¶ … Economists Explain the theory of Social Darwinism. What elements of truth are in the theory? How do you refute it?

The theory of Social Darwinism is simply asserts that only the fittest survive in the wild or in society as it exists today. Thus, this theory was based heavily on the ideas of Charles Darwin and his views on plants and animals in nature. Thus, this theory specified that the weak would ultimately not flourish but diminish, whereas those who were naturally possessing fortitude of strength and mind would exert influence and ultimately flourish. The ideas of Charles Darwin are view life as essentially a battle for existence which was ruled by the law of the common phrase, that most have heard which is "the survival of the fittest." Darwinists believed that nature would simply select those who were meant to survive, and those who were not -- hence the term natural selection. However, in society today, where survival does not depend on sheer might alone, one might wonder how social Darwinism manifests itself, and whether or not it still takes the same form.

Today, we still have weak members of society, members which depend so heavily on others and which need so much, but who are not necessarily physically weak. These members of society are those who depend on others for their survival -- for food and for shelter. These are the members who are on the receiving end of charity and the good will of others. These weaker individuals are "…always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man" (Sumner). Essentially Sumner is saying that it's the working class, industrious man who is responsible and is committed to a job and earns money, is essentially paying for the man who cannot take care of himself. This would be akin to a strong man (but not super strong man) carrying a man with two broken legs on his back through the forest. As Sumner asserts, it's completely unnatural: Darwin would naturally select the man with two broken legs to not be able to survive and thus cease to exist, and essentially, as Sumner alludes, we should do that with the people so dependent on charity. In order to survive, they're depending on not just the generosity of other people, but on the hard work of the industrious man, something which simply isn't fair -- or even natural. "The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings toward 'the poor,' 'the weak,' 'the laborers,' and others of whom they make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other noble sentiments of the human heart" (Sumner). What Sumner describes here as it would take place in the wild is essentially a group of people standing around feeling sorry for a person with two broken legs (who can't thus run from predators) or someone with no arms (who thus can't hunt for food).

These people of "generous spirit" are thus feeling guilty about their own health, vitality and success and offer to carry the weak, something which goes against social Darwinism and the overall health of the entire economic system. As Sumner explains, these "benevolent people" propose a transfer of capital, from the better off to the worst off. "Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put into reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer" (Sumner). Thus, every act of charity is actually hurting the strong, and with it, all members of society and the general health and wellness of society as a whole.

In what ways do the theories of Smith, Marx, Veblen and Hayek differ in their assumptions about...

"The meanest wretch puts an inestimable value upon himself, and the highest wish of the ambitious man is to have all the world, as to that particular, of his opinion: so that the most insatiable thirst after fame that ever hero was inspired with was never more than an ungovernable greediness to engross the esteem and admiration of others in future ages as well as his own; and (what mortification soever this truth might be to the second thoughts of an Alexander or a Caesar) the great recompense in view, for which the most exalted minds have with so much alacrity sacrificed their quiet, health, sensual pleasures, and every inch of themselves, has never been anything else but the breath of man, the aerial coin of praise" (Smith). As Adam Smith explains, man desires as such in order so he can purchase other goods, including honor -- the desire for honor being a tremendous motivator for economic activity and a major driving force among men.
Marx on the other hand, would argue that the struggle among the classes is one of the founding aspects of society and that this aspect motivates all economic activity: fundamentally all workers are struggling for power and they are fighting to eventually manifest what some view as inevitable, which is a classless society. As Marx asserted, "The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat" (chapter1). Additionally, Marx would probably argue that all workers are driven to reconnect to the products of their labor from which they are continually estranged, as workers are alienated from other workers, along with the process and products of their labor.

Veblen on the other hand, argued that economic activity, like any other form of human behavior was connected to the social sphere and also influenced by others. As Veblen asserts, "The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation; and the same motive of emulation continues active in the further development of the institution to which it has given rise and in the development of all those features of the social structure which this institution of ownership touches. The possession of wealth confers honour; it is an invidious distinction. Nothing equally cogent can be said for the consumption of goods, nor for any other conceivable incentive to acquisition, and especially not for any incentive to accumulation of wealth" In this manner, Veblen was one to concede to a certain degree of Darwinism when it came to social interactions, and that humans would continue to evolve dependent on their environments, ever dependent on technology. Economic activity, according to Veblen is also greatly influenced by human thought and perception.

Hayek argued that economic activity was motivated by economic freedom. Once there was less government intervention it meant to Hayek that people would have the freedom to choose, which to him meant a free market economy, which would be the most engaging motivator of economic activity. As Hayek explained, "It was only through a re-examination of the age-old concept of freedom under the law, the basic conception of traditional liberalism, and of the problems of the philosophy of the law which this raises, that I have reached what now seems to be a tolerably clear picture of the nature of the spontaneous order of which liberal economists have so long been talking."As Hayek believed, a significant issue for nearly any economy was the way in which people's actions were coordinated; in this sense his views were evocative of Adam Smith, who also noticed that free markets were key in helping to coordinate the actions of people, even though this level of coordination was not a major part of anyone's intent.

Comment on Keynes' view of the future economic…