are they killed 40-60 million of there own "comrades" inside and outside the soviet central. Without the west's solid counter action to this ruthless "survival of the fittest" politic, this self feeding environment gulags and forced labor of tens of millions of innocent captives would have continued unchecked. Does anyone want to imagine what would have happened if America would have been a continent of several dozen separate self interested countries similar to South America? arc

I could just as easily say all capitalistic nations are bad because the US corrupted politicians of South American governments for it's own benefit. Point is, it's up to countries to decide what system of government they want to try, there's always going to be some good leaders and bad leaders regardless of if a country is communist or socialist or capitalist or ect.

[arc]

Communist don't like to share power, its there way or your in prison or dead. North Korea, China, Cambodia, Soviets Union and even their little puppets like Castro never allowed/allow dissent. Take what they give you and don't complain. Take the Soviets for example, there schools taught their politic,their medical was meager for the masses but the leaders seemed to have the best from the west, their industries cranked out the worst junk ever made. Quality control procedures for critical systems like the space program were interesting though, a nice apartment by their standards and the threat of merely loosing it on the low side to getting the gulag or shot for a mishap like an accident. No wonder alcoholism on the job was so widespread. It was as close to Hebert Spencer's "survival of the fittest", if by fittest you mean a ruthless corrupt nepotistic one party rule. A truly tragic period in human history.

Edited May 24, 2013 by arc

[SamBridge]

Communist don't like to share power, its there way or your in prison or dead.

I can't think of a single country that "likes' to share power. What about Vietnam? The US was trying to prevent it from falling to communism when really it wasn't all that bad for those specific people, in fact it helped them so much that a great deal of them fought against the US as volunteers, no one forcing them to, and then a Buddhist monk even lit himself on fire to protest the US attacks. A problem you have with this is you're making the wrong argument Generalizing millions of people isn't the right way to go, you're just asking to be wrong, the argument you should have choosing is that it is easy for individuals to manipulate communism with military force, which of course ends up being true for any form of government anyway. Look at China now, huge wealth gap, some people at least had homes before it became capitalist. Does that mean all capitalism is bad? No, it doesn't mean always communism is good either, both are imperfect, and any country has the right to choose what form of government they want. If there's a military take-over like when the US sent troops to take control of Nicaragua in the 19th Century, then any country has the right to feel threatened.

[SplitInfinity]

I can't think of a single country that "likes' to share power. What about Vietnam? The US was trying to prevent it from falling to communism when really it wasn't all that bad for those specific people, in fact it helped them so much that a great deal of them fought against the US as volunteers, no one forcing them to, and then a Buddhist monk even lit himself on fire to protest the US attacks. A problem you have with this is you're making the wrong argument Generalizing millions of people isn't the right way to go, you're just asking to be wrong, the argument you should have choosing is that it is easy for individuals to manipulate communism with military force, which of course ends up being true for any form of government anyway. Look at China now, huge wealth gap, some people at least had homes before it became capitalist. Does that mean all capitalism is bad? No, it doesn't mean always communism is good either, both are imperfect, and any country has the right to choose what form of government they want. If there's a military take-over like when the US sent troops to take control of Nicaragua in the 19th Century, then any country has the right to feel threatened.

 

You have to understand the Millions of specifics that detail exactly what the United States is and why it does what it does. Just like a species in a state of Evolution...so is the development and growth of what is known as the United States.

 

Communism would seem like a good thing if a government and it's people could abide to a TRUE COMMUNISTIC SYSTEM. Unfortunately this has and never will happen as Communism goes against Human Nature. Why would a person either work hard to study and become a Doctor just to end up being paid the same as a person who is a slacker and does not even work hard or do a good job?

 

If followed properly...the Constitution of the United States is quite possibly the single greatest creation of concept of what a Government and it's People should be and abide. The problems only start when certain special interests find ways to influence certain...INTERPRETATIONS of the U.S. Constitution. Even still...with all the abuses and created issues...there does not exist a better system of Representation of the People in Government than is what the U.S. Constitution sets forth.

