Poiltical Ad Appeals to Left's Absolute Terror of Not Being Told How to Live

[clearspira]

Eugenics is as old as human history even if the word itself isn't. You can make the argument that the Spartans throwing newborn babies off a cliff is eugenics.

The man who coined the phrase ''eugenics'' was a man named Francis Galton. Knight of the realm, King's College, Trinity College, Royal Geographical Society and recipient of the Royal Medal. It would then go on to be endorsed by several British and American institutions. This was mainstream, highly accepted science back in the 1920s. I would go as far as to call it the West's dirty little secret - how often is British/American eugenics brought up when we discuss the Nazis?

[clearspira]

Support for the idea of eugenics has popped up in many different political groupings, but it was instituted as policy in socialist countries, ones that are usually identified as 'Leftist'.

I suppose that makes the United States, who sterilized 60 thousand people from 1907 until the 1970s, one of the farthest left and most socialist nations on earth, while the Soviet Union, who purged all their eugenicists by 1931, one of the farthest right and least socialist.

The Soviet Union purged an awful lot of their biologists, and essentially all of their geneticists, because they had accurate knowledge which contradicted party doctrine.

As for the US, look at =who= advocated and mandated eugenic practices. Conservatives were against it - particularly religious ones.

From Wikipedia:

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations.[52] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[53]

The Labour party is left wing.

Organizations were formed to win public support and sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.[27] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.[27]

Its not even universal that the religious were against it.

[Draco Dracul]

The first is an outright lie.

I can assure you that it's not a lie. As to whether it's wrong:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15461971/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Support for the idea of eugenics has popped up in many different political groupings, but it was instituted as policy in socialist countries, ones that are usually identified as 'Leftist'.

Nordic countries are capitalist and they will tell you that.

As for the Nazis, you're confusing Socialism (big S) with socialism (little s). The Nazis were most definitely socialists.

History is complicated, and usually not comforting.

What does small s socialism mean?

In what way are the Nazis socialist? They were incredibly capitalistic to the point that the term privatization entered the english language to describe thier economic policy and they arranged their society around competition.

[McAvoy]

The first is an outright lie.

I can assure you that it's not a lie. As to whether it's wrong:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15461971/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Support for the idea of eugenics has popped up in many different political groupings, but it was instituted as policy in socialist countries, ones that are usually identified as 'Leftist'.

Nordic countries are capitalist and they will tell you that.

As for the Nazis, you're confusing Socialism (big S) with socialism (little s). The Nazis were most definitely socialists.

History is complicated, and usually not comforting.

What does small s socialism mean?

In what way are the Nazis socialist? They were incredibly capitalistic to the point that the term privatization entered the english language to describe thier economic policy and they arranged their society around competition.

I don't think you can say the Nazis were capitalist either. They may embraced some parts of it but for the most they didn't like capitalism due to in their view capitalism equals Jews.

Hell they didn't even like the whole mass production of factories. They liked the hand made stuff. As in German muscle and knowhow to make things.

There was some socialist programs in Nazi Germany but like most things back then in that country, it was in direct support of the military.

[Draco Dracul]

The first is an outright lie.

I can assure you that it's not a lie. As to whether it's wrong:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15461971/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Support for the idea of eugenics has popped up in many different political groupings, but it was instituted as policy in socialist countries, ones that are usually identified as 'Leftist'.

Nordic countries are capitalist and they will tell you that.

As for the Nazis, you're confusing Socialism (big S) with socialism (little s). The Nazis were most definitely socialists.

History is complicated, and usually not comforting.

What does small s socialism mean?

In what way are the Nazis socialist? They were incredibly capitalistic to the point that the term privatization entered the english language to describe thier economic policy and they arranged their society around competition.

I don't think you can say the Nazis were capitalist either. They may embraced some parts of it but for the most they didn't like capitalism due to in their view capitalism equals Jews.

That was a minority opinion in the Nazi party that was completely stamped out during the night of long Knives. The official line was that Communism equals Jewish.

