Exposing Social and Economic Darwinism for the Fraud that it Is

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-17-08 04:33 PM
Original message

Exposing Social and Economic Darwinism for the Fraud that it Is

The wealthy have always found a way to justify their privileged positions. For example, monarchs have used the doctrine of the �Divine Right of Kings� as long as monarchs coexisted with religion.

Since Charles Darwin published �Origen of the Species� in 1859, his scientific explanation for evolution has been one of the most popular means that the wealthy classes have used to justify maintaining or expanding their wealth and power. What Darwin showed was that species evolve into new variations of species or into new species largely on the basis of genetic variations that favor reproduction or survival. Variations that favor reproduction and survival tend to reproduce and survive, whereas less favorable variations are more likely to die out quickly. This process has often been summed up with the phrase �survival of the fittest�.

From Darwin�s scientific biological findings, which have withstood the test of time, philosophers, sociologists, economists, and politicians have developed social and economic theories which they believe are analogous to Darwin�s biological findings. From Darwin�s model whereby the �fittest� organisms are more likely to survive than less fit organisms, these philosophers and others conclude that �success� is its own justification. Their jump in reasoning goes something like this:

Fit organisms are more likely to survive ==> THEREFORE
�Successful� people are more fit ==> THEREFORE
�Successful� people deserve their success � and more.

Darwin was a scientist rather than a philosopher, and as best I can tell he never used his scientific findings to develop philosophical or moral claims such as that noted above. But that didn�t stop a multitude of others from using Darwin�s findings for their own purposes.

Economic and social philosophies derived from the above noted reasoning have come to be known as �social Darwinism�. The reason that this is so important in today�s world is that social Darwinism has come to form much of the basis for radical right wing ideology. Thus, that doctrine is often used to justify the status quo, the withholding of opportunity for the less fortunate to improve their lot, or even active intervention to widen the gap between rich and poor, and at the extreme, genocide. Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the rational (or not rational) basis for how Darwin�s scientific findings lead to right wing ideological conclusions.

A brief look at social Darwinism in history

It was the English political philosopher Herbert Spencer who first coined the term �Survival of the fittest� in 1864. Spencer believed in a draconian application of that phrase. Specifically, he believed that any intervention by government to help the less fortunate is counterproductive because it would interfere with nature�s way of weeding out the �unfit�. His philosophy is well summed up in this paragraph:

Pervading all nature we may see at work a stern discipline, which is a little cruel that it may be very kind� The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many �in shallows and in miseries�, are the decrees of a large far-seeing benevolence� It seems that a laborer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations� Nevertheless� these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence � the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the intemperate�

The analogue to Spencer�s theories in the field of economics was the economic theory of laissez-faire, which means the complete non-intervention of government into the economic affairs of a nation�s people, and is the same thing as today�s radical right wing so-called �free-market� ideology.

Following the American Civil War, as our country rapidly industrialized and a huge wealth gap arose between a few corporate magnates at the top and the poverty stricken masses below � a wealth gap that persisted until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 � the doctrine of laissez faire was used to justify the tremendous economic inequalities of our country. Norton Garfinkle discusses this in his book, �The American Dream Vs. the Gospel of Wealth: The Fight for a Productive Middle-Class Economy�.

Under the influence of the new economic doctrine� labor was on its own. Even as modern factories multiplied, destroying the old artisan system of manufacturing and driving millions of workers into increasingly desperate circumstances, with long hours, dangerously unhealthy working conditions, and pay below subsistence levels, the self-styled reformers resisted government intervention� They wrote diatribes against labor and union leaders.

The most extreme manifestation of the doctrine of �Survival of the fittest� in the United States was the eugenics movement, which began in 1904. Edwin Black describes this in his book, �http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dwar%2Bagainst%2Bthe%2Bweak%26btnG%3DSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR10,M1">War Against the Weak � Eugenics and America�s Campaign to Create a Master Race�:

Championed by our nation�s social, political, and academic elites� Funded by America�s leading corporate philanthropies� Their methods: forced sterilization, human breeding programs, marriage prohibition, and even passive euthanasia� Cruel and racist laws were enacted in 27 U.S. states� The victims of eugenics were poor white people� immigrants� Blacks, Jews, Mexican, Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, petty criminals, the mentally ill, and anyone else who did not resemble the blond and blue-eyed Nordic ideal the eugenics movement glorified�

Moral issues surrounding �survival of the fittest� and how the right wing ideologues got it all wrong

�Survival of the fittest� as a morally neutral doctrine
In its simple unadulterated form, there are no moral issues attached to Darwin�s findings on how species evolve, just as there are no moral issues attached to most scientific findings in other areas.