 

I have traveled and still travel...all over the world and not just to tourist areas as I have been to some real Hell Holes and Third World Countries that have people in anguish and at the mercy of their Government as well as their Religions as many of such countries have no separation of church and state. When ever I hear a person complaining about something so petty and insignificant as..."It is a TRAVESTY that I have to take off my shoes just to board an Airplane!"...I make an effort to remind such a person how good they have it living in my country that is the United States.

 

Despite what some people both in and outside of the U.S. might think...my countries DIVERSITY in it's populations ethnicity, religion, skin color, concepts and culture...is a GREAT STRENGTH....NOT A WEAKNESS!

 

Case in point...in my town we had an Iranian Family that was lucky enough to make it out of Iran with great difficulty I might add. They at first leased a store front and opened a Breakfast-Luncheon Eatery which the Iranian Father, Mother and one Son at first as the other children were too young....worked very hard to establish and by doing so started to benefit from their labor.

 

After several years they BOUGHT the building that housed their restaurant and because they worked so hard and had the sense to understand what Americans liked to eat and what Americans expect for service...their business not only thrived but also allowed this Family to become well known and liked in our town.

 

One day as I was with My Girl having a late Breakfast as we were nursing a Hangover/Exhaustion episode as I had been celebrating all the previous day, night and morning as we had flown home from Toronto where my band had just wrapped up the last date of our North American Tour. I was celebrating my 2 months to go...vacation or down time from playing and recording and that celebration had actually started about 36 hours previous to my sitting down in their eatery as we REALLY had been having a good time.

 

This was in late October of 2001 which was shortly after the 9/11 Disaster. I had noticed come in to the place a very large...about 12 foot by 18 foot American Flag that this Iranian Family had placed upon the side of their building and as this building existed at a very busy corner in town...everyone in town could not help seeing this giant flag they had put up.

 

As My Girl and I sat upon stools at the bar which surrounded the griddle/grill...area...I asked the Father of the family who was flipping eggs and pancakes..."I noticed you big flag outside!" He laughed and said..."You like it?" I said yes. He said to me that after watching the events right there at his eatery which has several flat screen TV's placed in strategic locations...He was EXTREMELY ANGRY and went out as soon as he could and bought that flag.

 

He said..."Most Americans who have been born in the U.S. have NO IDEA how lucky they are"...and he told me a very sad and frightening story detailing how he was able to get his family out of Iran through Europe and eventually to the United States. It is too long to post here but it involves the death of a family member and intolerable cruelty upon him and other members of his family by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

After this story he said to me..."When I finally got myself and my family here...I was a bit worried as far as how Americans would treat my family considering all the issues between Iran and the U.S. and especially the Hostage situation." He went on to say that he really thought that this would have been an issue but instead...after spending just a few hours in the U.S....and seeing all the different kinds and types of people and their ethnicity and multiple races...that the picture of Gun Toting All White American Cowboy Lynch Mob Mentality People...had faded from his mind.

 

He told me he could not believe how nice and accomidating people were being to him and his family and that in Iran...Nobody in any position of authority did anything for free or with any hint of a smile. He reminded me about one part of his Escape from Tehran...Kurt Russell like actions...story...in which at one point he had to take a Gold Chain and Pendant that was very old and belonged to his Great Grandmother...off from around his daughters neck to give to a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard...in order to just get on a list of people that would be allowed to leave the country as he said that this GUARD would make up NON-EXISTENT CRITERIA based reason for REFUSING THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL solely for the purpose of getting Money, Jewelry, Sexual Favors...in that supposed Ultra-Conservative Islamic State....and if a person or family wanted out...they had to PAY one way or another.

 

He said..."Look at us now!" I am blessed with a beautiful family and now I have the means and the rights to give them all that they deserve!" "I LOVE this country and my eldest son has just joined the Army...we are all very proud!" He said that he wanted to get the BIGGEST FLAG he could find...and believe me...it was one big flag! LOL! He said he wanted everyone to know that he and his family were AMERICANS...as those born in Iran had become Naturalized Citizens and two children had been born American Citizens.

