Social Darwinism rising: Rand, again.
If this nation is led by reason, then what is the logic that permits the rich to get richer while the country struggles through a new Depression?
The logic is contained in a philosophy called Social Darwinism, which appeared in the 1860s. It stated that the rigors and torments of animal life – the struggle for survival – also applies to humans. It is an inhumane and deformed philosophy. And it was welcomed by the ultra-rich in America, because it justified their overflowing ease while on the next street people shuffled in poverty and misery – those everyday social contradictions could be seen in Chicago and New York and New Orleans. It later justified the extravagance of the elite, bankers and plutocrats of the 1930s whose flaunted lifestyles was juxtaposed with bread lines and hunger and broken spirit of America in the Great Depression.
Comfort
Social Darwinism held that survival is in short supply, and that life itself goes to the fittest of a species. It is a struggle, and only the strong make it. So we should get used to dramatic inequalities, to injustices, to exploitation. Early death, poverty and misery are the just deserts of the slow, the weak and the dull, and of the lower classes, because they are unfit, while success, wealth and comfort are the rewards of the winners of competition. More: it is appropriate for the fit not to help the unfit. It was better to eliminate the unfit – let them die – because, Social Darwinism said, the weakest members are a drag, and when they die, the community improves. This was all part of nature.
So the roughest of animal culture, this tooth-and-claw nature, was an inherent part of man.
In so doing, Social Dawinism divided man against man, pitted people in competition for success, life, and made one person’s happiness the loss of another. It was undemocratic because it makes the ‘fit’ people into a kind of new aristocracy, with no say from the spreading masses. And the fittest are always the fewest, at the top. And this was gilded with a title, laissez-faire.
Progressive
Antisocial? Of course. Social Darwinism was a nationally disfiguring philosophy. And thirty years after it was introduced in America (by Spencer, then it was spread by Sumner), the public, disgusted, smothered it off stage and replaced it gradually with pragmatism, progressive dreams, and unionism. In particular, populists and a few obstreperous church leaders fought Social Darwinism with a vengeance. Because it gave the church an unprecedented opening, to rail and to clamor that it was unChristian. Jesus’s teachings diametrically opposed exploitation: Give succor to the disadvantaged. Love one another.
National trouble
Actually, Social Darwinism was easy to attack. It is filled with illogic and it was scorned from pulpit and from university lectern across the land. Some facts: First, in daily life most animals don’t compete with each other. They compete with other species yes, but animal packs, teams, flocks and herds are cooperatives; the community would quickly die if its members started trying to eliminate each other. So Social Darwinism seems to describe us acting even worse than the animals. Second, it omits morality. It was as if Social Darwinism urged us to snatch away the collected thinking about value and ethics that make civilization. Third, the fittest human beings are only the strongest, or the most ruthless: they are rarely the best people. So if we let our society be led by the fittest, we are headed for national trouble.
And America of the twenties and thirties did well to collapse and drag this embarrassing philosophy Social Darwinism away.
A lull for a few decades. Now the ideology of collectivism grew. (Hey, if the bottom fifth of the population was going to die from Darwinism, why don’t they join together in self protection? Hence combinations. Hence unions.) And by the end of World War II, nobody took Social Darwinism seriously.
Then, grotesquely, this mutant ideology rose again.
Toxic
A daughter-ideology appeared in the fifties. With it, we were all thrown at each other’s throats again. It is with us now, and moves under different names, all ultra-conservative. It refuses to help (altruism) weaker people. It encourages people to compete and defeat others. It states strength is better than goodness. In one toxic form it is Ayn Rand’s deformed ideology, which destroys our organic whole by again setting us into the war of all against all.
Mercy
Social Darwinism has risen again. The new version is just as illogical as the old. And it can be easily countered: For instance why does it keep insisting that competition helps us? — We are a society of mutually-dependent people; ideally, we would run this nation well as a team. How can a boat in which the rowers are fallen into war, each against each, ever reach its destination? How can you build a strong society with people who’s purpose in life is: get mine? Ayn Rand’s version, just like the original Social Darwinism is acutely pessimistic: life is a dark struggle, and the devil takes those who fall behind. An ideology of no mercy. And this time, it has been deeply and thoroughly absorbed across America. It has inspired truckloads of knock-off writing, with the grand and ruthless justification: Business is business.
And where’s the moral opposition this time?
It’s simply not happening. Unionisms? – hardly there; union power is at its lowest ebb. Progressive activists? – a few. But we can expect religion, of course, to defend us again with its humanitarian principles for eternity. Especially Christianity.
