Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism has a lot of related points to Darwin’s evolution theory. In his evolution theory, plants and animals that adapted best to their environment and food sources became the most dominant and powerful in their groups. In this said Social Darwinism theory, the same applies to human beings. Those that work the hardest and give everything to society should have the greatest amount of wealth. This natural superiority of some people over others was a popular idea in the Gilded Age. Another aspect of this theory was that the natural ways of people should not be interfered with by the government. With government interference society would only return to its previous stages of conflict.
Social Darwinism was used to explain the difference in classes during the Gilded Age. The wealth was concentrated in only one social group, and the rest of the people lived in poverty compared to the wealthy. Laws against long working hours and working conditions were not favored by those who were in control of their own employees. This theory was also used to explain why it was so difficult for people to move from the bottom of the social ladder up. Although, inevitably, it was very easy for people to slip from the middle to the bottom, and even in some cases from the top to the bottom.
Today, many people still have a sense of social Darwinism in their relations. The sentiments made in the Gilded Age about people in social classes are still carried today by many of the elites. They believe that the lower classes have done nothing to help themselves, and should not be aided by the government. They also believe that the government is simply egging on the problem by helping them out of their certain money problems instead of making them get out of it on their own.
This theory means that there will always be different social groups in society. In these groups, the highest class will have the most power and the most money and will live the most comfortably. In the middle class, people live well and have enough money to survive without question of where their next meal is coming from. In the lower class, people do not have a secured job and do not have financial security. This lower class is the least well off and often looks to the government for aid. This theory also states that the higher classes can kill off the lower classes and take over their failing businesses and basically take over all the profitable land and control the economy.
I find this theory very valid, seeing as we live in it today. Before stating what I agree with in this theory, I will state what I do not see as valid in society today. Back in the Gilded Age, people said that the government should not interfere or aid those in the lower classes who need money to survive. I do not agree that government shouldn’t play any role in the social classes, but I do think that the government should not continually aid those who are constantly asking for money. In continuing to aid them financially, they are giving them a crutch by creating a stable source of income for them through the government that is really tax payer’s money. Tax payers have a steady job and should not be expected to support those that simply don’t go out and find a job. I understand the government sending money to a widow, an orphan, or someone who has been laid off of their job for up to four months; but sending money to people who simply get a job lob enough to be considered for unemployment once they quit or lose this said job are abusing our government. Now, telling the government to not interfere at all would spell catastrophe in my mind, but the government needs to stay limited and maybe even put more regulations on who they send our money to. Everyone who pays taxes to the government has been named responsible for keeping the lower classes supported whenever the government gives out money to those who say they need it. In reality, I don’t want to pay for some woman’s support who is too lazy to get a good job. In consideration to them stating that it is impossible to climb the ladder, I disagree with that statement. America is meant to be where the average person can succeed and live freely and not have to worry too much about money or where their next meal is coming from. If the government did not give some people money when they are suffering then people could not survive as the American dream says they should. Another point I don’t agree with is the degree to which it separates the classes. Although there are separations of classes, it’s not the cruelty that it used to be. All in all, I believe that the theory is very valid, even in today’s society.