Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
Apr 22 2008 10:53
I was wondering if anyone could suggest reading material related to Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. I've okay in terms of the political aspects of it, how it fits into communist-anarchism as well as how others have misrepresented it. I was wondering if anyone could suggest some resources on how it has stood the test of time in biology/evolutionary circles? What are the main objections to it from the mainstream scientific position? Has there been any work on this subject recently?
Many thanks!
Apr 22 2008 11:50
#2
Jones' take was criticised here
was this you - same person? If it is I guess you can ignore much of my previous post 
Apr 22 2008 13:17
#3
Apr 24 2008 20:13
#4
darren poynton wrote:
http://marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1956/kropotkin.htm
The second to last paragraph has the following written:
Quote:
It is not really “over-population” which worries the ruling classes. Rather the opposite is true; as is made clear by frantic efforts to increase population at the first sign of its tendential decline, by the fact that birth-control is made a crime, and by the maintenance of conditions that foster a vast increase of the impoverished masses. Conditions of misery for the masses are a prerequisite to the wealth and special social position of the ruling classes.
I'm having trouble understand why under population is bad for the elite. If you only have a few people who are completly impoverished, you are much more likely to hear less complaining and maintaining your privilege will therefore be much easier.
Or is the point that "over-population" causes a larger pool of workers/consumers which means lower wages to pay and larger markets for profits? (Which is why the elites love "over-population"?)
Apr 24 2008 20:41
#5
Virindi wrote:
I'm having trouble understand why under population is bad for the elite. If you only have a few people who are completly impoverished, you are much more likely to hear less complaining and maintaining your privilege will therefore be much easier.Or is the point that "over-population" causes a larger pool of workers/consumers which means lower wages to pay and larger markets for profits? (Which is why the elites love "over-population"?)
and, if there is underpopulation then there aren't enough bodies to produce enough goods to sell to enough people to accumulate more moolah. on the other hand if there are fewer people overall, there are also fewer accumulators, so the proportions of wealth can remain the same. just off the top of the head here.
Apr 25 2008 01:43
#6
Virindi wrote:
I'm having trouble understand why under population is bad for the elite. If you only have a few people who are completly impoverished, you are much more likely to hear less complaining and maintaining your privilege will therefore be much easier.Or is the point that "over-population" causes a larger pool of workers/consumers which means lower wages to pay and larger markets for profits? (Which is why the elites love "over-population"?)
More people=More workers
More people=More consumers
Double win like newyawka said.
Slightly more in-depth goes to the concept of unemployed=good for the brass.
Basically if everyone is employed then that means there is a shortage of workers and an overabundance of jobs to put it simply. So to get people to work for them the employers have to offer more and more than their competitors almost a bidding war for workers, which means they have to pay more for workers or offer them better incentives, working conditions/etc and so on just to get people to work for them.
On the other hand a large unemployed sector is great for big corporations and businessmen. What this means is that there is a shortage of jobs and an overabundance of workers. Which means they can employ people for as low as possible, offer them no benefits and offer them the worst working conditions on earth even the threat of death/etc and still have workers queuing up for a job beause a job=survival for them and their families.
Over Population almost always means a large sector of unemployment and vise versa. It's more complicated than that but there’s whole economies and populaces to take into account right but that’s the basic.
Apr 25 2008 07:15
#7
lrnec wrote:
More people=More workers
More people=More consumersDouble win like newyawka said.
Slightly more in-depth goes to the concept of unemployed=good for the brass.
Ah yes, and with that they have to use propaganda to keep the masses at bay.
I thought the article was only half right in discussing the means to which they pursue this result of "over-population". The article said it was both to thwart birth-control to create "over-population" and the elimination of jobs.
Obviously, I agree with the elimination of jobs statement: free trade, technology, downsizing, etc. But to control birth rates for profits? Is that far-fetched or is that a realistic statement? In order to have much effect it would take a good amount of time, at least for the child to be of working age and therefore increasing the working class.
Apr 25 2008 13:24
#8
Virindi wrote:
Obviously, I agree with the elimination of jobs statement: free trade, technology, downsizing, etc. But to control birth rates for profits? Is that far-fetched or is that a realistic statement? In order to have much effect it would take a good amount of time, at least for the child to be of working age and therefore increasing the working class.
I wouldn't say its that far fetched and governments controlling or influencing birth rates isn’t a big or a new thing anyway look at China one child policy or Russia’s encouragement to it’s populace to increase it’s population.
