David B. Shemano wrote: >> Social Darwinism (and racism) was not solely, even primarily, a right-wing, >> fascist viewpoint in the 100 years after Darwin published ... Social >> Darwinism (and racism) was pervasive in the most "progressive" ideological >> streams until WWII, and when the historical memory of WWII finally wears >> off, I am reasonably sure it will make a big comeback again in the minds of >> progressives.<<
> David does raise an important question: why should the right-wing be > exclusively accused of social-Darwinism?< Social Darwinism isn't the same as eugenics. Before the invention and popularity of genetics, the "fittest" had "better breeding," which meant better schooling, etc., not better genes. (The "fittest" had personal tutors and went to Eton or Yale or wherever.) Even earlier in European history, the "fittest" had the grace of God, as in Calvinism (in which the sign of grace was financial success). Somehow, the "fittest" are always the richest (or their spokespeople). (Irony alert!) BTW, I also don't think that Social Darwinism was that much of a Darwinian thing. Its main tenets existed before Darwin, while people like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton gave it a new vocabulary. Before that, they were likely followers of Malthus and his ilk. Ebeneezer Scrooge preceded Darwin. I don't have any references at hand, but my memory is that a lot of "progressives" in the US advocated eugenics before World War II (Luther Burbank springs to mind).[*] Eugenics (which advocates artificial selection or sees it as "natural") is almost always racist and often even fascist,[**] but the "progressive" version of it didn't involve Social Darwinism, which is very individualistic. Social Darwinism -- the vision that society's principle should be "survival of the fittest" -- meshes well with money libertarianism (ML), but this need not involve eugenics. The early 20th century version of eugenics in the US would differ between the "progressives" and the MLs. The former might advocate government sterilization of retarded people so they couldn't breed (as was actually done) while the MLs would lean more toward advocating the abolition of poor relief because it encourages the inferior to have children. That is, while the "progressive" eugenicists advocated positive state action, the ML eugenicists thought that the Invisible Hand could do the job quite nicely. There is a more collectivist version of Social Darwinism (often called "social evolutionism"), involving "the survival of the fittest nation." This can show up as part of _any_ nationalist movement (especially in the richer and more powerful nations), including social democracy, American exceptionalism, fascism, and Nazism (four very different phenomena). Methinks that social democracy involved less of this perspective than American exceptionalism, fascism, or Nazism did, because it involved much more internationalism at the grass-roots level. Strictly speaking, money libertarian principles don't fit with nationalism, but versions of ML ideology have been wedded to traditionalism as part of the US "conservative" movement for a long time (and now in the GOP), with marital advice from the likes of William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan. Traditionalism has always embraced nationalism. As I've discovered from being married, cohabitation encourages compromise. So likely many ML adherents have embraced traditionalism in practice if not in theory. It's true that the Nazis rid both eugenics and racism of most of their legitimacy and popularity (one of the few good things resulting from their insanity). But racism persisted -- and persists -- in the US and had to be attacked by the civil rights movement. It (and anti-Jewish bigotry, etc.) didn't go away. Eugenics persists in a milder form, as with the BELL CURVE book, but it doesn't involve advocating selective breeding the way the original eugenics movement did. > On a different note, I am a bit confused about why David thinks > social-Darwinism is poised to make a "big comeback". I assume this must be > because he expects the new high-throughput DNA micro-arrays to discover the > IQ gene and its genetic basis sometime soon...< Social Darwinism has already made its big come-back, though without the vocabulary. It's right at the center of neoliberalism. It may not use eugenicist vocabulary, but (as I said above) eugenics and Social Darwinism are not the same thing. Why would racism make a come-back (or rather, increase its number of adherents significantly) in the US? well, the hyper-individualistic trend pushed by the neoliberal policy revolution (of 1979 and after) tells people that they have no-one to blame but themselves if they fail and that essentially they're on their own. For most people, especially those without a lot of financial assets to fall back on, this is depressing and extremely lonely vision (especially in an era when family institutions have become more fluid). With the New Deal ideal of the government that actually helps its people being rejected from above, people seek out community instead, joining all sorts of groups including, for example, mega-churches. With the recent version of globalizing capital and a likely long period of significant economic stagnation ahead, a lot of community groups are likely to embrace racism against immigrants and off-shore workers (to justify using them as scapegoats). Of course, not all people respond to the "you're on your own" mentality by joining community groups. Another response is to embrace methamphetamine, compulsive gambling, and the like. These addle the brain and encourages retrograde ideas like racism. David writes that he is >> reasonably sure it will make a big comeback again in the minds of progressives.<< That's different from what raghu said. Part of the problem is the fuzziness of the word "progressive." It seems to have a very different meaning now than, in the aughts, the 1910s or the 1920s.[***] Nowadays, "progressive" seems to mean the same as "social liberal" or mild social democracy (in favor of positive state intervention for collective aid of the population while rejecting traditionalist ideas like racism and sexism). In that case, any of the new racists are more likely to be attracted to the "conservative" movement and the US GOP. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [***] According to the Wikipedia's article on eugenics, >>The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Prescott Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.<< [**] Eugenicists also advocated sterilizing the mentally retarded, the insane, etc. The full list can be found by looking at which groups the Nazi slaughtered. [***] The mixing up of different types of "progressives" seems one basis for the idiocy of Jonah Goldberg's recent book. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
