Other Press
|
Recent articles by Kevin Doyle
Dossiers temáticos de El Libertario Feb 01 12 Dossiers temáticos de El Libertario Feb 01 12 New Publications from Zabalaza Books Jan 23 12 Thinking About Anarchism - The Selfish Gene? international |
miscellaneous |
opinion / analysis
Wednesday January 28, 2009 19:37 by Kevin Doyle - Workers Solidarity 107
![]() Anarchists want to change the world. Instead of the present order – capitalism – with its focus on inequality and profits for a few, we want to build a new society based around the principles of participatory democracy, freedom and production for need not profit. For anarchists the type of society we want to build is best summed up by the slogan: ‘To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability’. Is an anarchist society possible? Although many people agree that it sounds like a good project, there are also plenty who argue that an anarchist society simply wouldn’t work. ‘Come off of it,’ the objectors say. ‘People are selfish and only interested in looking out for themselves. After all it’s human nature – most people, given a choice, would put themselves before the rest of society. How could an anarchist society function if this is true?’ |
Front pageExigimos la presentación con vida de David Venegas Reyes Irã: prenúncio de mais uma invasão imperialista. Perú: Ollanta Humala y el gobierno nacionalista الأناركيون و الإشتراكيون الثوريون في مصر Which way forward for the 99%? A 10 años del levantamiento de diciembre de 2001 Los libertarios vuelven a la Federación de Estudiantes de la Universidad de Chile (FECH) Un paso adelante, ¿dos atrás? Balance político del 2011 en Colombia بيان تضامن التحرريين الأممين مع نضال شعب م Iran-Israel: non aux menaces de guerre de l’Etat israélien Να προχωρήσουμε ένα βήμα πιο πέρα Semana de Lucha (14-18 Nov) contra el Pacto Social y por la Huelga General A un año de la muerte de Georges Fontenis The Egyptian military council promotes sectarian strife and massacres protestors Build on the Anarchist and Revolutionary Potentialities of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Intimidación Policial y Detención de 24 Compañeros en Oaxaca de Magón, México نداء من اجل ملتقى أممي في تونس 6 settembre, sciopero generale di lotta e indignazione Sobre el encuentro de Barrancabermeja: un paso adelante para el movimiento popular colombiano London burns - causes & consequences of the riots - an anarchist perspective Los libertarios y las Bases para un Acuerdo Social por la Educación Chilena Latest NewsInternational | Miscellaneous | en Tue 14 Feb, 09:25
Opinion and Analysis
Press Releases
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1As I've noted before, I think this article makes two serious mistakes.
First, it confuses selfish genes with selfish individuals. That is NOT the case. If there are genes for altruism and selfishness, they would be both "selfish" genes -- a selfish gene for altruism, a selfish gene for selfishness -- and both would try and make copies of themselves.
How an individual animal would act, therefore, cannot be predicted. In some cases, they would be co-operatives and in others not so.
Second, it implies that solidarity and co-operation are not in our self-interest. This is strange, particularly as the whole argument for (say) unions is that if we stick together than we can do better than if we compete against each other!
As Kropotkin's Mutual Aid documents in great detail, co-operation has an evolutionary benefit. Those who practice it do better than those who do not. Hell, we would not be here as a species without mutual aid! This analysis has become a mainstay of evolutionary theory, under the name "reciprocal altruism".
Anyway, I explore this in more detail in my article on Kropotkin:
Mutual Aid: An introduction and evaluation
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutual-aid-an-in...ation
In summary, we have evolved to co-operate and do best (both as individuals and as a species) when we do so. This does not mean that we cannot be selfish (we obviously can) but that there is nothing in "human nature" to suggest that capitalism is "natural" or that socialism is "unnatural" -- quite the reverse, I would suggest.