Social Darwinism: sociological theory or a dangerous myth?

The doctrine of Darwin that appeared in the scientific and semi-scientific revolution in the 19th century literally exploded European thought. There were many opponents of this theory, but also many of its most ardent devotees. The concept that living organisms adapt to changing conditions and survive as a group only those who have managed to adapt has formed the basis of numerous social theories. The idea of biological species began to be extrapolated to human individuals, social strata and even to entire nations and races.

Philosophical positivism, which was inclined to view the development of the world and society as progressive progress, proved to be the most receptive to the teachings of the genius biologist. It was among the positivists (A. Small, T. Malthus, G. Spencer and others) that a theory arose which later was called "social Darwinism". The scientists of this school simply "overturned" the doctrine of evolution and natural selection, which reigns in the wild, on human society. So, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer claimed that the fittest people survive. And with this phrase, the famous positivist, unfortunately, demonstrated his ignorance in the fundamentals of biology and misunderstanding until the end of Darwin's teaching, of which he considered himself a follower.

The theory of Charles Darwin argues that the fittest and strongest individual conveys its strengths to descendants. It does not follow from this that a weak specimen will perish, die of hunger, be devoured or rejected by its congeners. Simply the male most adapted to the created natural conditions will be the preferred partner in the eyes of females who wish to transfer this genotype to their offspring. The transfer of a stronger genotype is the driving factor of the change in the whole species, not some part of it. The entire species (we call it a dead-end branch in evolution) may not be suitable for new natural circumstances, or it may be that its representatives begin to change and develop.

However, social Darwinism regards natural selection as a struggle for existence within a species, between individuals. Being rich, owning natural resources and having political power is far from being the same as giving your genome as many descendants as possible. A billionaire may not have children at all, or his descendants will not have the same predatory "grasping reflex" as his father. In any case, such a strong individual species will not change at all.

Social Darwinism in its reflections does not consider the species of Homo sapiens as such. He is inclined to see in human society a lot of disunited individuals who are inclined to kill each other for a piece of bread. Thus, one of the theorists of the social theory of evolution, T. Malthus, argued that the planet's population, even using an intensive mode of production, increases livelihoods in an arithmetic progression, while it multiplies itself in a geometric way. From such overpopulation and, as a result, lack of resources for all, epidemics spread and bloody wars are played out, which, in principle, is not bad, since the strongest survive in battles and in epidemics.

Social Darwinism, multiplied by the racial theory of the superiority of the Aryan nation, gave birth to such an ugly phenomenon as the ideology of National Socialism. The notion that some nations, races or social groups are weak, and therefore must be either subordinated or even destroyed (remember that the Nazis sent their own, feeble-minded people into the gas chambers, believing them to be spoiling the high Aryan title), up to Still live in the minds of some ideologists. Thus, at the end of the 1980s, the prominent Soviet scientist N. Amosov, with all academic seriousness, suggested carrying out a large-scale study of Soviet citizens from different social groups with a view to distinguishing them into two types: "weak" and "strong." J. Sorel called the theory of social Darwinism a "social myth", undermining the notion of social justice.