Q: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection argues that the world is a place in which there is a scarcity of resources, there is competition between varied forms of species, and that the most fit forms successfully survive. What might the consequences of this theory be if you consider it within a social context in which a few people are equal in terms of economic wealth, and success in the business world often determine one's relative social standing? Do the elements of Darwinian evolution make a good?theory? Why?
A: Well, that's what happened when people literally adopted the theory of evolution to society: social darwinism, eugenics and the "logic" of the Holocaust.
Social Darwinism proved to be a useful theory for the Imperialist states for colonizng the world. Justifying their actions as "the ADVANCED species". Intellectuals such as Rudyard Kipling were deeply effected by social darwinism, justifying the conquering/colonial rule as the "white man's burden" to "civilize" the "savage" world.
Eugenics were bent on creating the 'better man'. "Preventing social degeneracy" - by sterilizing the 'inferior people(such as the mentally ill, homosexuals, people with genetic diseases) and promoting the 'superior people', the society was supposed to become better. People like George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill agreed to those terms.
Under Fascist racism, eugenics later evolved to the logic of the Holocaust. Which, no doubt, I need not explain.
Darwinism is a theory of physical evolution, and thus explains nothing about how species organize themselves on social level as they evolve. What kind of power is behind the social actions of the advanced species, what drives are behind the current state the society?
Darwin never thought of that, and of course, he was never interested in it.