Animated
So we might expect, each Sunday morning in Christian churches, some animated incendiary from the pulpit against this Darwinism, warning us to pull together, to mend or social ways lest we destroy each other, thus destroy the nation. If the churches were doing their job, congregations each Sunday should leave the church promoting brotherhood of man and warning against falling into the ways of animals.
But the church is mute.
Let’s return to the opening question: If this nation is led by reason, then what is the logic that permits the rich to get richer while the country struggles through a Depression? – An alternative answer is that the nation is not lead by reason. Nor by the mercy of religion. Nor the choices of an educated people. Nor even by the moderating hand of the principles of open debate. That there is no moderation in where this country is going. It is led by impulse. It is lead by greed, which is after-the-fact rationalized into this mutant ideology of Social Darwinism.
Glitz
Today’s Social Darwinism is less apparent because today’s practitioners use gleaming technology and appear less primitive. But it is back. And it is still not logical. The new laissez-faire still ignores justice and replaces it with riches. It places opposites in the same city: a neighborhood of squalor and a neighborhood of glitz. It robs of us of humanity and replaces it with towering wealth and claims, look up: an almighty nation. But this technology has not changed any social ethics. The bizarrely wealthy still claim that might is right. The new Social Darwinism still erases the principle of humanity.
But how do we fight this?
This author is not religious. But we expect the church to do its job.
People turn to religion when nothing else makes sense. And economically, this is one of those times. The church is supposed to provide ideas and support in its own ideology, theology, to sustain the community – at least gives value judgments and guidance. But now the church is mute. Worse.
Instead of leading by example, the Christian church is guiding us into fields grown wild with cross purpose and toxic contradictions.
Swollen
Look what is happening. Our big churches have changed. Money-aggrandized. They have abandoned the righteous path of going activist for the underdog. Instead, mainstream churches have become swollen. When we gaze upon their magnificent architecture we should wonder, in the same way we wonder when we see the architecture housing monster corporations. These days our churches do not argue for the separation of material and spiritual. They run on expansion: a big church must be a better church. (Not the small fundamentalist churches, interestingly: they still preach the separation of material world and spiritual world. We give generously to them.)
The problem lies today in what we are not hearing from religious leaders.
What fills this nation now is a kind of spiritual vacuum, a dilution of trust and mutual faith. This malaise has been growing subtly for decades. We can blame the persistent, ruthless and antisocial force of the new Social Darwinism; it has reached mainstream religion in this country. If it happens in any other institution, it is called corruption.
Fix
We cannot live in cross purpose with each other, and we cannot live by contradiction, it is the same, and it is why the original Social Darwinism could not last.
But the fix is in. Our mainstream churches have become fellow-travelers in the new materialism. And they are not denouncing the trend. Quietly, the church has become complicit.
In a word, this nation has been dropped by God.
Torture
I am not suggesting all Americans become religious. But if you are a church attender, pull your minister aside. Refuse this silence. Bring him back to task. Demand from your minister a righteous sermon attacking Social Darwinism and its nightmare cousin, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. Ask him to climb the pulpit again, and once and for all time tear apart spiritual and material. As you say this to him, you can open a Bible. Point to Jesus’s commands: compassion for the have-nots and the weak – it is the opposite of Rand’s scurvy doctrine of no altruism. Demand that your minister judge the ideas which divide us into walled communities, rich against the rest. Ask your minister for a sermon explaining how business “reason” interfaces with what he is supposed to build: loving community. (It does not). Where are these sermons? What kind of congregation is he building? (Footnote: actually, the reverse: a new survey shows that today’s churchgoers are more likely to support torture, here. What devilish land of contradictions is that minister growing within the four corners of his building? )
And smilingly, your minister or preacher will avoid the point. Although you have the side of reason.
Because what worries him: it is not popular to preach that way. If he does, he loses gifts and contributions.
Watch his eyes slide away.
I don’t see the church as the answer. Organized religion gets corrupted as it goes on to become bigger and bigger. Instead, recognition of the fact that we’re all in this together and so we had best take care of one another seems to me to be the way to go. What sociologists call “the norm of reciprocity” makes sense to me. The “devil take the hindmost” approach is too damaging to the human spirit.
The societies that work best are the social democracies. They aren’t perfect; nothing is. But they serve more of their people better than the free-for-all that is at the heart – if there is a heart – in Ayn Rand’s fantasy.
Social Darwinism is a corrupt concept rejected by Objectivists. It is an attempt to treat humans via genetic Determinism. Men are seen as having character traits which a determinist would regard as inherent in human nature: ambition, power-lust, jealousy, greed, etc. It utterly disregards the fact that men are of self-made character, that men have volition, that men must learn their moral positions on every issue, including their social context.
