Trotsky & Eugenics

[Revy]

I was reading Leon Trotsky's If America Should Go Communist (1934) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm) and I was surprised to read this:

"While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man."

Anyone care to comment? I thought about it for a while, and I think he might be talking about transhumanism, since there seems to be an underlying theme on technology in the essay. I don't believe he was endorsing "selective reproduction" and certainly not the racism that a lot of eugenics proponents had.

[Charles Xavier]

I was reading Leon Trotsky's If America Should Go Communist (1934) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm) and I was surprised to read this:

"While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man."

Anyone care to comment? I thought about it for a while, and I think he might be talking about transhumanism, since there seems to be an underlying theme on technology in the essay. I don't believe he was endorsing "selective reproduction" and certainly not the racism that a lot of eugenics proponents had.

Ever hear the phrase throw enough shit at a wall and some of it will stick?

This fell.

What Trotsky looks to be saying is that a revolution will come in the US soon and it will bring a new race of man by scientific means both in favour of selective breeding and interracial marriages.

[Revy]

Ever hear the phrase throw enough shit at a wall and some of it will stick?

This fell.

What Trotsky looks to be saying is that a revolution will come in the US soon and it will bring a new race of man by scientific means both in favour of selective breeding and interracial marriages.

I don't quite understand the first part of your post nor do I care to ascertain its meaning. So....um....thanks?:rolleyes:

I am aware of the interracial marriages part. That's why I say it certainly cannot be construed as endorsing a racist form of eugenics - which is what the term "eugenics" is usually meant to imply.

What I was wondering was whether he endorsed selective breeding - and that much is not clear, and I would lean toward no.

[Q]

You have to read said text in the context it was written. Eugenics was quite a popular movement in America at the time.
What we know of it today is only the nazi propaganda on it as it got discredited completely by them and since has been debunked by scientific developments aswell.

[KC]

He's simply talking about revolution in the United States - hence the title of the article - and the new consciousness and "new Man" that will be brought about as a result. He's using the concept of eugenics (popular at the time) as a metaphor for the transformation of man that will be brought about by the revolution.

This really has nothing to do with "selective breeding" or eugenics literally.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I don't think it is possible to defend Trotsky here, and I say that as one of his admirers.

He got this wrong; fair cop.

[Q]

I don't think it is possible to defend Trotsky here, and I say that as one of his admirers.

He got this wrong; fair cop.

It's an agitatorial text. Therefore he used language that was popular at the time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Therefore he used language that was popular at the time.

That's no excuse -- in that case, he was pandering to racist and elitist language.

[Vanguard1917]

Eugenics was considered a legitimate policy by mainstream society before being discreditted by the Nazi experience, as others have pointed out. I'm not sure if Trotsky is giving any clear opinion on it there, though. However, he does mention it elsewhere in the article, where it's added to a list of potential policies of a future Soviet American government, albeit a controversial one subject to 'passionate debate':



Yet a wide struggle between interests, groups and ideas is not only conceivable – it is inevitable. One-year, five-year, ten-year plans of business development; schemes for national education; construction of new basic lines of transportation; the transformation of the farms; the program for improving the technological and cultural equipment of Latin America; a program for stratosphere communication; eugenics – all of these will arouse controversy, vigorous electoral struggle and passionate debate in the newspapers and at public meetings.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm


It's a good piece overall though. A very interesting read. I particularly liked this bit: "It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in Soviet America."

I'm not sure, however, if the eco-miserabilist pro belt-tightening lobby of the American liberal-left today would agree with such irresponsible and greedy consumerist sentiments...

[Hit The North]

Q:



That's no excuse -- in that case, he was pandering to racist and elitist language.

Nonsense! What Trotsky writes is this:
Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man. If anything, it is a defence of multi-racial society (as you would expect from one of the Twentieth Century's most resolute internationalists) and, therefore, the opposite of a racist or elitist position.

[Revy]

Nonsense! What Trotsky writes is this: If anything, it is a defence of multi-racial society (as you would expect from one of the Twentieth Century's most resolute internationalists) and, therefore, the opposite of a racist or elitist position.

Exactly. He wasn't being racist or elitist.

I still maintain he was advocating some form of transhumanism and/ or genetic engineering, rather than selective breeding, which is problematic since it's all about telling people who is fit to reproduce, even if it's not based in racism.

The word transhumanism wasn't invented until 1957, so I think Trotsky may have used eugenics since it was the most relevant and convenient word to use. He did emphasized, owing to the pro-technology theme of his essay, the scientific nature of such a version of eugenics, which led me to the conclusion he was talking about transhumanism.

Unfortunately, Google doesn't provide many real discussions of this (especially from a pro-Trotsky, neutral on Trotsky perspective), except from What Next? a Marxist Journal, which harshly criticizes Trotsky for his comment as well as his comment about cigars and automobiles. It's right here (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Misarmed.html).

[KC]

Good job reading my post, everyone!:rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Unfortunately, Google doesn't provide many real discussions of this (especially from a pro-Trotsky, neutral on Trotsky perspective), except from What Next? a Marxist Journal, which harshly criticizes Trotsky for his comment as well as his comment about cigars and automobiles. It's right here (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Misarmed.html).

What a terrible article. Openly Malthusian and anti-development. Certainly has nothing to do with Marxism, and in the end in fact ends up cheering the elite businessmen of the Club of Rome who were instrumental in launching the modern environmentalist, neo-Malthusian movement in the 1970s. One of the worst articles i've read in a while, basically condeming Trotsky for being a Marxist (see this recent thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/modern-communism-green-t95715/index.html) for a discussion of Marxism's attitude to eco-reaction).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If anything, it is a defence of multi-racial society (as you would expect from one of the Twentieth Century's most resolute internationalists) and, therefore, the opposite of a racist or elitist position.

