Eugenics

It only took a week or two after my posts on evolution and racism and evolution and gender to see eugenics pop up in the news.  As you can see from this article, the problem of eugenics is real and it is still present.  Thus, the fact that eugenics derives from an evolutionary framework to understanding race underscores the point that the concept of "evolution" must be treated with care.  Science must not be viewed as a neutral enterprise.

"Tribalism"

One strategy that imperial and neocolonial powers have employed to legitimize their actions, as well as the general global political-economic order, is to portray their subjects as culturally and developmentally backward. This tactic has taken multiple forms throughout the past couple of centuries or so. One recent manifestation is the invocation of the concept of "tribalism" when describing conditions in the Middle East and Africa. In the post I will focus specifically on the Middle East, in light of recent military involvements and current political interests.

The term "tribe," as it is currently used, has its roots in anthropology.   Here is another great example of the way in which science has served as a tool of colonialism.  For anthropology, in its origin as an academic discipline, was oriented toward elaborating an evolutionary (oh yes, we're back to evolution) framework of human history, which used certain living human populations to represent the past evolutionary stages of the more developed European civilization.  One aspect of this model of "cultural evolution" was a progression of social organization from bands and tribes to the eventual emergence of a state apparatus.  The former acheived social cohesion not "rationally" through laws and systems of justice, but "emotionally" (once again, the contradistinction between "emotional" and "rational") through bonds of kinship and patriarchal authority.

The cultural backwardness of non-European populations was used to justify the "civilizing" mission of colonialism. Europeans congratulated themselves on their attempts to liberate their subjects from the bonds of patriarchal tyranny, even while women in their own countries were denied fundamental rights.

It is obvious how the salience of kinship and partriarchy continues to dominate characterizations of Middle Eastern societies. The use of the word "tribalism" bears witness to the lasting influence of cultural evolutionism, and implies a less "civilized" form of existence for those to whom the term is applied.

In particular, "tribalism" is invoked to suggest that a situation is unpredictable, that the people with whom one is engaging are apt to act irrationally, that loyalties of kinship will frustrate efforts to enact compromises and create peace. It is a way of saying that persistant violence and chaos is "their" fault and not "ours." Conflict is the result, not of systematic exploitation by the industrial powers, but of ethnic/sectarian differences that have existed before the dawn of time ("tribal" people do not possess a history either of their own or in relation to the rest of the world). Conflict persists, not because of foreign intervention and provokation, but because "tribal" people are not able to act any differently.

However, let's consider the facts.  First, it is a property of human identities that they are malleable and changing while appearing as fixed or "natural" categories. Thus, every sort of ethnic/racial/sectarian identity, in the form that it currently exists, is necessarily new and responsive to the particular conditions at hand.  No feature of human social life is truly ancient.  Second, the Middle East was, during one of the most affluent and fastest-growing periods of human history (11th-13th centuries), the most developed region in the Old World. Localities that are now supposedly stuck in a primitive, tribal past, were home to some of the most advanced state structures, the most sophisticated economic institutions, and the most cosmopolitan and learned cities in the world. The stage of social evolution that is currently attributed to regions such as Afghanistan was far surpassed even 10 centuries ago!! Clearly, the current state of these locales cannot be a function merely of internal characteristics or enduring "tribal" loyalties. Rather, current conditions in the Middle East must, as with current conditions anywhere in the world, have arisen as a result of recent geopolitical/economic processes. Specifically, those processes include: colonialism, more colonialism, neocolonialism (i.e. foreign meddling), economic marginalization, etc. etc.

It is both inaccurate and racist to impute conditions in the Middle East and Africa to "tribalism."

Does Evolution Explain Everything?

Because of the relation of evolutionary theory to the Ideology of Progress (see also last few posts), it has become the dominant paradigm of analysis within the human sciences. Virtually every aspect of human life - physical, mental, and social - is explained within an evolutionary framework. Take, for example, this recent headline.

