Log in

View Full Version : Made a conclusion while reading "Mutual Aid"



Rusty Shackleford
23rd September 2009, 01:08
So i picked up "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin yesterday from my school library and have read about 100 pages. The section "Mutual Aid Among Savages" covers lesser developed groups of humans and explains how they live in a society of primitive communism. now, i have not finished the book yet, but i have come to a conclusion that i will try to explain.

My conclusion is: If primitive communism existed amongst under-developed groups of humans which was dropped in favor of the innovation or advents of feudalism, then capitalism, and any other progressice change in society; and the ultimate culmination of humanity is communism. Therefore communism is the human state of nature. Over the course of time, humanity has developed new ways to live but ultimately lead to a modernized form of primitive communism due to trial and error.

If you do read this, please give any feed back. Tell me if you think it is ridiculous, not well thought out, or needs elaboration. of if its on the right track then please help make it clearer. i will admit this is not well organized as i only spent less than a half hour writing this. (editing and so on)

According to Marxist theory (as much as i know) communism is the inevitable form of socio-economic relations in humankind.

Primitive communism was dropped as human intelligence progressed and new social systems came to be. In reaction to the loss of old practices (how they managed the dead, and society in general functioned) the old practices were then followed religiously. no doubt superstition existed before then but the application of religious practice was a new achievement for them. Implements of hunting, construction, and agriculture made production of food and shelter easier and less of a communal effort. Families began to develop as they are today where they are more independent from other families and are self sustainable. a continuing trend of anti-communal activity.

in the times of primitive communism there was nearly an absence of hierarchy. with the birth of civilization, hierarchy came along. feudalism further developed hierarchy and capitalism changed it. There are class hierarchies (bourgeoisie>proletariat). what these hierarchies do is create conflict. and as Kropotkin pointed out, during the time of primitive communism there was little internal conflict and tribes co-operated in general.


Now, individualism has reached its peak in the twentieth century and this century. Human beings are able to completely rely on themselves for living. But there is an aspect that is not taken to account. it is a vast human co-operation that made this possible. people can do any 'wage' job with little skill but there must always be many times the number of people in a certain industry to support it. Farming, food processing, transportation, mining, energy, construction, education, lumber processing, various forms of smelting/metalworks all to make a single McDonalds. 'collective-individualism' (a purposeful oxymoron) is what i think of this as. Greed and the idea that the individual is more important than the collective is almost completely accepted by modern society. What happens is now this system (capitalims) does is enrich individuals at the expense of the collective and now it is failing to feed the collective properly, or shelter the collective properly. it is not sustainable.

Since this from of society is not sustainable it is time for a reversion in relations. but it is not towards primitivism. it is towards communism. Modern communism. a new form, after all of the practices have come and gone, (religion, feudalism, the practice of hierarchy and so on) and failed, but the by-products of these stages (industry, infrastructure, knowledge, technology in general) that communism is now more than capable of being sustainable.

ZeroNowhere
23rd September 2009, 17:26
Therefore communism is the human state of nature.What the hell does that mean? Is geocentrism also part of the state of nature? Perhaps astrology? Yes, we lived in a certain way for a certain period of time. Whoo. So what? Why is this any more a state of nature than, say, feudalism or capitalism?


According to Marxist theory (as much as i know) communism is the inevitable form of socio-economic relations in humankind.Not quite. Most Marxists wouldn't say so, and the late Marx was quite silent about the inevitability of anything except crises (which he no longer thought to necessarily lead to revolution as he did in the late 1840s and early 1850s).


in the times of primitive communism there was nearly an absence of hierarchy. with the birth of civilization, hierarchy came along.Hm, really? I'm fairly sure that there would have been hierarchy among a fair few primitive communist groups.


Now, individualism has reached its peak in the twentieth century and this century. Human beings are able to completely rely on themselves for living.I'm fairly sure they aren't.


Greed and the idea that the individual is more important than the collective is almost completely accepted by modern society.Is it, though? One would think that all of the Obamaites would prove the imaginary community was still going strong, as well as the imaginary atomized individual.


it is not sustainable.Only because we'll probably die out sooner or later, be it a few centuries or a few billion years. Though I suppose we can't count on it, humans may well manage to survive the sun's death.

The last paragraph is pretty decent.

Dave B
23rd September 2009, 19:24
However I think that the synopsis of the ‘mutual aid thing’ as regard human nature being or in part being co-operative isn’t too bad.

This idea was also picked up by Anton Pannekoek eg;


http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm)


Marx himself went through this phase with his humanist phase of species being and human essence etc following on from Feuerbach.

They abandoned it after Stirners theoretical attack on it in his;

The Ego and Its Own (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own),

There was an interesting letter on this below including an extract although the whole thing may be of interest to some;

Letters of Marx and Engels 1844, Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris





We must not simply cast it aside, but rather use it as the perfect expression of present-day folly and, while inverting it, continue to build on it. This egoism is taken to such a pitch, it is so absurd and at the same time so self-aware, that it cannot maintain itself even for an instant in its one-sidedness, but must immediately change into communism. In the first place it's a simple matter to prove to Stirner that his egoistic man is bound to become communist out of sheer egoism. That's the way to answer the fellow.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm)

It is highly likely that Stirner was not being ‘serious’ and was playing devils advocate.

Engels knew Stirner personally.

There has been renewed interest that we may possess some co-operative instincts with the ‘reciprocal altruism’ theorists and perfectly serious academic people are investigating it in what looks like a scientific way eg Marc Hauser.

There is a bit of a whiff of this kind of thing even in Capital at one point;

Karl Marx. Capital Volume One Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation





Not only have we here an increase in the productive power of the individual, by means of co-operation, but the creation of a new power, namely, the collective power of masses.
Apart from the new power that arises from the fusion of many forces into one single force, mere social contact begets in most industries an emulation and a stimulation of the animal spirits that heighten the efficiency of each individual workman.




http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm)

Rusty Shackleford
24th September 2009, 06:57
To Zero: thanks for the corrections and comments.


Quote:
According to Marxist theory (as much as i know) communism is the inevitable form of socio-economic relations in humankind.
Not quite. Most Marxists wouldn't say so, and the late Marx was quite silent about the inevitability of anything except crises (which he no longer thought to necessarily lead to revolution as he did in the late 1840s and early 1850s).:blushing:ill accept that. as i said: "as far as i know." but, isn't communism the highest stage of development? i should have taken to account that it can be prevented. (as it has countless times)


What the hell does that mean? Is geocentrism also part of the state of nature? Perhaps astrology? Yes, we lived in a certain way for a certain period of time. Whoo. So what? Why is this any more a state of nature than, say, feudalism or capitalism?
after posting this i had a sort of 'doh' moment since i generally disagree with a "human nature" of any type theory. Humans are very sociable for the most part (besides some anomalies, not all humans are the same psychologically) communism is a very social form of society. the amount of participation with fellow humans is fairly high. communal decision making, labor is more laborer oriented and is done to meet society's needs. by state of nature im not implying it is an ingrained trait that all humans are communistic.

feudalism is a system in which people are given less direct power. though feudal lords are obliged to meet the needs of the serfs, they make decisions independent of them in some cases. and the amount of rungs in the hierarchic ladder distances the serf farther from the king. and capitalism is far less social because decisions are made regardless of the workers input. people are places in various social standings based on wealth and power (like feudalism) and are thus, against the human sociability.

the only sure thing about humanity is its sociable qualities.



Quote:
in the times of primitive communism there was nearly an absence of hierarchy. with the birth of civilization, hierarchy came along.
Hm, really? I'm fairly sure that there would have been hierarchy among a fair few primitive communist groups.in what forms? i have not finished reading mutual aid but i can understand the hierarchy of say the 'elder' of the group and possibly a hierarchy base on gender. but all work and decisions were generally done in common. People were much more equal in status(if there was one, im not sure of) due to the lack in variety of labor forms and the need for all to contribute.


Quote:
Now, individualism has reached its peak in the twentieth century and this century. Human beings are able to completely rely on themselves for living.
I'm fairly sure they aren't.

A person can now almost completely physically isolate themselves from other people. Internet study, food delivery, personal transportation, home business.
though to have all of these things, other people must produce them, but being born into this era it is given and one could theoretically live from the age, say 18, to death without seeing another human face to face.


Quote:
it is not sustainable.
Only because we'll probably die out sooner or later, be it a few centuries or a few billion years. Though I suppose we can't count on it, humans may well manage to survive the sun's death. funny.

To dave B:

i will have to read Pannekoek then.

I will save those links.

The excerpt from the letter was interesting. thank you.

Once i finish Mutual Aid i will continue reading Capital volume 1.

Thank you both so far.