Arguments Against Social Darwinism In Mutual Aid By Peter Kropotkin
In his book Mutual Aid, Peter Kropotkin argues against Social Darwinism, a concept that supports ‘every man for himself’ notion. Kropotkin states that Darwin’s concept was about the competition among different species and not among members of the same species as if often alluded (Kropotkin 2006). His argument is that the survival of a species is only guaranteed through mutual aid. The book is full of examples of scenarios where members of the same species relied on each other for survival, including homo sapiens. Many indigenous cultures around the world assist each other through cooperation and division of labor. For instance, women can take cook meals while men go hunting. Although Kropotkin gives examples of communities to the level of the
…show more content…
Bookchin tries to balance his ecological anarchist views with the vison of a post-scarcity time (Bookchin 2004). His ideas considers more factors unlike theorist before him (Karl Marx) who focused on material scarcity. Bookchin suggests that the tools required for self-governance already exist and when conjoined with an ecological perspective can potentially shape the existing landscape (Bookchin 2004). However, any positive outcome made by technology or any other advancement has some negative aspect. For instance, technological developments made during the 20th century greatly increased production, but this also led to the pursuit of additional proceeds at the expense of people and environmental sustainability. New ideas and way of thinking is also transforming how people work and interact with one another. For instance, in the past, capital accumulation was deemed a tool for liberation by the working class, but this notion has changed and factors like the state and social classes are not viewed as impediments to progress in life (Bookchin 2004). The shift has moved from material scarcity to inclusion of other vital elements for survival. The continuously changing narrative forms the hallmark of Bookchin’s argument and hence, the reason for a positive post-scarcity
Bookchin tries to balance his ecological anarchist views with the vison of a post-scarcity time (Bookchin 2004). His ideas considers more factors unlike theorist before him (Karl Marx) who focused on material scarcity. Bookchin suggests that the tools required for self-governance already exist and when conjoined with an ecological perspective can potentially shape the existing landscape (Bookchin 2004). However, any positive outcome made by technology or any other advancement has some negative aspect. For instance, technological developments made during the 20th century greatly increased production, but this also led to the pursuit of additional proceeds at the expense of people and environmental sustainability. New ideas and way of thinking is also transforming how people work and interact with one another. For instance, in the past, capital accumulation was deemed a tool for liberation by the working class, but this notion has changed and factors like the state and social classes are not viewed as impediments to progress in life (Bookchin 2004). The shift has moved from material scarcity to inclusion of other vital elements for survival. The continuously changing narrative forms the hallmark of Bookchin’s argument and hence, the reason for a positive post-scarcity