 

He made it a point to let me know that he appreciated My Girl and Myself coming to eat at his restaurant and that if the people in Iran who were still of the Old Religious Guard Mentality...could come and see just how Americans treat people of such different cultures, races and creeds...and see all the faces of the American People which were not just white but black and yellow and brown and red and olive skinned...and come to understand that when people condemn the United States...they are talking about an entire cross section of every possible race, creed, color and culture that exists on Planet Earth.

 

My point here is the United States is ALIVE. It is like a very large Multi-Cellular Organism and the cells are the PEOPLE. And as it is alive it EVOLVES and as it is alive it will make mistakes and learn from such mistakes. And as it is alive it will grow...grow in both the amount of cells or people and grow in the manner of experience, knowledge and self enlightenment.

 

BUT...as the United States is ALIVE it will also do what every other Life Form will do...when it is attacked...it will protect itself...violently if need be. As it is living it will also do what is necessary to ensure it's survival...and on such a level this means everything from preemptive action and planning to using an overall strategic based plan which will has been developed and calculated to cause as least damage as possible to other living entities but such a plan will sometimes mean actions will be implemented that will cause harm to some so that a vastly greater number of others can survive.

 

That is it...COLD HARD MATH. When another country or leader threatens the United States they must understand that such a Giant Military and Economic System that is by it's condition...a Living Thing....will by just about any means necessary...defend itself because the survival of the United States or even the Health of the United States....determines how the Survival and Health of the rest of the world will be.

 

As example...if for some reason the U.S. stopped all purchases and imports from China...and such imports are NOT necessary from either a tactical or strategic necessity of National Health or Security....if the U.S. just stopped....CHINA'S ECONOMY WOULD COMPLETELY COLLAPSE IN A WEEK.

 

If the U.S. stopped by whatever reason sending Food and Medical Aid to the multitude of countries it currently donates such things to....as the United States grows more food crops and raises more Live Stock specific for human consumption than any other country or even several of the top food producing countries COMBINED....if such Food and Medical Aid was stopped...MILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD DIE BY DISEASE AND STARVATION.

 

These two examples are part of a very long list of how the Existence of United States is necessary for the Worlds Economic Survival as well as necessary for the survival of Multiple Millions of people around the world.

 

So...like any living thing...it wants to exist and grow and just enjoy life....Just don't #@%$ IT OFF!

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

As I implied before, the US is not always the good guys just because it says it is, no country is, which is why groups like the Taliban can gain so much power by using countries like the US as scapegoats for things like installing a corrupt government in Syria and other countries, but if the US was always good they wouldn't be able to get away with saying that, they would have nothing to base it on. There are definitely instances where the US did things simply to gain power or resources. There's nothing wrong with any particular form of government we see today other than that people can manipulate any of them them for their own gain, which is true for capitalism, communism, socialism, theocracies, parliaments, oligarchies, ect. Any form of government will have its ups and downs, good leaders and bad leaders, various countries are welcome to try out different ways of getting resources or negotiating.

Edited May 25, 2013 by SamBridge

[arc]

which is why groups like the Taliban can gain so much power by using countries like the US as scapegoats for things like installing a corrupt government in Syria

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

The modern Syrian state was established after the First World War as a French mandate, and represented the largest Arab state to emerge from the formerly Ottoman-ruled Arab Levant. It gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic. The post-independence period was tumultuous, and a large number of military coups and coup attempts shook the country in the period 1949–1971. Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt, which was terminated by a military coup. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.^[7] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971.^[8]

 

On 6 September 2007, Israeli jet fighters carried out Operation Orchard against a suspected nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean technicians.^[52]

 

In November 1956, as a direct result of the Suez Crisis, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for military equipment.

 

And the cold war continuous as we fight the same "ruthless corrupt nepotistic one party rule" of the new face of our old adversary. Those bullets and tanks now killing Syrians are made in a Russia that is ran by a former KGB director.

[SamBridge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

The modern Syrian state was established after the First World War as a French mandate, and represented the largest Arab state to emerge from the formerly Ottoman-ruled Arab Levant. It gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic. The post-independence period was tumultuous, and a large number of military coups and coup attempts shook the country in the period 1949–1971. Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt, which was terminated by a military coup. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.^[7] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971.^[8]

 

On 6 September 2007, Israeli jet fighters carried out Operation Orchard against a suspected nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean technicians.^[52]

 

In November 1956, as a direct result of the Suez Crisis, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for military equipment.

 

And the cold war continuous as we fight the same "ruthless corrupt nepotistic one party rule" of the new face of our old adversary. Those bullets and tanks now killing Syrians are made in a Russia that is ran by a former KGB director.

Syria was originally against Israel when the UN was drafting a plan to give Jewish people a home, who do you think supplied weapons to insurrections in the Middle East? One of em was the US and another big one was Russia, France and Britain was involved in Asia as well, France more so in Africa. You know the US used Napalm that continues to cause mutations in babies in Vietnam to this day right? I don't see your point, your point only shows the manipulation of a government and actions when countries are threatened, not that the mathematical principals are not sound or that any government is "the best", not that the US is always better just because you happen to call it the "US". The very arrogance you say makes "all communism evil" as exactly one of the things that fuels extreme communists thinking all capitalism is evil. There is no ultimate right way to have a government, period. Any government can be manipulated or help its people. Therefore, countries should be allowed to choose any form of government they want, and some have, even if they want communism or a theocracy. If there is military force involved, all forms of government are guilty of that.

In relation to evolution, so what if a particular government conflicts with subconscious neurological processes that you seem to call "human nature"? For most people it's against human nature to stab someone in the back who helped you or to not have friends which you would have to do in a purely capitalistic society, which if you think of it that way it wouldn't be much of a society in the first place if people are so individualistic that there cannot be organization. Besides, we aren't going to stop Earth from being destroyed or ever make it to another planet if we can't even work together in some way, which would lead to extinction. Evolution doesn't care what we do, if we suffer, if we work together or not, it's a statistical pattern of DNA in a population over time in a particular environment, and that's about it.

Edited May 25, 2013 by SamBridge

[overtone]

 

As example...if for some reason the U.S. stopped all purchases and
imports from China...and such imports are NOT necessary from either a
tactical or strategic necessity of National Health or Security....if the
U.S. just stopped....CHINA'S ECONOMY WOULD COMPLETELY COLLAPSE IN A
WEEK.

That is not going to be true much longer, if it still is - China is establishing itself economically on a global scale, and the prospect of doing without basic consumer goods (clothing, electronics of any kind, etc) is a daunting one for most Americans.

 

If China dumps the dollar, which is rapidly becoming less central to China from a tactical or strategic pov, the US economy will collapse in a week.

 

As far as being treated well by regular folks, that is also the historical experience of Americans traveling in Iran. More than one travelor has mentioned - both publically and to me in private - that of all the people in the Middle East the Iranians seem the most compatible with Americans. Much more comfortable and friendly than Saudis or Kuwaitis or Iraqis, say.

 

 

..if such Food and Medical Aid was stopped...MILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD DIE BY DISEASE AND STARVATION.

And the US agricultural economy would suffer seriously. The takeover of local food markets and economies by US based agribusiness has indeed created food insecurity and dependence on multinational powers in many places (Mexico, for example), but this is not necessarily something one celebrates.

 

It is also shaky to refer to the US flailing and spasmodic violence in reaction to 9/11 or the threat of Islamic terrorism generally as justified on Darwinian grounds. As with the reaction some people have to bee stings, there are questions of benefit and consequences to be answered before the Darwinian excuse is accepted. Marx has as much to say about the reactionary properties of the corporate State as Darwinian theory has. .

[SplitInfinity]

That is not going to be true much longer, if it still is - China is establishing itself economically on a global scale, and the prospect of doing without basic consumer goods (clothing, electronics of any kind, etc) is a daunting one for most Americans.

 

If China dumps the dollar, which is rapidly becoming less central to China from a tactical or strategic pov, the US economy will collapse in a week.

