>>12393>>12393> Your argument seems built on the naturalism fallacy (I.E. Nature = "Good")Common misconception and infact a forgivably understable one.
National Socialism is based around the understanding of the function of biological organsisms being the origin of their morality; not their nature.
There are a great deal of things a human being may be predisposed to do by virtue of his genes or enviroment (such as excessive alhohal use, self harm or homosexuality) which are none the less objectivelly immoral as they undermine the survival and reproduction of ones genes.
Just because you are morn with a mental ilnnes that predisposes you to serial murder does not serial murder in your case is moral (in so far as you are capable of consious action)
>but let's not forget humans are nature's paradox. As the only form of intelligent life that we're aware of, we've taken ourselves out of nature and all the biological imperatives that come with it.I'm honestly curious if you actually believe this how in the hell you think Marxist Socialism is ever going to arise??
As Marxist Socialism is, after all, first and foremost predicated upon the appeal to material conditions of the working class.
If the material conditions of the working class (which are necessairily biological in character given that the material the workers are made of is bio-matter, responding to stimulous over time) are not objectively important how would you be able to say that Marxist Socialism was the inevitably product of a capitalist economy?
Just through argumentation (Which will necessairily by your frame work be inherntly baseless) and emotional appeal given in hopes of calling workers to the banner of your cause???
Granted i have put the words of this response in your mouth to some extent,
But IF that is the fundimental basis of world view it seems pretty inherently idealistic my dude.
No real scientific study of history to speak of.
>You can say that our goal is to carry on our genes, but the truth is we have free will and can voluntarily choose not to.Yes anon we have free will
We can also choose to blow our brains out, throw ourselves from tall buildings and cover ourselves in gassoline light on fire.
If you accept free will (as Marx very arguably didnt given his largely determinist philosophy) the only real question is what we OUGHT to do.
If we cannot answer that question all answers are equally valid
Their would be no quantifyable or objective way in which your view would be superior to even the most brainless "Racist" Liberterian Alt-Right Incel.
>But even accepting that logic for a minute, by its very nature it destroys Nazism. The iron law of nature is not, as some "Darwinists" misstate, the survival of "the fittest." Rather all evolutionary biology is rooted in adaptation.You know its funny anon,
and I dont want to sound TO dismissive saying it,
But that is literally the exact argument my creationist parents made to me when I went through my "le epic edgy athiest" phase around 12.
Anyway, moving on.
>The creature that survives is the one most able to adapt to its environment. To, in essence, diversify itself. Throughout life, from tiny flowers to mighty dinosaurs, everything ends up changing. When a species stops changing, it becomes an evolutionary dead end.Anon i am sincerely curious who actually taught you this?
Without trying to sound like TO much of a dick,
you are aware single celled organisms are still a thing correct??
Crocodiles as basically the same genetic form as they were 200,000,000 years ago, and out lived by 10s of millions many other animals (including the dinasaurs) who much more thoroughly adapted to changes in their enviroment.
You are to some extent right one point, namely the implied point of the common understanding of evolution being an autistic upward trajectory towards an "ubernmenc" or apex preditor or some shit.
This is really just based more then anything on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "Fittest;" which is usually believed to refer to the some superior phisical quality on the part of the organism.
In reality what "Survival of the Fittest" means is survival of that which is "Most well fit" to the conditions of the world as it exists.
Humans for instance, adapaptable and consiouss as they are could all die out tommorow in result of nuclear war.
The cockroach however, despite having existed in the same form far longer then humans and also being far less phisisically superior by most human estimation would none the less have been proven to objectively superior to humanity as a species given its continued survival in our absesne.
>Look at Nazism; if it were really obsessed with passing on genes to the next generation, then it wouldn't have its obsession with "racial purity." After all, even if the whitest scandinavian had a child with the darkest african, the child would still inherit genes from both of its parents, even if darker skin is the dominant gene. Yes but if both parent share some genes then the more genetic material of both gets passed on to the next generation, which causes those who breed within in race to be more evolutionary succesful then those who breed without as more of their genetic material is passed on
(Before it is brought up, incest is also immoral under National Socialism as the act causes genetic mutations which in turn alter the gene pool and also produce children which are incapable of survival via defect)
>However, Nazism doesn't care about that. Instead it ascribes "cleanliness" and "dirtyness" to certain races and peoples. It tries its damnedest to preserve its supposed "racial purity" by ruthlessly calling diversity.Anon,
Have you ever actually read any major work written by a National Socialist?
>Rather than enhancing the fertility of German society, Nazism sterilized it.How So?
>"Degenerate" art was banned. Which cause the genetic sterilization of society how?
Litterally the same point of western liberals used to make of the USSR my dude.
>"Dirty" races were exterminated.Fairly objectively untrue given that the term "holocaust survivor" is a thing, its farely clear they didnt actually EXTERMINATE any race.
But again,
How does this relate to genetic reproduction?
>The end result of all of that was an ultimately sterile society;Their birth rates litterally and quantifyably shot up…
> one that could produce no artAnon you are aware that the third riech litterally comissioned aritsts and skuplters correct??
>no great worksSuppose it depends on what one considers "great" but i find the restoration of the Germany economy under hitler (which if you disagree with i'd be happy enough to debate in its own right) fairly considerable
>and ultimately had its genes "dirtied" by foreign soldiers when they lost the war.To your credit,
At least you have ONE point which is directly related to your thesis lol.
To your point,
This is litterally the same thing as saying that given the fact that China, Vietnam and most "Marxist" nations the world over now whore their own populations out as slave labor in sweat shops to multi-billion dollar corporations that some how Marixsm; which is doctrinally opposed to these things, somehow supports them "subconsiously."
You can say the third riech failed just like the USSR failed; both reduced to pitiful losses and the destruction of what they held dear.
But the rape of women and children in berlin no more discredits National Socialism then Sweat Shops of the "peoples republic of China" discredit socialism.
The degree to which Marxism allows private property and wage labor is the degree to which it by definition is not Marxist socialism
And the degree to which a state fails to value the genetic procreation of its people is the the degree to which it is not National Socialist.
>Nazism isn't a philosophy based around life. Its impotent. Sterile. Much like Hitler himself. Its violently obsessed with purity which is a betrayal of biological reality. It's, if anything, a philosophy of death.Anon if the justification you have for this position is merely the end of WWII then socialism is, inherently, an ideology of wage labor and slavery to international mega corporations
As represented in the current state of east asia and Russia itself today.
>But you know what is a philosophy that would allow mankind to continue to pass on their genes? Marxism-Leninism. That's the only political philosophy on the planet that sees man as more than a commodity, that opens itself to the world, to life itself, and embraces it.Marixms-Lenninism doctrinally and definitionally sees human beings as nothing more then material agents of history.
If you think the ideology is about "carring" for people who need to read Marx's critiques of the Utopian Socialists.