Mutual Aid since Kropotkin

Lecture (initially a one-way presentation; followed by a Q&A session in the final third)

Language: German
Duration: 1 hour (may be longer or shorter)
In-person (will be streamed online)

What’s it about?

At the end of the 19th century, Pyotr Kropotkin refuted the social Darwinist interpretation (which ultimately boils down to oppression and egoism) of the theory of biological evolution. He argued that, in the development of animal species, it is not so much competition that is the decisive factor, but rather mutual aid. He did this to demonstrate the plausibility of a society based on solidarity without oppression. Accordingly, ‘mutual aid’, ‘cooperation’, ‘solidarity’ and even ‘altruism’ are core concepts of anarchism. Since then, much of Kropotkin’s argument has been confirmed by biology, albeit entirely without his radical intentions. In some respects, it even contradicts his theory. I shall set out the ways in which Kropotkin’s scientific anarchism and the biological theories explaining co-operation are similar, and the ways in which they differ. However, it is not enough simply to rejoice in the accuracy of certain factual claims within an ideology one finds appealing. I shall therefore critically examine the purposes for which scientific – and, above all, sociobiological – theories can be used at all. My aim here is to avoid the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. Empirical knowledge does not in any way imply a normative necessity. So: even if it is true that we humans are capable of great solidarity, this does not prove that we ought to live without hierarchy. Nevertheless, biological and evolutionary theories can be of use to us: whilst they do not justify ideological convictions, they can limit them and thus, to some extent, prevent them from becoming deluded wishful thinking. Furthermore, they can be used for propaganda purposes within a specific aspect of the culture war when it comes to the concept of human nature. And finally, they can be employed in strategic and tactical discourses at a highly abstract level. This may all sound terribly theoretical, but I will use plenty of concrete examples to illustrate what I am arguing. It will certainly be theoretical, but not terribly so.

Aims of this contribution

To impart knowledge (the history of ideas behind anarchist and biological theories)

To impart skills (arguments against certain anti-anarchist claims; plus a tool for developing one’s own theories)