Social Darwinism and the welfare state

Social Darwinism refers to a group of theories that argue that the concepts of biological natural selection and the survival of the fittest, proposed by Charles Darwin, are in line with the existence and survival of societies. This term was popularized by Richard Hofstadter in 1944.

Social Darwinism propagates the belief that society, as an organism, will ensure that the strong—the wealthy—survive as the fittest by eliminating the weak, namely the poor. Therefore, the wealthy have grown at the expense of the poor and the weak. Since there are natural inequalities among humans, class distinction was a natural outcome. The wealthy held control over property and were perceived as possessing superior qualities such as work ethic, morality, and temperance. Although Social Darwinists focused on the concepts of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, their arguments had very little to do with Darwin's biological concepts of evolution. In fact, the term was used more in a sociological and political context.

Given the belief that natural processes require the elimination of the weak, state intervention is seen as harmful to this process. Free trade and competition are essential for natural selection. Since the poor are considered weak and viewed as unfit, they should not be helped to survive because their fate is to die. The strongest, the wealthy, have the resources to do so and will survive.

Herbert Spencer was a popular figure in the field of evolutionary studies of society. He argued that human evolution would lead to cooperation and benefits for the community. He thought that individual freedom led to an evolving society. Therefore, state intervention would hinder the natural evolution of society. If free competition is allowed, then the population leads to the best competitors, which leads to an improvement in society and, consequently, the general population.

So, how much does everything said about Social Darwinism align with the idea of the welfare state?

The concepts of Social Darwinism and the welfare state are based on two fundamentally contradictory schools of thought. I mentioned that Social Darwinism emphasizes the struggle for survival among individuals and groups in competition by applying the principles of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" in social and economic contexts. In contrast, the concept of the welfare state envisions state intervention and resource distribution to support and protect the well-being of every individual in society. Therefore, the idea of Social Darwinism creating a natural competition and hierarchy among individuals conflicts with the egalitarian and protective principles of the welfare state.

This is because the welfare state is a model of government in which the state assumes the responsibility of securing the well-being of its citizens and their basic needs, such as health, education, and income security, through economic and social policies. In this model, which has gained popularity in Western European countries, especially since the mid-20th century, tools such as social security systems like pensions, free public healthcare, educational opportunities, and unemployment insurance are implemented. These policies support the weaker individuals in society, ensuring that everyone is fairly represented and participates in society. At the heart of the welfare state concept lies economic justice, social protection, and equal opportunity. Thus, even individuals with innate or acquired disadvantages can achieve a better standard in terms of health, education, and quality of life. The welfare state approach advocates for individuals to have equal conditions in determining their own destiny and works to reduce social stratification.

On the other hand, it is worth mentioning the disadvantageous aspects of the welfare state model. This model can require high taxation and government spending, which puts pressure on economic freedoms. Furthermore, extensive state interventions lead to bureaucracy and efficiency problems.

In conclusion, the idea of the welfare state can be evaluated as a reaction against the competitive and hierarchical social structure proposed by Social Darwinism. Although the welfare state acknowledges natural differences between individuals, it tries to prevent these differences from leading to social inequalities and intervenes actively to ensure that every individual's basic needs are met. Therefore, there is an ideological incompatibility between Social Darwinism and the welfare state. Instead of competition between individuals, the welfare state encourages cooperation and support mechanisms, aiming for the formation of a fairer and more inclusive social structure.