People are getting crazier! All your theories about socialism, anarchism, communism are being destroyed by reality. Now you try to transform human into ants? HAHAHHAHAA! The best is that i'm sure that even you, crazy socialist, would not be happy in this ant human society. Working 24h a day to food the queen and the kings so they can continue to have sex.
This interpretation of * nature * was put out there by Kropotkin to oppose other political interpretations of nature such as the social Darwinistic philosophy of classical liberals, capitalists, free-marketeers, fascists, racists and nazis. These interpretations actually compare the law of the jungle, of solitary, predatory species directly with human beings. They say, 'the tiger and the lion compete, so should humans'.
The alternative 'socialist' interpretation offered by biologists looks at a wide range of species in particular social species like us. It argues the system by which we distribute power and produce wealth should mirror nature and in particular human nature. Thus, as capitalism and 'individualist' or egoist systems are held as inhumane and unnatural because - the feature which defines us is sharing and social relationships - socialisation is crushed.
@RolandOnTheRoad The author was a leading anarcho-communist theorist. In the time he was writing darwinian theories of evolution were taken up as evidence that the world was naturally competitive and the fittest survived, and from this a capitalist class system was "natural". Kropotkin argued that cooperation and mutual aid were at least as important as competition in understanding evolution, and that htis had implications for our understanding of the nature of humanity as well.
To everyone arguing about anarcho-collectivism vs anarcho-communism, SHUT UP. Capitalism rules the world because anarchists are too busy bickering over details that we can work out later. Don't you understand? We can't survive like this anymore. Always at each others throats over whose anarchy is better. We all hate capitalism and we all hate the state and they'll drag us all down with them, so lets actually WORK TOGETHER to beat them before it's too late!
@NYanarchy08 the reason capitalism and republican style government works is because it is formulated on respect for individual freedom, free markets that solve wants and needs better than any other system and rule of law that protects the dignity of every person better than any non law based system. go live in a collectivist command society and have fun living like a helpless child. leave the free society to us mature, strong, freedom loving adults.
Not only are human being capable of mutual aid, but we actually have an advantage over ants. We enjoy it. I find no greater joy than helping out my fellows and feeling like I am part of a great cause. I firmly believe that most human meanness is a result of desperation, alienation, and people feeling lost in a society that values money over human connection.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The rebuttal to this advocacy of mutualism is rather simple. Ants are instinctively geared towards this sort of cooperation while humans are not. The human 'ant farm' cooperates implicitly through the market process.
For most of humanity's existence markets didn't exist. But gift economies did--pervasively. Apologists for different elite systems (capitalism, feudalism, slavery etc) all had rationalizations for why their system "was human nature". The very supply&demand logic of the market system means that the rich can create more demand for ideas that they find serviceable. That demand finds its realization in the intellectual culture, schools, media, entertainment industry, party politics etc
@mr1001nights If gift economies existed throughout history then we don't need to eliminate the state and the state would be more efficient than the market. Gift economy theory assume naturally altruistic value systems. I think evidence proves gift economy to be fantastically false.
@truevoice08 First of all, gift economies did exist through history: just back here in Brazil (where I write from, and explains my "engrish"), our native tribes used to live 5,000 years kinda like horny cannibal human Omaticaya clans; for our standards, they were on a — maybe beligerant, maybe sexist but still — pretty naturally altruistic value system. Second of all, in a mutualist society, en if leadership figures remain, political landscape sovereignty is culturally worthless.
@mr1001nights how is capitalism, a system that allows a group of people to pool their money, bust their ass investing in a business and becoming their own masters as a result an "elitist" system? elitist is when you make a society where people are coerced by committees rather than allowed to pursue their own free interests according to market systems and rule of law.
@truevoice08 I guess this sort of advocates Mutualism in the biological sense, but economic mutualism is wholly different from what Kropotkin would ever advocate, maintaining the labor theory of value (which Kropokin vehemently opposed in The Conquest of Bread) and the coercive structures of the market.
Market decisions are made to increase one's own wealth (for both parties), with no regard to external factors influencing the decision or to the after-effects (especially environmental).
@nocturnezero Your argument is based on the old problem of externality in neoclassical economics or that third parties are harmed by market exchanges. Try reading literature on private property and conservation or private property as solution to pollution.
@truevoice08 Wrong. Mans early societys were egalitarian collectives in comparison to some other beast which live and hunt alone or only in a small family and viciously compete against each other. Also man had many peaceful, cooperative societies even as time progressed but these were one after an other overrun by a few militaristic dictatorships with emotional cripples as leaders. The minoan civilization of Crete is an example of a highly evolved egalitarian society.
@truevoice08 For example this trade-inclined society built giant palaces, not merely for their kings or priests but for everyone to live in. These buildings had large warehouses were everyones food was stored and lacked doors. It is also highly probable that it lacked even currency within its own borders.
@UberVersatile "Mans early societys were egalitarian collectives" I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing its desirability (egalitarianism is the reason these societies were poor, nobody could rise above the rest) and the morality of the means (mob rule leading to dictatorship) by which you plan to achieve it.
"built giant palaces, not merely for their kings or priests but for everyone to live in." So does North Korea.
@UberVersatile North Korea is communist. It collectivizes its food production and distribution so they have communal warehouses. And what's wrong with being "greedy"?
Youtube: Milton Friedman on Greed
I notice you outright ignore my first point. Could it be because I exposed your less-than-holy agenda?
@truevoice08 Milton iis a dickhead. And no, North Korea is classic totalitarian cleptocracy or aristocracy. Most monarchies had common food storages to andmost feudual lords own large plots of "collective" land where serfs worked. What was your first point? That ignorant and stupid thing about poor societies?
The minoan nation in the example was probably the most highly developed civilization in the region. The vikings first explored America and Einstein was a socialist yet genius
@truevoice08 I'm not here to argue. What do you consider poverty? Obviously there's room for both palaces, exploration and science within an equal society. I'd much rather live in a Minoan society as opposed to Rome or a Viking or Celtic society as opposed to Feudual Britain. Not sure what you're going at here.
@UberVersatile "What do you consider poverty?" Poverty is relative. The "poor" in the USA are part of the 20% richest in the world. " I'd much rather live in a Minoan society as opposed to Rome or a Viking or Celtic society as opposed to Feudual Britain."
nvm it was in response to the Natural Selection Darwinists.. found it again in indro. Thx for video! Wish Kropotkin got as much discussion as Marx or Darwin
It doesn't blow Darwin out of the water at all. It was a response to Darwin's The Origin of Species, or more to the point the social conclusions jumped to by some who read Darwin's work.
Both are good books, and I would also recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (which covers altruism in great detail, from a gene's point of view) and Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. Ridley's book was partly inspired by Kropotkin's, even though his own views are slightly different.
They are both vital works. Kropotkin actually explains in good detail that Darwin was misrepresented by ideas such as "survival of the fittest", which was championed by the likes of TH Huxley and Herbert Spencer. Direct competition between individuals was never what Darwin intended as the primary or only factor of evolution, and he explicitly denounced ideas like "Social Darwinism". But then if Darwinists really held honestly to his theory, none would eat meat. But I don't think you read either.
Stodles I urge you to agree with me here so we can finally bury this ultimately irrelevant/dividing issue of race.
I mean... why Stodles why? Why does whitelandia matter to you so much. It does not compute in my brain.
Not only is this notion based on BAD collectivistic assumptions (Note: I'm an A-Collectivist/Syndicalist), harmful to solidarity, prone to infiltration and destruction in the long term, and characterized by a competitive disadvantage; but the end goal is not even desirable.
The point is: individuals should be judged on their own accomplishments; not on some generalized statistic. I could care less what race you are; what I care about is: whether you have personality traits I enjoy that would make me want to associate with you.
(and obviously I'd care if one was a statist who'd force my compliance)
Even if the IQ bit was true, the fact that a particular race "statistically" has a marginally lower IQ, proves nothing as far as the individual is concerned.
It has been statistically shown that men have a tendency (try) to problem solve through violence. Does this mean we should all disassociate with men, and segregate people of the same gender? It has been statically shown that the more one holds religion to be important, the lower one's IQ. Does this mean we should form homogeneous atheist communities, institute segregation, and cease to associate with Christians (ignoring the fact that this would be impossible)?
Stodles, Bakunin was anti-semitic, and so was Proudhon. These were one of their unfortunate shortcomings.
The whole issue of race with you really seems senseless. Even if we accept your race & IQ statistics; accept that these figures adequately took environmental factors into account, and accept the validity of the IQ Test (which has been in question).
Suppose you even succeed at tracking down the root-cause supposed IQ deficiency at the genetic level, and we accept that as well. So what?
I dont think people are trying to force communist or collectivist ideas on anyone else. It is merely speculation (or suggestions) on how people will spontaneously organize themselves after the dissolution of the state.
By "race" he means "species". And no, collectivism and racism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Actually, the Nazi ideology of "the strongest survive" is more akin to capitalism than it is to collectivism.
Peter Kropotkin is one of my biggest inspirations.
May I suggest more videos on Kropotkin and/or anarchist communism? Also, the anthill is a good example, though terms like "ant hill communism" or "bee hive communism" is used and abused by individualists.
Anarchist communism promotes the expression of creativity and individual autonomy, Kropotkin used certain species as examples to the evolution that the world has gone through.
I tried to imagine that mr1001nights voice, was Kropotkin's, hahaha, it would be good to listen his theories in his own words. Probably he wouldn't be saying that in English, myabe russian or french.
I like ants. :o) Though I actually think they are a better representation market anarchism. Everyone does their own thing. They could choose to leave, or not help at any time (although same as in humans, there may be repercussions). They voluntarily work together. By voluntarily choosing to participate, it makes a better life for them and their family/friends.
And for those that do not know much about ants: The queen is not a central authority, and has no say over their actions.
Also, I would like to note that there was no altruism for the ants suffocating to death under the water. Every ant was an individualist trying to get to the top. (admittedly a moot point)
yes very good, a serious problem of humanity is its size and lack of meaning in life. this seriously begs the question which animals present the best 'life' or what we can learn about their general experience. the problem is ants are a lot smaller then humans and are very dependent on one and other, we have separated our-selves, to the best of our abilities, from our material world (we shop not build, we pay for electricity but dont rele care where its from).
Good luck trying to convince different colonies even of the same species of solidarity. As the old saying goes, if ants had nuclear weapons the world would already be split into half.
if ants had nuclear weapons the world would already be split into half." And if you had been born with a nuclear weapon up your ass your asshole would be the size of jupiter. Who the hell do you think you are? In the evolutionary-success scale your species is getting its butt kicked by ants by a measure of at least 10 million
"Ants seem to be evolutionarily much more successful than us due to their social organization." Huh ? no... If an ant had human feelings it would probably feel like a slave. I found it rather disturbing to see ants as a "model" for human societies. Absolute conformity, absolute obedience are not desirable values for any human being that has a minimum of respect for himself and his fellows. "They've been around for hundreds of millions of years ..." The sharks and many others too.
Prove that your life is less obedient and conformist than that of an ant. An ant is not being coerced into working like most human beings. It does it willingly--just like it willingly shares its food and helps others. Your assumptions about sharks show tremendous ignorance. Many are--unlike humans--solitary animals, so the same evolutionary principles don't necessarily apply. Those which are social do exhibit many features of mutual aid.
I can make various choices every days independently, an ant can't even think to make a choice. I'm not coerce into working, I'm not even working these days and nobody is threatening me.
"It was into this Jurassic [208 to 144 million years ago] world that the modern sharks first appeared."
-elasmo-research o r g/education/evolution/origin_modern h t m
"Ants evolved from wasp-like ancestors in the mid-Cretaceous period between 110 and 130 million years ago..."
@AnarkoFred: Exactly. I find it kind of disturbing that someone would compare their ideal of a human society (especially someone who claims to be an anarchist) to an ant farm. Theres a reason why the majority of ants in a given colony are called drones. Also ant farms are highly hierarchical. The queen ant acts as an absolute ruler over the entire colony and the rest blindly obey. Hardly anarchistic.
to be fair, js mill became a (pseudo)socialist, and to express one's individuality fully is to benefit the community. marx similarily condemned capitalism, along with class society, for forcing humanity into a servitude which alienated us from our species-being- or meaning derived from 'spiritual' labor.
These facts are certainly in opposition to the idea that life is made better through competition, as many people believe, and not cooperation. I personally think that humans are naturally geared toward cooperation but culturally we are either encouraged or coerced to compete, or at a minimum made to think in competitive terms.
These facts are certainly NOT in opposition to the idea of competition. Natural selection is made of competition; competition for ressources, competition for mate, competition for territories. Species and individuals within the same specie compete or cooperate to transmit their genes. Cooperation is just an other strategy to "win the game" of natural selection.
His point is that mutual aid doesn't contradict competition in the economic sense of the term. Competition doesn't refer to violence or conflict of that sort.
Mutual aid is oftenly important for individuals of the same kin, especialy for social species (humans, many primates, elephants, Viscachas, dolphins) and colonial species (ants, wasps, bees). Beside that natural selection is mostly a cruel competition between individuals of the same species and between species themselves.
I think you're missing the point. Competition has its place but it is arguable that it is Cooperation which makes our lives better and not Competition as many people would believe. Cooperative groups may compete but without that initial cooperation little gets done.
Cooperation is automatically voluntary. "Involuntary cooperation" is a oxymoron which is why we never call it that. What you are referring to is Coercion.
""Involuntary cooperation" is a oxymoron which is why we never call it that. What you are referring to is Coercion." Well said and I agree, but apparently mr1001night would not. Apparently he considers himself coerced when someone can refuse to feeds him for free (to cooperate), because if someone refuse to feeds him for free he thinks he has to "work for a boss [to earn money and buy food] or starve" as he says at least 1001 times.
I don't think he's talking about feeding people for free. As he has said before, "Having to work or starve is natural. Having to work for a boss or starve is not." It has really nothing to do with feeding anyone for free, although in some circumstances if we are to be humane to people who are genuinely unable to help themselves I think we should consider it, but it really has nothing to do with free food. Cont....
"Having to work or starve is natural." If at least he could sticks to that idea I could agree with him. "Having to work for a boss or starve is not." A "boss" is a buyer of labor, just like any consumer is a buyer. Beside the differences are that our actual labor market is largely driven by an oligopsony, hence exploitation and shit jobs. Some of his observations are ok, but his diagnostic is wrong, and his solutions are absurds.
We will fundamentally disagree here. The problem with people buying labor is the same as with prostitution. You are selling yourself to subsist. To me that's just as immoral as those who make a profit off people who are just trying to survive. The health-care industry is the perfect example.
Our disagreement probably is in how one obtains autarky for their means of subsistence, you would probably say selling one's labor is acceptable. Undoubtedly we will also disagree with many other corollary details that will make an overall agreement problematic such as resource ownership. To my mind Natural resources should be owned by everyone. This fundamental difference will entirely effect our way of going about things. This is a very limited forum to discuss in detail here.
Autarky means that you provide for yourself all the things you need without no external input. You produce your food, your clothes, your shelter like an ermit or a savage man. A kid is selling his labor when he mow his neighbour's grass for a few bucks. Why would it be immoral?
"To my mind Natural resources should be owned by everyone." Best way to make those ressource being depleted in no time (tragedy of the common).
1. the condition of self-sufficiency, esp. economic, as applied to a nation.
2. a national policy of economic independence.
Perhaps in the purest sense it would mean what you say, but it would depend upon how one defines "self-sufficient" and there are many differing ideas about what constitutes self-sufficiency.
Mowing grass is not immoral in itself. If a child were starving and you offered to let them mow your grass for food that would be immoral, but only on your part. It's not immoral to sell yourself to subsist, it's immoral to coerce someone into selling themselves to subsist. It's a form of slavery.
"Best way to make those resource being depleted in no time (tragedy of the common)."
That's not true. Private ownership is said to be the best way, but people who own something often feel justified in destroying it if it's in their best interest. If Dow chemicals owned a river for example. There's little doubt they would feel justified in polluting it with waste, after all it would be theirs.
