[lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:17:44 -0500
Pretty much, that's the definition. I got this from bartleby.com:
A theory arising in the late nineteenth century that the laws of evolution,
which Charles Darwin had observed in nature, also apply to society. Social
Darwinists argued that social progress resulted from conflicts in which the
fittest or best adapted individuals, or entire societies, would prevail. It
gave rise to the slogan ?survival of the fittest.?
http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/socialdarwin.html
Therefore, the devil in fact take the hindmost, as Hitler and Napoleon and
Stalin knew. The guy with the biggest fangs wins. Sometimes he goes to jail,
but often he wins. I think we need to define "wins" and "success". Greed and
avarice have as much to do with cognition and happiness as does bacterial
mutation. It's all emotional. I would argue that the people feeling greed and
avarice are extremely unhappy. The unhappiest people, i.e., those most driven
to prove themselves, i.e., "succeed" if the term is used only in a financial or
materialistic sense, are the ones with the biggest vacuum to fill. Not real
different from an eating disorder, etc. Fill that vacuum with food, with
money, with things. Just fill it so it doesn't ache so much. In that sense I
think society needs to stop rewarding dysfunction. I'm not saying work is bad
or money is bad. They're both good, they're both necessary. I'm saying that
the worship of money is driven by psychic pain.
Just a final comment on people spanking and otherwise abusing their children.
In addition to needing to do a better job of raising humans, people need to
stop overtly indoctrinating hatred. The two are one and the same. Bigots who
need to instill racism are not doing it because they're happy people. They're
passing the hot potato of their own self hatred and simply making the world
that much a worse place.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Geary
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 12/28/2005 7:26:59 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
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:
