Kropotkin and Darwinism

Kropotkin and Darwinism

Nildo Viana *

Abstract: This paper discusses the design of Kropotkin regarding Darwinism and evolution of species. Highlights its contribution to putting the mutual aid as development factor and his critique of Social Darwinism, but points to its limitations, especially the lack of connection between Darwin and Darwinism. Thus, Kropotkin would bring a contribution to thinking about evolution, since aside their benevolent interpretation of Darwin.

Keywords: Darwinism, evolution, Mutual Aid Competition.

The work of Darwin, The Origin of Species, published in 1859, full 150 years after its publication this year, which served as a pretext for numerous compilations and texts dedicated to this work and its author. But 43 years after its first edition, it was also published the book The Mutual Support - Factor of Social Development, Piotr Kropotkin, work less well known and has not received the same academic and scientific recognition, for obvious reasons. Kropotkin's work is an important contribution to the critique of Darwinism and therefore deserves to be reconsidered. Your review of mutual aid as evolution factor is an important contribution to rethink the evolutionary process, as well as a pioneering work, following the path of others who were beyond Darwinism, as Espinas, Kessler, among others, the Kropotkin himself cites. Therefore, we will highlight the relationship between Kropotkin and Darwinism, showing the interesting points of kropotkiniana work in their opposition to Darwinism and also showing their pain points.

Darwin or Darwinism?

The first point of Kropotkin's work is in its opposition to the Darwinists, much more than in relation to Darwin. This is an important point to discuss the relations of Kropotkin with Darwinism. Kropotkin admits that, at first caught his attention the "extraordinary hardness of the struggle for existence" that occurred "periodically" thanks to "natural causes", because of massive poverty in vast territories. But Kropotkin also states that where there was plenty he did not realize the "cruel struggle for existence" that most Darwinists presented as the main active force in the evolution of the animal world. It was thanks to this, it said, which he dedicated to the problem of natural limitations multiplying the animal population, compared to the struggle for survival means. For him, the latter manifests itself between species and also within them, but without having the same importance as the natural obstacles already alluded. That's why I began to doubt the "terrible" struggle for survival within the same species, as supported by Darwinists as well as its importance in the emergence of new species.

Here we have the key to understanding Kropotkin opposition to Darwinism and, at the same time, his indulgence of Darwin. The distinction between the thesis postulated by Darwin and postulated by "Darwinists" is an important element to understand Kropotkin's position on Darwinism.

In his analysis of Darwinism, Kropotkin demonstrate their sympathies by theses Espinas, one French sociologist Durkheim, and the Russian biologist Karl Kessler. Both highlighted the solidarity and mutual aid as important elements to explain the evolution of species. Kessler presented a lecture at the University of St. Petersburg, in 1880, entitled "On the Law of Mutual Aid," which Kropotkin took notice and began to defend it. He judged that the theses of Kessler threw new light on the question of evolution. Kessler said that in addition to the law of struggle for existence there is also the law of mutual aid, the latter playing a more important role in the evolutionary process of species. According to Kropotkin:

This hypothesis, which actually was just an offshoot of the ideas expressed by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man, it seemed to me so correct and such great importance that since I familiarize it (in 1883), I began to collect materials to further develop this idea about which Kessler touched very lightly on his speech and did not live to develop because died in 1881. (Kropotkin, 2009, p.13).

Kropotkin starts from the idea that mutual aid was included in the theses of Darwin and were Darwinists who unilaterally emphasized the "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest". Kropotkin says that at the time of writing, we started to speak both "hard and cruel struggle for life" that apparently performs "every animal against all the others, each wild against the other wild, and every civilized man against all his fellow countrymen, "that such" opinions have become a sort of dogma, religion of the educated society "and this has required a great number of facts contrary to these assertions. The Kropotkin texts just emerged in opposition to the article by Thomas Huxley, entitled The Struggle for Existence: A Program. According to Kropotkin,

Although he was using the term in its strict sense, especially given its specific objectives, he warned his followers not to commit the error (which he himself seems to have made a day) to overestimate this sense. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote some memorable pages to illustrate its proper meaning, the broad sense. He noted that in many animal societies, the struggle between individuals for the livelihoods disappear, that this fight is replaced by cooperation and that the substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral powers that ensure the species the best conditions for survival. He suggested that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the most cunning, but those who learn to associate in order to support each other, whether strong or weak, the community's well-being. (Kropotkin, 2009, p. 20).

Here we have the problem of interpretation that Kropotkin performs Darwin's work. Kropotkin separates Darwin Darwinists from two basic considerations: a) Darwin uses the phrase "struggle for survival" (or for life, existence) in a broad sense and figured and Darwinists in a strict sense; b) Darwin sustain the role of mutual aid, cooperation in the evolutionary process and not Darwinian. However, this interpretation is quite problematic. According to Darwin:

I must stress that I use the term struggle for survival in a broad and metaphorical sense, which implies mutual relations of dependence on organic beings, and, what is more important, not only the individual's life, and his ability and success in leaving descendants. It is stated that two carnivorous animals, in times of famine, fighting against each other in search of food necessary for their survival. But it will come to mean a plant on the edge of a desert, fighting for survival against the lack of water, although it was more accurate to say that their survival depends on the humidity. It might be said more precisely a plant which annually produces one million seeds, one of which, on average, enough to develop and mature in turn, struggle with the plants of the same species, or species different, they cover the ground. The mistletoe is dependent on the apple and a few other trees; now, it is only in the figurative sense it can be said that fight against these trees, because if large numbers of parasites are established on the same tree, it languishes and dies; however, it can be said that many mistletoes, living together on the same line and producing seeds, they fight against each other. How are the birds that spread the seeds of the mistletoe, their survival depends on them, and will it be said, figuratively, that mistletoe struggle with other plants that have fruit, because it matters to every plant bring the birds to eat the fruits it produces, to spread the seeds. Employment, therefore, for convenience, the general term struggle for survival in different directions merge with each other (DARWIN, 1979, p. 69).

The broad and metaphorical sense provided by Darwin is, as shown by the above passage, in the sense that it is not straight fight between two animals, but something more subtle, as can be seen in plants. The broad sense of the "fight for survival" in Darwin is well understood by the term competition, which is a characteristic feature of capitalist sociability that Darwin transfers to the animal and plant world (MARCO, 1987; VIANA, 2001; VIANA, 2003; VIANA, 2009). Thus, the direction provided by Darwin is the same provided by Darwinists and in this sense, the interpretation of Kropotkin is wrong.

The other responsible element in the indulgence of Kropotkin with Darwin is the idea that this would have booked a role for mutual aid in the evolutionary process in his book The Descent of Man, which is not done by Darwinists. But Kropotkin again is wrong, because for Darwin mutual aid is only one form taken by certain groups to fight for survival, ie, it is only a subordinate element to a higher and determining principle. Are the advantages of "life in society" beings that make them live together and develop feelings, including sympathy and moral sense (Darwin, 1974).

In society the feeling of pleasure is probably an extension of affection towards parents and children, since the social instinct seems to have arisen as a result of diurnal permanence of young people with parents and this extension can be attributed in part to habit, but primarily to natural selection. For those animals that were overcome by living in an association, individuals who earned the greatest pleasure of life in society would have been more fortunate in escaping from various dangers, while those least cared for their comrades and lived solitary would have perished in excess ( DARWIN, 1974, p. 130).

This mutual help, however, occurs "almost exclusively in relation to men of the same tribe" and the assault is not a crime in relation to other tribes. According to Darwin:

No tribe could stay together if murder, the robbery and treason were common; consequently such crimes within the limits of a tribe are subject to eternal infamy, but do not call such a feeling beyond these limits. An American Indian feel very pleased with himself and honored by others, when skinning a man from another tribe; one Dyak cuts off the head of a harmless person and takes it as a trophy. The killing of newborns was widespread in very large scale in the world without encountering disapproval; Infanticide, especially of girls, has been judged useful to the tribe, or at least not harmful (DARWIN, 1974, p. 142).

Thus, Darwin argued that mutual aid really exists, but never would have the same importance as competition, and is posing as something subordinate to the utilitarian principle and restricted groups, surrounded by the more general principle of competition. Interestingly, Kropotkin that will refute the arguments about cannibalism and infanticide to support his thesis that mutual aid is essential to the evolutionary process, did not realize that what Darwinists spoke were already in Darwin. Kropotkin also not looked on racist and sexist views presented by Darwin, as can be seen in the following excerpt:

In the wild, the infirmities of body and mind are immediately eliminated; those who survive usually have a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, make every effort to stop the process of elimination; we build asylums for the insane, maimed and sick; instituted laws for the poor and our doctors exercise the most of your skill to save the life of anyone at the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has saved a large number of those who, by their weak physical constitution, would not have stood in time to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. None of those who have devoted themselves to the creation of domestic animals will doubt that this can be highly dangerous for the human race. It is surprising to see how quickly the lack of care, or improper care, leads to degeneration of a domestic race; but, with the exception of man, it is rare that anyone is so ignorant as to allow the worst animals to breed own (DARWIN, 1974, p. 162).

Kropotkin says in this passage Darwin "made his way back to the Malthusian leaven" after writing passages that refute the narrow Malthusian theory of the struggle for survival, which, however, he does not show and not in any statement in this work, unless the passage about mutual aid, subject to the struggle for survival.

