Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

This review is specifically for the edition of "Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution" edited by Will Jonson with the Anarchist flag on the cover - it is very poorly executed. I have ordered one of many other editions available on Barnes and Noble's website, so I cannot speak with full confidence with regard to the text as of yet; however this edition appears to have been translated through Google with no attention to awkward phrasing or spelling errors. As the essays this book is comprised of were initially published in an English literary journal ("The Nineteenth Century"), it is surprising that this version has so clearly been translated (or possibly transferred) from an alternative source. The material used for the cover is very quick to capture the oil from your fingers, giving the book a stained appearance; and the dimensions of the pages coupled with weird margins give your hands a workout as you stretch to hold the book open. Very disappointing, especially considering that with the exception of two other editions it appears Amazon has very few alternatives to this version. I include a picture of a page to better show the small margins and a strange spelling error (the word circled).

Based on his extended and close observations of nonhuman animals and humans in eastern Siberia and northern Manchuria as well as his wide reading of various scientific authors, Peter Kropotkin concludes in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that the so-called incessant fearful "competition for food and life within each species," which is an "article of faith" with Darwinists, is in fact an exaggeration and does not play as significant a role in the evolution of new species as does the phenomenon of "mutual aid" and "mutual support."Now it is important to note what Kropotkin does not say in order to best understand what he does say. He is not talking about the competition that exists among various species. That exists and is a factor in evolution. He is talking about competition within the same species. According to Kropotkin, competition within a species is the rare exception and not the norm in the animal kingdom and, with the exception of a few species, when it does occur within a species, it is usually under the most exigent of circumstances (e.g. scarcity of food). The norm for most species under most of their circumstances is a quasi-cooperative relationship of sociability and mutual aid. The less completion and the more mutual aid a species exemplifies, the better off that species is evolutionarily:"The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress."Within most of the bulk of the book, Kropotkin charts--at times in painstaking detail and citing many sources--the manifestation of mutual aid in a variety of nonhuman animal species as well as in humans during their technologically primitive stage of development, in conditions of "barbarianism" (i.e., in non-formally organized relationships on the outskirts of "civilized" states), in medieval cities, and in contemporaneous rural and urban settings.Kropotkin also argues that it is ludicrous to assume that the "one single generalization" of "struggle for existence" could account for an "immense variety of facts" like "adaptations of function and structure of organic beings to their surroundings; physiological and anatomical evolution; intellectual progress, and moral development itself...." As a matter of fact, Darwin himself was not committed to the "one single generalization." Although Darwin never developed the idea, he indicated that something very much like mutual aid was a factor in evolutionary success and development. Quoting Darwin Kropotkin writes, "'Those communities...which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.'" Kropotkin's task is precisely to explore this factor which neither Darwin nor his "numberless followers" ever pursued.Kropotkin readily admits that contemporary human societies are not as pervasively given to mutual aid as they have been in the past and that "unbridled individualism is a modern growth." But he considers these developments unfortunate and contrary to the best and most evolutionarily beneficial instincts of humans--developments that resulted from the institutionalization of private property. Nevertheless, it's a Hobbesian myth that mutual aid is a rarity both historically and contemporaneously. Kropotkin provides an impressive list of contemporaneous endeavors that reflect the instinct for mutual aid (e.g. charitable giving) and without which (like the aid given to and by the laboring classes) many people "never could pull through all their difficulties." The sense of urgency and ethical responsibility to provide assistance to others is reflective of the instinct for mutual aid.Although Kropotkin never explicitly makes the case in this work, one of his principal purposes is to make the suggestion that because mutual aid is a factor in human evolution, societies should order themselves to maximize mutual aid in their economic and social relations. Of course, many critics of Kropotkin are quick to point out that this implicit argument commits the naturalistic fallacy (deriving an "ought" from an "is"). For reasons too lengthy for me to develop here, this pat reply to Kropotkin misses one of the principal points that he makes throughout the work: viz. copious mutual aid maximizes well-being. It's an advantageous state of affairs. Concerns about possible fallacious arguments hardly address that compelling consideration.

Despite being written in 1902, Kropotkin's overview of evolution in the animal kingdom is still ahead of most people's understanding of the science, particularly our understanding of human evolution. His message is clear. Progress in the evolution of social species - certainly of humans - is a function of mutual aid and support in our communities. While not discounting the influences of violence and competition, Kropotkin makes a point still not broadly understood today as being mainstream evolutionary theory, though it should be. Our progress as a social species is paced principally by the levels of mutual aid and support in our communities. Many institutions of "civilized" society stand more in the way of our helping and supporting one another than in promoting it, legalistic institutions in particular. Those who become apoplectic over any hint of "socialism" in our society would do well to study and contemplate this work in detail. If ever there were a prescient refutation of the Ayn Rand school of individualism and selfishness, Kropotkin's book is it.

This is the classical text of libertarian communism. Kropotkin illustrates, trough scientific observation, numerous examples of mutual aid and cooperation in the animal world and concludes that the most successful species are not the strongest and most aggressive but those where the individuals cooperate one with the other. While Darwin was right regarding the evolution of the species, Kropotkin proposes that the best model for life on the planet is one where people cooperate with each other, help each other and all contribute to the well being of humanity. The strongest is not always, actually almost never, the fittest. Piotr Kropotkin was a Russian Prince who got rid of everything he possessed and cut his ties with the Russian nobility to fight for justice for all. He was the first to comprehensively proposed the concept of libertarian communism that was to become so important during the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 that was suffocated in a blood bath by the fascists and Nazis.

In this book, Peter Kropotkin sets out to demonstrate the importance of cooperation (“mutual aid”) within species and within human societies. Kropotkin, writing in the 1890s, was concerned to oppose “Social Darwinist” ideas that put the emphasis on individual self-assertion and competition within “the struggle for life”. Far from individualistic competition – “the war of all against all” – being the norm, Kropotkin insisted, the principle of “mutual aid” can be found at all levels of nature and of human society, throughout history. If anything, he adds, it is “mutual aid”, not competition, that has done the most to promote human development.Kropotkin delineates this process working from animals through "primitive" (Kropotkin, using the terminology of his times, says "savage"), "barbarian" and medieval societies to the modern day. Kropotkin does not deny that individualistic competition and self-assertion have also been important factors in human development. His objection is that they have claimed a disproportionate amount of attention – “the self-assertion of the individual or of groups of individuals, their struggles for superiority, and the conflicts which resulted therefrom, have already been analyzed, described, and glorified from time immemorial” – and his purpose is to refute the Social Darwinist claim that evolutionary science supports (or even mandates) an individualistic, “all against all” approach to contemporary human society.How much Kropotkin’s specific examples can be relied upon as a matter either of zoology or history, I’m not qualified to say. But he surely succeeds in his overall aim: to open our eyes to cooperation and mutual aid as a fundamental and universal experience of both humankind and the rest of nature.

For those Biologists who like me think that Nature is not all red tooth and claw, Kropotkin's work should be better known to balance the tired repulsive view of "the survival of the fittest". Please note that this last saying was not formed by Biologists specialising in evolution or zoology nor any Natural Scientists, the saying was coined by an economist and when do we ever listen to them. Read this book and realise that Nature and its inhabitants are more than just needy killers.

Another FAB-ORDER..well described. Arrived quicklymany thanks

This book is a great start to understand a bit of Anarchism .

This book makes a lot of sense to me. There things written in it that I had always suspected, but never really known. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of human society and how it was corrupted by the introduction of the State.