I wonder what Darwin and Thornstein Veblen would have to say on this topic of “Economic Darwinism.”
I had someone say they favor Wal-Mart because it represents “Economic Darwinism” which got me thinking about wtf this even means. Here’s my take…
If the definition of “Economic Darwinism” is survival of the fittest business then by that definition where does Wal-Mart fit in to the definition of survival when compared to all sectors?
To survive is to live or exist in spite of danger or hardship. What sort of danger or hardship does Wal-Mart suffer from? What exactly constitutes for hardship and danger for the elite world population/resources exploiting billionaires?
“Saying Wal-Mart V. small business is an acceptable example of “Economic Darwinism” is like saying, “It’s perfectly acceptable to wipe out a whole community because I like money.”
Wal-Mart doesn’t operate to “survive.” They operate to saturate and to intentionally monopolize. Who then operates to survive? I guess that would be the small business. Mom and pop businesses are in business designed to promote survival, to feed a family, to pay a mortgage, to send some kids to school.
On another note Darwinism is the study of biological beings and a change in their genetics. It’s something you have no control over and you have no choice but to cope with it.
“Economic Darwinism” sounds like some fundamentalist’s fabulously concocted excuse to be greedy without having any remorse. Business is not a biological thing and therefore it can be controlled. Darwinism describes a biological change “Economic Darwinism” describes what? A feeling of entitlement? They’re not even the same damn thing!
Saying Wal-Mart V. small business is an acceptable example of “Economic Darwinism” is like saying, “It’s perfectly acceptable to wipe out a whole community because I like money.”
What a despicable thing to be arguing for.
