Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid • Hacker News Board

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#101

Post by serverholic » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

schizo89 wrote: post #95

serverholic wrote: post #79

Anarchism is an interesting topic, and learning about it has lead me down some interesting paths of learning and thought. At its core, it’s the position of being against hierarchies of power where humans dominate those with less power. In simple terms, it’s being against humans dominating each other. The big question is can we have a functioning society with less human domination and how far can we reduce it? That’s…

As most things in life, it's just the surface meaning. The actual idea is denying that history have any power over an individual. There's been number of historic personalities, such a Napoleon Bonapart that gave rise to a though that maybe individual have no power over historic process and history is pre-determined. Anarchism is about denying that fatalism and branching your own fork in history where no historic proc…

That seems like an odd definition of anarchism that leads to confusion.

And anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism since capitalism is a system of domination. It’s just rebranded laissez-faire capitalism.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#102

Post by jrochkind1 » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

cuteboy19 wrote: post #100

jrochkind1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not Kropotkin's analysis; it is a very commonplace current "evolutionary psychology" analysis (as well as probably a common 19th century "social darwinism" analysis!) I don't really want to get into the whole argument here -- it's one of those that we will go on forever with. But the Kropotkin point of view would probably point out that humans as a species (and any species, in fact) have improved survivabilit…

That may be true but we do not observe it in nature. Most mammals would prioritize their own offspring over others. "Without regard" is very rare to see

I think what "we observe in nature" is debatable. Kropotkin was taking part in that debate, although it was over 100 years ago.

There's plenty of cooperation between population members not directly related observed in nature, that's literally what Kropotkin's whole book is about.

In the realm of "thought experiment", which is what "evolutionary psychology" seems to love these days: If game theory says that "tit for tat" is often the best strategy, then it's not hard to explain how creatures might evolve to do that. And if creatures are doing "tit for tat" then it is simple to explain how they might evolve to help other members of the popuation, regardless of genetic relation -- who would then help them. Thereby improving the genetic success of both participants. Organisms cooperating with other members of their population mutually improves the survival rate of all of their genes.

but here I am having the argument I said I wouldn't. You know the way to get me -- dropping statements about what "we observe" as if it is universally agreed upon and settled and not subject to debate or question -- without even a citation!

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#103

Post by greenie_beans » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #96

greenie_beans wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. the human nature argument is a lazy one against something like anarchism or any other alternative system. if we can be socialized to seek money (it starts with the piggy bank when we're like 4 years old), we can be socialized to not seek those things and instead seek something else. replace "money" or "greed" with any negative way that humans behave, like power or domination.

where does the ability to mold humans to fit a certain set of standards end? incentives, culture, norms, etc. I think can shape someone's default mode of thinking and actions on the margin, but eventually you reach some point like the "New Soviet Man" where you're asking someone not to be human?

i'm talking more about incentive structures as a way to encourage people to act towards the greater good within society, rather than having an individual fit a certain type. anarchism is all about individual self-determination, i.e. not trying to make everybody fit a certain set of standards.

but to your point of the new soviet man, how is that any different than the certain set of standards that we mold humans into today? we're raised to fit the status quo and be operatives for capital. we're compelled to look and dress a certain way, etc.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#104

Post by serverholic » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #96

greenie_beans wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. the human nature argument is a lazy one against something like anarchism or any other alternative system. if we can be socialized to seek money (it starts with the piggy bank when we're like 4 years old), we can be socialized to not seek those things and instead seek something else. replace "money" or "greed" with any negative way that humans behave, like power or domination.

where does the ability to mold humans to fit a certain set of standards end? incentives, culture, norms, etc. I think can shape someone's default mode of thinking and actions on the margin, but eventually you reach some point like the "New Soviet Man" where you're asking someone not to be human?

I think that’s a pretty negative take. There are lots of positive ways that we can reduce dysfunction in humans.

For example we know that reducing poverty, increasing access to education, and increasing access to nutritious food increase IQ, and reduce crime.

In terms of culture, there is no such thing as a society without culture so why not build a culture based on kindness and mutual aid?

