After having striven long in vain to solve the insoluble problem — the problem of constructing a government “which will constrain the individual to o… - Pyotr Kropotkin

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 defence 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.

Throughout the history of our civilisation, two traditions, two opposed tendencies, have been in conflict: the Roman tradition and the popular tradition, the imperial tradition and the federalist tradition, the authoritarian tradition and the libertarian tradition.

"Nous savons que si l'ingénieur, le savant, le docteur sont payés aujourd'hui dix ou cent fois plus que le travailleur, ce n'est oas en raison des "frais de production" de ces messieurs. C'est en raison d'un monopole d'éducation. L'ingénieur, le savant et le docteur exploitent tout bonnement un capital - leur brevet - tout comme le bourgeois exploite une usine, ou le noble exploitant ses titres de naissance. Le grade universitaire a remplacé l'acte de naissance du noble de l'ancien régime."