The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 265tionsthatHofstadter’s discipleshaveleveledaboutanti-regulation“socialDarwinists”
mustbe accurate.
FromWhomand WhatDoesRothschildThinkHe’s DistancingHimself?
Rothschildis at leastimplicitlyawarethatRichardHofstadterandcompanyhave
adornedSpencerwiththe reputationfor havingbeenthe originatorof socialDarwinism.
Rothschildis evidentlynot aware,though,that this reputationis undeserved.As a conse-
quenceof this falseinterpretation,Rothschildcategoricallyrejectsanyostensiblysocial
Darwinistthought.Thisrejectionmostlikelyencompasses,by implication,Rothschild
writingoff anddismissinganythingSpencerhadto say aboutsocietybeingthe workof
biology.In Rothschild’s view,“socialDarwinismwasa deeplyflawedattemptto apply
the theoryof evolutionto humansocialquestions.” Rothschildconsequentlyelidesthe
similaritiesbetweenhis ownobservationsaboutspontaneousorderand Spencer’s. Roths-
childhuffsthat
the mostfamiliarformof socialDarwinismis an economicphilosophy.Politically,a
socialDarwinistis a denizenof the far Right—a hard-core,laissez-fairecapitalistwho
believesthatin the strugglefor prosperity,the capablesucceedandthe incompetent
fail....... this philosophyholdsthatthe richare generallysuperioranddeservetheirwealth.
Thosecrushedunderfootin the scramblefor richesare inherentlyinferioranddeserve
theirhardfate.In the 1830sdebateoverthe reformof England’s welfarelaws,extreme
economicsocialDarwinistsarguedthatthe pooroughtto be allowedto starveto death.
In theirview,societycouldimproveonlyif the rich reproducedwhilethe poorwithered
away.
Rothschild’s accusationthat laissezfaire’s proponentscitedDarwin’s theoriesin the 1830s
is a strangeone.Darwindid not becomefamousfor his theoryuntilafterpublishingOn
the Originof Speciesin 1859.Norhad Spencerwrittenon evolutionby the 1830s.I wonder
howlaissez-fairepartisanscouldpossiblyclaimto drawconclusionsfromthe renowned
CharlesDarwinovera decadebeforehe becamerenowned.As we discoveredin Book
Two,Rev.T. RobertMalthushimself,whomDarwinconsideredan influencein his own
thinking,was well-knownin the 1830s,but he did not arguethat the impoverishedhavea
dutyto expirewithouthavingkids.Andas we haveacknowledgedinLIME, Malthus
supportedtariffsratherthanthe nightwatchmanstate.It is thereforedoubtfulthatMal-
thuscouldbe amongthe laissez-faireeconomistswhomRothschildimpugns.
“The onsetof the IndustrialRevolution,” Rothschildpersists,“triggeredmassivesocial
problems.Somebusinessmenbuiltstaggeringfortunes,whilethe greatmassof urban
workersenduredappallingconditionsin overcrowded,filthyslums.” ThenRothschild
continueshis inaccurateparaphrasingof the free-marketevolutionismattachedto the
reputationsof Spencerand Sumner.“EconomicsocialDarwinistsneverdoubtedthatthe
poorand theiroffspringwerecondemnedto povertyby inborndeficienciesof abilityand
intellect.... Nothingless thanthe causeof humanprogressobligedthe strongto obliter-
ate the weak.If an inferiorgroupwasn’t killedor at leastallowedto starve,theywould
reproduce,leavingmorehopelessdegeneratesto copewithin the future.”^13 For the
previouspassage,Rothschildcitesas his informationsourceAllanChase’sThe Legacyof
Malthus,^14 whichinsinuatesthat anybodywhowantswelfarerepealedis a socialDarwin-
ist whobegsthe needyto dropdead.^15 ThenRothschildaddsthatsocialDarwinists
“believedthat... the lawsof hereditydemandedruthlessnessif societywasto continue
its upwardcourse.The alternativewassurvivalof the ‘unfittest,’ leadingto the inevitable
declineof civilization.” Resultantly,