Kropotkin Was No Crackpot

Stephen Jay Gould 1997 スティーヴンジェイグールド著1997年。


Source:1997. Kropotkin was no crackpot. Natural History 106 (June): 12-21;
Transcribed: for marxists.org in May, 2002.

IN LATE 1909, two great men corresponded across oceans, religions, generations, and races. Leo Tolstoy, sage of Christian nonviolence in his later years, wrote to the young Mohandas Gandhi, struggling for the rights of Indian settlers in South Africa:

“God helps our dear brothers and co-workers in the Transvaal. The same struggle of the tender against the harsh, of meekness and love against pride and violence, is every year making itself more and more felt here among us also.”
『トランスヴァールの親愛なる兄弟達と同僚達を神は救われるであろう 。同様の刺々しさに対する優しさの、柔和と愛の自惚れと暴力に対する苦闘は此処で我々の間でも毎年益々強く感じられて来ています。』


Leo Tolstoyレオ トルストイ(英語):トルストイはキリストの教えを基にした非暴力、無抵抗の原則により、戦争をする国家と迎合するロシア正教会を否定した。彼の思想に影響された人々のコミューン(英語でTolstoyansトルストイヤン。ロシア語でТолстовцы, Tolstovtsyトルストフツィ?)はクリスチャン平和主義と認識され後にボルシェヴィッキ政府のスターリンよって全員が逮捕され労働収容所に送られた。トルストイはアナキズムの発展に大きな影響を及ぼした。

A year later, wearied by domestic strife, and unable to endure the contradiction of life in Christian poverty on a prosperous estate run with unwelcome income from his great novels (written before his religious conversion and published by his wife), Tolstoy fled by train for parts unknown and a simpler end to his waning days. He wrote to his wife:

“My departure will distress you. I’m sorry about this, but do understand and believe that I couldn’t do otherwise. My position in the house is becoming, or has become, unbearable. Apart from anything else, I can’t live any longer in these conditions of luxury in which I have been living, and I’m doing what old men of my age commonly do: leaving this worldly life in order to live the last days of my life in peace and solitude.”

But Tolstoy’s final journey was both brief and unhappy. Less than a month later, cold and weary from numerous long rides on Russian trains in approaching winter, he contracted pneumonia and died at age eighty-two in the stationmaster’s home at the railroad stop of Astapovo. Too weak to write, he dictated his last letter on November 1, 1910. Addressed to a son and daughter who did not share his views on Christian nonviolence, Tolstoy offered a last word of advice:

“The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution, and the struggle for existence won’t explain to you the meaning of your life and won’t give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence. Think about it. I say it, probably on the eve of my death, because I love you.”

Tolstoy’s complaint has been the most common of all indictments against Darwin, from the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 to now. Darwinism, the charge contends, undermines morality by claiming that success in nature can only be measured by victory in bloody battle – the “struggle for existence” or “survival of the fittest” to cite Darwin’s own choice of mottoes. If we wish “meekness and love” to triumph over “pride and violence” (as Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi), then we must repudiate Darwin’s vision of nature’s way – as Tolstoy stated in a final plea to his errant children.

This charge against Darwin is unfair for two reasons. First, nature (no matter how cruel in human terms) provides no basis for our moral values. (Evolution might, at most, help to explain why we have moral feelings, but nature can never decide for us whether any particular action is right or wrong.) Second, Darwin’s “struggle for existence” is an abstract metaphor, not an explicit statement about bloody battle. Reproductive success, the criterion of natural selection, works in many modes: Victory in battle may be one pathway, but cooperation, symbiosis, and mutual aid may also secure success in other times and contexts. In a famous passage, Darwin explained his concept of evolutionary struggle (Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 62-63):

“I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals, in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought.... As the mistletoe is disseminated by birds, its existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants. In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for convenience sake the general term of struggle for existence.”

