To many Charles Darwin is the utmost authority when it comes to the study of evolution. Many people took his findings about the importance of competition and how it plays a role in evolution and ran with it. Even as far as applying it to society and thus creating social Darwinism. Anarcho-scientist Peter Kropotkin was inspired by the publication of On the Origin of Species to go and do his own observations of a multitude of species and seemed to come to the opposite conclusion of such Darwinism backers. He argued against claims that competition alone led to evolution or ‘survival of the fittest’, and insisted that mutual aid is a major factor of evolution. The following is an introductory excerpt from Kropotkin’s book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
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.
Kropotkin chronicled his findings while observing a wide variety of insects, birds, sea-life, and different mammals including humans. When it came to who was fittest to survive and further their species, it was most often those who cooperated via forms of mutual aid and solidarity.
As soon as we study animals – not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and the prairie, in the steppe and the mountains – we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and 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 the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favours the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.
Solidarity scientifically leads to the continuation of life. Through the solidarity of family units, as wells even sometimes larger communities, children are able to be raised and protected. Solidarity is also pivotal for any revolution, social movement, or major change to occur. The slogan “workers of the world unite,” first mentioned in the Communist Manifesto in 1848, called for solidarity among all proletariat (the lower/working class) regardless to nation or ethnicity. These were truly powerful words of unity for those across a particular class line against their oppressors that belonged to the bourgeoisie (the middle/capitalist class).
A major group that unified lower class people across ethnic and gender lines on U.S. soil in the aftermath of the Democratic Convention protests of 1968 was the original Rainbow Coalition. It was formed by the Illinois Chapter of The Black Panthers in Chicago and also included the Young Patriots (a group of white youth who had migrated from Appalachia to Chicago), the Young Lords (a group of Puerto Rican nationalist youth), disenfranchised jewish youth and members of the women’s movement. The Rainbow Coalition epitomized solidarity and intersectionality within the class struggle. Because of its diversity, the Rainbow Coalition was able to bring about treaties among violent rivaling gangs as well as fight against police brutality that did nothing but add to the wave of violence. With unity comes power, and this was highly threatening to both local and national government.
“It seems to me that a lot of the real intense government repression didn’t happen until the Black Panthers started building coalitions,” said Bobby Lee a Black Panthers member who helped organize the Rainbow Coalition along with Deputy Chairman of the Illinois Chapter Fred Hampton, in an interview with Chicago Area. “Once the party departed from the ‘hate whitey’ trip and got serious about building real politics, we were a threat—plain and simple. The FBI were always watching us. But the Rainbow Coalition was their worst nightmare.”
For major changes to occur, for the preservation of life, and to strive towards survival and thus evolution, solidarity is a major factor.
Đăng nhận xét