"in some circumstances if we are to be humane [...]" Altruism ought not to be mandatory. But he apparently thinks that it ought to and can be mandatory. He oftenly talk about mandatory provision of food, health care etc. He even talked about the legitimate possibility of draft and the legitimate sacrefice of invididuals, this is unacceptable.
Are you saying that the police, fire service, libraries, and other socialized services should not exist? Socialized services are a form of mandatory altruism being coerced upon the public aren't they? Why stop there? Besides, it's already been shown elsewhere that Charities are not the best means of suppling help people. They're very problematic.
"police, fire service, libraries, and other socialized services should not exist?" I do not mean they should not exist, they are very usefull, I mean they should not be mandatory (or socialized as you say). They should be voluntary (through charity, trade, or contract).
And who would control the Police if it were under trade or contract? Who would ensure the objectivity and compliance with the law of a contracted Police force? As we have seen with Blackwater contracted Police does not work. It invites corruption and lawlessness on the part of those contracted.
It has to do with being in control of your own life. Which system do you think you have more control in? Working for a company where the workers are in control of the means of production or where you work for a boss in a hierarchal system where your job is on the line should that tiny group of people at the top make stupid decisions?
Workers in control of the means of production would probably be happier and more productive than workers doing their 9 to 5 for a "boss". His slogan "work for a boss or starve" is just a false dichotomie that does only refer to a oligopsony in the labor market not to outcome of being free to produce and own the product of your labor.
But we have a dependence upon oligopsony at the moment. Like my example of the auto workers. The ripple effect is enormous and we are being held hostage to the oligopsony that exists in our system. There is an effect of "work for a boss or starve" happening here. To be sure, it's not absolute and all encompassing, but it may as well be.
The bosses made stupid decisions and the workers pay the price by being laid off. The workers had no say in what they were producing. This is the prime example of how lopsided the current system is. Rather than making crap cars the workers who obviously want to keep their jobs could have followed the market trends and kept up with the demands of the consumer, but as it stands they're out on their ears and the bosses aren't.
In the current, "work for a boss or starve" system the auto workers are going to starve, and it won't be just the auto workers. The ripple effect will take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs with them because it's not just the people who put the cars together. It's the people who made parts, transported these goods, and all the people who benefited from all those workers having money to spend. It could be massive.
If the purpose of that excerpts is to say that we ought to force people to act "like" ants, I found it deeply despisefull. It's the kind of thing I would expected not from an anarchist but rather from an advocate of some totalitarian ideology. If individuals are willing to be altruistic then let them be, but if they don't want to then don't force them to. Thinking that it's ok to sacrefice others for "The greater good" is a dangerous first step toward dictatureship.
it is your totalitarian and coercive "work for a boss or starve" capitalist system that forces and brainwashed people to become more selfish. I want to institutionalize mutual aid, not hierarchy and dod-eat-dog competition.
You continue to strawman people. It's getting really annoying. You present a false dichotomy between accepting your moral theories and being a for "dog eat dog". It's ridiculous. Furthermore, if you truly want to "institutionalize" it, that's state-socialism you're advocating, not libertarian socialism or anarchism. If you actually advocate that the state institutionalize such obligations, then you aren't even a socialist anarchist, just a state-socialist.
I have to defend mr1001nights for a brief moment here. Maybe I'm reading him incorrectly, but, if I remember correctly, he has stated that he is an Anarchosyndicalist. If that's true, then the institution that he is referring to is not the State, but it is the labor unions. I think, perhaps, that makes his case a little better, considering I don't think that labor unions are hierarchical or coercive.
Again, maybe I'm reading him wrong, but that's what I got out of his comment.
I never said that you should work for a boss or starve, but I oftenly said that you should work for yourself and own the product of your labor. If institutionalizing mutual aid means to threat peoples who do not want to participate, I'm opposed. If you want to start a charity I'm in.
I have to rent myself into wage slavery to a capitalist--whether I want to or not-- You can't compare that kind of totalitarian arrangement with a system of non--hierarchical workplaces and councils where the workers themselves control production, where the workers themselves control their productive life i.e. their destiny
No, the capitalist workplace is totalitarian (the boss gives the orders, u obey) and based on not getting the products of ur labor (which the capitalist steals) You defend the non-labor-income of capitalists and want wage laborers to provide the means of production to the capitalists. You are guilty of all the things you accuse me of. You want exploitation and unfree dictatorial workplaces
the part that pretends that the capitalist workplace is not dictatorial, that there's no exploitation and the workers get paid the fruits of their labor
"... not getting the products of ur labor." Which is exploitation ... "You defend the non-labor-income of capitalists " Huh? No I don't. "and want wage laborers to provide the means of production to the capitalists." ?? No at all. I never said nor advocated nor implied anything of that kind. You realy have stranges ideas. I said "Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor".
And what economic structure do you advocate in order to be be"free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor"?
Roughly : Not pretending that I can at my whims tell others how to dispose of themself is the first step. Secondly oppose anyone (people like yourself) who pretend that they can at their whims force others to render services, sacrefice others for various reason or force others into draft (like you suggested before). Third let the people do as they please, produce, trade or consume their labor as they please, and let them solve their conflicts openly with the helps of a jury of peers.
"Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor".
A single one can't work by that concept, a single one can't live without society or other hands working, in more or less in some point society is making part of the work you done.
So that product is created directly or indirectly by the collective of society, not just you, therefor, the products belongs to the ones who created, the Society as a collective force.
Its not only owning the product of your labor, but owning the means to create it. Under capitalism we receive compensation that is marginally below the actual value of the product (or service) we produce, with the difference being siphoned off by the capitalists as surplus value. But the biggest difference comes when the worker own the means of producing the product or service. This empowers the individual to reproduce the product or service at will--something that is alien to capitalism
There's no fondamental difference between means of production and other products since all means of production need to be produce themself. "that is marginally below the actual value of the product [...]" as I said this is exploitation ... "something that is alien to capitalism" I'm not against workers running their business I'm in favor of that. Free-lancers and cooperatives are not alien to capitalism.
ur actively using them in the manner anarchists consider them legitimate property (for use and need remember?). ur not exploiting anyone & so would qualify as "non-exploitative property" But not every person can be self-employed in a complex industrial society; therefore private ownership of most of the means of production (e.g. industry, land) cannot be privately owned without increasing the incidence of the situation where people have to rent themselves to a boss in to prosper or subsist
And who decides what is a legitmate use of property or not? You? Why should you decide that? How would you enforce that decision? How can you enforce all these "anarchist" systems you advocate without a state and coercion? As I've said before, your system will always lead to total violence and social breakdown.
I am not sure I agree with the 'institutionalization' of Mutual Aid. Kropotkin stressed that it was a spontaneous phenomenon that needed no prompting. However, the reason it isn't happening right now is most likely due to the capitalist logic of exchange. Resource distribution is the most fundamental political matter, and the way it operates right now all but completely rules out 'deep' (non-egoist) altruist systems, such as gift economies.
Beside that, individuals can cooperate with others for mainly three reasons; 1) kin selection : like in a colony, a frienship, a family, a religious group. 2) mutualy beneficial cooperation : like in trade, its must be giving giving : 3) empathy : you feel for someone whose in needs and you're willing to help him.
you're conflating selfishness with altruism. Altruism and mutual aid can be beneficial to the individual and the species. That's the whole point of Kropotkin's work. That doesn't mean they are "selfish" in any real sense of the word.
What's called "altruism" is in fact "selfish", under the analysis of psychological egoism, since all purposeful action is personally motivated in some sense.
That's just silly. 1st of all, all of these behaviors are primarily for the preservation of the species, not the individual. Secondly, whether or not an action brings any satisfaction has no bearing on the labels "selfish" or "altruistic", E.g. calling the helping of a stranded child or the rescue of a person drowning "selfish" simply because such actions are dependent upon the psychological processes of the person performing the action (e.g. willingness, satisfaction etc) doesn't make any sense
Ants don't choose these behaviors in the way that a human does. In either case, there is no such thing as a purposeful action that isn't personally motivated. Even when I act to help others, the desire is my own and it is in my percieved interest to help them. There is nothing "selfless" about it, since it is entirely based on my own judgement and motivation. It is something I want, and is psychologically selfish as such.