Thus, Kropotkin was condescending to Darwin for not interpreting his work properly and not realized his racist and sexist character. This may have been derived from a projective reading much more than a quest to understand the logic of the author's thought. Also the intellectual authority of Darwin, whose ideological hegemony in the natural sciences soon became almost unquestionably, have reinforced this critical sense of suspension process. The elements already present in Darwin and then developed or simply reproduced by Darwinian are thus ignored by Kropotkin that it attaches only to the latter.

However, these observations do not negate the merits of the work of Kropotkin and his principle in favor of mutual aid, cooperation as an important element in the evolutionary process. Undoubtedly, simply extend his criticism of Darwinism to the work of Darwin that this problem is resolved. However, this also does not nullify some other problems in the work of this thinker, as put forward.

Competition or Mutual Aid?

Criticism that Kropotkin presents to Darwinism are applicable to Darwin. But Kropotkin's argument is more focused on presenting an alternative to Darwinian thought than point out the flaws and problems of theory, although these things get confused at any given time. Kropotkin rejects the idea of ​​"struggle for existence" as a fundamental principle of evolution and puts the important role of cooperation in this process. Most of Kropotkin's work is dedicated to showcasing the process of mutual aid in the animal and human world.

Through extensive number of own observations and other researchers, Kropotkin search prove the role of mutual aid in the evolutionary process. He works with a wealth of information on birds, fish, insects and other animal species. Kropotkin resume K. Kessler, who challenged the abusive use of the term "struggle for existence", losing sight completely "other law", the mutual aid, perhaps more important than the law of "struggle for existence". Kessler said the need to leave offspring unites inevitably animals, "the animals of all classes, especially the upper, shall provide mutual assistance." To prove this thesis, Kessler has provided numerous examples from the life of beetles, birds and some mammals.

Kropotkin also supports this view and says:

Examples of mutual aid between termites, ants and bees are known as the lay reader, mainly through the works of Romanes, L. Büchner and John Lubbock, I can limit my comments to a few allusions. Considering an anthill, we see not only that all the work done - the offspring creation, search of food, construction, care of aphids, etc. - Follows the principles of voluntary mutual help, as we must also recognize, as Forel, that the basic feature of life for many species of ants is the fact and the obligation of each of them to share their food, already swallowed and partly digested with all community members who request it. Two ants belonging to different species or if nests avoid hostile to meet coincidence; but if they belong to the same nest or the same colony, approaching, communicating exchanging some antennas movements and "if one is hungry or thirsty, especially if the other well-fed [...] immediately asks for food. " The individual to whom the request is made never refuses; opens its mandibles, takes a proper position, and regurgitates a drop of transparent fluid which is licked by the hungry ant (Kropotkin, 2009, p. 26).

Thus, Kropotkin devotes two chapters of his book to demonstrate the mutual aid among animals, based on observations of researchers and their own observations, made in Siberia, 1862-1866, including living among the natives of this region. Also devotes a chapter to the "savages" and another to "barbarians," and two chapters on "medieval" and two of "modern society", showing in all, the role of mutual aid in its development. The set of information that it works is extremely extensive and so we will only mention the case of its refutation of that infanticide among the "savages" and its relation to the law of the struggle for survival, as advocated by Darwinists (and Darwin although Kropotkin not recognize):

Primitive people can not create all their children. However, it was observed that as soon manage to increase their regular livelihood, they immediately abandon the practice of infanticide. In general, parents meet that obligation reluctantly, and once obtained material conditions, resort to all kinds of deal to save the life of their newborn. (Kropotkin, 2009, p. 26).

Mutual assistance between the barbarians and the medieval town also reinforces the thesis kropotkiniana the role of mutual aid in the evolutionary process, although in the latter case, their approach is very idyllic, as some commentators pointed out. Undoubtedly, the feudal society was a class society, founded on exploitation and domination, and therefore could not have as a fundamental principle mutual aid, but the class struggle. Obviously, between the exploited classes, and this was no different with the servants, there was cooperation and this is part of history. Kropotkin is not unaware of the exploration process and puts the opposition between the feudal lords and serfs, but seeks to show that the first failed to destroy the commune villager, although has submitted to the feudal system of exploitation. These villagers communes remained the cooperation and the guilds and later developments, which are no longer "medieval" as Kropotkin put, but bring in other elements inherited from feudal society.

Similarly, Kropotkin contains extensive information to support the idea of ​​mutual aid in modern society. He quotes from charitable society through clubs, associations, unions, brotherhoods, to reach concrete cases, such as the slums of London, showing that despite the unfavorable conditions of life and break that modern society makes neighborly relations , children keeps mutual aid relationships and also mothers. He cites reports of pregnant women receiving support from neighboring women and the relationship of poor mothers with their children, unlike women of the wealthy classes.

For a lady of the richest classes to be able to go through a hungry and cold child in the street without noticing it, some training is required - if that's good or bad, they decide for themselves. But the mothers of the poorer classes do not have this training, they can not bear the sight of a hungry child; they have to feed it, and it's what they do. (Kropotkin, 2009, 221).

So although you may disagree with statements and interpretations of Kropotkin (sometimes with some ingenuity, to consider, for example, that the scientific community would be expression of "mutual aid" rather than interest group that maintains an internal competition and often rampant, by the power, resources and status, which is only a projection of your feelings, obliterating a little what happens concretely) he rescues the cooperation process in modern society, which is effective for most common form inside of the exploited classes.

Kropotkin therefore this that beyond the immediate struggle of isolated people, there is a struggle in common, and reproaches Darwin for not having taken into account in their analysis "natural obstacles to excessive multiplication of animals, such as drought, floods the sudden cold, epidemics, etc. ", which would show that other determinations act on the evolutionary process, as Marx had already put on another occasion (VIANA, 2009). For Kropotkin, this investigation of these factors would be necessary to determine, in its true proportions, the importance of individual struggle for life among beings belonging to the same species of animals compared to the struggle of all set against the natural obstacles and enemies of other species.

He concludes by saying that the law of the struggle for survival is not, in any way, the "dominant law of nature." The mutual aid is law of nature as much as the war of all against all, as may be inferred from the observation of bird life and mammals, among other species. Men have the inclination to help one another going back the old development of humanity's past, which developed more easily during periods of well-being and peace, but even in the most degrading conditions, as in war times of misery, oppression and calamities , the same trend continued to exist in the villages and among the poorest classes of the urban population. Kropotkin also says that all new moral doctrines and new religions come from the same source, so that humanity's moral progress is a gradual extension of the principles of mutual aid, from the primitive clan, through the nation, to reach the union of peoples.

Final considerations

This brief summary of the thought of Kropotkin about evolution and Darwinism, shows his hit in the first case and his error in the second. Thus, despite the generalization of Kropotkin can be questioned (and other determinations of the evolutionary process should be taken into account, and instead of a "general law", more specific theories for specific cases), no one can disregard their merits and have rescued the idea of ​​mutual aid as one of the determinations of evolution, especially as it relates to the human species. The work of Kropotkin was a great contribution to overcoming Darwinism process and was an expression of a different mentality, as opposed to the bourgeois, competitive and Darwinian mindset, casting light on the darkness produced by ideologies that naturalize social relations and thus justify and legitimize exploitation and domination. The reading Kropotkin today would not only be an antidote to Darwinism but also fundamental to biologists and other natural scientists to broaden their perception of reality and think about the implications of bourgeois mentality on their interpretations of life and so sketch theoretical alternatives to understand phenomena as the evolution of species.

Unfortunately, the work of Kropotkin on mutual assistance, as well as his other important works, such as his analysis of the French Revolution (Kropotkin, 1955), its proposal for a libertarian communism (Kropotkin, 1975), the anarchist communism, even in his work more problem (Kropotkin, 1970), as well as others not yet received the study and appropriate recognition. The starting point of this recognition, however, must begin this work, the Mutual Support, which has its basic ideas resumed in his later works, and already outlined in previous works (Kropotkin, 1978). This explains why to date no work of synthesis on the thought of Kropotkin to give him the amount due was not produced. This is a project to be carried out and proof that this thinker who emphasized the mutual aid deserves to be rescued.

References

DARWIN, Charles. A Origem das Espécies. São Paulo, Hemus, 1979.

DARWIN, Charles. A Origem do Homem e a Seleção Sexual. São Paulo, Hemus, 1974.

KROPOTKIN, Pedro. A Grande Revolução. Salvador, Progresso, 1955.

KROPOTKIN, Piotr. Ajuda Mútua: Um Fator de Evolução. São Sebastião: A Senhora Editora, 2009.

KROPOTKIN, Piotr. Campos, Fabricas y Talleres. Madrid, Ediciones Júcar, 1978.

KROPOTKINE, Pedro. A Conquista do Pão. 3ª edição, Lisboa, Guimarães, 1975.

KROPOTKINE, Pedro. Humanismo Libertário e a Ciência Moderna. Rio de Janeiro, Mundo Livre, 1970.

MARCO, Nélio. O Que é Darwinismo? São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1987.

VIANA, Nildo. Darwin e a Competição na Comunidade Científica. Fragmentos de Cultura (Goiânia), Goiânia, v. 13, n. 1, p. 77-98, 2003.

VIANA, Nildo. Darwin Nu. Revista Espaço Acadêmico. Ano VIII, num. 95. Abril de 2009.

VIANA, Nildo. Darwinismo e Ideologia. Pós Revista Brasiliense de Pós Graduação Em Ciências Sociais, Brasília, v. 5, p. 45-78, 2001.