A question I was asked today

[The Inquisitor]

I was asked today "If communist generally support evolution and survival of the fittest, then why don't they support capitalism, a system in which the strongest survive?"

I replied "I don't see how an intra-specie conflict promotes survival of the fittest, and your strict definition of the term suggest that you support things like genocide, where a group is too weak to defend themselves from being massacred. As far as why I don't support capitalism, because I can't speak for everyone, I view communism as a way to achieve an actual egalitarian society, a way of living that capitalism generally denounces."

I want to know how you guys would have answered the question, and if you feel my answer was a good enough explanation.

[Broletariat]

Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is pretty much what I would have paraphrased.

[the last donut of the night]

I was asked today "If communist generally support evolution and survival of the fittest, then why don't they support capitalism, a system in which the strongest survive?"

I replied "I don't see how an intra-specie conflict promotes survival of the fittest, and your strict definition of the term suggest that you support things like genocide, where a group is too weak to defend themselves from being massacred. As far as why I don't support capitalism, because I can't speak for everyone, I view communism as a way to achieve an actual egalitarian society, a way of living that capitalism generally denounces."

I want to know how you guys would have answered the question, and if you feel my answer was a good enough explanation.

Your friend is confusing two things: evolution and survival of the fittest and social status. Survival of the fittest means that individuals with the best physical means of surviving (sharp claws, quick thinking, camouflage, etc) have the best chances of breeding and passing on their successful genes. Now capitalism has nothing to do with this because who gets ahead in capitalism are the few humans with important social status -- not the best means of survival. The richest people aren't the smartest, fastest, or just evolutionary advanced people (which in general is a very weak term, since human evolution is reported to have slowed dramatically anyways) -- they just possess that status human society gave them. Has nothing to do with evolution.

[The Inquisitor]

Your friend is confusing two things: evolution and survival of the fittest and social status. Survival of the fittest means that individuals with the best physical means of surviving (sharp claws, quick thinking, camouflage, etc) have the best chances of breeding and passing on their successful genes. Now capitalism has nothing to do with this because who gets ahead in capitalism are the few humans with important social status -- not the best means of survival. The richest people aren't the smartest, fastest, or just evolutionary advanced people (which in general is a very weak term, since human evolution is reported to have slowed dramatically anyways) -- they just possess that status human society gave them. Has nothing to do with evolution.

Good points. The question caught me off guard because I was confused at what he was getting at, but I just tried to come up with a quick answer to keep him from having the smug feeling of ideological superiority that he tries to swindle from time to time. Your answer is much better :lol:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Don't forget that under capitalism there is still a very real threat of environmental destruction making the world essentially unsuitable for human life; either by nuclear war or pollution and resource plundering in the name of profit. How ironic then is it that the system where the "strongest survive" (a notion whose applicability to capitalism I would contest however) threatens the survival of the human race as a whole?

[gorillafuck]

Your explanation was pretty good, actually.

[The Inquisitor]

Don't forget that under capitalism there is still a very real threat of environmental destruction making the world essentially unsuitable for human life; either by nuclear war or pollution and resource plundering in the name of profit. How ironic then is it that the system where the "strongest survive" (a notion whose applicability to capitalism I would contest however) threatens the survival of the human race as a whole?

Woah, never thought of that one.
Thanks for your responses, everyone.

[CartCollector]

The problem with his argument is what's called the is-ought problem. That is, he doesn't understand that just because something is a certain way doesn't mean that it's automatically morally desirable to be that way. Yes, life might evolve through a natural process, but that doesn't mean that it's the best way to determine everything, including what features an organism should have. For instance, I don't think anyone would argue that it's desirable to produce organisms with genetic defects, but that's what happens naturally. Heck, if there weren't organisms with genetic mutations evolution wouldn't be possible! Imagine if we could control what genes our children would have. Positive changes in genes would spread a lot faster than they would than by evolution, not to mention we wouldn't have children born with crippling defects. In other words, a genetic reproduction process controlled by human ingenuity would give better results than one controlled by mere natural laws.

In summary: is evolution true? Yes. Is evolution the greatest moral ideal, or even the greatest way of determining what should be done? No.

[The Inquisitor]

The problem with his argument is what's called the is-ought problem. That is, he doesn't understand that just because something is a certain way doesn't mean that it's automatically morally desirable to be that way. Yes, life might evolve through a natural process, but that doesn't mean that it's the best way to determine everything, including what features an organism should have. For instance, I don't think anyone would argue that it's desirable to produce organisms with genetic defects, but that's what happens naturally. Heck, if there weren't organisms with genetic mutations evolution wouldn't be possible! Imagine if we could control what genes our children would have. Positive changes in genes would spread a lot faster than they would than by evolution, not to mention we wouldn't have children born with crippling defects. In other words, a genetic reproduction process controlled by human ingenuity would give better results than one controlled by mere natural laws.

In summary: is evolution true? Yes. Is evolution the greatest moral ideal, or even the greatest way of determining what should be done? No.

Another fine point. :thumbup1:

[mikelepore]

Your friend is confusing two things: evolution and survival of the fittest and social status. Survival of the fittest means that individuals with the best physical means of surviving (sharp claws, quick thinking, camouflage, etc) have the best chances of breeding and passing on their successful genes. Now capitalism has nothing to do with this because who gets ahead in capitalism are the few humans with important social status -- not the best means of survival. The richest people aren't the smartest, fastest, or just evolutionary advanced people (which in general is a very weak term, since human evolution is reported to have slowed dramatically anyways) -- they just possess that status human society gave them. Has nothing to do with evolution.

That's a good summary.