Actions described as "altruistic" don't have to be "in my perceived interest" e.g someone unthinkingly risking their life by rescuing a drowning stranger. As Kropotkin says, it's for species preservation. As I said, equating actions dependent upon the psychological processes of the person e.g willingness, instinct, judgement, satisfaction etc (what u call "personal motivations") w/selfishness doesn't make any sense. Which label would u use to differentiate between saving a baby and torturing it?
GENE EGOISM. The ants workers are steriles and cannot transmit the colony's genes. The ants workers are useless for their specie if they do not sacrefices themself for the benefit of the few fertiles individuals whom can transmit the colony's genes. Humans individuals have and can transmit their own genes. Individuals are useless for human specie if they do not act for the benefit of their own genes, for themselves as individuals. Ants are altruistic for the same reasons humans are selfish.
That is a shockingly simplistic and ignorant analysis of behavioral differences. Why would they have to be more or less selfish for that? If you listen to the video, the VIscachas, who have a PERVASIVE and greater ability to reproduce than humans are even more altruistic.
"I think this may provide some food for thought to the egoistic, laissez faire propertarians who dislike communal and altruistic tendencies."
Nice job, mr1001strawmen. I'm a big fan of Kropotkin and nothing is wrong with communal and altruistic tendencies. I simply want such tendencies to be the result of free, voluntary interactions between people, not of a group of thugs telling me what to do.
People do not need to be forced to care for others. I certainly don't.
No one says you 'have' to care for others in a non-state system. Actually, under statism you are already being explicitly forced to care for others (through taxes), and under capitalism you are tacitly forced to care for others (expropriation of surplus value).
Good video but a couple one question: do we have the capacity for this type of altruism? E.O. Wilson, in his book On Human Nature, stated that if we even tried to employ this altruism we would quickly go back to our old ways or die out as a species. He stated that ants possess this altruistic capacity since their sexually dependent, whereas humans are sexually independent - just something to think about.
I have only one problem with this comparison: ant colonies have a queen. What kind of Anarchist would I be if I supported a society that, although it worked in cooperation with one another, still had a matriarchal form of hierarchy?
I'd like to point something out for those who think there's a great rift between individualists and collectivists. Emma Goldman, Anarcho-Communist and opposer of property, says the following in The Individual, Society, and the State: "The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called 'society,' or the 'nation,' which is only a collection of individuals." In the same essay she calls K's 'Mutual Aid' a "profound work."
"I think this may provide some food for thought to the egoistic, laissez faire propertarians who dislike communal and altruistic tendencies."
I dont dislike communal or so-called altruistic tendencies, I fully support people's right to communally organize and help others, I just don't accept them as ethical norms or imperatives. I think you continue to misunderstand the perspective of me and others like me by erecting a false dichotomy between total communalism and total brutishness.
I don't really understand his logic. I mean I think human beings are generally good careing creatures that in absense of a state would be good caring creatures. I don't think we need to be forced into compassion. I think it would be more productive to go after someone like revolutionofcg or mrcropper.
Why do I read people speaking of collectivism vs communism? Are people dumb?
What is not collectivist about communism and vice versa? The two might as well be interchangeable terms for christ's sake.
swiftyg69 1 month ago
People are getting crazier! All your theories about socialism, anarchism, communism are being destroyed by reality. Now you try to transform human into ants? HAHAHHAHAA! The best is that i'm sure that even you, crazy socialist, would not be happy in this ant human society. Working 24h a day to food the queen and the kings so they can continue to have sex.
Thecaroon 1 month ago
@Thecaroon
Nobody's comparing humans with ants you idiot.
This interpretation of * nature * was put out there by Kropotkin to oppose other political interpretations of nature such as the social Darwinistic philosophy of classical liberals, capitalists, free-marketeers, fascists, racists and nazis. These interpretations actually compare the law of the jungle, of solitary, predatory species directly with human beings. They say, 'the tiger and the lion compete, so should humans'.
swiftyg69 1 month ago
@Thecaroon
The alternative 'socialist' interpretation offered by biologists looks at a wide range of species in particular social species like us. It argues the system by which we distribute power and produce wealth should mirror nature and in particular human nature. Thus, as capitalism and 'individualist' or egoist systems are held as inhumane and unnatural because - the feature which defines us is sharing and social relationships - socialisation is crushed.
swiftyg69 1 month ago
yeah but there is no freedom
death9719 3 months ago
Thanks for this! I love ants! Why is everyone talking about anarchism and communism? It's just beautiful ants.
RolandOnTheRoad 6 months ago
@RolandOnTheRoad The author was a leading anarcho-communist theorist. In the time he was writing darwinian theories of evolution were taken up as evidence that the world was naturally competitive and the fittest survived, and from this a capitalist class system was "natural". Kropotkin argued that cooperation and mutual aid were at least as important as competition in understanding evolution, and that htis had implications for our understanding of the nature of humanity as well.
kieranbennettmedia 1 month ago
To everyone arguing about anarcho-collectivism vs anarcho-communism, SHUT UP. Capitalism rules the world because anarchists are too busy bickering over details that we can work out later. Don't you understand? We can't survive like this anymore. Always at each others throats over whose anarchy is better. We all hate capitalism and we all hate the state and they'll drag us all down with them, so lets actually WORK TOGETHER to beat them before it's too late!
NYanarchy08 11 months ago 15
@NYanarchy08
Exactly. This is one of Chomsky's (an anarcho-snydicalist) biggest criticisms of the anarchist movement.
Onepretentiousdude 1 month ago
@NYanarchy08 the reason capitalism and republican style government works is because it is formulated on respect for individual freedom, free markets that solve wants and needs better than any other system and rule of law that protects the dignity of every person better than any non law based system. go live in a collectivist command society and have fun living like a helpless child. leave the free society to us mature, strong, freedom loving adults.
chrispollock 1 month ago
@chrispollock No such thing as a free market. You are mentally masterbating her mate.
brownie1982ad 2 weeks ago
Not only are human being capable of mutual aid, but we actually have an advantage over ants. We enjoy it. I find no greater joy than helping out my fellows and feeling like I am part of a great cause. I firmly believe that most human meanness is a result of desperation, alienation, and people feeling lost in a society that values money over human connection.
jonblaze32 1 year ago 4
FUCK ANARCHO-COLLECTIVISM AND MUTUALISM. Keep it real, keep it anarchist-comunist!
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
I'm annoyed people are posting that humans are incapable of mutual aid. You only have to look at babies to see how morally inclined homo sapiens are.
Nades129 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The rebuttal to this advocacy of mutualism is rather simple. Ants are instinctively geared towards this sort of cooperation while humans are not. The human 'ant farm' cooperates implicitly through the market process.
truevoice08 1 year ago
@truevoice08
For most of humanity's existence markets didn't exist. But gift economies did--pervasively. Apologists for different elite systems (capitalism, feudalism, slavery etc) all had rationalizations for why their system "was human nature". The very supply&demand logic of the market system means that the rich can create more demand for ideas that they find serviceable. That demand finds its realization in the intellectual culture, schools, media, entertainment industry, party politics etc
mr1001nights 1 year ago 22
@mr1001nights If gift economies existed throughout history then we don't need to eliminate the state and the state would be more efficient than the market. Gift economy theory assume naturally altruistic value systems. I think evidence proves gift economy to be fantastically false.
truevoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
voadordaseras 1 year ago
Comment removed
voadordaseras 1 year ago
@truevoice08 First of all, gift economies did exist through history: just back here in Brazil (where I write from, and explains my "engrish"), our native tribes used to live 5,000 years kinda like horny cannibal human Omaticaya clans; for our standards, they were on a — maybe beligerant, maybe sexist but still — pretty naturally altruistic value system. Second of all, in a mutualist society, en if leadership figures remain, political landscape sovereignty is culturally worthless.
voadordaseras 1 year ago
@mr1001nights how is capitalism, a system that allows a group of people to pool their money, bust their ass investing in a business and becoming their own masters as a result an "elitist" system? elitist is when you make a society where people are coerced by committees rather than allowed to pursue their own free interests according to market systems and rule of law.
chrispollock 1 month ago
@chrispollock You must be willfully blind to corporations. The rich don't don't bust their ass.
brownie1982ad 2 weeks ago
@truevoice08 so what happened to humans before the markets existed?
toonarmy1901 9 months ago
@truevoice08 I guess this sort of advocates Mutualism in the biological sense, but economic mutualism is wholly different from what Kropotkin would ever advocate, maintaining the labor theory of value (which Kropokin vehemently opposed in The Conquest of Bread) and the coercive structures of the market.
Market decisions are made to increase one's own wealth (for both parties), with no regard to external factors influencing the decision or to the after-effects (especially environmental).
nocturnezero 7 months ago
@nocturnezero Your argument is based on the old problem of externality in neoclassical economics or that third parties are harmed by market exchanges. Try reading literature on private property and conservation or private property as solution to pollution.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08 Wrong. Mans early societys were egalitarian collectives in comparison to some other beast which live and hunt alone or only in a small family and viciously compete against each other. Also man had many peaceful, cooperative societies even as time progressed but these were one after an other overrun by a few militaristic dictatorships with emotional cripples as leaders. The minoan civilization of Crete is an example of a highly evolved egalitarian society.
UberVersatile 1 month ago
@truevoice08 For example this trade-inclined society built giant palaces, not merely for their kings or priests but for everyone to live in. These buildings had large warehouses were everyones food was stored and lacked doors. It is also highly probable that it lacked even currency within its own borders.
UberVersatile 1 month ago
@UberVersatile "Mans early societys were egalitarian collectives" I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing its desirability (egalitarianism is the reason these societies were poor, nobody could rise above the rest) and the morality of the means (mob rule leading to dictatorship) by which you plan to achieve it.
"built giant palaces, not merely for their kings or priests but for everyone to live in." So does North Korea.
truevoice08 1 month ago
@truevoice08 No it doesn't. North Korea behaves just as any country ruled by the greedy; It builds palaces for individuals.
UberVersatile 1 month ago
@UberVersatile North Korea is communist. It collectivizes its food production and distribution so they have communal warehouses. And what's wrong with being "greedy"?
Youtube: Milton Friedman on Greed
I notice you outright ignore my first point. Could it be because I exposed your less-than-holy agenda?
truevoice08 1 month ago
@truevoice08 Milton iis a dickhead. And no, North Korea is classic totalitarian cleptocracy or aristocracy. Most monarchies had common food storages to andmost feudual lords own large plots of "collective" land where serfs worked. What was your first point? That ignorant and stupid thing about poor societies?
The minoan nation in the example was probably the most highly developed civilization in the region. The vikings first explored America and Einstein was a socialist yet genius
UberVersatile 1 month ago
@UberVersatile "Milton iis a dickhead."
That's it, no argument? Very telling. . .
"The vikings first explored America and Einstein was a socialist yet genius"
LOL! What does that have to do with anything?
Looks like you lost kiddo!
truevoice08 1 month ago
@truevoice08 I'm not here to argue. What do you consider poverty? Obviously there's room for both palaces, exploration and science within an equal society. I'd much rather live in a Minoan society as opposed to Rome or a Viking or Celtic society as opposed to Feudual Britain. Not sure what you're going at here.
UberVersatile 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UberVersatile "What do you consider poverty?" Poverty is relative. The "poor" in the USA are part of the 20% richest in the world. " I'd much rather live in a Minoan society as opposed to Rome or a Viking or Celtic society as opposed to Feudual Britain."
Youtube: Economic Freedom and Quality of Life
Youtube: Economic Freedom in America Today
"Not sure what you're going at here."
Same here buddy.
truevoice08 4 weeks ago
@rippist91 lol troll?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
until today i had never heard of kropotkin. thank you 1001nights!!!!
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago
Kropotkin talks about this in his article "Anarchist Morality" as well.
Good stuff, good stuff.
StonerPunk666 2 years ago
Many thanks...Kropotkin changed my life with his writings.
rolpho 2 years ago
@rolpho word!
waddletron 2 years ago
Been days when it pleased me
To be on me knees
Following ants as they crawled across the ground
"I'd Have To Be Crazy," written by Steven Fromholz, sung best by Willie Nelson, performed best on "The Sound in Your Mind"
:-)
allisforall 2 years ago
Yay!
watch?v=7gqkJr0FxQ0
:-)
allisforall 2 years ago
Ants are INCREDIBLE creatures.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
apparently you dont give Christianity credit for your morals!
"do unto others....." ??
sodr2 2 years ago
This is my favorite work my Kropotkin "On Mutual Aid" Which was in response? (or was it before?) Darwin's On origin of Species?
It blows Darwin out of the water.
zapatista512 2 years ago
nvm it was in response to the Natural Selection Darwinists.. found it again in indro. Thx for video! Wish Kropotkin got as much discussion as Marx or Darwin
zapatista512 2 years ago
It doesn't blow Darwin out of the water at all. It was a response to Darwin's The Origin of Species, or more to the point the social conclusions jumped to by some who read Darwin's work.
Both are good books, and I would also recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (which covers altruism in great detail, from a gene's point of view) and Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. Ridley's book was partly inspired by Kropotkin's, even though his own views are slightly different.
BillRun101 2 years ago
They are both vital works. Kropotkin actually explains in good detail that Darwin was misrepresented by ideas such as "survival of the fittest", which was championed by the likes of TH Huxley and Herbert Spencer. Direct competition between individuals was never what Darwin intended as the primary or only factor of evolution, and he explicitly denounced ideas like "Social Darwinism". But then if Darwinists really held honestly to his theory, none would eat meat. But I don't think you read either.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
awesome video
sarah20xoxo 3 years ago
brilliant i love ants
TSM9356 3 years ago
but they dont have internets B-)
sarah20xoxo 3 years ago
Thanks so much for this! Kropotkin *and* ants, Im just so happy :o)
kathleenlotus 3 years ago
Put Economics & Brainpolice2 aside for a minute.
Is it possible for you renounce any and all notions of whitelandia, for my personal reassurance?
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
Stodles I urge you to agree with me here so we can finally bury this ultimately irrelevant/dividing issue of race.
I mean... why Stodles why? Why does whitelandia matter to you so much. It does not compute in my brain.
Not only is this notion based on BAD collectivistic assumptions (Note: I'm an A-Collectivist/Syndicalist), harmful to solidarity, prone to infiltration and destruction in the long term, and characterized by a competitive disadvantage; but the end goal is not even desirable.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
I say its a shortcoming because such views:
1) Are Irrational (based on stereotypical conspiracy nonsense; and totally discount individual merits)
2) Because it kills solidarity, and limits the potential size and scope of the anarchist movement.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
The point is: individuals should be judged on their own accomplishments; not on some generalized statistic. I could care less what race you are; what I care about is: whether you have personality traits I enjoy that would make me want to associate with you.
(and obviously I'd care if one was a statist who'd force my compliance)
Even if the IQ bit was true, the fact that a particular race "statistically" has a marginally lower IQ, proves nothing as far as the individual is concerned.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 2
It has been statistically shown that men have a tendency (try) to problem solve through violence. Does this mean we should all disassociate with men, and segregate people of the same gender? It has been statically shown that the more one holds religion to be important, the lower one's IQ. Does this mean we should form homogeneous atheist communities, institute segregation, and cease to associate with Christians (ignoring the fact that this would be impossible)?
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
Stodles, Bakunin was anti-semitic, and so was Proudhon. These were one of their unfortunate shortcomings.
The whole issue of race with you really seems senseless. Even if we accept your race & IQ statistics; accept that these figures adequately took environmental factors into account, and accept the validity of the IQ Test (which has been in question).
Suppose you even succeed at tracking down the root-cause supposed IQ deficiency at the genetic level, and we accept that as well. So what?
