Book Outline: Mutual Aid

Outline

This outline created June 2012, Brian Jacobs

Mutual Aid, A Factor Of Evolution, 1902,
by Petr Kropotkin

Introduction

 

In youthful journeys to Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria, he looked for but didn’t find competition between members of the same species.

Darwinists considered such competition (within a species) key to evolution.

During those trips he witnessed Mutual Aid and came to think it important to life, to evolution.

Professor Kessler, 1880, lectured on Mutual Aid. It was an initial work and Kessler died soon after (1881), so the work not continued.

Louis Buckner – Theorized love as the motivation for animal sociability.

Kropotkin response – love & sympathy doesn’t account for many behaviors, like migration.

Love is self sacrificing, mutual aid can be good for the subject as well.

The group is stronger than the loner, the group has “borrowed force”

 

Chapter I (pg 27)

 

Survival of the fittest – “fittest” may mean those who are best at cooperation, not just the physical characteristics of the individual.

In Descent of Man, Darwin discussed the importance of cooperation.

Competition is part of an animal’s life, but cooperation is a factor of evolution, it has the least waste of energy.

Ants

Ants – show an obligation to share food, are attacked if they refuse to share.

Are dominant over other insects (ex: crickets, grasshoppers, butterflies), which is credited to their cooperation

Bees

Bees – No camouflage, no hard shell for protection. Individuals are weak, but together they are strong.

Robber bees entering a hive are killed, but lost foreigners are let go. So not a constant struggle, intention matters.

Colonies of up to 200 hives can coexist.

Moving up from invertebrates…

Birds

At the time of writing, there were many animals where little is known of them (fish in the sea, nocturnal animals, underground dwellers). The animals we know the most about are birds.

Some eagles cooperate in food gathering. They each fly over a piece of land, and when one finds something it alerts the others to share. They take turns between eating and standing guard.

Many birds of prey are sociable. Sleep in groups.

Pelicans cooperate in fishing. On a bay, they form a semicircle and drive fish towards shore. On rivers, they have two lines, one upriver and one downriver. They don’t fight amongst themselves.

House sparrows share food within their group (society).

Small birds often group together to chase off larger birds of prey (who are solitary).

Cranes and parrots are also very social. Feed in groups. They post sentries. They play.

They send in scouts before the flock feeds in a field.

 

Chapter II (pg 61)

 

Birds gather in flock for defense

Birds come together at nesting time.

The young of different species may hang out together to socialize.

In flight, they take turns at the lead (the more tiring role)

The migrate together

Mammals

Social species are for more numerous than the anti-social carnivores

Ruminants band together

Many carnivores band together (wolves / dogs)

Rodents band together. Beavers work together to build their dams.

Horses band together

Monkeys band together

Deer band together

Dubious claims: 1) Gorillas used to be sociable, if they are the apes mentioned in Periplus. 2) Animals which are not sociable used to be sociable, until man came along.

Colonies are at the origin of animal evolution.

Association is more conscious going the evolutionary ladder.

Play is for practicing adult behaviors but also just for the fun of it.

Dubious claim: Ants play. Butterflies play.

Dubious claim: Species which abandon sociability are doomed to decay.

Brian: Are there fewer sharks than there used to be? Fewer polar bears?

Social animals have rules, a sense of justice, as they must to be social.

Darwin doesn’t offer much proof of competition, just 5 examples. The principle is just taken as granted.

Competition doesn’t necessarily mean direct physical conflict. It can mean faster reproduction, better survivability of changes in climate, or escaping a common enemy.

Dubious claim: New varieties of an animal offer relief from competition.

Overpopulation is often cited as a cause of competition (for food) but other factors keep the population well below the feeding capacity. Cold, illness, predators.

Dubious claim: Intermediate varieties of an animal just die out.
Brian: He doesn’t say what killed them, or why they failed to reproduce. Pg 94. He says it is not competition (for food). He equates “competition” with competition for food in particular.

Survival of hardship doesn’t drive evolution, it just leaves creatures that are weaker than normal.

Natural selection rewards those who avoid competition, who avoid wasting energy, those who can cooperate.

In an effort to avoid competition, animals migrate, store food, or try changing the food they eat.

 

Chapter III, Savages

 

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan): each against all, with families as a limited and temporary exception.

The family, as a form of organization, is very recent to humanity. We started off in tribes.

Archeological evidence shows people living in large groups.

Brian: But does that in itself prove that they lived with no concept of family? Were children raised in common? Was food shared? Was food obtained by cooperative effort? Was there monogamy? Was there private property? Was there mutual defense? Living close together doesn’t guarantee much about these questions.

Dubious claim: These people lived without warfare (pg 117)

In addition to archeological evidence of ancient man, we can study primitive tribes living today, and assume that ancient man lived similarly.

Living in a tribe doesn’t mean there is no organization. Marriages were “communal”, but with the incest taboo. Members stayed voluntarily, thus proving social instincts.

The clan shows that unbridled individualism is a modern development.

Bushmen

Records of them are mostly those made by the Europeans who exterminated them, so may be unfair towards them.

But what was written was that Bushmen:

• hunted together, shared the game caught
• helped their own wounded or ill
• kept promises
• loved their children
• share gifts
• share food with any who are near
• keep promises
• seldom at war with neighbors
• hunting territories are divided by clan, but each clan holds its territory in common
• help their weak and sick
• love their children
• on the other hand, they practice infanticide and are cannibals
• care for their old, not put them to death
• polygamous
• care for their ill and old
• love children well
• land in common, crops to those who grew them
• they barter
• but they do kill old & feeble was prisoners
• have no chief
• rear children in common
• Share everything in common
• treat their old well
• peaceful
• live in families, although impermanent (“divorce”)
• families share longhouse
• public shaming is the typical judgment
• hunt in common, share the catch
• Don’t steal
• murder is rare
• very peaceful

Hottentots

Native Australians

Papuas

Pacific Polynesians

Eskimos

Aleoute

Explanation for Aspects of Savage Life We Find Difficult to Understand

Infanticide. But only at necessity

• Parricide. Also only at necessity. It is voluntary, they commit suicide, aren’t murdered.
• Savages would not understand Europeans letting their neighbors starve
• Cannibalism – also originated in necessity.
• Blood revenge
• Practice blood revenge, but generally are very peaceful
• generally monogamous
• hunt in common
• live in communal huts
• assist their sick

The Dayek people (Borneo)

 

Common Law

Darwin – social instincts drive evolution

Previously, savages were idealized. Now they are denigrated.

Savages identify themselves with the tribe, follow a common law (not written law)

Individual families break down tribal unity

Tribes adopted some social institutions to try to maintain tribal unity.

War was not the normal state of existence.

Warrior classes may have arisen and ruled, but the masses carried on normal life while the warriors fought other warriors.

The most interesting study is that of the masses, not the warriors.

 

Chapter IV Barbarians

The Barbarian age is marked by the breaking of the clan/tribal bonds

There is much fighting during this period and certain historians point at it as proof of “one against all”. State arose during this time.

Historians focus on the dramatic, the battles, and ignore all else.

However, examining the day to day life of the masses shows Mutual Aid as commonplace.

This chapter will study the barbarians in northern Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire. Civilization has risen and fallen multiple times, and each time the institutions follow the same path, so it is sufficient to study this one cycle.

Drought in Asia is a likely cause of the migrations of barbarians into Europe.

Families were becoming more prominent.

Migration led to clans breaking up into families.

The village community (with unrelated members, but common territory) took the place of the clan (common ancestry).

Eventually, gods were localized, instead of being ancestors.

The Village Community

• recognized the supremacy of the family
• common defense
• maintained cohesion of action & thought

This approach to organization was in common across many nations, pretty much universal.

Village Communities

• came before serfdom
• allowed private property to a family (not everything owned in common by the clan)
• hereditary transmission of weath
• land still held and worked in common to the village though
• families ate separately though (not the whole village eating together)

The Roman idea of private land passed to the Catholic Church and from there to the barbarians much later, over time.

Common hunting/fishing changed to common agriculture.

Food was grown in common but consumed in smaller groups. Several families shared a longhut and ate together.

Occasional community meals were held.

Land worked in common, irrigation dug in common. Built roads (pacific islands, Europe)

The barbarian actually lived under a variety of rules & institutions, handed down over generations.

Justice

Any offense was against the whole community as well as the immediate victim.

Bystanders were obliged to intervene

Mediators & arbiters were common. Otherwise (if too serious, or not settled), the case was brought to the folkmote.

6 or 12 person juries were used

pg 171 – eye for an eye was used, but replaced by compensation

Compensation was set very high as discouragement, was more than most people’s net worth. The convict (who couldn’t pay) typically had to beg the victim’s family to adopt him, or marry the widow of his victim.

Death penalty very rare

The feeling of solidarity eventually extended from one village to a confederation of villages and larger (“the Vandals”, for instance)

Eventually nations arose (without central authority, but with a common language)

“Nation” is a different term from “State”.

War was avoided. They were so peaceful generally that they needed a specific warrior group for protection. Those warriors eventually assumed power, leading to serfdom.

pg 176, We can use modern barbarians as a model, even though direct evidence of institutions from ancient barbarians is scant. Our examples will come from the Pacific islands, the steppes of Asia, the tablelands of Africa.

 

Chapter V, The Medieval City

 

At no point in history do you see a prevalence of isolated families fighting other families for subsistance. We have always been sociable, living in groups that gave mutual aid.

Migration caused friction leading to fighting, but as people settled into new home areas, they became peaceful again, preferring to farm or herd.

Most fighting was done by a small “warrior caste” while the majority peacefully worked the soil.

Military force & wealth weren’t enough to create a system of serfdom, another element, a desire of the masses for justice was needed.

Kings were originally judges, for disputed between tribes. They were safe keepers of the fines from cases, which was used to maintain the warrior caste and to erect defense towers. Kings were chosen for knowledge of law and had to earn respect as being impartial.

Kings weren’t overall rulers, just more valuable than the average citizen.

Christianity & Roman law later insisted that kings were sacred.

Fortified villages rose up against the lord’s castles and destroyed them, leaving free cities.

Guilds played a major part of that revolt.

Even under feudalism, villages still had self jurisdiction and held their land in common.

Lords allowed villages to fortify to resist outside invasion, but the villages thus strengthened then resisted the lord.

Guild members had obligations to other members in case of illness, death, & other setbacks.

 

Chapter VI, Medieval Cities (cont’d)

Mediaeval cities grew organically, each unique, yet all having some things in common

Similar ideals and aspirations

similar organizations for food supplies, labour, and commerce.

Market places were protected (a violence taboo).

Marketplace protection was initially provided by a body like a king’s judge, or a community tribunal, but protection eventually was supplied by the city.

Guilds started off with open membership, but eventually they limited membership.

Merchant guilds tried to form an oligarchy, but the craft guilds were powerful enough to have a say, thus checking the merchants.

The guild sold its members produce, so quality had to be high because it reflected on the whole guild. Labour, as a social duty, had a more valued place than today.

Early on you had to earn being a master, only later could inheritance or wealth make you a master.

Work for hire was uncommon, worked produced for their guild.

Labour prospered and was respected when city life stood at its highest.

Many benefits only wished for today were fact then (8 hour work day, 48 hour work week)

Under guilds, very few complaints about work quality, under the State complaints became prolific.

The arts progressed much quicker under guilds than the State.

Younger crafts rose up against guild oligarchies. When they succeeded, the city prospered, when they failed (were violently repressed), the city’s liberties fell into decay.

The cities were oases of liberty while the country fell into serfdom. But they had to fight repeatedly to maintain liberty.

Sometimes cities defeated surrounding lords, but instead of liberating the country peasants the made deals with the lords or just took over power themselves instead.

City leagues fought against robber nobles. When kings and the church couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Cities were the real makers of national unity.

Cities who joined to resist nobles stayed friendly after (example: standardization of wine casks)

The Hanseatic unions contributed much to international discourse, navigating, and maritime discovery.

Much was lost when the State replaced free cities. Labour became slavery, art vanished, and commerce decayed.

Why did free cities fall to States?

• Burghers, who had  accumulated wealth and power, didn’t like the principles of the free cities.
• Some feudal lords gained prominance.
• The Catholic Church gave kings sanctity.
• The church lent its educated priests to help kings
• States grew in response to common enemies (Mongols, Turks)
• One city was played off against another, the State benefitting
• The city was played against the rural.
• Cities freed themselves form nobles but left rural peasants under the nobles.
• Being based on commerce (instead of agriculture), cities became involved in distant conflicts.

Lawyers of Roman law & priests preached for several hundred years that salvation lay in a State, and that the kind should be absolute, not bound by any law. Over time and by vicious example, they changed the minds of the masses.

 

Chapter VII,  Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves, part 1

pg 281 – 315

The spirit of Mutual Aid was suppressed by the State but not eliminated

Under State administration, the general quality of life fell

The Reform wasn’t just a protest against the Catholic Church, it was an attempt to bring back communal principles.

Guilds were placed under the control of the State, or bribed into submission.

The professors and priests preached for State control.

The States gave rise to individualism, because the State took responsibility for everything and   people could only interact with the State as individuals.

It was now ok to let your neighbor starve as long as you paid a poor tax. It was ok to pass by a fight, it was the job of the police.

Scientists proclaimed that “one against all” was natural, and the cause of progressive evolution.

Communal land was privatized by various schemes

• Outright confiscation
• Divide among the peasants so that they accept the concept of private land (instead of communal land). Then create conditions where the peasants had to sell (debt) to the wealthy.

A cycle took effect. The State confiscated lands, and the peasants objected until the State returned land. Then the State took land again. Each time, the land returned was somewhat less than was taken.

The  process of land seizure lasted from the 1400’s through the 1800’s throughout Europe.

There are still examples of communal land in various places, where seizure never succeeded.

The end of communal property was not a natural result of economic laws, it was forced on the peasants by the power of the State.

The land was privatized, but many other communal habits and customs remain.

Laws were made forbidding peasant associations. For instance, France, no associations of more than 19 persons, which was in force for some time before being rescinded in 1884. Once rescinded, associations quickly grew, and land held communally increased greatly again.

Examples are given from England, Switzerland, France, Germany, Russia.

For wood cutting, sewing, hemp production, examples can be found of the work being done communally. Necessary machinery (such as a thresher for farm work) is found to be owned communally.

The calling of “Aids” is still done. Everyone helps to build someone’s house, like a barn raising.

Village communities are interested in and pursue improvements to their way of agriculture. They may not have invented the following, but they experimented with and adopted better ploughs, crop rotation in place of a three field system. They do not cling to the old ways for the sake of tradition or some such.

 

Chapter VIII, Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves (continued)

page 326 – 355

The last chapter examined mutual aid in rural settings (villages). This chapter will look at mutual aid amongst the industrial populations.

The States started suppressing guilds in the sixteenth century, took over their functions. They also took away the self jurisdiction of the cities.  States passed laws to prevent artisans combining in any way.

States did…

• set standards (number of threads per yard of cloth)
• set the number of apprentices a master could have
• set wages

Poor administration by the States brought trade to complete decay.

Workers responded with secret brotherhoods, or met under the cover of friendly societies, burial clubs.

Sympathy strikes among unions is one form of mutual aid.

Political associations were another outlet of the need for Mutual Aid.

Socialism, for example

Cooperatives

Russia has an unbroken tradition of “artels” which are ad hoc groups formed for any number of purposes.

There are many examples of informal mutual aid. Miners who voluntarily risk their lives to save trapped coworkers. Lifeboat associations that attempt to save the crews of storm stricken ships along their shores.

Some organizations are just for the fun of it: cyclists, singers, tennis, etc. These clubs nevertheless form bonds between their members.

There are also scientific, literary, artistic, and educational societies.

Religious charitable institutions should also be counted as mutual aid manifestations, although the church may claim that the motivation is inspiration from above.

Acts of Mutual Aid are very common among the poor. This is also the case among the rich, although such help is typically given to other rich persons.

In the end, neither the crushing powers of the centralized State nor the teachings of mutual hatred and pitiless struggle which came from obliging philosophers and sociologists, could weed of the feeling of human solidarity.

Conclusion

pg 361 – 369

Most animals live in societies, which helps them in the struggle for life (against all natural conditions unfavorable to the species). Those animal species which practice mutual aid are the most numerous and most prosperous, and most open to further progress.

Institutions for mutual aid began in man even as savages living in tribes and clans. The barbarians, living in village communities, expanded these institutions. Later, in cities, guilds arose for mutual support and defense.

The State suppressed many institutions for mutual aid in an effort to be the only bond of union, but failed and eventually mutual aid tendencies reasserted themselves.

Mutual Aid is not the only factor of evolution, individual self assertion is practiced and can be a progressive element.

This book did not examine self assertion and did not compare the effects of mutual aid and individualism. It only endeavored to explore mutual aid, as it was completely neglected. A study of the two together would be for a different book.

Our modern industrial age is often credited to individualism and competition, but it started in the mediaeval cities defined by mutual aid, before the age of the State.  It may very well be that the rise of the State slowed industrial progress.

More so than industry, the importance of the mutual aid principle is greatest in the domain of ethics. Whether the instinct for mutual aid is considered a product of nature or of a God, its existence can be traced back to the lowest stages of the animal world.

Man is appealed to be guided in his acts by the perception of his oneness with each human being.

In the wide extension of mutual aid, we see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.