Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lysenko Meets Malthus - The new enclosure and the new poor laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 07:49 PM
Original message
Lysenko Meets Malthus - The new enclosure and the new poor laws
Edited on Tue May-04-04 08:01 PM by arendt
Another arendt rant.

Its too long; it has too many history references for today's dumbed-down
audiences. Its too pedantic and unfunny. But, its me.

DUers, do you want to live in a rational society or a fundamentalist gulag
run by bull-goose loonies? Time is running out.

If you are a scientist, a techie, or someone who makes his living with
his brain, I want your feedback. How do we organize ourselves to
defend what are, to me as a scientist, our religious beliefs?

arendt

-------------------

Lysenko Meets Malthus
- The new enclosure and the new poor laws

by arendt

For almost a thousand years, European societies have witnessed
the economic and military consequences of putting religious dogma
in charge of a worldly state. Time after time, the result is obscurantism,
followed by the flight or expulsion of the talented, followed sooner or later
by the demise of the religious state at the hands of more tolerant societies
who took in the talented exiles.

Witness the Jews driven out of Catholic Spain in 1492, who fled
to Holland where they formed the backbone of the Dutch economy
and aided Holland's resistance to the Spanish Empire.

Witness the Huguenots, driven out of Catholic France, who fled to
Protestant England and Holland, where they worked to undermine
the Bourbons and Papists in general.

Even within England, witness the Puritans, disestablished by the
Anglican Church, who took their commercial acumen to America, where
they contributed to the American Revolution.

It also happened to all of Islam, vis-a-vis Christianity. In the twelfth
century, at the height of its scientific and cultural achievements, Islam
committed intellectual suicide, although this is hardly known to most
Westerners today. (see FOOTNOTE) Secular pursuits became stigmatized,
and the society turned to fervid religiosity.

However, the Roman Catholic West was so backward and fratricidal that it
took five hundred years for the halt in Moslem intellectual activity, plus the
jump start of Western science by Protestantism, to begin to tilt the military
and economic scales against Islam. Despite the long delay, this case still
fits the pattern laid down in the first paragraph.

----

With all these examples, then, there is no excuse for talented and historically
literate people to deny what is going on in the United States today. Once again,
a reactionary religious hierarchy, unable to lord it over science, industry, and commerce
has struck back. Their weapons, as always, have been blind faith, homicidal
hatred and jealousy couched in lofty theological justifications, and the willing assistance
of secular power brokers who are likewise on the losing end of scientific advance.

Just as 18th century landowners fought the rising power of the commercial
classes by having them run out of countries on the excuse of religion, 20th century
extractive and metal-bending industries, like oil and automobiles, have risen up
against the usurpations of a new class of science-based technologists and
environmentalists.

The oil/auto industry, facing both a production peak and alternative technologies
of energy production and conservation, has purchased the White House and has
used it to blatantly enrich itself, to make an ill-fated grab for Arab oil, and to rid itself
of irritating environmental regulations and limits on drilling, pollution, and sprawl.

The Cold War-sized military industrial complex, faced with a total loss of mission to
justify a budget that outspends the rest of the world combined, has whole-heartedly
embraced the war on terrorism as a God-send (pun intended). They care not
one whit for the effects of laughably ineffective security measures on commerce
or science.

The pivot that joins the oil/defense industry to the fundamentalist theocrats is
the scapegoating of the Arab World. The Oil business wants their oil. The defense
business wants their land. And, the theocrats want their souls. All of them don't
give a rat's ass about their lives, as is on display for all the world to see in Iraq
today.

So, it is no surprise to find "Islamic terrorism" as the all-purpose excuse for the
joint program of Constitutional rape and economic pillage of the Oil/Defense/Rapture
Complex.

They have barred authors from "the usual suspects" Islamic countries from being published
in U.S. journals. They have denied visas to foreigners wanting to attend scientific
conferences in the U.S. This is paranoia worthy of the Cold War Soviet Union. And,
just as the sane nations of that era simply held their conferences elsewhere, the same
thing is happening today - to the detriment of U.S. science.

