Marxists and eugenics

[North Star]

While some socialists and progressives in the past when eugenics had mainstream appeal supported it I don't recall any Marxists who did. Were there any or did Marxism successfully avoid this trend which afflicted other leftists?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Marxist analysis prefers systemic explanations of social ills to individualistic explanations, including ones based on genetics. I would imagine this takes care of much of the impetus towards eugenics.

[Mr. Cervantes]

For me eugenics has always been a form of self worship when it concerns the bourgeoisie.

They worship themselves as biological demigods to which they view that only their own kind shall move forward in reproduction versus those that they view with the uttermost existential disdain.

It is the ultimate form of narcissism when it concerns the bourgeoisie.

[NewSocialist]

The most famous Marxist eugenicist was probably H. J. Muller - he even wrote an entire book attempting to justify eugenics from a Marxist perspective (Out of the Night: A Biologist's View of the Future). But Muller wasn't the only Marxist eugenicist, there were certainly others - e.g., J. B. S. Haldane, Eden Paul, etc.

[Mr. Cervantes]

The most famous Marxist eugenicist was probably H. J. Muller - he even wrote an entire book attempting to justify eugenics from a Marxist perspective (Out of the Night: A Biologist's View of the Future). But Muller wasn't the only Marxist eugenicist, there were certainly others - e.g., J. B. S. Haldane, Eden Paul, etc.

Marxist eugenicists just sounds contradictive to me.

[NewSocialist]

Marxist eugenicists just sounds contradictive to me.

Well, these individuals basically accepted Marx's critique of capital, but felt that certain human attributes were nevertheless genetically determined (such as intelligence and/or one's level of altruism) and therefore felt that a socialist society would be "improved" by implementing some program of eugenics.

However, unlike many of the more vulgar, reactionary eugenicists, the Marxist ones typically opposed things like forced sterilization (aka "negative eugenics") and rather promoted ideas like selective breeding and/or artificial insemination (aka "positive eugenics") instead.

[Sir Comradical]

So long as it's just about getting rid of birth defects and hereditary diseases through a Gattaca like selection of sperm and eggs. It would only be fair once it's available for everyone.

[NewSocialist]

So long as it's just about getting rid of birth defects and hereditary diseases through a Gattaca like selection of sperm and eggs.

To the aforementioned Marxist eugenicists (Haldane, Muller, Eden, et al.) it was about decidedly more than merely getting rid of birth defects and hereditary diseases. They, like most other eugenicists, truly believed that there were many behavioral traits which were genetically determined and, thus, necessary to address via a eugenics program.

I'm not passing judgement as to whether they were right or wrong in their views on the matter (though, in hindsight, I believe it's safe to say they were wrong about quite a bit), I'm just explaining what they happened to believe in.

[Blackburn]

If there is a way to breed out the 'Republican' gene, I'm all for it :D

[NewSocialist]

If there is a way to breed out the 'Republican' gene, I'm all for it :D

Hahah If such a gene existed, I'd definitely be tempted to agree with you - though I think the political views one espouses are very far from being genetically influenced ;)

[Sir Comradical]

To the aforementioned Marxist eugenicists (Haldane, Muller, Eden, et al.) it was about decidedly more than merely getting rid of birth defects and hereditary diseases. They, like most other eugenicists, truly believed that there were many behavioral traits which were genetically determined and, thus, necessary to address via a eugenics program.

I'm not passing judgement as to whether they were right or wrong in their views on the matter (though, in hindsight, I believe it's safe to say they were wrong about quite a bit), I'm just explaining what they happened to believe in.

Thanks for the information. I don't think behavioural traits are genetically determined. More nature less nurture I say. But who am I to comment on such things?

[NewSocialist]

Thanks for the information. I don't think behavioural traits are genetically determined. More nature less nurture I say. But who am I to comment on such things?

No problem.

Personally, I think it sort of depends on the trait in question. However, at least with many human behavior characteristics, a fairly wide consensus is emerging within the scientific community which believes that such traits are the result of an intricate interaction between both genes and environment (see "epigenetics").