Yet, in another sense, Tolstoy’s complaint is not entirely unfounded. Darwin did present an encompassing, metaphorical definition of struggle, but his actual examples certainly favored bloody battle – “Nature, red in tooth and claw,” in a line from Tennyson so overquoted that it soon became a knee-jerk cliche for this view of life. Darwin based his theory of natural selection on the dismal view of Malthus that growth in population must outstrip food supply and lead to overt battle for dwindling resources. Moreover, Darwin maintained a limited but controlling view of ecology as a world stuffed full of competing species – so balanced and so crowded that a new form could only gain entry by literally pushing a former inhabitant out. Darwin expressed this view in a metaphor even more central to his general vision than the concept of struggle – the metaphor of the wedge. Nature, Darwin writes, is like a surface with 10,000 wedges hammered tightly in and filling all available space. A new species (represented as a wedge) can only gain entry into a community by driving itself into a tiny chink and forcing another wedge out. Success, in this vision, can only be achieved by direct takeover in overt competition.

Furthermore, Darwin’s own chief disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, advanced this “gladiatorial” view of natural selection (his word) in a series of famous essays about ethics. Huxley maintained that the predominance of bloody battle defined nature’s way as nonmoral (not explicitly immoral, but surely unsuited as offering any guide to moral behavior).
更に、ダーウィン自身の最も重要な弟子であるトーマス ヘンリー ハックスレイは此の“ローマ帝国の剣闘士の格闘“の様な自然淘汰(彼の言葉)についての思想を倫理についての有名なエッセイのシリーズで発展させていった。流血の闘争が支配的である事は道徳が存在しないと言う自然の有り方を定義しているとハックスレイは主張し続けていた。(明確に不道徳と言う訳ではないが、確かに道徳的行動への助言を提供するには適していない)

“From the point of view of the moralist the animal world is about on a level of a gladiator’s show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to fight – whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as no quarter is given.”


But Huxley then goes further. Any human society set up along these lines of nature will devolve into anarchy and misery – Hobbes’s brutal world of bellum omnium contra omnes (where bellum means “war,” not beauty): the war of all against all. Therefore, the chief purpose of society must lie in mitigation of the struggle that defines nature’s pathway. Study natural selection and do the opposite in human society:
然しハックスレイは議論をもっと進める。この様な自然についての考え方に沿って生まれた全ての人間社会は混乱状態と悲惨な状態に発展してしまう----------ホッブスの残酷な世界観である(ラテン語で表現された)bellum omnium contra omnes(bellumベルッムは“戦争”と言う意味で“美しい”と言う意味ではない)“全ての人間が御互いに戦い合う”世界である。疎の様な理由で社会の主な目的は自然の経路を定義している闘争の軽減に見出される。自然淘汰を研究し其の反対を人間社会で行なうのである。

“But, in civilized society, the inevitable result of such obedience [to the law of bloody battle] is the re-establishment, in all its intensity, of that struggle for existence – the war of each against all – the mitigation or abolition of which was the chief end of social organization.”

This apparent discordance between nature’s way and any hope for human social decency has defined the major subject for debate about ethics and evolution ever since Darwin. Huxley’s solution has won many supporters – nature is nasty and no guide to morality except, perhaps, as an indicator of what to avoid in human society. My own preference lies with a different solution based on taking Darwin’s metaphorical view of struggle seriously (admittedly in the face of Darwin’s own preference for gladiatorial examples) – nature is sometimes nasty, sometimes nice (really neither, since the human terms are so inappropriate). By presenting examples of all behaviors (under the metaphorical rubric of struggle), nature favors none and offers no guidelines. The facts of nature cannot provide moral guidance in any case.

But a third solution has been advocated by some thinkers who do wish to find a basis for morality in nature and evolution. Since few can detect much moral comfort in the gladiatorial interpretation, this third position must reformulate the way of nature. Darwin’s words about the metaphorical character of struggle offer a promising starting point. One might argue that the gladiatorial examples have been over-sold and misrepresented as predominant. Perhaps cooperation and mutual aid are the more common results of struggle for existence. Perhaps communion rather than combat leads to greater reproductive success in most circumstances.

The most famous expression of this third solution may be found in Mutual Aid, published in 1902 by the Russian revolutionary anarchist Petr Kropotkin. (We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government.) Kropotkin, a Russian nobleman, lived in English exile for political reasons. He wrote Mutual Aid (in English) as a direct response to the essay of Huxley quoted above, “The Struggle for Existence in Human Society,” published in The Nineteenth Century, in February 1888. Kropotkin responded to Huxley with a series of articles, also printed in The Nineteenth Century and eventually collected together as the book Mutual Aid.
第3番目の解決策の最も有名な表現は1902年にロシアの革命的アナキスト ピョートル クロポトキンによって出版された著書“相互扶助論”に見受けられるだろう。(我々は鬚面で夜間にコッソリと街を歩き爆弾テロを行なうと言うアナキストの古い固定観念を取り去らなければならない。クロポトキンは温和な人間で、或る人々によれば、全ての住人の利益と言う合意に基づいた彼等自身の基準を設け、其れにより中央集権政府の殆どの機能の必要性を排除した小さなコミュニティーと言う展望を提唱した聖人の様な人なのである。)クロポツキンはロシアの貴族で政治的理由で英国で亡命生活を送った人である。彼は上記に示した“19世紀”(雑誌の名前)の1888年2月に出版された“人間社会での生存の為の闘争”と言うハックスレイのエッセイへの直接的反論として“相互扶助論”を執筆し、クロポトキンはハックスレイに対しシリーズの記事で反論し、又“19世紀”で出版し、最終的に“相互扶助論”と言う本として編集したのである。

As the title suggests, Kropotkin argues, in his cardinal premise, that the struggle for existence usually leads to mutual aid rather than combat as the chief criterion of evolutionary success. Human society must therefore build upon our natural inclinations (not reverse them, as Huxley held) in formulating a moral order that will bring both peace and prosperity to our species. in a series of chapters, Kropotkin tries to illustrate continuity between natural selection for mutual aid among animals and the basis for success in increasingly progressive human social organization. His five sequential chapters address mutual aid among animals, among savages, among barbarians, in the medieval city, and amongst ourselves.

I confess that I have always viewed Kropotkin as daftly idiosyncratic, if undeniably well meaning. He is always so presented in standard courses on evolutionary biology – as one of those soft and woolly thinkers who let hope and sentimentality get in the way of analytic toughness and a willingness to accept nature as she is, warts and all. After all, he was a man of strange politics and unworkable ideals, wrenched from the context of his youth, a stranger in a strange land. Moreover, his portrayal of Darwin so matched his social ideals (mutual aid naturally given as a product of evolution without need for central authority) that one could only see personal hope rather than scientific accuracy in his accounts. Kropotkin has long been on my list of potential topics for an essay (if only because I wanted to read his book, and not merely mouth the textbook interpretation), but I never proceeded because I could find no larger context than the man himself. Kooky intellects are interesting as gossip, perhaps as psychology, but true idiosyncrasy provides the worst possible basis for generality.

But this situation changed for me in a flash when I read a very fine article in the latest issue of Isis (our leading professional journal in the history of science) by Daniel P. Todes: “Darwin’s Malthusian Metaphor and Russian Evolutionary Thought, 1859-1917.” I learned that the parochiality had been mine in my ignorance of Russian evolutionary thought, not Kropotkin’s in his isolation in England. (I can read Russian, but only painfully, and with a dictionary – which means, for all practical purposes, that I can’t read the language.) I knew that Darwin had become a hero of the Russian intelligentsia and had influenced academic life in Russia perhaps more than in any other country. But virtually none of this Russian work has ever been translated or even discussed in English literature. The ideas of this school are unknown to us; we do not even recognize the names of the major protagonists. I knew Kropotkin because he had published in English and lived in England, but I never understood that he represented a standard, well-developed Russian critique of Darwin, based on interesting reasons and coherent national traditions. Todes’s article does not make Kropotkin more correct, but it does place his writing into a general context that demands our respect and produces substantial enlightenment. Kropotkin was part of a mainstream flowing in an unfamiliar direction, not an isolated little arroyo.

