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

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#31

Post by roenxi »

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?

> isn't it going to be decided with superior force?

Yes. There is always going to be a superior force and it decides who owns what.

Practically, the point of anarchism is that the force should be limited (voluntarily, like how armies in a healthy democracy voluntarily subordinate themselves to the voters) to the absolute minimum role possible. For example, the popular configuration right now is that the group that controls the strongest army (ie, 'the government') is also seen as responsible for providing healthcare and welfare. The anarchists think this is stupid because there is no reason to think that there is an organization that is simultaneously good at so many things at once.

> How is this society mutually beneficial by definition?

Anyone using force to achieve their aims gets removed from society, so all that is left is people transacting mutually beneficially. It isn't so radical, that is close to what we have now. The vision is basically you go to the shops and buy stuff.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#32

Post by _0ffh »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #29
_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's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention. The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as volunta…

And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society?

Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#33

Post by pastacacioepepe »

_0ffh wrote: post #32
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention. The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as volunta…

And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

> And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society?

The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs.

> Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

Capitalism thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalists made tons of profits out of it. They also profited immensely from the now cheap and union free labor force, all thanks to the fascist police beating and arresting any unionist.

There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence.

It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#34

Post by _0ffh »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #33
_0ffh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

> And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense th…

> The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me.

In a system of voluntary exchange ("capitalism") they can only become wealthier if they are freely given their wealth by someone, even if that someone's not you.

> I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs.

I hold with Kropotkin, we are a social species. As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. The best way to make sure that is the case is to maximize that wealth. That's what free, voluntary exchange does. It's not a zero-sum game but it's always win-win. Only the economically illiterate would claim otherwise.

> Capitalists thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalism made tons of profits out of it.

Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct.

> There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence.

Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"?

> It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.

That was not the argument. You got it exactly backwards.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#35

Post by jostylr »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #27
_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.

The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy. This is what he meant by mutual aid. > Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or…

This seems like a horrible notion of how to run a human society and is shocking if that is a foundational observation leading to his anarchist outlook. In a capitalist society, someone who refuses to share also fails to thrive as much as they could (natural consequence), possibly falling into poverty. But there is no need to violently rip them apart. In a society in which all is given freely, the only alternative for lack of cooperation would seem to be active punishment, either violence or some kind of exiling.

Even if one is okay with punishing those who refuse to work for the good of all, when does it get invoked? Who decides? What if there is a mistake in that notion?

And this is in the context in which work is generally simple to observe and equate. In a modern society, work is very unequal. How do you figure out appropriate levels of working across nursing, serving coffee, working in a sewage treatment plant, mining, farming, teaching, walking dogs, long-distance hauling, programming, managing, etc. Who would make those decisions? Do you have agreed upon shifts? If someone shows up late or doesn't show up, is there some consequence meted out by someone?

In an economic system, one has the price system where all of that gets figured out. If you think you are underpaid in such a system, you can seek to get paid more by doing something else. If you think someone is overpaid, you can undercut their prices. If you don't show up for work, you don't get paid. This creates the changing conditions that lead to better allocation of resources, including labor. It is unclear how this could work in a society where everyone just works for the betterment of society and the fruits of all labor are distributed "equally" (things are not equal, so someone has to decide some kind of price-equivalent system for this, I presume)?

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#36

Post by jostylr »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #33
_0ffh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

> And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense th…

Look at where there were massive famines with people starving to death. Were those capitalist societies? How many people have starved to death in the semi-capitalist countries such as the US? How many starved to death in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea? When China pivoted to a kind of capitalism, did people start starving or did they start prospering? Allowing individuals to accumulate wealth by being of service is the key to general prosperity. This is the heart of capitalism.

The more a society is capitalist, the more wealth gets created and that wealth is spread out to all. The less a society embraces capitalism, the more desperate the poor become. Inequality does increase with capitalism which is a problem for stability, but the government exacerbates that issue by imposing laws that prevent competition and take from the poor to give to the rich. In a freer society than we have in the US, it would be harder for the rich to become super-rich. They have to keep being useful in such a society.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#37

Post by abecedarius »

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 can territorial animals not be fighting each other all the time?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.htm...

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#38

Post by pastacacioepepe »

_0ffh wrote: post #34
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense th…

> The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. In a system of voluntary exchange ("capitalism") they can only become wealthier if they are freely given their wealth by someone , even if that someone's not you. > I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. I hold with Kropotkin, we are a social species. As l…

> Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct.

This is just refuting historical truth without providing any evidence. It doesn't matter that Hitler used a kind of anticapitalis rethoric before getting in power. What happened once he did, is that the capitalist of the country got cheap and obedient labor force provided by the nazist police. They got rich out the war and the extermination of Jews as well.

> Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"?

No, not really. You argue for the possibility of becoming wealthy. I tell you that I don't think a right to become wealthier than others should exist, nor that people being wealthy is a guaranteed benefit for society, as shown in my examples.

You also keep mixing capitalism and voluntary exchange, and again as I've proven you those are not necessarily linked. I restate this, capitalists thrived during nazi germany due to the subjugation of the labor force.

> As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for.

This has been disproven time and time again, you're ignoring the matter of wealth inequality. The existence of wealth improves the general life conditions of the people only if such wealth is properly distributed. All the reductions in poverty we've seen in recent times are due to the conquests of the social movements, taking from the wealthy things like healthcare, retirement, decent working hours, safety on the job, unemployment benefits, public education, etc.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#39

Post by MichaelZuo »

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…

In what universe can there exist a society not subject to external forces?

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#40

Post by DubiousPusher »

jostylr wrote: post #35
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy. This is what he meant by mutual aid. > Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or…

This seems like a horrible notion of how to run a human society and is shocking if that is a foundational observation leading to his anarchist outlook. In a capitalist society, someone who refuses to share also fails to thrive as much as they could (natural consequence), possibly falling into poverty. But there is no need to violently rip them apart. In a society in which all is given freely, the only alternative for…

> Who would make those decisions? Some anarchists have everyone vote on such matters. Some have a legal system that is elected.

> Do you have agreed upon shifts? Yes. These are established by vote of the workers.

> If someone shows up late or doesn't show up, is there some consequence meted out by someone? Yes.

Rather than using prices to set which work is desirable people vote on it. Some anarchist societies today distribute undesirable work across the entire community. Everyone takes one cleaning shift a week for example.

If you're curious, you should read The Dispossessed. I especially recommend that book because it does not paint a utopian picture of an anarchist society. And most anarchists will be honest that you will loose benefits moving from a capitalist-statist political economy to an anarchist one. The goal in moving to an anarchist society is not to create a society where individual access to material wealth is the same as in a capitalist society. The goal is to create a society in which the unstated forms of domination that exist in "free" societies today are weakend.

Post reply on HN