Letter #1,087: Evolution & Communism

Today’s letter-to-the-editor was found in the Idaho County Free Press, a weekly newspaper published in Grangeville, Idaho, population 3,141. The letter is titled All of this exposes materialistic, selfish attitudes, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Sandy. We’ll give you some excerpts from his letter, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

I was contemplating why the ideas of the Communist Manifesto have dominated our society since the Civil War. [What?] It coincides with the popularity of the theory of evolution which promotes secularism and materialism.

Sandy realizes that Ob the Origin of Species was published in 1859, and the Civil War started in 1860. Then he says:

The Communists would have us believe that capitalism is the enemy and once destroyed, normal and healthy human relationships will somehow reassert their dominance in society; All capitalism (the enemy) is, is private ownership of sufficient property to control or influence the means of production.

Sandy has no idea what the free enterprise system is. He tells us:

We can clearly see the cancer of capitalism [Groan!] in our recent history. The robber barons of oil and railroad monopolizing the means of distribution and production, the rise of super industry, building products that are so complex that small business really can’t compete with, and now the rise of the super technologies that seem to threaten the very essence of what a human being is along with its incipient ability to manipulate and fragment popular thought.

This guy sounds like one of Stalin’s speech-writers. His glorious letter continues:

This has driven us into the creation of a regulatory branch of the U.S. and state governments that now oversees almost all means of production, which I am sure many had hoped would curb the greed and power of the corporations, but has instead resulted in a loss of true competition and centralized control over government regulatory institutions by the very monsters they were created to control.

Sandy doesn’t like bureaucracy either. Is there any hope for this guy? Let’s read on:

It seems to me that the driving force behind all this greed and control are the ideas of secularism and materialism [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!], which simply free the conscience from playing the restraining role it was created to play in our lives.

Ah yes, now things are starting to fall into place. Here’s the end of the letter:

It is so uncanny how little real evidence and scientific support the theory of evolution has going for it and yet it permeates our literature and thinking everywhere. But when you get down to it, the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable.

Okay, dear reader, now tell us what you think of Sandy’s letter. Is he a genius, or maybe something else?

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Letter #1,087: Evolution & Communism

  1. because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable.

    What’s so unacceptable about it? If there was an intelligent creator then it is what it is. Meanwhile, evolution happened, and you got squat for evidence for intelligent designer(s). One suspects, Sandy, that you want to see your god everywhere because you are obsessed with it, and anything else is “simply unacceptable”. How dare you accuse others of “simply unacceptable” when you have that humungous plank in your own eye.

  2. He lost me at “ I was contemplating”.

  3. How strange. The usual analogy between natural selection and economics is to laissez-faire free enterprise, with unfettered trial and error, no central direction, and competition between different solutions. It appears that liberals are comfortable with unregulated competition in nature but not in human societies, while for many social conservatives, it is the other way around.

  4. Dave Luckett

    I wonder if Sandy has ever reflected that “the rise of super industry, building products that are so complex that small business really can’t compete” has produced net benefits to the consumers of those products, too. Not that the premise is right. Small business – contractors of all types – supply labour and and materials to the largest projects, the most complex manufacturing operations.

    It sounds as if Sandy is against all regulation of everything. Food, Sandy? Medicines? One of the hallmarks of unregulated industry is adulteration of everything, with anything at all. Ah, for those distant days, when there was coke in Coke, and opium could be given to infants to keep them quiet! If you want to see what happens when building is effectively unregulated, and construction companies skimp on everything, you need look no further than the tofu-dreg projects of China, where a major building collapse is a weekly event.

    But then we come, by some unknown route, to the often-hallucinated connection between Marxism and evolution. I’m not actually sure what Sandy is advocating here. He seems to dislike laissez-faire capitalism AND government regulation on principle, though how he reconciles those two attitudes is beyond me. But evolution he really dislikes, enough to tell simple lies about it. Little evidence! That’s a mind that has carefully kept itself in the dark.

    It takes a little digging to unearth Sandy’s real problem, but it’s seen in his remark that we “free the conscience from playing the restraining role it was created to play:”

    That is, Sandy’s problem is existential. It isn’t economic or political, not really. Those are symptoms, not causes. Nor is the problem capitalism or Marxism. No, it’s sin: avarice and envy. I can’t say he’s wrong about that, but his understanding of it is supernatural, and so is his solution: a “created” conscience. Being supernatural, it cannot be applied by any material means.

    So Sandy is a magical thinker, which in turn suggests that Sandy dislikes evolution because it doesn’t rely on supernatural cause, or advocate supernatural remedies. It attributes the simultaneous existence of avarice and envy on the one hand and altruism and selflessness on the other to the dualism inherent in being an individual member of a social species. Such a being benefits both from individual gain and from the welfare of other people, the latter having a strong reciprocal component. Evolution would therefore predict a tension and conflict between individual gain and social responsibility. This is precisely what is observed about all human societies.

    That conflict is the ur-cause behind practically all of human politics, economics, history, culture, literature. It lies at the heart of what it is to be human. How are we to reconcile the two, for the best possible results?

    I suppose I have to give Sandy kudos for being at least dimly aware of the scale of the problems he canvasses. But his comprehension and his ideas stop there, and his prejudices and ignorance take over. A fat lot of use that is.

  5. Apropos, Carl Weinberg’s Red Dynamite (Cornell University Press, 2021) — which I just reviewed for Evolution: Education and Outreach — provides a splendid discussion of the interaction between creationism and anticommunism. Not the least of its virtues is that it cites our genial host’s blog (p. 248). And you can score a free download from the publisher:
    https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501759291/red-dynamite/

  6. @Anonymous
    Economy is not biology, so different rules may apply.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    The sad thing is that I have many friends and acquaintances that would pretty much agree with Sandy.

  8. @TomS, in fact, one could argue that humanity succeeds as a species because of cooperation, which frequently results in regulation.

  9. das ist nicht einmal falsch

  10. It is so uncanny how little real evidence and scientific support the theory of evolution has going for it

    I wonder if he is looking for work because he would make a great projectionist. Or work at the rubber and glue factory, except that he’s rubber and evolution is glue.