Other Press
|
Recent articles by Kevin Doyle
Search author name words: Kevin Doyle
Τι είναι ο ολο&... May 12 13 Obama signals four more years of bad relations with Latin America Dec 20 12 Τι συμβαίνει ... Dec 10 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 pageChile: El Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL) cumple 10 años Clasa muncitoare din România: țintă sigură în bătaia puştii capitalismului 10 years of the Balkan Anarchist Bookfair i-ANC Ikhumula Isifihla Buso Sayo! Kubulewe Abasebenzi! Mayday. Remembering the past, fighting for tomorrow Brazilian anarchism interview on the Crisis, World Cup, Especifismo La revolución bolivariana en la encrucijada Mobilizações contra o Aumento do Transporte em Porto Alegre, Brasil La conquête du pain, un enjeu d'actualité ! Habemus Papam: Aquel que esté libre de pecado que arroje la primera piedra 8 marzo: Dopo gli anni delle veline, gli anni della vittima Reflexiones libertarias sobre la muerte de Hugo Chávez [Chile] Definitivamente, no somos iguales ante la ley Avance de los libertarios en la construcción de una alternativa sindical en Uruguay. Estado español: cuando cruje el edificio XIe Congrès d’Alternative Libertaire: La ville rose en rouge et noir بيان الحركة الاشتراكية التحررية عن المعت Mali : Areva vaut bien une guerre Anarchists and the French-Algerian War Il 2012: un anno di attacchi senza precedenti alle classi lavoratrici Las disputas en el bloque dominante argentino de cara al 2013 Conflicto en la Araucanía: entre el racismo y el terrorismo de Estado Latest NewsInternational | Miscellaneous | en Tue 21 May, 20:18
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.