Social Darwinism

[Elysian]

I don't like or endorse social darwinism, but regardless of my preferences, isn't sd the truth? We see this pattern everywhere - insects, animals, humans. It seems like the strong will always oppress the weak.

Even victims will oppress other victims once they become powerful enough, like white women may be oppressed by the system (because of their gender) but the same system will favor them over nonwhite men (for race trumps gender).

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.

[Ostrinski]

Social darwinism doesn't in fact have much to do with Darwinism I'm afraid.

[Zav]

I don't like or endorse social darwinism, but regardless of my preferences, isn't sd the truth? We see this pattern everywhere - insects, animals, humans. It seems like the strong will always oppress the weak.

Even victims will oppress other victims once they become powerful enough, like white women may be oppressed by the system (because of their gender) but the same system will favor them over nonwhite men (for race trumps gender).

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.

It isn't the truth. I suggest you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. The gist of it is that Social Darwinism is flawed because, unlike what the present institutions would have you believe, competition is not the only way species and individuals interact. No, the strong do not oppress outside of humanity. There are food cycles, but oppression requires a social system beyond "I am the biggest, therefore I decide what we do.", which happens to be a very basic survival mechanism that many Lefty's want to introduce to society in the form of "I know the most about this, so come learn from me." Racialism and it's many ilk are social plagues caused by socio-economic systems that are ill-suited to humanity's needs, not the natural order of things (the present ideas of which are incorrect), as if that is always the best course of action anyway.
Short answer: No.

[hatzel]

I don't like or endorse social darwinism, but regardless of my preferences, isn't sd the truth?

...surely accepting the tenets of of social darwinism would count as an endorsement, irrespective of whether or not you 'like' it?

On the other hand:


We see this pattern everywhere - insects, animals, humans. It seems like the strong will always oppress the weak.

Even victims will oppress other victims once they become powerful enough, like white women may be oppressed by the system (because of their gender) but the same system will favor them over nonwhite men (for race trumps gender).

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.None of this really has anything to do with social darwinism no...

[ВАЛТЕР]

If social Darwinism were true, then we wouldnt have evolved to the point we have and would still be swinging from trees throwing shit at one another (if even that).

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with real Darwinism, as Darwinism looks at the progress of a species as a whole. While social Darwinism tries to put the individual ahead of the species as a whole, and then tries to explain every conflict as a result of "human nature" rather than material conditions.

[m1omfg]

Where is opression of the weak in say, insects? Social insects, unlike the popular misconception, do not have the queen as a "dictator". Queen only lays the eggs, all the organization in a social insect hive is the result of emergent patterns, where the individual behaviours of each insect unconsciously coalesce into a superorganism. Only subsocial species, like wolves, lions or humans have hierarchies. Eusocial species like bees, ants or naked mole rats have biological castes, but those are not caused by opression, rather, by biological programming. That is why a sterile worker bee will develop sexual characteristics when the queen dies, it is not about opression. Eusocial species are not "dictatorships by the queen", nor "hive minds". Of course when it comes to solitary species it is nonsense to talk about opression at all, seeing those species have no societies.

Plus, Darwinist phrase "survival of the fittest" only makes sense when you realise that fitness in a Darwinian context is actually the ability to reproduce. Natural selection don't favour Nazis, it favours those who produce the most offspring. It is actually "survival of those who manage to reproduce". A quadraplegic person who has sex and fathers healthy children is infinitely more "fit" according to nature than a "strong" Nazi who never produces offspring.

Read this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/dawkins-smashes-social-t148940/index.html?t=148940 it is very enlightening.

Natural selection and the "selfish genes" work on gene level, not personal level. That is why eusocial species are the most efficient, you find more ants in one big anthill in a forest than all the elephants on Earth. You help to propagate you genes by reproducing, but also by helping people who share your genes, and on a larger level, by helping all people because we are all related.

The reason why people think strong always opress the weak is that we are a subsocial species, in short, human society is a glorified wolf or chimp pack. We might have "intelligence" but socially, we are inferior even to the ants.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't like or endorse social darwinism, but regardless of my preferences, isn't sd the truth? We see this pattern everywhere - insects, animals, humans. It seems like the strong will always oppress the weak.

This however is not "social Darwinism". Social Darwinism is a "theory" that the success or failure of human individuals (not insects or other animals) can be explained in a similar way to the "success" or "failure" of biological species or of particular phenotypes among species. It relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin, reducing evolutionary theory to a simplistic and one-sided explanation: the "survival of the fittest".

In Darwin, however, there is no abstract "fitness": evolutionary traits are fit, or unfit, for a given environment. Being white and very furry makes one fit for survival in the Arctic, not so in equatorial jungles. Besides that, it is clear that evolutionary traits must be inherited, or their selection would bear no consequences. Whatever it "takes" to be "successful" within a human society, there is no reason to believe they are inherited traits. And inequality within human societies presupposes the successful reproduction of the "unfit", too: if only the mighty capitalists survived and reproduced, who would toil for them in their factories?

