Replies

Potential (mis)application of a theory is irrelevant to the validity of said theory. Shirley, you cannot have forgotten the last time this was pointed out to you.

This is a valid point. I cannot say that the penchant for communists to adopt evolutionism thereby invalidates theories of evolution. Communism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate form of government. Evolutionism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate world view. Do you suppose the two just randomly decided to walk hand in hand?

But we're not talking about a "potential" misapplication here, are we? It really happened, and it can be fairly well verified that millions of people lost their lives as a result.

How would you describe the relationship between evolutionism, communism, and the general welfare of the citizenry under the same? Would you say there is no relationship whatsoever?

Evolutionism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate world view.

Won't wash. The evolution we are discussing concerns common descent of animal species. The "Evolutionism" you seem to be referring to is the social theory of cultural progression developed by Edward B. Tyler and expanded by Lewis Henry Morgan in the late 19th century. From here:

Karl Marx was struck by the parallels between Morgan’s evolutionism and his own theory of history. Marx and his co-worker, Friedrich Engels, devised a theory in which the institutions of monogamy, private property, and the state were assumed to be chiefly responsible for the exploitation of the working classes in modern industrialized societies. Marx and Engels extended Morgan’s evolutionary scheme to include a future stage of cultural evolution in which monogamy, private property, and the state would cease to exist and the “communism” of primitive society would once more come into being. How would you describe the relationship between evolutionism, communism, and the general welfare of the citizenry under the same? Would you say there is no relationship whatsoever?

I think you're reaching. At it's most basic level, the word evolution can be defined as "change over time." The Theory of Evolution we have been talking about is a part of biology specifically concerning common descent and speciation. This is a social theory, and while they may exhibit commonality in terminology, the meanings of the terms are dependent on the context.

Not to mention that the whole communism/evolution connection seems rather inconsistent from the get-go. "Survival of the fittest" is hardly a rallying cry for universal social and economic equality. If anything, it seems more appropriate to capitalism, if not outright anarchy.