The New Age of ‘Elites’, ‘Robber Barons’ and ‘Social Darwinists’
Posted on 04. Jan, 2012 by Len Hart in World News
By Len Hart
Darwinism is correct. Social Darwinism is utter bunkum. Not surprisingly, the American right-wing despises Darwinism but, inexplicably, embraces Social Darwinism with messianic ferver.
Social Darwinism is at the very root of an impending economic collapse but it won't be the best or brightest who emerge unscathed on the other side! Social Darwinism is the survival of the most ruthless. Real Darwinism is reviled because it disproves the lies the rich tell themselves to help them sleep at night.
The right wing benefits when issues are obscured and when enough dust is kicked up by "intelligent design" to obscure the real issues and various strawmen to boot.
Simply, Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism" and, worse, it attributes to Darwin positions he never took. The term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter traces the phrase to 19th Century American robber barons, rail road men making fortunes connecting one coast with another.
"Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.
—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York."
A fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” So –why was Bush Jr not poor?
In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "cold douche". One wonders: who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who decides who gets 'douched'? Who decided that New Orleans would be left to its fate and the goons of Blackwater?
Currently, the nation faces economic calamity. However fallaciously, you can be sure that the right wing will not only benefit from the misfortunes of millions, they will try to figure out a way to blame them. It's the right wing way. But it's wrong!
Spencer believed that because society was evolving, government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. It didn't matter to Spencer that government is but a function, indeed, a creation of society and responsible to it. Seen in that light, efforts by privilege to blame the poor for their own rapacious and often dishonest or incompetent behaviors are absurd. Nevertheless, American capitalism remains greatly influenced by Spencer. The 'model' is still found in textbooks for Economics 101. It describes an ideal of American capitalism –“rational man” making rational decisions in a free and –presumably –rational market. But, in practice, economic decisions may or may not be rational and the free market exists only hypothetically. The market has been anything but rational.
Because the 'theories' of Spencer and, earlier, Adam Smith, often stress the 'practical', it is forgotten that Spencer and Smith were, themselves, 'theorists'. Every model we make of the world of sense experience is 'theoretical' by definition. The word "theory" is either misunderstood by the right wing or deliberately perverted for the propaganda value.
The word 'theory' is wrongly used as a pejorative. The right wing is inconsistent. 'Theories' from Spencer and, more recently, Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer are are conveniently ignored or praised while 'theories' from everyone else are 'mere theory'. Last time I checked, 'right wing theories' were still 'theories' though most often and in reality they are simply frauds, lies, scams and 'white collar heists'.
Having waged war on the word "theory", the right wing likes to couple it with another word similarly victimized by right wing propaganda. That word is "conspiracy" –a perfectly good word, in fact, a legal term about which there is a venerable body of case law, thousands of SCOTUS decisions and some 400 years of common law. See: Findlaw or Cornell University Law Library online. Given techniques perfected by Herr Goebbels for Adolph Hitler, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" is lethal. The loss of these words to an adult vocabulary cripples the thought process itself, indeed, intellectual endeavor of any sort.
It must be noted that every great scientist was or is a theorist. Einstein was a "theorist" and so was Newton, so too Darwin. So, too, Watson and Crick. Too much is made of 'right' and 'wrong'. It is a mistake to conclude, for example, that Einstein 'replaced' Newton. In fact, Einstein rests upon Newton's shoulders. Einstein is Newton from another angle. Einstein may be thought of as the hypothesis that Newton himself refused to make. [See: The Man Who Changed the Universe] Einstein does not refute Newton, he enlarges upon both Newton and Galileo. Galileo's equations describing the acceleration of falling bodies describes the very curvature of space-time.
Einstein has been confirmed no more times than Darwin; Newton is close enough for mundane applications or "government work" and Einstein will one day help us navigate the galaxy. Significantly, neither "theory" has been challenged in court —though both theories may very well be replaced one day by a "theory of everything", a TOE.
Only theories not liked by the right wing wind up in court, an absurd place to settle questions of science in any case. Law courts are inadequate to decide questions better resolved by observation and experiment, not rhetoric or case law. See: Darrow, Darwin & Dayton, the video at the end of this article.
There is a political agenda and a constituency behind the campaign of attacks on Darwinism. This constituency supports Intelligent Design for the same reasons the great rail road robber barons found support in the work of Herbert Spencer. The continued economic superiority of an entire class depends upon the widespread public acceptance of religious and/or ideological views which justify the existence of 'superior status'. Hitler, likewise, found in pseudo-science and mythology much justification for his anti-semitic crusades, his campaign of genocides, his wars of naked aggression.
Theories are often never of a final form —nor should they be! Unlike ideology, real science is self-correcting as new facts emerge from research. Darwin's theories were not only confirmed by Mendel, they accommodated Mendel which, in turn, strengthened Darwin. The science of genetics and the discovery of "mutations" confirm Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt. Every cowboy knows the truth of Darwin if he's never heard of him: "Never kill a slow roach; you just improve the breed!" As succinct a description of natural selection as I've ever heard. Likewise, every farmer who has bred for specific traits knows the truth of Darwin.
Future discoveries, like those of Mendel, may modify our views of Darwin, but will not discount them. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is confirmed in many ways, notably at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Light, indeed, bends around stars and other 'gravity lenses', time slows at near light speeds, space-time is a four dimensional continuum. More to the point, no one has ever sued because Einstein's theories were odds with a particular dogma or a political agenda. The right wing's disingenuous position is analogous to that of the Pope who forced Galileo to recant. I was critical of Ron Paul because his economic thinking was stuck in the 19th Century. The right wing generally, however, is stuck in the 17th.
It is certain that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design", meaningless word play beyond any confirmation of any kind! Theories explain "facts" but facts can often confirm good theories as "fact”, just as facts have tended to confirm both Darwin and Einstein. By definition, doggerel is beyond confirmation of any kind. A.J. Ayer defined 'meaning' itself as that property of a 'sentence' that makes it subject to empirical confirmation. The theoretical core of ID is not meaningful and most certainly not of a type that would have been recognized by the philosophers upon whom Western Civilization is based.
Intelligent design is of a religious nature and people have a right to believe it. Treating Intelligent design as science is dishonest. As science, ID raises more questions than it explains. Most obviously: who designed the designer? ID assumes a designer to 'explain' creation but cites 'creation' to prove the existence of a designer. This is the classic circulus en probando fallacy.
People are free to believe fallacies, but they must not be free to impose them upon other people —especially at tax payer expense! A fact, for example, is the equation describing the acceleration of falling objects; examples of theory are both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view of "gravitation" —seen differently by both. The entire science of genetics confirms Darwin who, interestingly, did not have the benefit of Mendel's research when he wrote Origin of the Species and the The Descent of Man. It was Mendel's research that described the very mechanism by which Darwin’s “traits” are passed on to succeeding generations. Accurate predictions are, in themselves, evidence in support of theories. [See: Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley]
Critics of Darwin have said that no one has yet produced an entirely new specie by selection. But they have indeed done just that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Related to ancient grasses, wheat is clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection." Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass. But it didn't and isn't.
Social Darwinism has harmed mankind. It rationalizes and justifies the perpetual and deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society. The GOP will support this as a matter of policy so long as someone like Ronald Reagan can, nevertheless, make them "feel good about themselves". It is bad enough that this callous disregard for human life is fallaciously and insidiously associated with Darwin. That it is also a bald-face lie, a misstatement of Darwin, is unconscionable. We have thus reduced the philosophical basis for the American right wing to a single line from one of the world's great writers, Charles Dickens, whose character, Scrooge, epitomizes the American right wing
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons…then let them die and decrease the surplus population."
—Scrooge, A Christmas Carol
a WordPress rating system
15 Responses to “The New Age of ‘Elites’, ‘Robber Barons’ and ‘Social Darwinists’”
Join Us
 |
| Subscribe to Opinion Maker |
| Email: |
E.L. Beck
05. Jan, 2012
Very astute discussion on the role of theories, and a timely yet poignant topic.