Most likely, the person who said "then why don't they support capitalism...?" was trying to sneak in the assumption that the capitalists became rich because they are geniuses due to a biological trait, but didn't want to express that assumption explicitly. There would be a danger of being embarrassed in expressing that assumption. It would be too obvious that such an assumption is false, because it conflicts with the way some of the old capitalist families like the Fords and Du Ponts pass down billions of dollars by inheritance, for generation after generation, so that the lazy offspring won't have to do anything to acquire the wealth anew.

[Proletarian Ultra]

We socialists very much support survival of the fittest.

Thing is, the bourgeoisie are not very fit.

We are not welfare liberals. We are not tree-huggers, peace creeps or a ladies' benevolent society.

We aim to violently uproot the present social order and replace it with a new world built of steel and speed and justice.

How fucking social Darwinist is that?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1-xvEOICRwA/R_kMYpCowbI/AAAAAAAAALA/9YrgZ_oCdck/s320/cultural+revolution+poster.jpg
Survival of the fittest at work.

[The Inquisitor]

We socialists very much support survival of the fittest.

Thing is, the bourgeoisie are not very fit.

We are not welfare liberals. We are not tree-huggers, peace creeps or a ladies' benevolent society.

We aim to violently uproot the present social order and replace it with a new world built of steel and speed and justice.

How fucking social Darwinist is that?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1-xvEOICRwA/R_kMYpCowbI/AAAAAAAAALA/9YrgZ_oCdck/s320/cultural+revolution+poster.jpg
Survival of the fittest at work.


Interesting outlook, very interesting. So I guess in conclusion both sides of the spectrum support survival of the fittest, just in their own way.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Interesting outlook, very interesting. So I guess in conclusion both sides of the spectrum support survival of the fittest, just in their own way.

We support survival of the fittest, they support survival of the fattest. ;)

Or actually, the real mistake is thinking of evolution is a teleological process. An organism adapts to its environment. There is no hierarchy of more evolved or less evolved. We'd get our asses kicked in the cretaceous by things that are forgotten fossils now. A shark is the most formidable predator in the ocean, but put that sucker on a savannah and it's all over.

Feudalism was survival of the fittest too. Feudal lords competed with one another - probably more, and certainly more brutally, than capitalists do today. But riding around on a horse wearing a tin can and bashing people over the head is no longer a skill in wide demand. The fittest of 1100 AD would probably be locked up today.

So basically, a capitalist in the not-too-distant future will be like a shark on a savannah - not fit.

[cb9's_unity]

There have been quite a few really good and in-depth responses in this thread. So I'll just give a simple one.

Darwinism=/=Social Darwinism

It is not only ignorant, but also dangerous to get the two confused.

[black magick hustla]

"survival" of the fittest has nothing to do with someone having a bigger dick and healthy lungs. it just means which is more likely to reproduce. its not a law that it is meant to follow, it just happens. maybe someday eyelss people and people who dont have feet will reproduce at a faster rate.

[NecroCommie]

There exists not only biological evolution in which the fittest species survive, but also cultural evolution in which the fittest society survives. Capitalism survived because it was more fitting to an industrializing world than aristocratic one, and communism will utterly crush capitalism because communism is more fitting to a world where every last bit of this earth is being exploited already and there is no room for imperialist expansion.

The capitalist class will be beaten without mercy, and its futile ideologies will follow undoubtedly. Such is the survival of the fittest society.

[ZombieGrits]

Darwinism=/=Social Darwinism

It is not only ignorant, but also dangerous to get the two confused.

I agree completely. What doesn't seem to register with a lot of people is that 'survival of the fittest' is an idea in ecology of animals, not sociology of human beings. Throw that in the face of anyone that says "communism reduces people to the status of subhuman beasts-of-burden"

[Foldered]

As said earlier, evolution is not synonomous with survival of the fittest or the "struggle for existance" or whatever else Darwin created. There are plenty of other ways to understand evolution, not in terms of "survival of the fittest;" one of them, as someone else pointed to, is a concept of mutual aid, which Kropotkin describes in his book of the same title. That's how I usually tackle people's understanding of evolution and "survival of the fittest;" though I've never been asked if because of my political perspective, I believe in "survival of the fittest."

[CartCollector]

This video gives a better version of my argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzzVhUwMXTk

[spaßmaschine]

I don't really get what the op means by communists 'supporting' evolution - it is a process of the accumulation of genetic mutations, and occurs regardless of whether we support or deny it. It's not something that can really be stopped by human intervention (eugenics nuttery aside). In contrast, capitalism comes from social relations between humans - from actual human activity. Since humans are capable of acting in different ways, it's certainly possible for new social relations to be created, and capitalism done away with.

edit: only read the OP, apologies if some else has already said this.

[The Inquisitor]

This video gives a better version of my argument:

mzzVhUwMXTk


Awesome :thumbup:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Meh...even Herbert Spencer, the so-called founder of "social darwinism", didn't support the extrapolation of "survival of the fittest" from the biological sphere into the social sphere.

[The Inquisitor]

I don't really get what the op means by communists 'supporting' evolution - it is a process of the accumulation of genetic mutations, and occurs regardless of whether we support or deny it. It's not something that can really be stopped by human intervention (eugenics nuttery aside). In contrast, capitalism comes from social relations between humans - from actual human activity. Since humans are capable of acting in different ways, it's certainly possible for new social relations to be created, and capitalism done away with.

edit: only read the OP, apologies if some else has already said this.

The person who asked me was saying by support the idea of evolution, that we must support survival of the fittest in all forms. Just a generalization used in attempts to point out a flaw in the ideology, but by using loose definitions of the word.