Hobbes Vs Kropotkin Essay
Compare and contrast the work of Hobbes and Kropotkin. Whose writings do you find more convincing and why?
In today’s world, there is an overwhelming presence of violence, war, and a lack of peace. Thomas Hobbes and Peter Kropotkin have undoubtedly embedded their names into history as some of the greatest masterminds of political philosophy. In the Hobbes’ Leviathan, he launches his strong belief of the muse of states and legitimate governments. Much of the book demonstrates the need of a robust central authority to avoid the evil of discordance and warfare. On the other hand, Kropotkin advocated a more-so communist society freed from any sort of government. Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, which was written in response to Thomas Huxley’s social …show more content…
Hobbes overlooked morality while Kropotkin overlooked struggle. Throughout society, there is always going to be someone who is less powerful or strong. Majority of people wouldn’t willingly attack someone or create a state of violence. But as even seen today, from terrorist attacks to stealing a bag of candy from a local convenience store, we cannot always control everyone and everything under a governmental state. He assumes that we all will collectively put a stop to an unmoral behavior. But wouldn’t the rational behavior be to attack one another and create this state of war to stop the evil? I suggest in the state of nature that the creation of a sovereign would then help solve the conflict. In the case of Kropotkin when he was discussing how humans and animal species profit from mutual aid, he neglects to discuss that mutual aid was the “natural order” per say. Instead, he argues, “The war of each against all is not the law of nature. Mutual aid is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.” (Mutual Aid, pg.50) Kropotkin recognizes and doesn’t deny the importance of struggle, competition, or mutual aid as a method of survival. However, he argues that cooperation within a species was the most effective means for it to survive in a very hostile atmosphere. But, this only applies to life underneath a capitalist economy. Within the hostile atmosphere of society, the sole method in which the social working class might survive would be to practice mutual aid, or in alternative words,
In today’s world, there is an overwhelming presence of violence, war, and a lack of peace. Thomas Hobbes and Peter Kropotkin have undoubtedly embedded their names into history as some of the greatest masterminds of political philosophy. In the Hobbes’ Leviathan, he launches his strong belief of the muse of states and legitimate governments. Much of the book demonstrates the need of a robust central authority to avoid the evil of discordance and warfare. On the other hand, Kropotkin advocated a more-so communist society freed from any sort of government. Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, which was written in response to Thomas Huxley’s social …show more content…
Hobbes overlooked morality while Kropotkin overlooked struggle. Throughout society, there is always going to be someone who is less powerful or strong. Majority of people wouldn’t willingly attack someone or create a state of violence. But as even seen today, from terrorist attacks to stealing a bag of candy from a local convenience store, we cannot always control everyone and everything under a governmental state. He assumes that we all will collectively put a stop to an unmoral behavior. But wouldn’t the rational behavior be to attack one another and create this state of war to stop the evil? I suggest in the state of nature that the creation of a sovereign would then help solve the conflict. In the case of Kropotkin when he was discussing how humans and animal species profit from mutual aid, he neglects to discuss that mutual aid was the “natural order” per say. Instead, he argues, “The war of each against all is not the law of nature. Mutual aid is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.” (Mutual Aid, pg.50) Kropotkin recognizes and doesn’t deny the importance of struggle, competition, or mutual aid as a method of survival. However, he argues that cooperation within a species was the most effective means for it to survive in a very hostile atmosphere. But, this only applies to life underneath a capitalist economy. Within the hostile atmosphere of society, the sole method in which the social working class might survive would be to practice mutual aid, or in alternative words,