Socialism More Beneficial than Social Darwinism Essay

699 Words 3 Pages
The ideas of Social Darwinism and Socialism were first theorized by those in the age of industrialization, when the gap between the social classes was continuing to grow. Social
Darwinism is a philosophy that was taken off of the theory of Darwinism in two aspects that were applied to society. One, survival of the fittest. Those who succeeded in life were the ones who were “fit”, in addition, those who failed were left to be weeded out,
Secondly, the idea of natural selection as applied to society. Social Darwinism in our capitalist society compares wealth with fitness, but historically, these unregulated markets are not truly beneficial to both social classes, as there are always those who own less wealth or are physically or
…show more content…
With these ulterior motives by the wealthy, the poor had no choice in how to accomplish their success and were forced to work in the poor conditions of the industry. Evidently, the economy suffered from lack of economic opportunity for the poor, sanitary building codes, and welfare from the government. The failures were increasingly multiplying successes looking to seek and destroy all other competitors in order to create a monopoly. Child labor was also a result of this survival of the fittest system. Although a few like Andrew Carnegie felt they had a responsibility to the poor, charities did not amount for all of the poor families hardships and were basically given to silence the voice of those in poverty. Most of the wealthy, were greedy robber barons invoking Social Darwinism to collect hundreds of millions of dollars, benefiting from what many considered unfair advantages. Socialism is an economic and political philosophy that advocates collective or government ownership of factories and property. One goal of socialism is to broadly distribute a societies wealth. Influenced by Karl Marx, a German philosopher who criticized the capitalist economic system and predicted its eventual overthrow by workers. However, many rejected the idea that the government should prohibit those to compete freely. Many wealthy also repudiated the idea because they did not want to lose
Open Document