<SNIP>
> ... if we are to
> see all of society as driven by genetic competition, how do we explain
> things like suicide?  lower birth rates among the rich?  celibacy?
> homosexuality?  a social-darwinist approach simply can't account for these
> without sounding silly (not that I am accusing you of promoting social
> darwinism, although I am not certain from your post that you would not
> advocate it, given what you've said) ....
>
>  m@2

        [in this letter, I don't mean to imply that any of you are espousing
Social Darwinism either; these are just my thoughts on the subject]

        I've heard writers mention that it may have been more than coincedence
that the theory of Darwinism was established under a capitalist
government (England), and that, at the same time, rather than basing
theories on competition, Russian scientists were exploring the progress
of species in terms of cooperation and voluntary aid.
        Peter Kropotkin wrote:

        "There is, in mankind, a nucleus of social habits -- an inheritance
from the past, not yet duly appreciated -- which is not maintained by
coercion and is superior to coercion. Upon it all the progress of
mankind is based...." (from Kropotkin's _Memoirs_of_a_Revolutionist_)

        In _Anarchism:_Left,_Right,_and_Green_, Heider writes:
        "[social Darwinism is] the inhumane theory of the survival of the
fittest and of competition as the natural principle of life. Kropotkin
counters this principle with the idea of 'mutual aid,' which he
illustrates in his book of the same title with numerous examples of
animals spontaneously helping each other. One of the most famous is his
moving story of a blind pelican who is lovingly fed by his fellow
pelicans instead of being left to die. Humans, too, says Kropotkin, have
a natural inclination for solidarity and socially responsible conduct."
[pg. 16]

        I tend to agree with Chomsky that humans are competitive just as humans
are "mass-murderers, bold, courageous, fearful, and loving," that humans
are anything you like, but given a social system that exaggerates and
rewards certain traits, you may see these traits inordinately reflected
in their conduct day-to-day, because they feel that their embracing of
these values is necessary for their survival (in this case, competitive
capitalism). I personally feel that this is a great tragedy, that
perhaps many humans will not realize their potential as free and
creative beings, and that many will die having never known the liberty
that permits one to engage in the non-coercive, life-affirming work and
play that, it seems to me, humans have every right to expect to
experience. This, to me, is one of the greatest tragedies of modern
governments based on wage-slavery and the "socialization of cost yet the
privatization of wealth" doctrine.

                                        --Brian
                                        mailto:[log in to unmask]

--
"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of
human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for free
creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive
institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society should
maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to
be realized. Now, a federated, decentralized system of free associations
incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what I
refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that it is the
appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological
society, in which human beings do not have to be forced into the
position of tools, of cogs in a machine. " -- Prof. Noam Chomsky, MIT