Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism was a pseudoscientific set of theories, popular about 100 years ago, that suggested that Darwin's evolutionary concepts of natural selection and the survival of the fittest applied to people in economics, politics and culture. The fittest rise to the top and increase their clout and holdings, and the unfit that cannot keep up, lose ground ending up poor and at the bottom rungs of society. The strong take over and the weak lose out. Such an ideology can be racist, or this label could be used to characterize an especially harsh version of free market economics. I add quickly, that conservatives and capitalists in America championing the free enterprise system and lawful, peaceful competition has nothing to do with the law-of-the-jungle, brutal form of capitalism that Republicans and conservatives are accused of supporting and practicing. Let me quote this question and answer about social Darwinism that I found on the Internet: "What are the beliefs or social Darwinism? Social Darwinism is the belief that the individual is more powerful than society. It encourages a ruthless system of self-interest and intolerant treatment of others. Those who believe in social Darwinism believe that society is inferior to the needs of the individual." My response: "There may be some billionaires that claim that the individual is more powerful than society, that selfish individualism is their game, and that brutal competition to stomp anyone weaker into the ground is their way, to amass all wealth and power to oneself, but most individualists, conservatives and capitalists today would rephrase this to state that the right of the individual must be given precedent over the rights of society, but that the rights of society are very, very important and deserve serious consideration where conflict occurs. It is obvious that the individual is not more powerful than society, but an individuating anarchist super citizen would be powerful and competent, and as a populace of such achievers, society would be very powerful. It is self-interest and egoism that should be in ascendancy over other-interest and altruism, but the competition and cooperation among business people and workers vying for goods and services need not be ruthless, dishonest, corrupt, venal and predatory. Most individualist would treat others with tolerance and respect. Conservative emphasize individual needs over societal needs, under Mavellonialism, but the collective good concern is near and dear to us all, nonetheless. With my Google search of the phrase social Darwinism, the following piece came up--the same place as the one mentioned just above: "What are the principles of Social Darwinism? Social Darwinism was the theory that societies and classes evolve under the principle of "survival of the fittest.". Natural Selection eliminated weak persons and groups. Most Social Darwinists were, therefore, against improving the conditions of the poor." My response: Natural selection does influence who outcompetes whom, but the difference in strength, intelligence, will and diligence is not a matter of genetic difference, so much than if the person, of any race, color, gender or creed, has the right values to succeed. If the individual from any identity groups plans her life according to the principles of self-actualization, she can rise to the top of any hierarchy and Americans will not discriminate or block her in any significant way. Deep down, the poor, must save themselves, as self-actualizing individualists. They are poor because they are lazy, and they are criminals because they are immoral, not poor. An individuator will makes tons of money, and lead a moral, creative intellectually superior life. This right set of values is the gift that successful individualists can share with the poor--not much else makes any difference. Succeeding is a personal decision, and no one can save anyone else. If we succeed, it is our victory. If we fail, it is our fault, and ours alone. Only we as individuals can make ourselves win or lose in life. From that same Google search came the following quote: "What was the basic idea of Social Darwinism? Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an ideology that became popular in the late 19th Century. The main idea behind Social Darwinism is essentially "the survival of the fittest". People used Social Darwinism to explain the reason why some societies are more advanced and wealthier than others." My response: People lie when the claim that the survival of the fittest makes some groups more advanced and other less developed and poorer. All humans from whatever identity group conceivable are all more or less created equal. With introduction to Mavellonialist values about the miraculous self-development opportunities through self-realization for any particular individual anywhere, it is nonsense and a bigoted lie to claim that certain groups are better off or more powerful than other groups due to their superior genes. That is crap. Some ethnic groups may be a little smarter or tougher or industrious naturally than another group, or have a better culture promoting more successful values leading to superior achievement, but with the right values, any individual, anywhere, at any time can soar like an eagle. Any other opinion here is pure rubbish. It is obvious that I do not like the concept of Social Darwinism, and I suspect that Leftist and Marxist intellectuals hurl these pseudoscientific labels at whites, capitalists, Americans, Christians, heterosexuals and men to offer a bogus justification for we alleged supremacists to justify our having all the wealth and power at the expense of those "downtrodden" identity groups that the Left regard as oppressed and held back here. America is a huge, multi-ethnic society, and is the least racist, unjust, intolerant country of its size in the world. People enjoy freedom prosperity, justice peace and the rule of law here, plus fantastic opportunities for material wealth acquisition if one works hard and goes after it. Thomas Shactman, the biographer of Eric Hoffer, may be a socialist. He labels Hoffer as a social Darwinist. Shactman seems to qualify this "accusation", but Hoffer is not social Darwinist as a racist, capitalist, white supremacist or billionaire robber baron from the late 19th century. Hoffer is an individualist that never babied himself, and he likes capitalism and American democracy and he wants people to make it on their own without a government handout. That is not social Darwinism, period. These are the values of a rugged individualist that wants all other Americans to man up, and bootstrap themselves into personal and material success, as rugged individualists, self-made people, that have made it. I want to clear Hoffer name from being demonized as a social Darwinist if I can. he was no selfish exploiter of anyone. He lambasted the rich for siding with the poor against the middle class, and he scolded the rich for being alienated but wealthy, and heir scions were some of the worst revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s. He also wrote eloquently and often about how the weak, the misfit, the outcast confounded the strong, and set society on its ear. Hoffer liked the competition inherent in the capitalist system, and he wanted each person to not baby herself and get rich or prosperous on her own, not by government largesse. That is not social Darwinism. Let me quote from Tom Shactman's book, American Iconoclast, Page 25: " . . . From his experiences as well, he developed his viewpoint, a version of 'social Darwinism.' Irreligious from childhood, and immersed in a lifestyle that reinforced at every turn the need for toughness and resilience, Hoffer evolved the view that human existence was governed, if at all, by the imperative to survive, and the concurrent belief that only the fittest survived . . . His version of social Darwinism also differs from that of others in that Hoffer's never included the usual concomitant belief that an individual either fights his or her way up the ladder of success or is consigned to failure. Hoffer's experience in work gave the lie to the idea that ambition was part of human natural selection. His smart and resourceful attributes had now and then become obvious to various employers--such as Faberstein--and they had offered him managerial opportunities. He had steadfastly rejected them, unwilling to leave the working class for the dubious perquisites of the supervisory or academic class. His refusal to rise was tied to his belief that survival was a relative concept, not an absolute, and that its degrees must be measured not alone by toting up material comforts, but must also factor in the individual’s assessment of himself--his own view of what he needed and wanted. Furthermore, although Hoffer was not an entrepreneur, he had the entrepreneur’s insistence that society was under no obligation to help any individual survive and, similarly, that governments ought not to do any large-scale tinkering with society. All that was required by individuals to prevail in a reasonable society, Hoffer was certain, was good availability of opportunities." Hoffer was for free market competition, but most individuals if healthy and sane, with the right values, should be able to succeed in America without government intervention or assistance. He was no social Darwinist, though Shactman mistakenly labels him as one. Hoffer took care of himself and expected others to do the same. His tough love approach to people making it on their own was not to exploit anyone, but to set people free to run their own lives. He competed but refused promotion because wealth and promotion disinterested him. He lived an austere, spartan existence in his one-bedroom apartment without phone, tv, or amenities. He was an intellectual and philosopher not a materialist or manipulator of his fellow citizens for gain.