(See the related entry Business And Darwinism, posted on January 15, 2011 in a cluster of entries under the common title To Owe Or Not To Own. Another related entry Origin Of The Origin Of The Species has not been posted yet, but I intend to post it some time later. The reader may have realized that right now I am picking a number of previously unposted entries from the Contradiction section of my book, to variegate my blog selections.)
Darwinism has a hugely relevant application to this section’s economic-social leitmotif, namely, the sharp ideological (rather than substantial) opposition of capitalism vs. socialism, translated into the social sphere as the opposition of democracy vs. totalitarianism. The first of these two opposing terms, capitalism, has been tackled in the entry Business And Darwinism, directly preceding this one in this section. In the present entry we are discussing, as the title announces, the second term: socialism. Mind you, this is not to say that the demarcation lines between capitalism and socialism, or democracy and totalitarianism are all that clearly drawn in real life, but they are certainly rigid and intractable in the minds of those whose job it is to juggle with these theoretically antipodal terms.
In the chapter The Utilitarians of his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell implies an intimate connection between Darwinism and capitalism, thus placing socialism in the opposing camp. I believe that this is an oversimplification of sorts, as I point out in the entry Business And Darwinism, where the latter is the catalyst, exposing what is wrong with capitalism from the social, and especially from moral standpoint. Here, in this entry, I shall hopefully demonstrate that socialism’s opposition to capitalism does not portend their particular affiliation (or antagonism) vis-à-vis this catalytic function of Darwinism, and the best way to do it is by starting with an extended excerpt from Russell:
“The Philosophical Radicals (Bentham and the Benthamites) were a transitional school. Their system gave birth to two others, of more importance than itself, namely, Darwinism and Socialism. Darwinism was an application to the whole of animal and vegetable life (I would rather call it a parallel) of Malthus’s theory of population, which was an integral part of the politics and economics of the Benthamites-- a global free competition, in which victory went to the animals that most resembled successful capitalists. (Russell’s last sentence alone supports my point that Darwinism not so much sides with capitalism against socialism, as it puts in sharp focus the amorality [please, do not confuse this word with “immorality,” as animals, to which the comparison is extended, are amoral, rather than immoral!] of capitalism, revealing its close similarities to the behavior of certain lower strata of animal life!) Darwin himself was influenced by Malthus, and was in general sympathy with the Philosophical Radicals. There was, however, a big difference between the competition admired by orthodox economists and the struggle for existence which Darwin proclaimed as the motive force of the evolution. “Free competition” in orthodox economics is a very artificial conception, hedged in by legal restrictions. (It is no doubt an artificial conception, just because capitalism in pure form cannot exist, instantly turning into a Hobbesian war of all against all. Government regulation of capitalism is an objective necessity, but it instantly undermines the conceptual foundations of “free enterprise,” as soon as the latter’s actual non-viability has been exposed by its conditional and restricted practice.) You may undersell a competitor, but you must not murder him. (Russell’s examples are, perhaps, intentionally crude, but their surprising relevance to the actual situation in the capitalist world of economic competition is very much down-to-earth!!!) You must not use the armed forces of the State to help you get the better of foreign manufacturers. (Here Russell should not be mocked for displaying an incredible naïveté, as he is obviously following the idealistic line of the Benthamites, who, I strongly suspect, were themselves not that naïve, and could not possibly believe their own words, except as a feel-good injection of moralizing into the otherwise cutthroat business of global imperialist competition, which would later be cited as the principal cause of the first World War.) Those who have not the good fortune to possess capital must not seek to improve their lot by revolution. ‘Free competition,’ as understood by the Benthamites, was by no means really free.
Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method. The use of the State to secure victory in competition was against the rules as conceived by the Benthamites, but could not be excluded from the Darwinian struggle.” (Once again Russell exposes a deliberate Benthamite naiveté in this discourse, as if he wishes to contrast the capitalistic reality [which, in this case, is nothing but a piece of disingenuous wishful thinking] with Darwin’s brutal and amoral struggle for survival, whereas in reality it has to be the capitalist reality exactly, which comes the closest to compare to Darwin’s law of the jungle. [For the record, the phrase “Law of the jungle” was first introduced by Rudyard Kipling, but in a totally different, benign sense, from what we have become accustomed to.])
