My reading of Kropotkin's texts on ethics lead me to believe that he's talking about something other than the sort of self-sacrificing altruism that western philosophy focuses a lot on. It is egoist in a certain sense...insofar as it represents a well-developed understanding of self interest. At the same time it eschews the clear distinction between egoism/altruism (although I don't remember it being too explicit) if only by noting that to act in the narrowly individualistic sense (egoism as it is generally understood) effectively divorces the actor from his or her true social nature...which leads to a decrease of well-being --emotionally as well as materially.
Why Egoism/Altruism?
You don't need to make a distinction between acting in your own interests and acting in the interests of others. There is a much wider choice available, we don't to act against the interests of others in order to be happy and we do not have to be unhappy just because we are acting in the interests of others.
One of the best things about communism is that by removing the divisions between people it limits, or even obliterates the need to satisfy oneself at the expense of others.
It may be that I just don't like the words egoism and altruism. I have no problem with those type of actions but I feel that complete ethical system cannot be one or the other. In my third paragraph I was hinting at the union of the dichotomy but I was too lazy to write any more. Many actions can benefit both the self and others. I agree that communism would stop the exploitation of others to satisfy the desires of the few.
Kirby wrote:
Looking through anarchist writings it is clear that egoism is preferred over altruism. Some such as An Anarchist FAQ repeatedly says that socialism is not based on altruism but on egoism. My (rhetorical) question is, why do we need a split between egoism and altruism?
<!--break-->
The most essential (though practically meaningless) tenet of ethics is "do good". The definition of good varies but a general principle of "good" would be that which is conducive towards happiness. Egoists say that it is good to try to bring happiness to oneself. Altruists say that it is good to bring happiness to others. I think that it is good to bring happiness.We need to look at doing good in terms of what we can realistically achieve. Right now, I am sitting at my computer writing this message and listening to the Sex Pistols. The greatest good I can do at this time is to persuade others to do good, which is what I am doing. In that way I am helping others. But I am also enjoying listening to music and sharing my ideas. In that way I am doing good towards myself.
Most of the time the greatest good we can do is toward ourselves but there are other times where we can greatly benefit others.
I think anarchism is egoist only in the sense that cooperation (as opposed to a market's competition) benefits the individual more so in any given community than competition would.
Well talking of egoism/altruism and that, I recently submitted an article written in the '70s by a group called For Ourselves who say "greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society." I liked this, mainly cos it's a rejection of leftist/christian slave morality bollocks.
For Ourselves wrote:
The repression of egoism, contrary to the dictates of every one of the so-called “Communists” (in opposition to Marx and Engels), from Lenin right down to Mao, can never be the basis of communist society. Moreover, the repressive conception of “communism” misses precisely the whole point. It misses out on the validity of the egoistic moment. This is true even in the inverted form in which it emerges from an immanent critique of altruistic ideology: if I die, the world dies for me. Without life, I cannot love another. However, what it misses in “theory” - i.e., in its ideological representations - it nonetheless preserves in practice, and precisely with the help of that very ideology: its real basis is the egoism of the state-capitalist bureaucracy. This ideology of self-sacrifice serves admirably the task of extracting surplus-labour from the proletariat. [...]We have no doubt that people are corruptible, but we know for ourselves that there are things more tempting, more seductive, than money, capital, and Power - so much so that no genuinely greedy human being could possibly resist their allure - and it is upon this corruptibility of man that we found our hopes for revolution.
http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything
Nice.
Anyway, altruism is lefty and leftism is christian to its core. "Doing good deeds"? Awwww... go hug a rainbow and shell out to Bob Geldof, Bono, & Co. Count me out. "Fighting for ourselves" - that's a bit more like it.
I'm definitely in agreement that the anarchist tradition is generally rooted in enlightened egoism rather than altruism (to the extent that the distinction becomes almost fallacious). From this starting point, however, it is rather easy to over-utilize the provocative language/ideas that flow easily from such a perspective of freedom...to the point that we lose touch with the equally compelling humanistic ideals that have made socialism so appealing. It isn't an individual way of life...it is a way of conceiving a multiplicity of social relationships not the last of which is child and elder care.
And on this point, it is easy for us (almost exclusively men, most of us well short of middle age) to overlook the extent to which the claims of even the most enlightened egoist are fundamentally predicated on the altruistic sorts of behaviors which are so feminized in our cultures.
It is easy for men like us, even when discussing anarchist ideals, to uncritically embrace our vulgar egoism (the desire to be lazy and anti-social if one is so inclined) and in doing so we miss the meaning of the enlightened egoism advocated by Kropotkin and others...the sort of egoism that is satisfied by people who make lifestyles/careers out of care-giving, even to the point of self-sacrifice, because care-giving increases the individual's well-being and brings them in touch with the solidaristic core of human social impulse.
Looking through anarchist writings it is clear that egoism is preferred over altruism. Some such as An Anarchist FAQ repeatedly says that socialism is not based on altruism but on egoism. My (rhetorical) question is, why do we need a split between egoism and altruism?
The most essential (though practically meaningless) tenet of ethics is "do good". The definition of good varies but a general principle of "good" would be that which is conducive towards happiness. Egoists say that it is good to try to bring happiness to oneself. Altruists say that it is good to bring happiness to others. I think that it is good to bring happiness.
We need to look at doing good in terms of what we can realistically achieve. Right now, I am sitting at my computer writing this message and listening to the Sex Pistols. The greatest good I can do at this time is to persuade others to do good, which is what I am doing. In that way I am helping others. But I am also enjoying listening to music and sharing my ideas. In that way I am doing good towards myself.
Most of the time the greatest good we can do is toward ourselves but there are other times where we can greatly benefit others.