>Speaking of the so-called "social Darwinism" (or the repackaged rat race), it's not even a nice abstraction, because it's simply inaccurate. It neglects the development of social services, safety nets (and all other "bleedin heart librul" or whatever terms were used to disparage these ideas) are a social mechanisms evolved exactly to counterbalance the niceties of the initial accumulation and capitalism as survival of the greediest. Evolved, i.e. part of the same social Darwinism, if you want. They were invented, and have taken root, because they satisfy a social need. Had the need not been there, the invention wouldn't have happened, or would have been an evolutionary dead end.

Hey Dragan,

Just want to add, "social Darwinism" is also mislabeled. Social "Hobbsian" would be much more accurate. Nonetheless, we'll continue to refer to it as Darwinism due to the precedence and momentum, not to mention the arguing that would ensue at UT. haha The "survival of the fittest" notion as understood by bio-science would be better expressed to us nowadays as "survival of the fitting-est". i.e. those that fit in and don't get outside the bell curve with selection pressures will survive, those the don't fit in and excessively exceed or create intolerable selection pressures for others will get eliminated. And btw, Adam Smith asserted that public policy *is* part of the free market -- but WTF does he know about economics!?! lol

Steven-
P.S. Darwin wasn't "Darwinian"
Jung wasn't "Jungian"
Freud wasn't "Freudian"
Jesus wasn't "Christian"
Buddha wasn't "Buddhist"
...you get the picture.