Cherries picked from Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.

You can thank @mysearchisover for this one.

https://steemit.com/capitalism/@mysearchisover/mutual-aid-a-funadamental-basis-of-capitalism-supported-by-an-anarchist-109

I hope you take a few minutes to show him that vote selling bots may give you rep and roi, but they don't make good conversation.

Some more cherries I've helped him to pick.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution#toc4

We saw how few are the animal species which live an isolated life, and how numberless are those which live in societies, either for mutual defence, or for hunting and storing up food, or for rearing their offspring, or simply for enjoying life in common. We also saw that, though a good deal of warfare goes on between different classes of animals, or different species, or even different tribes of the same species, peace and mutual support are the rule within the tribe or the species; and that those species which best know how to combine, and to avoid competition, have the best chances of survival and of a further progressive development.

It is evident that it would be quite contrary to all that we know of nature if men were an exception to so general a rule: if a creature so defenceless as man was at his beginnings should have found his protection and his way to progress, not in mutual support, like other animals, but in a reckless competition for personal advantages, with no regard to the interests of the species. To a mind accustomed to the idea of unity in nature, such a proposition appears utterly indefensible. And yet, improbable and unphilosophical as it is, it has never found a lack of supporters. There always were writers who took a pessimistic view of mankind. They knew it, more or less superficially, through their own limited experience; they knew of history what the annalists, always watchful of wars, cruelty, and oppression, told of it, and little more besides; and they concluded that mankind is nothing but a loose aggregation of beings, always ready to fight with each other, and only prevented from so doing by the intervention of some authority.

Tldr:  When folks fight tooth and claw for rewards they don't do as well as when they work together for mutual benefit.

I think you might have missed that one, msio.

Buying rewards isn't as good for you as reaching out to folks and building relationships.

Human nature is to help each other, not profit at the expense of others at all costs.

At a time when men were dwelling in caves, or under occasionally protruding rocks, in company with mammals now extinct, and hardly succeeded in making the roughest sorts of flint hatchets, they already knew the advantages of life in societies.

Folks do better working together.

Going now over to the existing savages, we may begin with the Bushmen, who stand at a very low level of development — so low indeed that they have no dwellings and sleep in holes dug in the soil, occasionally protected by some screens. It is known that when Europeans settled in their territory and destroyed deer, the Bushmen began stealing the settlers’ cattle, whereupon a war of extermination, too horrible to be related here, was waged against them. Five hundred Bushmen were slaughtered in 1774, three thousand in 1808 and 1809 by the Farmers’ Alliance, and so on. They were poisoned like rats, killed by hunters lying in ambush before the carcass of some animal, killed wherever met with.

Tldr:  Read it ain't that long.

Here is your crapitalism raising savages out of poverty.

I won't mislead you here, dear reader, this one is a task to read.

If you are anthropologically minded, this is a good one.

If you are a know it all wannabe, it is a must read.

But if you are not either of those, I'd skip this one in favor of The Conquest of Bread.

If you can tear yourself away from the cat videos long enough to actually pursue knowledge instead of mindlessly melding with the flashylight box, that is.