And now, here comes Russell’s very amusing punchline: “In fact, though Darwin himself was a Liberal, and though Nietzsche never mentions him except with contempt, Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” led, when thoroughly assimilated, to something much more like Nietzsche’s philosophy than like Bentham’s. These developments however belong to a later period, since Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and its political implications were not at first perceived.” (Ironically, Darwin’s theory can be interpreted as all things to all people, depending on what they expect to find in “Darwinism.”)
“Socialism on the contrary began in the heyday of Benthamism as a direct outcome of orthodox economics. Ricardo, who was intimately associated with Bentham, Malthus, and James Mill, taught that the exchange value of a commodity is entirely due to the labor expended in producing it. (See how brilliantly Karl Marx picks up from here!) He published this theory in 1817, and, eight years later, Thomas Hodgskin… published the first Socialist rejoinder, Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital. He argued that if, as Ricardo taught, all value is conferred by labor, then all the reward must go to labor… Meanwhile, Robert Owen… had become convinced of the doctrine, which soon came to be called Socialism. (The first use of the word “Socialist” occurs in 1827, when it is applied to the followers of Owen.)” (Most ironically, it is impossible to establish the name of the person who coined this momentous word!)
Despite their mutual friendships, the Philosophical Radicals hated the Socialist idea, and in a letter written after 1831, James Mill prophesied: “These [socialist] opinions, if they were to spread, would be the subversion of the civilized society; worse than the overwhelming deluge of Huns and Tartars.”
…No matter how interesting and eminently edifying the preceding discussion may have been, it would be rather pointless without concluding what we set out to point out in the first place, namely, that, by the same token that it is not a bosom friend of capitalism, Darwinism is not a foe of socialism either. (Ironically, if you ask any American Evangelical Christian about Charles Darwin, they will readily explain to you that he was an atheistic socialist evolutionist, and a sworn enemy of Capitalism!) But the truth of the matter (whether the late Mr. Darwin would have liked it or not) is that, rather than taking sides, Darwinism today, even more than in Darwin’s lifetime, is sitting in judgment above the fray, posing this challenge to the human race, whether it has at all qualitatively evolved above the level of the frantically competing monkeys, from whom, as some have so unkindly intimated, we may have descended.
Darwinism has a hugely relevant application to this section’s economic-social leitmotif, namely, the sharp ideological (rather than substantial) opposition of capitalism vs. socialism, translated into the social sphere as the opposition of democracy vs. totalitarianism. The first of these two opposing terms, capitalism, has been tackled in the entry Business And Darwinism, directly preceding this one in this section. In the present entry we are discussing, as the title announces, the second term: socialism. Mind you, this is not to say that the demarcation lines between capitalism and socialism, or democracy and totalitarianism are all that clearly drawn in real life, but they are certainly rigid and intractable in the minds of those whose job it is to juggle with these theoretically antipodal terms.
In the chapter The Utilitarians of his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell implies an intimate connection between Darwinism and capitalism, thus placing socialism in the opposing camp. I believe that this is an oversimplification of sorts, as I point out in the entry Business And Darwinism, where the latter is the catalyst, exposing what is wrong with capitalism from the social, and especially from moral standpoint. Here, in this entry, I shall hopefully demonstrate that socialism’s opposition to capitalism does not portend their particular affiliation (or antagonism) vis-à-vis this catalytic function of Darwinism, and the best way to do it is by starting with an extended excerpt from Russell:
“The Philosophical Radicals (Bentham and the Benthamites) were a transitional school. Their system gave birth to two others, of more importance than itself, namely, Darwinism and Socialism. Darwinism was an application to the whole of animal and vegetable life (I would rather call it a parallel) of Malthus’s theory of population, which was an integral part of the politics and economics of the Benthamites-- a global free competition, in which victory went to the animals that most resembled successful capitalists. (Russell’s last sentence alone supports my point that Darwinism not so much sides with capitalism against socialism, as it puts in sharp focus the amorality [please, do not confuse this word with “immorality,” as animals, to which the comparison is extended, are amoral, rather than immoral!] of capitalism, revealing its close similarities to the behavior of certain lower strata of animal life!) Darwin himself was influenced by Malthus, and was in general sympathy