Survival of the Fittest?

By: BajanMan

This 'Mein Kampf' extract embodies a concept that is not all that different from the 'Social Darwinism' of Englishman Herbert Spencer. (A philosophy which immediately was embraced by the robber barons in the USA when Spencer made his first speaking tour in the 19^th century.)

Basically, Social Darwinism postulates that 'survival of the fittest' (which btw, was never Darwin's term, but Spencer's reduction of Darwin's theory to sound bites) applies in the economic sphere too.

Thus, the weak and poor are deemed economically 'unfit' - and that means they are less likely to survive. It also is linked, in Spencer's theory, to an inherent lack of biological (and mental) fitness. Because they are biologically and mentally unfit, they end up being economically 'unfit'. They are to blame, in other words, for their own plight.

In the 19^th century incarnations of Spencerian Darwinism, it was widely believed, acknowledged and accepted that the worst thing a society could do was to provide any form of social support or welfare for its most vulnerable citizens in the form of chronic poor, beggars and the like.

It was preferred, rather, that the laws of natural selection work their magic, and let these "inferior members" of the species die out over time. Maybe through disease - since they couldn't afford medical care, or through the mere attrition of life in srambling every minute to keep body and soul together.

If the economically weak and vulnerable were decimated - and eventually departed, so the argument went - then the residual species would be much, much stronger. Thus, it became incumbent on all those who cared for the future of the species not to assist the poor, hungry or weak. Rather, let nature take its course with them.

If the poor, malnourished and weak died, it was not the fault of the rich, or wealthy capitalists, but rather the inescapable fact that the impersonal laws of natural selection were merely operative in their full domain.

Clearly, the appeal of Spencerian Social Darwinism can be seen here. And no surprise that it quickly caught on with all the upper crust capitalist elites - and remains a mainstay of Republican Party belief to this day.

That is, it is the individual's responsibility to fend for himself - or not. Not the government's to mollycoddle him, provide safety nets, Social "Security", Medicare, or health insurance - or in any other way act like a "Super Nanny", lest the indigent experience all aspects of raw, brutish nature.

Though it is not generally referred to by name, Social Darwinism lies at the corroded heart of most planks of previous Repub. platforms. To "let the people do for themselves" - which is merely another way of saying, "let the economic survival of the fittest work itself out, and the chips fall where they may".

"Tax cuts" are a supreme device to assist this imperative of economic 'survivial of the fittest'. Since, people are convinced to exchange years without paying taxes (adding up to maybe $2000) - for thirty or forty years of government support and assistance (adding up to maybe $150,000). Not a very good 'deal' on its face - but not many have the wherewithal to actually work out the cost-benefit analysis. Or - they remain in a pie-eyed state of optimism that they'll reach 65 or 70 and be exceptions to need.

As we can see, the analogies and parallels with the image of Nazi philosophy are frightening to behold. And so, another plank of connection to Hitler's Reich - in the philosophical domain, is laid at the feet of the Repuglicans.