From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What is Social Darwinism?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:29:44 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

On 14 November, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) wrote:

> What is Social Darwinism?
> What sort of person considers description of another as a "Social Darwinist"
> to be an accusation?
> What did John Kenneth Galbraith mean when he accused _Losing Ground_ author
> Charles Murray of being a "Social Darwinist"?

scott borchelt <IO92516@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

| Social Darwinism is directly linked to the theories
| of Charles Darwin.

No, it is not.

| As you probably know, Darwins theories
| of NATURAL SELECTION help to explain why some species
| survive better in nature and why others become extinct.
| The term "survival of the fittest" helps to summarize his
| theories on evolution of life (A social darwinist coined this term!

Reference?  As I understand, the "Social Darwinists" tried to evade
the label "Social Darwinist", since it painted them with all kinds
of things they did not believe.

| and is often used in refernce to Darwin)He asserts that those species
| who, for whatever reason, are better adapted to the environment
| will outlive others of the species.  In the competition for limited
| resouces like food and shelter, those that are BETTER
| equiped will win over those that are less able.  Thus, propagating
| their species and having less desirable members of the species die.
|    Biologists and the like may have problems with my description
| of Darwins theory but its close enough to understand Social Darwinsim.

This is such a strawman.  First you say the Social Darwinists modeled
their sociology after Darwin's theories, then you expound on Darwin's
theories.  Why don't you expound on the Social Darwinists' theories?

| Social Darwinists apply the same theory of natural selection in
| nature to the social environment of people.  They believe that
| competition in the business world will allow only those with advanced
| traits to do well, and the people with out the traits will go
| bankrupt.  Taken further, social darwinsim justifies the presence of
| poor.  The poor are biologically and socially inferior to those that
| are more "successful".

You are really putting words in their mouths.  The Social Darwinists
are a school of sociologists (the first school of sociologists?) in
Britain and the US who attempted to glean the relevant characteristics
of a society in which individual rights were paramount.  While thinkers
prior to them (Locke, Jefferson, Mills) discussed individual rights as
paramount, none developed an image of such a society.  None was a
"sociologist."

The Social Darwinists, as far as I'm aware--if you have references to
the contrary, do tell--did _not_ see biological distinctions between
people as important.  The Social Darwinists did _not_ believe that the
poor were biologically inferior.  They certainly and unequivocally did
_not_ believe in genocide or exile as your examples of Hitler and the
KKK did and do.  And they did not believe that genes of the "superior"
should be propogated and genes of the "inferior" should not.

What they believed is that, in the natural social order of a free
society, some people will succeed better than others.  Also, there
will always be people for whom success is virtually unwanted--
drunkards, gamblers, etc.  The _worst_ thing they said is that it
may not be in the best interests of society to aid through charity
those who are, of their own accord, down on their luck.  However,
they did not--as far as I'm aware--advocate laws against helping
these people.

Most libertarians differ from Social Darwinists in one main arena: 
the Social Darwinists, by their very charter, pay more attention to
the maintenance of the human race and society than to the individual.
Rand accused them of placing humanity and society in a position of
greater importance than the individual.  She bemoaned the fact that
they were the only individualists left to face the socialist/
progressive onslaught of the end of the 19th century, and they were
individualists who put society first.  She may well be right.

|    Some of the more notorious social darwinists are Hitler and the KKK.
| The way HItler addresses the Jews and non-Aryan people are demonstra-
| tions of social darwinism.

This is truly absurd.  In fact it is infuriating.  I am not a Social
Darwinist, but your violent mischaracterization of them is completely
out of line.  No Social Darwinist killed, or advocate the killing of,
anyone.

Some of the more "notorious" Social Darwinists are Herbert Spencer and
William Graham Sumner.  I suggest a reading of Sumner's "The Forgotten
Man" (it's the title tract of one collection of his essays).  In there,
you'll get a fair introduction to the thinking of the Social Darwinists,
and a sense of where they differ from libertarian thought.

|    I think it is easy to recognize where this argument can be applied.
| It simply comes down to a brutal and naive JUSTIFICATION FOR INEQUALITY.

Excuse me, but who's being naive?  People are unequal!  Wake up.

All we can ask for is equal protection and equal treatment under the
law.  The Social Darwinists asked for that.

As I said, I am no Social Darwinist, but I'll defend them against your
bashing of what you apparently thought was an easy target:  a bunch
of dead guys who wrote a century ago.  If you have any evidence that
they advocated (a) genocide, (b) exile, or (c) eugenics, please post
an explanation and a reference.  I wouldn't want to defend people like
that.

But please note that the observations of press and critics--who were
punch drunk with the new ideas of socialism in the political realm
and evolution in the natural--do not meet the criteria of references.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu

P.S. to John Kreznar:  No, I don't know what Galbraith meant when he
accused Murray of being a Social Darwinist.  Maybe the prior post and
mine can give you enough context.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory