CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
4
Is Economic Darwinism Is Not Economic Darwinism
Debate Score:14
Arguments:11
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Is Economic Darwinism (7)
 
 Is Not Economic Darwinism (4)

Debate Creator

logicsoup(39) pic



Is Capitalism Economic Darwinism?

Is Economic Darwinism

Side Score: 10
VS.

Is Not Economic Darwinism

Side Score: 4
3 points

I despise the misuse of the term Darwinism, but that said, contrary to popular belief that capitalism somehow is free and mutual association, it is often coercion due to the division of labor and regular consumption of needed items. To a point, the misnomer applies; in that in many situations its survival of the "economically fit".

Side: Is Economic Darwinism
1 point

I agree that the term Darwinism is dreadfully misused. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the word 'fit' when people think of 'survival of the fittest.' Today people take this to mean the survival of the strongest or healthiest, when in fact it he meant by fit, those creatures that were best able to conintue thriving in their environment.

Side: Is Economic Darwinism

Unrestrained capitalism, yes, but so are most economic systems. The successful thrive, the unsuccessful don't. You can apply that analogy to anything with a competitive aspect.

Side: Is Economic Darwinism
1 point

Darwinism is mainly Darwin's theory of Natural Selection explaining evolution. Natural Selection is any genetics and species that can survive in its environment will continue to breed and spread the genetics so that further species will have the advantageous genes. If genetics and species are unable to survive in an environment, they will not be able to continue their species.

Capitalism is the ability for individuals to have the right to life and property. Capitalism is mutual trade.

Natural Selection always applies to evolution, however Capitalism is an economic system of property rights and trade rights. The two are not comparable.

Side: Is Not Economic Darwinism
ryuukyuzo(604) Disputed
2 points

Other than semantics, you don't have an argument here. By labelling capitalism "economic darwinism", he's drawing an analogy between natural selection and market forces. It's not meant to be literal and when taken figuratively it makes perfect sense. Companies with poor business models (unfit genes) go bankrupt (die) while companies that are able to adapt to market fluctuations survive and thrive.

The only asymmetrical part of this analogy is that companies don't require procreation as they are not corporeal entities with limited lifespans, however given that the 'evolvability' of a company is far greater than that of a living organism, this difference is moot.

Side: Is Economic Darwinism
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

Companies with poor business models (unfit genes) go bankrupt (die) while companies that are able to adapt to market fluctuations survive and thrive.

Does this not work for any other system of economics?

If Capitalism is how you describe it, Capitalism is the natural state of economics. Hell, in the Soviet Union they found public farms to fail miserably while the few private farms provided a large percentage of the food to Russia. State owned farms failed to meet the demand of the market while private forces succeeded. Eventually this (and many other factors of failed Communist policies) led to the downfall of Soviet Russia (and other Communist countries.)

I would say that instead Economics is bound by Darwinian law (if this is how you wish to play around with the term.) China continues to have terrible labor practices by maintaining its extreme authority over the economy while Hong Kong has been able to maintain free market principles making it a thriving aspect of Chinese economics.

Side: Is Not Economic Darwinism
1 point

It depends how you define Capitalism. Can you show me a country where true laissez faire economics is practised? I don't know of one off the top of my hat. And it depends how you define Darwinism. If a situation where outside interference affects the outcomes can still be considered as coming under the umberella of Darwinism (such as a kind little girl finding the runt of the litter and feeding and caring for it so that it continues to thrive when it would have otherwise have died - (i.e. the runt has survived because it has somehow been a good fit for the environment because it would cute and piteous-looking enough to be saved) then yes. If you this is not your idea of Darwinism, because you believe that by rights the runt should have died, then no.

Because most capitalism practised (including that practised in the supposed champion of the free market - the US) is not really laissez-faire capitalism. Farmers and other industry sectors are often heavily subsidised, and thrive where they would otherwise have suffered. Most (all?) advanced countries that practise capitalism are actually mixed economies, where the government taxes its populace and redirects wealth and resources (whether that be to the poor and the sick, or the army and to help certain corporations over others).

Side: Is Not Economic Darwinism
1 point

What is economic darwinism? so that we can agree on semantics.

Side: Is Not Economic Darwinism