Evolution is so hegemonic to modern thought that even the most respected scientists hardly bat an eye when these studies employ contradictory or nonsensical logic. Further proof that science is a human activity that proceeds according to dominant ideological frameworks that are deeply embedded in the social order.

Evolutionary studies are quite formulaic:

1. Take any "trait."
2. Assume that it was adaptive at "the time" when humans evolved.
3. Come up with a reason why it would be adaptive.
4. Voila. Said "trait" is hardwired into our physical makeup via evolution.

Here are some of the many reasons why the formula contradicts the espoused principles of Darwinian evolution and defies logical thought (I will respond specifically according to each numbered step above):

1. The objects that are defined as "traits" are heterogenous in nature: some are simple, discrete physical properties (i.e. attached earlobes); some are slightly more complex, non-discrete, and environmentally-influenced physical characteristics (height); some are abstract concepts that generalize variable behavior (personality); and some are social constructs (race). The problem is, many of the "traits" to which are attributed evolutionary causes do not exist as discrete, bounded objects (see post on disease), have more social reality than physical reality, and, even if one assumed they were coded in the genes (a dubious assumptions based on the previous point), would be governed by so many different genes interacting in complex ways with each other and the environment, that it would be impossible for natural selection to act upon them in any coherent way in such a short span of time (the period of human existence is relatively short).

2. There are two fundamental problems in assuming that an existent trait must have been adaptive at the time humans evolved. First, just because something exists does not imply that it is adaptive. Genes and traits are able to survive among a population if they do not affect individual's reproductive capacities in any way (after all, why would they "die out" if the individuals who possess them are still able to pass them on to their offspring?). An evolutionary perspective that considers adaptability independently of reproductive capacity is more Lamarckian than Darwinian.

Second, "the time" that humans evolved does not exist. Evolution, at least as it is conceived by Darwin, is a continuous process. There was not one single moment or discrete period of time at which humans suddenly appeared.** And humans should not have stopped evolving. There is no reason to assume that the adaptability of any given trait is less pertitent to conditions today or in the recent past than a million years ago. There was nothing magical about that period of time.

**There is some debate about how exactly homo sapiens should be categorized (for example, should Neaderthals be considered a sub-species?) and from which population they emerged. Regardless, whether homo sapiens evolved from a local African population, or from the global population of predecessors, this would have occured via a gradual process of speciation (a gradual accumulation of differences, without a distinct "dividing line.") A species is typically defined as a population that can interbreed. Thus, if the population remains intact, speciation may not occur so much like forking branches on a tree, but result from a gradual accumulation of changes that would prevent an earlier member of the population from breeding with a current member, if this were possible. However, any line of demarkation that is made is purely arbitrary.

3. It is possible to come up with some reason why nearly any trait could have possibility been adapative at a given point of time. It is kind of like playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. It is also circular logic. There is virtually no way to verify any of these claims. What passes for rigorous scientific inquiry are essentially unverifiable, sophmoric manipulations of thought.

4. While the first three steps contradict principles of evolution ostensibly espoused by the scientists who manufacture these types of studies, it poses no conflict with Darwinian theory to suppose that any trait is hardwired into humans' genetic makeup. In this case, it is more a suspension of generic scientific protocol that is at play (much like step 3). Many of the phenomena studied by evolutionary scientists are much too complex and socially determined to ever ascertain which components are genetic. The fact that one is able to come up with some hypothetical reason why a trait could be adaptive does not constitute proof of its genetic basis. Furthermore, the types of tests that are devised to assess whether a phenomenon is physically determined are undertaken by selecting precisely those aspects that are physically manifested in order to define the trait - thus using what one is aiming to prove as the basis of the proof itself. That is why scientists so often find exactly what they sought to find in the first place.

Take the previous example (linked to in the first paragraph) about gossip.

-First, the concept of "gossip" itself is a social construction. It is culturally-specific, not universal. In this study, the word "gossip" is used to label the phenomenon: unflattering information about another person. In common parlance, however, the word "gossip" often coveys something about the mode of tranmission as well: for example, news reports about Congressman Weiner sending inappropriate pictures and text messages are not considered "gossip," while a water-cooler conversation about a coworker's rumored affair is. This study, then, is stripping the word "gossip" of much of its rich social meaning. Furthermore, even in its more narrowly defined form, as used by the study, the concept still contains some ambiguities. For what purpose is the information being shared? What is the relationship between giver and receiver and the person who is its subject? Sharing information about a person that neither giver nor receiver have actually met, just because it is entertaining (a pop star was flashing her crotch), is different than sharing information about a person with whom the receiver is intimately familiar, for the purpose of avoiding some undesired event (your girlfriend cheated on all of her past boyfriends).

-Second, these researchers fallaciously equate the length at which a person looked at a picture with "how they feel" and "how they see" the person. The internal states of the participants are not being measured. All the researchers know is how long the participants looked at various pictures. It is wrong to infer interal states based on that information alone.

-Third, the fact that the participants happened to spend more time looking at the pictures to whom negative information had been attributed does not prove that anything in particular is "hardwired" into the brain. Perhaps the negative information happened to be more interesting. This appears to be the case from the examples given in the article: "threw a chair at his classmate" versus "passed a man on the street." What would have been the outcome if "had a bad day" was pitted against "won the Nobel Peace prize"? Moreover, did the researchers control for gender, race, or other physical features of the pictures? What kinds of people took part in this study, and under what conditions? One should be very careful about making grand pronouncements about the innate characteristics of all human beings based on such flimsy and potentially socially determined evidence.

-Fourth, the fact (if true) that negative information about other individuals catches people's attention today does not mean that such an interest need to have been adaptive in the past, or is adaptive now. It is obvious that gossip can have beneficial as well as harmful effects, often simultaneously. Why would the harmful effects have been absent thousands of years ago?

-Fifth, assuming gossip actually were some discrete, non-culturally-constructed entity, how many genes would it take to code for such a complex phenomenon?  Could it have such a profound effect on reproductive capacity that this whole constellation of genes was affected within the span of ... what... (how long do they consider "the time that humans evolved"?) ... say, a million years?

The moral of the story is: scientists are people. They are no more intelligent than, and just as fallible as, everyone else. View scientific research with caution.

View scientific research with caution because it is not produced by "neutral" minds, and neither are its effects socially insignificant. For instance, when a "trait" is explained within an evolutionary framework, this serves to naturalize the phenomenon and erase its social determinations. The ultimate result is that social processes and the artifacts of social action are pushed beyond the realm of criticism and challenge.

Evolution and Social Class

There is one more obvious type of inequality supported by the concept of evolution that I would like to discuss. I think I may be rather brief with my remarks because the connection between evolutionary theory and social class is more well known and can be summed up in two words: Social Darwinism.

Quite simply, Social Darwinism is the idea that class inequalities exist because of natural differences in characteristics such as intelligence and discipline. Thus, class inequalities are right and just, and to attempt to question income disparities is to subvert the natural order by which the strong survive and the weak perish. In fact, some have argued that charity is dangerous as it prevents the "survival of the fittest" mechanism from weeding out the weaker human beings.

Now, of course, Social Darwinism does not follow from the principles of actual Darwinism for multiple reasons (for example, the definition of "fitness" in the Darwinian scheme being more tautologically definied as the ability to survive - i.e. reproduce - and containing no implications about any other sort of "value"). However, this does not mean, as some people suggest, that Social Darwinism is simply a distortion or perversion of a valid scientific concept. For one thing, Social Darwinism is certainly in line with other paradigms of evolution that have held more sway over general consciousness, including among contemporary scientists.

More importantly - and this is the point I would like to emphasize with this post - the Ideology of Progress, of which evolutionary theories are a component, is, at its essence, a mechanism of naturalizing inequalities of all forms and thus upholding the social order. This fact, along with the relationship between evolutionary theory and inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality, all seem to suggest that Social Darwinism is less a distortion of the concept of evolution, and more one specific manifestation of the general inherent nature of evolutionary theory and the Ideology of Progress.

