Survival of the Fittest

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Hitler used Charles Darwin 'survival of the fittest' theory to justify killing the 'weak', saying it is merely the way of evolution, and is important so as we can adapt to the environment, and become ever more succesful as a species. How as socialists can we justify evolution?

[Rastafari]

Hitler bent the common sense of Evolution. You have to be the equivalent of a dumbass NOT to understand and agree with evolution.

For example, most KKK and White Power don't acknowledge it except to use it to say that black people are inferior.

You are thinking of Social Darwinism, which clearlt didn't work.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 9 2003, 01:39 AM
How as socialists can we justify evolution?
How can we justify gravity? We don't have to - it's been around before us and will be around long after we are all gone.

--- G.

[Pete]

It is not survival of the "fittest", but survival of the "fit."

[Jesus Christ]

it is also the job of the fit to make sure that the less fit become fit

[Chapel]

See, thats whats called suicide.

[sc4r]

Its actually rather simple :

Darwinism is a theory about what actually is in the absence of anything deliberately interfering with that 'what is'.

Socialism is a theory about what could, and should be, its 'normative'; and as such seeks to modify the operation of what is. We can create such theories because out minds and extraordinary ability to both communicate and forecast the future allow us to transcend 'nature red in tooth and claw'.

Put another way we are far less rooted in the immediate present than any other animal is.

Put yet another way Drawinism is a thoeory about ohysical evolution not about social evolution and while there are parrallels between the two you cant simplisticly apply anything from one sphere and just assume it makes sense in the other.

Put yet another another way, Darwinism is a theory that predicts what we will find in the physical record of life. Put like that, you can probably see how totally meaningless Hitlers idea was.

Put a final way Darwinism is a theory about understanding what happened, not a plan for what can happen. The realities of Darwinism might influence a plan, but they dont dictate it.

Darwinism does not remotely 'justify' anything, and cannot, it is not that sort of theory. If Socialism supercedes Capitalism then it will have proven it is 'fitter' and will (in a way) be darwinistic; if it does not then it will (in a way) have shown that caoitalism was 'fitter' and will equally fit the theory.

All hitler was doing was saying that his view of what constituted 'fitter' was right (he was stating a normative theory). It did not actually make him correct, and its an obvious arse about face argument for him to say that 'survival of the fittest' meant that his notion of what constitutes fittest was correct.

Which really was not especially simple :) Sorry.

[swapna]

If all of the weak unite wont they be the fittest?

[Rastafari]

Darwinism assumes that every one is competing for mates and food

[Nobody]

Which in today's society is not a problem, so I guess it's a moot point.

[elijahcraig]

Evolution is based on adaptation to environment; not an existential climb to destroy others. This is the blurring of the question of evolution by Social Darwinists.

Dependence on environment; not destruction of it.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:59 PM
Evolution is based on adaptation to environment; not an existential climb to destroy others. This is the blurring of the question of evolution by Social Darwinists.

Dependence on environment; not destruction of it.
Darwinism is assumed to be centrally about adapting, but the core of it relies on surviving the longest and, therefore (theoretically), producing the most offspring.

Now what part adaptation plays depends on the particular situation...

[Beccie]

Dhul is right, evolution cannot be justified it is something that will always exist.

I fail to understand how a theory of evolution can justify and support a political ideology. The Nazi's took it upon themselves to determine whom the "fit" and the "weak" were, they killed Jewish people, communists, gypsies etc. they did not allow nature to take its course. Are you suggesting that these people would have died in nature before Nazis because they were weaker? I seriously doubt that.

Just because Hitler may have tried to use Darwinism to justify his nazi regime does not mean it actually does.

[elijahcraig]

Darwinism is assumed to be centrally about adapting, but the core of it relies on surviving the longest and, therefore (theoretically), producing the most offspring.

This is false. The core is dependence and adaptation. Things do not necessarily progress, they adapt.


Now what part adaptation plays depends on the particular situation...

Adaptation ALWAYS plays the key part.

[RyeN]

El Marko just because Hitler used evolution to justify the weak doesnt mean that a future socialist societey would. Hitler was not at all a socialist or a communist. The only way we can learn from him was by his errors, meaning dont kill the weak.

In my opinion theories like darwin's breed thoughts of racism. I agree that humans have evolved from something else. There are clear distinctions between humans but the fact is we are all humans. Only evolved differently to met the souroundings. With the global freedom people have these days it will only be generations before everything gets mixed up and you will barley be able to distinguish the difference.

Thoughts of one race being supirior to another are horible things, and have nothing to due with communism. Niether do thoughts of killing the weak. The idea should be that we all work together as part of a team, to acomplish a common goal. True we are only as strong as our weakest member, so we need to make the weak stronger. However in this age people dont need to be physicaly strong to succeed any more.

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 04:18 PM
See, thats whats called suicide.
If you care to make such a comment atleast attempt to prove it, instead of just stating something that as is is completely irrelevant to anything.

[Purple]

survival of the fittest(AND the vultures.....

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 01:07 AM

Darwinism is assumed to be centrally about adapting, but the core of it relies on surviving the longest and, therefore (theoretically), producing the most offspring.

This is false. The core is dependence and adaptation. Things do not necessarily progress, they adapt.


Now what part adaptation plays depends on the particular situation...

Adaptation ALWAYS plays the key part.
I assure you that you are mistaken with a LeMarckian view, which is wrong.

Please don't doubt me here, Origin of the Species was not based on Adaptation as much as survival to produce mates.