Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

[Keit]

Several days ago, after passing a rather difficult exam at the university (yeepee!) I decided to clear my head, go to a bookstore and look for something to read during the break. And that's when I found this small book.

Don't know if Kropotkin's name or his works were mentioned here before, but it's amazing to find out that someone at the beginning of 20th century formulated ideas and realizations that may be quite essential for the survival during the soon to come trying times. Also, it's very sad to get a clear confirmation that not only our science didn't progress beyond that point (just recently saw articles about similar ideas being presented as "new" research), it seems like in reality "research" just being recycled. Also, it clearly shows how certain today's paradigms (like evolution and the "survival of the fittest") got twisted right from the beginning.

What is also interesting, that this research points toward cooperation and mutual aid being one of the main conditions for the survival of the species. Meaning, that if instead progress there is degradation by abandoning cooperation and adopting psychopathic "dog eating dog" view of reality, the Nature will react by extincting the "non fit".

In any case, I just started reading the book, but there are some interesting things already, so here is some info on the writer and quotes from the first chapter of the book. Also, here is a link to the pdf version. Apparently it is available online without restriction. _http://www.complementarycurrency.org/ccLibrary/Mutual_Aid-A_Factor_of_Evolution-Peter_Kropotkin.pdf

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin was a Russian prince, zoologist,evolutionary theorist, philosopher, scientist, revolutionary, philologist, economist, activist, geographer, writer, and prominent anarcho-communist. Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers. [...]
Kropotkin pointed out what he considered to be the fallacies of the economic systems of feudalism and capitalism, and how he believed they create poverty and artificial scarcity while promoting privilege. He further proposed a more decentralized economic system based on mutual aid, mutual support, and voluntary cooperation, asserting that the tendencies for this kind of organization already exist, both in evolution and in human society.

_http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/watching-the-detectives/peter_kropotkin_and_the_evolution

Born to an aristocratic family in 1842, Kropotkin was indeed a prince, who would later reject the title. While serving in the Corps of Pages (an elite military academy), Kropotkin received Darwin's recently-published Origin of Species from his brother, and was immediately fascinated. Soon after, Kropotkin led expeditions to Siberia. Like Darwin, Kropotkin made an early mark through his keen insights in geology. In Siberia, Kropotkin also noticed human societies wherein people cooperated with each other — what Kropotkin termed "mutual aid" — in order to survive the extraordinarily harsh conditions. He also observed animals performing similar acts of mutual aid.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

In 1902, Kropotkin published the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which provided an alternative view on animal and human survival, beyond the claims of interpersonal competition and natural hierarchy proffered at the time by some "social Darwinists", such as Francis Galton. He argued "that it was an evolutionary emphasis on cooperation instead of competition in the Darwinian sense that made for the success of species, including the human."[29] Kropotkin explored the widespread use of cooperation as a survival mechanism in human societies through their many stages, and animals. He used many real life examples in an attempt to show that the main factor in facilitating evolution is cooperation between individuals in free-associated societies and groups, without central control, authority, or compulsion. This was in order to counteract the conception of fierce competition as the core of evolution, that provided a rationalization for the dominant political, economic, and social theories of the time; and the prevalent interpretations of Darwinism.

Here are quotes from the first chapter of the book:

The conception of struggle for existence as a factor of evolution, introduced into science by Darwin and Wallace, has permitted us to embrace an immensely wide range of phenomena in one single generalization, which soon became the very basis of our philosophical, biological, and sociological speculations. An immense variety of facts: -- adaptations of function and structure of organic beings to their surroundings; physiological and anatomical evolution; intellectual progress, and moral development itself, which we formerly used to explain by so many different causes, were embodied by Darwin in one general conception.

We understood them as continued endeavours -- as a struggle against adverse circumstances -- for such a development of individuals, races, species and societies, as would result in the greatest possible fullness, variety, and intensity of life. It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the accumulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense only -- that of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its "large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny."(1*) While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning.

In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the most cunning, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. "Those communities," he wrote, "which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring" (2nd edit., p. 163).

The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature. Unhappily, these remarks, which might have become the basis of most fruitful researches, were overshadowed by the masses of facts gathered for the purpose of illustrating the consequences of a real competition for life. Besides, Darwin never attempted to submit to a closer investigation the relative importance of the two aspects under which the struggle for existence appears in the animal world, and he never wrote the work he proposed to write upon the natural checks to over-multiplication, although that work would have been the crucial test for appreciating the real purport of individual struggle. Nay, on the very pages just mentioned, amidst data disproving the narrow Malthusian conception of struggle, the old Malthusian leaven reappeared -- namely, in Darwin's remarks as to the alleged inconveniences of maintaining the "weak in mind and body" in our civilized societies (ch. v).

As if thousands of weak-bodied and infirm poets, scientists, inventors, and reformers, together with other thousands of so-called "fools" and "weak-minded enthusiasts," were not the most precious weapons used by humanity in its struggle for existence by intellectual and moral arms, which Darwin himself emphasized in those same chapters of Descent of Man. It happened with Darwin's theory as it always happens with theories having any bearing upon human relations. Instead of widening it according to his own hints, his followers narrowed it still more. And while Herbert Spencer, starting on independent but closely allied lines, attempted to widen the inquiry into that great question, "Who are the fittest?" especially in the appendix to the third edition of the Data of Ethics, the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits.

They came to conceive the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another's blood. They made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology. They raised the "pitiless" struggle for personal advantages to the height of a biological principle which man must submit to as well, under the menace of otherwise succumbing in a world based upon mutual extermination. Leaving aside the economists who know of natural science but a few words borrowed from secondhand vulgarizers, we must recognize that even the most authorized exponents of Darwin's views did their best to maintain those false ideas. In fact, if we take Huxley, who certainly is considered as one of the ablest exponents of the theory of evolution, were we not taught by him, in a paper on the 'Struggle for Existence and its Bearing upon Man,' that, "from the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as a gladiators' show.

The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to, fight hereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the most cunning live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumb down, as no quarter is given." Or, further down in the same article, did he not tell us that, as among animals, so among primitive men, "The weakest and stupidest went to the wall, while the toughest and shrewdest, those who were best fitted to cope with their circumstances, but not the best in another way, survived. Life was a continuous free fight, and beyond the limited and temporary relations of the family, the Hobbesian war of each against all was the normal state of existence."(2*) In how far this view of nature is supported by fact, will be seen from the evidence which will be here submitted to the reader as regards the animal world, and as regards primitive man.

But it may be remarked at once that Huxley's view of nature had as little claim to be taken as a scientific deduction as the opposite view of Rousseau, who saw in nature but love, peace, and harmony destroyed by the accession of man. In fact, the first walk in the forest, the first observation upon any animal society, or even the perusal of any serious work dealing with animal life (D'Orbigny's, Audubon's, Le Vaillant's, no matter which), cannot but set the naturalist thinking about the part taken by social life in the life of animals, and prevent him from seeing in Nature nothing but a field of slaughter, just as this would prevent him from seeing in Nature nothing but harmony and peace. Rousseau had committed the error of excluding the beak-and-claw fight from his thoughts; and Huxley committed the opposite error; but neither Rousseau's optimism nor Huxley's pessimism can be accepted as an impartial interpretation of nature. As soon as we study animals -- not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and the prairie, in the steppe and the mountains -- we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society.

Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, in as much as it favours the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.

Of the scientific followers of Darwin, the first, as far as I know, who understood the full purport of Mutual Aid as a law of Nature and the chief factor of evolution, was a well-known Russian zoologist, the late Dean of the St. Petersburg University, Professor Kessler. He developed his ideas in an address which he delivered in January 1880, a few months before his death, at a Congress of Russian naturalists; but, like so many good things published in the Russian tongue only, that remarkable address remains almost entirely unknown.(3*) "As a zoologist of old standing," he felt bound to protest against the abuse of a term -- the struggle for existence -- borrowed from zoology, or, at least, against overrating its importance.

Zoology, he said, and those sciences which deal with man, continually insist upon what they call the pitiless law of struggle for existence. But they forget the existence of another law which may be described as the law of mutual aid, which law, at least for the animals, is far more essential than the former. He pointed out how the need of leaving progeny necessarily brings animals together, and, "the more the individuals keep together, the more they mutually support each other, and the more are the chances of the species for surviving, as well as for making further progress in its intellectual development." "All classes of animals," he continued, "and especially the higher ones, practise mutual aid," and he illustrated his idea by examples borrowed from the life of the burying beetles and the social life of birds and some mammalia.