Unfortunately, his tail-ending of racist and elitist eugenicists undermined this otherwise commendable statement of his.

[KC]

Unfortunately, his tail-ending of racist and elitist eugenicists undermined this otherwise commendable statement of his.

When did he do this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


Good job reading my post, everyone!

I did, and couldn't see that it made much difference.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


When did he do this?

Here is when:


"While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man."

Eugenics was invented, of course, by racist an elitist theorists, howsoever 'popular' it later became.

And it is worth recalling that popularity is no guarantor of ideological purity.

[Q]

Rosa, you've made your point and the rest of us refuted. Stop repeating to try to suddenly "become right", you're embarrassing yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Rosa, you've made your point and the rest of us refuted. Stop repeating to try to suddenly "become right", you're embarrassing yourself.

No, the rest of you disagreed. My point still stands.

And I do not embarrass, ever -- least of all in the face of those who confuse "refute" with "deny".

[KC]

Eugenics was invented, of course, by racist an elitist theorists, howsoever 'popular' it later became.Francis Galton didn't develop it in a racist context at all, and during Trotsky's time the eugenics movement wasn't simply founded on "racial purity". Moreover, Trotsky here is actually making a criticism of eugenics in this paragraph, implying that the only successful means of eugenics is proletarian revolution.

Your emotional response to the word itself is completely blinding you from actually understanding what Trotsky meant.


Rosa, you've made your point and the rest of us refuted. Stop repeating to try to suddenly "become right", you're embarrassing yourself.


People as delusional as Rosa can never be embarrassed, because they always consider themselves correct. They're just made to look a fool in front of everyone because of their stubbornness even in the face of proof that they're wrong.

And she's not going to stop trolling any time soon; that is her purpose in life.

[Q]

People as delusional as Rosa can never be embarrassed, because they always consider themselves correct. They're just made to look a fool in front of everyone because of their stubbornness even in the face of proof that they're wrong.

"But there is no proof!! You haven't proven anything! Oh and Trotsky is a blatant racist!"

:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


Francis Galton didn't develop it in a racist context at all, and during Trotsky's time the eugenics movement wasn't simply founded on "racial purity". Moreover, Trotsky here is actually making a criticism of eugenics in this paragraph, implying that the only successful means of eugenics is proletarian revolution.

Galton didn't, but he certainly was an elitist. And the scientific racists of the late Victorian era were avid eugenicists.


Moreover, Trotsky here is actually making a criticism of eugenics in this paragraph, implying that the only successful means of eugenics is proletarian revolution

This is no more of a defence of Trotsky than had you said this:


Moreover, Trotsky here is actually making a criticism of racism in this paragraph, implying that the only successful means of racism is proletarian revolution

or


Moreover, Trotsky here is actually making a criticism of elitism in this paragraph, implying that the only successful means of elitism is proletarian revolution.

KC:


Your emotional response to the word itself is completely blinding you from actually understanding what Trotsky meant.

What "emotional response"?

Don't tell me you are back to your old sexist ways?

You'll be saying I am "hysterical" next; or that I shouldn't worry my pretty little head with such matters.

And what is this, if not an emotional response:


People as delusional as Rosa can never be embarrassed, because they always consider themselves correct. They're just made to look a fool in front of everyone because of their stubbornness even in the face of proof that they're wrong.

And we all know that you always admit when you are wrong, don't we?:rolleyes:


And she's not going to stop trolling any time soon; that is her purpose in life.

Indeed, for you, "trolling" plainly means "disagreeing with the Great KC".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


"But there is no proof!! You haven't proven anything! Oh and Trotsky is a blatant racist!"

Who said he was a racist? Not me.

What he did succeed in doing is tail-ending the scientific racists and the ruling-class elitists in this one remark.

He wasn't perfect. We all screw up. He screwed up here. That does not negate all the other great things he said and did.

[Hit The North]

Q:

What he did succeed in doing is tail-ending the scientific racists and the ruling-class elitists in this one remark.


Again, this is nonsense. Trotsky refers to the "problem of eugenics", not simply eugenics. What is the problem of eugenics if not the problem of creating the fittest human beings? In this article Trotsky is speculating that once America, the most advanced capitalist society, has been captured by the working class revolution, then these problems can be solved - scientifically. Neither is it clear that when he employs the term scientifically, he is tail-ending the pseudo-science of selective human breeding as represented by the most reactionary advocates of eugenics, the Nazis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Trotsky refers to the "problem of eugenics", not simply eugenics. What is the problem of eugenics if not the problem of creating the fittest human beings? In this article Trotsky is speculating that once America, the most advanced capitalist society, has been captured by the working class revolution, then these problems can be solved - scientifically. Neither is it clear that when he employs the term scientifically, he is tail-ending the pseudo-science of selective human breeding as represented by the most reactionary advocates of eugenics, the Nazis.

He should in fact have referred to the rejection of eugenics, not the 'problem of eugenics'.

Here is what he also said:


Yet a wide struggle between interests, groups and ideas is not only conceivable – it is inevitable. One-year, five-year, ten-year plans of business development; schemes for national education; construction of new basic lines of transportation; the transformation of the farms; the program for improving the technological and cultural equipment of Latin America; a program for stratosphere communication; eugenics – all of these will arouse controversy, vigorous electoral struggle and passionate debate in the newspapers and at public meetings.

It's not a 'problem' here. It's part of the program.

Perhaps you'd have defended him if he'd said:


While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of racism. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man.

Well, maybe you would...:rolleyes: