The Scientific argument behind Anarchy

Anarchy – Kropotkin

Anarchy has always been a very debatable topic. Most liberalists have an idealistic view about the perfection of human transaction. And most of their ideas are backed with philosophical thoughts. Kropotkin was an anarchist that gave a different reason for why anarchy would work. He backed his reasoning with the scientific theory on ‘survival of the fittest’. He argued that anarchy is the next revolution of the human race and anarchism is an ‘inevitable effect of history’.

He defines anarchy as a ‘principle of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government’ (Anarchism, pg 266) . He believed that ‘harmony is such a society being obtained, not by submission to law... but by free agreements concluded between various groups’(Anarchism, pg 266). Kropotkin believed that harmony can be obtained by different groups and would also help satisfy the ‘infinite needs’ of people. A realist would say that it would be amiable to believe that humans can live with such harmony, however the human behavior does not allow a human to behave in such a harmonious manner. The answer to the critics of such a liberalist view would be ‘an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between multitudes of forces and influences’. This shows that Kropotkin probably did admit to the fact that there would be some problems between such trades. But such a condition can be achieved if ‘none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state’. Thus his belief of harmony existed from the fact that there would be a mutual understanding between people once he or she finds such a common ground. And he admits to the fact that there would be some disassociation of understanding at first, but eventually that common ground can be found.

  Kropotkin addresses these ideas in ‘The Scientific Bases of Anarchy’. In this paper Peter Kropotkin states that anarchy would work in a similar manner to ‘the survival of the fittest’(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 267). The theory of ‘the survival of the fittest’ acts as an explanation to the path that anarchy is going towards.  He states that ‘by bringing the plasticity of life, the philosophy of evolution has shown the admirable adaptivity of organisms ’(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 267. Kropotkin believed that there is change needed to be made, because the human adapts in a certain way to bring that change in order to survive. Kropotkin also defines that type of person that would be the fittest. He mentions that the fittest would be the one that ‘combines knowledge necessary for the production of wealth’ and ‘not those who are now the richest’(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 267). Kropotkin has been quite apt with the contemporary society as people such as Steve Jobs are people who are the most recognized. The famous businessmen/women are the ones that started from the scratch. The phrase ‘merely in the sense of a struggle between individuals for the means of subsistence’ conveys the fact that humans are made for something much higher and this would be best done without a government.

Kropotkin also states that the compartmentalized world is a hypocritical one. The claim, ‘Instead of trying to improve human nature…life works in an opposite direction’(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 268), signifies the fact that human nature talks about moral science however never implements the same. Instead the current trends show ‘socialization of wealth integrated labor… freedom of the individual’(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 268), is another view that Kropotkin had. Thus in order to survive Kropotkin suggests merging the lines of the laborer and the master. Kropotkin, in order to strengthen his argument, mentions that the scientist Herbert Spencer mentions that the society will progress to a stage where there will be minimal government intervention(The Scientific Bases of Anarchy, pg 268).

Kropotkin and other anarchists were proved correct, as in the contemporary world Structural Liberalist views are more popular. However, these views have some loopholes, which are also a part of the human nature. Even though humans can show a more altruistic side, the same species are not perfect. In order to survive they are bound to destroy the other in anyway possible. And this is not only in humans but every other species out there. It would be impossible for every type of human to cooperate, as each human has no pattern in the way he or she works. Thus to come to a middle ground would be difficult as the human race evolved out of an anarchy system to a more compartmentalized system to find a common ground.

In conclusion, Kropotkin makes a strong argument against a very strict government, which does not allow freedom of thought. In those days this argument would have been more connected to the situation. However, Kropotkin does not take into consideration that the world population would grow in such a tremendous way. Because of this population growth it would be hard to find such a middle ground. Even though there have been organizations such as the United Nations it would be difficult to find a permanent solution, mostly because even though humans can be helpful to each other there is some sort of selfishness that is embedded in his or her system.

Prince Peter Kropotkin

Citations:

1. Peter, Kropotkin, "Anarchism". In The Secret Agent. Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press,2009. 

2. Peter, Kropotkin, "The Scientific Bases of Anarchy". In The Secret Agent. Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press,2009.