A deeper investigation into Social Darwinism and its emergence in western thinking can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22328155/The-Dignity-of-Humanity
paul
05. Jan, 2012
This is all great, except for one giant, stinking, massive problem: it isn't just the 'right wing' that has a messianic dedication to social darwinism. Virtually the entire political establishment, INCLUDING most left and right wing 'alternatives', is deeply committed to social darwinism. Both sides cloak their vicious elitism, of course. The Right Wing cloaks it in religious do-gooding, while the Left Wing cloaks it in governmental do-gooding. THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE. if anything, the Left Wing is more evil and virulent, because it unctiously worms its government control over each person's life with smooth-talking technocratic claims that they know what is best for you.
Remember, people, that ANY commentator who continues to cast blame on the Left Wing, or the Right Wing, in this day and age when the fact that there is no true difference between them is inescapable IS A PROPAGANDA AGENT.
Brian
05. Jan, 2012
More than 23 centuries ago the Chinese emperor ordered a study for the consideration of what would be the best method for social organization. One of the theories that was explored by the court was that of a society based on economic methods–this was rejected as being an inappropriate because of their conclusion that it would dehumanize the people–an interesting side, much as that of your native country I believe, is the business people in traditional China were considered to be at the bottom of the societal ladder—how things have changed and yet those earlier conclusions are showing their wisdom in today's world.
Len Hart
05. Jan, 2012
Re: You are mistaken –there is no left wing in America. I refer to the ‘right’ as they have defined themselves. In the meantime, Democrats are the lesser of two evils though still right of center by subjective standards. The ‘meme’ that Democrats are just as bad as GOP is false. I suspect that it was ‘cooked up’ in a GOP consulting firm/focus group. The GOP ‘Campaign Manuals’ (leaked to me) confirm me beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover: 1) every Democratic regime (however much I may disagree) has presided over SIGNIFICANTLY better job creation and GDP growth rates than has ANY GOP President since 1900. Sure –I would prefer the Dems to be more aggressive and more left. But they as long as the Dems are reduced to competing for but getting less campaign monies than GOP, nothing will change. In the meantime, we can all do our part. If one wants the Democratic party to change/reform than OCCUPY the Democratic party and reform it from the inside. Unless that is done, a revolution will have to create an infrastructure from scratch. Clue: that WILL NOT happen. Americans are lazy. I often get the ‘…but Dems are just as bad as Republcans’ respons. It’s false; it’s lazy; it misses the point.
Mike
05. Jan, 2012
I agree with Paul.
Very well put Paul
Len, you are incorrect.
Please re consider what Paul has written
Belden Erhart
06. Jan, 2012
Social Darwinism = Kleptocracy
Nothing more nothing less here on the colonial plantation.
Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Constitution
ALL Orwellian spin.
Belden Erhart
06. Jan, 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Kleptocracy word always gets the undies in a bundle.
Identifying ILLEGAL acitivity a no no by social Darwinist.
michael mazur
06. Jan, 2012
Not a word about the people's right to issue their own money having been captured by a few very private persons and enshrined into law, makes Len Hart an academic indispensable to the globalising private central banksters who need us to be distracted by non existent issues of the kind he writes so profusely about, while they assiduously build a prison planet for us all.
What would you rather do, Len Hart, print your money or work for it ?
Len Hart
06. Jan, 2012
Mike, I am not incorrect. I speak from experience having consulted political candidates. I had the ‘campaign manuals’ in my possession. btw, my candidates won. At that time, I also had in my possession ‘campaign manuals’ that had been prepared for GOP candidates. This is not about ‘opionion’ it’s about demographcs and stats. As for the following: “What would you rather do, Len Hart, print your money or work for it ?” WHO BROUGHT THAT UP???? At what point in the article is that even mentioned?