Hell they didn't even like the whole mass production of factories. They liked the hand made stuff. As in German muscle and knowhow to make things.

Hand fitted and hand made aren't the same thing and some non interchangeable parts where common across all militaries at the time because fully interchangeable parts have a very high up front tooling cost.

There was some socialist programs in Nazi Germany but like most things back then in that country, it was in direct support of the military.

Social programs and socialism aren't the same thing. Socialism is total worker control of the economy via the state with the ability to build individual wealth eliminated by replacing money with non circulating labor vouchers or at least working toward that end.

[McAvoy]

"Hand fitted and hand made aren't the same thing and some non interchangeable parts where common across all militaries at the time because fully interchangeable parts have a very high up front tooling cost."

Yes and no. The concept of mass production like the Ford model is that one person in a long line will make or install one part. Requires very little skill outside what you were taught for that specific leg of the assembly line

The Germans took a more of half and half approach. Yes they did make certain parts en mass. But for the other the part would be made on site for that plane. And yes, you can make a interchangeable part that way. All you need is certain dies, cutouts or whatever standard to make sure you are making the part precise enough.

We pretty much do this now. Only computers do it now for 100% quality control. A local machinist can do this if he has the right equipment.

[CmdrKing]

Social programs and socialism aren't the same thing. Socialism is total worker control of the economy via the state with the ability to build individual wealth eliminated by replacing money with non circulating labor vouchers or at least working toward that end.

I’m curious if this is still a common goal in modern socialist thought (although no mistake it definitely was during the time the Nazis were active). While there were several causes, it seems clear that one reason for the failures of planned economies was their being too one size fits all in their approach: people need a certain ability to prioritize and customize their ‘needs’ even setting aside people who flatly need more/different resources (the disabled for example).

So allowing that your name economy needs a degree of flexibility and responsiveness to account for that, currency and markets are a reasonable way to achieve that (so long as you’ve ended the accumulation of assets and investment as an outlet for that currency) in a way direct vouchers for needs don’t necessarily have the nuance for.

[Draco Dracul]

Social programs and socialism aren't the same thing. Socialism is total worker control of the economy via the state with the ability to build individual wealth eliminated by replacing money with non circulating labor vouchers or at least working toward that end.

I’m curious if this is still a common goal in modern socialist thought (although no mistake it definitely was during the time the Nazis were active). While there were several causes, it seems clear that one reason for the failures of planned economies was their being too one size fits all in their approach: people need a certain ability to prioritize and customize their ‘needs’ even setting aside people who flatly need more/different resources (the disabled for example).

I can't speak for socialists as I'm an ancom that sees the period of state socialism as a trap, but you can respond to the needs and wants of the people without market economics or currency through things like polling to better understand people's needs.

So allowing that your name economy needs a degree of flexibility and responsiveness to account for that, currency and markets are a reasonable way to achieve that (so long as you’ve ended the accumulation of assets and investment as an outlet for that currency) in a way direct vouchers for needs don’t necessarily have the nuance for.

The primary difference between labor vouchers and currency is the lack of circulation. They could be spent universal, but when you use them that's the end of the line for them. Because the means of production are owned collectively the shop doesn't need make a profit via a circulating currency, though the can use data about what is purchased to adjust what they order as to avoid shortages and waste.

[CmdrKing]

Mm, I feel like this is a semantic trap then. Specialized vouchers just aren’t flexible enough to account for how people live, and if you do make them flexible enough to do so it’s not really meaningfully different from currency. It’s all a means of tracking what resources a person is consuming relative to what needs to be produced.

I’d also be extremely against considering them *as* “work vouchers” simply because that increases the risk of Stalin-esque work fetishism and all that follows (in particular eugenics in a ‘you are not a worker and thus cannot be allowed to drain society’ kinda way)

[CmdrKing]

Put another way markets are fine at determining what sorts of shoes to make and food to stock, and trying to do something else rarely ends well.

The problem is more turning, say, housing into a market or denying people the means to engage with the goods markets.