Human life is not a matter of equality of wealth. Indeed, if it were not for the rich, there would be no poor. If it were not for the rich, the poor in America would not have cell phones, TVs, microwaves, laptops, Windows, jeans, etc. One need only go to non-capitalist nations to observe that fact. To judge free markets, do not simply look at the poor living in cardboard boxes under bridges, they will always exist in every society. They will even exist in a socialist utopia. They are not the standard.
Leftyblog suggests that Rand’s world is comparable to a rowboat in which the rowers end up fighting each other. Has the Leftyblog author read Atlas Shrugged? How did the heroine coordinate all the people working with her to keep the railroad running? It was NOT a matter of fighting each other. The claim is at best false, but is, as an argument, idiotic.
Leftyblog says, “An alternative answer is that the nation is not lead by reason. Exactly! It is a nation built on Individualism perverted by the irrationality of altruism. See “The Pursuit of Reason: the life of Thomas Jefferson”.
Schooling, flocking and herding behavior offers survival advantages to non-conceptual animals. It is not a case of the herd members working for equality. It is a case of closely related members who carry similar genes. In biology it is known as Kin-Selection. It is well known among biologist as being unmitigated Darwinism. That said, it has nothing to do with the individual human being, who is not subject to Darwinism. Some even argue humanity is not subject to Darwinism, though I do not quite go that far.
You say, “First, in daily life most animals don’t compete with each other.” As a biologist, I assure you that that claim is 100% false. When a permanent flood occurs, a fish and a field mouse are in ‘competition’ for survival in the same conditions. The fish survives and the mouse does not. When kingfishers retrieve minnows from a stream, a large fish may find food scarce and fail to breed. Some call that “survival of the fittest”, I call it “survival of the best fitted”. Neither winning player is seeking to tread upon the other, they are just seeking to live.
Human beings do not fit that scenario. Being conceptual, they can learn to fit and, provided they are free to do so, they can enhance their survival. A mouse cannot put on SCUBA gear, but a man can put on a Space Suit!
Objectivism rejects Social Darwinism, absolutely.
Speaking of a “A daughter-ideology [that] appeared in the fifties” Leftyblog writes, “It encourages people to compete and defeat others. It states strength is better than goodness.” He then associates this with Ayn Rand’s ideas.
But Objectivism rejects the use of force, and advocates productive strength. When Bill Gates released MS-DOS and then Windows, he offered millions (billions?) of people a tool upon which many depend for their livelihood. His work raised the productivity of those people, and did more to benefit human life and happiness than could a hundred-thousand Mother Theresas (now Gates wants to be one). Aside from Microsoft’s many faults, it succeeded because it offered value. It made Leftyblog possible! The good it has achieved, tallied in dollars amongst all of its customers, enormously exceeds whatever profit Microsoft acquired. THAT is not a process of “defeat[ing] others”! Yes, some competitors may have failed, but were they sustained, they would merely have been a drain on those millions who benefited from Microsoft. Of course, Apple Computers Inc. is a valid competitor, and also survives on its own merits.
When men compete in the same market, they can decide to change markets or move to another field. That is NOT a “defeat” either. If they are successful in their new market, or another field, they and their customers will all benefit: mutual trade to mutual benefit. Men are not animals in competition, they are producers seeking best production. Even those who do not become super-rich will benefit from the efforts of those who do. Excoriating and taxing those rich only reduces the resources which the less rich can use.
There is no laissez faire, America is rife with statist interventions. Those interventions worsen the lives of the very poor that you, Leftyblog, clearly claim to support.
Tensor is right about religion not being the solution. If you wish to see the consequences of that particular abomination, see Afghanistan before the West pushed out the Taliban. Objectivists are concerned that, with the collapse of socialism, Americans will turn to religion, as you appear to be doing. Theocracy is not the answer, reason is. Reason is the tool of Ayn Rand, not that canard, you have hit upon, known as Social Darwinism.
