[lit-ideas] Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:50 -0600
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). 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 meant by Socal Darwinism according to the Pope of
Iruk.
Mike Geary
Memphis
Other related posts:
