Here is some dialogue generated out of my reading the Landa article.
CB ^^^^^^ Is neo-classical economic theory a version of social darwinism ? Charles What about the notion that competition will produce the best, individual rational man maximizing his self-interest and profit, may the best man win, the fittest man, roughly speaking ? Aren't the rich rich because they are the fittest economic competitors, naturally constituting themselves as economic overseers ? How is it that NC explains that some people become richer than others ? Charles * From: Michael Perelman The NC school often does refer to Darwinistic ideas -- not necessarily social darwinism -- to explain how competition works. Firms do not know they are maximizing, but those that do are selected for survival ... This line is used when people point out that the theory makes assumptions that are ridiculous. I don't know if anyone pushed this idea before Friedman. ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, that's the type of thing I'm thinking about. "Darwinist" ideas in the above social, non-biological context is social darwinist. Oddly I started thinking about this based on a critique of Nietzsche as deriving an atheist philosophy that is propaganda for the ruling classes based on social darwinist notions of the supermen/ruling class being more naturally fit rather than chosen by God. Social darwinism is a broad atheist counter-Marxist movement in bourgeois intellectualdom. But also, the capitalists are atheistic in essential function qua capitalists. NC is a bourgeois atheist discipline ( so to speak, as it were). This makes me wonder if it participates in the broad social darwininst paradigm. * From: Jim Devine On 7/29/06, Charles Brown wrote: > CB: Yes, that's the type of thing I'm thinking about. "Darwinist" > ideas in the above social, non-biological context is social darwinist. Jim D: there's a whole field of "evolutionary game theory" which has a certain Darwinist tinge without being social Darwinist. Some old radical econmists (Herb Gintis, Sam Bowles) are into it. ^^^ CB: Yes, "darwinist" shades to materialist. ^^^^^^^ > Oddly I started thinking about this based on a critique of Nietzsche > as deriving an atheist philosophy that is propaganda for the ruling > classes based on social darwinist notions of the supermen/ruling class > being more naturally fit rather than chosen by God. Social darwinism > is a broad atheist counter-Marxist movement in bourgeois intellectualdom. Jim: I don't think Nietzsche was a social Darwinist. It's more a matter of feudal ideas of superiority. CB: I was thinking the same thing on the feudal superiority ( It's the author Landa who marks his social darwinism, though I have heard that elsewhere). In fact, I was thinking that Nietzche intellectual power might be in that he is representing the feudal and old Greek and Roman slave powers in European history, as well as the new bourgeoisie. In other words, N. atheism represents all the European ruling classes down through history; because all of them had to have a certain level of atheism, really, in order to keep a heads up and ahead of the classes they were ruling over. They may have professed belief in religion ( as many political reps of the bourgeoisie do today), but did the "masses" of the ruling classes really believe in Gods or God ? The article I read argues that N. developed an explicitly atheistic and social darwinist ideology in support of ruling classes ( "overmen")in the abstract, based on the notion of the "fittest" constituting that overclass. The article argues that he does this to counter the pro-working class atheism of Marxism. ^^^^^ Jim: Also, social Darwinism doesn't have to be atheist. It seems to me that social Darwinism can be merged with Calvinist ideas about financial success as being a symptom of God's grace. And there are a bunch of Protestants who like free market ideology. CB: Agree that it doesn't have to be. But of course it can be, and in the case of Nietzche, this writer , Ishay Landa, is arguing that it is a social darwinist atheism, with a sort of cruel and harsh Nature forcing social hierarchy on humans. It claims that Nietzche is arguing ( or "poet-ing") that ruling classes exist as a natural phenomenon. > But also, the capitalists are atheistic in essential function qua > capitalists. NC is a bourgeois atheist discipline ( so to speak, as it > were). This makes me wonder if it participates in the broad social > darwininst paradigm. NC isn't truly atheistic. They believe in the Invisible Hand (a.k.a., the Auctioneer). ^^^^ CB: OK. Gotta think about that. How about the capitalists, though ? And then I'm thinking that in fact, down deep, _all_ ruling classes have had to be more atheistic than the classes they ruled - religion was for keeping the masses in confusion. And maybe Nietszche's atheism represents the essential or de facto atheism of the feudal ( as you mention), capitalist and Greek and Roman slave rulers, all in one big reactionary atheist ideology. * From: Michael I don't think that most economists would admit to believing in a hereditary component to the class system. Individual initiative can lift anyone out of poverty and into prosperity, according to this theory. On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:07:11AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > no. The Chicago school (Milton Friedman _et al_) and neo-liberalism > are effectively versions of social darwinism, but most of the rest of > NC economics isn't. > > On 7/28/06, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Is neo-classical economic theory a version of social darwinism ? > > > > Charles > > > -- > Jim Devine / "An economist is a surgeon with an excellent scalpel and > a rough-edged lancet, who operates beautifully on the dead and _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