RnBram, I wonder why you keep advertising that you are a biologist. On the fundamental issue of social relations among animals, you prefer to see a nature in which animals are in a continuous state of competition with each other, when it is obvious they are not. Is this your biology training? My statement was, “First, in daily life most animals don’t compete with each other,” and common observation supports that. (I am not talking about competition between species, but within species, since that’s the behavior Social Darwinists want to import and apply to humans.) But most of the time, most animals don’t. Do you see cows in civil wars with other cows? Do you see whales ambushing other whales in the school? What about giraffes mugging each other? It doesn’t happen. There are instances where individuals compete directly, but my phrasing “…in daily life most animals…” refers to what’s going on most of the time, i.e., the large part of the flow of nature. Actually many, many species are thoroughly cooperative. Ants share food around so nicely they could be communists. When hunting dogs bring down prey, the kill is shared. What part of that is competition? Other examples: father-mother raising of offspring, hierarchies, group migrations cannot happen if all the animals are at war with each other, the group would not function. Spencer and Sumner liked to talk about the fit as individuals. They avoided the point that the social bond makes survival possible especially in times of scarcity – for both animal and human – because they were writing a political theory that justified the ruthless practices of businessmen. But it doesn’t make sense. How can a ‘fit’ individual pass his stuff down to a future generation without the group’s continuing survival? The general point obviously, is that the group is the unit of survival. As lower species show us, solidarity is thoroughly natural.
I am not “advertising”, only suggesting I have spent plenty of time learning the subject, including the very issue your post discusses.
My view of nature is not a matter of how I “prefer” to see it. That method of thinking is subjective, unscientific & brazenly insulting. Perhaps it is your psychological projection of how others think, but it does not apply to me. Nature is what it is, and we can observe the facts and accept them or be wrong.
You are equivocating on the meaning of “competition”, so much so that I think you are aware of it: “giraffes mugging each other” or animals “being at war with each other” is hardly exemplary of the kind of competition being discussed. That is plainly dishonest. Children in high school know better. To try to make an entire argument stand on such puerile logic speaks to the intellectual quality of this blog.
I have explained that competition in biology is much more subtle, and you have already ignored the point: competition is everywhere. The most obvious is competition for space, food and mates. The competition for food can be fierce, whether between members of an herbivorous or carnivorous organism. Red-tailed hawks and other raptors have evolved toward smaller males and larger females. In this manner they are able to split prey resources. She gets the bigger game, he gets the smaller. This way they compete less with each other, to the benefit of the young. They have evolved a means of increasing survival by means of decreasing competition for food. Why would such a matter evolve if there was no competition?
Ants in a colony are not true individuals. Only the queen breeds, and then only with sperm from one non-worker male. The entire remaining members of the colony are mere extensions of the queen and the male. Their job is to raise the young, protect the colony etc. They are mechanical slaves in every respect… yes, just as socialists see people.
When hunting dogs bring down prey in a large enough pack, some dogs will go hungry, and it may lead to their death. I have already linked you to kin selection. Obviously parents are going to cooperate in the raising of their young. That is a selfish genetic survival mechanism.
Your final point is utterly bizarre, with no justification whatsoever. There are survival advantages to individuals who immerse themselves into groups, such as herds, flocks and schools. But it is always to the individual. All groups of living things are only a gathering of so many individuals. Only individuals are born, live, reproduce and die. Only individuals are subject to natural selection, & different species have different ways of struggling to survive. The attempt to disregard that truth is a desperate denial of the facts of nature —so as to rationalize collectivism. Socialism/communism as a political system remains intellectually bankrupt.
Yes, there is cooperation in animal groupings. That is also what business is: people cooperating through trade to mutual benefit, while respecting their right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom, means freedom from men who would violate those rights. That includes freedom from government men who wish to take by force the property &/or liberty of citizens via that age old lie: “for the greater good”
Judy is right. You reap exactly what you sow. If you work, stay on top of your game, and manage your income well, you’ll get by. If we create a society in which basic needs are met without personal effort, but rather by taking rightfully earned income from those who work and handing it to those who don’t, we create a society in which there’s no incentive to work. Communism simply doesn’t work. There is more than enough wealth to go around– you just have to quit whining and figure out how to earn it. When you have earned it, you can share as much as you like with whomever you like. You don’t need to have the government taking it away and giving it to people who have chosen to make poor choices.
I’m an entrepreneur, and I’ve learned to make a living from home. I bust my butt to write and market really good stuff so that I could live the kind of life I want to live. I did (and do) this while taking care of my children and my grandparents.
Would I have done this if I could depend on the government to provide the necessities of life? Not necessarily. It’s a lot of fun to sit around and read books, watch movies, go out with friends, and just enjoy life. But I’m motivated because I (not you, not my neighbor, not the government) am responsible for creating the life I want. RESPONSIBLE.
No one else is responsible for me. My husband and I are responsible for creating the life that we want. Heck… we are responsible for whatever kind of life we choose to create. Because– make no mistake here– life is created by choices. People choose whether or not to take advantage of their educational opportunities. They choose whether or not to make intelligent life decisions. Unless a non-lifestyle-imposed disease or disability intervenes, life is largely created by choices.
