Mai 02, 2011

Nochmal zur Kritik an Kropotkin

Ofenschlot hat kürzlich eine alte Kritik aus einem Artikel der Jungle World zum szientistisch-organizistischen Weltbild des Fürsten Kropotkin herausgekramt, siehe auch meine beiden letztjährigen Blogposts über Kropotkin und Malatesta.

Kommentare:

Ofenschlot hat gesagt…

Naja, weniger eine Kritik, als eine Hommage. Man kann gar nicht oft genug betonen, dass Kropotkin damals im vom Sozialdarwinismus verpesteten Geistesmilieu allein auf weiter Flur stand. Grüße,
Ofenschlot

nestor hat gesagt…

Ach so, danke für die Aufklärung. Ich hatte es tatsächlich als Kritik gelesen.
Zu Kropotkins Verhältnis zum Sozialdarwinismus sei allerdings daran erinnert, wie häufig sich Kropotkin auf Spencer bezieht, der ja nach den Lehrbüchern, als Initiator des Sozialdarwinismus und Urheber des Satzes "Survival of the fittest" gilt (allerdings eher als Soziallamarckianer zu bezeichnen ist und ohnehin recht weit vom Rassendarwinismus des späteren 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts weg ist); siehe etwa "The scientific basis of anarchy" ( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/SBA.html ):

"It is not a mere coincidence that Herbert Spencer, whom we may consider as a pretty fair expounder of the philosophy of evolution, has been brought to conclude, with regard to political organisation, that 'that form of society towards which we are progressing' is 'one in which government will be reduced to the smallest amount possible, and freedom increased to the greatest amount possible.' When he opposes in these words the conclusions of his synthetic philosophy to those of Auguste Comte, he arrives at very nearly the same conclusion as Proudhon and Bakunin. More than that, the very methods of argumentation and the illustrations resorted to by Herbert Spencer (daily supply of food, post-office, and so on) are the same which we find in the writings of the anarchists. The channels of thought were the same, although both were unaware of each other's endeavours.

Again, when Mr. Spencer so powerfully, and even not without a touch of passion, argues (in his Appendix to the third edition of the Data of Ethics) that human societies are marching towards a state when a further identification of altruism with egoism will be make 'in the sense that personal gratification will come from the gratification of others;' when he says that 'we are shown, undeniably, that it is a perfectly possible thing for organisms to become so adjusted to the requirements of their lives, that energy expended for the general welfare may not only be adequate to check energy expended for the individual welfare, but may come to subordinate it so far as to leave individual welfare no greater part than is necessary for maintenance of individual life'—provided the conditions for such relations between the individual and the community be maintained —he derives from the study of nature and the very same conclusions which the forerunners of anarchy, Fourier and Robert Owen, derived from a study of human character."