Hey, no need to apologize! I totally get it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, even with your cynicism :) I agree, any altruistic behavior fits within this context of evolutionary behavior and is ultimately driven by the need for individuals to survive long enough to reproductive age. To be honest, I'm actually not sure where we disagree. I think, maybe, we are interpreting Kropotkin differently. To continue with the idea about horses -- I think the problem with your posit (horses protecting their young) is that it isn't only the horses who have offspring who form the circle, but also horses who don't have offspring. This might sound like I'm saying, "See, since even the horses that do not have offspring join the protective ring, we see that altruism occurs in nature," but as you pointed out, this too is an evolutionarily driven behavior. It's not necessarily selfish in the eyes of the individual (I don't think), but it's an urge, driven by generations and generations of horses who exist on a spectrum from least social (do not participate in the circle) to most social (participate in the circle, and many more social activities), in which those horses that are more socially participative are more likely to reach adulthood and reproduction.

I can't remember if Kropotkin addresses the violence that happens in the natural world, but I'm pretty sure he reconciles it. I don't think he outright denies competition in Mutual Aid, even though I can see how you come to that conclusion with that passage. I agree with you, it is easy to look at opposing examples of competition rather than cooperation in the natural world, even among the same species. Especially when it comes down to resource scarcity -- then you start seeing less cooperative behavior. I think Kropotkin's point is not to deny that competition exists, but to push against the idea that that is the only thing that exists. The way I understand it, he was writing in a post-Darwin time, when the scientific community was taking Darwin's ideas and applying them to society with Social Darwinism -- survival of the fittest not only in nature but in social life, as well. So instead of a "noble savage" kinda idea, where Kropotkin is saying "everything in nature is peaches and roses," he is more saying, "look at all this cooperation in nature that is being ignored by the 'survival of the fittest' camp." Anyways, that's how I read the book -- but it's not really captured in that single quote.

Funnily enough, your exact example with ants is one Kropotkin uses in Mutual Aid! He basically goes along the evolutionary ladder, from least complex organisms to most (although, beginning with insects I'm pretty sure) and shows the cooperation within various species, not to deny the existence of competition, but to show that it isn't the only, or even the most, important force in evolution.

I guess my one last point is illustrated like this: if competition for resources were the primary force driving evolution, wouldn't we see a continuing trend of individuals in a species with more and more physical strength, brutishness, competitive nature, and rejection of cooperation? In other words, wouldn't we see a phasing out of cooperative behavior in favor of individual antagonisms and competition for resources? Here I'm thinking of my house cats -- we're in the process of introducing them, at the moment, and managing their anxieties about the other. Even though Bella is very territorial, each day she is showing more and more signs of acceptance of Suzie -- through cat language of course -- slow blinking, flopping on her side, chirping when she walks up to her. If competition where the only, or the most important driver of evolution, I'm not sure we would see this kind of behavior from Bella -- I'm not even sure these cat-signs of flopping slow-blinking, chirping, would exist! Of course, they occur with more frequency as she slowly realizes resources are not scarce, that she can coexist with this other cat Suzie, and that she'll get treats each time she has a positive interaction ;)

Anyways, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm curious to hear what you think, it's been fun chatting. I think even if you're skeptical of Kropotkin from that passage, it's still worth reading the book in whole. You probably wouldn't find that you agree with everything, or even most, but at the very least, I think it'd be an interesting insight into how a person thought post-Darwin, pre-WW1.