It wouldn’t take an exceptional amount of time to take effect either if the government could encourage half the population in this and future generations to have one extra kid on average then in about 14-20 years you’d have a fairly large and significantly growing increase of labour.
I’d be dubious about saying that it’s all about profits as you could probably think up a thousand different reasons why you’d want to change the population figures but profits do come into it. With an increase of workers you increase the number of unemployed which can lower wages and working conditions etc.
Apr 30 2008 18:22
#9
Brian Morris' work on Kropotkin had a very good polimical discussion on the validity of Kropotkin. He put a good third of the book into defining and defending Kropotkin's analysis. He also made sure to illustrate that Kropotkin was not isolated, but was actually part of a school that advanced the mutual aid concept of development. http://www.sjakoo.nl/books/8907.htm http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Krapotkin/Brian-Morris/e/9781591021582
It's not cheap, but it's a great read. I made the mistake of lending it to a friend, and he hasn't returned it in 3 years! Yeah, it's that good.
May 4 2008 21:50
#10
Stephen J Gould is your best bet as far as contemporary biologists go, but be cautious of him, as may evolutionary biologists remain very critical of him approach to evolution.
May 27 2008 09:51
#11
Hello all
Thanks for the suggestions. I've finished my introduction to Mutual Aid and the first draft is here:
Mutual Aid: an introduction and evaluation
It is a bit bigger than I intended! I've posted it for people to look at and make suggestions. It is for the new edition of Mutual Aid Freedom Press is producing. As this is a new edition of the book, it would nice if the introduction reflected the modern developments in the field as well as putting to rest a few of the more silly claims about it. It should also be including Kropotkin's 1914 introduction/preface which previous Freedom Press editions have missed out.
So, any comments and suggestions will be gratefully received. If I have missed any useful sources, please let me know. Thanks!
May 27 2008 17:52
#12
Quote:
The Anarchist formerly known as Prince
You might want to look into Robert Trivers' reciprocal altruim if you haven't already. Its usually, unfairly, been interpreted in a reactionary way. similar to steve jones' argument
Quote:
many creatures do appear to indulge in mutual aid” and that the “semblance of co-operation is all around.” However, this is just appearance, for this is, in fact, based “not on mutual aid but on greed and mutual exploitation.”
what does that mean?! Just because helping each other is beneficial to individuals doesn't make it mutual exploitaton, in fact its a good theory of how altruistic genes would have evolved.
May 28 2008 07:54
#13
Jess wrote:
You might want to look into Robert Trivers' reciprocal altruim if you haven't already. Its usually, unfairly, been interpreted in a reactionary way. similar to steve jones' argument
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Jess wrote:
Quote:
many creatures do appear to indulge in mutual aid” and that the “semblance of co-operation is all around.” However, this is just appearance, for this is, in fact, based “not on mutual aid but on greed and mutual exploitation.”what does that mean?! Just because helping each other is beneficial to individuals doesn't make it mutual exploitaton, in fact its a good theory of how altruistic genes would have evolved.
I know what you mean. I felt like expanding a bit on this, but I thought Jones can be quoted and left as it is -- the reader can see what nonsense it is. Animals working together for their mutual benefit can be described as "mutual aid" or "mutual exploitation" -- the former is unscientific wishful thinking, the latter is scientific terminology at its finest! Staggering, really, but that seems to be what his argument against Kropotkin amounts to.
Jun 2 2008 08:29
#14
Hello all
Just a wee note to say I've updated the introduction, based on suggestions made here and elsewhere -- plus fixing typos and such like.
Comments and suggestions are still welcome.
Iain
Jun 5 2008 09:28
#15
in Australia there is a 'baby bonus' of $5000
Jul 2 2008 09:56
#16
Just to let you know that I've updated the introduction to include some new material and clarify a few arguments:
Mutual Aid: an introduction and evaluation
There is still time for people to make comments and suggestions!
Jul 4 2008 13:36
#17
This is a nice intro. You referred to non-kin cooperation. I wonder whether a mention/explanation of the term kin-selection would also be useful, as this is a much favoured theory (that Dugatkin's title 'altruism equation' is referring to). The theory is basically an explanation of altruism (from a an evolutionary perpective) limiting it to close family. What would Kropotkin have had to say about that?
