[lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:24:20 -0500
Further to my other post, there's a frantic quality to Social Darwinism, a
sense of foreboding; anxiety; do it or die, be devoured (dog eat dog). Eat
or be eaten. Those are not cognitive states. There's no sense that life
is short, let's dine instead of devour. A barbaric philosophy for a
barbaric species. No lofty ideals for humans. Just business as usual in
the kennel.
> [Original Message]
> From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 12/28/2005 11:51:25 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
>
> On 12/29/05, Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm open to correction, but I think when you say that government aids
and
> > abets one group and hurts another, I think you're talking about some
> > catalyst. That would be almost an Intelligent Design Social Darwinism.
I
> > think Hitler would have thought that the German people are *inherently*
> > superior. They don't need government to help them. It's their right
and
> > their destiny as superior Germans to expand into other countries and
> > conquer them. Like the British did with their colonies. Big dog eats
> > small dog. Except that we're not dogs. People behaving like amebas or
> > dogs is, what? I'm at a loss. It's why Hitler thought the German
people
> > deserved to die, because they lost the war, they were weak. Social
> > Darwinism is a barbaric philosophy.
> >
>
> Returning to Geary's original point. Social Darwinism is misnamed
> since its usual form, found in Herbert Spenser, et.al., envisions
> evolution as a unilineal process leading from the primitive to "us"
> (whoever us may be), who represent the current pinnacle of progress.
> In Darwin's theory, evolution is envisioned as a tree, with limbs and
> branches representing adaptation to specific, highly various
> ecological niches.
>
> What is implicit, however, in both ways of viewing evolution is the
> substitution of change and transformation over time for the static
> categories of the Medieval Great Chain of Being in which, for example,
> Kings, Aristocrats, Commoners, and Slaves are seen as occupying fixed
> and immovable positions in a natural hierarchy.
>
> The key idea embraced by Social Darwinists is the one that still
> informs most thinking about the nature of corporations and,
> increasingly, the way in which we see ourselves: Either we grow or we
> die. Applied to nation states, the implication is clear. Either the
> territory under the nation's control is expanding or the nation is
> moribund, waiting to be devoured by younger and still aggressive
> nations. Applied to corporations, it becomes the management mantra
> that without innovation that creates new markets or captures new ones,
> the company is doomed. Sublimated in the self-images of liberal
> intellectuals, it becomes the notion that we must constantly be
> learning, acquiring new knowledge or advancing into new intellectual
> terrain. For hardy athletic types it may mean lifting heavier weights
> or running a bit faster. Weight lost is seen as adding social capital.
> Growth equals acquisition, and if we aren't growing we are either dead
> or might as well be.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
