The social Darwinist argument goes; Darwin said its survival of the fittest and I'm rich so that must mean I'm the fittest and deserve what I've got. You are poor and that means you are rubbish and deserve to be poor and if that means you die young well that helps clean up the gene pool doesn't it.
Something that never gets mentioned in this argument is the issue of parasites. One of the things which troubled Darwin and helped him on the way to his theory of evolution was his difficulty in believing that a benevolent creator would create a creature which injects its eggs into another living creature which is then devoured by its offspring - if you allow evolution then the creator does not have to be evil; parasitism is just a consequence of the struggle for survival.
There is a constant battle going on between the parasite and the creature being parasitised; small birds have learned to tip cuckoo's eggs out of their nests for example.
Humans suffer parasitism, not only from other species but from other humans and much of the political struggle over the last 300 years has been one of humanity freeing itself from the clutches of its own internal parasites.
The particularly nasty aspect of human parasitism is that the great skill of the human parasite is that of persuading the victim to let them. Human parasites get their hooks-in using language.
The preist's version was " pay your tithes or you will go to hell" the royal courts rode on the back of this with their "the king is god's representative on this earth and you must obay him without question".
The philosophical and scientific advances during the enlightenment helped us to vanquish these parasites.
Unfortunately, when you destroy the habitat of a parasite it looks for a new one; parasites head for anywhere warm and safe with a plentiful supply of blood. The new game in town was capitalism and that's where the parasites headed.
Marx got upset about this and socialism was born.
But here is the problem; the human parasites are schemers with an eye to the main chance and will always head where the action is. It is my belief that most revolutions fail because the chaos is so attractive to parasites - there is a massive opportunity to get to the top of the pile and feed off a whole nation if you play your cards right. Since they are naturally silver tongued (that's how they work their trade after all) they make natural demogogues and appear to be good leaders (sounding plausible is half the skill - they lack the other half; a genuine concern for the enterprise).
Where Marx and so many others failed was that they identified the problem with the institution or system rather than its infestation with parasites. The result of this was assertions like "Capitalism is the problem" actually capitalism isn't the problem - there are thousands if not millions of examples of capitalist enterprises that succeed without exploitation of their workforce. Who could argue that if you are prepared to take a risk with your life savings, work your guts out and have a genuine good idea that you shouldn't be able to take the rewards of your efforts rather than hand it all out to people who never get off their backsides?
The problem with capitalism is that it is an ideal environment for parasites to thrive and since Thatcher and Reagan all the major political parties have become infested with parasites (a genuinely libertarian politician would be a breath of fresh air) and only look after the people who feed them and who could destroy them overnight if they withdrew their favour.
One of the big weapons that Thatcher was able to wield was the evident corruption of the unions at the time, yes that's right the noble cause of worker protection had been destroyed by parasitism.
People need to understand this if they are ever to win the argument over the corruption of British society. Don't attack the system, attack the corruption of it, because that is the real problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment