Does anyone know any good books for refuting Hobbes Leviathan?
I'm especially looking for books which beat him at his own game i.e. that accept his analysis of human beings as egoists, and yet show that the "State of Nature" (i.e. anarchy) could still be ordered and cooperative. I have already read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod, which is good for this, but I need more...
Yeah, but Kropotkin was too much of an optimist to be credible in arguments with non-anarchists, or writings aimed at them.
By that do you really mean "something that is not written by a self-proclaimed anarchist"? 
If you like Axelrod's book, try 'the origins of virtue' by Matt Ridley. Dawkins said that it was basically what a sequel to 'the Selfish Gene' about humans would look like. Politically, Ridley is a thatcherite (and drove Northern Rock into the ground) but despite all this the book is pretty good, at least when he sticks to science (there is a terrible bit where he bigs up Ricardo's pish theories about free trade, but if you are smart you can separate this shite from the science). He comes to the conclusion that, though wrong about evolution, Kropotkin was pretty much right about human beings. He does retread a lot of the ground gone over in Axelrod's book though - there's a lot on the prisoner's dilemma and tit for tat.
Anna if you have time; what is Ridley's criticism of Kropotkin regarding evolution? How was he wrong about it?
In a nutshell, Kropotkin was wrong about the mechanism of evolution - he thought it worked by species selectionism and so cooperative traits arose because they were 'good for the species'.
However, rather than the species, the unit of selection is the gene, and the target of selection is the individual (and sometimes the kinship group, or the colony). Co-operative traits can only arise, and remain stable, if they benefit the 'selfish' genes.
Ahhh okay cheers, I have more questions but I will leave you alone
Go ahead and ask them, if you like.
By the way sam, Ridley's politics are beyond shit, and his bias is obvious, but if you're looking for someone who, despite all this, argues against Hobbes and (half) in favour of Kropotkin, then the book sounds like it's what you're looking for.
If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?
If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?
No. Darwin said that evolution by natural selection occurred at the level of the differential survival of individuals. This is basically correct, and our understanding the level of selection has been strengthened by our understanding of genes.
Kropotkin, on the other hand, thought that natural selection occurred at the level of the species. But there is no feasible mechanism by which species selection could work. A trait which favours the species at the expense of the individual cannot spread through the population, since the individuals with it will have less offspring than their more 'selfish' relatives. (Ants, bees and wasps are a special case, because of their weird genetics). Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives).
BOOM.
Kropotkin's Modern Science and Anarchism.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/science/toc.html
The key parts of the argument are essentially the opposite of Hobbes.
(from part IX)
When, for instance, we are told that Law (written large) "is the objectification of Truth;" or that "the principles underlying the development of Law are the same as those underlying the development of the human spirit;" or that "Law and Morality are identical and differ only formally;" we feel as little respect for these assertions as does Mephistopheles in Goethe's "Faust." We are aware that those who make such seemingly profound statements as these have expended much thought upon these questions. But they have taken a wrong path; and hence we see in these high-flown sentences mere attempts at unconscious generalization, based upon inadequate foundations and confused, moreover, by words of hypnotic power. In olden times they tried to give "Law" a divine origin; later they began to seek a metaphysical basis for it; now, however, we are able to study its anthropological origin. And, availing ourselves of the results obtained by the anthropological school, we take up the study of social customs, beginning with those of the primitive savages, and trace the origin and the development of laws at different epochs.In this way we come to the conclusion already expressed on a preceding page--namely, that all laws have a two-fold origin, and in this very respect differ from those institutions established by custom which are generally recognized as the moral code of a given society. Law confirms and crystallizes these customs, but, while doing so, it takes advantage of this fact to establish (for the most part in a disguised form) the germs of slavery and class distinction, the authority of priest and warrior, serfdom and various other institutions, in the interest of the armed and would be ruling minority. In this way a yoke has imperceptibly been placed upon man, of which he could only rid himself by means of subsequent bloody revolutions. And this is the course of events down to the present moment--even in contemporary "labor legislation" which, along with "protection of labor," covertly introduces the idea of compulsory State arbitration in the case of strikes,1 a compulsory eight-hour day for the workingman (no less than eight hours), military exploitation of the railroads during strikes, legal sanction for the dispossession of peasants in Ireland, and so on. And this will continue to be so as long as one portion of society goes on framing laws for all society, and thereby strengthens the power of the State, which forms the chief support of Capitalism.
So there you have it: Hobbes sees the origin of law and the state as coming from 'Warre' while Kropotkin sees law as emerging from already existing customs (common law) that become 'crystalized' and decontextualized through the process of emerging class rule and inequality.
Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives).
That's just placing mutual aid and solidarity in the same category as 'altruism' when it should be clear that these behaviors transcend the designations of 'egoism' and 'altruism'. Keeping one's family and comerades alive, happy and healthy is directly beneficial for the survival of the individual. Trying to seperate the survival of the group and the individual...and thus the evolutionary trajectory of the group and the individual is oversimplistic.
juozokas wrote:
If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?No. Darwin said that evolution by natural selection occurred at the level of the differential survival of individuals. This is basically correct, and our understanding the level of selection has been strengthened by our understanding of genes.
Kropotkin, on the other hand, thought that natural selection occurred at the level of the species. But there is no feasible mechanism by which species selection could work. A trait which favours the species at the expense of the individual cannot spread through the population, since the individuals with it will have less offspring than their more 'selfish' relatives. (Ants, bees and wasps are a special case, because of their weird genetics). Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives {my bold toj}).
Kind of an important point, there, which makes ants, bees and wasps less of a special case. In the long term, individuals die, but genes survive, and as far as a gene is concerned, it doesn't matter whether an individual promulgates itself or sacrifices itself to help others containing that gene promulgate instead.
