Anarchist Communism

by Pyotr Kropotkin

The humane yet devastating critique of how modern society is organized with the brutal few clinging onto their wealth and privileges at the expense of the many

Peter Kropotkin's anarchist texts had a fundamental impact on 19th and 20th century radicals of all kinds. These essays from T he Conquest of Bread are bravura examples of his optimistic and angry vision of a world in which the just actions of the many can destroy the grip of the few.

Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves - and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives--and upended them. Now Penguin brings you a new set of the acclaimed Great Ideas, a curated library of selections from the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization and helped make us who we are.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theory, Classics, Essays, Economics

113 pages, Paperback

First published September 27, 2015

About the author

Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, prince, Russian anarchist, and political philosopher, greatly influenced movements throughout the world and maintained that cooperation, not competition, the means, bettered the human condition.

Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин, other spelling: Pëtr Kropotkin, Pierre Kropotkine), who described him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ, which seems coming." He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops , and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . He also contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition .

Reviews

[emma]

badass

[seren✨ starrybooker]

I’ve set myself the loose goal this year of reading more foundational, and particularly foundational leftist, theory. I’m a turtleneck and a mild alcohol problem away from turning into the worst person you know at a party.

One of the thing about reading seminal, 100 year old pieces of theory is that you’ve basically already heard these arguments before from different perspectives. I found myself nodding along to most of Kropotkin’s writing, but wasn’t particularly challenged by it.

Still, it’s nice to read the source of a lot of ideas I cherish and works I admire. It’s also refreshing to read political writing that centres the people and their needs, and whose fundamental point is ‘every life is valuable’.

[Sylvia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: “Anarchist communism” is communism without government. The system is dependent on anarchy and embodies the idea that people will form their own unions and eventually rule without wage labour principles. This is the main distinction that separates Kropotkin from Marx - who speaks of a hierarchy of labour based on skill and usefulness. Kropotkin walks us through how anarchist communism would function, answering predetermined questions in a clear and accessible manner, and further puts forward a plan for how a revolution would enable anarchist communism to become a reality. The emphasis of this book lies in the people coming together to revolutionise, unionise, and abolish the wage labour system. In doing this, Kropotkin believes that people would finally be free from exploitation.

Thoughts: This book challenges not just government, but the notion of government itself. It is the first time I imagined a world without some form of governing hierarchy, political system, or authoritarian rule. Where people are equal and have access to all that they need, sharing with others or keeping to themselves at their will, I can’t help but wonder how long Kropotkin’s utopian dream would last. There are many criticisms to the idea simply because Kropotkin seamlessly ignores our human nature. People are evil, we are selfish, we are corrupt, and in one way or another we always put ourselves first. If you want revolution, you must want it enough to endure suffering. Scarcity of resources, poverty, trauma, and death. If you want revolution, if you want to, in any way, reclaim the peoples power over the government, you must want it enough to live like the dead. People are far too removed from one another nowadays for anarchist communism to become a reality.

Favourite quote: “No more of such vague formulae as ‘The right to work’, or ‘To each the result of his labour’. What we proclaim is The Right to Well-being: Well-being for All!”

[pip · Rating 4 out of 5]

big words, confuse my brain 🧍cool tho

[Nuno R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Communism is capable of assuming all forms of freedom or of oppression which other institutions are unable to do. It may produce a monastery where all implicitly obey the orders of their superior, and it may produce an absolutely free organization, leaving his full freedom to the individual, existing only as long as the associates wish to remain together, imposing nothing on anybody, being anxious rather to defend, enlarge, extend in all directions the liberty of the individual. Communism may be authoritarian (in which case the community will soon decay) or it may be Anarchist. The State, on the contrary, cannot be this. It is authoritarian or it ceases to be the State."

What a great read. This is was first published in 1901, before the revolutions of the 20th century.

"To recognize all men as equal and to renounce government of man by man is another increase of individual liberty in a degree which no other form of association has ever admitted even as a dream. It becomes possible only after the first step has been taken: when man has his means of existence guaranteed and is not forced to sell his muscle and his brain to those who condescend to exploit him."

