As long term readers of this blog will be aware, I wrote an introduction and evaluation for the new edition of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid by Freedom Press. Perhaps unsurprisingly given my previous work record, it got a bit long and only the biographical sketch and further reading bits of it were included in the final book.

This seemed, and still seems, a mistake as you really need a good reason to buy a new edition of a classic, particularly if there are other versions out there. Having a detailed discussion of Kropotkin’s ideas, how well they stand up as regards modern biological theory and how Mutual Aid fits into his revolutionary ideas seemed like a good way to make a new edition sell. Sadly, the comrades at Freedom disagreed. Fortunately, the comrades at AK decided to produce it as a pamphlet (available from their webpage) with a funky frontpage:

The first review is in and its by ALB from the March edition of Socialist Standard, the magazine of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB):

Kropotkin

Mutual Aid. An Introduction and Evaluation. By Iain McKay. AK Press.

Socialists have always recommended Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, including it on lists of books for sale. Kropotkin was an anarchist, but had been a scientist (geographer) himself and in this book was writing as science writer. It was originally written as a reply to T. H. Huxley, the biologist known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”, who had argued that both in nature and in human society “life was a continual free fight, and beyond the limited and temporary relations of the family, the Hobbesian war of each against all was the normal state of existence”.

Huxley was a biologist and an expert on Darwin’s views, but here was expressing a popular prejudice; in fact, more than this, a view that justified the division of society into rich and poor, oppressors and oppressed. As Iain McKay puts it in this pamphlet:

“In its most extreme form, this became ‘Social Darwinism’ which (like much of sociobiology today) proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both ‘normal’ and ‘natural’). … Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to ‘prove’ that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo!”

Kropotkin produced the evidence from scientific studies to show that this was not the case, neither in nature nor in society. In nature a “struggle for existence” certainly went on, but cooperation (“mutual aid”) was just as much “a factor in evolution” (the book’s subtitle) as competition. It wasn’t just a struggle of members of the same species against each other to survive and so leave more offspring; in many species cooperation was a survival strategy with the less cooperative having less chance of survival and so leaving less offspring.

McKay goes into detail to show that many sociobiologists, including Dawkins himself, accept this, even if on the basis of mathematical models. Kropotkin can be seen as a bit of a sociobiologist himself in that he too argued from animal behaviour to human social behaviour. Only two of his book’s eight chapters are devoted to biological evolution, the rest dealing with human social behaviour and social evolution. However, these are governed by quite different factors that have nothing to do with genetics. But Kropotkin did at least turn the tables on the Social Darwinists by arguing that it was capitalism, not socialism, that was against human nature.

McKay’s 60-page pamphlet is a useful account of the background, significance and influence of Kropotkin’s book.

ALB

I would like to thank the comrade for their kind words, some of which I will now quibble with!

First, there is the contrast between socialists and anarchists. Anarchists are socialists, most are (like Kropotkin) communists. We have been calling ourselves socialists since 1840, when Proudhon called for a “scientific socialism” in What is Property? Except for 1846’s System of Economic Contradictions, in which he equated utopian socialism with socialism as such and opposed it, he repeatedly placed his ideas in the socialist camp (will, like Marx, being critical of other socialists). Bakunin and Kropotkin, likewise, called themselves socialists.

So Marxists do not have the monopoly in use of “socialist” and present a contrast between the two does suggest a false notion that anarchists are not as anti-capitalist as Marxists. Suffice to say, anarchism has always opposed state and property and so is “the denial of Government and of Property” (to quote Proudhon from 1851). Indeed, while some proclaim that anarchism combines a socialist critique of capitalism and a liberal critique of socialism I would suggest this is wrong. This misreads the elitist nature of classical liberalism and the origins of anarchism in a constructive dialogue with and critique of the French democratic tradition rather than with the English liberal one. We do have a critique of state socialism, because we have a socialist critique of both property and the state:

“Capital, whose mirror-image in the political sphere is Government, has a synonym in the religious context, to wit, Catholicism. The economic notion of capital, the political notion of government or authority, the theological notion of the Church, these three notions are identical and completely interchangeable: an attack upon one is an attack upon the others, as all the philosophers today know fine well. What capital does to labour and the State to freedom, the Church in turn does to understanding. This trinity of absolutism is deadly, in its practice as well as in its philosophy. In order to oppress the people effectively, they must be clapped in irons in their bodies, their will and their reason.” (CHAPTER XVII, Confessions of a Revolutionary)

This is reflected, decades later, when Malatesta and Hamon argued after the Second International kicked us out:

"It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power, which is to say, the real ability to make his [or her] influence felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public affairs." [No Gods, No Masters]

That is a minor point and not particularly new. The other isue is, I think, more interesting and something I've thought about on-and-off for a while. This second issue is related to the comment that “human social behaviour and social evolution . . . are governed by quite different factors that have nothing to do with genetics.”