--- Edited to remove ambiguous pronoun toj
And what about traits that favour the individual at the expense of the species? I think you know where i am going with this...
We don't cooperate with those people so they starve.
...that or they become a ruling class.
Quote:
Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives).That's just placing mutual aid and solidarity in the same category as 'altruism' when it should be clear that these behaviors transcend the designations of 'egoism' and 'altruism'. Keeping one's family and comerades alive, happy and healthy is directly beneficial for the survival of the individual. Trying to seperate the survival of the group and the individual...and thus the evolutionary trajectory of the group and the individual is oversimplistic.
What, exactly is your point? I'm trying to work out where you think what you've just said conflicts with what I wrote?
Anna wrote:
juozokas wrote:
If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?No. Darwin said that evolution by natural selection occurred at the level of the differential survival of individuals. This is basically correct, and our understanding the level of selection has been strengthened by our understanding of genes.
Kropotkin, on the other hand, thought that natural selection occurred at the level of the species. But there is no feasible mechanism by which species selection could work. A trait which favours the species at the expense of the individual cannot spread through the population, since the individuals with it will have less offspring than their more 'selfish' relatives. (Ants, bees and wasps are a special case, because of their weird genetics). Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives {my bold toj}).Kind of an important point, there, which makes ants, bees and wasps less of a special case. In the long term, individuals die, but genes survive, and as far as a gene is concerned, it doesn't matter whether an individual promulgates itself or sacrifices itself to help others containing that gene promulgate instead.
--- Edited to remove ambiguous pronoun toj
Yes of course, but I was trying to keep it simple. In any case, this all comes down to gene selection, not species selection, which proves my point.
We can go into kin selection, and the haplodiploid genetics of hymenoptera if you like, but this has little relevance to Hobbes.
And what about traits that favour the individual at the expense of the species? I think you know where i am going with this...
They spread. For example, it would be best for the rabbit species if the sex ratio was, say, 10 females : 1 male, since one male can impregnate many females, and so the species could breed 10 times as fast. But it's best for the individual to have a 1:1 sex ratio, since this maximises the individual's descendents. And of course it's obvious which is the ratio that is evolutionarily stable.
Similarly, it would be better for the species if chimpanzees didn't raid and kill rival troops, but they do.
Hang on... impregnating one bird in a week as opposed to ten in a week maximises my descendents? As far as I know even rabbits have pregnancy period where they can't have babies until they dump the current lot. Where is the math in this?
Hang on... impregnating one bird in a week as opposed to ten in a week maximises my descendents? As far as I know even rabbits have pregnancy period where they can't have babies until they dump the current lot. Where is the math in this?
No, having equal numbers of male and female children maximises your descendents. I can scan in the maths if you really like, but it's not overly simple.
Ah ha!
Similarly, it would be better for the species if chimpanzees didn't raid and kill rival troops, but they do.
What type of chimpanzee's, Bonobo's don't and there is alot of discussion and debate about what leads to common chimps raiding and killing other troops, it certainly can't be explained away as some sort of simple evolved instinct.
Here's the maths for the sex ratio (copy image location and open in a new window if it shrinks it)
Quote:
Similarly, it would be better for the species if chimpanzees didn't raid and kill rival troops, but they do.What type of chimpanzee's, Bonobo's don't and there is alot of discussion and debate about what leads to common chimps raiding and killing other troops, it certainly can't be explained away as some sort of simple evolved instinct.
Common chimps, yes. It's mainly for territory, and sometimes for mates.
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Similarly, it would be better for the species if chimpanzees didn't raid and kill rival troops, but they do.What type of chimpanzee's, Bonobo's don't and there is alot of discussion and debate about what leads to common chimps raiding and killing other troops, it certainly can't be explained away as some sort of simple evolved instinct.
Common chimps, yes. It's mainly for territory, and sometimes for mates.
Yeah there are theories that the Bonobo's rich environment allows it's rather peaceful behaviour, there is also examples of common chimps engaging in cannibalism, though again it's not known why they do it.
So Anna with a (arguably) evolved trait like raiding and killing for territory that benefits the group but is detrimental to the species, what is the implication there? That trait will continue to evolve among those sections of the species that practice it until there is an entire species of rapist cannibal monkeys?
So Anna with a (arguably) evolved trait like raiding and killing for territory that benefits the group but is detrimental to the species, what is the implication there? That trait will continue to evolve among those sections of the species that practice it until there is an entire species of rapist cannibal monkeys?
eh you can't make a complex interdependent behaviour like raiding and killing for territory into a simple evolved trait (as if there is a gene or series of genes for it), afterall troops can vary greatly in size, they clearly have the ability to form alliances as much as fight.
Okay well pick some other behaviour then that is ostensibly bad for the species as a whole, it doesn't really matter what
juozokas wrote:
So Anna with a (arguably) evolved trait like raiding and killing for territory that benefits the group but is detrimental to the species, what is the implication there? That trait will continue to evolve among those sections of the species that practice it until there is an entire species of rapist cannibal monkeys?eh you can't make a complex interdependent behaviour like raiding and killing for territory into a simple evolved trait (as if there is a gene or series of genes for it), afterall troops can vary greatly in size, they clearly have the ability to form alliances as much as fight.
Why does an evolved trait have to be 'simple'? Chimpanzees' xenophobia is clearly inherent.
Okay well pick some other behaviour then that is ostensibly bad for the species as a whole, it doesn't really matter what
I don't even know what you are saying here.
Species isn't a unit of selection nor a unit of existance, animals don't live as a 'species', but as individuals, packs, herds or troops.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Mutual Aid?