The examples were few, as might have been expected in a short opening address, but the chief points were clearly stated; and, after mentioning that in the evolution of mankind mutual aid played a still more prominent part, Professor Kessler concluded as follows: -- "I obviously do not deny the struggle for existence, but I maintain that the progressive development of the animal kingdom, and especially of mankind, is favoured much more by mutual support than by mutual struggle.... All organic beings have two essential needs: that of nutrition, and that of propagating the species. The former brings them to a struggle and to mutual extermination, while the needs of maintaining the species bring them to approach one another and to support one another. But I am inclined to think that in the evolution of the organic world -- in the progressive modification of organic beings -- mutual support among individuals plays a much more important part than their mutual struggle."(4*) The correctness of the above views struck most of the Russian zoologists present, and Syevertsoff, whose work is well known to ornithologists and geographers, supported them and illustrated them by a few more examples.

He mentioned some of the species of falcons which have "an almost ideal organization for robbery," and nevertheless are in decay, while other species of falcons, which practise mutual help, do thrive. "Take, on the other side, a sociable bird, the duck," he said; "it is poorly organized on the whole, but it practises mutual support, and it almost invades the earth, as may be judged from its numberless varieties and species." The readiness of the Russian zoologists to accept Kessler's views seems quite natural, because nearly all of them have had opportunities of studying the animal world in the wide uninhabited regions of Northern Asia and East Russia; and it is impossible to study like regions without being brought to the same ideas. I recollect myself the impression produced upon me by the animal world of Siberia when I explored the Vitim regions in the company of so accomplished a zoologist as my friend Polyakoff was.

We both were under the fresh impression of the Origin of Species, but we vainly looked for the keen competition between animals of the same species which the reading of Darwin's work had prepared us to expect, even after taking into account the remarks of the third chapter (p. 54). We saw plenty of adaptations for struggling, very often in common, against the adverse circumstances of climate, or against various enemies, and Polyakoff wrote many a good page upon the mutual dependency of carnivores, ruminants, and rodents in their geographical distribution; we witnessed numbers of facts of mutual support, especially during the migrations of birds and ruminants; but even in the Amur and Usuri regions, where animal life swarms in abundance, facts of real competition and struggle between higher animals of the same species came very seldom under my notice, though I eagerly searched for them.

The same impression appears in the works of most Russian zoologists, and it probably explains why Kessler's ideas were so welcomed by the Russian Darwi nists, whilst like ideas are not in vogue amidst the followers of Darwin in Western Europe. The first thing which strikes us as soon as we begin studying the struggle for existence under both its aspects -- direct and metaphorical -- is the abundance of facts of mutual aid, not only for rearing progeny, as recognized by most evolutionists, but also for the safety of the individual, and for providing it with the necessary food. With many large divisions of the animal kingdom mutual aid is the rule. Mutual aid is met with even amidst the lowest animals, and we must be prepared to learn some day, from the students of microscopical pond-life, facts of unconscious mutual support, even from the life of micro-organisms. Of course, our knowledge of the life of the invertebrates, save the termites, the ants, and the bees, is extremely limited; and yet, even as regards the lower animals, we may glean a few facts of well-ascertained cooperation.

The numberless associations of locusts, vanessae, cicindelae, cicadae, and so on, are practically quite unexplored; but the very fact of their existence indicates that they must be composed on about the same principles as the temporary associations of ants or bees for purposes of migration.(5*) As to the beetles, we have quite wellobserved facts of mutual help amidst the burying beetles (Necrophorus). They must have some decaying organic matter to lay their eggs in, and thus to provide their larvae with food; but that matter must not decay very rapidly. So they are wont to bury in the ground the corpses of all kinds of small animals which they occasionally find in their rambles. As a rule, they live an isolated life, but when one of them has discovered the corpse of a mouse or of a bird, which it hardly could manage to bury itself, it calls four, six, or ten other beetles to perform the operation with united efforts; if necessary, they transport the corpse to a suitable soft ground; and they bury it in a very considerate way, without quarrelling as to which of them will enjoy the privilege of laying its eggs in the buried corpse.

And when Gleditsch attached a dead bird to a cross made out of two sticks, or suspended a toad to a stick planted in the soil, the little beetles would in the same friendly way combine their intelligences to overcome the artifice of Man. The same combination of efforts has been noticed among the dung -beetles. Even among animals standing at a somewhat lower stage of organization we may find like examples. Some land -crabs of the West Indies and North America combine in large swarms in order to travel to the sea and to deposit therein theirspawn; and each such migration implies concert, co-operation, and mutual support.