Jul 11 2008 09:28
#18
little_brother wrote:
This is a nice intro. You referred to non-kin cooperation. I wonder whether a mention/explanation of the term kin-selection would also be useful, as this is a much favoured theory (that Dugatkin's title 'altruism equation' is referring to). The theory is basically an explanation of altruism (from a an evolutionary perpective) limiting it to close family. What would Kropotkin have had to say about that?
Well, I doubt that many people would wonder why relatives co-operate and help each other out. Non-kin co-operation is what really matters and it is what Kropotkin focused on.
Iain
Jul 11 2008 09:48
#19
Anarcho wrote:
Well, I doubt that many people would wonder why relatives co-operate and help each other out.
You must not know my in-laws. *rimshot* Seriously, kins can get along quite poorly, in many places this exacerbates disputes.
Oct 21 2008 09:25
#20
I would like to note that in preparing my talk for this year's bookfair on Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, I've re-organised some of the sections and added some more material. I discuss the changes in my blog.
The most important is adding material about the revolt against neo-liberalism as the most recent example of how Mutual Aid relates to anarchist ideas on social change. I've also clarified the differences between mutual aid mutualism and symbiosis as well as noting the roots of the biological concept of mutualism with the socio-economic ideas of mutualism in French radical circles of the time.
The article can be accessed here: Mutual Aid: An Introduction and Evaluation
I should also note that Volume 1 of An Anarchist FAQ will be shipped this week, at long last!
Oct 21 2008 17:39
#21
Although it is sometime since I read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid re the ‘roots of the biological concept of mutualism’ I think Anton Pannekoek did a similar take on it in ‘Marxism And Darwinism’ 1912.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm
And in 1944, in ‘Anthropogenesis:A Study in the Origin of Man’ in a superior book that follows this theme and also included the development of language.
Pannekoek credits Kropotkin with the origin of the idea.
If you can get hold of it which seems to be almost impossible, although I have read it myself.
The similar or related idea of co-operation being perhaps embedded within us and being a ‘social instinct’, albeit repressed, has gained some interest within the Marc Hauser school of ‘social biology’ and the ‘moral grammar’ theories.
There is the related work of the ‘reciprocal altruism’ and the ‘Tit for Tat’ game theory which appears to present a ‘mathematical’ model or evolutionary mechanism for co-operative behaviour.
Which no doubt is a relief for the neurotic co-operators the ‘Arabian Babblers’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Babbler
And for that matter the capuchin monkeys;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html
In the immediate response to Darwinism, and the proto-arguments of the selfish gene type thing, Engels had this to say, following Kropotkin's later line of argument I think.
Quote:
"On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the "bellum omnium
contra omnes" was the first phase of human development. In my
opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of
the evolution of man from the ape. The first man must have lived in
bands and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was
the case"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm
Although the argument of self for self against mutualism was an old one and formed the substance of ‘The German Ideology ‘ and a criticism of Stirner, the ‘individualist anarchist’ .
Although I am winging all this a bit and my opinions are not necessarily those of the WSM/SPGB.
Oct 21 2008 18:48
#22
Dave B wrote:
The similar or related idea of co-operation being perhaps embedded within us and being a ‘social instinct’
the phrase 'social instinct' is actually Darwins, from 'The Descent of Man' - 'Darwinism' is mostly the work of TH Huxley.
Oct 21 2008 19:04
#23
Yes OK, clever Cloggs, I was going to leave that until later, or ‘Darwin’s’ update.
On The Originality of the ‘Origin of Species’;
Al-Jahiz born in Basra, c. 781 –r 868
Quote:
In the Book of Animals, al-Jahiz first speculated on the influence of the environment on animals and developed an early theory of evolution. Al-Jahiz considered the effects of the environment on the likelihood of an animal to survive, and first described the Struggle for existence Al-Jahiz' ideas on the struggle for existence in the Book of Animals have been summarized as follows:"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."
Oct 21 2008 19:09
#24
There's a previous thread on this from 3 years back.
One scientific criticism is the discussion of level of inheritance but he was writing before Mendel's work was rediscovered so he obviously can't have known about genes as unit of inheritance.
In libcom library there's Gould's "kropotkin was no crackpot" essay - Gould feels that Kropotkin was essentially right; that co-operation occurs as much, if not moreso, than competition in nature, especially in harsh or isolated environments.
I'll post the links in a minute.
Also, geneticist Steve Jones revisted Kropotkin in a chapter of his "Coral" book last year - there's a thread where I tried to start a discussion of that but it ventured off into the infamous sociobiology thread instead