[bia · Rating 4 out of 5]

concise yet brave, this work introduces us to another layer of anarchist thinking. kropotkin's arguments lay atop certain main ideas:
– independence and individual freedom go hand in hand with societal cooperation;
– law and religion fail to establish proper order;
– the current institutions of force serve only to maintain the capitalist status quo;
– the downfall of this economic system, based fundamentally on inequality, has to accompany the downfall of its subservient political system.
although limited by its historical context (he hadn't yet seen the aftermaths of the russian revolution), many of this work's observations about the failure of representative democracy remain relevant. especially so during a global pandemic, where the faults of public health systems and the incapacity (as well as indifference) of an elite-serving government to assist the general public become painfully clear.

[Henry J · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did rather enjoy reading this, if not just for the abundant statements that prompted much laughter, but for the cohesion of understanding I now have of what communism (in particular, but not exclusively, anarchist communism) hopes to achieve. However, Kropotkin did use the example of the French Revolution in, I think, almost all of his examples, which is used to explain his points, which did become somewhat monotonous towards the end.

Despite my agreement with many of the motions and ideas put forward in the book, it is a product of its time and many things were idealised in order to make a point rather than a more realistic and thus understandable example.

[Appu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dream on: 'well being of all'; 'economy without private capital and society without a state'. Kropotkin assures us, "bold thoughts first and bold deeds will not fail to follow". This book, part of the Penguin Great Ideas series, contains the initial five chapters from Kropotkin's Book, The Conquest of Bread. The rhetoric is stirring. Kropotkin comes up with lines such as "the fortunes of the rich spring from the poverty of the poor". However, if history is any guide, this is a handbook for social and economic disaster.

[André · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book deals with the ages-old battle between rich and poor, and how, whatever government is in charge will always eventually side with the rich, leaving the poor to fend for themselves and feeding the rich.
That alone makes for a great read.

[amsel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sehr interessante Ausführungen, wenn sie auch grundlegend bereits bekannt waren. Ich fand den Aspekt des Hungerns und wie viel ihm Beachtung geschenkt wurde sehr interessant, auch weil dadurch eine sehr praktische Perspektive aufgemacht wurde. Hier frage ich mich nach der aktuellen Situation, da sich hier ebenso wie hinsichtlich der Globalisierung Dinge (wenn auch vielleicht nur quantitativ) verändert haben. Ich werde mich auf jeden Fall noch weiter mit dieser Strömung beschäftigen, da ich von der Idee hier weniger Missbrauchspotential sehe als bei Kommunismen, die auf Parteien oder anderen Formen von Regierung basieren, gleichzeitig bleibe ich wie auch beim Lesen von Emma Goldman skeptisch, da Anarchismus doch irgendein Vertrauen in den Menschen hat, das mir noch fern ist.

[Jake Wilhelmsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked it but it feels quaint. Feels quaint because it was published in 1892, before the bolshevik revolution, before the internet, etc. The anarchist side feels most quaint, from here, from 2022, but maybe that's just because we didn't do the interstitial revolutions properly. Kropotkin thought we'd actually give a fuck if people died. We've done 2 world wars and a bunch of imperialism since then. We've normalized propaganda. It's not as simple as "will people fight for what they need?" We've reverted to "those assholes think I need what they need, so I don't want to produce want to produce what I produce because they might like it." We are broken. Have a good day.

[Sumayah · Rating 4 out of 5]

So like read two pages of this before tn then went to a protest and watched the cops beat the shit out of everyone and came home and got drunk and finished this. First of all, ‘bread, it is bread that the revolution needs!’… for having written a thesis titled bread, tea, and human dignity this chapter had me geeking. Overall super fascinating, had my qualms which I don’t care to flesh out rn and I’m teetering towards 3.75 but also could just be a 4 bc appreciated a lot of it despite my critiques.

