Views on Kropotkin?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I was wondering near the leftist studies section of my local bookstore and glancing at the anarchy section I noticed Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution. It looked interesting so I bought it and some 20 pages in I am really liking it. What do you think of his views? What other books of his should I get?

Thanks

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

lol, I've read overviews of his works and finally found a pdf copy of the Conquest of Bread, the book that many consider to be the core of anarcho-communism. It seems interesting, and right away in it, he is already making valid points about production and other things. Ultimately, I'd like to get a hold of several physical copies of his books since I get serious ADD when I try to read a book on a computer... :D

[Foldered]

I've read Mutual Aid (as well as some other relatively non-political works, like a book about Russian Literature) and The Conquest of Bread. I would recommend going straight to Conquest when you're done Mutual Aid; Conquest is very straightforward and easy to digest, as well as sophisticated and ahead of its time. Some of the issues Kropotkin raises are incredibly ahead of their time, considering the publication date of 1895 or something along those lines.

Aside: I also get ADD when I read on a computer.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Thank you both for your replies. Sounds like Conquest will have to be my next read. I can hardly wait:).

[black magick hustla]

he was a traitor he supported the allies in wwi

[Blake's Baby]

I don't take that lightly, and I'm not brushing it aside at all - believe me, internationalism and refusal to support the bourgeoisie's wars is central to my understanding of communism - but can the things he was writing in the 1890s really be condemned because 15 years later he took a pro-imperialist position?

To the OP: my own view is that he did lot of good work in the 1800s and then faced with the litmus test of WWI he betrayed the workers' movement. If your question is 'sum up Kropotkin's legacy' I'd say 'mixed'. If it's 'is there any Kropotkin worth reading?' I'd say 'yes'.

[Madvillainy]

Well theres a lot more to anarcho-communism than kropotkin, just like there is a lot more to marxism than kautsky. Do anarchists think his work is important enough to anarchism to just disregard the fact that he sided with the bourgeoisie during ww1 or the fact he became a minister under kerensky?

I think the position we take on imperialist wars is the most important one, and it really divides the revolutionaries from the class traitors. I mean thats why during ww1 the bolsheviks were revolutionary and kautsky and kropotkin weren't.

[ed miliband]

A great, great man, who, like all great men, was flawed.

[x359594]

...Do anarchists think his work is important enough to anarchism to just disregard the fact that he sided with the bourgeoisie during ww1 or the fact he became a minister under kerensky?

Given that Kropotkin's major works were written before WW I and and that his appointment under Kerensky was entirely proforma I don't think it has much relevance for the application of his theories today.

Historically Kropotkin's support for the war was a serious set back for the world wide anarchist movement. Near the end of his life he redeemed himself somewhat by winning the release of anarchist prisoners from the camps and dungeons of the Cheka.

On balance, Kropotkin's contributions to theoretical anarchism have been very useful. For example, Paul Goodman drew on Kropotkin's theories for his books Communitas (written with his architect brother Percival) and People or Personnel, and Colin Ward prepared an up-dated edition of Fields, Factories and Workshops called Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow.

Since this is a thread about theory, the important point is the validity of the theories in question rather than the fact that their originator may have temporarily abandoned them for expediency's sake.

[Zanthorus]

To be fair to Kropotkin, Marx was not exactly a consistent anti-Imperialist either:


The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon's, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_07_20.htm

On a related note, it is probably useful to understand Kropotkin's support for world war one in the context of his rabid anti-Marxism and the fact that Marxism was at the time associated with Germany (Marxism is frequently referred to in anarchist texts as "german communism") which as well as being the birthplace of Marx and Engels was also home of one of the largest Marxist parties in the world.

[Madvillainy]

A great, great man, who, like all great men, was flawed.

You think supporting one of the most brutal events in human history was just a flaw?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Thank you both for your replies. Sounds like Conquest will have to be my next read. I can hardly wait:).

I don't think much of K's politics (obviously!) but Conquest has a very sophisticated account of how geography and labor interlace and produce human welath. The first few pages of Conquest, where the camera pans - there's no other way to describe it but in cinematic terms - from mines in the bowels of the earth up across farmlands and railroads etc. is just mindbending.