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
I dont think people are trying to force communist or collectivist ideas on anyone else. It is merely speculation (or suggestions) on how people will spontaneously organize themselves after the dissolution of the state.
adamu1978 3 years ago
By "race" he means "species". And no, collectivism and racism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Actually, the Nazi ideology of "the strongest survive" is more akin to capitalism than it is to collectivism.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Anyone can be racial.
InsurgenistCujo 3 years ago
Peter Kropotkin wasn't "racial".
KenCat1337 3 years ago
Peter Kropotkin is one of my biggest inspirations.
May I suggest more videos on Kropotkin and/or anarchist communism? Also, the anthill is a good example, though terms like "ant hill communism" or "bee hive communism" is used and abused by individualists.
Anarchist communism promotes the expression of creativity and individual autonomy, Kropotkin used certain species as examples to the evolution that the world has gone through.
Awesome video, keep on keeping on.
KenCat1337 3 years ago 5
I tried to imagine that mr1001nights voice, was Kropotkin's, hahaha, it would be good to listen his theories in his own words. Probably he wouldn't be saying that in English, myabe russian or french.
Salud!
Faanat 3 years ago
Kropotkin died on 1921, I don't think he had recorded anything, and if he did, would be a very bad quality sound ^^
Faanat 3 years ago
Yes, it sounds extremely similar to mine, doesn't it?
mr1001nights 3 years ago 3
Maybe homo sapiens will get lucky and devolve into being more Ant-like.
I have witnessed Ducks that will kill or kick out of the flock other ducks that have injuries.
Roosters rape Hens against thier will and barnyard roosters try to kill each . Plus they are cannibalistic.
There are species of ants that go to war and will actually enslave other species of ants.
LexPhilogus 3 years ago
@mr1001nights
Hahahaha ;)
Lodatzor 1 year ago
@mr1001nights lol
taaang4lyfe 1 year ago
The more I watched this video, the more horrified I became. You can't be serious.
mikepeino 3 years ago
I like ants. :o) Though I actually think they are a better representation market anarchism. Everyone does their own thing. They could choose to leave, or not help at any time (although same as in humans, there may be repercussions). They voluntarily work together. By voluntarily choosing to participate, it makes a better life for them and their family/friends.
And for those that do not know much about ants: The queen is not a central authority, and has no say over their actions.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Also, I would like to note that there was no altruism for the ants suffocating to death under the water. Every ant was an individualist trying to get to the top. (admittedly a moot point)
Sepero1 3 years ago
My friends and I don't regurgitate food for each other. ;o)
but we essentially do equivalent things, and we do it without needing laws to enforce us. This is why market anarchism is able to work.
Sepero1 3 years ago
yes very good, a serious problem of humanity is its size and lack of meaning in life. this seriously begs the question which animals present the best 'life' or what we can learn about their general experience. the problem is ants are a lot smaller then humans and are very dependent on one and other, we have separated our-selves, to the best of our abilities, from our material world (we shop not build, we pay for electricity but dont rele care where its from).
always a pleasure to see ur vids.
mahyarmohaghegh 3 years ago
Good luck trying to convince different colonies even of the same species of solidarity. As the old saying goes, if ants had nuclear weapons the world would already be split into half.
do1o 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
if ants had nuclear weapons the world would already be split into half." And if you had been born with a nuclear weapon up your ass your asshole would be the size of jupiter. Who the hell do you think you are? In the evolutionary-success scale your species is getting its butt kicked by ants by a measure of at least 10 million
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Aren't there different kinds of ants? Soldier ants and worker ants?
They're fascist and statist if you ask me.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago 6
Best comment so far.
CommonAsGrass 3 years ago
"Ants seem to be evolutionarily much more successful than us due to their social organization." Huh ? no... If an ant had human feelings it would probably feel like a slave. I found it rather disturbing to see ants as a "model" for human societies. Absolute conformity, absolute obedience are not desirable values for any human being that has a minimum of respect for himself and his fellows. "They've been around for hundreds of millions of years ..." The sharks and many others too.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Prove that your life is less obedient and conformist than that of an ant. An ant is not being coerced into working like most human beings. It does it willingly--just like it willingly shares its food and helps others. Your assumptions about sharks show tremendous ignorance. Many are--unlike humans--solitary animals, so the same evolutionary principles don't necessarily apply. Those which are social do exhibit many features of mutual aid.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
I can make various choices every days independently, an ant can't even think to make a choice. I'm not coerce into working, I'm not even working these days and nobody is threatening me.
"It was into this Jurassic [208 to 144 million years ago] world that the modern sharks first appeared."
-elasmo-research o r g/education/evolution/origin_modern h t m
"Ants evolved from wasp-like ancestors in the mid-Cretaceous period between 110 and 130 million years ago..."
-wikipedia/ants.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
@AnarkoFred: Exactly. I find it kind of disturbing that someone would compare their ideal of a human society (especially someone who claims to be an anarchist) to an ant farm. Theres a reason why the majority of ants in a given colony are called drones. Also ant farms are highly hierarchical. The queen ant acts as an absolute ruler over the entire colony and the rest blindly obey. Hardly anarchistic.
BWF89 3 years ago
These were just excerpts of "mutual aid". Nobody advocated living in a insect-state-manner.
Staubdumm 3 years ago
I think mr1001nights would like to be the queen and us to be his drones.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Preservation of the race is evil.
neutrinoide 3 years ago
Lol!
anarkoFred 3 years ago
i like the little bunnies at the end.
nuclearnight 3 years ago
to be fair, js mill became a (pseudo)socialist, and to express one's individuality fully is to benefit the community. marx similarily condemned capitalism, along with class society, for forcing humanity into a servitude which alienated us from our species-being- or meaning derived from 'spiritual' labor.
mikezephyr 3 years ago
These facts are certainly in opposition to the idea that life is made better through competition, as many people believe, and not cooperation. I personally think that humans are naturally geared toward cooperation but culturally we are either encouraged or coerced to compete, or at a minimum made to think in competitive terms.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago 2
These facts are certainly NOT in opposition to the idea of competition. Natural selection is made of competition; competition for ressources, competition for mate, competition for territories. Species and individuals within the same specie compete or cooperate to transmit their genes. Cooperation is just an other strategy to "win the game" of natural selection.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Kropotkin and other naturalists have proven that mutual aid is more important for survival than competition
mr1001nights 3 years ago
His point is that mutual aid doesn't contradict competition in the economic sense of the term. Competition doesn't refer to violence or conflict of that sort.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Mutual aid is oftenly important for individuals of the same kin, especialy for social species (humans, many primates, elephants, Viscachas, dolphins) and colonial species (ants, wasps, bees). Beside that natural selection is mostly a cruel competition between individuals of the same species and between species themselves.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
I think you're missing the point. Competition has its place but it is arguable that it is Cooperation which makes our lives better and not Competition as many people would believe. Cooperative groups may compete but without that initial cooperation little gets done.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
"Cooperative groups may compete but without that initial cooperation little gets done." Human is a social species.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Yes, humans are a social species and society is a cooperative effort not a competitive one. Societal cohesion is only possible with cooperation.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Societal cohesion is only possible with voluntary cooperation people must not be compeled to cooperate.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Cooperation is automatically voluntary. "Involuntary cooperation" is a oxymoron which is why we never call it that. What you are referring to is Coercion.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
""Involuntary cooperation" is a oxymoron which is why we never call it that. What you are referring to is Coercion." Well said and I agree, but apparently mr1001night would not. Apparently he considers himself coerced when someone can refuse to feeds him for free (to cooperate), because if someone refuse to feeds him for free he thinks he has to "work for a boss [to earn money and buy food] or starve" as he says at least 1001 times.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
I don't think he's talking about feeding people for free. As he has said before, "Having to work or starve is natural. Having to work for a boss or starve is not." It has really nothing to do with feeding anyone for free, although in some circumstances if we are to be humane to people who are genuinely unable to help themselves I think we should consider it, but it really has nothing to do with free food. Cont....