As to the big Molucca crab (Limulus), I was struck (in 1882, at the Brighton Aquarium) with the extent of mutual assistance which these clumsy animals are capable of bestowing upon a comrade in case of need. One of them had fallen upon its back in a corner of the tank, and its heavy saucepan-like carapace prevented it from returning to its natural position, the more so as there was in the corner an iron bar which rendered the task still more difficult. Its comrades came to the rescue, and for one hour's time I watched how they endeavoured to help their fellow-prisoner. They came two at once, pushed their friend from beneath, and after strenuous efforts succeeded in lifting it upright; but then the iron bar would prevent them from achieving the work of rescue, and the crab would again heavily fall upon its back. After many attempts, one of the helpers would go in the depth of the tank and bring two other crabs, which would begin with fresh forces the same pushing and lifting of their helpless comrade.We stayed in the Aquarium for more than two hours, and, when leaving, weagain came to cast a glance upon the tank: the work of rescue still continued! I saw that, I cannot refuse credit to the observation quoted by Dr. ErasmusDarwin -- namely, that "the common crab during the moulting season stations assentinel an unmoulted or hard-shelled individual to prevent marine enemies frominjuring moulted individuals in their unprotected state."(Facts illustrating mutual aid amidst the termites, the ants, and the bees are well known to the general reader, especially through the works of Romanes, Büchner, and Sir John Lubbock, that I may limit my remarks to a very hints.(7*)

If we take an ants' nest, we not only see that every description of of progeny, foraging, building, rearing of aphides, and so on -- is performed according to the principles of voluntary mutual aid; we must also recognize, with Forel, that the chief, the fundamental feature of the life of many species of ants is the fact and the obligation for every ant of sharing its food, already swallowed and partly digested, with every member of the community which may apply for it. Two ants belonging to two different species or to twohostile nests, when they occasionally meet together, will avoid each other. two ants belonging to the same nest or to the same colony of nests will approach each other, exchange a few movements with the antennae, and "if one of them is hungry or thirsty, and especially if the other has its crop full... it immediately asks for food." The individual thus requested never refuses; it sets apart its mandibles, takes a proper position, and regurgitates a drop of transparent fluid which is licked up by the hungry ant.

Regurgitating food for other ants is so prominent a feature in the life of ants (at liberty), and it so constantly recurs both for feeding hungry comrades and for feeding larvae, that Forel considers the digestive tube of the ants as consisting of two different parts, one of which, the posterior, is for the special use of the individual, and the other, the anterior part, is chiefly for the use of the community. If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough torefuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or even worse. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolk were fighting with some other species,they will fall back upon the greedy individual with greater vehemence than even upon the enemies themselves. And if an ant has not refused to feed another ant belonging to an enemy species, it will be treated by the kinsfolk of the latter as afriend. All this is confirmed by most accurate observation and decisive experiments.(8*)

In that immense division of the animal kingdom which embodies more than one thousand species, and is so numerous that the Brazilians pretend that Brazil belongs to the ants, not to men, competition amidst the members of the same nest, or the colony of nests, does not exist. However terrible the wars between different species, and whatever the atrocities committed at war-time, mutual aid within the community, self-devotion grown into a habit, and very often self sacrifice for the common welfare, are the rule. [...] etc.

Beside insects, birds and animals, Kropotkin also brings lot of examples of cooperation between humans: various tribes, various historic periods, etc. All in all, looks like a good read.

 

[Mal7]

There is also an interesting article on Anarchism by Kropotkin on the web here:

_http://www.anarchy.no/kropot2.html

Here is a quote from the article:

ANARCHISM (from the Gr., [. . .] contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).

The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all branches of activity - including those which formerly were considered as the proper attribution of church and state - are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of - not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the anarchists refuse to be party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation.

The Historical Development of Anarchism.

The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its dynamic expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to the governing hierarchic conception and tendency - now the one and now the other taking the upper hand at different periods of history. To the former tendency we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves, of those institutions - the clan, the village community, the guild, the free medieval city - by means of which the masses resisted the encroachments of the conquerors and the power-seeking minorities. The same tendency asserted itself with great energy in the great religious movements of medieval times, especially in the early movements of the reform and its forerunners. At the same time it evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 BC), one of the founders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught that the wise must not give up their liberty to the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates he said that he did not desire to belong either to the governing or the governed class. Such an attitude, however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude towards the life of the masses.

The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual - remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct - that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece.
[. . .]

