Saturday, July 12, 2014
Big Government Socialistic Programs Are The Ultimate Example of Social Darwinism --Survival Of The Fittest. Have you ever noticed how some people are much more equal than others according to the average socialist government?
Big Government Social Welfare Programs and the Survival of the Fittest Social Darwinism is Not an Idea Held in High Esteem by Liberal Academia yet Evidence from Historic Reference Does Support the Thesis Lex Loeb Contributor Network . Marxist of the hard core communist type and of the warm and fuzzier socialist sort reject all notions of social Darwinism as as bourgeoisie fantasy from the old corroded cast iron 19th century. Social Darwinism in the application of Darwin's biological theory to civilization and society in it's development and simply proposes that as society evolves, as we know it does since we can see generational transformations at all momentary points in history. Darwin's theory is that plants and animals are not static sets of physical attributes but that over time they evolve in ways to become better suited to environmental and other objective circumstances including the laws of physics in terms of grown and mobility. The application of Darwin's notion that species evolve over time due to natural selection based on survival of the fittest was one of the more obvious applications of the theory back in the 19th century. Karl Marx also happens to have adopted some of the evolutionary thesis himself in seeing an evolution of society and not of individuals in society leading toward the commune of communism. Marx completely rejects the idea of survival of the fittest in society by coming up with the notion of the purpose of the state as to provide each according to his need. This is diametrically opposed to the thinking of social Darwinists who rather tend to celebrate the rich becoming richer and more powerful with the acquisition of industrial tools, an exploited labor force, and exclusive private ownership of property. The self describe liberal left and much of academia believe that the purpose of government is to prevent social Darwinism at all levels of society except for the hierarchy found in their own academic tenure systems. Rejection of social Darwinism might be the party line to rail against but it also happens to be one of the bigger products of government command and control socialism and Marxist governments. Every single communist state has ultimately proven itself a failure and they continue to come crashing down one by one. Some crash harder than others. The Russian communist soviet union completely imploded and ceased to exist. The Chinese economy was in a complete state of ruin by the time the central committee reintroduced capitalism as if it never had been completely natural. Socialism in Western Europe is slow burn out by comparison and the ill effects are felt in what is a actual lower standard of living for most people on average than what is typically found in more capitalist energized countries. What is interesting in both socialist countries and the more hard core Marxist communist utopias is that Some people thrive while most of the rest suffer. The more most people are forced to rely on government welfare the deeper they tend to sink in to communal poverty but in every case there are obvious exceptions. A small cadre of communist/ socialist government insiders who are examples of the phenomenon of survival of the fittest in a socialist or communist welfare state. The top people who thrive tend to be the top of the hierarchy communist party/ socialist party members. You can see it in Cuba today by finding those people living in posh air conditioned high rise towers in Havana while the rest of the population swelters with the windows open derelict pre-revolutionary buildings. The condo owners of Havana have access to full super markets you would find anywhere in Latin America. The rest of the Cuban population is on a rationed system of beans and rice. The same thing goes on in North Korea. There are tiers of influence in the government in North Korea and even higher tiers with direct family relationships to Kim Jung IL. Anything at any price that you can buy in Paris or New York City the top people in the North Korean Government can buy with real hard currency. The rest of the population is fed on the basis of what level slaves they are in the hierarchy. In parts of North Korea food is so scarce thanks to brilliant agricultural planning, that rural people are forced to forage leaves as the main source of food as the government might as well be starving them to death. At least in the Irish potato famine , the starving were permitted to try leaving the country. In survival of the fittest North Korea starving people trying to jump across the border are ordered to be shot in the back. That adds a whole new dimension to the notion of survival of the fittest in socialist countries. We saw the same thing happen in East Germany. People trying to leave were ordered shot in the back for trying. In terms of applying social Darwinism to this is that people in an each according to his need environment might not be able to cope with that environment which is reason to remove them from all environments as it advances more quickly the evolution of socialism? This is actually one of the methods used by live stock breeders to improve the genetics of their stock and was the manner of domesticating animals and cultivating plants. When dogs were originally bread in the many distinctive breed we know from the original wolves, the breeders selected the genes they wanted in the population and diminished the ones that they saw as pollution. Purges in communist countries are a good way to improve the human livestock. Occasionally a purge of the fittest would occur and still happens occasionally today. Stalin enjoyed a good purge because it allowed him to remember that he was fittest