This Russian school of Darwinian critics, Todes argues, based its major premise upon a firm rejection of Malthus’s claim that competition, in the gladiatorial mode, must dominate in an ever more crowded world, where population, growing geometrically, inevitably outstrips a food supply that can only increase arithmetically. Tolstoy, speaking for a consensus of his compatriots, branded Malthus as a “malicious mediocrity.”
Todes finds a diverse set of reasons behind Russian hostility to Malthus. Political objections to the dog-eat-dog character of Western industrial competition arose from both ends of the Russian spectrum. Todes writes:

“Radicals, who hoped to build a socialist society, saw Malthusianism as a reactionary current in bourgeois political economy. Conservatives, who hoped to preserve the communal virtues of tsarist Russia, saw it as an expression of the “British national type.”

But Todes identifies a far more interesting reason in the immediate experience of Russia’s land and natural history. We all have a tendency to spin universal theories from a limited domain of surrounding circumstance. Many geneticists read the entire world of evolution in the confines of a laboratory bottle filled with fruit flies. My own increasing dubiousness about universal adaptation arises in large part, no doubt, because I study a peculiar snail that varies so widely and capriciously across an apparently unvarying environment, rather than a bird in flight or some other marvel of natural design.

Russia is an immense country, under-populated by any nineteenth-century measure of its agricultural potential. Russia is also, over most of its area, a harsh land, where competition is more likely to pit organism against environment (as in Darwin’s metaphorical struggle of a plant at the desert’s edge) than organism against organism in direct and bloody battle. How could any Russian, with a strong feel for his own countryside, see Malthus’s principle of overpopulation as a foundation for evolutionary theory? Todes writes:

“It was foreign to their experience because, quite simply, Russia’s huge land mass dwarfed its sparse population. For a Russian to see an inexorably increasing population inevitably straining potential supplies of food and space required quite a leap of imagination.”

If these Russian critics could honestly tie their personal skepticism to the view from their own backyard, they could also recognize that Darwin’s contrary enthusiasms might record the parochiality of his different surroundings, rather than a set of necessarily universal truths. Malthus makes a far better prophet in a crowded, industrial country professing an ideal of open competition in free markets. Moreover, the point has often been made that both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently developed the theory of natural selection after primary experience with natural history in the tropics. Both claimed inspiration from Malthus, again independently; but if fortune favors the prepared mind, then their tropical experience probably predisposed both men to read Malthus with resonance and approval. No other area on earth is so packed with species, and therefore so replete with competition of body against body. An Englishman who had learned the ways of nature in the tropics was almost bound to view evolution differently from a Russian nurtured on tales of the Siberian wasteland.
若しこれ等のロシアの批判家達が彼等の裏庭からの景色に個人的懐疑心を正直に繋げる事が出来たなら、一揃いの普遍的真理の代わりに彼等は又ダーウインの正反対の熱心さが彼の違った環境と言う偏狭さを記録している事を認識出来たであろう。鮨詰めの工業化された、開かれた市場での競争を公言している国家についてはマルサスは比較にならない程の預言者である。又、此の論点は熱帯の自然史へ最初の経験の後、ダーウインとアルフレッド ラッセル ワォーレス両者によって個別に築き上げられた自然淘汰の説によって述べられている。両者とも、又個別にマルサスからインスピレーションを得たと主張しているが、幸運が準備出来ている精神を好むとするなら、彼等の熱帯での経験は此の両者をマルサスを共鳴と承認を持って読む事に前もって条件付けられていた。地球の他のどの地域も疎の様に種々の生物で鮨詰めになっている場所はないと言う理由で肉弾戦と言う競争で満ちている。英国人として習った熱帯の自然の在り方は進化をロシアで育まれたシベリアの荒涼とした土地の話と違った物として見る様に殆ど強いられていた。

