[lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?

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.  



> [Original Message]
> From: Stan Spiegel <writeforu2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 12/28/2005 8:51:36 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
>
>
> MG:
> > What I have a problem seeing is the Darwinism in
> > Social Darwinism.  Darwin was talking about
> > environmental change and how those changes effect
> > various populations in accordance with their
> > abilities to adapt to the changes.  As "Andy" used
> > the term in her recent posts, she seems to believe
> > that Social Darwinism is a might-makes-right ethics
>
> SS:
> I nstead of "might makes right," I think it's more that government 
> intervenes -- not to make things fair -- to favor the strong over the
weak. 
> When the GOP-controlled federal government in Washington cuts social 
> programs for the poor at the same time they give the ultra-rich giant 
> tax-cuts -- that's social darwinism.
>
> Unregulated capitalism where the strongest pollute our air and water is
an 
> example of social Darwinism. This White House has distinguished itself in 
> its unwillingness to set limits on big business -- whether it's the 
> pharmaceutical industry, defense contractors, chemical industry, etc. The 
> public interest is never considered.
>
> When the rich get better health care and better treatment under the law
than 
> the poor -- that's social Darwinism.
>
> Social Darwinism, then, is reflected, I think, in the proverb that 
> "Republicans comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted while 
> Democrats comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
>
> I think that's what it means.
>
> Stan Spiegel
> Portland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 7:40 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
>
>
> >
> > --- Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> When Irene speaks of Social Darwinism, I'm not sure
> >> I know what she means by the term.  I'm not sure I
> >> know what anyone means by the term (most of the time
> >> it seems to be used as a justification for "devil
> >> take the hindmost" meritocratic economic theory).
> >
> >
> > I think it usually is.  When I applied it to British
> > Imperalism I was thinking of the beliefs that "lesser
> > races" were inherently inferior.  I admit -- to
> > address the rest of your post -- that I hadn't tried
> > to relate that to Darwinism.
> >
> > Lesser races stuff like this:
> >
> > "What though the spicy breezes blow soft o'er Java's
> > isle;
> > though every prospect pleases, and only man is vile?
> > In vain with lavish kindness the gifts of God are
> > strown;
> > the heathen in his blindness bows down to wood and
> > stone!"
> >
> > http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/f/f271.html
> >
> >
> >
> >> What I have a problem seeing is the Darwinism in
> >> Social Darwinism.  Darwin was talking about
> >> environmental change and how those changes effect
> >> various populations in accordance with their
> >> abilities to adapt to the changes.  As "Andy" used
> >> the term in her recent posts, she seems to believe
> >> that Social Darwinism is a might-makes-right ethics
> >> or philosophy [drove Hitler, behind European
> >> colonization] and she condemns such philosophies.
> >> But Darwinism is an entirely different species, it's
> >> an explanation, never a justification.  Darwin not
> >> only does not makes justifications for any behavior,
> >> he makes no survival predictions for the stronger or
> >> more intelligent or craftier beings -- only that the
> >> more able a group is to adapt to a specific change,
> >> the more likely it will survive the change.  So
> >> perhaps weak people coming together and pooling
> >> their resources in response to globalization might
> >> be a better fit than the go-get-em entrepreneur with
> >> bucks to toss around.  What population is best
> >> suited to survive the changes -- they are the most
> >> likely to move forward -- until the next change.  So
> >> maybe a Darwinian Socialism the future.  And then
> >> Feudalism?  Only time will tell.  That is what
> >> should be m
> >
> > Judy Evans
> > Cardiff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new 
> > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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


------------------------------------------------------------------
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: