Customer Reviews

Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution (Collected Works of Peter Kropotkin)

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Anarchist classic, rooted in observation of natural phenomena and history. Challenges the conception that capitalism is a natural progression of Darwinism at work in the wild. The author cites numerous examples of compassion and innate goodness at work outside the bounds of a structured power-based society. The study covers cooperation among animals, instances of non-hierachical interactions from primitive tribes to mediaeval cities, and on to his contemporary labor unions. It has been some years since I read it and I plan to revisit this title soon.

This book shows how Darwin's findings were all too influenced by Malthus and were a direct reflection of the Capitalistic political area he was from. Kropotkin witnessed in Siberia that animals rather than competing to stay alive, had to work together to stay alive.

Kropotkin stresses that cooperation is the main factor in evolution, not competing forces that Darwin and his contemporaries thought.

Kropotkin gives a number of examples of inter and intra-species working together to survive and thus evolve.

Kropotkin explores a number of societies. Steven J. Gould has given credence to Kropotkin, yet he is largely ignored in evolution texts.

This book changed the way I think about evolution and helped me to realize how a study as influencial as Darwin's could be biased.

This book, which appears to be about the only surviving scientific text from Kropotkin's work, is very interesting and insightful. The first two chapters which deal with animals I found most interesting, because they address the roots of the falsehood of social-darwinism. Kropotkin then proceeds to move through the different stages of human society and describes the mutual aid a compassion fetures therein. It is a fantastic book and I highly recommend it. It is a scientific text, but it has major political implications and is very accessible.

Peter Kropotkin is one of the most noteworthy anarchist thinkers over the last two centuries. As with other political thinkers, so, too, with Kropotkin--his analy¬sis of human nature is critical for understanding his overall philosophical position. For his view of human nature, "Mutual Aid" is a key for understanding his views. His work is a harbinger of more recent studies of sociobiology, many of which explore the roots of altruism--human and otherwise.

Much of his thinking on the nature of society was formed when he was observing the behavior of animals in Siberia. While assigned to a Siberian regiment of the Russian military, Kropotkin did innovative original work on geography and geology as well as the study of animal behavior. His observation of animals led him to respond to Huxley's assertion that natural selection was based on keen com¬petition among animals with the following statement: ". . .wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migration of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest--in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution."

He synthesized his observations of animals within a species cooperating with one another and concluded that, in the struggle for life, cooperation was at least as important as competition. Kropotkin did not argue that competition was unimportant in the natural selection process. However, he did emphasize that mutual aid was a factor that many Darwinists (although, as Kropotkin made clear, not Darwin himself) ignored. The data that Kropotkin utilized came from many different animal species.

Kropotkin goes on to speculate about the survival value of cooperative behavior. He states that: "Life in societies enables the feeblest insects, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or to protect themselves from, the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity; in enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth rate; it enables the gregarious animals to migrate in search of new abodes. Furthermore, cooperation facilitates the development of intelligence, since that quality is so important for social life among animals."

Kropotkin is not content to rest his case at this point. He subsequently indicates the likely course of human evolution and the role played by cooperation. He adopts the method of using existing societies at differing levels of socio-cultural complexity to speculate about the course of human socio-cultural evolution. Kropotkin argues that, at each stage, mutual aid is apparent and important for humans. Even in the period dominated by the great states, the present for Kropotkin, mutual aid institutions still flourished despite the state's intimidating presence.

Thus, Kropotkin's view of human nature is, ultimately, that it is inherently good, i.e. cooperative toward his or her fellow. What of this assertion? Is Kropotkin's view of human nature completely inaccurate and confounded by the available evidence? That is where each reader must evaluate his or her view of humanity's nature and render a judgment on "the anarchist prince."

After groping for years - haphazardly, I admit - through almost every progressive, liberal, libertarian, and anarchist zone of political discourse, I stumbled across a reference to Mutual Aid and its author, (Prince) Petr Kropotkin. Like Darwin, Kropotkin spent considerable time in a part of the world not frequented by civilized folk; instead of a tropic isle, though, Kropotkin spent his time in Siberia. There he saw and was impressed by something Darwin had discounted (assuming he ever noticed it) - co-operation, rather than competition. In some cases it was the family, taking the place fo the individual in the scheme of species survival; in others, it took the form of symbiotic relationships between individual members of different species. Like Darwin, Kropotkin was intellectually stimulated by his observations in natural philosophy - but in exactly the opposite direction. I recommend "Mutual Aid" to anyone exhausted by the competitve paradigm and looking for a valid alternative. I'm writing this after ordering two more copies of MA - one to replace the one I lost, another to lend. Eric C. Sanders

Illustrating the necessity of social behavior as a means of survival, Kropotkin traces social interaction of from that of insects, through larger animals, primitive humans, barbarians, the Middle Ages, and modern man. Provides irresistible evidence that human nature is not only NOT a barrier to the success of an anarchist society, but that it would in fact propel an anarchist society. Entirely readable and meticulously annotated.

One important point of the book is it's assertion in an ecological perspective as opposed to a singularly dominant mode. This translates into human societies and how we would benefit most from cooperation and non-heirarchy. If you enjoy this, I would recommend Memoirs of a Revolutionist and Fields, Factories and Shops, by the same author.

I was sentenced to state indoctrination in the Michigan Public School System from 1956 through 1967 and NEVER encountered the ideas put forth by Kropotkin. In fact, it was the references to Kropotkin in "The Probability Broach" that inspired me to look up "Mutual Aid". This book gives the other side of life on Earth - the side Darwin ignored - the side that governments ignore. If your life is dedicated to competition, you may wish to ignore this book, also, and its discussion of the limitations of the competitive paradigm. This is one of those books that lapdog academia wants ignored - a book that throws the entire concept of politics into question. Read it and grow.

Kropotkin argues that mutual aid, co-operation, solidarity with one's neighbors, sociability, have played the leading part in human evolution, not competition. The Darwinian struggle for survival has been with the environment, not with other people. Man is not the warlike being he is thought to be. "At no period of man's life were wars the normal state of existence." He challenges Thomas Hobbes on his view of human nature. Primitive man always preferred peace to war, though migration was sometimes necessary and often led to war. Mutual aid was absolutely essential to the survival of our human ancestors. He gives examples of co-operation among Bushmen, Hottentots, Eskimos, barbarians, etc.

Medieval people had their craft guilds and communal building projects. In modern times there are labor unions, political societies, clubs, insurance alliances, communal ownership of grazing lands, etc.

He gives examples from the animal kingdom, from beetles to baboons. Mutual aid is the rule within species. Hyenas hunt in packs and beavers work in common. Animals attack other species, but within species life in societies is the rule. Co-operation is absolutely necessary for survival among small and feeble animals. He challenges some of Darwin's statements about competition within species.

Kropotkin's examples are many and convincing.

Este libro es uno de los pilares fundamentales de la teoria del anarco comunismo tan desvirtuada por el imperialismo, y nos da la esencia que el anarquismo, lejos de lo que se cree comunmente es una doctrina que se basa en el amor y la ayuda mutua, quitando las barreras de desigualdad entre las personas y haciendo un recuento de cómo la ayuda mutua es un factor de evolución hcia una sociedad más justa.