For example, N. I. Danilevsky, an expert on fisheries and population dynamics, published a large, two-volume critique of Darwinism in 1885. He identified struggle for personal gain as the credo of a distinctly British “national type,” as contrasted with old Slavic values of collectivism. An English child, he writes, “boxes one on one, not in a group as we Russians like to spar.” Danilevsky viewed Darwinian competition as “a purely English doctrine” founded upon a line of British thought stretching from Hobbes through Adam Smith to Malthus. Natural selection, he wrote, is rooted in “the war of all against all, now termed the struggle for existence – Hobbes’ theory of politics; on competition – the economic theory of Adam Smith. ... Malthus applied the very same principle to the problem of population. ... Darwin extended both Malthus’ partial theory and the general theory of the political economists to the organic world.” (Quotes are from Todes’s article.)
例えば、N.I.ダニエレフスキー、水産業と個体群動態学の専門家、は1885年に膨大な量の2巻のダーウイニズム批判を出版した。彼は古いスラヴ文化の集産(団)主義の価値観と較べて、信条としての個人的利益の為の闘争を英国固有の“国家タイプ”だと見なした。『英国の子供はボクシングをロシア人がグループで戦うのと違って1対1でする。』と彼は書いている。“純粋な英国のドクトリン”としてのダーウイン型の競争はホッブスからアダム スミスそしてマルサスへと続く線上に基づいているとダニエレフスキーは見ている。自然淘汰は“全ての人間が御互いに戦い合う戦争”と言う、今“生存競争”と呼ばれているホッブスの政治学説に源流を持ち、競争ではアダム スミスの経済学説----------マルサスは同一の原則を人口問題に適用している----------ダーウインはマルサスの部分的仮説と政治経済学者の一般的仮説の両方を生物界に延長していると彼は書いている。

When we turn to Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid in the light of Todes’s discoveries about Russian evolutionary thought, we must reverse the traditional view and interpret this work as mainstream Russian criticism, not personal crankiness. The central logic of Kropotkin’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent.

Kropotkin begins by acknowledging that struggle plays a central role in the lives of organisms and also provides the chief impetus for their evolution. But Kropotkin holds that struggle must not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. It must be divided into two fundamentally different forms with contrary evolutionary meanings. We must recognize, first of all, the struggle of organism against organism for limited resources – the theme that Malthus imparted to Darwin and that Huxley described as gladiatorial. This form of direct struggle does lead to competition for personal benefit.

But a second form of struggle – the style that Darwin called metaphorical – pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. Organisms must struggle to keep warm, to survive the sudden and unpredictable dangers of fire and storm, to persevere through harsh periods of drought, snow, or pestilence. These forms of struggle between organism and environment are best waged by cooperation among members of the same species-by mutual aid. If the struggle for existence pits two lions against one zebra, then we shall witness a feline battle and an equine carnage. But if lions are struggling jointly against the harshness of an inanimate environment, then lighting will not remove the common enemy – while cooperation may overcome a peril beyond the power of any single individual to surmount.

Kropotkin therefore created a dichotomy within the general notion of struggle – two forms with opposite import: (1) organism against organism of the same species for limited resources, leading to competition; and (2) organism against environment, leading to cooperation.

“No naturalist will doubt that the idea of a struggle for life carried on through organic nature is the greatest generalization of our century. Life is struggle; and in that struggle the fittest survive. But the answers to the questions “by which arms is the struggle chiefly carried on!” and “who are the fittest in the struggle!” will widely differ according to the importance given to the two different aspects of the struggle: the direct one, for food and safety among separate individuals, and the struggle which Darwin described as “metaphorical” – the struggle, very often collective, against adverse circumstances.”