I would argue that these are rooted in our evolved ethical standards and capacity to co-operate. So while human institutions, as the book noted in a footnote, evolve in a Larmarkian fashion, they are a reflection of our genetic heritage. Given the wealth of human mutual aid institutions Kropotkin listed, I think we can take it for granted that he was aware that while we have evolved to co-operate the specific forms that co-operation expresses itself reflected more than just “human nature” (he was, of course, unaware of genetics).

In short, the product of millions of years of evolution as expressed in Homo Sapiens (“human nature”) does not just change quickly but rather different aspects of it come to the fore and are expressed in different eras depending on various influences (economic relations, etc.). And, as Kropotkin points out, we can ignore our feelings of mutual aid (our genetic heritage) to a large degree – he was well aware of class divisions, exploitation and oppression as he was fighting to abolish them!

However, we do tend to suffer when we do, as can be seen by the fact so many people are miserable in hierarchical and competitive societies! As my Kropotkin article indicated, the book The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett proves that inequality (both in terms of power and wealth) is bad for us – we are evolved from co-operative, egalitarian apes and when we live in hierarchy, unequal and competitive societies we do not flourish. The Spirit Level does have section on our biological heritage which Kropotkin would have liked (I know I did) although its reformism is a bit grinding after a while. Particularly given that they have a section recommending co-operatives and so, in effect, are urging the abolition of wage-labour and so the capitalist mode of production! To quote Proudhon:

There is mutuality, in fact, when in an industry, all the workers, instead of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product, work for one another and thereby contribute to a common product from which they share the profit.

However, extend the principle of mutuality that unites the workers of each group to all the Workers’ Associations as a unit, and you will have created a form of civilisation that, from all points of view — political, economic, aesthetic — differs completely from previous civilisations, that can no longer return to feudalism or imperialism, with all possible guarantees of freedom, fair advertising, an impenetrable system of insurance against theft, fraud, misappropriation, parasitism, nepotism, monopoly, speculation, exorbitant rent, living expenses, transportation and credit; against overproduction, stagnation, gluts, unemployment, disease, and poverty, with no need for charity because it will provide us instead, everywhere and always, with our RIGHT.

Which makes their puzzlement at the attacks from the right seem strange -- what did they expect? Are the wealthy going to be quiet while they argue that workers should control their own work and keep the product of their wages? How are the wealthy to stay wealthy if others do not work for them? So it is all fine and well to proclaim that they do not necessarily urge higher taxation but the logic of their evidence suggests that having an extremely wealthy elite is a bad idea and they recommend a solution, ending wage-labour, which will make it hard for those at the top to enrich themselves off the work of others. Unsurprisingly, their pet-projects such as the (misnamed) Tax Payers Alliance will attack the book.

That is, however, beside the point. Kropotkin was well aware that social evolution was different (faster) than the evolution of species but the former is not somehow independent of the latter. As Kropotkin showed, there is a struggle between the law of mutual aid and the law of mutual struggle, a struggle between classes, in society and this influences the transformation of human institutions through time. If this were not the case, if human institutions were determined by our “nature” then they would hardly change.

As the pamphlet discusses this in some detail, it seems strange to suggest that Kropotkin argued that the evolution of human behaviour and structure is determined by our “nature” or (to use a more modern term) genetics.

Which raises the issue of “human nature” and that bug-bear of many on the left “socio-biology.” This something the SPGB have an issue with, at least from a few copies of their magazine I’ve seen in the past. And rightly so, in-so-far as sociobiology (or, more correctly, evolutionary psychology) is little more than a series of “just-so” stories used to justify various nasty aspects of human life particularly social hierarchies associated with gender and wealth. However, we are animals and we are evolved creatures. This will influence our social life and institutions -- and whether socialism is possible or not. So when ALB states that “Kropotkin can be seen as a bit of a sociobiologist himself in that he too argued from animal behaviour to human social behaviour” that presents a strange dichotomy. Also, I do discuss how far Kropotkin can be considered as being a sociobiologist (in short, it depends on what you mean by sociobiology!).

Still, I think it fair to suggest that socialism needs to be able to work with human beings rather than angels -- yes, flawed, imperfect, wonderful humans! As I said, it is unlikely that millions of years of evolution can be transformed overnight (and even hundreds of years is “overnight” in evolutionary terms!). What is likely is that different economic and social relationships bring forth different aspects of “human nature” and, more importantly, social struggle can do the same. Depending on the circumstances, we are more likely to be competitive than co-operative – and vice versa. The question is about struggling to create the right social environment to support co-operation and so our full development as individuals (you cannot fully develop if crushed by the hierarchies created by capitalist competition).

