Kropotkin's Mutual Aid

Anarcho "Raise the Black Flag!"
Posts: 277 Joined: 22-10-06
Submitted by Anarcho on 22 April, 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!

xConorx "facts tend to cloud my judgement"
Posts: 9132 Joined: 09-12-04 Location: Belfast
22 April, 2008 - 11:42

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 wink

xConorx "facts tend to cloud my judgement"
Posts: 9132 Joined: 09-12-04 Location: Belfast
22 April, 2008 - 11:50

Jones' take was criticised here
was this you - same person? If it is I guess you can ignore much of my previous post wink

darren poynton "towards a better understanding of the world, in order to change it"
Posts: 148 Joined: 05-07-06 Location: Norwich, UK
22 April, 2008 - 13:17

http://marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1956/kropotkin.htm

Virindi
Posts: 6 Joined: 04-04-08
24 April, 2008 - 20:13
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"?)

newyawka "They gonna eat your shoulders."
Posts: 2799 Joined: 13-10-05
24 April, 2008 - 20:41
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.

lrnec
Posts: 91 Joined: 29-10-07 Location: Belfast
25 April, 2008 - 01:43
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.

Virindi
Posts: 6 Joined: 04-04-08
25 April, 2008 - 07:15
lrnec wrote:
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.

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.

lrnec
Posts: 91 Joined: 29-10-07 Location: Belfast
25 April, 2008 - 13:24
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.

wangwei
Posts: 230 Joined: 20-09-06
30 April, 2008 - 18:22

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.

chimx
Posts: 16 Joined: 16-09-07
4 May, 2008 - 21:50

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.

Anarcho "Raise the Black Flag!"
Posts: 277 Joined: 22-10-06
27 May, 2008 - 09:51

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!

Jess "Go back to Myspace and TKmaxx with your bullshitter friends."
Posts: 1789 Joined: 26-11-04 Location: Brighton
27 May, 2008 - 17:52
Quote:
The Anarchist formerly known as Prince

grin

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.

Anarcho "Raise the Black Flag!"
Posts: 277 Joined: 22-10-06
28 May, 2008 - 07:54
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.

Anarcho "Raise the Black Flag!"
Posts: 277 Joined: 22-10-06
2 June, 2008 - 08:29

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

juozokas "when it's time to party we will always party hard"
Posts: 278 Joined: 05-11-07
5 June, 2008 - 09:28

in Australia there is a 'baby bonus' of $5000

Anarcho "Raise the Black Flag!"
Posts: 277 Joined: 22-10-06
2 July, 2008 - 09:56

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!

little_brother "Land of Snott"
Posts: 449 Joined: 30-01-06 Location: Midlands
4 July, 2008 - 13:36

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?