Plus, Darwinism is a theory about, well, the origin of the species. It pressuposes, as such, the existence of many different species, which compete for survival in natural environments. But human societies are by definition composed by only one species; how would one discuss the "origin of species" in a society that has no different species to begin? And for such reason, social Darwinism cannot ever properly define what it is talking about. Is it about the survival and procreation of human individuals? In such case one has to admit that the poor are much more "successful" than the rich, because they make up, what, about 90% of mankind. Or is it about a completely different thing, the economic success of individuals and companies in capitalist markets? If this is the case, then it completely fails to acknowledge how things happen. Companies do not reproduce in a biological sence; whatever traits make them successful in capitalist competition cannot therefore be inherited. Human individuals do reproduce - but "what it takes" to be a successful capitalist doesn't seem to be inheritable at all. Indeed, even the common sence folk lore knows that: "rich parents, noble children, poor grandchildren".


Even victims will oppress other victims once they become powerful enough, like white women may be oppressed by the system (because of their gender) but the same system will favor them over nonwhite men (for race trumps gender).

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.

All that is true of humans within a capitalist society (though I don't think race trumps gender; the opposite seems true). It is not true of the relations between individuals in other species. The question is, is this a necessary state of things, or is it only due to a particular form of social organisation, which is a product of human activity, and therefore can also be changed by human activity?

Luís Henrique

[m1omfg]

Even within a capitalist society, you find good people helping those weaker than they are.

[scarletghoul]

The essence of culture and to an extent human society is our self-determination, against the laws of nature. This is why right wing people are prone to social darwinist ideas, becuase they rely on some big other like nature or god or whatever, and thus cant see the crucial line seperating humanity from animality. We have, in part, overthrown nature, so we need not be subject to its laws of selection, and we certainly shouldnt try to integrate them into society. The left hand path is the path of humanity, and it has been ever since lucifer got us to eat from the tree of knowledge and got us out of the garden

[MotherCossack]

we hear all about 'survival of the fittest'.... and hark on about conquering nature... and being, therefore, somehow above and beyond it.....
we strut about thinking... 'we are the king of the castle... and they're just animal... hmph!'
i'm not so sure....

maybe rather than... human beings.. a species at the top of the tree... who have easily gained the upper hand and now have the opportunity to soar above the rest and even spread further afield... to new worlds....

maybe it would be more accurate to say only.....
well that is a surprise.... can you believe that bunch of dithering, bickering,irrational, anti-social, weak, arrogant and uncooperative overgrown apes actually managed to make it this far......
well luck must be on their side cos the chances of that happening are slim....
still... they havent changed... it is only a matter of time before they blow it... surely.

we are like a spoof race.... who like norman wisdom, or someone, over-achieve to a comical/ annoying degree.... nothing to do with our abilities and behaviour..... just events stacked up in our favour..... for now.

[Railyon]

The left hand path is the path of humanity, and it has been ever since lucifer got us to eat from the tree of knowledge and got us out of the garden

Satanism is reactionary. :ninja:

[hatzel]

Satanism is reactionary. :ninja:

Well as 'Satan' is a Hebrew word I can only assume this is structural antisemitism on your part tut tut very naughty...

But yeah seriously I sense this thread is turning towards some kind of shitty humanist blah-de-blah culture vs. nature crappp...I'm anticipating it...and then comes the sudden explosion of animal rights debates for some reason...I know it's coming...I can feel it in my bones...

[danyboy27]

I don't like or endorse social darwinism, but regardless of my preferences, isn't sd the truth? We see this pattern everywhere - insects, animals, humans. It seems like the strong will always oppress the weak.

Even victims will oppress other victims once they become powerful enough, like white women may be oppressed by the system (because of their gender) but the same system will favor them over nonwhite men (for race trumps gender).

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.
Darwing never implied that the strongest survive but he did point out that the survival of a species was a matter of adaptation.

we are far from being the fittest animal around and yet we are still around. Why? versatility and teamwork.

social darwinism is a fascist and conservative cop out, those guy in reality have no fucking clue how biology work in reality.

[zoot_allures]

The idea of Social Darwinism isn't simply that there is oppression everywhere, and the stronger oppress the weaker. I don't know if anybody would disagree with that. Certainly, pretty much everybody on this website knows that there's oppression everywhere, and it's almost a tautology that the oppressers will be stronger in some ways.

Rather, the idea of Social Darwinism, very briefly, is that the heirarchies are justified, and that we should do nothing to help the poor and the needy because their social inferiority is a direct result of some innate, "natural" inferiority. For example, the reason blacks are poorer than whites is because blacks are innately less intelligent. Since blacks are innately less intelligent, there's no point putting any effort into improving the status of black people - at best, it will be a waste of time and money; at worst, it may even threaten society by allowing inferior people into powerful positions.

Is this the truth? To quote Jarvis Cocker:

Well did you hear, there's a natural order?
Those most deserving will end up with the most
That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top
Well, I say: shit floats.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Point is, there is a hierarchy of oppression where everyone seems to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time.

yeah it seems like that

i wonder if any famous philosopher/hilariously poor historian from like France ever wrote anything about this to counter that this power struggle is not about an essential nature of either oppressor or oppressed but rather a historical and constructed power struggle between different parts of society broadly abstracting marxism beyond class struggles but still recognizing the historical relevance of class struggle

i wonder