Our capitalist society makes us think the only answer is greed but it isn’t.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#105

Post by OkayPhysicist » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

schizo89 wrote: post #95

serverholic wrote: post #79

Anarchism is an interesting topic, and learning about it has lead me down some interesting paths of learning and thought. At its core, it’s the position of being against hierarchies of power where humans dominate those with less power. In simple terms, it’s being against humans dominating each other. The big question is can we have a functioning society with less human domination and how far can we reduce it? That’s…

As most things in life, it's just the surface meaning. The actual idea is denying that history have any power over an individual. There's been number of historic personalities, such a Napoleon Bonapart that gave rise to a though that maybe individual have no power over historic process and history is pre-determined. Anarchism is about denying that fatalism and branching your own fork in history where no historic proc…

"Anarcho"-Capitalism has nothing at all to do with the Anarchism of Pyotr Kropotkin, in the same way the "National Socialists" aren't actually Socialists.

Just a right wing group co-opting left wing terminology to try and give their abhorrent beliefs credence.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#106

Post by OkayPhysicist » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #18

Interesting. While reading this, I wondered idly if solidarity might be more acceptable phrasing than mutual aid in the US?

Mutual aid is right now innocuous enough to act as a pretty good left-wing shibboleth. Depending on whether a group refers to their activities as "charity", "service", or "mutual aid", you can get a pretty good idea of how left-wing the general consensus of the group is.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#107

Post by TaylorAlexander » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #33

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m very familiar with Kropotkin, but not Russel.

Oh boy, do you have an opportunity here. I suggest starting with "Understanding History and Other Essays".

Ohhhh Bertrand Russell... Yeah he is great. I have just never heard anyone refer to him without including his first name.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#108

Post by schizo89 » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #98

schizo89 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As most things in life, it's just the surface meaning. The actual idea is denying that history have any power over an individual. There's been number of historic personalities, such a Napoleon Bonapart that gave rise to a though that maybe individual have no power over historic process and history is pre-determined. Anarchism is about denying that fatalism and branching your own fork in history where no historic proc…

I think that anarcho-capitalism, and to a lesser degree even libertarianism, is a fundamentally flawed philosophy because of it being against hierarchies that "suppress" their followers and in support of hierarchies that bolster them. In other words capital owners down playing the state and propping up "free market economics".

There's much changed since the inception but the core idea of anarchism is abolishing central powers (and single truth) in favor of their own homemade belief system where government has no power over them and can't enforce their laws, because, hey, they're (anarchists) moved away from main stream.

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#109

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

mad_tortoise wrote: post #27

lynx23 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you consider the ideological philosophy of anarchy as 'leftism terror', then you only serve to out yourself as having no idea of the tenets of anarchism itself. He is also not saying HN readers should lean that way, but having an intellectual and enlightened view on life, often means having read up on multiple ideologies, theories or philosophies. Which if the HN reader base would generally consider themselves wel…

> one of the most famous political and philosophical minds in history, Petr Kropotkin.

That's rather a stretch. What's your threshold for "most famous"? Top ten? Top one hundred? Top thousand? Top ten thousand? If it's top ten, no way. If it's top ten thousand, yes, he's definitely in. Top thousand? Probably in. Top hundred? Probably out.

But if your definition of "most famous" is "top thousand", I suspect that your threshold is in a different place than most peoples'...

Re: Pëtr Kropotkin and Mutual Aid

#110

Post by annadiru » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #96

greenie_beans wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. the human nature argument is a lazy one against something like anarchism or any other alternative system. if we can be socialized to seek money (it starts with the piggy bank when we're like 4 years old), we can be socialized to not seek those things and instead seek something else. replace "money" or "greed" with any negative way that humans behave, like power or domination.

where does the ability to mold humans to fit a certain set of standards end? incentives, culture, norms, etc. I think can shape someone's default mode of thinking and actions on the margin, but eventually you reach some point like the "New Soviet Man" where you're asking someone not to be human?

Collectively held norms and expectations are commonplace across cultures, otherwise how would we effectively cooperate? They are kinda like protocols. There are many ways to raise people to uphold those sets of customs without falling into the domination and homogenization traps.