Survival of the Fittest.

[The Children of the Revolution]

The other day, for some unknown reason, I started thinking about "Survival of the Fittest" and it's human application. This is referred to by many as "Social Darwinism" I believe. The general theory was constructed in the nineteenth century by Darwin, an English biologist, in his classic work "The Origin of the Species".

He postulated that in any given environment, the more able members of a species (the fastest, for example) would be more likely to survive; and that the development of a species relied upon this. Faster gazelles would be able to outrun cheetahs and would therefore survive in larger numbers. So the gazelle might evolve to accomodate this. In any case, the faster gazelles - the "fittest" - would tend to hang around. There was a huge furore at the time, and many (especially the church) denounced his ideas. But they have been accepted into the mainstream now, and rightly so.

The traditional application of the theory in a human sense, favoured by staunch right-wingers and free marketeers, is that "more able" humans are likely to survive in our particular environment. And so the natural process of "survival of the fittest" would ensure a stronger species. In practice this means the removal of all social welfare and the vilification of the poor - even more so than today.

But I look at it in a different way. In todays corporate playground it is not the most able that will survive, but the most ruthless. Not the most intellectually or physically endowed but the greediest. And so, to follow through the logic of Darwins theory, these are the traits that will be passed down and contribute to the "evolution" of our "species". The greedy and ruthless are, quite demonstrably, better off - in a material sense - than their more benign contemporaries.

What do people think of this? I am thinking of writing something on the issue so any views or suggestions would be appreciated!!

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but using this guy's line of logic with social darwinism, it can be VERY rascist. The imperialists must be more "fit" than the indigenous natives, therefore they must have something more "special". This leads to the idea the imperialists, who are white, must be a "superior" race, but this is cappie bull shit.
But your idea is interesting, survival of the greediest.

[LSD]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it plays out...

Within capitalist societies, the greediest do tend to be the wealthiest. But that does not neccessarily correspond with porgeneration.

Not only is there an inverse relationship between education and number of children, but there is even an inverse relationship, albeit a weaker one, between wealth and number of children.

Therefore from within a true darwinist perspective (the original biological "origin of the speices type) the richer are not more likely to reproduce and thereby not more likely to spread their genes.

[monkeydust]

I left some stuff about social Darwinism here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=20769) if that helps.

[Intifada]

wasnt hitler a socialist darwinist?

[monkeydust]

Yes Hitler was very much a social Darwinist. Not simply in the sense that he believed in survival of the fittest 'race' but a a national level also.

He, as a fascisit believed Nations must struggle against eachother to achieve freater strength, eventually the strongest dominating. I see this as quite a primitive concept to be honest.

[Hate Is Art]

look at the kings and queens, the ruthless greedy buggers survived wars and revolts only to breed more ruthless greedy buggers who would be better suited and surviving wars and revolts.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Therefore from within a true darwinist perspective (the original biological "origin of the speices type) the richer are not more likely to reproduce and thereby not more likely to spread their genes.


I realise this - the true Darwinist model does not work, no. But my idea was that the traits which favoured certain types of people (greedy, ruthless) over others would be passed down society, not the gene pool.



The imperialists must be more "fit" than the indigenous natives, therefore they must have something more "special". This leads to the idea the imperialists, who are white, must be a "superior" race, but this is cappie bull shit.


Hey man, I was never supporting this idea!! "Social Darwinism" goes against everything I stand for!! I was just trying to add a new perspective to the issue...

[Don't Change Your Name]

I want to write a book about this some day.

Anyway, the concept of "survival of the fittest" and "capitalism is human nature" are FALSE.
I will give a nice example of this: I once saw a capitalist in a forum saying that this is a "race" (on the racing sense), where some people take a great difference over the others. Capitalism lets "the fastest win", but socialism "feels compassion for the backmakers" and "stop the leaders to help the backmakers". I find this very stupid. Because:
1) This is not a race
2) There's no finish line
Anyway, the idea of "survival of the fittest" is based on the assumption that "there aren't enough resources". Which is stupid because humans produce more than other species. However capitalists strongly support the fact that 1% of the people have a home theater, 20 cars, and 10 houses while others starve. Then they use this argument to justify that. Instead of producing enough to stop this "survival of the fittest" they promote it so that the current system of exploitation (where things were taken from nature and claimed to be "private property" , and most people ended up selling themselves to the bourgueoisie to survive).
Then they say that humans are "greedy", which to them, of course, means that someone who owns more than 20 millions of poor children wants to take the land where this kids live just because he is "greedy", while they argue that "people wants to have more than others". And then those who are born poor, work hard, but still they can't buy a mansion are "envious" and "red anti-democratic agitators" if they do something to fight against such an inequal situation.
The "human nature" is ridiculous. I once saw a documentary where a female lion was taking care of its small baby, and there was this male lion that wanted to have sex with her, but she "refused" because she had to take care of his baby. Then the lion goes and kills the baby lion. Someone of our specie doing such a thing today would be considered "insane", however it could be possible that such a thing could happen to our ancestors millions of years ago. So the human nature is an assumption, lacking scientifical foundation, based on that nature has "unbreakable laws" and that some of those, like "humans are greedy and selfish by nature" were specifically designed by nature to apply on a certain animal: us.

