Godwin's Law smites this thread

[marlowe007]

You did say that Darwinism gets manipulated by people of both sides, and you felt the need to introduce this guy as a Marxist historian (as opposed to....?), so.....

Yeah, that's the point, he's a Marxist and therefore unbiased in asserting that Darwinism was based on capitalism...

 

[Thistlethorn]

According to the Marxist historian Robert Young, there is no distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. This fact is not a denial of evolution itself, but an acknowledgment that Darwin's biological views attempted to bring man into nature and were built on the political economy of Malthus, Smith and others.

The scientific theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the social model of darwinism, social or otherwise. Darwinism, according to wikipedia "has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species."

Bascially, it is a social adaptation of the ideas of natural selection that has no bearing on either the validity of the theory of evolution, nor the morality thereof. A scientific theory is amoral. Trying to inject morality into it is just working from your own biases.

 

[Cabal]

Yeah, that's the point, he's a Marxist and therefore unbiased in asserting that Darwinism was based on capitalism...

...by equating it with social Darwinism.

And you really consider him unbiased?

You really want to run with this?

 

[marlowe007]

...by equating it with social Darwinism.

Marx believed that Darwin had validated his ideologue, so this is not an argument that Marx would have made.

 

[Cabal]

Ok, before we carry on this discussion any further, when we're discussing Darwinism, I would hope that we're talking about Darwin's ideas/philosophies/ideas contemporary with Darwin etc only and not contemporary evolutionary theory?

 

[Cabal]

Marx believed that Darwin had validated his ideologue, so this is not an argument that Marx would have made.

Fair enough, I didn't know that. How did Marx believe that Darwin validated him?

 

[sbvera13]

What is embedded in the Theory of Evolution is the concept of Eugenics, a word you don't see evolutionists using here.

To put this in a form AV can understand:

QV please

aka, Pot: Meet Kettle.

 

[Cabal]

To put this in a form AV can understand:

QV please

aka, Pot: Meet Kettle.

Well, I was going to make the point that we should ask the Amalekites what they thought of eugenics, but that article beat me to it

 

[marlowe007]

Fair enough, I didn't know that. How did Marx believe that Darwin validated him?

[Darwin's work] … serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history. (Marx)

Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, and the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom. (Engels)

 

[Assyrian]

According to the Marxist historian Robert Young, there is no distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. This fact is not a denial of evolution itself, but an acknowledgment that Darwin's biological views attempted to bring man into nature and were built on the political economy of Malthus, Smith and others.

I think this tells us more about Young's Marxism than it does about Evolution.

[Darwin's work] … serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history. (Marx)

Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, and the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom. (Engels)

So Marx saw Darwin as the basis for Marxism while Engels thought it described Capitalism?

 

[marlowe007]

I think this tells us more about Young's Marxism than it does about Evolution.

The point here is that Young maintains Darwin's biological views were an endorsement of capitalism, whereas Marx and Engels thought the opposite.

There is no denying the influence of political economy on Darwinism. Both Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same conclusion simultaneously after reading Malthus.

 

[Assyrian]

The point here is that Young maintains Darwin's biological views were an endorsement of capitalism, whereas Marx and Engels thought the opposite.

So Marxism contradicts itself about the meaning of Evolution? Young thinks Darwin endorsed Capitalism, Engels thought it a scathing satire of Capitalism while Marx thought it endorsed his idea of class struggle. Hardly a sound basis for understanding a biological theory. And they all make the mistake of thinking Marxist political philosophy is a science and that Evolution tells us about politics instead of biology. But seeing as Social Darwinism made the very same mistake, is it unsurprising Marxists confuse Darwin with Social Darwinism.

There is no denying the influence of political economy on Darwinism. Both Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same conclusion simultaneously after reading Malthus.

Were they influenced by Malthus's political and economic theory, or by his analysis of population growth and resources, in other words biology?

 

[Split Rock]

Darwin?

You mean that guy who wrote, The Preservation of Favoured Races would resoundingly condemn Eugenics?

How many times have you been corrected on this point? How many times before it is no longer an error on your part, but a lie? What is SATAN the master of, again?

 

[marlowe007]

Were they influenced by Malthus's political and economic theory, or by his analysis of population growth and resources, in other words biology?

Malthus can hardly be described as a biologist, but he was many things including a parson, statistician, demographer and economist...

Best reply to Malthus I've seen:

"Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens." - Henry George

 

[Assyrian]

Malthus can hardly be described as a biologist, but he was many things including a parson, statistician, demographer and economist...

The sciences were a wide opened field back then and Malthus brought something new to biology, statistics and demography. His work may have been mainly about economics but his insight into biology was ground breaking. His conclusions and his economic and political philosophy which he drew from his study of population growth are less important than the way he highlighted the problem of population growth and finite resources. And it was this problem that Darwin realise could have other outcomes than simply population growth and famine, Another outcome could be selection and evolution.

Best reply to Malthus I've seen:

"Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens." - Henry George

Another solution to the Malthusian dilemma, agricultural research and development. Domesticating animals is a very old solution, the green revolution is newer and genetic engineering a further one. But they are all supplying answers, temporary anyway, to a genuine problem Malthus showed us.

But I'll let Robert A. Heinlein answer Henry George "It is never safe to laugh at Dr. Malthus; he always has the last laugh."

 

[AV1611VET]

Best reply to Malthus I've seen:

"Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens." - Henry George

LOL --- reminds me of a thread I once started --- 1.

 

[Split Rock]

LOL --- reminds me of a thread I once started --- 1.

Ah yes... an AVET clasisc. Completely without purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes... an AVET clasisc. Completely without purpose.

Glad to hear you admit that.

I shows we aren't animals after all, and that chickens shouldn't look at us as their natural predators?

Or does that term apply to we at the top of the food chain?

 

[Gracchus]

LOL --- reminds me of a thread I once started --- 1.

Everything reminds AV1611VET of AV1611VET.

He has replaced Professor Irwin Corey as the World's Greatest Authority.

 

[atomweaver]

Glad to hear you admit that.

I shows we aren't animals after all,

Your other two choices are vegetable and mineral... so which are you?