Is Post-Capitalist Design Anarchist?
Image credits: Edward Gooch Collection/Getty Images (Peter Kropotkin); University of Cincinnati (Matthew Wizinsky)
Introduction
Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1955) stands as a cornerstone of anarchist thought, championing cooperation as a force underpinning both evolution and society. While Kropotkin’s anarchism is explicit, contemporary frameworks like Matthew Wizinsky’s post-capitalist design (PCD) operate within a seemingly non-political discourse of critical and speculative design, yet their principles resonate strongly with anarchist ideals. PCD challenges neoliberal frameworks of design practice, calling for alternative, collective systems of production, distribution, and value creation. This essay explores Kropotkin’s arguments about mutual aid alongside Wizinsky’s PCD, critiquing the latter as a potentially anarchist practice, albeit one that may not consciously position itself within anarchist traditions. By examining mutual aid in animals, human societies, and contemporary design, this analysis reveals how post-capitalist design aligns with the cooperative and decentralised principles championed by Kropotkin.
First, who was Peter Kropotkin?
Peter Kropotkin is widely regarded as one of the most influential anarchist theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His anarchism was grounded in a vision of society founded on voluntary cooperation, decentralisation, and mutual aid as alternatives to hierarchical state systems and exploitative capitalist economies. At the core of Kropotkin’s philosophy is a belief in humanity’s natural capacity for empathy and collaboration, challenging the dominant narratives of competitive individualism and state-driven order. This essay explores Kropotkin’s anarchist philosophy, focusing on its articulation in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1955), and evaluates its enduring significance within anarchist and post-capitalist frameworks.
Kropotkin’s Anarchist Philosophy in Context
Kropotkin’s anarchism cannot be separated from his scientific and sociological work. As both a geographer and a political philosopher, he rejected the Hobbesian view that human society is inherently conflictual, instead presenting cooperation as a natural and evolutionary tendency. Kropotkin’s study of mutual aid among animals and human communities reinforced his conviction that egalitarian and voluntary forms of organisation were not only possible but historically prevalent.
His critique of hierarchical authority extended to both state and capitalist systems. For Kropotkin, the state was an inherently coercive structure, designed to centralise power and suppress grassroots solidarity. Capitalism, meanwhile, fostered competition and inequality, disrupting the organic systems of mutual support that he believed were fundamental to human and animal societies alike. By opposing these twin pillars of modern governance, Kropotkin offered a radical vision of decentralised, federated communities where shared needs and collective well-being took precedence over profit or authority.
Key Anarchist Ideas in Mutual Aid
1. Decentralisation and Voluntary Cooperation
One of Kropotkin’s most significant contributions to anarchist thought was his emphasis on decentralised forms of organisation. His analysis of medieval guilds and rural communes highlights historical precedents for community-led systems of governance. He viewed these as practical examples of how people have historically solved collective problems without reliance on centralised state authority. In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin writes:
"These guilds and rural communities were based on the principle of mutual support… They solved their difficulties by the federative principle and not by submission to a central authority."(Kropotkin 1955)
This historical perspective shaped Kropotkin’s vision of an anarchist society, in which voluntary associations and federations replace top-down hierarchies. Such structures prioritise direct democracy and cooperative decision-making, aligning with his broader rejection of authoritarian governance.
2. Critique of the State and Capitalism
Kropotkin’s critique of the state and capitalism is central to his anarchist philosophy. He argued that state bureaucracies suppress the natural bonds of solidarity that exist among people, replacing them with systems of domination. Similarly, capitalism’s competitive ethos undermines the reciprocity and collective care necessary for societal flourishing. In his words:
"Mutual aid is replaced by the state’s dependence on coercion, and the self-regulating capabilities of people are stifled under capitalism’s profit-driven motives" (Kropotkin 1955).
Kropotkin’s critique resonates with contemporary anarchist movements, which similarly reject both state power and the market economy as antithetical to human freedom and equality. His framework remains especially relevant in debates over neoliberalism, where increasing privatisation and wealth inequality exacerbate the alienation and exploitation he identified in his time.
3. Optimistic View of Human Nature
Perhaps most revolutionary was Kropotkin’s optimism about human nature. In stark contrast to Thomas Hobbes, who famously described life in a "state of nature" as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, Kropotkin argued that humans are fundamentally cooperative beings. This belief in an intrinsic capacity for empathy and collaboration is a cornerstone of his anarchist philosophy. Kropotkin writes:
"Far from being a constant struggle, life in primitive communities was marked by solidarity and support, which enabled early societies to survive and thrive even under difficult conditions" (Kropotkin 1955).
