Social Darwinism

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'm guessing that all the communiststs here are against the concept of Social Darwinism, but truthfully--why? Is it just "not nice" to say that the mentally, and the physically handicapped are a burden on society and they would be "better off" being deceased? Wouldnt' society be doing them a favor by ending their lives and their painful existence?

Why should we have generous welfare programs? Or half-way houses? Or help-lines? Aren't we just wasting human and natural resources on these people and institutions? Couldn't we allocate these resources to more productive areas? Why should we have "special ed" schools and classes? What's the point?

I'll probably be tagged as a "nazi" for bringing this subject up, but I'm just curious as to what communists think about Social Darwinism. Why are you "truly" against it? It seems to me that this is what trully separates the "anti-establisment adherents" from the "firm believers in the establishment".

Are communists against Social Darwinism simply because they think they would be a primary target for such policies?

All I'm doing is sparking discussion, that's all. So please, refrain from all of the "Nazi asshole!" remarks and please don't ban me.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 5 2006, 07:34 PM
What's the point?
Because different people have different needs. Communism is about fulfilling everyone's needs.

A human being is a human being no matter which way you slice him.

[RebelDog]

Ban him.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 5 2006, 10:53 PM
Ban him.
he started a discussion on an issue whats wrong with that?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I bet you a million dollars (extracted obviously from the working class' labor power) that none of the "big-wigs" around here (Redstar, LSD, Redteam, ummm, that's about it) won't even TOUCH this thread.

We'll see.

[redstar2000]

Make your check payable to RevLeft. :lol:

The problem with "social darwinism" (a.k.a. "sociobiology", a.k.a. "evolutionary biology", a.k.a., "evolutionary psychology") is that we have no objective test of genetic "superiority" or "inferiority".

There's too much "randomness" in the environment to know who can be "discarded" and who "must be preserved".

An accident in the womb can turn someone with the genes for "genius" into a drooling moron...so we keep them around because we don't know what might turn up in the next generation.

Once we learn how to manipulate human genes successfully, then there will obviously be little need for the "extra care" that you deplore.

Even now, it is becoming customary to abort fetuses that we know will be born with serious birth defects.

So you are beating a dying horse...for what reason remains to be seen.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Everyday Anarchy]

RedStar touched on this at the beginning of his post:
Who decides who is a burden to society and who is not? It'd really come down to "who is a burden to your life?"

You can't look at humans (or any animals) and decide whether or not they're "good" and should be preserved or "bad" and should be desposed. The weakest person could be the smartest. The strongest could be the dumbest. The average could be the most creative. And so on.
I don't think mentally ill people are a "burden to society" so long as said society gives a shit.



Are communists against Social Darwinism simply because they think they would be a primary target for such policies?
:D I'm against Social Darwinism because it's very much like a cheap pull-out of progress. "We're not sure how to help you, so we're going to have to kill you. Ok?"

[overlord]

Redstar wrote..

The problem with "social darwinism" (a.k.a. "sociobiology", a.k.a. "evolutionary biology", a.k.a., "evolutionary psychology") is that we have no objective test of genetic "superiority" or "inferiority".

I think you're missing the point. Social Darwinism was never totalitarian where you need a test for worthyness. I think the term was invented to describe capitalistic society, not something the NAZTYs would have done.

Capitalist Lawyer:

Are communists against Social Darwinism simply because they think they would be a primary target for such policies?


Yep. Mother Nature's world is too brutal for them so they must retreat into a world where everything is made of fairy floss without realising the only way to achieve this in actuality is hard work coupled with capitalistic incentive.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
Yep. Mother Nature's world is too brutal for them so they must retreat into a world where everything is made of fairy floss without realising the only way to achieve this in actuality is hard work coupled with capitalistic incentive.

And now, our cappies promise us a "world made of fairy floss" if only we will work hard and let them keep all the money.

How can we possibly refuse such a generous offer? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:26 AM

Are communists against Social Darwinism simply because they think they would be a primary target for such policies?


Yep. Mother Nature's world is too brutal for them so they must retreat into a world where everything is made of fairy floss without realising the only way to achieve this in actuality is hard work coupled with capitalistic incentive.
Or perhaps they realize that the only way to achieve this is through hard-work and anarchistic incentive.

The reason communists and others on the left-wing oppose social darwinism is that it fails to take into account mutual-aid (tribes, families, communities, generally "working together") as a factor in evolution. It seems to me that proponents of "survival of the fittest" mentality seem to think human civilization was founded by hunter-gather proto-entrepreneurs, which is shown by history and anthropology to definitely not be the case.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Is it just "not nice" to say that the mentally, and the physically handicapped are a burden on society and they would be "better off" being deceased? Wouldn't society be doing them a favor by ending their lives and their painful existence?

