Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 days ago

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

notabot@lemm.ee · 3 days ago

The problem with that passage is that every behaviour that he attributes to ‘a feeling infinitely wider than love or personal sympathy’ can more readily and obviously be seen in terms of self preservation and individual gain. This is not to say that every instance of these behaviours in every species is selfish, but his explainations do nothing to disprove that. Neighbour’s house on fire? Put it out before it spreads here. Ruminants being attacked by wolves? Form a circle to protect your sides and rear. Woleves hunting as a pack? More members bring down bigger prey so there’s more food per member, and less personal risk of injury. Kittens play to hone their hunting abilities, and to start to form dominancy hierarchies. Birds flock together because it’s more efficient to follow another bird, rather than lead. And so on.

None of this is some gotcha that proves that cooperation is somehow unnatural, or that selfishness is more natural, but to assume the opposite is hopelessly naive.

More cooperation and working towards the common good would do wonders for the human race, but it’s fighting against a lot of instincts, both old and new.

jwiggler@sh.itjust.works · 3 days ago

I don’t really agree, but I do understand where you’re coming from. I do think you’re right in pointing out that all these behaviors give the individual a more likely chance to survive, but I also think that is exactly Kropotkin’s point. That these social behaviors were naturally selected, the individuals who displayed them were more likely to survive.

But where I disagree is in the fact that the individuals themselves aren’t consciously thinking, “this is what will give me, an individual, the best chance to survive.” You see what I mean? For example, the horses forming a circle around the young to defend from wolves – they’re not thinking, “I need to protect myself.” They have an instinct to protect the young, so the young go in the center. If an adult were purely individualistic, it would enter the circle, itself, right? Or if my neighbors house is on fire, what’s most advantageous for me as an individual is to run away, but I feel compelled to yell for help. Or kittens – wouldn’t they be better off as individuals if they just killed off their siblings, so that they could have a full mouth? But no, being raised with other young kittens allows them to learn to hunt through play, to groom themselves, and to learn socialization tactics and reading body language, which further increases their chances of survival when encountering other cats as adults.

So yeah, you’re totally right in a sense, animals act in these ways because their ancestors passed on the genes that predisposed them to acting this way, and those behaviors make them more likely to survive because they (the behaviors) made their ancestors more likely to survive. See what I’m getting at? Kropotkin’s point is that it is evolutionarily advantageous to engage in social activity and cooperation.

I totally buy it, personally. You ever think about why we blush involuntarily? Or why we feel so wretched when we think we haven’t been accepted socially? Why it feels good to just help someone, or when we wince when we see someone else in pain? We’re social animals, built to socialize. I mean, we all speak a language! We naturally are compelled to talk baby-talk at babies. We touch each other, even in platonic, non sexual ways. These social behaviors are rewarded because they helped us survive, yes, but we don’t think about them as actions we take to increase our chance of survival. We do them because they feel good, because they’re supposed to.

notabot@lemm.ee · 7 hours ago

Thank you for a thoughtful reply, and my appologies for only responding to what appear to be the key points, life has decided to get busy.

You are correct in saying that the animal behaviours discussed are largely evolutionary, the question is what the driver is. Maybe I am being too cynical, but in each example I see a behaviour that is tailored to the benefit of the individual and their genetic line, rather than to the benefit of the group as a whole.

The horses forming a defensive ring have their young on the inside, and are acting to protect them, not the young of others. The person acting to put out the fire at a neighbour’s house seeks to stop it spreading to their house (look at reports of historical fires in cities for many examples) or to encourage others to help them in times of trouble. Kittens playing together rather than attempting to kill their siblings benefit directly from the play, and lack the necessary strength to kill anyway. Other species’ young are not so delicate. Any altruistic behaviour can be framed as selfish when you consider the benefits the individual gains, both in terms of a positive feeling and in terms of social ‘credit’ for want of a better term, although that take may really be too cynical for most.

One of the most obvious ways to see how selfish these behaviours are is to see what happens when they don’t work out for some reason, say lack of resources, or where a larger benefit can be gained by acting differently. Lions kill each others cubs, in many species the strong will monopolise resources to the detriment of weaker members of society, others will steal cached food from members of their own kind. Even herd animals will leave the slowest members behind if it means personal survival.

