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

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#51

Post by kqr »

jpster wrote: post #46
incompatible wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Anarchism argues that no centralized government is necessary for people to lead happy, just and equitable lives. How does this work when one is a minority in a prejudiced society? This concern has always hindered me from thinking of anarchism as viable.

One of the core ideas of anarchism is that everyone is an equal. In other words, anarchism presupposes lack of significant prejudice.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#52

Post by [deleted] »

drummer wrote: post #49
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #48

For some weird reason, people misunderstand the concept of anarchy, always using this word as a synonym for 'chaos'. In fact, anarchy is a theoretical and highly organized society that relies not on leadership and coercion to function, but on all members of society, who are educated and know their duties. For some weird reason, people believe it to be impossible, but we clearly see it happen in many circumstances, es…

Many years of brainwash from the slave masters have convinced the slaves that they need to be ruled because they cannot govern themselves individually.

[deleted]

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#53

Post by ZeroGravitas »

_0ffh wrote: post #28
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…

Yes, I know. I read the article. I also think it is sensible to be aware of cheaters and treat them accordingly, though we're not a haplodiploid species. Bear in mind that dealing with cheaters must not be taken as an excuse for violence or robbery. What is your point regarding my answer to gp post? I didn't even mention the words "bureaucracy" or "government". Rest assured though, that I despise them both.

The article used those terms, in a way that cast Kropotkin in a "right libertarian" light which struck me as anachronistic given his time period.

Your comment seemed to echo that, talking about some Anarcho-capitalist libertarian ideal buzzword society, linking that to his anarchism and then further attaching the generic word 'capitalist' to it.

This felt like a stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

> Anarcho-capitalism is also distinguished from anarchism, an anti-capitalist movement that opposes unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, and social anarchism, a branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Unlike anarchists, anarcho-capitalists support private property and private institutions. Anarcho-capitalists also reject the libertarian socialist economic theories of anarchism, arguing that they are inherently authoritarian or require authoritarianism to achieve, while believing that there is no coercion under capitalism. Despite its name, anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of anarchism and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism, and liberalism

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#54

Post by CharlesW »

kqr wrote: post #51
jpster wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anarchism argues that no centralized government is necessary for people to lead happy, just and equitable lives. How does this work when one is a minority in a prejudiced society? This concern has always hindered me from thinking of anarchism as viable.

One of the core ideas of anarchism is that everyone is an equal. In other words, anarchism presupposes lack of significant prejudice.

> In other words, anarchism presupposes lack of significant prejudice.

That seems to put it in "fun thought experiment" territory.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#55

Post by _0ffh »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47
_0ffh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you do not agree with the definition of capitalism that was given at the origin of this exchange does not mean that I have to abide by yours. You can argue against your strawman-capitalism all you want, I do not care. If you insist that capitalism is not about protecting everyone's right to their property, I see no point in carrying on.

That's not my definition, it's the Wikipedia definition. Where does yours come from? Also would you answer to my initial request to explain how transactions can be voluntary in a capitalist system where most people dont own property, the means of production.

Even the very same Wikipedia article you quote admits that central characteristics of capitalism include competitive markets, private property, property rights recognition, and voluntary exchange.

Neither National Socialism nor Fascist corporatism had strong protection of

- competitive markets: markets where heavily regulated and great parts of national production and ressources where directed and allocated by the government, preventing competition and free exchange

- property rights: lots of property was outright stolen from their rightful owners, the means of production were ultimately controlled by the government

- voluntary exchange: lots of people where forced into slave labor, which is decidedly involuntary

So yes, these were state socialist societies, not capitalist ones.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#56

Post by [deleted] »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #48

For some weird reason, people misunderstand the concept of anarchy, always using this word as a synonym for 'chaos'. In fact, anarchy is a theoretical and highly organized society that relies not on leadership and coercion to function, but on all members of society, who are educated and know their duties. For some weird reason, people believe it to be impossible, but we clearly see it happen in many circumstances, es…

[deleted]

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#57

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

There's all sorts of interesting arguments about how various libertarian societies would enforce their non-aggression, property rights and contract law etc.

It's very lazy to claim that any society doesn't have this requirement.

Also, anarchism (or socialism) and markets are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there's many different types, though some of those may claim they are exclusive and only theirs is the true anarchism/socialism.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#58

Post by _0ffh »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #53
_0ffh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know. I read the article. I also think it is sensible to be aware of cheaters and treat them accordingly, though we're not a haplodiploid species. Bear in mind that dealing with cheaters must not be taken as an excuse for violence or robbery. What is your point regarding my answer to gp post? I didn't even mention the words "bureaucracy" or "government". Rest assured though, that I despise them both.

The article used those terms, in a way that cast Kropotkin in a "right libertarian" light which struck me as anachronistic given his time period. Your comment seemed to echo that, talking about some Anarcho-capitalist libertarian ideal buzzword society, linking that to his anarchism and then further attaching the generic word 'capitalist' to it. This felt like a stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitali…

I'd like to point you to a detailed rebuttal of this claim in text [1] and video [2] form. Wikipedia should not be anyone's only source.

[1] https://springtimeofnations.org/2021/04/yes-ancaps-are-anarc...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb2-bsWP6Y

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#59

Post by kqr »

CharlesW wrote: post #54
kqr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the core ideas of anarchism is that everyone is an equal. In other words, anarchism presupposes lack of significant prejudice.

> In other words, anarchism presupposes lack of significant prejudice. That seems to put it in "fun thought experiment" territory.

Or "conditional probability" territory. Of the people who would choose to espouse a philosophy of treating everyone as equal, it is unlikely to find someone significantly prejudiced.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#60

Post by kqr »

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 not just that representatives in a typical representative democracy wield disproportionate amounts of power, it's also that the people who are able to become popular enough to get a significant share of votes are people who have time and resources and connections for campaigning, PR, and so on. This is a very specific stratum of the population. It's an elective kind of aristocracy, basically.
Post reply on HN