I fail to see why being dead is an improvement on being mentally or physically handicapped. An existence that lacks something is better than no existence at all. And - "physically handicapped"? Is blindness to be punishable by death now?


Aren't we just wasting human and natural resources on these people and institutions? Couldn't we allocate these resources to more productive areas?

It is not wasting resources to help other human beings. In a human being, even a handicapped human being, is so much that is wonderful and unique - the thought and emotion contained within the human brain is alone a reason to go to any lengths necessary to allow a person to live once they have been born. What is the point in being productive if we don't even have enough compassion for our fellow human beings to realise that they are important - nobody is a waste.

The reason why socialists don't support Social Darwinism is that the usual motivation for becoming a socialist is a belief that everybody has a right to a full and free existence. Social Darwinism is pure, poisonous selfishness - anathema to the left.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Social Darwinism is pure, poisonous selfishness - anathema to the left.

Isn't it "human nature" to exhibit so-called "poisonous selfishness"?

[Red Axis]

Actually, it is human nature, but human nature is best bred in capitalism.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:13 PM
Isn't it "human nature" to exhibit so-called "poisonous selfishness"?
Perhaps. But does that justify it?

A whole lot of things are human nature (rape is human nature) - but if they're also utterly wrong we oppose them.

Stop hiding behind your base instincts as an excuse!

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:06 AM
The problem with "social darwinism" (a.k.a. "sociobiology", a.k.a. "evolutionary biology", a.k.a., "evolutionary psychology") is that we have no objective test of genetic "superiority" or "inferiority".

There's too much "randomness" in the environment to know who can be "discarded" and who "must be preserved".

An accident in the womb can turn someone with the genes for "genius" into a drooling moron...so we keep them around because we don't know what might turn up in the next generation.

The test of survival is objective enough for me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by England Expects
The test of survival is objective enough for me.

Doesn't work...then one would have to preserve the Bush family -- hopeless morons across the board.

Without a pipeline into a federal or state treasury, they all would have starved to death decades ago. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[overlord]

Doesn't work...then one would have to preserve the Bush family -- hopeless morons across the board.

Without a pipeline into a federal or state treasury, they all would have starved to death decades ago.



Oh come on Redstar, the Bushes are more than adept at making money over the generations, even Dubya.

[encephalon]

Case in point: Stephen Hawking. Enough said.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 9 2006, 12:30 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 9 2006, 12:30 AM)
England Expects
The test of survival is objective enough for me.

Doesn't work...then one would have to preserve the Bush family -- hopeless morons across the board.

Without a pipeline into a federal or state treasury, they all would have starved to death decades ago. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I assume that was some sort of joke.

What is it that compells me to preserve the Bush family?

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 AM
Case in point: Stephen Hawking. Enough said.
Not enough said really, I have no idea what you mean or what it has to do with the topic, please explain.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by England Expects+May 8 2006, 10:59 PM--> (England Expects @ May 8 2006, 10:59 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 12:06 AM
The problem with "social darwinism" (a.k.a. "sociobiology", a.k.a. "evolutionary biology", a.k.a., "evolutionary psychology") is that we have no objective test of genetic "superiority" or "inferiority".

There's too much "randomness" in the environment to know who can be "discarded" and who "must be preserved".

An accident in the womb can turn someone with the genes for "genius" into a drooling moron...so we keep them around because we don't know what might turn up in the next generation.

The test of survival is objective enough for me. [/b]
the test of survival changes according to objective material circumstances

who in the jungle of southern america would die within days can be succesful in the west.

In developed nations you do not need the same things as you do need in Uganda. In developed nations high metabolism is positive because you wont eat yourself to death so quickly. In Uganda if you have high metabolism you die even faster cuz you dont store any fat whatsoever.

so
one word
bullshit

[Taiga]

Originally posted by England Expects+May 9 2006, 12:15 PM--> (England Expects @ May 9 2006, 12:15 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 AM
Case in point: Stephen Hawking. Enough said.
Not enough said really, I have no idea what you mean or what it has to do with the topic, please explain.[/b]
I guess comrade Encephalon means that Stephen Hawking is physically handicapped but nevertheless he is not a burden for the society. His contribution to science is huge. Do you really think that "ending his life" would be better for the society? <_<

[England Expects]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+May 9 2006, 01:56 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ May 9 2006, 01:56 PM)
Originally posted by England [email protected] 8 2006, 10:59 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 12:06 AM
The problem with "social darwinism" (a.k.a. "sociobiology", a.k.a. "evolutionary biology", a.k.a., "evolutionary psychology") is that we have no objective test of genetic "superiority" or "inferiority".