Social Darwinism reveals the true nature of evolutionary theory more than it distorts it.

Evolution and Gender

The inequalities and forms of oppression that exist in this world are multiple and varied, yet they are not unrelated. In particular, although people's experiences of marginalization due to race, gender, sexuality, social class, and the like are far from identical (there is even diversity of experience within each of these non-homogenous categories), evolution is the linchpin that holds together all of these forms oppression.

Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.

In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.

Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.

In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.

It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.

For further reading on this topic:

-The Heart of Whiteness:  Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science:  Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body:  Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race:  Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race:  Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)

Evolution and Racism

Ideas about evolution are elemental to the fabric of modern thought. As previously noted, evolution has provided an authoritative framework for the Ideology of Progress. In fact, notions of evolution are not particular to the field of biology: they have structured analysis in a variety of other disciplines, from linguistics to psychology. Models and discourses are most powerful when they can be applied to a number of distinct domains, as it allows the ideas to circulate more widely and quickly, and enables them to appear more obvious and "natural." For example, the "tree of life" model has been effective in mapping family ancestry, biological evolution, and the relations of human languages, among other things. Consequently, it constitutes an important component of the framework within which we understand relationships, history, and time.

But let's be clear about what the Ideology of Progress, and by extension, evolution, entails. I argued in my post about "normality" and health that in order to naturalize Progress (that is, for the idea to be taken for granted rather than questioned) it is necessary to create a visual artifact of Progress in some way. This has been done through the development of concepts of the "modern" and the "primitive," and the concomitant mapping of these concepts onto the existent human population. This is the way that inequalities become naturalized via the Ideology of Progress. Inequalities appear to be the natural result of different rates or stages of development.

It is no coincidence, then, that women, blacks, other people of color, lower classes, and gay men have all been characterized as "emotional" in contrast to the rationality of white, straight, upper and middle class men. It is these men who bear the mantel of Progress and modernity.

And once again, inequalities serve the economic functions of maintaining the social division of labor and the accumulation of wealth via exploitation. Thus, the Ideology of Progress and all that it entails ultimately serves to uphold the political economic order.

As the concept of evolution is inseparable from the Ideology of Progress, theories of evolution have played a very significant role in the naturalization of inequalities of all kind, most particularly those pertaining to race. For more detailed information on the history of evolution and scientific racism, please consult the following works (just a few of many):

-The Emperor's New Clothes:  Biological Theories of Race at the New Millennium by Joseph Graves
-Outcasts from Evolution:  Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority by John Haller, Jr.
-Sex, Race & Science:  Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-From Savage to Negro:  Anthropology and the Construction of Race, 1896-1954 by Lee Savage
-Nature's Body:  Gender in the Making of Modern Science by Londa Schiebinger

It should suffice for my purposes here to simply say that evolution allowed for the social construction of race. (According to anthropologists, there is no biological basis for race; it is a social construction.) Evolution fueled the project of eugenics, both in Europe and the United States. The eugenics movement in Europe was founded by some of Darwin's compadres, and that is also no coincidence. Evolution bears some responsibility for the Holocaust. Evolution continues to incite the infringement upon the reproductive rights of women of color throughout the world.

Like any product of science, evolution is not a neutral concept.

History of Two Evolutionary Paradigms

Many people are not aware that ideas about evolution were widespread prior to Charles Darwin. In fact, the concept of evolution is the most important building block of the Ideology of Progress.

Before Darwin, evolution was viewed as a teleological process: that is, it was directional, it had an endpoint (human beings). Evolution fit within a Biblical historical framework, in which world history proceeded according to a series of discrete stages, following a divine salvation narrative. In this model of evolution, "more evolved" necessarily meant "better" in an absolute sense.

One of the most controversial aspects of Darwin's writings was not the idea of evolution itself, but the argument that evolution was random and non-directional, driven by arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan. According to Darwin, traits that inhibited reproduction in any given environment would gradually die out, while those that did not would survive. This is a fairly tautological statement. Within Darwin's model, any particular organism can only be adapted to a particular environment, and thus cannot be "more evolved" or "better" in any absolute sense, as environmental conditions are constantly changing.