As an authoritarian stalinogothicist, I find Conquest of Bread extremely worthwhile.

[ed miliband]

You think supporting one of the most brutal events in human history was just a flaw?



defect: an imperfection in an object or machine; "a flaw caused the crystal to shatter"; "if there are any defects you should send it back to the manufacturer"
defect or weakness in a person's character; "he had his flaws, but he was great nonetheless"
add a flaw or blemish to; make imperfect or defective
an imperfection in a plan or theory or legal document that causes it to fail or that reduces its effectiveness

Yeah, I think 'flaw' is more or less appropriate. 'Flaw' doesn't necessarily have any limits.

[Madvillainy]

Given that Kropotkin's major works were written before WW I and and that his appointment under Kerensky was entirely proforma I don't think it has much relevance for the application of his theories today.


So the positions he took during the war just sprung out of nowhere then? If not, it must have came directly from his theory, Kautskys certainly did.

Anyway I'm not saying that people shouldn't read his work or that it's all useless, just that anarchists should read his writings with some serious scrutiny and that they should treat kropotkin the same way most of the marxist movement treated kautsky, as a class traitor. Support for an imperialist war is not a flaw or mistake that can be easily dismissed just because the person advocating such support was an anarchist.

[Madvillainy]

defect: an imperfection in an object or machine; "a flaw caused the crystal to shatter"; "if there are any defects you should send it back to the manufacturer"
defect or weakness in a person's character; "he had his flaws, but he was great nonetheless"
add a flaw or blemish to; make imperfect or defective
an imperfection in a plan or theory or legal document that causes it to fail or that reduces its effectiveness

Yeah, I think 'flaw' is more or less appropriate.

yea he was a great great man who supported the deaths of millions of workers, but hey its just a wee flaw. Gotta love anarchists.

[ed miliband]

lol, I'm not an anarchist.

So what, is 'flaw' something that has limits? Because I don't think it is. A Greek tragic hero has flaws that ultimately lead to death and destruction. 'Flaw' is a stain upon goodness, which I think is appropriate in Kropotkin's case. Why not?

[Madvillainy]

lol, I'm not an anarchist.

So what, is 'flaw' something that has limits? Because I don't think it is. A Greek tragic hero has flaws that ultimately lead to death and destruction. 'Flaw' is a stain upon goodness, which I think is appropriate in Kropotkin's case. Why not?

I just think it's lazy to shrug off what he done as a flaw or mistake, it's something anarchists love to do when defending their 'anarchist prince' or even the CNT in spain.

You say he was a great man? But what made him so? He served under the kerensky government and he supported ww1. Do these things make him a 'great man' or do they make him a class traitor?

[Raúl Duke]

My views on Kropotkin are this:

I view him as an important theoretical founder/forerunner to anarcho-communism (the ideological founders being Malatesta and Cafiero who were the first to identify themselves as anarcho-communists). Although in my opinion, most of his important works seem to focus more on a post-revolutionary society rather than anything.

Whether his ideas are completely valid for this century, I doubt it; but many theorists have looked back unto Kropotkin's ideas and made re-formulations of them for these times.

Also, it's actually been some time since I've read Kropotkin and I have not had the chance to read his major works in detail.

I disagree with Kropotkin on his support of the allies during WWI and perhaps also on a few other issues and some aspects of his perspective.

Although to be honest, in relative terms, for some reason many self-described leftists across the spectrum supported a side in WWI...

[x359594]

So the positions he took during the war just sprung out of nowhere then? If not, it must have came directly from his theory, Kautskys certainly did...

Comrade, it's not an either or world.

On the evidence of his biographers, Kropotkin's Germanophobia distorted his perception of WWI and led him to abandon his principles. But perhaps you can cite one of Kropotkin's theoretical texts that explicitly (or implicitly) argues the necessity of imperialist war.

Or consider this: In a letter to Engels, Marx characterizes Ferdinand Lasslle as a Jewish "nigger:" "He is descended from Negroes who joined Moses's exodus from Egypt (unless his paternal mother or grandmother was crossed with a nigger). Well, this combination of Jewish and Germanic stock with the Negroid basic substance is bound to yield a strange product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like". Engels in turn referred to Lassalle as a "true Jew" and "stupid Yid."

