I am quite new here. I registered because I would like to discuss Pjotr kropotkin and his work. He is an interesting fellow, to say the least. Born a prince, but an anarchist activist. As such, he argued and acted on behalf of freedom. This is why he, after the communist revolution came, was celebrated by the communist party. However, he wanted nothing to do with them, thinking it merely a new form of control of the individual.
The reason why he argues in favor of anarchism, is because (according to him and I am inclined to agree) humans, human progression and humanity takes steps forward and prosper in the absence of the dominance of something like a state. In my opinion a good example might be the difference between capitalism and the controlled market economy of communism. I think everyone in the world knows the benefits of capitalism as compared to a controlled situation. Is capitailsm, from this perspective not a form of anarchy? And is it not proof of the very claim Kropotkin makes (that the absence of a state is beneficial to individuals, as well as humanity)?
Careful talking about ‘capitalism’ - it’s an emotionally charged word that means a lot of things to a lot of different people.
Ask an anarcho-capitalist what ‘capitalism’ means and he will say ‘Economic freedom - the right to buy and sell at mutually agreed prices, without some other ass hole coming up and saying ‘hey, you can’t buy/sell that!’’
Ask a communist what ‘capitalism’ means, and they may say something more like, ‘The system in which those with the most capital are allowed to enslave those with the least capital, with the blessings of the government.’
Capitalism in practice is obviously somewhere in between the two (if we choose to refer to those systems which are commonly called ‘capitalist’ as ‘capitalism in practice’).
You’re probably better off avoid that word altogether and choosing to define explicitly what you mean from scratch, as tedious as that sounds.
I must say I was at first a little bit disappointed with your reply, because it does not seem to address the topic I wanted to discuss. I understand that any term warrants some explanation; the term ‘communism’ warrants the same, for example. At this moment I am using the terms for their economic significance: as opposites of economic schemes (although communism is a political scheme, it invariably contains a planned and controlled economic scheme, as mentioned before). So, I think the details of the exact ‘capitalist-scheme’ and the exact ‘controlled-scheme-of-communism’ do not come into question when used as opposites of the economic-schemes-spectrum.
The interesting thing about your reply is that one of Kropotkins major arguements against control was that -in economic situations- no enforcement is needed to force people to keep their word. All over the world, merchants are very much trustworthy; taking much pride in keeping to the agreement. Ofcourse, one must not be fooled by merchants, but misunderstandings aside, I must say that I agree with Kropotkin. I even agree with him on this to the point of saying that the unfair business agreements can only be maintained by a system which is enforced by a government. Take child labor, or any situation that is hazardous for the employee (for a tiny paycheck). No sane person would ever freely agree to something like that. It is only because of the oppression of a system, enforced by a government that any person would go along wit that (for the duration of a -shortened- lifetime).
So he takes capitalism, as you say, as: ‘Economic freedom - the right to buy and sell at mutually agreed prices, without some other ass hole coming up and saying ‘hey, you can’t buy/sell that!’’. From Kropotkin’s (above) perspective (that I agree with), it is clear that this rules out the thought: ‘The system in which those with the most capital are allowed to enslave those with the least capital, with the blessings of the government.’ For the simple reason that in the absence of force, no sane person will agree to any such enslavement. In fact, only the enforcement of a government can make people agree to something like that. Therefore, the question in this discussion is cleared up:
From the perspective of any sane person not agreeing to any agreement which is not to his own benefit in some reasonable way, is the success of capitalism, set out against the failure of the Sowjet communistic control of the economic scheme, some proof of the thought that freedom allows humans and humanity to progress a lot quicker than within any knd of controlled system; purely based on the agreements that people will step into?
You may be interested to know that Aldous Huxley wrote a utopian novel '“Island” in which he describes its government as Kropokinesque. As a moralist, Huxley considered Kropotkin’s ideas valuable. My interest in Kropotkin is his writing about evolution.
Haven’t read “mutual Aid”, but will remedy that situation when I can locate the work. I do agree that mutual aid had as much to do with the evolution of complex structured organisms as did competition.
Good thread, and welcome BTW.
I must say that I am very intrigued by this Kropotkin character. I enjoy his feedback against the Darwining model, as it matters in Biology as well as taken as a model for human society. I think Kropotkin’s idea makes a lot of sense (not ruling out the survival of the fittest completely). I am hapy to meet someone who knows the name, at least, and has an idea of his work.
