WTF IS MUTUAL AID? 
A Brief anarchist Introduction

“Imagine a world in which human activity was not organized on the basis of ceaseless competition over artificially scarce resources, but the pursuit of the satisfaction of human needs… and you will understand a vision of the world that anarchists seek to create.”

Anarchists work toward two general goals. First they want to dismantle oppressive, hierarchical institutions. Second, they want to replace those institutions with organic, horizontal, and cooperative versions based on autonomy, solidarity, voluntary association, mutual aid and direct action. Through mutual aid, anarchism takes shape as a practice in care, exchanging resources and solidarity, information, support, even comfort, care, and understanding. People give what they can and get what they need. When a group comes together to push for a change; when social outsiders come together to share or explore ideas and new ways of living, these are all forms of mutual aid.

PAMPHLET PDF FROM
Distributed by: Oh Shit! What Now? ATX
 www.ohshitwhatnow.org

 www.facebook.com/ohshitwhatnowatx 

Email: ohshit@oshitwhatnow.org

The FASEB Journal • Editorial

Quorum Sensing on the Airbus Wing: Margret Fuller and Prince Kropotkin

Scrambling for the exits and carrying the helpless, they perched ankle- and then knee-deep atop the wings as an improvised armada of tour boats and ferries streamed to their rescue ... witnesses described a scene of level-headed teamwork to rescue the weak and infirm. —The Washington Post, January 16, 2009 (1) 

We at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest ... we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle but that, as a factor of evolution it most probably has a far greater importance. —Prince Pyotr Kropotkin, 1902 (2) 

Bacteria communicate extensively with each other and employ a communal approach to facilitate survival in hostile environments. —Shadaba Asad and Steven M. Opal, 2008 (3)

Natural Being and a Coherent Society
 Mae-Wan Ho
 Bioelectrodynamics Laboratory, 
Open University Walton Hall, 
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K. 
To appear in Evolution, Order and Complexity (E.L. Khalil and K.E. Boulding eds.), London: Routledge, 1996. 
Abstract 
The Conference of the Birds The Darwinian Metaphor and the Darwinian Man Mutual aid versus mutual struggle The origins of love and hate Nature from Within The Coherence of Being The Coherent Society Acknowledgment Notes Abstract Science is a system of concepts and tools for knowing and living with nature. As such, it should be integral to any human society from the most primitive prehistoric culture to the industrialized nations of to-day. But whereas the primitive lived within nature by her knowledge which is the totality of her personal and tribal experience, the civilized man is imprisoned outside nature, of which, therefore, he can have no real knowledge. Cartesian mind-matter dualism and Newtonian mechanics began a process of the dissolution of our natural being; which Darwin completed by reducing organisms (including humans) to objects, isolated from the environment, and buffeted by blind selective forces. This deep alienation from nature and from our own natural being is the human condition of the modern man. It is his paradise lost. From then on, nature would be opaque to him, condemned as he is, to a knowing from without, to a life alone and devoid of meaning. In this paper, I wish to deconstruct the myth of the Darwinian man by re-examining the biological roots of human nature to show how it is inextricably bound up with the social. From studies on animal and plant communities to ‘primitive’ human socieities, we see that sociality is at the basis of life: it is the direct consequence and expression of the fundamental unity and interconnectedness of all nature. The unity of nature is itself a universal, intuitive insight that contemporary western science is validating in every aspect, particularly in the new biophysics of coherence in living systems. Authentic knowledge is premised on this coherence and interconnectedness. Social and moral values arise explicitly and naturally in a life coherent with authentic knowledge. From this perspective, culture is the creation of meaning and knowledge in partnership with nature, in which every social being participates. The coherent society is the society of natural beings living in harmony with nature’s creative process. 

Mutual aid versus mutual struggle
Kropotkin tells us that, under the influence of Darwin’s Origin of Species, he began to study animal life in Siberia in order to find evidence of intraspecific competition. Two general features emerged from his observations. First, that there was indeed extreme severity of struggle for existence against inclement nature (as one would expect in Siberia); and second, that even under the most abundant animal life, there was no struggle for existence against one another [13] . He went on to document at length numerous examples of mutual aid and mutual support among animals throughout the animal kingdom, from ants and termites to birds and mammals, quoting widely from published sources as well as from his own experience. Ants regularly regurgitate food to feed hungry comrades that they happen to meet. ‘If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy. . . . And if an ant has not refused to feed another ant belonging to an enemy species, it will be treated by the kinsfolk of the latter as a friend.’ [14] Pelicans always fish together, typically forming a wide half-circle facing the shore, then narrowing it by paddling towards the shore, catching all the fish that finally become enclosed in a circle. In South America, they gather in flocks of 40-50,000, part of which enjoy sleep while others keep watch and still others go fishing. Cooperation does not stop within species boundaries. Species may combine together to repell attacks, as the gulls and terns, who coooperate to drive away the sea-hen. The lapwings (Vanellus cristatus) attack the birds of prey so bravely that they merit the name ‘good mother’, given to them by the Greeks. Cranes live in excellent relationships not only with their congeners but with most aquatic birds. Their sentries keep watch around a mixed flock which is feeding or resting together. A considerable body of present-day sociobiological theory is devoted to explaining, or explaining away cooperation in terms of the selective advantage that after all, must accrue to the cooperating individuals (see Bateson [15] , for example). But this is a misreading of nature. In many cases, help is freely given to others from whom no return can ever be expected, and with whom the individual shares no genetic relatedness. Among mammals, dolphins are well-renowned for their intelligence and friendship towards humans. They will actually help fishermen drive fish into their nets if, after a long day, the fishermen have netted nothing and they call to the dolphins for help. However, if the fishermen are greedy and do it too often, the dolphins will ignore their call [16] . Goethe was once told by Eckerman that two little wren-fledgelings, who had run away from him, were found the next day in the nest of robin redbreasts who fed the littles ones together with their own. Goethe saw in this a confirmation of his pantheistic views [17] . It is surely this universal neighbourly tendency of birds to look after other’s young that enables the cuckoos to exploit their hosts [ 18 ] , and not because the latter are too stupid or mesmerized to distinguish foundlings from their own offsprings. In my experience, female and even male domestic cats, too, will readily adopt and look after kittens that are not their own. The love of young is such among the Indian langur monkeys that as soon as a newborn arrives, the troop’s females will cluster around the mother, all reaching out gently to try and touch and lick the infant. During its first day of life, it will have passed through the loving arms of up to eight females [19] . What appears much more fundamental than cooperativeness or helpfulness is that animals tend to seek out and enjoy the society of others. The crane is in continual activity from morn till night, of which only a few hours are devoted to finding food. All the remainder of the day is given over to society life. ‘It picks up small pieces of wood or small stones, throws them in the air and tries to catch them; it bends its neck, opens its wings, dances, jumps, runs about, and tries to manifest by all means its good disposition of mind, and always it remains graceful and beautiful.’ [20] Parrots, likewise, live in numerous societies or bands, the members of each of which remain faithfully together for good or bad. They also enjoy the society of other birds. In India, the jays and crows come together from many miles round to spend the night in company with the parrots in the bamboo thickets. Multispecies association of birds are so common that, ‘it would be much easier to describe the species which live isolated than to simply name those species which join the autumnal societies of young birds -- not for hunting or nesting purposes, but simply to enjoy life in society and to spend their time in plays and sports, after having given a few hours every day to find their daily food.’ ‘And finally, we have that immense display of mutual aid among birds -- their migrations . . . birds which have lived for months in small bands scattered over a wide territory gather in thousands; they come together at a given place, for several days in succession, before they start, . . . Some species will indulge every afternoon in flights preparatory to the long passage. All wait for their tardy congeners, and finally they start in a well-chosen direction . . . the strongest flying at the head of the band, and relieving one another in that difficult task. They cross the seas in large bands consisting of both big and small birds. And when they return next spring, they repair to the same spot, and, in most cases, each of them take possession of the very same nest which it had built or repaired the previous year.’ [21] Similarly, social mammals are highly successful and associate in large numbers (until decimated by man). The numbers of solitary carnivores are trifling in comparison with the social herds of wild horses, donkeys, camels, and sheep that used to roam in central Asia; and elephants, rhinoceroses, monkeys, reindeer, muskoxen and polar foxes in northern Asia and Southern Africa. ‘And how false, therefore, is the view of those who speak of the animal world as if nothing were to be seen in it but lions and hyenas plunging their bleeding teeth into the flesh of their victims! One might as well imagine that the whole of human life is nothing but a succession of war massacres.’ [22] Most of all, animals derive pleasure and satisfaction from life in society. Society was not created by ‘man’ as our anthropocentric view would lead us to believe, but is antecedent to our own species. Sociability -- the love of society for society’s sake -- is at the very basis of animal life. Not only do numerous species of birds assemble together habitually to indulge in antics and dancing performances, but according to Hudson, nearly all mammals and birds (probably there are really no exceptions) indulge frequently in more or less regular or set performances with or without sound, or composed of sound exclusively. One has only to listen to the chorus of birdsongs mornings and evenings that happen regularly as clockwork during the warm seasons. The habit of singing in concert is most strikingly developed with the chakar (Chauna chavarria). Hudson described how he experienced this: ‘Presently, one flock near me began singing and continued their powerful chant for three to four minutes, when they ceased the next flock took up the strains, and after it the next, and so on, until once more the notes of the flocks on the opposite shore came floating strong and clear across the water -- then passed away, growing fainter and fainter, until once more the sound approached me travelling round to my side again.’ [23] Many years later, Allee [ 24 ] was stimulated to re-examine Kropotkin’s thesis when, by chance, he discovered that even such lowly animals as isopods aggreagate most eagerly to form social clusters. From this, he was led to review abundant evidence of swarm formation in the living world, starting with the single-celled photosynthetic organism Euglena, through to insects, birds and mammals. He concluded that sociality is indeed universal: ‘The growing weight of evidence indicates that animals are rarely solitary; that they are almost necessarily members of loosely integrated racial and inter-racial communities, in part woven together by environmental factors, and in part by mutual attraction between the individual membrers of different communities, no one of which can be affected without changing all the rest, at least to some slight extent.’ [25] As an example, he referred to the grassland bison community of the Great Plains in North America. The bison herds kept the grasslands closely cropped, preventing the invasion of herbs and shrubs. This provided a rich habitat for grasshoppers, crickets, mice and prarie dogs, all of whom converted the grass into meat, on which the plain Indians, buffalo wolves, hawks, owls and prarie chickens fed. The plants of the community,therefore, cannot be considered in isolation from the animals. This is but the age-old wisdom of ecological connectedness and interdependence of all living things that is universal to indigenous cultures all over the world [26] . The dominant modernist culture of the industrialized west is unique in its persistent denial of the unity of nature. Allee and his colleagues also carried out numerous experiments demonstrating that society per se has important effects on the behaviour and physiology of individuals in it, not all of which can be interpreted as contributing to an increase in survival value. The ill-effects of crowding are well-known and clearly documented for animals such as fruitflies and laboratory mice. What is not so well-known is that under-crowding is also deleterious for the survival of individuals. Goldfish and planarians, when isolated, succumbs to poisoning more readily than when grouped [ 27 ] . Embryonic development in sea urchins is significantly accelerated when the eggs are massed together [28] . And ciliate protozoa reproduce faster in groups than when isolated, the reproductive rate being also dependent on the density of bacteria on which they feed [29] . Of especial interest is Allee’s demonstration that goldfish learn faster in groups than as individuals, through a combination of imitation and group cohesion [30] . From this arises the concept of ‘social facilitation’ of behaviour which may have important implications for our own species that are as yet unexplored. Having demonstrated that cooperativeness and sociality is for animals the most natural state of being, Kropotkin went on to cite abundant evidence of mutual aid, compassion and moral feelings among so-called primitive human societies. The relative lack of competition and strife in most traditional cultures have long impressed anthropologists. The point is not that competition or rivalry never occurs. Competition, like cooperation, is a social phenomenon; it does not follow that corresponding preformed human qualities of competitiveness and cooperativeness actually exist. There is, at bottom, a feeling of connectedness with other beings, a desire for society -- sociality, or love. According to Kropotkin, sociality not only offers the greatest advantage in the struggle for life under any circumstances (as opposed to competition, which is only advantageous under some circumstances), but it also favours the growth of intelligence, language, social feelings and a ‘certain sense of collective justice’ akin to morality. Sociality, the desire, or propensity for society, is the regulating and cohesive principle in both animal and human society. It exists prior to any consideration of selective advantage. In a sense, Kropotkin, and also Bateson [ 31 ] (a strong advocate of cooperation among contemporary neo-Darwinists), invert cause and effect in trying to explain why cooperation or mutual aid could have evolved by natural selection. Qualities such as compassion or empathy, based on the same experience of connectedness with other beings, are also antecedent to life in organized society. Life in society may of course, reinforce and enhance those qualities, but they would never have arisen through any externally imposed social order were they not already heartfelt and integral to the natural state of being.

On the Origin of Socialist Darwinism 

Socialist Darwinism is the idea that natural selection promotes societies that cooperate as moral communities. This concept actually predates Social Darwinism, which later emphasized competition and individualism. Socialists throughout the 1860s-70s praised Darwin’s theory as promoting progressive social change.

As Eric Michael Johnson has documented in The Struggle for Coexistence (pdf here), the earliest consistent application of Darwin’s ideas for human society can be classified as Socialist Darwinism. For these authors, evolution demonstrated that the inequality maintained by institutions of God and State were not facts of nature but were imposed by power and privilege. It was therefore necessary for society to be redesigned from the bottom-up following scientific principles.

“I am a Socialist because I am a believer in Evolution,” wrote the women’s rights activist Annie Besant. She saw in Darwin’s work the clearest evidence yet that the status quo was not divinely ordained. Social species had evolved traits for cooperative behavior and humans, the most social of all animals, displayed the most elaborate moral instincts. Because evolution had shaped human physiology, behavior, and mind, Besant concluded, “it was not possible that Evolution should leave Sociology untouched.” Like Besant, many nineteenth-century socialist scholars, scientists, and activists quickly deployed Darwin to challenge the status quo.

The most prominent advocate for Socialist Darwinism was the Russian prince and naturalist Peter Kropotkin. His 1890 papers on “Mutual Aid Among Animals” (later published as the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution in 1902) synthesized the argument promoted by the “Darwinian Left” over the previous thirty years. In the process, Kropotkin closely hewed to Darwin’s theory of natural selection and demonstrated how the feeling of sympathy could evolve to form the basis of human morality.

The one factor that united diverse Socialist Darwinists across England, Europe, and Russia was a commitment to building on Darwin’s “moral sense.” For group-living species, natural selection had promoted traits that emphasized sympathy and cooperation. They believed it was wrong to ignore what Darwin called “the noblest part of our nature” in our efforts to improve human society.

In contrast, those who would later be called Social Darwinists (the term did not become widely used until the 1940s) claimed that the state of nature was nothing but brutal competition. Thomas Henry Huxley called nature a “gladiator’s show” and denied that morality had evolved in humans. Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and Francis Galton differed in their views in important ways, but all believed that natural selection was purely competitive and that society should be organized to ensure that the best rose to the top so the privileged could be protected against the supposed “unfit.”

Modern evolutionary science shows that cooperation is just as important in nature as competition. In group-living species, those traits promoting mutual aid often succeeded over traits promoting individualism. The first advocates of Socialist Darwinism were correct about this aspect of Darwin’s science. Solidarity is a fact of life—even between species. We could not live without our microbiomes, for example.

The first Socialist Darwinists didn’t get everything right. Today we know much more about how cooperation and competition can be blended in the right way. However, the origin of Socialist Darwinism reveals that seeing society through a Darwinian lens does not mean an endorsement of brutal competition. By taking Darwin seriously about “the noblest part of our nature,” we can complete the Darwinian revolution and build upon that which is best in ourselves. 

Read the full series “Darwinizing the Federalist Papers” below:

1. Preamble
2. On the Origin of Socialist Darwinism
3. More Perfect UNIONS Must Regulate Their Parts
4. The Human Social Organism and a Parliament of Genes
5. Morality Regulates Our Social Physiology
6. The Darwinian ‘Struggle for Existence’ is Really About Balance

Image: “AOC Reads Mutual Aid” by Julia Suits

Published On: July 10, 2019

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough ...

https://academic.oup.com › ije › article-pdf › dyu230

by JE Ferrie - ‎2014 - ‎Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,10 finding the evidence and concepts Kropotkin describes fundamental to the pro- motion of public health.11. Mutual Aid ...

Kropotkin
By the time he finished his doctorate, Tony McMichael had become fascinated by the ideas of the Pulitzer Prizewinning author and microbiologist Rene´ Dubos, and it was through writing to Dubos that he eventually secured his first postdoctoral position.6 In common with other thinkers on the ecology of health and disease, Dubos followed Peter Kropotkin (Figure 2) in emphasizing that the most important aspect of the natural world is not the law of the jungle or ruthless competition, but rather interdependence and co-existence, or mutual aid.8 The first ever mention of Kropotkin in the IJE was in a commentary last December on Edmund Parkes’ review of John Snow’s Mode of Transmission of Cholera: ‘History is not kind to critics. Its writers typically dismiss where they do not simply ignore those whose careful reviews argue caution in the face of works destined to become, in the future, classics. Think, here, Prince Peter Kropotkin whose naturalist studies focused upon the limits of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory and the direction in which research based upon it would be best directed’.9 In the Editorial for this December’s issue of the IJE, Tom Koch expands on this theme to provide an interesting and compelling exploration of the ideas presented in Kroptokin’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, 10 finding the evidence and concepts Kropotkin describes fundamental to the promotion of public health.11 Mutual Aid, published in 1902, is probably Kropotkin’s most famous work. Rarely out of print and often thought of as an anarchist classic, it actually comprises a series of articles Kropotkin wrote in reply to Thomas Huxley’s The Struggle for Existence in Human Society, published in the journal The Nineteenth Century. Kropotkin’s replies appeared in the same journal between 1890 and 1896 and were expanded to form Mutual Aid. 10 Although Kropotkin was and is internationally recognized for his contribution to geography, Mutual Aid has generally been either dismissed or ignored, and Kropotkin labelled a crackpot. Partly this was due to his stance against Huxley and the then dominant interpretation of Darwin, but also because acceptance would have challenged those aspects of Social Darwinism carefully constructed to defend the interests of the ruling class and capitalist exploitation. Similar political agendas had underlined the earlier argument between Thomas Malthus and William Godwin, with Malthus recognized as a significant influence on Darwin and Darwinian thinking.11,12

Collaboration and diversity essential 

By Dave Lehman, Connections Executive Editor and NSRF National Facilitator in Wisconsin

“Collaboration has been a recurring theme in science and technology in recent years. The life of the mind is increasingly transnational. It roams centers of excellence from every continent, linked by communications of great speed and breadth.” The spring 2013 issue of YES! magazine was devoted to the theme, “How Cooperatives Are Driving the New Economy.” In this issue, Eric Michael Johnson, graduate student in the history of science at the University of British Columbia,wrote about a “New Theory of Evolution: Survival of the Nicest.” Citing the recent extensive research of Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology at Leipzig, Germany, Johnson developed a “comprehensive evolutionary theory of human cooperation.” Here is an account of human evolution which has predisposed us to work collaboratively, with cooperation favoring survival. (Also see Tomasello’s 2008 book, Why We Cooperate.) I would add that this is not a “new” theory of evolution, even in 2008, but goes back at least to the turn of the 19th century with the writings of Petr Kropotkin (Russian geographer, economist, activist, philologist, zoologist, evolutionary theorist, philosopher, writer and prominent anarchist) and his seminal book, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Kropotkin’s work first appeared as a series of articles in the magazine, “The Nineteenth Century” in 1890, then as a book in 1902. In summary, drawing on an extensive analysis of animal behavior as well as human societies, the medieval cities, and modern villages, Kropotkin said, “In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support—not mutual struggle—has had the leading part.” 

Beck, Naomi (2012) : Social Darwinism, Papers on Economics and Evolution, No. 1215, Max-Planck-Inst. für Ökonomik, Jena 

This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/88263

Huxley reiterated this conclusion with greater conviction in a famous lecture on evolution and ethics: “Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” According to Huxley, in the course of our development, the idea of justice underwent a gradual sublimation from punishment and reward according to acts, to punishment and reward according to desert. As a result, the conscience of humans began to revolt against the moral indifference of nature. Huxley denounced “fanatical individualism” for misunderstanding the nonmoral character of natural evolution and deplored the fallacy that arose from the “unfortunate ambiguity” of the phrase “the survival of the fittest”; whereby “fittest” received the connotation of “best” or “good” in a moral sense. He then continued to claim that laws and moral precepts should be directed to the end of curbing nature and to reminding the individual of his or her duty to the community in making peaceful and protected existence possible. Social organization should aim “not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive” (Ruse 2009, pp. 80-83). Huxley was undoubtedly one of the most critical voices against attempts to draw a connection between biological and cultural evolution. He saw nature as a formidable power, red in tooth and claw, yet believed, somewhat contradictorily, that humans’ intelligence would provide enough stamina to counter this cosmic force. In the meantime, an alternative understanding of the nature of the evolutionary process emerged, carrying with it a very different message. It is most commonly associated with the view of Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin, though he was by no means the only one, or even the first, to enounce it. Kropotkin argued that mutual aid and support were as much a law of nature as the struggle for existence. He distinguished between two different aspects of the struggle for existence: the exterior war of the species against the harsh environment and other species, and the intraspecies war for means of subsistence. The latter, Kropotkin claimed, was often greatly exaggerated. He brought forth as #1215 12 evidence his own observations made in Siberia of many adaptations for struggling in common against the adverse circumstances of the climate or against various enemies. Kropotkin ([1902] 2008, pp. 5, 12, 137) concluded that the animals which acquired habits of mutual aid were “undoubtedly the fittest” and the most highly developed. These findings applied also to human beings, whose history Kropotkin reviewed, asserting “the ethical progress of our race, viewed in its broad lines, appears as a gradual extension of the mutual aid principles from the tribe to always larger and larger agglomerations.” Huxley’s gladiatorial view was simply a “very incorrect representation of the facts of Nature.” Faced with the grim reality of the 1914 hostilities, Kropotkin wrote a preface to a reprint of Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution in which he condemned the use of the struggle for existence as an explanation for the war horrors. Though clearly the evidence for his theory was at this point far from convincing, Kropotkin did not lose faith. This might prompt us to ask whether some of the other viewpoints surveyed above relied on stronger foundations, and to ponder the essence of social Darwinism. Our survey shows that under the auspices of the theory of evolution the most disparate conceptions of progress, and diametrically opposed political positions, were heralded. Today there is still great disagreement as to how evolutionary principles apply to the human domain and what practical conclusions we can gain from understanding them. We know more about biology, and we have better tools to study the particularities of our species. Yet Darwin’s prediction seems to hold: “light will be thrown,” and we have still much to learn from further research into the history, psychology, and social behaviour of our species. Evolution is too complex a theory to yield quick or simple answers, and this complexity is at the core of many partial interpretations and abuses of it. It is also what makes the theory of evolution so fascinating: we know that it must provide invaluable insights if only for the reason that we are part of the living world. 

Mutual Aid: An Introduction and Evaluation

Tue, 05/27/2008 - 10:41 — Anarcho

An overview and analysis of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid showing how it has faired against developments in modern science as well as how it relates to anarchism.

LONG READ RIGHT CLICK PRINT, RIGHT CLICK SAVE, SAVE AS PDF

 Mutual Aid: An Introduction and Evaluation

Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid is usually, and rightly, called his masterpiece. While the high quality of all his work makes it hard to say whether this classic can be considered his best, it is fair to say that it is probably his most famous and one of his most widely read. Suffice to say, that it is rarely out of print testifies to its importance as well as the quality and timelessness of its message.

It is often called an anarchist classic. This is not entirely accurate. Yes, it is a classic and it was written by an anarchist, indeed the leading anarchist thinker of the time. However, it is not a book about anarchism. It is, first and foremost, a work of popular science, a “best-selling work,” which made co-operation “well known in lay society” while ensuring it would “be discussed among biologists in the following decades.”[1] It was aimed at rebutting the misuse of evolutionary theory to justify the status quo, but its synthesis of zoological, anthropological, historical and sociological data achieved far more and, consequently, its influence is great. “It is arguable that of all the books on co-operation written by biologists,” suggests Lee Alan Dugatkin Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Louisville, “Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid had the most profound affect on biologists, social scientists, and laymen alike.”[2] Anthropologist Ashley Montagu dedicated his book Darwin, Competition and Co-operation, to Kropotkin, stating it was a “classic” and “no book in the whole realm of evolutionary theories is more readable or more important, for it is Mutual Aid which provides the first thoroughly documented demonstration of the importance of co-operation as a factor in evolution.”[3]

This is not to say that anarchism plays no part in it nor that it holds nothing of interest for anarchists or anarchist theory. Far from it! The very mode of analysis, the looking into mutual aid tendencies of everyday life is inherently libertarian. It flows from the “bottom-up” and is rooted in popular history. More than that, it is documented with the skill of a talented scientist and, in this, it is somewhat unusual. It is often noted that Proudhon, the founding father of anarchism, was unique in being a socialist thinker who was also working class. In the case of Kropotkin, he was one of the few socialist thinkers who was a trained scientist, an extremely gifted one according to his peers. This education in the scientific method can be seen from all his work, but most obviously in Mutual Aid.

Given that this work is probably the best known by non-anarchists, it is useful to place it into the context of his revolutionary ideas as well as evaluating how well it has survived advances in science. In the process, Kropotkin’s life will be touched upon, as well as the “life” of his book, its origins and influences. Finally, the various myths which have arisen about Mutual Aid will be discussed and debunked. By so doing, it will become clear why this book is considered so important by both anarchists and non-anarchists alike.

Pitting the boys against the girls
Peter L. Hurd
September 21, 2009 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.010

Mandatory reading in the subject of my first education (anarchist theory) is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, in which Petr Kropotkin asks ‘Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?’ and concludes that ‘Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle’ [ 1 ]. Kropotkin saw himself as following Darwin's lead when the latter wrote (in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex) that ‘those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring’ [ 2 ]. The comrade/lab-mates of my second education (animal behavior) remained unconvinced: ‘Really? How does this work Pete, group selection?’ Over a century later, Joan Roughgarden's The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness argues essentially the same point as Kropotkin, but with Darwin, and sexual selection (Supplementary Information §1), cast as the villains.

The Darwinian Rhetoric of Science in Petr Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. A Factor of Evolution (1902)** 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bewi.201900023

Riccardo Nicolosi* 

Summary: 
The paper explores the significance of rhetorical argumentation in Petr Kropotkin’s treatise Mutual Aid. A Factor of Evolution (1902). It argues that Kropotkin’s work is steeped in the tradition of a rhetoric of science that is profoundly Darwinian and in which various forms of analogic reasoning play a central role. After explaining the epistemic function of the metaphors “struggle for existence” and “mutual aid,” the paper analyses Kropotkin’s argumentation strategies and offers an interpretation of them as a further development and reworking of Darwinian rhetoric. 

Keywords: Peter Kropotkin, Charles Darwin, Russian Darwinism, rhetoric of science, struggle for existence, mutual aid