Can the origins of this exchange be found in the theories of Marx and Engels? Or is it possible that intellectual giants have emotional feet of clay? I think it's the latter, and I extend the same understanding to Kropotkin's foolish support of WWI; and unless you can prove otherwise, it in no vitiates his theories of socialist organization (or his contributions to Russian geography for that matter.)

Or maybe we always have to begin with a disclaimer when discussing the theories of Marx and Engels that Marx was a racist and self-hating Jew and Engels was an anti-semite and racist.

[Foldered]

yea he was a great great man who supported the deaths of millions of workers, but hey its just a wee flaw. Gotta love anarchists.
It's not hard to say that while he may have supported something atrocious, he still had good ideas.
I think you're being unnecessarily antagonistic. Of course there is more about Anarcho-Communism than Kropotkin; that's a universal as there is more to everything than anything.

[black magick hustla]

what is so great about the conquest of bread exactly? its an utopian socialist document, (i.e. it talks about the blueprint of a future society). to be honest i dont think marx's "jewish nigger" can be compared to someone who essentially crossed the class line that divided the traitors and the true ones in that particular period.

[Foldered]

what is so great about the conquest of bread exactly?
What impresses me about Conquest is how spot-on his criticisms of capitalism are despite the fact that it was written so early on in capitalism's development (as in, his criticisms still ring true). His discussions of domestic labour are pretty interesting too considering these sorts of issues weren't taken up until quite a bit later than Kropotkin initially discussed them. It's not a huge deal, no, but then again, neither is any other single work from anyone, in my opinion.

[nuisance]

Well theres a lot more to anarcho-communism than kropotkin, just like there is a lot more to marxism than kautsky. Do anarchists think his work is important enough to anarchism to just disregard the fact that he sided with the bourgeoisie during ww1 or the fact he became a minister under kerensky?

I think the position we take on imperialist wars is the most important one, and it really divides the revolutionaries from the class traitors. I mean thats why during ww1 the bolsheviks were revolutionary and kautsky and kropotkin weren't.
I don't really give a shit what Kropotkins line was on WW1, I take from his work what is useful and leave what ain't.
Epic beard though.

[revolution inaction]

Well theres a lot more to anarcho-communism than kropotkin, just like there is a lot more to marxism than kautsky. Do anarchists think his work is important enough to anarchism to just disregard the fact that he sided with the bourgeoisie during ww1 or the fact he became a minister under kerensky?

I think the position we take on imperialist wars is the most important one, and it really divides the revolutionaries from the class traitors. I mean thats why during ww1 the bolsheviks were revolutionary and kautsky and kropotkin weren't.


James Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Political_activism) one of the discoveres of the strucur of DNA said



[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.


does this mean we dismiss what he discovered about dna?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I don't really give a shit what Kropotkins line was on WW1, I take from his work what is useful and leave what ain't.
Epic beard though.

Very true. I think it beats Darwin's but thats just my oppinion.

[Foldered]

does this mean we dismiss what he discovered about dna?
There is something to be said about this; it seems those who dislike his sentiments with regard to WW1 do not want to separate Kropotkin the philosopher/theorist/anarchist from Kropotkin the person/human being. It's like some sort of reverse-idolization.

[Blake's Baby]

I seperate Kropotkin the supporter of French imperialism from Kropotkin the geographer, natural scientist and philosopher about post-Revolutionary society. No I don't junk everything he wrote in the 1880s and '90s because in his last years he became a cheerleader for imperialist slaughter. But then again, I don't brush that under the carpet either.

[Foldered]

I seperate Kropotkin the supporter of French imperialism from Kropotkin the geographer, natural scientist and philosopher about post-Revolutionary society. No I don't junk everything he wrote in the 1880s and '90s because in his last years he became a cheerleader for imperialist slaughter. But then again, I don't brush that under the carpet either.
There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it is damaging to entirely dismiss his works based on a move he made that you may or may not like, you know?
(You're not doing that, but it seems that a lot of people in this thread are.)