They have deliberately ruined the tourist industry and the public's sense of security
with Terror Alert scares. They have crippled the airline industry with delays and
ridiculous, ineffective searches and nail clipper seizures.

But, despite the palpable and grievous damage to the U.S. economy and to the
U.S. worker, the compensation of the CEOs and major stockholders of the corporate
behemoths that have enclosed every last bit of the U.S. economy continues to
rise out of sight. We have the head of United Health Care being compensated
$94 Million last year, while doctors are being harassed and intimidated out of
not only their own pay, but decent care for their patients.

The fanatical fundamentalists of the market are more than happy to make common
cause with the fanatical fundamentalists of End Times Theology. In the end,
both ideologies say the same thing: we are kings, and you are peasants.

----

What makes these ideologues so hard to attack is their total lack of logic - these
guys are Deconstructionists by any other name. Both financial and religious
fundamentalists agree with Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society."

Everything that happens to an individual is his own doing. If he lives in a country
that smashes labor unions and provides no education, it is the individual's fault
he is poor. If she lives in a mysogynistic society that tolerates wife beating, philandering
husbands, and denial about sexually transmitted diseases, it is the individual's fault
she contracted AIDS from her husband. To these people, the only role of government
is to provide armies and police to enforce the fatwas of the theocrats or of the
"impersonal, God-like market".

With total control of the media, the theo-corpo-crats have the cartoon like ability to
run off the end of a cliff, stand in mid air in violation of the law of gravity, and then
dive back onto the safety of the cliff. So, for example, they browbeat us about the
military and economic threat of China while they simultaneously dismantle our industrial
base to send it there. No matter what the economic situation, a tax cut is the solution.
And, after twenty years of manufactured outrage about "tax and spend" Democrats, not a
word is to be said about "borrow and spend" Republicans.

With total GOP control, we are now witnessing the Lysenko-ing of American science.
Crackpots, industry shills, theologians, and rip-off artists are placed in positions
of power. Just as Stalin denounced "cosmopolitan science" and promised Lamarckian
miracles of agricultural production, Bush's EPA denounces Global Warming and
embraces Son of Star Wars.

Who cares if the scientific evidence goes the other way? With absolute power, the
GOP theocrats have no need for logic or reason. Religious ideologues have placed
will power above reason for millenia. Augustine believed thusly, and so did the mad
man Nietsche. The powerful can do no wrong. The poor deserve what they get.

Hence these neo-Spencerian ideologues have resurrected Thomas Malthus, but
given him a "Power of Positive Thinking" gloss, courtesy of junk science hacks
like the late, and unlamented, Julian Simon. Since the PNAC crowd are a bunch
of ex-Trotskyites, it is no stretch for them to borrow from the patron saint of junk
science, Stalin's pet crackpot, T.D. Lysenko.

So, here is how today's 21st Century, focus group-tested version of the Poor Law/
Malthus spiel goes:

....The marketplace is miraculous and will solve all our economic problems.
....If you are talented and hard working, the market will lift you out of poverty.
....If you are unemployed, that is your fault. It is the almighty market's judgment
....that you are incompetent. There are 6 billion humans on the planet, and
....you couldn't cut it. Its your fault. And Jesus thinks so too. George heard Him.

....Of course, no government anywhere has the right to regulate international
....off-shoring of jobs to countries whose labor conditions make Victorian England
....look like Socialist Sweden. Pay no attention to the full-bore GOP campaign to
....deny U.S. citiizens the right to off-shore their drug purchases. Pay no attention
....to the "growth without development" impact of free trade zones, maquilladoras,
....and other corporate latifundia, chock full of union-busting goons and the police
....thugs of the local kleptocrat. Pay no attention to the on-the-job injuries, poisonings,
....and genetic damage in those hell-holes. Pay no attention to massive pollution,
....to people living in cardboard shacks on streets with open sewers. The market
....guarantees that these minor environmental and health inconveniences are not
....a symbol of failure, but rather a harbinger of imminent economic takeoff.

