18

Is Capitalism a Game of the Survival of the Fittest?

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
132 comments | Share | Flag

It is quite common to be in a discussion about economics and proposing a capitalist solution when someone pipes-in “that’s just survival of the fittest.” What they are talking about is “Social Darwinism” and the image they mean to conjure up is that capitalism is like a bunch of gladiators fighting it out to the death until there is just one winner. Unfortunately, this tends to trip many of us because we often say that capitalism is about competition and that competition is what makes America great.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If one is formed from false premises and the other from true premises, then they never intersect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by james464 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They have to intersect, according to my reasoning. We can agree to disagree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by james464 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not so fast cowboy....authors all the time state things for the sake of argument and such assertions are not necessarily associated with their personal beliefs. There is nothing invalid about confirming he believes this. This isn't a game.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by james464 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok so is consciousness associated with an immaterial soul, or simply what we call brain activity resulting from chemical interaction and is completely material?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Seriously? You are contending that the 144,000 utility patents granted in 2014 were all completely new products?

    But hide away, I didn't realize this was your thread where you get to hide anyone who disagrees.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very few patented inventions are wholly new products. The majority of them are improvements in existing ones to make them more competitive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Innovation is a vague poorly defined concept. An invention is a human creation with an objective result.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The point of most inventions is not to compete with someone else but to create something useful that the person wants and they think other people will want. Edison did not create the light bulb to compete with the gas companies
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 9 years, 7 months ago
    Most misunderstand Darwinism. In the natural world there is plenty of cooperation within species and among (think symbiotic relationships). The 100% safety thinking drives me crazy. We don't live in Utopia as there is none.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, I understand your point better now. Rearden metal was an invention and "competition" is to be considered a product, not a driver, of innovation. The connotation of "competition" relates to a second-hand perspective instead of a proper hierarchy of values. To Rearden, it was all about Rearden metal. "A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others." Thanks for the good point. +1
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. You are using consciousness to deny the efficacy of consciousness. Your argument basically consists of material determinism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, though many companies use profits from "bread and butter" products to allocate assets in such a way as to innovate newer products.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -5
    Posted by james464 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We may be set apart from animals, but according to evolution, we are related and therefore, simply constructs of chemicals and our ethics are defined by ourselves and are at best subjective. Given this, our biology is all we have to direct us....nothing else since there is nothing else right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 7 months ago
    Competition drives innovation. A superior product at a superior price should gain market share. The onus of proof is on the producer to educate his customer on the benefits of his innovative product. It is clear that in stiff competition - with commodities for example - that either the most cost-effective or the best marketed product wins. This is competition. Most companies win on innovation, marketing, cost control, or a combination of these. As far as social Darwinism goes, we should remind ourselves of the hierarchy. In the human realm, competition follows not from biological tenets, but from ethical ones: the ethic of productiveness follows from the requirements of man's life on earth (most of us seek to live above subsistence). This ultimately reduces to the definition of man as the rational animal, that is, a being possessing a consciousness properly composed of volitional conceptualization. This sets human beings apart from biological determinism we ascribe to the animals.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo