Extinctionof the SocialDarwinismCanard 253HistorianBarryWerthis anotherfigurewhonoticesthe irreconcilabilityof Spencer’s
consensualismwithgovernment-enforced“scientificracism.” Thoughhe somewhatan-
noyinglyappliesthe phrasesocialDarwinismto Spencer’s laissez-faireism,Werthestab-
lishesSpencer’s ideasto be distinctfromeugenicsdoctrine.After1894,writesWerth,
“socialtheoriststurnedmoreaggressivelycritical” of laissez-faire“socialDarwinism”—
[sic;actuallySpencerianecosystemeconomics].Hencethesesocialtheoristsembraced“a
new,more‘scientific’ approachto humanbettermentby encouragingfavoredbloodlines
throughsocial,legal,andmedicalmeans—eugenics.Appealingto the emerginginterest
in preservingandextendingAmerica’s ‘racialstock’ in an era of dawningimperialism,
nativistanxietyoverrisingpoverty,disease,andimmoralityamongimmigrantgroups,
and a newzealfor governmentreforms,” the governist“eugenicsmovementswiftlytook
rootacrossAmerica.” Werthcomprehendsit as ironicthat as “racialsciencereemergedas
a rationalefor statesocialpolicy.. ., Spencer’s theoriesandsocialDarwinismwere
frequentlyblamed,despiteSpencer’s lifelongabhorrenceof all coercivestatecontrolof
the individual.”^132
I commendGoldbergandWerthfor writingwhattheyhaveaboutSpencer,for I
cannotstand to witnessanymoremistreatmentof thisintellectualgiantby Kincaid,
EdwinBlack,or anyoneelse.I findJohnKennethGalbraith’s caseparticularlygalling.
Recall,fromchapter1, GalbraithpummelingSpencerandSumneras evilfor their
wishthatthe governmentceasetaxpayer-fundedwelfarespending.Yet,as he derided
free-marketeconomicsas ruthlessDarwinism,Galbraithservedas an apologistfor the
command-economicspoliciesof MaoTse-Tung.In the year1972,as MaoruledChina,
Galbraithvisitedthe countryand thenreportedin a bookpublishedthe subsequentyear
his impressionof howthe Statedictatedovereconomics.Galbraithconcludes,“Therecan
be no seriousdoubtthatChinais devisinga highlyeffectiveeconomicsystem.” On
accountof Mao’s genius,Chinaexhibits“newhousing,newindustrialplants,” and “new
buildingat old plants.. .” Galbraithannounces“the impressivefigureson the increasein
localindustrialand agriculturalproductionand employment.. .” Thushe cheers,“... the
Chineseappearto havedevelopeda plainbut remarkablyefficientsystemfor the distri-
butionof consumergoods.” Yes,“the Chineseeconomyappearsto functionveryeasily
and well.” To providethe readeran ideaof howproductivethe RedChineseeconomyis,
Galbraithmentions,“FrankCoeandSol Adler... guessthatthe rateof expansionin
Chineseindustrialandagriculturaloutputis nowbetween10 and11 percentannually.
Thisdoesnot seemto me implausiblethoughit meansa performance... rivalingthatof
Japan.” HenceGalbraithcannotfathomthe notionof the manufacturingsectorbeingin
poorershapein Red Chinathanin moreliberalizednations.“Exceptthat thereis no sales,
merchandising,marketingor advertisingstaff... not muchdistinguishesthe Chinese
fromthe Americanor Europeanindustrialplant.” Just as MichaelMoorewouldarguein
2004 thatCubansocialismprovidesbetterhealthcarethanwoulda free-marketrepublic,
Galbraithinaccuratelysuggeststhatthe MaoistStateaffordsgreateraccessto quality
healthcareto citizensthando privateprovidersin the USA.“I am preparedto believe
that GreaterShanghai... has a bettermedicalservicethanNewYork.The averagequality
of practiceis no doubtfar higherin NewYork.But the chanceof gettingno careis also
muchhigher” in NewYorkas well.GalbraithadmitsthatJosefStalinwasbrutal,and
deniesthatthe MaoistregimecouldpossiblyrivalStalinin rapacity.“Stalin(withMarx,
EngelsandLenin)still survivesin the ChineseCommunistpantheon.His picture...is in
mostplacesof publicceremony.” Yet Stalin’s “policyof planneddeprivationassociated
withhis nameis stronglyrejected” by the Chinesegovernment.Consequently,Galbraith
downplaysthe persecutionof politicaldissidents—a horrifyingpersecutionthat wouldbe
well-documentedin the decadesto come.“Dissidentsare broughtfirmlyintolinein
China,but, one suspects,withgreatpoliteness.It is a firmlyauthoritariansocietyin which