Say, can you answer the question I asked in the opening post (just an educated opinion is all I ask): “The reason why he argues in favor of anarchism, is because (according to him and I am inclined to agree) humans, human progression and humanity takes steps forward and prosper in the absence of the dominance of something like a state. In my opinion a good example might be the difference between capitalism and the controlled market economy of communism. I think everyone in the world knows the benefits of capitalism as compared to a controlled situation. Is capitailsm, from this perspective not a form of anarchy? And is it not proof of the very claim Kropotkin makes (that the absence of a state is beneficial to individuals, as well as humanity)?”
The opposite of controlled-market is free-market. While most Western economies are free-market capitalist systems, capitalism isn’t required for a free market, nor is a free market required for capitalism. The strength of a free market lies in its inefficiency; very many people are involved moving very many commodities to very many locations, and it responds much more dynamically to changes and shortages.
While I’m certainly sympathetic to his stance, I don’t agree with the arguments as you’ve presented them. Much of what modern liberal thought considers as progress - abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, education, healthcare - was done within the structure of a state, and did most emphatically not come about as a result of its absence. A great many technological advances resulted from the massive state-sponsored events of world war and the space race. Slavery is pure free-market capitalism, after all, unfettered by burdensome judicial intervention. It’s only in places where there is a state to appeal to for protection that slavery can be systematically eradicated; I’m not sure where the idea that the free-market economy is de facto made up of sane people who freely agree to things comes from, nor who should adjudicate what is sane and whether agreements were made freely in the absence of some extraeconomic authority. The economist Ha-Joon Chang points out the many ways that free market capitalism depends for its existence on restrictions and regulations. Consumer goods, on the other hand, benefit greatly from free-market competition as a driver for innovation and low prices.
As for an absence of force, Marx points out the imbalance early on in Capital: while the wealthy capitalist has to choose between higher or lower profits in setting wages, the labourer has to choose between eating or starving (in the absence of any welfare state). They are not reaching a compromise from a symmetrical position.
Framing the argument as either free-market capitalism or Soviet state economy is a false dichotomy. There are many shades and flavours of economic arrangement, and no particular reason to think that one hypothesis-led extreme will lead to a better world than another, or than any pragmatic compromises that rely on empirical data rather than first-principle theorising.
Thank you for your reply, Fixed Cross.
About that website you linked to: it seems a bit prescriptive, or am I mistaken?
Only_Humean, I also thank you for your response. I agree with your distinction between Capitalism and a free market; there is one (and it is significant, also in this topic). However, the example I gave (although unnuanced), is about the combination of capitalism and a free market; the public controlling supply and demand, the production capabilities and the free choice to enter into and create agreements to their own benefit. I also agree that it responds dynamically; which is the whole point of it, I think. However, in countries with both the free market and the capitalist schemes, the government still creates problems. In fact, the very problems that you say it has solved (according to Kropotkin and I am definately inclined to agree; he gives the very same examples you do. I will try to defend his position in the same way he does):
Consider for a moment why people agreed to being a slave, to not being allowed to vote, to being denied eduction (for their children) or healthcare? The answer is simple: by threat of death or eternal imprisonment by the government. An escaped slave would be arrested, shot, whipped, or lord knows what. Demanding the right to vote of an absolute monarch would lead to the same. Eductaion and healthcare were not even addressed. In fact, the red cros was founded by private groups, because the government was so horibly bad at organising health care (especially for those fallen on behalf of that government on the battlefield!). The examples are endless, really. In fact, it still continues today. People are outraged by the pollution of oil companies and the theft of bankers (not even to mention politicians!), but the way the people choose to stop these crimes (public debate, or physical punishment) are punished by the state. People speaking of these crimes in public debate are often removed and arrested. People speaking of this in the streets are done the same to. And when people really get mad, they are arrested for a very long time. So, the quick resolution (or should I say revolution) is prevented by that government who is said to be resolving these matters in the first place. Thus, people who merely wish to enrich themselves (at the expense of others) are kept in place by that very same government you praise.
It is this very reason that Marx’ observation exists. For without a government to protect them, would any banker seriously want to cheat millions of pension holders? I think not; that banker had better be very, very clever at concealing his theft…
The absence of government makes the balance much more fair: starvation or a bad job versus an honest employer or an angry mob!
Ha-Joon Chang does have a point by the way. These restrictions and regulations do exist. Which is the very problem (thank you Ha-Joon Chang).
I leave it to you to disprove this line of arguments against goverments.
I’ve been trying to make that point for a long time. And yes, the site is highly prescriptive, but what it prescribes is precisely what you advocate. The forum is not at all restricted to this perspective, but the few posts we have on it now all lean in this direction.
The idea is to have an anarchistic structure - because you can not have an anarchistic state, the idea is to have a an anarchistic rule by philosophy. We’re moving towards the opposite of Plato’s state. The humanarchic point of reference is the self-valuing, the human entity explained in terms of the continuum it shares with the atom, the electron, any enduring form encapsulated in an orbit around itself. All entities react to their surroundings in a way that sustains their structural harmony. At least, they ‘try’ - the tendency to develop ways for this self-harmonizing by valuing develops exponentially compared to, say, ‘understanding that there is such a thing as a other’ or ‘dying at birth’ or ‘increasingly consume that which dissolves ones capacity to consume’. So we observe that it is that will survive no matter what. Atoms are more stable than molecules, molecules encompass more possibility for growth.
Growth itself is not teleological but conditional to a reduced logic of the ‘survival of the most fit to survive’, but the implications of the definition are very vast. The definition of “that which will survive at the cost of all things different” becomes “a self-setting-standard and valuing in terms of this standard”, - which, ultimately collapsed into the logic of its terms, becomes “self-valuing”.
Value ontology, the name it was given in conversations and which has a good ring to it, allows for a perspective within that which exists, rather than on top of it - the elusive observers perspective of philosophy is integrated into what it observers, so it sees only a world of goals, values, and the chemistry that makes and breaks perspectives. What Nietzsche still saw from above - the will to power as a monster of energy - can be seen from within its heart, which is its many hearts, if it is perceived as valuing and self-valuing, as the creation of value. Total independence is total co-sustenance. Partial independence is rule.
I almost think you mistake me for Kropotkin. I am his advocate at the moment. I agree with him oon some matters. On others I am undecided. I appreciate the explanation about the website. I am not sure if I will enjoy it so much, but I’ll pay it a couple of visits more before I decide what I think of it.
Now, lets get this topic back to what it was all about: Kropotkin and his ideas on the effectiveness of Anarchy. I am still hoping for Only Humean to disprove Kropotkin’s arguments, but ofcourse I welcome anyone to put in a cent or two on the matter; or just give an opinion as to the original question:
“The reason why he argues in favor of anarchism, is because (according to him and I am inclined to agree) humans, human progression and humanity takes steps forward and prosper in the absence of the dominance of something like a state. In my opinion a good example might be the difference between capitalism and the controlled market economy of communism. I think everyone in the world knows the benefits of capitalism as compared to a controlled situation. Is capitailsm, from this perspective not a form of anarchy? And is it not proof of the very claim Kropotkin makes (that the absence of a state is beneficial to individuals, as well as humanity)?”
I believe the issue that both FC and Humean pointed out is that there is a point of diminishing returns when sliding toward anarchy. There must be a distinct line as to exactly where to stop the entropy (minimal architecture), else bad gets much worse as an even stronger egalitarian state forms (the very method for creating stronger states).
Total Anarchy = nihilism.
Globalization = nihilism.
Personally, I call that distinct line of maximum benefit, “Anentropic Molecularization”.
???
There is nothing obvious about your post whatsoever.
Nowhere did anyone say that anarchy is good.
In fact, I am not even arguing on my own behalf.
I am using Kropotkins arguments to defend his ideas.
Then, you use some unproveable assumptions to make grandiose claims…
Which are also unproveable.
???
Have you read the topic?
And is it within your capabilities to respond accordingly?
With provaeable argumentation, please.
Thank you.
which (that total annihilation) is also the highest state of anarchy
Both are very subjective (I know this, because you remark they ‘you need no proving’). I would call them untrue, if not for the fact that neither can ever be found any objective truth about.
Then the assumption that I am arguing MY points is just inprecise.
And these three misgivings are subsequently used to say that there is a limit to the ‘good’ of anarchy; it is just beyond me. It might be that there are arguments against Kropotkin’s claim that anarchy is always beneficial to the growth of persons, humans and humanity, but I have read none here that stands against the points on which he basis himself. In fact, the arguments named here prove his point. So, the arguments against have been overturned; as have your grandiose claims and assumptions.
However, I thank you for your 2 cents and I will consider your opinion, for the worth it has.