....Therefore, we reach the same conclusion as Malthus: the poor should not be
....helped. Even though it is the multi-national corporate "enclosure" of and off-
....shoring of middle-class jobs that has created the unprecedented masses of
....poor Americans. Even though we now know about the "demoographic transition"
....when incomes rise to a crucial level. Even though we know about the positive
....impact of female education and "micro-loans" on the poorest of the poor.
....Even though we could offer birth control to prevent huge families from
....eating any pitiful gains that might trickle down to the latifundia slaves.
....We cannot coddle the undeserving poor; but we must coddle the rich.

....The international money market is sacrosanct. No government has the right to
....interfere with hot money flows that ruin entire economies as they enrich a miniscule
....cabal of manipulators and insiders. The U.S. voting public has no right to question
....the most blatantly and deliberately imbalanced budget in U.S. history.

Why not?

Because it is the budget of the theocrats. It is the market of the theocrats. It is
the media of the theocrats. And, theocrats are not to be questioned; they are to
be obeyed.

Twilight is over America. Welcome to the long, dark night where privatized
military contractors run by the CIA want to meet with you in a dark alley.

----------------------------

FOOTNOTE

...."Amid these advances of (Islamic) science the old orthodoxy fought
....to keep the loyalty of educated classes. The conflict between
....religion and science led many to sketicism, some to open atheism...
....The theists accepted God and immortality, but denied creation and
...the resurrection of the body, and called heaven and hell spiritual
....conditions only; the deists acknowledged a deity but rejected
....immortality, and viewed the world as a self-operating machine...

...."It was in reaction against such skepticism that Mohammedanism
....produced its greatest theologian...Abu Hamid al-Ghazali...(In)...his
....most influential book - Tahafut al-Filasifa (The Destruction of
....Philosophy, all the arts of reason were turned against reason.
....By a transcendental dialectic as subtle as Kant's, the Moslem
....mystic argued that reason leads to universal doubt, intellectual
....bankruptcy, moral deterioration, and social collapse. Seven
....centuries before Hume, al-Ghazali reduced reason to the principle
....of causality, and causality to mere sequence.

...."When he died (1111), the tide of unbelief had been effectively turned...
....After him,...philosophy hid itself in the remote corners of the Moslem
....world; the pursuit of science waned; and the mind of Islam more
....and more buried itself in the Hadith (note; like the Talmud) and the
....Koran...

...."As orthodoxy triumphed, toleration waned...non-Moslems were now
....required to wear distinguising yellow stripes on their clothing;...no cross
....was to be displayed outside a church...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Front page kick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EdGy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. neolibs and neocons as theology
The new fundamentalists. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. Tiny quibble
Edited on Tue May-04-04 10:18 PM by troublemaker
Religious thinking, encompassing the entire range of ideology, religion, mysticism and any other scheme that holds any type of knowledge above the limited products of the scientific method, is the enemy. Period.

That said, I must take issue with something you wrote: If you are a scientist, a techie, or someone who makes his living with
his brain, I want your feedback. How do we organize ourselves to
defend what are, to me as a scientist, our religious beliefs?


The assertion that science is the religion of rationalists is one leg of the irrationalist stool; the religious cannot effectively pretend to be rational so they must reduce science to a false religion.

I know where you're coming from. I also feel a religious reverence of and fervor for reason. But it's vital to remember that we have hypotheses, not beliefs. And there is no hypothesis--even a hypothesis we love or that is vital to our self-esteem--that we will not cast aside in the blink of an eye in the face of persuasive evidence. Falsifiability is everything. So let's keep the language tight and make it hard for the religious to frame the cultural argument. Our hypotheses are nothing like their beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. And, I understand where you are coming from
> Falsifiability is everything. So let's keep the language tight and make it hard
> for the religious to frame the cultural argument. Our hypotheses are nothing
> like their beliefs.

I completely agree about the mechanisms of scientific inquiry. We
must be skeptical; there must be falsifiability.

But, I have pondered the limits of rationality. The 20th century
supplied Heisenberg Uncertainty, Godel Incompleteness,
Turing's Stopping Problem, and the Quine-Duhamel thesis
on hypothesis testing.

Bottom line, there are things which are true that we cannot prove.
There are things we cannot describe in closed form, but can
experience.