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
"Having to work or starve is natural." If at least he could sticks to that idea I could agree with him. "Having to work for a boss or starve is not." A "boss" is a buyer of labor, just like any consumer is a buyer. Beside the differences are that our actual labor market is largely driven by an oligopsony, hence exploitation and shit jobs. Some of his observations are ok, but his diagnostic is wrong, and his solutions are absurds.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
We will fundamentally disagree here. The problem with people buying labor is the same as with prostitution. You are selling yourself to subsist. To me that's just as immoral as those who make a profit off people who are just trying to survive. The health-care industry is the perfect example.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
If you accept the premise that we must work or starve than you must accept the followings option :
1) starve
2) be autarkic
3) trade something (your labor or something else) to obtain the means of your subsistance. (but you find it immoral)
4) benefit from the altruism of someone else
5) force someone else to provide you the means of your subistance. (I find it immoral)
I see no other alternatives beside these options.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Our disagreement probably is in how one obtains autarky for their means of subsistence, you would probably say selling one's labor is acceptable. Undoubtedly we will also disagree with many other corollary details that will make an overall agreement problematic such as resource ownership. To my mind Natural resources should be owned by everyone. This fundamental difference will entirely effect our way of going about things. This is a very limited forum to discuss in detail here.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Autarky means that you provide for yourself all the things you need without no external input. You produce your food, your clothes, your shelter like an ermit or a savage man. A kid is selling his labor when he mow his neighbour's grass for a few bucks. Why would it be immoral?
"To my mind Natural resources should be owned by everyone." Best way to make those ressource being depleted in no time (tragedy of the common).
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Autarky:
1. the condition of self-sufficiency, esp. economic, as applied to a nation.
2. a national policy of economic independence.
Perhaps in the purest sense it would mean what you say, but it would depend upon how one defines "self-sufficient" and there are many differing ideas about what constitutes self-sufficiency.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Mowing grass is not immoral in itself. If a child were starving and you offered to let them mow your grass for food that would be immoral, but only on your part. It's not immoral to sell yourself to subsist, it's immoral to coerce someone into selling themselves to subsist. It's a form of slavery.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
"Best way to make those resource being depleted in no time (tragedy of the common)."
That's not true. Private ownership is said to be the best way, but people who own something often feel justified in destroying it if it's in their best interest. If Dow chemicals owned a river for example. There's little doubt they would feel justified in polluting it with waste, after all it would be theirs.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
"in some circumstances if we are to be humane [...]" Altruism ought not to be mandatory. But he apparently thinks that it ought to and can be mandatory. He oftenly talk about mandatory provision of food, health care etc. He even talked about the legitimate possibility of draft and the legitimate sacrefice of invididuals, this is unacceptable.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
"Altruism ought not to be mandatory"
Are you saying that the police, fire service, libraries, and other socialized services should not exist? Socialized services are a form of mandatory altruism being coerced upon the public aren't they? Why stop there? Besides, it's already been shown elsewhere that Charities are not the best means of suppling help people. They're very problematic.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
"police, fire service, libraries, and other socialized services should not exist?" I do not mean they should not exist, they are very usefull, I mean they should not be mandatory (or socialized as you say). They should be voluntary (through charity, trade, or contract).
anarkoFred 3 years ago
And who would control the Police if it were under trade or contract? Who would ensure the objectivity and compliance with the law of a contracted Police force? As we have seen with Blackwater contracted Police does not work. It invites corruption and lawlessness on the part of those contracted.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
You know what a civil society is ? And a jury of peers ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
I know what a civil society is. That only goes so far in the society we live in.
Jury of Peers? In our culture justice is arbitrary.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
#2
It has to do with being in control of your own life. Which system do you think you have more control in? Working for a company where the workers are in control of the means of production or where you work for a boss in a hierarchal system where your job is on the line should that tiny group of people at the top make stupid decisions?
Continued...
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Workers in control of the means of production would probably be happier and more productive than workers doing their 9 to 5 for a "boss". His slogan "work for a boss or starve" is just a false dichotomie that does only refer to a oligopsony in the labor market not to outcome of being free to produce and own the product of your labor.
anarkoFred 3 years ago 2
But we have a dependence upon oligopsony at the moment. Like my example of the auto workers. The ripple effect is enormous and we are being held hostage to the oligopsony that exists in our system. There is an effect of "work for a boss or starve" happening here. To be sure, it's not absolute and all encompassing, but it may as well be.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
#3
Look at the car companies in the U.S.
The bosses made stupid decisions and the workers pay the price by being laid off. The workers had no say in what they were producing. This is the prime example of how lopsided the current system is. Rather than making crap cars the workers who obviously want to keep their jobs could have followed the market trends and kept up with the demands of the consumer, but as it stands they're out on their ears and the bosses aren't.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
#4
In the current, "work for a boss or starve" system the auto workers are going to starve, and it won't be just the auto workers. The ripple effect will take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs with them because it's not just the people who put the cars together. It's the people who made parts, transported these goods, and all the people who benefited from all those workers having money to spend. It could be massive.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
If the purpose of that excerpts is to say that we ought to force people to act "like" ants, I found it deeply despisefull. It's the kind of thing I would expected not from an anarchist but rather from an advocate of some totalitarian ideology. If individuals are willing to be altruistic then let them be, but if they don't want to then don't force them to. Thinking that it's ok to sacrefice others for "The greater good" is a dangerous first step toward dictatureship.
anarkoFred 3 years ago 3
it is your totalitarian and coercive "work for a boss or starve" capitalist system that forces and brainwashed people to become more selfish. I want to institutionalize mutual aid, not hierarchy and dod-eat-dog competition.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
You continue to strawman people. It's getting really annoying. You present a false dichotomy between accepting your moral theories and being a for "dog eat dog". It's ridiculous. Furthermore, if you truly want to "institutionalize" it, that's state-socialism you're advocating, not libertarian socialism or anarchism. If you actually advocate that the state institutionalize such obligations, then you aren't even a socialist anarchist, just a state-socialist.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 3
I have to defend mr1001nights for a brief moment here. Maybe I'm reading him incorrectly, but, if I remember correctly, he has stated that he is an Anarchosyndicalist. If that's true, then the institution that he is referring to is not the State, but it is the labor unions. I think, perhaps, that makes his case a little better, considering I don't think that labor unions are hierarchical or coercive.
Again, maybe I'm reading him wrong, but that's what I got out of his comment.
CommonAsGrass 3 years ago
"your totalitarian and coercive "work for a boss or starve" capitalist system"
Wrong. I do not support capitalism, and I do not support coercion. You sir, are an ignorant buffoon.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
I never said that you should work for a boss or starve, but I oftenly said that you should work for yourself and own the product of your labor. If institutionalizing mutual aid means to threat peoples who do not want to participate, I'm opposed. If you want to start a charity I'm in.
anarkoFred 3 years ago 2
I have to rent myself into wage slavery to a capitalist--whether I want to or not-- You can't compare that kind of totalitarian arrangement with a system of non--hierarchical workplaces and councils where the workers themselves control production, where the workers themselves control their productive life i.e. their destiny
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor is totalitarian ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
No, the capitalist workplace is totalitarian (the boss gives the orders, u obey) and based on not getting the products of ur labor (which the capitalist steals) You defend the non-labor-income of capitalists and want wage laborers to provide the means of production to the capitalists. You are guilty of all the things you accuse me of. You want exploitation and unfree dictatorial workplaces
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Which part of "Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor" do you not understand ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
the part that pretends that the capitalist workplace is not dictatorial, that there's no exploitation and the workers get paid the fruits of their labor
mr1001nights 3 years ago
I did not even talk about "capitalits workplace", so why are you talking about it as if I was advocating it ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
"... not getting the products of ur labor." Which is exploitation ... "You defend the non-labor-income of capitalists " Huh? No I don't. "and want wage laborers to provide the means of production to the capitalists." ?? No at all. I never said nor advocated nor implied anything of that kind. You realy have stranges ideas. I said "Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor".
anarkoFred 3 years ago
And what economic structure do you advocate in order to be be"free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor"?
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Roughly : Not pretending that I can at my whims tell others how to dispose of themself is the first step. Secondly oppose anyone (people like yourself) who pretend that they can at their whims force others to render services, sacrefice others for various reason or force others into draft (like you suggested before). Third let the people do as they please, produce, trade or consume their labor as they please, and let them solve their conflicts openly with the helps of a jury of peers.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
"Being free to produce and to own the product of your labor" or "work for yourself and own the product of your labor".
