What were the major differences between social and reform Darwinism, and what impact did they have on political thought?

Social Darwinism basically says that, people who are unable to defend themselves should be left behind from everyone else. An example of this would be the Holocaust. The Nazi’s believed that they were better than the Jews and due to this, they believed that the Jews deserved to die. ReformDarwinism on the other hand, believed that people were people and it said that people should just help people no matter what. We see ReformDarwinism in everyday life such as babies and the elderly. Babies don’t do anything for the beginning of their lives, but we feed and take care of them anyways, same as the elderly; even though people get old and can’t contribute as much as they used to, we still take care of them and treat them as people because that is what they are. Something both Social and ReformDarwinism have in common is that they are still both seen today.

Explanation:

Social Darwinism was a term created in the late 19thcentury to describe the pseudo-scientific idea that humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, compete in a struggle for existence in which "natural selection" results in the "survival of the fittest".Social Darwinism misuses the theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Reform Darwinism however, advocated for a stronger role for government and the introduction of various social policies. Reform Darwinism argued that human beings need new ideas and institutions as they adapt to changing conditions. However, the term has negative implications for most people because they consider it is a rejection of compassion, equality, and social responsibility. I believe the stigma of the term is justified as Social Darwinism led mostly to social conservatism and not so much social reform. This ideology introduced a new train of thought that forever changed Western politics. This ideology is often used to rationalize poverty, racism, imperialism, capitalism, ableism, sexism, and other forms of oppression. It is based entirely on justifying existing power structures due to some prior law of nature. Most arguments

within this form of Social Darwinism argues that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty and institutionalized oppression. Instead, they advocate "laissez-faire" political and economic systems that favor competition and self-interest in social and business affairs with no regard for the public. More extreme versions of SocialDarwinism, such as eugenics, advocate for the right genocide of the "inferior". Within modern times, we see more of the first version of Social Darwinism, through "Neo-liberalism"

your answer is

relations between the soviet union and the united states were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. the distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.

the united states government was initially hostile to the soviet leaders for taking russia out of world war i and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism. although the united states embarked on a famine relief program in the soviet union in the early 1920s and american businessmen established commercial ties there during the period of the new economic policy (1921–29), the two countries did not establish diplomatic relations until 1933. by that time, the totalitarian nature of joseph stalin's regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the west. although world war ii brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating nazi germany, the soviet union's aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward eastern europe had created tensions even before the war ended.

a social contract.

"a social contract is an agreement between citizens and their leader where the citizens give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection. the constitution of the united states is an example of a social contract."