If an epidemic of smallpox comes to a community and wipes out half the people, the remaining half will go on to produce children who are relatively more genetically immune to smallpox than the original community would have produced. Because of that, as long as smallpox remains a threat, smallpox epidemics will tend to evolve the human species towards greater resistance to smallpox. In fact that is exactly what has happened, as humans today are by and large much less likely to die of smallpox than were generations of humans of centuries past.

But contrary to what many eugenicists and other advocates of �Survival of the fittest� tell us, this is not a moral issue. It is simply a scientific fact. Those who die of smallpox because they lack immunity to it do not die because they deserve to die. And those who live because of their immunity do not live because they deserve to live more than those who die of the disease.

�Survival of the fittest� as a morally negative doctrine
On the other hand, one thing that the social Darwinists totally omit from their narrative is that there are many morally negative traits that lead to �success�, individual survival, and survival of one�s genes.

Who could argue against the fact that lying, cheating, stealing, and even murder can and often do lead to financial and other kinds of �success�? So many individual and historical examples of this are so well known that it doesn�t even require argument. The only area of life where such examples are not found is in fairy tales.

And consider rapists, for example. Successful rapists can be much more �successful� in spreading their genes to future generations than are those who choose more appropriate means of sexual activity.

These are very important points. Past and present right wing ideologues would have us believe that the �Survival of the fittest� doctrine proves that success itself, the ability to survive, and the ability to spread one�s genes to future generations are positive virtues that provide moral justification for one�s success, wealth and power. They do nothing of the sort. In fact, as described above, moral failings often pave the way for success, wealth and power. Do we really want to condone the �successes� of liars, cheats, crooks, murderers and rapists as proving that they are �fitter� than the rest of us and therefore more deserving of their ill-gotten gains than the rest of us?

�Survival of the fittest� as a morally positive doctrine
On the other hand, the idea that the selection of traits that facilitate the survival of our species is a good thing � whether occurring naturally or through government intervention � is not without merit. In that regard, there is another very important human evolutionary issue that the right wing ideologues always leave out of their discussions of social Darwinism:

There are many moral virtues that in fact do facilitate the survival and progression of our species. These include hard work, cooperation with others, and the creation of trust between people. The latter virtue is especially important. Without trust between people, life is hell, there is no security, and there is little opportunity to pursue worth while endeavors. In short, we would not be here today if not for our capacity to develop trust between each other. The primary basis for trust between people is empathy. People with well functioning emotional capabilities can be quite good at determining the extent to which other people feel empathy towards them, and therefore the extent to which those people can be trusted.

When we feel empathy towards other people we believe that they should be cared for when they are sick, hungry, or incapable of caring for themselves. Rather than using the �Survival of the fittest� doctrine as an excuse not to care, we do care, simply because that is who we are.

In a democracy where the people are in charge of their government, this character trait leads us to establish laws and policies that provide everyone with the opportunity for a decent and meaningful life. That is in fact the primary principle of the founding document of the United States of America:

� that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. � That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed�

Thus, while the right wing social Darwinist ideologues tell us that government intervention to assist the less fortunate among us is counterproductive because it leads to the survival or success of �unfit� individuals, those ideologues either don�t understand or just don�t want to talk about one of the most basic human character traits that have enabled the survival of the human species: Empathy. We can�t just turn it on and off at will. We can�t just say, �Let�s let this �unfit� person die simply because s/he is unfit, and to help this person would cause the propagation of unfit genes�. If we could do that, it would mean that we have no empathy (which is true of some of us). And if that was the case our species never would have come this far, and would soon die out if it had somehow managed to do so (and may yet die out soon, if the social Darwinists have their way, for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post).

Models of government as they relate to social and economic Darwinist doctrines

One may consider three distinct models of government as they relate to social and economic Darwinist doctrines: 1) totally non-interventionist government; 2) government that intervenes primary to help the wealthy and powerful maintain their advantages; and, 3) government that intervenes primarily to provide everyone with equal opportunities and to help those who can�t help themselves. Of course there are all sorts of combinations and gradations in between. But for the sake of simplicity, let�s just consider the above three types.

Non-interventionist government
Today�s (and yesterday�s and tomorrow�s) right wing ideologues claim to espouse a totally non-interventionist form of government. The Republican Party since the Presidency of Ronald Reagan has constantly lambasted �big government�, as if government in a democracy wasn�t something that people create for themselves for the purpose of improving their lives by solving problems that individuals lack resources to solve by themselves. These are the people whose ideology places complete trust in so-called �free markets�, as the economic doctrine to solve all of our economic problems. And these are the people who tell us that allowing the most �fit� individuals to attain a monopoly on wealth and power is the best way to ensure that a modicum of wealth will �trickle down� to the rest of us.

