Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Kuciwalker]

Then not only do they have little to do with real darwinism, they have no understanding of it. The fit are the ones who breed; you don't determine who's fit and then "allow" them to do so.

[GePap]

Yes, so why were you arguing about this if you didn't know what social darwinists were?

[Al B. Sure!]

social darwinism was more seen as a point of fact in the late 19th century. Those with traits positive in modern society (intelligence for example) would succeed, would live comfortably and probably live a longer life, and, therefore, would have more children to pass on his traits, traits which would be shared by marriage to someone of similiar social standing who it could be assumed would have equally positive traits.

social darwinism wasn't a eugenic ideal. it was a fact.

It was also the motivating force behind public education as it was soon realized that capable people were spending their lives in mines and factories because they were poor from childhood and couldn't get the education that would enable them to shine. thank god for social darwinists fostering public education.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But then your comment that "would not the social ideological slant of the biological science behind "survival of the fittest" mean that to give any kind of charity to those in need of it is undermining better attainment of human society overall?" is easily answered by this, as there's no necessary biological reason for such an ideological slant.

Right -- I agree that there is no biological reason for the ideological slant. But when one studies the history in how the original, biological theory of Darwin (and his predecessors) was overworked by trying to apply this theory to the social realm, it can result in, for instance, justification of late nineteenth century European colonialism.

Or, one could fallaciously try to weld Malthus's theory about "natural" causes of population decrease such as war and poverty with Darwin's theory, which was originally only meant as a biological theory.

[Al B. Sure!]

and in any event, social darwinists would have said charity (in terms of teaching someone to fish as opposed to giving them fish) to the proper people is biologically necessary to compensate for the inequalities of those better men being born into poverty

[MrFun]

I disagree AS -- social Darwinist, in my understanding, would find inequality to be acceptable as part of what they would believe to be the "natural" selection process of human society.

White supremacists in United States in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century sometimes used social Darwinism to justify repression of blacks.

[Al B. Sure!]

it should also be noted that social darwinism didn't only apply to groups of individuals but also to whole societies. it was an organic view of history opposed to, but borrowing some ideas from, Marx' dialectic materialism

[Al B. Sure!]

White supremacists in United States in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century sometimes used social Darwinism to justify repression of blacks.

From "Progress: Its Law and Causes" by Herbert Spencer (April 1857):

From the earliest traceable cosmical changes down to the latest results of civilization, we shall find that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists....

Whether an advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is or is not displayed in the biological history of the globe, it is clearly enough displayed in the progress of the latest and most heterogeneous creature-Man. It is alike true that, during the period in which the Earth has been peopled, the human organism has become more heterogeneous among the civilized divisions of the species  and that the species, as a whole, has been growing more heterogeneous in virtue of the multiplication of races and the differentiation of these races from each other....

[MrFun]

AS -- that is not the ideological slant of Darwinism that I claimed was used by white supremacists. Yeah you posted a different slant on Darwinism -- but that does not refute the fact that white supremacists have used their own slant of Darwinism.

[Al B. Sure!]

Herbet Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism and is considered the father of the idea... his is THE slant.

[MrFun]

Yes and then other people constructed different ideas of what social Darwinism entails. Most historians agree that social Darwinism had been used to justify European colonialism and in United States, Jim Crow laws and use of lynch mobs.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Herbet Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism

He certainly did not. The phrase Social Darwinism was later applied to his philosophy, but he didn't coin it. Spencer referred to his theory as "Social Evolution."

Social Darwinism is very difficult to pin down, because different people used the term in different ways, and then others ascribed it to certain people differently. However, I'm not sure that what MrFun seems to be referencing (extreme, overt racism) really ever existed as an actual stated philosophy. I think some racists incorrectly co-opted the term for their ends, certainly, but I also think that anti-Darwinians rather liberally applied the term to people they wished to villify.

[Kidlicious]

You could say that Malthus was the first Social Darwinist with his 'law' of population growth. In this case, or if you think Spencer was the first Social Darwinist, the theory started out classist, but not necessarily racist if you assume that some races don't tend to be of any certain class, but of course they do.

[Chemical Ollie]

Let's take Social Darwinism back from the Nazis. They are on the losing end of the theory anyway...

[Chemical Ollie]

Social Darwinism moved a few steps forward with the "Bell Curve" report.