Can I still be a communist if I think the far right is correct on the Race Question and Eugenics? I'm a leftcom and I think essentially that Bordiga was right about the economic-political theory and early 20th century Progressive Eugenicist are correct about human biology.
I don't think eugenics and communism are necessarily opposed to each other. Just as communism is about Man consciously controlling the mode of His social reproduction, eugenics is about Man consciously controlling the mode of His biological reproduction.
Let's have a good faith discussion of this.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
SO, my hot take on this is: yes, old eugenics were pretty bad and their ideas were kind of reactionary, now for "liberal" eugenics I kind support it, like I think embryo selection (and germ editing) should be free to anyone instead of only rich people be able to have the smartest and healthiest baby, so yeah, old eugenics bad - new eugenics good.
>>2565068>Can I still be a communist No, a thread died for this shit
>>2565069Based. That's basically my take as well. Let people gene edit and have strong healthy "conventionally attractive" babies. Many people will choose to make their babies have eurocentric features, and that's perfectly fine as well.
All of this is compatible with communism. Honestly, I think the global liberal opposition to eugenics is precisely because they don't want the working class to become smarter and stronger.
>>2565074Right now there are company that offer couples to select I.Q of their future embryos, this technology still on the early stages, but is already out there, I think it should be FREE to anyone to use it, not only some rich couple, poor people should have a fair chance to have a bright and healthy baby too.
>>2565081Why would offering free embryo selection would be against working class?
>race
Invented by burger founding fathers
>eugenics
fundamental misunderstanding of genetics
You are a liberal, OP.
>>2565068>I'm a leftcom cool ideological shopping faggot, the comintern hasnt existed for decades now
eugenics is self-definitionally a good thing; the question only becomes socially relevant where it concerns the method of sexual selection, however. so, what exactly are the traits to be selected - and further, what is to be discarded?
>>2565068>Can I still be a communist if I think the far right is correct on the Race Question and EugenicsYou want to kill me because you think I am a subhuman mutt. I will kill you first, in self defense. I don't care whether you metaphysically "can be" a communist or not according to an imageboard full of "ex-" reactionaries. The question is irrelevant. You are just begging strangers for a pat on the back.
>>2565102Now, that a genuine problem with eugenics, I think fundamentally health and intelligence are must, much beyond that it will become too arbitrary and so law should be create to avoid eugenics going to far way from the main objective of making people healthy and bright.
>>2565107and what are the metrics for this? I.Q. tests?
more relevantly, how will all this be enforced? sterilisation, like earlier experiments on populations?
>>2565111eugenics is literally a feedback loop of reactionary horse shit
>pick on some minority>segregate them in a ghetto>deprive them of food, shelter, clean water, clean air, education, jobs, safety >flood them with drugs, alcohol, poisonous food with low nutrition>create the conditions for crime to be rampant>wait for the results>declare this is a result of their "innate genetics", point to the result of your social policies as "proof" of this>institute a political program to purge them from the "gene pool">rinse and repeat until you run out of scapegoats and have your "pure" society which is still, unsurprisingly, full of suffering >>2565111No, not that, the idea if making embry selection and germ editing free to people to use it, not force anyone to do it, like I said, you mention old style eugenics, which were bad as fuck, the method I defend leave to the person the choice of using the technology to make healhtier and bright children.
>>2565126so, just leave it to the market?
>>2565130No, FREE clinics of embryo selection and germ editing, to avoid exactly leaving to the market so only rich people can use it.
Most people here support abortion which is eugenistic so idk why you are receiving so much critics
ohh please kill yourself IMMEDIATELY
>>2565068> I think essentially that Bordiga was right about the economic-political theory Consider martyrdom.
>>2565068You couldn't have read all that much about history and world affairs if you do. Being a communist is a separate matter. History and modern life are so full of examples of non-white people being superior culturally, technologically, and especially politically in the 20th and 21st century it's just not plausible to see any value in far-right ideas about race. Southern India is better off than "aryan" northern India, China is the largest communist country, the most industrial country, the most technologically advanced country and it has nothing to do with indo-european peoples at all. What it has is a Marxist-Leninist party in charge. The arguments really go on and on for thousands of years of history. It's just not real if you have any amount of intellectual honesty. You can't tell me that Ukrainians are superior to anyone. You just can't.
Eugenics is about as irrelevant as it could be. We have the ability to edit live human genes already - it's just not a mature technology yet - and it looks like there will be superior artificial intelligences and robot bodies in the next few decades at the latest at this point in time anyway.
>>2565152I think the criticism of eugenics that I understand is the question of who define what traits are selected, how should that be carried out
>>2565152>Most people here support abortion which is eugenistic abortion isn't eugenics unless it's explicitly forced from a top-down to eliminate a target population. voluntary abortion means giving people control over when they reproduce. if an impoverished teen girl gets raped and isn't financially, emotionally, or physically ready to give birth to a child and raise a child, they shouldn't have to carry it to term. If a woman gets pregnant and the pregnancy goes septic, or ectopic, thati s a medical emergency and they must abort or risk dying. Savita Halappanavar in Ireland died because she wasn't allowed to abort a septic pregnancy, which is what accelerated the legalization of abortion in catholic ireland
>>2565102>[pseudo-science] is self-definitionally a good thinglmao
>>2565169>the question of who define what traits are selected, how should that be carried outwell you can tell the OP thinks it's a way to eliminated unwanted "races" (not a thing) because they called eugenics the answer to "the race question."
>>2565188Eugenics is not psuedo science, it's literally called selective breeding and we've done that to animals and plants, however the question is should we selective breed ourselves too?
>>2565185What is a word you'd use to describe the effects of abortion paired with medical insight into whether the children will have disabilities? Liberal retard. "Giving control to the individual" doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion of the results. The fact that this is the language you chose to use shows that you are not a materialist but a liberal who likely goes along with every speck of CIA propaganda.
>>2565195Don't be dense, It's a fundamental misunderstanding of
why selective breeding worked for cattle, not the practice of selecive breeding itself. Eugenists believe they can tie some arbitrary trait like "intelligence" to a gene (singular) and that selective breeding will simply magic in more of that trait.
These days we understand genes and epigenetics enough to skip the selective breeding (gambling) process entirely.
>>2565216That's not true, we now know that intelligence is actually polygenic, many genes play a role on it, not A gene for intelligence, and still we COULD select people for intelligence, but genetics is probalistic, not determistic, we COULD make people smart on average if select for it, but now we have tools llike embryo selection that skip the need to do crude selective breed as we do to animals
pretty damn solid bait op
>>2565185>top-downAnti-communist libslop
>abortion isn't eugenics unless it's explicitly forced from a top-down to eliminate a target population. What about Icelandic women who aborto 99% of foetus with down syndrom? Isn't that eugenics?
I never said I am against abortion, I like it, I was just pointing it out
>>2565068>picIt's funny, Because in the show, Tommy is a quarter gypsy I think.
>>2565068>>2565232And in general, the show is pretty woke as you might expect of a contemporary BBC production, but for whatever reason, CHUDS love it
>>2565068>Bordiga autists is a racists naziShocking turn of events.
>>2565255Can you not be ableist please?
Unique IPs: 18