This optimistic anthropology served as a philosophical foundation for anarchism, countering arguments that coercive authority is necessary to maintain order. By rooting anarchism in human nature itself, Kropotkin advanced a compelling case for voluntary cooperation as a viable alternative to hierarchical governance.
Kropotkin’s Legacy: Anarchism and the Principle of Mutual Aid
Kropotkin’s influence extended far beyond Mutual Aid. His subsequent works, including The Conquest of Bread (1892) and Fields, Factories, and Workshops (1898), provided practical blueprints for anarchist societies. In The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin advocated for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a system where goods are distributed freely based on need—a model often referred to as anarchist communism.
Kropotkin’s ideas have found renewed relevance in contemporary contexts. Mutual aid, as a principle and practice, has been widely adopted by grassroots organisations responding to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. These groups operate under the ethos of “solidarity, not charity”, echoing Kropotkin’s vision of collective care as a radical act. For example, local mutual aid networks have provided food, healthcare, and community support in ways that bypass traditional state or market mechanisms.
However, Kropotkin’s anarchism also invites critique. While his vision is inspiring, its feasibility in highly complex, modern societies remains a point of contention. Critics argue that decentralised systems may struggle to address large-scale challenges like climate change or global inequality without some form of coordinated authority. Furthermore, the reliance on human nature’s cooperative tendencies raises questions about the role of cultural, historical, and material conditions in shaping societal behaviour.
Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid remains a foundational text in anarchist philosophy, offering a powerful critique of state and capitalist systems while championing decentralisation and cooperation as pathways to social liberation. By rooting his vision in both evolutionary biology and historical analysis, Kropotkin presented anarchism not as a utopian ideal but as a practical alternative grounded in natural and human history.
His enduring legacy lies in the principle of mutual aid, which continues to inspire anarchist movements and grassroots organising worldwide. Yet, as contemporary debates over post-capitalist design and systemic change reveal, the challenges of applying Kropotkin’s principles to modern societies are significant. Nonetheless, his optimism about human nature and his commitment to decentralised, egalitarian systems provide a compelling framework for envisioning a world beyond hierarchy and exploitation. In this way, Kropotkin’s work remains as relevant to the political and ecological crises of the 21st century as it was to the upheavals of his own time.
Who’s Matthew Wizinsky?
Matthew Wizinsky is a contemporary design theorist whose work critically examines the role of design within capitalist systems, with a particular focus on its potential to imagine and enact alternatives to these structures. In his influential book, Design After Capitalism: Transforming Design Today for an Equitable Tomorrow (2022), Wizinsky argues for a paradigm shift in the design discipline—away from serving profit-driven markets and toward fostering equitable, democratic, and sustainable futures. Central to his framework is the concept of Post-Capitalist Design (PCD), which positions designers as active participants in reshaping socio-economic systems through critical, discursive, and speculative practices.
Wizinsky’s work bridges theoretical critique and practical engagement, challenging designers to rethink their complicity within the capitalist framework while offering tools and strategies to align design practice with ethical and political goals. His critique of design’s commodification under neoliberalism resonates with ongoing debates about the agency of designers in the context of planetary crises, global inequality, and technological acceleration. At its core, Wizinsky’s approach suggests that design can transcend its historical role as a driver of consumerism, instead becoming a means of interrogating and transforming systemic injustices.
This essay explores Wizinsky’s contributions to design theory, focusing on his vision of Post-Capitalist Design. It also interrogates the ideological implications of his framework, arguing that while Wizinsky may not explicitly identify as an anarchist, the decentralised, collective, and anti-hierarchical practices he advocates bear striking affinities to anarchist principles. By examining these parallels, the essay situates Post-Capitalist Design within broader discourses on design’s political agency and its capacity to challenge the dominant logics of capitalism.
Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1955) and Matthew Wizinsky’s Design after Capitalism (2022) appears to have different filters on the same concept: Anarchy.
Mutual Aid in the Animal World:
Foundations for Post-Capitalist Thought
Kropotkin’s exploration of the animal world reveals cooperation as a foundational principle of survival. He observes that mutual aid among social insects, birds, and mammals demonstrates how collective action ensures resilience against environmental challenges. He notes, "Among ants and bees, cooperation and mutual support reach a high degree of perfection, and the advantages derived from it are so evident that the unsociable species cannot compete with the social ones" (Mutual Aid Among Animals). For Kropotkin, these examples disprove the competitive individualism emphasised by social Darwinists, instead situating mutual aid as a natural and evolutionary imperative.
Wizinsky’s PCD framework, while addressing human social structures, similarly critiques the competitive and exploitative logics of capitalism. PCD advocates for "design that operates outside and against the capitalist imperative of profit-maximisation" (Design After Capitalism, 2022). In doing so, it echoes the cooperative dynamics observed by Kropotkin in nature. For instance, PCD’s emphasis on collective ownership of resources and open-source tools mirrors the kind of decentralised, reciprocal practices seen in Kropotkin’s natural examples. This raises the question: can PCD escape being anarchist in practice when it seeks to replace individual profit-driven models with shared, cooperative systems?