You are responsible for your choices, and any negative consequences you experience will help you make wiser choices if you’re not too arrogant to learn from mistakes. If you slack in school and flunk out, the resulting lousy work options you’ll experience should teach you that you need to get busy and learn something. If you shovel in the food until you need a bulldozer to get you out of bed or you drink yourself out of a job, you should realize that it’s wise to eat and drink sensibly (and that neither I nor your neighbor has the slightest obligation to support you financially because you’ve disabled yourself). If you look around and realize that your child will go hungry if you don’t get a job fast, you will get moving on finding that job or doing whatever it takes to earn (EARN, not mooch) something to feed that child.
I have chosen to work hard enough to live well. This enables me to consume the services of others who have chosen to also work hard– housecleaner, bookkeeper, music teachers for my kids. I am able to patronize the arts and to support the cause of literacy and other charities I believe in such as Kiva.org. I have earned every cent of what I make, and I want to share it with those who will put it to good use, rather than indiscriminately supporting and enabling through government programs those who make bad life choices.
Rather than whining, start choosing to earn enough so you can support any cause you please. If you want to support people who make terrible choices, go ahead. It’s your money, and you earned it. I’m doing the same with mine, and encouraging others to do the same with theirs. We are all responsible for our families. If you take care of yourself and your family, and we all do the same, there will be no question of implementing socialist or communist programs. So rather than bleat for more government, get busy and do what you think needs to be done! There’s plenty to go around– so increase your earnings so that you can fulfill your vision. Create a business that can employ 1000 low-skilled workers. Offer them training and benefits that will help them move up in life. That’s how you effect real, lasting change! Handouts are demeaning and do nothing in the long run except sap the motivation for improvement and industry. It’s the fastest way to kill a society.
“Give a person a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; teach him how to fish, and he can eat for life.”
The problem is that idling around at a coffee shop for hours on end discussing working hard and being responsible for yourself just doesn’t have the same quasi-intellectual panache as romanticizing socialism and “the way things are in Europe”.
To say “greed” is not a problem In America today is false. The belief that the Government will/can fix it is wrong. For all of you who claim to be an, “intellectual” the gap between you and a savant surpasses your mighty “intellectual” comprehension. So for all of you who get off to our limited spectrum of knowledge and technology stop sucking your ego before you brake a vertebra. Go outside narcissists. Life is but an instant in time try loving someone other then yourself for a change.
P.S. Vote for Ron Paul
The problem with this post is that it omits the idea of justice. It ignores the fact that hard work is rewarded. It is completely acceptable for the rich to get richer IF they are behaving morally i.e. not doing so at the poor’s exspense. They are not responsible for the masses.
Who is John Galt?
“Hunger Games” 2012?
Who will argue ‘rationally’ that Ayn Rand’s dark subjective ‘objectivism’ is not perfectly portrayed in the horrors of a Randian Amerika which finally establishes it’s ideals. No shame. Justice for some! Wealth justifies itself? Would not some of the blather above arguably justify the ‘Games’?
Just a couple of points that might focus this incredibly stupid debate between the pro and anti Rand folks that goes on endlessly:
1. Population Biology 101 the unit of evolution is the breeding population of any given species. If we are to draw any social conclusions from biology, which is a dubious proposition, the individual only exists in the context of the group. The individual animal in a social species which is most “fit” in the Darwinian sense is that individual who can cooperate best to advance the welfare of the group as a whole. That leaves a lot of room to argue for both the usefulness of the individual business person who develops new products that benefit everyone and for the equal usefulness of collective action/constraints that promote the general welfare and make possible a stable and secure society that allows individuals to develop their talents to the benefit of themselves and others. To insist that the only choice is between a mythological Randian utopia and a Soviet style totalitarianism is an idiocy that only the ideologically demented can mistake for a type of reason. Listening to the pro Rand ideologues makes me remember debating the equally deranged Young Communist League types in the 1970s who were deluded enough to believe that the Soviet Union was an economic juggernaut poised to overtake the West economically.
A healthy society will always have a tension between balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the group and we can definitely learn something from the Scandinavian nations who have weathered the recent global recession much better than we have because government social spending stablized effective demand.
Political Economy 101 Welfare state provisions like food stamps, medicare, and housing subsidies are not socialism. Socialism is by definition the ownership of the means of production by the workers who operate them. Obama is not in any sense a socialist since all of the most important economic activity of his administration has been to protect private capitalists from the consequences of their own folly. (One can also argue that neither the Soviet Union or Maoist China was socialist since worker control of industry was never part of the picture) The only debate within the ruling circles is which group of private capitalists are to be most favored with government supports. There is nothing socialist or communist about that but one could say it is fascist.