Replies

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.

I should also point out this, from the same site I reference above:

The evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan, and others of the nineteenth century is largely rejected today. For one thing, their theories cannot satisfactorily account for cultural variation - why, for instance, some societies today are in “upper savagery” and others in “civilization.” The “psychic unity of mankind” or “germs of thought” that were postulated to account for parallel evolution cannot also account for cultural differences. Another weakness in the early evolutionists theories is that they cannot explain why some societies have regressed or even become extinct. Also, although other societies may have progressed to “civilization,” some of them have not passed through all the stages. Thus, early evolutionist theory cannot explain the details of cultural evolution and variation as anthropology now knows them. Finally, one of the most common criticisms leveled at the nineteenth century evolutionists is that they were highly ethnocentric - they assumed that Victorian England, or its equivalent, represented the highest achievement of mankind.