John Kulig wrote: >Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the [Marxist] theory. >England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial >Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In >Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means >to industrial growth)
Belatedly (not exactly psychology :-) ): More precisely: Capitalism in industrially advanced countries like Germany and England [read Britain, there is no *English* government :-)], capitalism was predicted to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions (to use the jargon). In what had been the Russian empire, following the October 1917 Bolshevik coup against the post-February revolution provisional Government, Lenin and Co proceeded to set up what they described as a *socialist* state (not communist – that was to come). But as citizens of the USSR used to say, the difference between capitalism and socialism is that in a capitalist society man exploits man, whereas under socialism it's the other way round. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org --------------------------- Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? John Kulig Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:29:29 -0700 Getting caught up on email, so only briefly scanned these posts, but two things come to mind about the gene/environment/left/right wing issue. While in my personal experience left wingers seem to favor environmental explanations for individual differences, I have to point out that Marx (Karl,not Groucho) was a fan of Darwinism (I am lumping evolution with genes, big jump I know, but both imply biological determinism), and wanted to dedicate portions of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined partly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic, and also I believe Marx' opposition to religion. My readings of the original communists/socialists was that they saw parallels between biological and cultural evolution (Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the theory. England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means to industrial growth). Second, when one follows the logic of Herrnstein & Murray's Bell Curve, you can see how genetics and left-wing can be easily combined. That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. IF people gravitate toward the bottom of society because of genetics, one can more easily make the case for charity and welfare imo, echoing the famous phrase "from each according to their ability" and "to each according to their need". Though, some conservatives opt for family, friends, churches being the source of charity rather than "big government." Interestingly, the authors are an odd couple, with Herrnstein being the liberal and Murray from the conservative Heritage Institute. ========================== John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 ========================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5795 or send a blank email to leave-5795-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
