Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

areomagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#11

Post by incompatible »

einpoklum wrote: post #10
DubiousPusher wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and we've been taught from a young age that capitalism and democracy are joined at the hip. But when we look back we can see how capitalism accommodated itself quite nicely to domination starting from the early modern period.

It depends on what you mean by democracy. For people who mean a government by a parliament of elected representatives making laws and a centralized state government running the state by those laws - then that tends to go with capitalist relations of production; and it is an accessible and useful structure for commercial corporations, which will have their property ownership enforced by the state, and will not have to…

I think anarchists typically support direct democracy, but oppose representative democracy, which gives the representatives excessive power.

Any society will have to make decisions at some point which can't be left to individual preferences. E.g., we have a large natural forest, should it be preserved for nature, or cut down for timber and farmland? If left to individuals, the people who want to cut it down will win by default.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#12

Post by keybored »

incompatible wrote: post #8
bxjx wrote: post #3

"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.

I heard (of course) of anarchism a long time ago, but I always wrote it off as impractical: since without government, there's nobody to stop somebody from starting one. However, this may be incorrect, but it does require a population that is always willing to fight against the formation of a government. I think now that anarchism is practical, at least for a population of committed anarchists, and in the absence of h…

> I heard (of course) of anarchism a long time ago, but I always wrote it off as impractical: since without government, there's nobody to stop somebody from starting one.

Without knightly orders there is nobody stopping people from forming knightly orders.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#13

Post by _0ffh »

bbzealot wrote: post #5
bxjx wrote: post #3

"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.

Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#15

Post by bxjx »

incompatible wrote: post #8
bxjx wrote: post #3

"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.

I heard (of course) of anarchism a long time ago, but I always wrote it off as impractical: since without government, there's nobody to stop somebody from starting one. However, this may be incorrect, but it does require a population that is always willing to fight against the formation of a government. I think now that anarchism is practical, at least for a population of committed anarchists, and in the absence of h…

Can totally relate! The Dispossessed was another seminal book for me.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#16

Post by public_defender »

_0ffh wrote: post #13
bbzealot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

That would not be an accurate label. Nothing you wrote implies any economic system. Of course the society you describe would allow for capitalism, but it equally allows other models.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#17

Post by _0ffh »

public_defender wrote: post #16
_0ffh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

That would not be an accurate label. Nothing you wrote implies any economic system. Of course the society you describe would allow for capitalism, but it equally allows other models.

> That would not be an accurate label

...in your estimation. I and many others would call it such, and with good reason. In our estimation it is capitalism that allows for other models, as long as they are peaceful and respect property rights.

Nothing about capitalism hinders you to follow your social instincts. You are free to share your possessions with whomever you choose. You can jointly own whatever you want with whomever you want. That is capitalism.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#18

Post by okasaki »

_0ffh wrote: post #13
bbzealot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

How can private property exist in such a society? If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force?

How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? If I own the fields and decide to destroy the produce (it's mine, I can do whatever I want?) while the locals starve, this is fine right?

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#19

Post by _0ffh »

okasaki wrote: post #18
_0ffh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

How can private property exist in such a society? If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force? How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? If I own the fields and decide to destroy the produce (it's mine, I can do whatever I want?) while the locals starve, this is fine right?

> How is this society mutually beneficial by definition

I wrote "voluntary social interactions [...] are by definition mutually beneficial". A voluntary interaction implies that all participants in the interaction have chosen to do so by their own free will. That implies that they value going through with the interaction higher than to forego the interaction. Hence, it benefits all of them.

> If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force?

That's merely a technical problem. A land register might be a solution.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#20

Post by public_defender »

incompatible wrote: post #11
einpoklum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you mean by democracy. For people who mean a government by a parliament of elected representatives making laws and a centralized state government running the state by those laws - then that tends to go with capitalist relations of production; and it is an accessible and useful structure for commercial corporations, which will have their property ownership enforced by the state, and will not have to…

I think anarchists typically support direct democracy, but oppose representative democracy, which gives the representatives excessive power. Any society will have to make decisions at some point which can't be left to individual preferences. E.g., we have a large natural forest, should it be preserved for nature, or cut down for timber and farmland? If left to individuals, the people who want to cut it down will win…

It's sort of a different thought pattern than most of us are used to using. Imagine the anarchists vote: 49 for logging, 51 against. The question is then whether 51 anarchists foresters will mobilize to stop 49 anarchist deforesters. Will there be a civil war? Will the 49 weigh the benefits of whole community over wood and yield? Will someone burn the chainsaws in the night? It's less about whether we vote directly or through an intermediary, and more about how we hold the community together (or don't) through tough decisions.
Post reply on HN