Len Hart
06. Jan, 2012
At last —the Democratic record re: JOB GROWTH and GDP is NOT a matter of ‘opinion’ or ‘debate’ unless you can cite OFFICIAL stats to the contrary. My assertions re: the Democratic record with regard to both job growth and GDP growth is based upon the government’s own statistics available to any with a clue at the BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, the U.S. Commerce Dept.B.E.A. They have been from time to time even cited, quoted, published by the Brookings Institution. Now —is someone going to try to tell me that Brookings is ‘liberal’? Again –EVERY Democratic President since 1900 has outperformed EVERY GOP President (GDP Growth, Job Growth) since the year 1900. At last —if you had access to any GOP ‘campaign manual’, you will find the words of GOP consultants advising their ‘candidates’ to BLUR the distinction between the GOP and the Democratic President. If you were managing a GOP campaign and polling indicated that the Dem was beating ‘your’ candidate with respect to economic issues, you would most certainly try to minimize the differences between the candidates; thus –the MEME that there are no differences between the parties. It simply is NOT true. There are differences and they are most often economic, measurable and verifiable. Knock yourself out and stop lying.
michael mazur
06. Jan, 2012
That's actually my point, Len, for it should have been the paramount thesis in your article – the creation of money out of nothing by, protected by law, private interests. You don't talk about it, and neither do the Dems or Repubs, as they are both owned by counterfeit campaign money, as they are also by even more counterfeit money filling secret bank accounts of their politicians.
Why talk about economic and employment policies, and the negligible differences between them, which policies emanate from the political puppets of both persuasions, whose sole function in Congress is to protect the private counterfeiting operations of those who own them body and soul ?
Who owns you Len, since you are so studious in your article in avoiding the identity of who has the control of this indispensable function – the issuance of the currency, in the economy ? It's the same counterfeiting crowd as own the politicians, and who didn't like JFK ordering Treasury in jun63 to issue $5Bn in new currency – which they did, thus bypassing the Fed. A lesson well learnt by all presidents since.
And you get enraged when someone implies that for a economy to function at all it needs lubricant in the correct quantities and its ownership known, hence it behooves an economics writer to address whether private or public interests are better served by either the public Treasury or the private Fed issuing the currency, and in determining the answer historical examples of public well being need be cited pre and post privatization and pre and post nationalization.
John
06. Jan, 2012
You wrote: "Darwinism is correct. Social Darwinism is utter bunkum." However, any attempt to defend the former but not the latter is doomed to fail.
Quoting Darwin himself:
"This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself … will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected."
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1861, ()
This is the very essence of social Darwinism as well. The aristocracy "varies" from the rest of the human herd in "a manner profitable to itself", and thus has a "better chance of surviving" in the struggle. It is the outcome of a process of "natural selection", enhanced by the highly-evolved mechanisms of social control perfected over the centuries.
"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been … that the very poor and reckless almost invariably marry early…. Those who marry early produce … many more children…. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate…."
Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 1871, ()
kaycee
06. Jan, 2012
So you do "REALLY BELIEVE that the ELECTIONS are FAIR and are NOT RIGGED and that your Votes do Really Count"? Well think again? Ever wonder why the Jews refer to all Non-Jews as GOYISHE KUP or STUPID CATTLE?
brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_0717.html
youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=related
judicial-inc.biz/Diebold.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=qDqE-y3M1Qs&feature=related
>
> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/364.html
>
>
> You view this on your own and then think about the advice
> that you posted on the messageboard.
> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/364.html
>
>
>
> http://judicial-inc.biz/Diebold.htm
>
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
> Ps: There was voter FRAUD and VOTE Rigging in all of the
> major states. One has to be a copmplete moron or a complete
> idiot to have not noticed it!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Len Hart
06. Jan, 2012
I NEVER, EVER said that elections were fair. Frankly, your posts are long, tedious, poor written and totally insignificant. They are, likewise. replete with strawman fallacies and topics never intended to be addressed in a short article of this sort. At last –you never addressed a single issue I raised and instead used this article as a platform for ill-considered drivel and irrelevant trivia. It seems to be that your comments –rather than addressing issues raise –are simply intended to impress. If that is, indeed the case, you failed. And –I suspect –you may be a republican shill. If so, how much do you get paid? A suggestion —if you are so smart, write your own article and then allow to me to come on here and harass you! A word of friendly advice 1) go back to school and stop watching youtube 2) get your own account and allow others to harass you with utterly meaningless verbage, strawman fallacies, misstatements of your thesis, failed efforts to impress et al I stand by my article which is thoroughly researched and ‘significant’ in the ‘logical positivism’ sense of the word.
Len Hart
06. Jan, 2012
I would also characterize the long list of youtube videos to be spam.