"Nothing
in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" reads the title
of the famous essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky. So too it is with many other
things, including, to some degree, forms of government. So what is it that makes capitalism so
much more conducive to our origins as human beings?
The
history of the world is scattered with the remarkable life stories of great men
and women. It is even said by some (and debated by others) that these
remarkable individuals are the very catalysts of said history. Even if this is not
100% the case, it would be hard to argue that these individuals did not have a
very large effect on the state of society as it is today. Furthermore, the fact
that we remember only these key individuals from the past implies that we are
not all the same, and that individual ability has always had a large role in the
order of things.
Let's
go further back now, to the very beginning. It was true then, as it is today, that
evolutionarily speaking, the main priority of the species is to spread and
multiply. That being said, back then, as well as now, there were individuals
who possessed higher capabilities than others, be those mental or physical in nature.
These individuals would often come out on top in various engagements, and thus
be the ones to either survive, or at least to carry on the species via
reproduction. Why would these individuals choose to do this? Sometimes
they probably wouldn't choose and would instead be chosen (perhaps by being
challenged by another individual), but other times these individuals were
seeking to maximize their utility. Thus enters Darwin's theory of natural selection, by
which time and nature filter the quality of the genes passed down from
generation to generation.
By
this reasoning, we can then see that, evolutionarily speaking, it makes no
sense for all individuals to be equal. If all individuals considered themselves
equal and shared equally all resources, a lack of intellect, strength, etc.,
would no longer be a disadvantage. This would cause all genes, even the most
pernicious amongst them, to be continuously passed down from era to era, as no
punishment or survival mechanism exists to weed out the least capable. This is
clearly not beneficial for the species, and what isn't beneficial for the
species goes against the dynamics of evolution.
Capitalism,
on the other hand, plays right into the hand of what nature expects. In
capitalism (at least when it is without flagrant free market failures), any man
can become wildly successful if he is only so able. A capitalist is restricted only by
his desire and competency. What is this but a 21st century example
of the survival of the fittest environment I mentioned earlier? Those of higher
capabilities attain more success and thus gain a greater probability of
surviving and passing on their genes. They are compensated for going out of
their way to do this by reaping all the rewards that come from being
successful, thus enhancing their utilities.
Communism,
by its core beliefs, stifles the human instincts that have been bestowed on us by our cave dwelling ancestors . We are an instinctively competitive species, for that is the process by which we purify our gene pool.
It is our way of establishing quality control, and capitalism builds around this framework very cleanly. Thus, for all its altruistic pretensions, it turns out
that communism is in fact much more oppressive to us than capitalism could ever be.
No comments:
Post a Comment