[RadioRaheem84]

Most of the Eugenists I've read about were utopian socialists or progressives. Faux Fabian Socialists of the Anglo-American stripe.

None I know of were really Marxists or cared about working class struggles. Most found the proletariat to be quite vulgar.

[NewSocialist]

None I know of were really Marxists or cared about working class struggles. Most found the proletariat to be quite vulgar.

It's rather difficult to conclusively say who is or isn't "really" a Marxist, all we can do (for the most part) is take a person's word for what they believe in. I know the three specific individuals I listed above (Haldane, Paul, and Muller) were self-identified "Marxists," as well as active members of communist parties. Now, whether or not their eugenic views render them to having not been "real Marxists" is an interesting question - I suppose their belief in certain innate aspects of "human nature" (such as the genetic heritability of intelligence) is a heresy to the orthodox Marxist conception of historical materialism, to some extent.

Incidentally, there is some evidence that the man in your avatar (Salvador Allende) was once an advocate of eugenics himself - see Der Spiegel's article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,356461,00.html) on the topic.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm sure Allende was at some point considering the relevancy eugenics among upper middle class college students of his day. But cannot a man change his viewpoint? The book in the link is obviously a rouse to shred his image and promote the "socialists are racists, eugenics lovers like Nazis" line that has been growing in spades.

[NewSocialist]

I'm sure Allende was at some point considering the relevancy eugenics among upper middle class college students of his day. But cannot a man change his viewpoint? The book in the link is obviously a rouse to shred his image and promote the "socialists are racists, eugenics lovers like Nazis" line that has been growing in spades.

Well, Allende's dissertation - which Mr. Farias uses as his primary source in his book Salvador Allende: Anti-Semitism and Euthanasia - was written in 1933, the very year Allende co-founded the Socialist Party of Chile. So, if what Farias claims is true (which should be easily falsifiable, since the dissertation is apparently open to the public), it's probable that Allende advocated eugenics for at least sometime into his career as a socialist. Could he have changed his views on the subject? Certainly, but did he ever publicly disavow the validity of eugenics? I'm not too sure.

Some socialists in history actually were racists and eugenicists, of that there's no question. And yes, reactionaries absolutely love to use that in their propaganda against socialism. However, there were just as many right-wing advocates of eugenics (to say nothing of racism) in history, so it's obviously hypocritical of them to use that against the history socialism in any way. Moreover, as I stated earlier, most of the socialist and communist eugenicists were far more in favor of "positive eugenics" (aka, voluntary) programs, whereas the reactionary sort had a near fetish for the notion of forced sterilization and even euthanasia.

[North Star]

Allende's dissertation came out in 1933 in eugenics' heyday. I'm going to say he probably changed his ideas by the time he became president. There's really no evidence of him having any kind of eugenics agenda during his term in office.

[NewSocialist]

Allende's dissertation came out in 1933 in eugenics' heyday. I'm going to say he probably changed his ideas by the time he became president.

Probably. I simply said that I'm not aware of him having ever made any statements wherein he unequivocally denounced eugenics - but then I'm not an expert on the biographical history of Salvador Allende.


There's really no evidence of him having any kind of eugenics agenda during his term in office.Indeed, there's no evidence that he did at all - though, apparently, when he served as Health Minister under the Popular Front government of President Pedro Aguirre Cerda, he promoted a law which called for the forced sterilization of the mentally ill (which was never passed).

Still, there's a difference between not implementing a program and thinking the entire theory of eugenics is faulty.

[Angry Young Man]

Hahah If such a gene existed, I'd definitely be tempted to agree with you - though I think the political views one espouses are very far from being genetically influenced ;)

There is. It's a recessive gene, meaning it can only be kept alive by concentrated inbreeding.

[Queercommie Girl]

The fact that eugenics is reactionary does not change when the person promoting it also happens to be a Marxist. Marxists can also be very wrong on many issues, and I would not deliberately apologise for anyone simply because they are "Marxists" in some way or another.