Darwin's conception of evolution drew, in part, on notions of "survival of the fittest" from population studies, although Darwin himself did not use this phrase (it is falsely attributed to him). It should be emphasized, once again, that "fit" only means able to reproduce in a given environment.

However, with the "survival of the fittest" notion in the popular conscious, a hybrid paradigm of evolution emerged that retained characteristics of both Darwinian and pre-Darwinian evolutionary paradigms:

-evolution proceeds according to arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan
-yet evolution is teleological: it results in the development of "better" or more "complex" organisms.

Thus, for example, the popular idea that "humans came from monkeys." First, humans are more biologically related to apes than monkeys (there is a big difference). More importantly, any organism that exists today cannot have evolved from another organism that exists contemporaneously, as both would have evolved to the same extent since the time of divergence: thus, it is not possible that humans came from apes, because apes have evolved just as much as humans in the same time period. It would be more consistent with the principles of Darwinian evolution to say that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Yet, it would be wrong to suppose that the hybrid concept of evolution is merely a popular misunderstanding. This paradigm of evolution has continued to shape the thinking of many esteemed scientists up to the present. It seems that a teleological model of evolution is irresistable, even to those who espouse a contradictory model in principle.

This is a perfect example to demonstrate that scientific thought is more strongly driven by worldview than logical deductions from first principles.

Science and Capitalism

Science is a human institution. Like any institution, it is composed of human and material networks; specialized jargon, equipment, and norms of practice; buildings, bureaucracies, texts, and capital flows. Also like any institution, its practices are shaped by the perspectives and agendas of specific people, and it is integrated, both materially and ideologically, with other human institutions, such as the global economy and political organizations of various nation-states.

Yet that is not how we typically conceive of science. In popular discourse, science is characterized by neutrality, objectivity, and the gradual, systematic accumulation of a truth surpassing all human limitations. This, however, is ideology. The ideology of scientific objectivity and scientific progress may be held as a foundational element of the Ideology of Progress. Science is seen as the ultimate mechanism of progress, and it is an important symbol of "modernity."

Even Karl Marx, who conducted his historical-economic analyses within an evolutionary paradigm, maintained an ardent faith in science. He believed that the primary virtue of capitalism was the level of technological innovation that it enabled. He imagined that this innovation would someday reach a point at which all menial and degrading labor would be performed by machines, thus freeing humanity from the drudgery of dehumanizing work and providing everyone with the opportunity to engage in more intellectually fulfilling pursuits.

Starting in the 20th century, critiques of the ideology of scientific objectivity and scientific progress have abounded, particularly in the fields of history, philosophy and sociology of science. Some classic analyses include:

-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
-The Order of Things and Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault
-The Pasteurization of France by Bruno Latour
-The Mismeasure of Man by Steven J. Gould

When one looks more closely at the processes associated with common scientific practice, it becomes quite clear that science is a human activity. The questions that a scientist chooses to ask, the concepts that he (science has historically been a white, male enterprise) decides to use, and the range of possible interpretations that are allowed derive from a number of assumptions that reflect a particular point of view - a particular way of actually seeing the world - as well as the tools and equipment that are available by pure historical accident. Science is not a process of gradual accumulation: it is subject to politics and shifting alignments that do not move in any particular direction.

Furthermore, it is no coicidence that science acquired its contemporary institutional form at the same time, and in tandem, with the development of capitalism, the modern nation-state, governmental power, and colonialism. All of these human institutions are intertwined and mutually reinforcing.

How does science serve a capitalist agenda?

First, the fruits of scientific activity sustain the technological innovation that is necessary for the internal rhythms of capitalist accumulation. In this sense, science is the handmaiden of capitalist profitability. Second, as the results of scientific research are determined by the perspectives and agendas of those conducting the research, and because the ideology of scientific objectivity allows the authority of scientists to remain unquestioned, science is an extremely crucial means of maintaining the status quo. In particular, science has been very effective at naturalizing inequalities along lines of class, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

All of this can be seen to some extent in my series of discussions on the capitalist approach to health. However, in the next post or two, I will be looking specifically at the case of evolution.