It is very telling, however, that these are also the same people who espouse budget-breaking military expenditures and �tough� crime laws that put millions of Americans in prison, often for victimless offenses, that have led to the highest imprisonment rate of any in nation in the world. One should wonder why, if they believe so passionately in government non-intervention in economic matters, they advocate at the same time so passionately for government intervention in crime and military matters. If they believe so strongly that government intervention in economic matters facilitates economic success for the �unfit�, why not adopt the same attitude towards crime? Without government police and fire protection, people would have to protect themselves against crime and fire, and that would select out for those who are the most capable of doing so. Why don�t we ever hear the social Darwinists advocating for that?

The truth of the matter is of course that social Darwinists don�t really want government non-intervention. What they want is government intervention on behalf of themselves and government non-intervention on behalf of almost everyone else. Nobody really wants universal government non-intervention. There is a word for that, and it�s called anarchy. I haven�t heard anyone in this country advocate anarchy � ever.

Government intervention on behalf of the wealthy and powerful
While whining about �big government� and advocating for government non-intervention in virtually all economic matters, what the social Darwinists really want is government that intervenes primarily on their behalf, while letting the vast majority of Americans fend for themselves.

You never hear them admit that it is only through a huge array of government statutes, backed up by the police power of the state, that they have been enabled to make and maintain their fortunes. Government provides statutes (and the force to back them up) that protect their property, provide the legal basis for all contract and financial negotiations, and the funding for infrastructure and subsidies that allow these people to operate. Without the police powers of government they would be sitting prey for popular uprisings or individual thieves. And our military, through its overseas imperial operations, has provided many of them with additional abundant economic opportunities.

Government intervention for the rest of us
Since the purpose of the U.S. government, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, is to secure those unalienable rights that we are all entitled to as human beings, the social Darwinists should not complain when our government is utilized to do just that. In fact, it would be distinctly un-American to do so.

Coincidentally � NOT � it was our two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and FDR, who made the greatest efforts to see that our government protected not only our political rights, but our economic opportunities as well. Lincoln believed passionately that all people should be provided the opportunity to pursue a better life for themselves � that the political rights provided in our Constitution are not enough. This is evident in his message to Congress at the onset of the Civil War:

On the side of the Union is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.

And in his 1860 campaign for President:

I want every man to have a chance � and I believe a Black man is entitled to it � in which he can better his position � when he may look forward to and be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally hire men to work for him. That is the true system.

FDR made a great speech at the 1936 Democratic National Convention, in which he noted the ways in which, in the absence of government intervention, what he called �Economic Royalists� repress the freedom of ordinary Americans:

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor � these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age � other people's money � these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in. Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living � a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor � other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

And in his 1944 State of the Union message, FDR carried these ideas a step further, by specifying what he called a �Second Bill of Rights�, relating to economic opportunity:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all � regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:

Opportunity
 The right to a useful and remunerative job�
 The right to a good education.
 The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies�

Security
 The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
 The right of every family to a decent home.
 The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

Conclusion

Thus it is that a government based on the right wing ideologues� conception of social Darwinism is about as un-American as you can get. Nor is it consistent with the progression of our species, as it is totally lacking in the empathy without which there would be no hope for a bright human future. Bill Moyers explains in his new book, �Moyers on Democracy�, lamenting the sorry state of our current democracy, the needs of a decent democratic government based on our founding principles:

Extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a genuinely democratic politics. When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people as a whole, it mocks the very concept of government as proclaimed in the preamble to our Constitution; mocks Lincoln�s sacred belief in �government of the people, by the people, and for the people�; mocks the democratic notion of government as �a voluntary union for the common good� embodied in the great wave of reform that produced the Progressive Era and the two Roosevelts. In contrast, the philosophy popularized in the last quarter century that �freedom� simply means freedom to choose among competing brands of consumer goods, that taxes are an unfair theft from the pockets of the successful to reward the incompetent, and that the market will meet all human needs while government itself becomes the enabler of privilege � the philosophy of an earlier social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism dressed in new togs � is as subversive as Benedict Arnold�s betrayal of the Revolution he had once served�

Our democracy has prospered most when it was firmly anchored in the idea that �we the People� � not just a favored few � would identify and remedy common distempers and dilemmas� Whomever tries to supplant that with notions of a wholly privatized society of competitive consumers undermines a country that� discovered its greatness by creating a prosperous free society�. a democracy that changed the livers of hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people.