As I said, I do think humans would benefit from much more cooperation, but I think Kropotkin’s point is weak and mostly relies on the reader thinking the animals mentioned are cute and fluffy, or majestic, rather than thinking about their behavior. I think his point would have been better made by comparison to either bees or ants, which clearly operate communally, with little regard to individual benefit. They’re perhaps not so pleasant a comparrison, and are notably hierarchical with a ‘queen’ as the topmost tier, but, to me, they seem to fit his argument better.

jwiggler@sh.itjust.works · 5 hours ago

Hey, no need to apologize! I totally get it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, even with your cynicism :) I agree, any altruistic behavior fits within this context of evolutionary behavior and is ultimately driven by the need for individuals to survive long enough to reproductive age. To be honest, I’m actually not sure where we disagree. I think, maybe, we are interpreting Kropotkin differently. To continue with the idea about horses – I think the problem with your posit (horses protecting their young) is that it isn’t only the horses who have offspring who form the circle, but also horses who don’t have offspring. This might sound like I’m saying, “See, since even the horses that do not have offspring join the protective ring, we see that altruism occurs in nature,” but as you pointed out, this too is an evolutionarily driven behavior. It’s not necessarily selfish in the eyes of the individual (I don’t think), but it’s an urge, driven by generations and generations of horses who exist on a spectrum from least social (do not participate in the circle) to most social (participate in the circle, and many more social activities), in which those horses that are more socially participative are more likely to reach adulthood and reproduction.

I can’t remember if Kropotkin addresses the violence that happens in the natural world, but I’m pretty sure he reconciles it. I don’t think he outright denies competition in Mutual Aid, even though I can see how you come to that conclusion with that passage. I agree with you, it is easy to look at opposing examples of competition rather than cooperation in the natural world, even among the same species. Especially when it comes down to resource scarcity – then you start seeing less cooperative behavior. I think Kropotkin’s point is not to deny that competition exists, but to push against the idea that that is the only thing that exists. The way I understand it, he was writing in a post-Darwin time, when the scientific community was taking Darwin’s ideas and applying them to society with Social Darwinism – survival of the fittest not only in nature but in social life, as well. So instead of a “noble savage” kinda idea, where Kropotkin is saying “everything in nature is peaches and roses,” he is more saying, “look at all this cooperation in nature that is being ignored by the ‘survival of the fittest’ camp.” Anyways, that’s how I read the book – but it’s not really captured in that single quote.

Funnily enough, your exact example with ants is one Kropotkin uses in Mutual Aid! He basically goes along the evolutionary ladder, from least complex organisms to most (although, beginning with insects I’m pretty sure) and shows the cooperation within various species, not to deny the existence of competition, but to show that it isn’t the only, or even the most, important force in evolution.

I guess my one last point is illustrated like this: if competition for resources were the primary force driving evolution, wouldn’t we see a continuing trend of individuals in a species with more and more physical strength, brutishness, competitive nature, and rejection of cooperation? In other words, wouldn’t we see a phasing out of cooperative behavior in favor of individual antagonisms and competition for resources? Here I’m thinking of my house cats – we’re in the process of introducing them, at the moment, and managing their anxieties about the other. Even though Bella is very territorial, each day she is showing more and more signs of acceptance of Suzie – through cat language of course – slow blinking, flopping on her side, chirping when she walks up to her. If competition where the only, or the most important driver of evolution, I’m not sure we would see this kind of behavior from Bella – I’m not even sure these cat-signs of flopping slow-blinking, chirping, would exist! Of course, they occur with more frequency as she slowly realizes resources are not scarce, that she can coexist with this other cat Suzie, and that she’ll get treats each time she has a positive interaction ;)

Anyways, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m curious to hear what you think, it’s been fun chatting. I think even if you’re skeptical of Kropotkin from that passage, it’s still worth reading the book in whole. You probably wouldn’t find that you agree with everything, or even most, but at the very least, I think it’d be an interesting insight into how a person thought post-Darwin, pre-WW1.