Myths About Marx

In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser.  Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded.  Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more.  (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)

1.  Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests.  Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.

2.  Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality.  He never criticized individual expression.  The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential.  In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life.  However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.  


Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy.  Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.

3.  Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind.  Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.

4.  Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism.  Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale.  One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor:  machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit. 

5.  Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare.  He never advocated violence.  He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation.  (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.)  Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.

6.  Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism.  I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.

• Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
• Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement.  It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
• Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
• The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist.  For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.

I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....

Neoliberal Ideology

Just as the ideology of Progress has been absolutely vital to the development of current power structures, its highly successful offspring, neoliberal ideology, is crucial to the maintenance of systemic inequality.

Neoliberal ideology is a "survival of the fittest" perspective that upholds competition and individualism as the engine of Progress.  According to this ideology, wealth is the result of harder work, higher intelligence, and superior techniques, and, as such, is in some way a measure of a person's worth as a human being.  Competition ensures Progress by weeding out the "unworthy" and incentivizing beneficial behaviors by giving them their just due.

Neoliberalism is perhaps so successful because it has found fertile ground in multiple domains, particularly in various sciences (giving it the appearance of a "natural law").  For example, some of the earliest evidence of neoliberalism (or, at that time, just "liberalism") is apparent in the field of demography with the concept of "survival of the fittest."  At the same time, analogies were made between the domains of economics, population studies, and biology, ultimately leading to Social Darwinism in economics (classical economics itself being pervaded by neoliberal ideology), and Darwinian evolutionary theory.  The latter, for its part, was from the very beginning associated with racism and the eugenics movement.  The first European eugenics society was spearheaded by Darwin's compadres.  All of these schools of thought and social movements are examples of neoliberal ideology because they are premised on the idea that the "unfittest" of the human race should not be given a helping hand, lest they get in the way of Progress, which demands that they wither away and leave only the strong to survive.

(Although I am no ardent Darwin fan, I would be remiss if I did not note:  Darwin himself did not espouse a "survival of the fittest" paradigm.  He put forward more of a tautological observation that the effect of a particular trait on reproductive success, if any, and according to given environmental conditions, which are always subject to change, determines its prevalence within a population.  Thus, if something is "fit," it is only fit for the particular conditions that exist now, and not in general; and it is "fit" only in terms of reproduction.)

It is clear how neoliberal ideology legitimates the social order.  It is used to create the illusion of an equal playing field while diverting attention away from exploitation and enduring structures of inequality.  Inequality is perceived to result from "natural" differences in ability, intelligence, work ethic, etc.  Consequently, the poor are held responsible for their poverty and the rich are venerated for their success - for wealth is a measure of one's moral character.

Additionally, neoliberalism seeks to channel movements for social reform into strategies based on competition, market participation, private/individual initiative and the use of inequalities to create incentives:  processes that exacerbate existing inequalities by more fully entrenching the poor and oppressed in the exploitative relationships that structure the "free" market.  Any reform movement that seriously challenges the status quo, such as redistribution of wealth, is seen as an egregious crime against nature.

Finally, neoliberal ideology, by insisting that our current economic system is based on free market enterprise (when, in fact, it has limited the freedom of markets), allows capitalism to be defined in such a way that everything desirable is encompassed  by the definition (freedom, technology, efficiency) while the pitfalls and limitations (waste, debt, instability, monopolies, exploitation) of capitalism are, not only excluded, but construed as either internal "malfunctions" (the result of rogue individuals not playing by the rules; e.g. those idiots on Wall Street who created the current financial crisis) or as external rivals pitted against the capitalist system.  Every negative aspect of capitalism in its essence is portrayed as a perversion of capitalism or its antithesis.


In sum, neoliberal ideology looks at structures of exploitation and oppression and insists it is watching a fair game conducted on an even playing field.