Mutual Aid in Early and Medieval Human Societies: Historical Precedents for PCD
Kropotkin’s study of human societies highlights the centrality of mutual aid in shaping early communal structures. From clan-based organisations to medieval guilds, Kropotkin argues that collective systems of support underpinned human flourishing long before the rise of hierarchical states and capitalist economies. He writes, "The village community, with its system of communal ownership and mutual support, has been the chief foundation of society for thousands of years" (Mutual Aid Among Barbarians). These historical systems operated through shared labour, mutual insurance, and egalitarian governance, demonstrating the viability of decentralised, non-hierarchical social organisation.
PCD draws similar inspiration from pre-capitalist and alternative economic models. Wizinsky calls for "co-designing futures where material production and cultural exchange are localised, reciprocal, and regenerative" (Design After Capitalism). This vision aligns closely with the village communes and guild systems described by Kropotkin, where labour and resources were collectively managed for mutual benefit. PCD’s focus on systemic redistribution and non-monetary value creation—such as fostering social well-being or environmental stewardship—also resonates with the cooperative ethics of Kropotkin’s mutual aid.
However, while Kropotkin explicitly frames his analysis as a critique of state and capitalist power, Wizinsky’s PCD operates within a critical design discourse that often avoids overtly political labels. This creates an interpretive tension: does PCD’s practical alignment with anarchist principles mean it should be recognised as anarchist in essence? Or does its theoretical neutrality dilute its capacity to challenge systemic oppression as fundamentally as Kropotkin’s anarchist critique?
Mutual Aid in Contemporary Society and the Anarchist Potential of PCD
In his own era, Kropotkin identified voluntary associations and mutual aid networks as vital counterpoints to the alienating forces of industrial capitalism and state control. He describes these associations as "springing up everywhere to meet the growing need for mutual support in an ever-changing and complex world" (Mutual Aid Among Ourselves). These grassroots forms of organisation exemplify anarchist principles: decentralisation, voluntary cooperation, and collective autonomy.
Similarly, PCD rejects the centralised, profit-driven structures of contemporary capitalism, advocating for alternative design systems that prioritise communal empowerment and ecological sustainability. Examples include cooperatives, peer-to-peer production models, and participatory design processes. Wizinsky’s call for "design beyond market dependencies" challenges designers to imagine and implement systems where value is created and shared collectively, outside the logic of commodification (Design After Capitalism).
However, a key critique of PCD lies in its lack of explicit political alignment. While its goals often align with anarchist principles, its reluctance to name itself as such may limit its radical potential. Kropotkin’s anarchism is unambiguous in its call to dismantle coercive state structures and capitalist economies; PCD, by contrast, risks being co-opted into reformist or neoliberal frameworks if it fails to clearly define its stance. This raises an important question for contemporary design practitioners: can design truly operate "post-capitalistically" without explicitly challenging the state and capitalist systems that underpin design industries?
Conclusion
Is Post-Capitalist Design Anarchist in Practice?
Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid offers a deeply political vision of evolution and society, where cooperation serves as both a biological necessity and a blueprint for anarchist social organisation. Similarly, Matthew Wizinsky’s post-capitalist design framework challenges the competitive logics of capitalism and envisions systems grounded in shared value and collective care. The practical alignment between PCD and anarchist principles is undeniable: both advocate decentralisation, mutual support, and a rejection of hierarchical authority.
Yet, where Kropotkin’s anarchism is explicit, PCD’s relative political neutrality leaves it vulnerable to misinterpretation or dilution. By failing to align itself explicitly with anti-capitalist or anarchist traditions, PCD risks being subsumed within the very systems it seeks to critique. However, this ambiguity may also be a strength, allowing PCD to engage a broader audience of practitioners who may be reluctant to embrace anarchist labels but who are nonetheless committed to fostering equitable and sustainable futures.
Ultimately, PCD may indeed be anarchist in practice, even if it does not claim the label. Its emphasis on cooperation, decentralisation, and shared value creation embodies the principles of mutual aid articulated by Kropotkin, suggesting that anarchist ideals continue to resonate as viable alternatives to the crises of neoliberal capitalism. For design practitioners and theorists alike, this convergence invites further reflection on the political implications of their work and the transformative potential of design as a tool for systemic change.
References
Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. 1902. Reprint, Boston: Extending Horizons Books, 1955.
Wizinsky, Matthew. Design After Capitalism: Transforming Design Today for an Equitable Tomorrow. New York: Routledge, 2022.