A single one can't work by that concept, a single one can't live without society or other hands working, in more or less in some point society is making part of the work you done.
So that product is created directly or indirectly by the collective of society, not just you, therefor, the products belongs to the ones who created, the Society as a collective force.
Faanat 3 years ago
This is an holistic fallacy.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Its not only owning the product of your labor, but owning the means to create it. Under capitalism we receive compensation that is marginally below the actual value of the product (or service) we produce, with the difference being siphoned off by the capitalists as surplus value. But the biggest difference comes when the worker own the means of producing the product or service. This empowers the individual to reproduce the product or service at will--something that is alien to capitalism
adamu1978 3 years ago
There's no fondamental difference between means of production and other products since all means of production need to be produce themself. "that is marginally below the actual value of the product [...]" as I said this is exploitation ... "something that is alien to capitalism" I'm not against workers running their business I'm in favor of that. Free-lancers and cooperatives are not alien to capitalism.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
You don't have to rent yourself, nobody tell you that you have to rent yourself, get over it.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
right, I have the choice to starve to death or live in utter poverty
mr1001nights 3 years ago
So what you want other people to feed an clothe you for free ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
What in the world coerces you in such a way that you have to choose between working for a boss or starve ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
private ownership of the means of production
mr1001nights 3 years ago
If I own my own tools as a self-employed individual, that IS a form of "private ownership of the means of production".
brainpolice2 3 years ago
ur actively using them in the manner anarchists consider them legitimate property (for use and need remember?). ur not exploiting anyone & so would qualify as "non-exploitative property" But not every person can be self-employed in a complex industrial society; therefore private ownership of most of the means of production (e.g. industry, land) cannot be privately owned without increasing the incidence of the situation where people have to rent themselves to a boss in to prosper or subsist
mr1001nights 3 years ago
And who decides what is a legitmate use of property or not? You? Why should you decide that? How would you enforce that decision? How can you enforce all these "anarchist" systems you advocate without a state and coercion? As I've said before, your system will always lead to total violence and social breakdown.
mikepeino 3 years ago
You don't "enforce" liberty, you defend yourself against those who want to take it away, like capitalists and statists
mr1001nights 3 years ago 2
I am not sure I agree with the 'institutionalization' of Mutual Aid. Kropotkin stressed that it was a spontaneous phenomenon that needed no prompting. However, the reason it isn't happening right now is most likely due to the capitalist logic of exchange. Resource distribution is the most fundamental political matter, and the way it operates right now all but completely rules out 'deep' (non-egoist) altruist systems, such as gift economies.
adamu1978 3 years ago
Beside that, individuals can cooperate with others for mainly three reasons; 1) kin selection : like in a colony, a frienship, a family, a religious group. 2) mutualy beneficial cooperation : like in trade, its must be giving giving : 3) empathy : you feel for someone whose in needs and you're willing to help him.
anarkoFred 3 years ago 2
you're conflating selfishness with altruism. Altruism and mutual aid can be beneficial to the individual and the species. That's the whole point of Kropotkin's work. That doesn't mean they are "selfish" in any real sense of the word.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
What's called "altruism" is in fact "selfish", under the analysis of psychological egoism, since all purposeful action is personally motivated in some sense.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
That's just silly. 1st of all, all of these behaviors are primarily for the preservation of the species, not the individual. Secondly, whether or not an action brings any satisfaction has no bearing on the labels "selfish" or "altruistic", E.g. calling the helping of a stranded child or the rescue of a person drowning "selfish" simply because such actions are dependent upon the psychological processes of the person performing the action (e.g. willingness, satisfaction etc) doesn't make any sense
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Ants don't choose these behaviors in the way that a human does. In either case, there is no such thing as a purposeful action that isn't personally motivated. Even when I act to help others, the desire is my own and it is in my percieved interest to help them. There is nothing "selfless" about it, since it is entirely based on my own judgement and motivation. It is something I want, and is psychologically selfish as such.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 2
Actions described as "altruistic" don't have to be "in my perceived interest" e.g someone unthinkingly risking their life by rescuing a drowning stranger. As Kropotkin says, it's for species preservation. As I said, equating actions dependent upon the psychological processes of the person e.g willingness, instinct, judgement, satisfaction etc (what u call "personal motivations") w/selfishness doesn't make any sense. Which label would u use to differentiate between saving a baby and torturing it?
mr1001nights 3 years ago
or rather, between saving a drowning baby and taking care of it and selling it into slavery...
mr1001nights 3 years ago
GENE EGOISM. The ants workers are steriles and cannot transmit the colony's genes. The ants workers are useless for their specie if they do not sacrefices themself for the benefit of the few fertiles individuals whom can transmit the colony's genes. Humans individuals have and can transmit their own genes. Individuals are useless for human specie if they do not act for the benefit of their own genes, for themselves as individuals. Ants are altruistic for the same reasons humans are selfish.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
That is a shockingly simplistic and ignorant analysis of behavioral differences. Why would they have to be more or less selfish for that? If you listen to the video, the VIscachas, who have a PERVASIVE and greater ability to reproduce than humans are even more altruistic.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
In what way more altruistic ?
anarkoFred 3 years ago
"I think this may provide some food for thought to the egoistic, laissez faire propertarians who dislike communal and altruistic tendencies."
Nice job, mr1001strawmen. I'm a big fan of Kropotkin and nothing is wrong with communal and altruistic tendencies. I simply want such tendencies to be the result of free, voluntary interactions between people, not of a group of thugs telling me what to do.
People do not need to be forced to care for others. I certainly don't.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago 3
No one says you 'have' to care for others in a non-state system. Actually, under statism you are already being explicitly forced to care for others (through taxes), and under capitalism you are tacitly forced to care for others (expropriation of surplus value).
adamu1978 3 years ago
Good video but a couple one question: do we have the capacity for this type of altruism? E.O. Wilson, in his book On Human Nature, stated that if we even tried to employ this altruism we would quickly go back to our old ways or die out as a species. He stated that ants possess this altruistic capacity since their sexually dependent, whereas humans are sexually independent - just something to think about.
Peace
Jay
axisaudio 3 years ago
ludicrous. Viscachas have a greater reproductive capacity than humans and are even more altruistic than ants
mr1001nights 3 years ago
I have only one problem with this comparison: ant colonies have a queen. What kind of Anarchist would I be if I supported a society that, although it worked in cooperation with one another, still had a matriarchal form of hierarchy?
CommonAsGrass 3 years ago 2
This point was in the back of my mind as well.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
I'd like to point something out for those who think there's a great rift between individualists and collectivists. Emma Goldman, Anarcho-Communist and opposer of property, says the following in The Individual, Society, and the State: "The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called 'society,' or the 'nation,' which is only a collection of individuals." In the same essay she calls K's 'Mutual Aid' a "profound work."
Irtidad 3 years ago 3
"I think this may provide some food for thought to the egoistic, laissez faire propertarians who dislike communal and altruistic tendencies."
I dont dislike communal or so-called altruistic tendencies, I fully support people's right to communally organize and help others, I just don't accept them as ethical norms or imperatives. I think you continue to misunderstand the perspective of me and others like me by erecting a false dichotomy between total communalism and total brutishness.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 6
I don't really understand his logic. I mean I think human beings are generally good careing creatures that in absense of a state would be good caring creatures. I don't think we need to be forced into compassion. I think it would be more productive to go after someone like revolutionofcg or mrcropper.
napalmtube 3 years ago 7
I agree, fighting statists is far more productive than fighting each other. Solidarity.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago 2
*Bumps brainpolice to mention psychological egoism*
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 5
Yea, it crossed my mind, but I didn't mention it since we're dealing more with moral theories here.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 3
But don't you think that would be the perfect point.
Psychological Egoism dictates that the issue of Altruism (which doesn't exist as far as humans are concerned) VS Egoism isn't a moral one.
Its a facet of human nature, a statement of what "is", not what "ought" to be.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 3
I brought it up down below in exchange with mr1001nights.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 3