Republicans and political rights generally characterize President Joe Biden’s social and economic agendas as “socialist,” hoping that a residual Cold War anti-communist frenzy will resonate and intimidate American voters, reflecting and reflecting against their policies and practices. Serve their interests and welfare.
The strategy was particularly successful in Florida’s Dead County in the 2020 presidential election, where voters were instrumental in getting the state’s electoral vote into the hands of Donald Trump.
At the same time, Republicans and political rights have also haunted science, with the dangerous spread of climate change denial and resistance to the Covid-1 vaccine, as we can clearly see, not the complete denial of the epidemic in reducing the severity as a whole.
Although, in the extreme use of my American political discourse, I have not really seen any analysis that combines anti-social and anti-scientific political discourse with mutually reinforcing, as it works collaboratively, it is a bit mandatory, as I will analyze below, anti-socialist harmful ways, even fuel. , To understand the anti-scientific worldview that has been responsible for so many deaths and divisions in the United States.
Obligatory, though, recognizing this connection between anti-social and anti-science politics is important not only to help us share an understanding of reality but also to advance a progressive political program designed to respond to our overwhelming humanitarian needs. Sharing is the information of material reality where we live.
We still see, indeed, routinely, elements of the Democratic Party, in which self-identified progressives distance themselves from the word “socialism.” Biden, of course, avoided the term by trying to differentiate and distance himself from Barney Sanders in the Democratic primary, despite the progressive content of his program. When he is accused of being a socialist, he boasts that “I have defeated the socialist.”
Arguably, though, belief in science supports a socialist philosophy and worldview, and denigration or rejection of socialism can very well undermine support for believing in science that is critical to the health of American, indeed global, society. So many levels.
Quantum mechanics, an important and ever-evolving branch of physics, thinks that the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make up us and the world around us do not exist or behave like isolated entities but are related to each other. What physicists began to call wave-particle theory in the 1920s, as some have observed, is that light, traditionally understood as a wave, behaves like a particle and that those electrons are considered to be local particles, existing “here” or “there” “, Actually behaves like a wave, constantly interacting with other particles.
Some have linked these propositions of quantum mechanics to the theory of oneness, suggesting that we are all made of the same material and do not exist as separate entities but as inseparable entities and interdependent entities with each other.
As the physicist Carlo Rovelli put it, “Twentieth-century physics is not about how separate entities are themselves. It is about how entities express themselves to each other. It’s about relationships. “
In his view, “we are made up of the same atoms and the same light signals that are exchanged between the pine trees in the mountains and the stars in the galaxy.”
Albert Einstein similarly rejected any notion of our isolation, writing, “We perceive ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something different from the rest. A kind of optical illusion of consciousness. ”
It should come as no surprise that this understanding of the physical world developed by scientists seems so consistent with Einstein’s understanding of human insights into society.
He wrote an article published in 1949 Monthly review The title is “Why Socialism?”
The abstract concept of “society” means the sum of a person’s direct and indirect relations with all the people of his contemporaries and previous generations. The person himself is able to think, feel, try and act; But he is so dependent on society for his physical, intellectual and emotional existence that it is impossible to think or understand him outside the framework of society. It is the “society” that provides people with food, clothing, a house, work equipment, language, types of thought, and content of thought; His life has been made possible by the millions of past and present labors and successes all of which are hidden behind the small word “society”.
Like particles that exist only relatively, so do humans. The problem that Einstein saw was that people are afraid to accept this reality, refusing to see it as a benefit, but rather afraid. He writes,
The individual has become much more aware of his dependence on society than ever before. But he does not perceive this dependence as a positive asset, a biological bond, a defensive force, but a threat to his natural rights or even his economic existence. Moreover, her position in society is such that the arrogant drives of her make-up are constantly being emphasized, while her social drives, which are inherently weak, are gradually deteriorating.
Acknowledging our dependence will logically evaluate the lives of others.
Take the “necessary workers”. The sentence suggests a recognition of our dependence on these workers for our lives, and yet as a society and political economy we also run away from that recognition, forcing them to work in unsafe environments and making no effort to insist that they are at least paid Received a living wage.
And those who oppose vaccination, claiming their “personal freedom”, again misinterpret the reality of their interdependence, that their existence is simply and essentially related to others. There is no mere “personal”. They reject socialism and science.
Efforts to create a social security fence and to distribute collective wealth more equitably to support the lives of all are challenged with the unpleasant name of “socialism”.
Anti-socials and anti-scientists have come to work hand in hand. For those who pretend to support science, but engage in anti-social rhetoric, it is time to understand this connection. In an attempt to defeat socialism, they inadvertently tarnish science.
Tim Liberty is a professor of American literature and culture at a state university in Chicago. A long-time progressive voice, she has published numerous academic and journalistic articles on culture, class, race, gender, and politics, for which she has worked with the Working Class Studies Association, the International Labor Communications Association, the National Federation of Press Women, and the Illinois Women.