 

As far as being treated well by regular folks, that is also the historical experience of Americans traveling in Iran. More than one travelor has mentioned - both publically and to me in private - that of all the people in the Middle East the Iranians seem the most compatible with Americans. Much more comfortable and friendly than Saudis or Kuwaitis or Iraqis, say.

 

 

And the US agricultural economy would suffer seriously. The takeover of local food markets and economies by US based agribusiness has indeed created food insecurity and dependence on multinational powers in many places (Mexico, for example), but this is not necessarily something one celebrates.

 

It is also shaky to refer to the US flailing and spasmodic violence in reaction to 9/11 or the threat of Islamic terrorism generally as justified on Darwinian grounds. As with the reaction some people have to bee stings, there are questions of benefit and consequences to be answered before the Darwinian excuse is accepted. Marx has as much to say about the reactionary properties of the corporate State as Darwinian theory has. .

First off...I would like to say even though I love my country and will and have defended it when necessary...what I am posting here are cold hard facts and not the ravings of some...WE ARE NUMBER ONE! type personality.

 

As far as China is concerned. China is in it's current state...which is a state of slower growth...but over all China has been in a long term state of fast economic growth and has been able to vastly increase the wealth and education of many of it's people...but there are MULTIPLE MILLIONS of Chinese who are not a part of this growth and education as they live in rural areas the Chinese Government does not have either the money or resources to help.

 

China is in it's current state of growth and it's current state of expanded capitalistic autonomy for it's business sector because of one reason...the United States and the U.K....have made this part of an overall plan that started during the Cold War as a Counter to Soviet Expansion.

 

Why do you think NIXON went to China? It started with Coke and Pepsi and KFC....then to allowing China special trade status as we allowed them to sell products to the U.S. even though the U.S. was not allowed the same total freedom of trade into China. This was an overall STRATEGY to WESTERNIZE CHINA. AND IT WORKED!

 

China's economy has been almost COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED AND DEVELOPED for one single purpose...that being shipping large scale imports of cheap goods into the United States. The U.S. has been very careful not to rely upon any Chinese Import that is of a Strategic Nature and this means if we stopped importing all goods from China TODAY...the only thing that would happen in the United States is that MORE JOBS WOULD BE CREATED as many overly inexpensive Chinese Goods would now be either made in the U.S. or perhaps such contracts would be offered to India, Vietnam, Brazil...etc.

 

The idea that China has the U.S. in a compromising position because the U.S. has borrowed large amounts of money from China...is a fallacy. Here it is in a Nut Shell....NEVER LEND MONEY TO SOMEONE THAT YOU HAVE NO POSSIBLE WAY TO FORCE THEM TO PAY YOU BACK. Such is the case between China and the United States. China has no possible way of applying pressure to ensure payments upon loans to the U.S. China does not and never will have a Military capable of challenging the United States Military and current talk about a Rising Chinese Military is more about getting MONEY from Congress for special weapons programs. China has ONE Cold War Era Soviet Aircraft Carrier and is using that just for training. A visiting Chinese General stated after going to Norfolk and seeing U.S. Military and Naval Drills...We were surprised at the high level of technology and expertise which we saw within all aspects of the U.S. Military. In comparing that to our Navy and other Chinese Military forces...I can say with certainty that China has no possible capability to challenge the U.S. Military at ANY LEVEL and will not have such a capability for multiple decades if ever at all.

 

This Chinese General was almost JAILED for this statement to the World Press.

 

As far as Iran and the Middle East...there is a BIG difference between the Iranian People and the Old Guard Iranian Religious Dictatorship. Iran has the YOUNGEST POPULATION IN THE WORLD....over 75% of all Iranians are under the age of 30 years old. Iran will very soon have a total regime change and this will end the Nuclear Issue.

 

As for the Middle East...that too will change but given the Energy Issues...the U.S. has right now invested BILLIONS upon a Military based Secret High Tech. Energy Generation Program equal to the Moon Landing Apollo Program. At the center of this program is Low Temp. Micro-Fusion Energy Generation....Time Will Tell.