The concept of evolution doesn't deny that such a thing as "natural selection" happened. I think it's obvious for animals to improve themselves, and the fact that slow gazelles can be caught easily compared to the faster are possible, but there's always something on the ground that can make the fastest fall down... so the "law of the jungle" is broken.
In such a modified world like ours, a lot of things happen that can affect this. And honestly I don't think we will have a good future if we don't care for the subsistance of our whole specie.

Btw, isn't it funny that capitalists accuse nazis and fascist of being "leftists", while such individuals are those who take the capitalist arguments of "survival of the fittest" and "human nature" to an extreme?

[Don't Change Your Name]

I forgot to say that the "survival of the greediest" is impossible. After all, who has more children, the rich or the poor. And also the rich pays the poor so that he works, and he pays him enough to survive, so it's not like the poor will just dissapear and the rich will live 200 years and pass his genes.

And a nice quote that applies to this discussion concerning those "natural laws" is this one:


"It is not love to my neighbour -- whom I often do not know at all -- which induces me to seize a pail of water and to rush towards his house when I see it on fire; it is a far wider, even though more vague feeling or instinct of human solidarity and sociability which moves me. So it is also with animals. It is not love, and not even sympathy (understood in its proper sense) which induces a herd of ruminants or of horses to form a ring in order to resist an attack of wolves; not love which induces wolves to form a pack for hunting; not love which induces kittens or lambs to play, or a dozen of species of young birds to spend their days together in the autumn; and it is neither love nor personal sympathy which induces many thousand fallow-deer scattered over a territory as large as France to form into a score of separate herds, all marching towards a given spot, in order to cross there a river. It is a feeling infinitely wider than love or personal sympathy -- an instinct that has been slowly developed among animals and men in the course of an extremely long evolution, and which has taught animals and men alike the force they can borrow from the practice of mutual aid and support, and the joys they can find in social life." - Peter Kropotkin, in his text "Mutual Aid"

[LSD]

I realise this - the true Darwinist model does not work, no. But my idea was that the traits which favoured certain types of people (greedy, ruthless) over others would be passed down society, not the gene pool.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

If you mean that greedy/ruthless traits will be passed on because of education of socialization than that really has nothing to do with any form of Darwinism, social or not.

Even a Social Darwinist bases his assumptions on the conception that biology plays a key role. That the "gene pool" plays a key part. Without that, you're basically arguing that those in power shape the society they rule.
That capitalist society leads to the greedy and ruthless gaining power and oppresing everyone else.

It's definitely true, but it ain't Darwinism.
It's Marxism.

[Umoja]

Survival of the Fittest is a BS concept anyway. It would have led to animals pushing the bar up at a breakneck pace. For example, the wolves that can't get the good shelter (because the alpha has it) don't die, they go out and look for a shelter that the other's overlooked.

I read somewhere that it was survival of the adaptable. You don't need to be the best, you just need to be able to use what you have to survive.

[The Children of the Revolution]

If you mean that greedy/ruthless traits will be passed on because of education of socialization than that really has nothing to do with any form of Darwinism, social or not.
- - - - - - -
That capitalist society leads to the greedy and ruthless gaining power and oppresing everyone else.


Yes, this is what I mean. I know there is no biology involved, I just thought the comparisson might be instructive. As human society "evolves", it will be seen that it is the greedier and more ruthless individuals that do "best" (in a material sense) compared with others. Therefore these are the traits that are most likely to be adopted by the next generation.



For example, the wolves that can't get the good shelter (because the alpha has it) don't die, they go out and look for a shelter that the other's overlooked.


Yes... which is likely to be less suitable for rearing cubs. It isn't an instant process anyhow, evolution takes thousands, millions of years! One might expect to witness a small change over a hundred years! The human model on the other hand, because it isn't biological, can work in between a generation!!