 

[janosabel]

Kropotkin and many other authors marshals the evidence that common-garden Darwinism with its simplistic survival-of-the-fittest-through-competition is not a safe model for understanding human societies.
Indeed, Darwin's idea of evolution is a much more sophisticated theory than the cut-down version commonly propagated in social Darwinism and by evolutionary theorists.

The Darwin Project is about recovering Darwin's theory in all its subtlety.

 

[psychegram]

Thanks for posting this! I just printed off the pdf. Very much looking forward to reading it ... Kropotkin has been on my todo list for a while.

 

[janosabel]

Thanks for posting this!...

Which post does this refer to, the Kropotkin material of the Darwin Project?

 

[ajseph 21]

Thanks Keit for sharing Kropotkin's work. I'm excited to begin reading the pdf and Kropotkin's article on anarchism was a great addition Mal7. The thing is how is it that Kropotkin's work is virtually unknown and Darwin's work is twisted to support our competitive civilization? Pathocracy man everything they say is just B.S.

 

[janosabel]

...how is it that Kropotkin's work is virtually unknown and Darwin's work is twisted to support our competitive civilization?...

This seems to be one of the strategies used by the Powers-that-be to defeat any serious tendency for evolutionary change in human civilization.

In my field of interest, a similar thing happened at the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, when competition-driven capitalism was clearly seen as failing humanity.
Two contending futures were being proposed to achieve an evolutionary step-change in western society.
One was based on Mark's thesis and the other was Henry George's system for socioeconomic reform.
The immune system of the existing power structure responded like this: over several decades it promoted the faulty Marxian solution while made every effort to discredit the alternative proposed by Henry George.
The process is well documented in the book The Corruption of Economics http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/!index.htm

Today everyone knows about Marxism and the failed attempts in building societies around it; but not the world wide land reform movement triggered by Henry George via his book Progress and Poverty.

 

[Keit]

Thanks Keit for sharing Kropotkin's work. I'm excited to begin reading the pdf and Kropotkin's article on anarchism was a great addition Mal7. The thing is how is it that Kropotkin's work is virtually unknown and Darwin's work is twisted to support our competitive civilization? Pathocracy man everything they say is just B.S.

Yep, I was also very surprised to read about many naturalists or other scientists in the late 19th century that were expressing views seen as "new" or revolutionary nowadays. And how Darwin's work was indeed twisted, or taken out of context (including Darwin himself, by maybe not protesting too much, but I don't know enough of his work to make this conclusion) in order to justify creation of a specific paradigm. Truly, in this case, "new" is something long time forgotten, or "buried"/ignored, to be exact.

Also, not long ago I had another interesting coincidence regarding Kropotkin. I happened to be present during memorial opening ceremony in honor of professor Makarevsky A.N, one of the highly respected scientists in veterinary field that also worked and taught at the Academy. And apparently he was quite active politically in his youth, was part of the revolutionary movement, exiled for 10 years and sent to Siberia. And later in his life he became director of the Kropotkin Museum and even while being already quite elderly continued to be the pain in the behind of the authorities by organizing small gatherings and providing monetary or whatever help and support to the remaining "Kropotkin committee" members.

 

[luc]

Thanks Keit for the thread, it's very interesting.

I really wonder what was going on in the late 19th century in terms of "vectoring" science. I don't know a whole lot about that time, but in hindsight, one could get the impression that it was all an orchestrated effort to "put science on track", which resulted in a paradigm shift that came to full effect only in the 20th century.

I mean there's Darwin and his followers and promoters of a simplistic, crude picture of the human condition, there is Neoclassical economics that eventually came to dominate the field until today, there is the creation of Sociology as a distinct discipline, further dividing science and preventing a more inclusive thought on the human social condition, then of course you have the whole Freud shtick dominating psychology for decades, the rise of Marxism and all that this entailed, then there's the creation of the Society for Psychical Research...

Also, not long ago I had another interesting coincidence regarding Kropotkin. I happened to be present during memorial opening ceremony in honor of professor Makarevsky A.N, one of the highly respected scientists in veterinary field that also worked and taught at the Academy. And apparently he was quite active politically in his youth, was part of the revolutionary movement, exiled for 10 years and sent to Siberia. And later in his life he became director of the Kropotkin Museum and even while being already quite elderly continued to be the pain in the behind of the authorities by organizing small gatherings and providing monetary or whatever help and support to the remaining "Kropotkin committee" members.

These seem to be exactly the kind of people who are "coincidentally" forgotten by the writers of history (of science).

Thanks again for sharing.