Perhaps I should have used the word "numinous" instead of
"religious". I agree, religion is a poisoned word that has been
used to justify unspeakable barbarism and enslavement.

But, we need to speak in terms that the other side will at least
think they understand. I want to make an argument like:

How do you know that your God is not judging you on how
well America helps a world with 3 billion poor people improve
their lot? How do you know that your God is NOT concerned
with social justice, fair dealings, and even labor unions?
When the cynical bastards in Rome want to bash America
they pull out the social justice card. Of course, right now in
Boston, the archdiocese is trying to bust the teachers' union.
Can't I call on their God as witness to their own hypocrisy?
And, can't I have a feeling that we were all put here to do
good things as a society, not as a bunch of grasping individuals?

Anyway, you make a fair point; and my abillity to express what
I mean needs work. Thanks for provoking my first stab at it.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. Good to see
The Arendt byline. Not writing much lately? Haven't seen your work for a while.

Another good article. If I may presume: Might want to give some background on the Enclosures Act and the usurpation of the commons, because if your readers don't already know, I'm not sure they get the meaning of the subtitle and the reference late in the article.

Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I've been busy
For the first time in almost two years, I'm getting a paycheck.
Its a contractor position. But I'm busting my butt to get hired
permanently. Not many cycles left for political writing.

I take your point on enclosures, but I had to draw the line
somewhere or the explanations would have drowned the
message.

Its all part of Chomsky's conciseness filter. Everyone knows
about Darwin, but not many people know about the landgrab
of enclosure.

For those who don't know, the English nobility found there
was a lot of money to be made grazing the new, larger sheep.
But those sheep needed pasture. So, the nobles passed laws
"enclosing" the common fields of the towns. Now, the commons
had been the livelihood of the peasantry for centuries. The
enclosure dispossessed them, drove them into poverty, and
from their into the "dark satanic mills" of the industrial revolution.
Without the enclosure, there would have been no one desperate
enough to tolerate the conditions in the factories.

Today, we are dispossessing the middle class of its livelihood,
but we don't even want them to work in a factory. We sent those
to China and the software to India. Like the aliens in Independence
Day, what the new nobility wants is for us to die.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Dang. Now I have to do some research.
You've set me wondering whether there's any info on how the Enclosures Act was presented to the public. I wonder if there was a grand pronouncement that this was all being done for the good of the peasants in general and England in particular.

Because that's certainly the cynical marketing of the modern version. This is, after all, the inevitable working of the perfectly neutral invisible hand and, honest, we'll all be better off for it pretty soon.

They probably didn't bother in England. The upper class, afer all, didn't owe their lessers any explanations. In modern America, the upper class owes their lessers a pile of happy horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No need to research
Edited on Wed May-05-04 07:14 PM by arendt
I looked at Churchill and Eric Hobsbawm. These diametrically
opposed historians agree that:

1) feudalism had been abolished in England from the earliest
enclosures, circa 1600.

2) These enclosures were pure power grabs. The landed gentry
simply stole the rights of the peasantry to their common lands;
then shot or killed the peasants if they resisted.

3) By 1750, the English countryside was largely monopolized
by large landholders.

The British Enclosure laws of the 18th century, then, merely
cast in concrete what had already been decided long ago.

Hobsbawm says:

...." A relative handful of commercially-minded landlords already
....almost monopolized the land, which was cultivated by tenant-
....farmers employing landless or smallholders. A good many relics
....of the ancient collective economy of the village still remained
....to be swept away by the Enclosure Acts (1760-1830) and
....private transactions, but we can hardly any longer speak of a
...."British peasantry"...(the peasants) resistance to the final
....triumph of commercial relations in the countryside was bitter...
....The main cutting edge of the law was turned against the relics
....of the peasantry, the cottagers and laborers...The Poor Law
....of 1834 was designed to make life so intolerable for rural paupers
....as to force them to migrate to any jobs that were offered.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Thanks
How terribly much more civilized we've become, eh?

Of course, we'll see how that holds up when the great unwashed really start to feel the pinch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimchi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thank you.
Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC