counter statistics
Politics News

How does anti-socialism fuel anti-science extremism in America?

Republicans and the political right have often labeled President Joe Biden’s social and economic agendas in general as ‘socialist’, hoping that a continuing Cold War anti-communist hysteria would make American voters sound and panic, and their reflections and will turn thoughtlessly against policies and practices that actually serve their interests and well-being.

This tactic has succeeded considerably Florida is Dade County during the 2020 presidential election, where voters played a major role in handing over the state’s electoral votes to Donald Trump.

At the same time, Republicans and the political right have also demonstrated science, a phenomenon we see very clearly in the dangerous prevalence of denial of climate change and in the resistance to COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the overall deterioration of severity, if not the denial of the pandemic.

While in my zealous use of American political discourses I have actually seen no analysis linking anti-socialist and anti-scientific political rhetoric as mutually reinforcing, and to work together is more than a little convincing. analyze below, to even understand the damaging way in which anti-socialism validates the anti-scientific worldview, which was responsible for so much death and division in the United States.

Beyond being persuasive, however, the recognition of this connection between anti-socialist and anti-scientific politics is crucial, not only to help us share an understanding of reality, but also to promote a progressive political to promote an agenda that addresses our urgent human needs. facts of the shared material reality in which we live.

We still see, indeed on a routine basis, elements of the Democratic Party, including self-identified progressives, distancing themselves from the term ‘socialism’. Biden, of course, despite the progressive content of his agenda, avoids the term in an attempt to distinguish and distance himself from Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. He has since boasted, when accused of being a socialist, that “I beat the socialist.”

But it is likely that a belief in science supports a socialist philosophy and a worldview, and to slander or reject socialism may be the advocate for belief in science that is so crucial to the health and well-being of the American, indeed global, society greatly undermines so many levels.

An important and still evolving branch of physics, quantum mechanics, claimed that the atomic and subatomic particles that make up us and the world around us do not exist or behave, just like discrete entities, but in relation to each other. Physicists began developing the wave particle theory in the 1920s, as some noted that light, commonly referred to as a wave, also behaved like a particle, and that electrons are thought to be localized particles, which “here “exist or ‘There’ they actually behave like waves and constantly interact with other particles.

Some have linked these statements of quantum mechanics to a theory of unityindicating that we all consist of the same material and do not exist as separate entities, but in a constant relationship and dependence on each other as a united entity.

As physicist Carlo Rovelli has declare, ‘Physics of the 20th century is not about how individual entities are in themselves. It is about how entities manifest towards each other. It’s about relationships. ”

In sy regard, “We are made up of the same atoms and the same light signals that are exchanged between pine trees in the mountains and stars in the galaxies.”

Albert Einstein also dismissed the idea of ​​our separateness, write, “We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. ”

It should come as no surprise that this understanding of the physical world developed by scientists is so consistent with Einstein’s understanding of insights into the workings of people in society.

He wrote in an essay of 1949 published in Monthly review titled “Why socialism?”:

The abstract concept of “society” means for the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relationships with his contemporaries and with all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive and work for himself; but he depends so much on society – in his physical, intellectual and emotional existence – that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is the “society” that provides man with food, clothing, a home, work tools, language, thought forms, and most content of thought; his life is made possible by the labor and achievements of the millions of past and present who are all hidden behind the little word “society”.

Just like particles that exist only relationally, so do humans. The problem Einstein saw, however, was that people are afraid to embrace this reality, and refuse to see it as an advantage, rather than fear it. He writes,

The individual has become more aware than ever of his dependence on society. But he experiences this dependence not as a positive asset, as an organic bond, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the selfish drive of his make-up is constantly emphasized, while his social drives, which are inherently weaker, gradually deteriorate.

Acknowledging our dependence would logically value the lives of others.

Take ‘essential workers’. The phrase indicates a recognition of our dependence on these workers for our lives, and yet we as a society and political economy also flee from the recognition, forcing them to work in unsafe environments and making little or no effort to to insist that they be at least compensated a living wage.

And those who oppose vaccination and claim their ‘personal freedom’ again misunderstand the reality of their interdependence, that they exist only and necessarily in relation to others. There is not just ‘personal’. They reject socialism and science.

Efforts to create a social safety net and to distribute the collective wealth more fairly to support everyone’s lives are challenged with a pejorative name of ‘socialism’.

Antisocialism and anti-science went hand in hand. It is time that those who pretend to support science but still follow anti-socialist rhetoric understand this connection. In an attempt to defeat socialism, they accidentally discredit science.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button