Darwin acknowledged that both forms existed, but his loyalty to Malthus and his vision of nature chock-full of species led him to emphasize the competitive aspect. Darwin’s less sophisticated votaries then exalted the competitive view to near exclusivity, and heaped a social and moral meaning upon it as well.

“They came to conceive of the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another’s blood. They made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology. They raised the “pitiless” struggle for personal advantages to the height of a biological principle which man must submit to as well, under the menace of otherwise succumbing in a world based upon mutual extermination.”

Kropotkin did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but he argued that the cooperative style had been underemphasized and must balance or even predominate over competition in considering nature as a whole.

“There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense.... Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.”

As Kropotkin cranked through his selected examples, and built up steam for his own preferences, he became more and more convinced that the cooperative style, leading to mutual aid, not only predominated in general but also characterized the most advanced creatures in any group-ants among insects, mammals among vertebrates. Mutual aid therefore becomes a more important principle than competition and slaughter:

“If we ... ask Nature: “who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?” we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization.”

If we ask why Kropotkin favored cooperation while most nineteenth-century Darwinians advocated competition as the predominant result of struggle in nature, two major reasons stand out. The first seems less interesting, as obvious under the slightly cynical but utterly realistic principle that true believers tend to read their social preferences into nature. Kropotkin, the anarchist who yearned to replace laws of central government with consensus of local communities, certainly hoped to locate a deep preference for mutual aid in the innermost evolutionary marrow of our being. Let mutual aid pervade nature and human cooperation becomes a simple instance of the law of life.

Neither the crushing powers of the centralized State nor the teachings of mutual hatred and pitiless struggle which came, adorned with the attributes of science, from obliging philosophers and sociologists, could weed out the feeling of human solidarity, deeply lodged in men’s understanding and heart, because it has been nurtured by all our preceding evolution.

But the second reason is more enlightening, as a welcome empirical input from Kropotkin’s own experience as a naturalist and an affirmation of Todes’s intriguing thesis that the usual flow from ideology to interpretation of nature may sometimes be reversed, and that landscape can color social preference. As a young man, long before his conversion to political radicalism, Kropotkin spent five years in Siberia (1862-1866) just after Darwin published the Origin of Species. He went as a military officer, but his commission served as a convenient cover for his yearning to study the geology, geography, and zoology of Russia’s vast interior. There, in the polar opposite to Darwin’s tropical experiences, he dwelled in the environment least conducive to Malthus’s vision. He observed a sparsely populated world, swept with frequent catastrophes that threatened the few species able to find a place in such bleakness. As a potential disciple of Darwin, he looked for competition, but rarely found any. Instead, he continually observed the benefits of mutual aid in coping with an exterior harshness that threatened all alike and could not be overcome by the analogues of warfare and boxing.

Kropotkin, in short, had a personal and empirical reason to look with favor upon cooperation as a natural force. He chose this theme as the opening paragraph for Mutual Aid:

“Two aspects of animal life impressed me most during the journeys which I made in my youth in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. One of them was the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species of animals have to carry on against an inclement Nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from natural agencies; and the consequent paucity of life over the vast territory which fell under my observation. And the other was, that even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find – although I was eagerly looking for it – that bitter struggle for the means of existence among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.”

What can we make of Kropotkin’s argument today, and that of the entire Russian school represented by him? Were they just victims of cultural hope and intellectual conservatism? I don’t think so. In fact, I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct. Struggle does occur in many modes, and some lead to cooperation among members of a species as the best pathway to advantage for individuals. If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly. If Kropotkin drew inappropriate hope for social reform from his concept of nature, other Darwinians had erred just as firmly (and for motives that most of us would now decry) in justifying imperial conquest, racism, and oppression of industrial workers as the harsh outcome of natural selection in the competitive mode.