This is discussed in section A.2.15 of An Anarchist FAQ so I’ll leave it there.

This did make me think about something I’ve often wondered about as regards Marxism, namely the notion of alienation. Suffice to say, I think alienation is an important concept and one which is applicable to wage-labour under capitalism. Workers, as Proudhon argued and Marx repeated, did not control their work or their product (which ensured that they were exploited). Similarly, Proudhon argued that the state was an external organ which exercised power over the society (i.e., social power was, in effect, alienated). So the concept is powerful.

However, to argued (correctly!) that we are alienated under capitalism implies, surely, something from which we are alienated from? That implies, surely, some notion of “human nature” which does not change (or changes slowly) the expression of which is hindered or stopped by capitalism. I cannot see how you can have a notion of alienation and deny “human nature” exists. Chomsky has argued along these lines and I tend to agree. Here he is in Notes on Anarchism:

‘the early Marx., with his discussion of the “alienation of labour when work is external to the worker...not part of his nature...[so that] he does not fulfil himself in his work but denies himself...[and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased,” alienated labour that “casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines,” thus depriving man of his “species character” of “free conscious activity” and “productive life.” Similarly, Marx conceives of “a new type of human being who needs his fellow men....[The workers’ association becomes] the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations.”’

This was expressed in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 as follows:

“Estranged labour estranges human beings from 1.) nature and 2.) from themselves in their own active function, their life-activity, and from this, it estranges human beings from their species ; estranged labour makes the species being only the means for the individual life. First, it estranges the species life from the individual life, and second, it makes the individual life in its abstraction the purpose of the species life, even in its abstracted and estranged form.

“First, labour appears to human beings, labour which is the life-activity, the productive life itself, only as a means to meet some need, the need of maintaining physical existence. The productive life is also the species life. It is life engendering life. In the art of life-activity lies the entire character of the species, its species-character, and the species-character of humanity consists of free, conscious activity. Life itself manifests itself as a means of life .”

Which suggests a core “human nature” (one based on our evolved nature, our genetics) which is alienated under capitalism (and other hierarchical systems). What else is “species being” other than a concept of “human nature”? And if we do not have a “species being” then how can we be alienated from something which does not exist.

Of course, many Marxists consider “human nature” to not exist and that we are completely shaped by our surroundings. This can be seen from Marx’s comments in The Poverty of Philosophy (where else?):

“M. Proudhon does not know that all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature”

That seems unlikely, given that humans are not blank sheets and our minds (including emotions) are just as much products of evolution as our bodies. It does, however, raise two issues.

First, if human nature does change then how can we be alienated by capitalism? Our “nature” has changed so how can we feel alienated? We know no better, we are products of capitalism. Perhaps this explains why alienation was dropped by the “mature” Marx in favour of a focus on exploitation?

Second, it opens the door for authoritarianism – if human nature is malleable then all we need to do to change the economy and, eventually, people will adjust. In the mean time, the party can repress the people to ensure “human nature” transforms in the right way… a position which Marxist-Leninist parties, when in power, happily applied (the SPGB argues, with some evidence, that Marxism and Leninism are not the same thing).

As I suggested in my Proudhon book, The Poverty of Philosophy is a terrible book – it is full of distortions and intellectually dishonest. The notion of a malleable “human nature” is just another of its (many) bad ideas and arguments. Suffice to say, Proudhon was well aware that people, like economic relations, could and can change. Thus he explicitly argued that the “present form” of organising labour “is inadequate and transitory” and that wage-labour could and would be replaced by associated-labour. While rejecting the spectulations of the utopian socialists both in their visions of socialism and in the spectacular transformations in human nature they argued would result, Proudhon wanted to ensure “equality of fortunes, voluntary and free association, universal solidarity, material comfort and luxury, and public order without prisons, courts, police, or hangmen.” That does imply sum transformation of the typical person and how they act ("human nature").

I suppose it is all depends whether you think Marx in the 1844 manuscripts is right and we have a “species being” from which we can be alienated from or whether Marx in 1847 is right and "human nature" changes with each kind of economic system. I don't think that the latter is remotely correct -- millions of years of evolution do not get cancelled out by a change in the economy! However, the process of changing the economy and the creation of a new one (along with social and political transformations) can change what aspects of our “nature” come to the fore – specifically, as Kropotkin argued, it can bring our evolved mutual aid tendencies to the fore while minimising other, less appealing, aspects of our heritage as social, co-operative, egalitarian apes who can, at times depending on the circumstances, be aggressive, competitive and downright nasty…

Until I blog again, be seeing you…