of them all that may have ultimately led to his paranoia because as he removed others who might be as fit as he was others had to be advanced in the system to take their places. In China today people who were related to high level party officials are more likely to have inherited state asset ownership when China started to take productive companies and real estate out of the hands of the national government and distribute the wealth. Few of the most well to do Chinese gained their survival fitness without having government connections or influence. We even see the same phenomenon in places like Vietnam in even in the welfare state practices of the United States. In the USA the civil service gives people higher than average paying jobs and then adds the hierarchy of a public employees union to elevate those offices as a form of life time nobility. Welfare recipients learn that they may or may not get promised entitlements but never do they gain the entitlements that federal and state worker are likely to have. The bureaucratic class is sometimes even fit enough to survive the collapse of a communist / socialist government and retain their fitness by not just surviving but thriving with the real opportunities afforded by the collapse of the inevitable. Government workers are not thought to be on welfare but once you see some of the job descriptions and what they actually do you might think that the whole government is a care center for adults needing day care rather than a place to do any particular work. In Europe you see whole world capitals of offices of people with high government jobs who are often clueless what they are supposed to be doing other than looking as if they are important. These are presumably the fittest surviving and thriving and a social throw back to nobility. In the United States, Social Welfare system also have evolved into tiered systems of complex hierarchy , again with the fittest thriving in the systems that are built on the currency of influence on the personal level of dealing with the mechanism of state. Only In America it seems we find stratification in the actual welfare classes whereby some really get a disproportionate share of the goods and others are as good as outcasts from the welfare system that is supposed to benefit them most. It is similar to the Darwinian socialist tendencies everywhere else but the US system is really confused. The homeless who are mostly mentally ill are out on the streets as a reminder of how much more money the agency says it needs to never ever solve the problem. The army of social workers running the failed programs to save the homeless look like they are in a welfare program themselves where they have no real responsibility to do anything of value for society except to go though the motions of pretending like they are still useful. The same becomes obvious when looking at how public education works. Schools that graduate less than 40% of their students claim never to have enough money or to be paid enough but the job holders live on average better than the average taxpayers including various benefits that come with the jobs and rare chances of ever loosing those jobs. What is supposed to be giving each according to his need turns out to be a lot of self interest with the real welfare going to a class of people who think they are entitled to be nobility because they have unionized government jobs. As government officials in fact, they are to be respected and respectable under all circumstances. The welfare dependent population and those who should know better accept this survival of the fittest over actual proof that the prime beneficiaries are the children in the schools. Education sub contractors tend to be seen getting more welfare out of the program than the welfare recipients once again. Anyone who has ever tried to sue the government knows that some are more equal than others. Anyone who has ever tried to complain about a government employee knows it is not a democratic two way street. Each according to his need is a total crock of spoiled pickles. The reality is the proper way to say what Karl Marx was hoping for is each according to how much he is a pig. This must be the reason that the socialist academics and journalists reject social Darwinism when it comes to capitalism but embrace it with pure love and devotion when social Darwinism gives themselves and friends a feast and banquet in the general social food chain. Instead of calling it social Darwinism usually based on thriving on influence rather than on capitalist principles of commerce and trade, they call it Welfare which it very definitely is just not as much welfare for those weak people they pretend to be doing so much to fight for. Once discovered to be do nothings they come up with the phrase that people just slipped though the cracks of the welfare system (while they continue to feast and thrive on the booty) or that the poor people fell though the safety net. Stranger yet in America is that some capitalist landlords whose politics leans far far left happen to make a fortune getting government hand out rent payments for people living in their rentals. We have section 8 and section 11 housing exactly for that purpose to transfer welfare payments directly to the rich and heartiest survivors of the fittest. Darwin might have wondered about the ecology of social natural selection and how it is that people can actually evolve into political organism worthy of being in a class of nobility? He was born into a similar system of social hierarchy that really did not provide much of any welfare to anyone. He might wonder why such an elaborate ideology that creates the illusion of altruism to transfer the real welfare benefits to a class of nobles ever evolved. Chances are he might initially blame it on democracy or maybe reach a more advanced conclusion that it is informed democracy that is responsible. . Close