I would fault Kropotkin only in two ways – one technical, the other general. He did commit a common conceptual error in failing to recognize that natural selection is an argument about advantages to individual organisms, however they may struggle. The result of struggle for existence may be cooperation rather than competition, but mutual aid must benefit individual organisms in Darwin’s world of explanation. Kropotkin sometimes speaks of mutual aid as selected for the benefit of entire populations or species – a concept foreign to classic Darwinian logic (where organisms work, albeit unconsciously, for their own benefit in terms of genes passed to future generations). But Kropotkin also (and often) recognized that selection for mutual aid directly benefits each individual in its own struggle for personal success. Thus, if Kropotkin did not grasp the full implication of Darwin’s basic argument, he did include the orthodox solution as his primary justification for mutual aid.


More generally, I like to apply a somewhat cynical rule of thumb in judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, be doubly suspicious. I am especially wary of arguments that find kindness, mutuality, synergism, harmony – the very elements that we strive mightily, and so often unsuccessfully, to put into our own lives – intrinsically in nature. I see no evidence for Teilhard’s noosphere, for Capra’s California style of holism, for Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. Gaia strikes me as a metaphor, not a mechanism. (Metaphors can be liberating and enlightening, but new scientific theories must supply new statements about causality. Gaia, to me, only seems to reformulate, in different terms, the basic conclusions long achieved by classically reductionist arguments of biogeochemical cycling theory.)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ピエール ティラードゥ シャルダン:フランスのジェズイット派の神父、哲学者。

noosphereノアスフィア:geosphere( ジオスフィア〔地殻〕鉱物圏)を生物の発生がbiosphere(バイオスフィア生物圏)に変えた様に人間の思考が次の段階の圏としてnoosphereノアスフィア(精神圏?)を作り出すという仮説。

Rupert Sheldrakeルーパート シェルドレイク:英国の生化学者、植物生理学者。Morphic fieldモールフィックフィールド、Morphic resonanceモールフィクリゾナンス、等の新しい概念を進化論や生態系の科学に持ち込んだ事で有名。

Gaiaガイア:御存知James Lovelockジェームスラヴロックによって提唱された地球と地球に住む全ての生命体が一つの関連した生命体であると言う様な説。

There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus.

ejnews: 今回はMarxists Internet Archive(マルキシストインターネットアーカイヴ)と言うマルクス主義のサイトからクロポトキンの自然観察によって裏付けされたアナキズム批判の記事でした。前回はアナキズム賛同派のクロポトキンに好意的な記事でしたので今回はバランスを取る為にマルキシストのサイトから記事を選びました。
 此の記事を書いた古生物学者、進化論学者、科学についての歴史家であったスティーヴン ジェイ グールドもクロポトキンの相互扶助の思想は完全ではないが一つの民主的社会を達成する為の思想の可能性である事を認めているようです。グールド氏は自身でも言っている様に少々シニカルで古い既成の科学と言う概念で進化や科学を捉え過ぎている様に私は思いますが、彼は2002年に亡くなっていて、此の記事も1997年の物ですから、其の後の科学的進歩による最近の研究で高等類人猿等(イルカや鯨等も同様の可能性がある)の脳は他の個体に対する“思いやり”を持つ様に発展したという研究結果を彼が知らなかった、つまりクロポトキンの“相互扶助論”は現代の脳神経科学でも間違った仮説ではなかった事が証明された事を知らなかったのです。
 アナキズムはマルクスがバクーニンをファースト インターナショナルから追い出した時にアナキズムが論理的欠陥を曝け出したからだと理解している方も居られるようですが、(そして其れが日本でアナキズムに人気の無い一因かも?)史実ではマルクス派が偽の代表者の書類を捏造し反バクーニン投票が多い様に見せかけ追い出してしまったのです。此の史実について疑問を持つ歴史家は欧米ではもう存在しないようですが、日本ではマルキシストのデッチアゲが未だに真実として受け入れられている様で残念です。(日本のウキペディアでも未だに疎の様な説明になっています!)

