Hobbes Vs Kropotkin Essay

Compare and contrast the work of Hobbes and Kropotkin. Whose writings do you find more convincing and why?

In today’s world, there is an overwhelming presence of violence, war, and a lack of peace. Thomas Hobbes and Peter Kropotkin have undoubtedly embedded their names into history as some of the greatest masterminds of political philosophy. In the Hobbes’ Leviathan, he launches his strong belief of the muse of states and legitimate governments. Much of the book demonstrates the need of a robust central authority to avoid the evil of discordance and warfare. On the other hand, Kropotkin advocated a more-so communist society freed from any sort of government. Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, which was written in response to Thomas Huxley’s social
Darwinism theory, carried ideas of more natural and social order through anarchy by using animal and human species as examples. But which theory works superior to the other within the state of nature? Throughout this paper I plan to compare and contrast each of Hobbes and Kropotkin’s work as well as discuss my opinion of their theories and ideology. Hobbes’ view indicated that in the absence of government, there would be a lapse and we would as a society fall into a state of war. "In such conditions, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no Knowledge of the face of the Earth, no account of time, no Arts, no Letters, no Society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; And life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan, 186) I support Hobbes traditional Aristotelian and Christian ideas. Both he and myself have lost faith in ideas of community, whether it was in the 1700’s or current day. Hobbes suggests in his work that people are motivated by self-interest and I couldn’t agree more. Humans are always searching for something and are never at rest, and “…there is no such thing as perpetual tranquility of mind while we live here; because life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more than without sense.” (Leviathan, 129-130) There is a continual search for success in our world. This could be with sports, work, school, and just about anything. We desire success - it’s a law of human nature that ultimately drives mankind. With success there is power, and no one will ever have a complete satisfaction due to the competitive state of nature our society lives in. Some could argue and rationalize that this is just the way humans are born and we suffer from a particular condition. Inevitably, with scare goods and in the absence of a government, a conflict would eventually result in a war. Political thinkers, more so like Kropotkin, grasp the realist way of rationalizing the governmental system and view it as a moral-free and value-free environment.

In the state of nature concept, Kropotkin’s idea of anarchy suggests that the power rests within the individual. There is no longer a concern of a competitive nature but more so a cooperative one. Kropotkin’s roots in socialism warrant his work of Mutual Aid and his idea of maintaining a more natural and social order. It would undoubtedly break traditions by breaking the state. Instead, society would seek/create order and structure, by what they assume is a more just way of life. Essentially though, I believe that even in a state of cooperation, there is a motive or incentive that suggests if there is a better outcome then there is an underlying factor of self-interest to avoid a bad outcome. Anarchism today would be almost impractical, unrealistic, and extremely bold. As posed by Kropotkin, in an anarchical society, it’s in our human nature to be sociable, generous, cooperative, kind, etc. But, my impression of a modern day anarchical system has only been of what Greece and Syria are currently experiencing. As far as I am concerned, they are in a state of barbaric chaos. These two examples alone are why I do no support Kropotkin’s ideology. In Hobbes state of nature theory, he confesses that if there is an absence of government, there will inevitably be conflict in anarchical conditions and then create an “every man for himself,” war or effect. I would have to agree with Hobbes and say we do live in a competitive state more so then a cooperative one.

One thing both Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid pieces of work do interestingly enough have in common is that they ignore two sizeable properties.
Hobbes overlooked morality while Kropotkin overlooked struggle. Throughout society, there is always going to be someone who is less powerful or strong. Majority of people wouldn’t willingly attack someone or create a state of violence. But as even seen today, from terrorist attacks to stealing a bag of candy from a local convenience store, we cannot always control everyone and everything under a governmental state. He assumes that we all will collectively put a stop to an unmoral behavior. But wouldn’t the rational behavior be to attack one another and create this state of war to stop the evil? I suggest in the state of nature that the creation of a sovereign would then help solve the conflict. In the case of Kropotkin when he was discussing how humans and animal species profit from mutual aid, he neglects to discuss that mutual aid was the “natural order” per say. Instead, he argues, “The war of each against all is not the law of nature. Mutual aid is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.” (Mutual Aid, pg.50) Kropotkin recognizes and doesn’t deny the importance of struggle, competition, or mutual aid as a method of survival. However, he argues that cooperation within a species was the most effective means for it to survive in a very hostile atmosphere. But, this only applies to life underneath a capitalist economy. Within the hostile atmosphere of society, the sole method in which the social working class might survive would be to practice mutual aid, or in alternative words,
solidarity.

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes’ basic argument is that individuals are motivated by their self-interest in the state of nature, and if there are scarce goods, and no legitimate government, there will be conflict that would generate warfare. However, anarchists like Kropotkin believe that cooperation in the state of nature will be the breaking point in evolution for humans, who are said to be, all naturally and morally sound. In the end, Peter Kropotkin’s ideas of a more natural and social order through anarchy have not convinced me. I still believe humans will act violently if there not in a centralized authority to maintain the natural state of human kind. I may be bias because I am thinking in terms of social order today, but I do no see the world being turned upside down, to break the norm of a governmental state, to recreate the world in a more anarchist society. It will only create havoc and warfare.

Works Cited

"Anarchist Writers." Anarchist Writers. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
Hobbes, Thomas, and Noel Malcolm. Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon, 2012. Print.
Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution / P. Kropotkin. [United States?]: Dodo, 2006. Print.
"The Political Realism of Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes." EInternational Relations RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
"The State of Nature." Bookshop. Blackwell, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. .