The core of Darwin’s theory is based around the idea of competition and survival of the fittest. Communism is theoretically based around the exact opposite idea – that everyone is kept equally constrained, and that no one gets ahead only the party members get ahead.
Communism is such a nightmare, that they have to build walls to keep people in. Like a prison.
“Like a prison,” or a new, “walkable/sustainable” Agenda 21 community, coming to a neighborhood near you!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
Good point, communism, and socialism, are nightmares. Of course be careful with references to Darwin as that could be misconstrued as the words of a creationist. Now, nothing wrong with that, it’s just that, as Will N would point out, we want to keep our science separate from religion. The problem is that the scaremongers are trying to stigmatize skeptics as religious nuts, and to the degree that they succeed in that, our case will be hurt. So I think even appearances are important. Try not to give the Chicken Littles any easy fodder. But your point is well taken, communism in theory is the opposite of Darwinism, though, as you note, party leaders, who may be very politically adept and so “fitter” in some sense, are the only ones to truly get ahead and live in luxury. Obama the college marxist. What is he today? At least a socialist. He wants a single-payer govt healthcare system. That’s socialism.
How would my reference to Darwin be considered creationism? Quite the opposite.
FWIW, Creationists almost exclusively use the phrase “Darwinism” – as opposed to Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection, etc. I think they see attacking Darwin’s original ideas as an easier target than dealing with later versions of the theory.
No I was just saying that it could be misconstrued. Or worse, misrepresented, by the enemy. There’s no creationism inherent at all in your post. And it’s a good post. So I’m just kind of trying to be a reminder about the potential touchy situation here with words such as Darwin, as it is associated with evolution and a religious controversy, Of course you know that.
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has not only succeeded in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” – David Rockefeller 1973
This observation was made just after the Cultural Revolution resulted in the death of 30 million Chinese. I wonder if David supports the new social experiment for America. I’ll go out on a limb here, and say I think the USA is about to have its own Cultural Revolution, and in fact it may have started already. It will be much more high tech than the Chinese version, but the end result may well be the same.
Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers called for 20 million death in USA to make communism work…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt3uabS-AZ8
Actually it’s a bit silly to draw analogies or contrasts between Darwinism and Communism. One is a theory operating in the biological domain, the other in the social/economic. It’s a bit like applying quantum mechanics to psychology. Might sound good at some superficial level but actually doesn’t make much sense.
Not completely silly:
“Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Err.. Social Darwinism is one of this crank junk science theories and a perfect illustration of the point I was making.
And there’s the problem.
A lot of people also regard Darwinism as “one of this crank junk science theories” as well.
Does that make “Social Darwinism” any more or any less of a “crank junk science theory”?
If I accept radiative physics as being most likely correct, but then reject catastrophic global warming theory (because of its speculative pronouncements and guesses about feedbacks such as the behaviour of clouds, etc.) does that make physics junk science as well?
(This is a rhetorical question.)
Will, of course not, but the post here was not orthogonal where a rejection of Communism was a rejection of evolution. Indeed, the point was that Communism was a rejection of natural law, wherby the inhrent desire of the individual to prosper, even at the expense of another , always operates. The founding Father’s understood this natural condition, and made brilliant effort to prodect the individual from the Social Darwinism of Group power, such as manifested by the aristoracy of europe in the late 1700s, and by the caste system in India, as two of countless examples. The statist idea of protecting individuals from group power, by instituting goverment as the only group with power, is inane, to say the least.
It’s not necessarily against “natural law” either. It’s common for species to act cooperatively to achieve a common goal. Flocking birds, ant and bee nests and hives, schooling of fish, etc. You’ll pull out of these analogies whatever you want to find, which is what makes them so useless.
“wherby the inhrent desire of the individual to prosper, even at the expense of another , always operates.”
Um, absolutely incorrect.
