Monthly Archives: February 2015

Peter Kropotkin um samvinnu

„It is especially in the domain of ethics that the dominating importance of the mutual-aid principle appears in full. That mutual aid is the real foundation of our ethical conceptions seems evident enough. But whatever the opinions as to the first origin of the mutual-aid feeling or instinct may be whether a biological or a supernatural cause is ascribed to it — we must trace its existence as far back as to the lowest stages of the animal world; and from these stages we can follow its uninterrupted evolution, in opposition to a number of contrary agencies, through all degrees of human development, up to the present times. Even the new religions which were born from time to time — always at epochs when the mutual-aid principle was falling into decay in the theocracies and despotic States of the East, or at the decline of the Roman Empire — even the new religions have only reaffirmed that same principle. They found their first supporters among the humble, in the lowest, downtrodden layers of society, where the mutual-aid principle is the necessary foundation of every-day life; and the new forms of union which were introduced in the earliest Buddhist and Christian communities, in the Moravian brotherhoods and so on, took the character of a return to the best aspects of mutual aid in early tribal life.

Each time, however, that an attempt to return to this old principle was made, its fundamental idea itself was widened. From the clan it was extended to the stem, to the federation of stems, to the nation, and finally — in ideal, at least — to the whole of mankind.

In primitive Buddhism, in primitive Christianity, in the writings of some of the Mussulman teachers, in the early movements of the Reform, and especially in the ethical and philosophical movements of the last century and of our own times, the total abandonment of the idea of revenge, or of “due reward” — of good for good and evil for evil — is affirmed more and more vigorously. The higher conception of “no revenge for wrongs,” and of freely giving more than one expects to receive from his neighbours, is proclaimed as being the real principle of morality — a principle superior to mere equivalence, equity, or justice, and more conducive to happiness. And man is appealed to to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support — not mutual struggle — has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.“—Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Пётр Алексе́евич Кропо́ткин (Pétur Kropotkin)

Við náungakærleik og hjálpsemi vil ég bæta við umburðarlyndi, friðsemi og frelsi.

„Russia was our main point of discussion. The conditions were terrible, as everyone agreed, and the Dictatorship the greatest crime of the Bolsheviki. But there was no reason to lose faith, he assured me. The Revolution and the masses were greater than any political Party and its machinations. The latter might triumph temporarily, but the heart of the Russian masses was uncorrupted and they would rally themselves to a clear understanding of the evil of the Dictatorship and of Bolshevik tyranny. Present Russian life, he said, was an artificial condition forced by the governing class. The rule of a small political Party was based on false theories, violent methods, fearful blunders and general inefficiency. They were suppressing the very expression of the people’s will and initiative which alone could rebuild the ruined economic life of the country. The stupid attitude of the Allied Powers, the blockade and the attacks on the Revolution by the interventionists were helping to strengthen the power of the Communist regime. But things will change and the masses will awaken to the realisation that no one, no political Party or governmental clique must be permitted in the future to monopolise the Revolution, to control or direct it, for such attempts inevitably result in the death of the Revolution itself.“—Some Reminiscences of Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman


Langflestir ferðast með strætisvögnum á annatíma. Þá eru rúturnar svo fjölmennar að kostnaður per farþega er líklega um hundrað krónur. Samt er Strætó,bs rekið með rúmlega þriggja milljarða tapi á ári.[1] Því valda tómir og hálftómir vagnar. Níu af hverjum tíu sætum eru tóm.

Að ferðast í smekkfullri rútu er örugg og hræódýr leið til að ferðast. Raunkostnaður við kvöldferð með strætisvagni er hinsvegar vel rúmur þúsundkall.[2] Ef skipta þarf um vagn, þá námundast kostnaðurinn uppí þrjú þúsund krónur.

Að aka tómum strætisvagni er kannski óþarfa vinna. Tímasóun sem ætti að linna. Enda fáir sem borga fyrir akstur á tómri rútu—nema yfirvöld.

Hálftómur strætisvagn er seinlegri en leigubíll, og næstum jafn dýr. Mun betra væri að ganga, hjóla eða hringja í skutlara. Píratar ættu að leyfa hverjum sem er að stofna leigubílastöð. City Taxi er ódýrasti löglegi kosturinn, en ólöglegt skutl er mun ódýrara og kannski öruggara.

Í stað að skylda íbúa til að greiða fyrir tóma strætisvagna milli anna, þá ættu Píratar frekar að gefa almenningi peninginn. Þá gæti hver og ein/n ákveðið sjálf/ur hvort hún/hann vill vinna skemur, og njóta þess að ganga á milli staða í rólegheitum, fara milliveginn og hjóla—eða vinna lengur, og splæsa svo í leigubíl. Nú eða kaupa sér áskrift að rútuferðum. Almennings á að vera valið.

1: Ársreikningur Strætó,bs, blaðsíða 5. Rekstrarafkoma (0,456 mia.) – rekstrarframlög eignaraðila/sveitarfélaga (2,712 mia.) – ríkisframlag (0,902G mia) = -3,159 mia.

2: Kostnaðargreining Strætó,bs, viðauki A