[Madvillainy]

James Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Political_activism) one of the discoveres of the strucur of DNA said



does this mean we dismiss what he discovered about dna?

You've basically used the same argument as the other poster who talked about Marxs racism. Being a bigot is not comparable to supporting the bourgeoisie over the international working class. Also I don't think you can compare the discovery of DNA to a few mediocre writings by kropotkin. You want real anarchism then read Malatesta, at least he took the right position during the war and completely dissociated himself from class traitors like prince kropotkin.

[Madvillainy]

There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it is damaging to entirely dismiss his works based on a move he made that you may or may not like, you know?
(You're not doing that, but it seems that a lot of people in this thread are.)

Where the fuck do you think his ideas came from? Did they fall from the sky? Or did they have roots in his political theory?

Also no one is totally dismissing his works.

[Foldered]

You want real anarchism then read Malatesta, at least he took the right position during the war and completely dissociated himself from class traitors like prince kropotkin.
You want real anarchism, don't limit yourself to reading and picking one proponent of anarchism.

[Foldered]

Also no one is totally dismissing his works.
How you say Kropotkin should be read is how any material should be read.



just that anarchists should read his writings with some serious scrutiny
Nobody needs to be told to read things with scrutiny.

And chill out, there's no point in getting all "Where the fuck do you think..." in a Theory forum.

[ed miliband]

what is so great about the conquest of bread exactly? its an utopian socialist document, (i.e. it talks about the blueprint of a future society). to be honest i dont think marx's "jewish nigger" can be compared to someone who essentially crossed the class line that divided the traitors and the true ones in that particular period.

He doesn't talk about how a future society will be so much as attempt to prove such a society could possibly exist.

[Madvillainy]

And chill out, there's no point in getting all "Where the fuck do you think..." in a Theory forum.

fair enough, i just get a little pissed that this guy still has sympathy amongst anarchists. I think anarchists need to realise that it wasn't a mistake, his position couldn't have been spontaneous. It must have came from somewhere.

[x359594]

...I think anarchists need to realise that it wasn't a mistake, his position couldn't have been spontaneous. It must have came from somewhere.

If it didn't come from Kropotkin's Germanophobia, then tell us where it came from.

And by the way, for us Jews, Jew-baiting is as nasty as class treason is for the rest of the working class.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, it came from somewhere. Whether his main motivation was anti-German, anti-SPD/anti-Marxist, or pro-French (my understanding was that he specifically defended the 'gains of the French Revolution' and French culture against German barbarism) his views must have come from somewhere.

Someone mentioned Marx and Lasalle; I think Marx's support for the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War is more significant. Is that unproblematic? Is it similar to Kropotkin's support for France in WWI? Why are the two cases different if they are?

I completely reject any notion that antipathy to Kropotkin can seriously be called "...dislike (of) his sentiments with regard to WW1..." though. Kropotkin took the side of one of the imperialist blocs. Just like the traitor parties of social democracy, just like Mussolini, just like the reformists and trade unionists who we've spent 90 years trying to overthrow, he called for workers to slaughter each other in the name of national peculiarities. He was a traitor (an unapologetic traitor, I believe) to the working class. However, that kinda implies he turned traitor having previously been a not-traitor.

So read his work, remember his actions, make your own mind up is my advice.

[Wolf Larson]

he was a traitor he supported the allies in wwi
Thats what I said about the dozens of RevLeft posters who sided with the CIA's "green revoloution" in Iran. One thing we must remember about Kropotkin is he was never anything but a silver spoon prince. He's also by far not the foundation of anarchism. Mutual aid is a good read for debating human motivations- self interest/competition or Adam Smiths 'invisible hand' vs. mutual aid/cooperation. Darwin has been hijacked by bourgeois theorists and economists to excuse capitalism as best fit with 'human nature' ....mutual aid is a great read to help attack that silly misconception.

[Blake's Baby]

I think its disingenuous to claim he was 'never anything but a silver spoon prince'. He renounced his title, rejected the cushy civil service job his birth entitled him to and went to Siberia as a scientist. He then joined the revolutionary movement and lived in poverty for decades, surviving (like Marx) mostly from journalism and supportive friends and comrades.