 

The fact remains that the United States is too intertwinned...too important for it not to succeed. Not just for itself...but for everyone on this planet.

 

Split Infinity

[arc]

I can't think of a single country that "likes' to share power.

That's the point and the difference, once communists are in power they eliminate the mechanisms that would challenge their authority. They suspend supreme judicial, they outlaw dissenting political parties, they ban independent unions. We have seen this structure and its tactics in smaller political frameworks because its core method of operation is the same, graft of local government and law, with fear and intimidation as needed, with no reserve towards using violence within and without its society.

 

I am referring to the Mafia. And like the cold war, it took an superior outside power framework to keep it in check. It took a federal law enforcement structure that was independent of the mafias graft influence in the local government and police to fight it.

 

You are mistaken to equate communism with democracies. Communism is a system that invites unchecked power and abuse. And seldom relinquishes power without bloodshed. Communism has failed repeatedly in economies of scale. look at China before and after it's conversion to its present structure. The old was pure communism with tens of millions dead from repeated famines, the new is a hybrid with no internal or external social or political balance to the governments authority. This new creature will be interesting to watch, can it evolve as its people adjust to a life of great wealth for some and 19th century living and working conditions for others? Maybe they can elect someone that shares their concerns. Oh, I forgot their communist.

Edited May 26, 2013 by arc

[SamBridge]

That's the point and the difference, once communists are in power they eliminate the mechanisms that would challenge their authority. They suspend supreme judicial, they outlaw dissenting political parties, they ban independent unions. We have seen this structure and its tactics in smaller political frameworks because its core method of operation is the same, graft of local government and law, with fear and intimidation as needed, with no reserve towards using violence within and without its society.

Again, it depends on who you ask, which only proves there is no ultimate "perfect" or single right way to have a government. To some people, the actions you described were the right thing to do, to others they weren't, but were originally on the right track, to others not at all. This is true for any form of government. The concept of communism and capitalism has existed well before the 20th century anyway, there were plenty of forms of government that were either more community based or individual based, like feudal societies in Europe or Native American tribes, both had their own successes and failures.

 

 

You are mistaken to equate communism with democracies. Communism is a system that invites unchecked power and abuse.

Nope, communism is merely a form of government in which the government controls all (or most) industries within a country, the government of which is suppose to represent the community as a whole. Of course, it is hard to do something like this without people to make decisions, which isn't purely communism. Communism is more like tribes of native Africa or America where few possessions important are owned by an individual and communities go through struggles together, they have no definite representation unlike the USSR though generally trust elderly people the most since they have the most experience.

 

Also to mention again, evolution is a statistical phenomena, it should have little to do with conscious decisions of large organized structures.

[arc]

The concept of communism and capitalism has existed well before the 20th century anyway, there were plenty of forms of government that were either more community based or individual based, like feudal societies in Europe or Native American tribes, both had their own successes and failures.

Don't confuse capitalism with a form of government. This is about communism and democracies. capitalism is an economic model that is adaptable by either. It is a system of economic reward for taking risk. With great individual monetary reward comes the likelihood of abuse of those without. Democracies do better at preventing these abuses than communist bureaucracies.

 

I reiterate: "Communism has failed repeatedly in economies of scale." What did you think I was referencing?

 

This debate is not comparable to tribal units of populations. You might as well said "high school senior classes"

 

. These are large industrialized nations that due to the limitations of a communist central control structure the government bureaucracies tend to be corrupt, with graft moving money up to the top just like the Mafia. The difference between democracies and them is the accountability at the voting booth is a powerful weapon against corruption. The communists have nothing to protect the public from abuses of police and the bureaucrats that they are in business with. Communism has change little in this way since changing their economic model. There's just more money involved. billions and billions more!

 

 

Also to mention again, evolution is a statistical phenomena, it should have little to do with conscious decisions of large organized structures.

Really, you want to go to how I used a biology term in a different context.

And stars are alive?

Are stars alive?

Started by SamBridge, Jan 13, 2013

 

with this current knowledge it's possible stars are alive under current scientific definitions of life.

Edited May 27, 2013 by arc