hoiboit

I know that a lot of, if not all of, us feel passionately about Herbert Spencer's and all of the social Darwinists' beliefs. Yes, they were used as justification for racism, imperialism, capitalism, big business dominance, and a whole host of awful things. Another reason that his argument is preposterous, though, is that it doesn't even make any sense. He suggests that the poor are the way they are because they are naturally inferior. If these beliefs were to correlate with those of Darwin's natural selection, that would mean that the poor would die out. If Spencer thinks that it would be natural for the poor to die out, where would he think society would go? There always needs to be a poor class, unless we all become Marxist socialists. Even if the poorest class dies out, there will need to be another tier to fill that place. In order for there to be a rich class, there needs to be a poor class. It's not like with natural selection when a species dies out it ceases to exist. As long as capitalism prevails, a poor class of some sort or another will exist. Also, there are many rich and powerful people who are genetically not "superior". History has shown us that some of the greatest rulers have had offspring who have proven incapable of maintaining his or her parents power. Even though they were born from and are a part of what Spencer would call a "superior" race, they can be as idiotic as someone who Spencer would have considered a part of an "inferior" race. Thus, Spencer's arguments are, at most, ill-founded excuses conjured up so that white, rich men could sleep better at night.