with the Philosophical Radicals. There was, however, a big difference between the competition admired by orthodox economists and the struggle for existence which Darwin proclaimed as the motive force of the evolution. “Free competition” in orthodox economics is a very artificial conception, hedged in by legal restrictions. (It is no doubt an artificial conception, just because capitalism in pure form cannot exist, instantly turning into a Hobbesian war of all against all. Government regulation of capitalism is an objective necessity, but it instantly undermines the conceptual foundations of “free enterprise,” as soon as the latter’s actual non-viability has been exposed by its conditional and restricted practice.) You may undersell a competitor, but you must not murder him. (Russell’s examples are, perhaps, intentionally crude, but their surprising relevance to the actual situation in the capitalist world of economic competition is very much down-to-earth!!!) You must not use the armed forces of the State to help you get the better of foreign manufacturers. (Here Russell should not be mocked for displaying an incredible naïveté, as he is obviously following the idealistic line of the Benthamites, who, I strongly suspect, were themselves not that naïve, and could not possibly believe their own words, except as a feel-good injection of moralizing into the otherwise cutthroat business of global imperialist competition, which would later be cited as the principal cause of the first World War.) Those who have not the good fortune to possess capital must not seek to improve their lot by revolution. ‘Free competition,’ as understood by the Benthamites, was by no means really free.
Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method. The use of the State to secure victory in competition was against the rules as conceived by the Benthamites, but could not be excluded from the Darwinian struggle.” (Once again Russell exposes a deliberate Benthamite naiveté in this discourse, as if he wishes to contrast the capitalistic reality [which, in this case, is nothing but a piece of disingenuous wishful thinking] with Darwin’s brutal and amoral struggle for survival, whereas in reality it has to be the capitalist reality exactly, which comes the closest to compare to Darwin’s law of the jungle. [For the record, the phrase “Law of the jungle” was first introduced by Rudyard Kipling, but in a totally different, benign sense, from what we have become accustomed to.])
And now, here comes Russell’s very amusing punchline: “In fact, though Darwin himself was a Liberal, and though Nietzsche never mentions him except with contempt, Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” led, when thoroughly assimilated, to something much more like Nietzsche’s philosophy than like Bentham’s. These developments however belong to a later period, since Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and its political implications were not at first perceived.” (Ironically, Darwin’s theory can be interpreted as all things to all people, depending on what they expect to find in “Darwinism.”)
“Socialism on the contrary began in the heyday of Benthamism as a direct outcome of orthodox economics. Ricardo, who was intimately associated with Bentham, Malthus, and James Mill, taught that the exchange value of a commodity is entirely due to the labor expended in producing it. (See how brilliantly Karl Marx picks up from here!) He published this theory in 1817, and, eight years later, Thomas Hodgskin… published the first Socialist rejoinder, Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital. He argued that if, as Ricardo taught, all value is conferred by labor, then all the reward must go to labor… Meanwhile, Robert Owen… had become convinced of the doctrine, which soon came to be called Socialism. (The first use of the word “Socialist” occurs in 1827, when it is applied to the followers of Owen.)” (Most ironically, it is impossible to establish the name of the person who coined this momentous word!)
Despite their mutual friendships, the Philosophical Radicals hated the Socialist idea, and in a letter written after 1831, James Mill prophesied: “These [socialist] opinions, if they were to spread, would be the subversion of the civilized society; worse than the overwhelming deluge of Huns and Tartars.”
…No matter how interesting and eminently edifying the preceding discussion may have been, it would be rather pointless without concluding what we set out to point out in the first place, namely, that, by the same token that it is not a bosom friend of capitalism, Darwinism is not a foe of socialism either. (Ironically, if you ask any American Evangelical Christian about Charles Darwin, they will readily explain to you that he was an atheistic socialist evolutionist, and a sworn enemy of Capitalism!) But the truth of the matter (whether the late Mr. Darwin would have liked it or not) is that, rather than taking sides, Darwinism today, even more than in Darwin’s lifetime, is sitting in judgment above the fray, posing this challenge to the human race, whether it has at all qualitatively evolved above the level of the frantically competing monkeys, from whom, as some have so unkindly intimated, we may have descended.
No comments:
Post a Comment