Actually the issue is justice: ‘The products of my work are mine’, versus, ‘The government owns (via theft by force) the products of my work’;
…and freedom: ‘If I want to give (to charity), it is my choice’, versus, ‘The government will force the “fair” distribution (of the products of my work.)’
By stating that the issue is: ‘the desire of the individual to prosper, AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER’, you are providing very strong justification of socialism-communism.
Steven: Remember the little exchange concerning Moore? Here is an example of what kind of ‘friend’ such people are. But do keep having drinks with Hall: what could possibly go wrong with becoming close personal friends with the corrupt, which is what Hall advocates so strongly?
I live in an ex-communist country and yeah it was a nightmare. Secret police everywhere, you coudln’t say anything against the ruling party – if anyone snitched that you were badmouthing the socialist party you would have problems till the end of your life, if someone from your familly emigrated, you would be under secret police surveillance all the time, your neighbors would be asked by police about you and they would investigate your emigration tendencies. Then the whole economy was a lie, the industrial products were absolute and total rubbish (I know that first hand since i own a small factory), there were shortages of meat or even toilet paper.. people had to stand in lines for bananas and mandarines. So the socialists had to keep up a big lie in order to keep the system going. But still there are quite a number of folks who would like to return to the old times – I suspect they were the people who had benefits of snitching and not having to do shit to keep the same quality of life like the others – that means everyone was poor as hell. But if everyone around you is poor then you think it’s normal. It disgusts me to no end…. also the whole western world is turning socialist because people cannot stomach all the envy. Bah let them have their socialist dream of equality – of being equally poor and without any freedom like the rest. I’ll enjoy my sip of cuba libre on an island where I bought some land while the rest of the world will burn with envy. Muhaha burn you inbreded socialist idiots 🙂
Sorry, Will, but again the two do not cancel. Human nature had a selfless and and selfish side. I deride neither and recognise both, as long as the selfishish side does not seek power over others in individual form, as in robbery or murder, or in group form, as all statist do.
The US rejection of a strong central Goverment as a “necessary evil” was not a statement that mankind is wholly selfish. Capitalism is in many respects fundamentally honest, and a reflection of the above. It is an admittance that personal gain is never absent, even in the most altruistic, and so capitalism makes no pretense of removing personal gain. It also makes no moral judgment of personal gain being bad. It is a neutral admittance that desire for personal gain exists, and cannot be legislated away. Social systems that vainly seek to legislate selflessness only condense the personal gain aspect into the most powerful people within the government, and in removing liberty and personal power from the common man, engender helplessness in the masses. The one who prospers in capitalism has the freedom to become a philanthropist, or the freedom to use his wealth in a narrow selfish way. Capitalism however has a basic tenant stating that even the purely selfish accumulation of material goods, if acquired in the honest production of a good or service of value to others in society, produces good for that society
The identification of economic competition with the Darwinian struggle for existence is a catastrophic error. It enlists the most fundamental need, survival, against the free society. Consider: if the free market insures the survival of the fittest, then does it follow that some kind of unfreedom is the only hope for the survival of the less fit? Of course it does.
Old dogmas never learn. Neither Darwinism (“physical survival of the fittest”), nor Communism work for mankind in the long run, and the key, of course, is the reality of the individual as a free-thinking being with individual interests and desires. The governing reality is the individual human mind, the very unit of intelligence, and the only living source of it. Darwin’s theory is about species, not individuals, and Communism is about economic classes, not individuals. The only evolution on Earth is individual human learning; the only working communism is harmony of thought between individuals. “I think, therefore I am” will out, will trump all else in the end. Capitalism appeals to the self-interest of individuals, and requires adherence to the Golden Rule (moderns would say, “looking for the win-win”) in order to prosper. (So I agree with Beale, above. “Nature, red in tooth and claw” is animal savagery, not normal nor profitable human interaction.)
HarryH says
(“Nature, red in tooth and claw” is animal savagery, not normal nor profitable human interaction.)”
Why are we fighting the Taliban and al Queda than?