There&#39;s too much "randomness" in the environment to know who can be "discarded" and who "must be preserved".

An accident in the womb can turn someone with the genes for "genius" into a drooling moron...so we keep them around because we don&#39;t know what might turn up in the next generation.

The test of survival is objective enough for me.
the test of survival changes according to objective material circumstances

who in the jungle of southern america would die within days can be succesful in the west.

In developed nations you do not need the same things as you do need in Uganda. In developed nations high metabolism is positive because you wont eat yourself to death so quickly. In Uganda if you have high metabolism you die even faster cuz you dont store any fat whatsoever.

so
one word
bullshit [/b]
I think your&#39;e missing the point of social darwinism "cuz" you&#39;re red specs are hindering your vision.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Taiga+May 9 2006, 02:16 PM--> (Taiga @ May 9 2006, 02:16 PM)
Originally posted by England [email protected] 9 2006, 12:15 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 AM
Case in point: Stephen Hawking. Enough said.
Not enough said really, I have no idea what you mean or what it has to do with the topic, please explain.
I guess comrade Encephalon means that Stephen Hawking is physically handicapped but nevertheless he is not a burden for the society. His contribution to science is huge. Do you really think that "ending his life" would be better for the society? <_< [/b]
I don&#39;t think that we should do away with the disabled but in my darker moments I do fear that a super-intelligent Cyborg with an unsafe knowledge of quantum physics will take over the world. Maybe he&#39;d make slaves out everybody and exploit the surplus value of their labour&#33;

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by EnglandExpects
I think your&#39;e missing the point of social darwinism "cuz" you&#39;re red specs are hindering your vision.

1) Don&#39;t mock other people&#39;s spelling when you don&#39;t know how to use an apostrophe

2) Answer his argument: don&#39;t just make a dumb comment about "red specs"

3) If you&#39;re accusing NewKindOfSoldier of "missing the point" of Social Darwinism, you must know what "the point" of it is yourself - mind explaining?


I don&#39;t think that we should do away with the disabled

Then you&#39;re not a Social Darwinist.

[bcbm]

The term "social darwinism" seems like its being vastly misused in this situation. Wanting to kill those who are "inferior" is closer to eugenics, not social darwinism. Social darwinism is simply the idea that those individuals and societies who have risen to the top did so because they were superior, whether genetically or ideologically (historically this referred to fat capitalists, white people and whatever empire was in its heyday at the time). It was often a sort of justification for the excesses, sure, but it doesn&#39;t have any sort of social program (ie kill the poor) attached to it.


And, of course, the idea is flat out ludicrous anyway as it ignores the historical and material factors that have put people in the position they&#39;re in, things that have absolutely nothing to do with the skin color, intelligence, ideology, etc of the individual/society. Its been pretty much cast off for better ideas except for a few (stupid) hold-outs, some of whom apparently hang out here. :rolleyes:

[England Expects]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+May 13 2006, 10:16 AM--> (patrickbeverley @ May 13 2006, 10:16 AM)
EnglandExpects
I think your&#39;e missing the point of social darwinism "cuz" you&#39;re red specs are hindering your vision.

1) Don&#39;t mock other people&#39;s spelling when you don&#39;t know how to use an apostrophe

2) Answer his argument: don&#39;t just make a dumb comment about "red specs"

3) If you&#39;re accusing NewKindOfSoldier of "missing the point" of Social Darwinism, you must know what "the point" of it is yourself - mind explaining?


I don&#39;t think that we should do away with the disabled

Then you&#39;re not a Social Darwinist. [/b]
I suppose I&#39;m not a social darwinist.

As for the apostrophe, it&#39;s "cuz" I&#39;ve been oppressed by the owners of the means of production all my life. My education was only designed to equip me to find my way to the factory.

[overlord]

Social darwinism is simply the idea that those individuals and societies who have risen to the top did so because they were superior, whether genetically or ideologically (historically this referred to fat capitalists, white people and whatever empire was in its heyday at the time). It was often a sort of justification for the excesses, sure, but it doesn&#39;t have any sort of social program (ie kill the poor) attached to it.


That&#39;s right social darwinism is nothing to do with killing, more like letting the unfit kill themselves, or alternately giving them an opportunity to prove themselves through hard work.