 ファースト インターナショナルでのマルクス派によるバクーニン派の追い出し工作は-----------ニューヨークで古典アナキズムと新しい世代のアナキズムの橋渡しをしたSam Dolgoffサムドルゴフ氏によると--------

All responsible historians insist that Bakunin and his close comrade James Guillaume were expelled in a rigged congress packed by hand picked "delegates" who "represented" non-existent sections of the International.

Marx's friend Sorge, residing in the United States, sent Marx a dozen blank credentials from non-existent groups which Marx distributed to his stooges. Seraillier, Secretary for France, in the General Council, also came to the Congress with a handful of credentials which could not be verified. Of the five members of the Commission of Inquiry chosen to investigate the charges against Bakunin and other libertarian members of the International and report their findings to the Congress, one, Walter (whose real name was Von Heddeghem) was a Bonapartist police spy. The Commission reported that "... the secret Alliance did at one time exist, but there is INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE..." (my emphasis) Nor could the Commission prove that the Alliance established rules opposed to the rules of the International when it did exist. Roch Splingard, a member of the Commission submitted a minority report contending that Bakunin was being indicted on insufficient evidence. He declared that "...I am resolved to fight the decision before the Congress..."
アメリカに住んでいたマルクスの友人ソルジは存在しない団体の白紙の12枚程の資格証明書をマルクスに送り其れをマルクスは彼の子分達に配ったのである。総務会でのフランスの書記長セラリエーもまた一握りの確認出来ない資格証明書を持って議会に現れた。インターナショナルのバクーニンと他のリバタリアンメンバーに対する非難を調査する為に選ばれた委員会の5人のメンバーと議会への其の調査された報告は、1つはワォルター(本名はフォン ヘッジゲム?)はボナパルト派の警察のスパイと言う事だった。委員会は“秘密の同盟は過去に何時か存在はしていたが、然し其の存在が続いていると言う証拠に欠けている”とし又、其の秘密の同盟が存在していた当時インターナショナルの規則に対抗する規則を設定した事も証明できなかった。委員会のメンバーであったロックスプリンガードはバクーニンは不十分な証拠によって告発されたと非難した反対意見書を提出している。彼は“私は議会において此の決定に対し戦う事を決意した。”と宣言している。

On the last day of the Congress after over half the delegates went home, the Marxist clique staged a successful coup to kill the International by moving its headquarters to New York. Nearly all the delegates, including Marx's strongest supporters, refused to accept the decisions of the Marx-Engels cliques. They joined the Bakuninist sections of the International, not because they agreed with their anti-statist, anti-parliamentary political action policies, but because they demanded the complete autonomy of the sections irrespective of different political or social ideas. They revolted because the phony Congress enacted a resolution giving the Marxist dominated General Council power to expel sections and even whole federations from the International.

Sam Dolgoffサム ドルゴフ著

ejnews: ソ連や中華人民共和国の最終的な機能不全を見るとマルキシズムによるプロレタリア独裁中央集権社会主義は基本的に民主主義とは正反対の方向に社会を導き、反面、西欧資本主義社会でもレーゼーフェア自由市場経済主義若しくは経済ネオリベラリズムを使った資本層の詐欺により現在の国際金融危機を招き(アメリカでは此の偽経済主義の現実社会への影響として産業、市場の独占化が進み産業、消費者の疲弊を招いています)資本主義も企業と呼ばれる軍隊の様な階級組織に頼っている限り民主的人間社会を築く為には経済ネオリベラリズムとは反対に資本主義は規制や法律によって監視されなければならないと言う事が再証明され、あの神の様に崇められていたアイン ランドの弟子で彼女の後継者グリーン スパンも『私の信じていた主義は間違いだった。』等と認めなければならない羽目に陥ってしまったのです。





Noam Chomsky ノーム チョムスキー

Anarchism  アナキズム

May Day メーデー (メイ デー)


Descent of Man [ 1871 ]  人類の進化


にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログ 時事英語へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