You're right that he didn't invent Anarchism but personally I think he's far and away the most important Anarchist thinker of his time - more so than Bakunin, and in my opinion more important than Malatesta.

I don't know what Iran has to do with it. We're not criticising Kropotkin for the side he supported, but that he supported any side. I'm just as happy to criticise Alexander Helphand on the same basis. Support for either imperialist bloc is one of those massive questions of the history of the workers' movement and some of us think 1914 was a watershed. After that - no bourgeois fraction has been worth supporting; hence, 'no war but the class war'.

[Raúl Duke]

he was a traitor he supported the allies in wwi I wouldn't say this was a problem solely within anarchism.
In fact, anarchism, like socialism, reacted similarly to this WWI issue. A few anarchists sided with an imperialist country, many of them repudiated WWI as an inter-imperialist war. Some socialists (and entire supposedly 'socialist' parties like the SPD) sided with their country/etc while others (Eugene Deb's SPUSA) were against WWI for being an inter-imperialist war.

To speak more in depth about Kropotkin, the reality is that while he may be a theoretical fore-runner, as I mentioned before most of his ideas are obsolete. Even so, some anarchists (like Colin Ward, I think) today have looked back to his works to devise new theoretical formulations. I think Malatesta is more important than Kropotkin, personally yet for different reasons. Kropotkin seemed to have a focus on how an anarcho-communist society would be and why it would work (i.e. post-revolution theory, which is out-dated) while Malatesta focused on more present issues and questions like those related to organizing, etc.

[Wolf Larson]

I think its disingenuous to claim he was 'never anything but a silver spoon prince'. He renounced his title, rejected the cushy civil service job his birth entitled him to and went to Siberia as a scientist. He then joined the revolutionary movement and lived in poverty for decades, surviving (like Marx) mostly from journalism and supportive friends and comrades.

You're right that he didn't invent Anarchism but personally I think he's far and away the most important Anarchist thinker of his time - more so than Bakunin, and in my opinion more important than Malatesta.

I don't know what Iran has to do with it. We're not criticising Kropotkin for the side he supported, but that he supported any side. I'm just as happy to criticise Alexander Helphand on the same basis. Support for either imperialist bloc is one of those massive questions of the history of the workers' movement and some of us think 1914 was a watershed. After that - no bourgeois fraction has been worth supporting; hence, 'no war but the class war'.
Which bourgeois theorists used Darwin to promote capitalism and what do you think of Kropotkin's usage of Darwin in Mutual Aid?
|

Edit: I especially liked the chapter on expropriation in Conquest Of Bread. It immediately dispels the capitalist myth that the capitalist market is voluntary. I use Kropotkin allot when debating capitalists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Conquest of Bread is pretty good, for an older anarchist piece of writing. Kropotkin's writings about the French Revolution are also worth looking at.

[NotQuiteAsOne]

I am not as well read as I would like to be here, but wasn't Kropotkin also the first person to put anarcho-communism into writing?

[scarletghoul]

Kropotkin's writings about the French Revolution are also worth looking at.
I've always been meaning to read his book on the French Revolution, it seems good. Apparently it had a profound influence on Pol Pot, which is interesting. As I understand it, he was very inspired by the French revolution, aswell as Kropotkin's view that Robespierre didn't go far enough, drawing paralells between feudal France and semifeudal Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge's structure and ideology certainly contained some ultra-leftist/anarchist influence (highly decentralised state, abolition of money, ruthless destruction of the old elite, etc) alongside the Stalinism and nationalism

Edit : why do I only come on RevLeft to derail discussions onto Pol Pot lol

[RED DAVE]

I don't really give a shit what Kropotkins line was on WW1, I take from his work what is useful and leave what ain't.
Epic beard though.Here's the problem with that, and I have read Kropotkin with admiration in spite of ... .

When you read him, or Plekhanov, or, for that matter, Marx or Lenin, it's crucial to keep your critical faculties alert. But it's especially critical with someone like Kropotkin because you might, unknowingly, buy some shit you can't return later.

RED DAVE