This article is unclear: is the critique of social darwinism out to save Darwin’s theory for biology? the issue here is the fallacy of natural selection, and the latter is false for biology even as it moves to confuse sociology with social darwinist metaphors.
Leftists are constantly rescuing Darwin from social darwinism, blaming Spencer in the process. The problem lies with Darwin’s theory. Spencer is merely another muddle head in the line of Malthus.
The confusion created by darwinism is endless: the simple solution is to see that things don’t evolve by natural selection.
Natural Selection And The Oedipus Paradox suggests the way theory and action become muddled in the conscious application of theory, one only devised to explain organisms who can’t read books, in a situation that doesn’t apply. Competition in the market place does not produce evolution. A nutty idea.
A study of WHEE can help to repair the confusion created by darwinism: ‘evolution’ of anything, here civilizations, is a complex process that requires a specific process to ‘climb Mt. Improbable’. The model shown shows how ‘causal sequences’ lapse into generalized intermittent sequences: some other process must enter to input one-time information, which can’t be summarized by a causal law.
More simply we see that a directional or teleological process is behind real ‘evolution’. How could it be otherwise? The proposition that complexity arises by chance is one of the dumbest ideas of the last two centuries.