When observing the differences in these two images, one of a very wealthy family, living in an elegant home, and the other, a poor family, living in the streets, probably struggling to get by, one may conclude many things. A Social Darwinist's view of these two different families much differently than a Marxist. The differences in these two types of views, or that of any political theories throughout history, can dramatically affect the outcome of one's society. This essay will describe how a Social Darwinist would explain these social differences and what should be done about, verses what a Marxist would believe.
Social Darwinism is basically the laws theorized by Charles Darwin, but applied to society. These two pictures which show two opposite sides of the social heirarchy, might be described by a Social Darwinist as merely "fate". One should not feel sorrow towards the destitute family, nor should they feel envy towards the successful one. Whatever they have, or have accomplished can be assessed to who they are, and where they are coming from. A Social Darwinist would assume the differences between these two families were based on their race, heritage, and survival of the fittest. If the poor family depicted is living in the slums, the way it appears they are, it would probably be because, for whatever reasons, they could not compete with the wealthier family. Throughout social evolution, the poor families would be ruled out to make way for wealthier families. Eventually, only the strongest, most successful families would be left. This is how a Social Darwinist pictures an ideal society being accomplished. If natural evolution brought us to where we are today, social evolution will bring us even farther based on Darwin's simple principals.
A Marxist would view these two clearly different types of people and blame it on the flaws of society. Families can achieve success based on the suffering of others.