Have you guys read: "How the other half lives" set in New York a hundred years ago, or "People of the Abyss", (really funny, especially the start) set in 1850&#39;s England). These are really cool books and are basically made by two rich guys dressing as paupers and mingling with the slime of humanity to see if they can survive. I suppose they were written so the rich could get some tittilation from reading of the silme on the streets back then, but both authors are also socially oriented and decry the living conditions of the poor. My point is that I don&#39;t care how the poor live. Do you hear me people&#33; I DON&#39;T CARE&#33;&#33;&#33; IF the scum want to spend all their money on the poker machines and live at the pub. That&#39;s IT&#33; No Second chance. If the scum wants to Lie drunken in the gutter, I DON&#39;t CARE. I won&#39;t even spit on them to put out a fire. IF the SCUM wants to get a handout, there are plenty of people in libertarian society willing to give it, let me tell you&#33; IF the poverty-dwellers say they havn&#39;t eaten in a year i will say: "eat cake fool", before tossing them a bent nickel and riding off to a nightspot in my super-stretch.
You guys think capitalism is wrong because it&#39;s more primitve right?&#33; You silly little people&#33; It IS MORE ADVANCED&#33; Look at the technology social darwinism has created&#33;&#33;&#33; Look at the computers, telecoms, soon to be space tourism. Can&#39;t create this sitting on a collective farm watching grass grow and whistling dixie for crying out loud look at yourselves people. Shake off your chains of bondage and liberate ye-self&#33; Liberate ye-collective self and shake-off they revolutionary idealogues&#33; Now, Shakeoff the collective strains of revolutionary demagogoury&#33; Reach for a plane of higher existence&#33; Don&#39;t allow the poverty stricken scum to win and get paid double, once for their work and once again because they&#39;ve blown it again&#33; And kill all the rich who don&#39;t support these SCUM??&#33;?&#33; In a communist society people are shackled to the poor&#33; What sort of efficiency is this? What sort of recipie for success is this? Recipe for poverty and disaster if you ask me. Recipe for oppression, ignorance, stupidity, perfidity, ignobility, nonsence, nuisence, idiocy and DARE I SAY IT foolishness. You want this?&#33;?&#33; I SAY NO&#33; I SAY NO TO TYRANNY&#33; I SAY NO TO BACKWARDNESS AND NO TO THE SCUM. AND I SAY YES TO FREEDOM. So NOW PEOPLE&#33; RIDE INTO THE SUNLIGHT OF FREEDOM&#33;

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

hahahahahaha, calm down man, u should b happy, capitalism is sucking up all the blood from the earth. there is no sense of community any more, or protecting the environment, or helping ur fellow man. it is all about ipods, computers, and the desire to be immortal with riches. it is a big rat race, materialism is taking over. u should b happy :D

[Janus]

Social Darwinism is simply an excuse for capitalism and a justification of it. Of course, there&#39;s really no proof behind it since Darwin himself never believed that his theory of natural selection should be applied to human society itself.

[red team]

It IS MORE ADVANCED&#33; Look at the technology social darwinism has created&#33;&#33;&#33; Look at the computers, telecoms, soon to be space tourism.

Don&#39;t you know it will be the rich who will ride out into space? Like the era of ocean liners, it&#39;s only the rich who will enjoy first class acommodations and the rich will not be members of engineering club who designed it or the construction team who built it. You see, once it&#39;s designed and built, their services are no longer needed (translation: "thanks for all the work. Now take a hike suckers&#33;").

[RevMARKSman]

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, communism is about MEETING THE NEEDS OF EVERYONE. And after everyone&#39;s needs have been met, making sure everyone gets what they deserve, no more, no less. Social Darwinism is just an excuse for capitalism. The human race can be better than "survival of the fittest."

[overlord]

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, communism is about MEETING THE NEEDS OF EVERYONE

Yeah, but how does that work? None of you guys has a clue. Even Redstar in his papers says he hasn&#39;t a clue how it would work. How about you guys drop you endless moral posturing and inject some practicality into your thoughts to have something to actually present to the proletariat? Come on, eduacate me, give me some practicality for the sake of all that is holy.

[red team]

Here&#39;s a clue. Your looking at it from your computer. Managing traffic on a computer network is almost the same as managing resources and labour for the people connected to the network.

[overlord]

Here&#39;s a clue. Your looking at it from your computer. Managing traffic on a computer network is almost the same as managing resources and labour for the people connected to the network.


That hardly comes up the standard of the 10 page a-priori sophist&#39;s gobledegook I know you guys are capable of. You guys need to work out exactly how a communist society will work. We can&#39;t have yet another failed revolution, or are you guys just revolutionary bluster and to hell with the consequences?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
You guys need to work out exactly how a communist society will work.

Why is that? Did someone c.1200CE "work out exactly" how "capitalism would work"?

Capitalism took more than six centuries to "work out how it would work" and millions of people were involved.

I think communism will beat that record easily. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif