Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism? as edited by TonyPark (Talk | contribs) at 00:35, 13 January 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The question has not meaning as natural selection does not occur in human civilization where virtually every individual live to child bearing age and Marxism does function in nature only in human civilization.Rebiu 10:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest that natural selection does occur. Even if it were possible to ensure that each person had two children, the act of ensuring it happened is a form of selection. Some people have more kids than others, it might not be an active process but that is not in the nature of natural selection.

I would suggest that whoever thought up this topic explain exactly what is meant here. The two are almost completely unrelated to one another(Other than the idea of change). So, really, what is being got at here?

No it's not compatible, quite the opposite

Marxism in the form of socialism/communism, and stresses social equality. Those who are at the top of society has to contribute their share of the wealth in order to balance out those at the bottom of society. Planned economies, etc are ways to "equalize" everyone. Economic socialism was also something on the lines of what Jesus taught.

Darwin's natural selection is actually more like capitalism. You work to accomplish individualistic goals in self interest. When everyone pursues self interest, the result is society actually benefits as a whole. Intranetusa 14:30, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Stalin certainly didn't like it very much. His government forced scientists to adhere to a Lamarckian evolutionary model, as opposed to Darwinian, and the result was widespread famine and scientific paralysis. When the government interferes with the scientific process, the result is almost always a mess.TonyPark 00:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)