[Luke Glasspool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can’t believe it took a diva this long to read this banger. It do be sad that some of ideas my driller Peter had never transpired frfr. This is the one geographer that’s invited to the blunt rotation

[Kira Griffin · Rating 5 out of 5]

character development is when u transition from a marxist to an anarcho communist

kropotkin is so based it’s hard to believe he existed the man is on another plane of existence

[Federico Arcuri · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Bread, it is bread that the revolution needs!'

Basically a short guide on how to carry out a communist revolution, Kroptokin's text offers interesting and pragmatic insights on radical social movements, especially if one imagines that he wrote it well before the Cuban, Russian or Chinese communist revolutions.

What i really appreciated while reading it was Kroptokin's pragmatism. At the base of his argument lies the assumption that a revolution is a complex undertaking and needs to be carried out both scientifically, thinking about what is the most reasonable way for it to succeed, and ethically, having the well-being of the people as its main aim always. "All is interdependent in a civilized society; it is impossible to reform any one thing without altering the whole." In relation to such "ethical pragmatism", here's a line of reasoning that is still valid today:

"Enough of ambiguous words like 'the right to work' ... let us have the courage to recognize that well-being for all, henceforward possible, must be realized.... Very different will be the result if the workers claim the right to well-being! In claiming that right they claim the right to take possession of the wealth of the community - to take houses to dwell im according to the needs of each family; [...] The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means to be always a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the social revolution, the right to work means nothing but the treadmill of commericialism. It is high time for the worker to assert his right to common inheritance, and to enter into possession of it."

Another demonstration of his pragmatism is the chapter titled "Food", in which, in a good old dialectical materialist fashion, he stresses how any revolution carried our for the people by the people needs to focus, first and foremost, on the necessity for all the people to have enough food to get by, enough safe space to live in, and enough clothes to wear.

Later, he asks a question that i assume many people might have in mind even now, when mentioning hypothetical systemic revolutions. Won't a 'collectivist' sort of systemic change bring chaos and disorder? Kroptokin explains that yes, indeed, " it is evident that the smallest attack upon property will bring in its train the complete disorganization of the system [...] society itself will be forced to take production in hand and to reorganize it to meet the needs of the whole people. But this cannot be accomplished in a day. [...] what is to be done then?" He answers this question by saying that the "only one really practical solution" is to "reorganize production on a new basis", but that, first of all, "the people should take immediate possessiom of all the foood of the insurgent communes, keeping strict account of it all." Whereas one might argue that such revolution would be followed by an Animal Farm-like (stalinist) scenario, it is still good to recognize that any systemic change needs to pragmatically centered about the well-being of the people, starting from day 1.

I find fascinating kroptokin reasoning on the colonial character of international trade, written a century before the first criticisms of neoliberal globalization such as the dependency development theory. "But as soon as the revolution comes, the Russian peasant will keep bread enough for himself; the italian and Hungarian peasant will do the same; [...] Since all our middle-class civilization is based on the exploitation of inferior races and countries with less advanced industrial systems, the revolution will confer a boon at the very outset, by menacing that 'civilization', and allowing the so-called inferior races to free themselves. [...]

But this great benefit will manifest itself by a steady and marked diminuition of the food supplies pouring into the greater city of Western Europe". Maybe that's why, as much as it hurts to admit it, any global 'humanitarian' or green revolution cannot start from Europe, because, a world in which human beings are allowed to flourish equally everywhere, by definition, would not allow europe to exist in the same way as we know it today.

[r. · Rating 4 out of 5]

"For thousands of years millions of men have laboured to clear the forests, to drain the marshes, and to open up highways by land and water. Every rood of soil we cultivate in Europe has been watered by the sweat of several races of men. Every acre has its story of enforced labour, of intolerable toil, of the people's sufferings. Every mile of railway, every yard of tunnel, has received its share of human blood." (p. 6)

"Millions of human beings have laboured to create the civilization on which we pride ourselves today. Other millions, scattered through the globe, labour to maintain it. Without them nothing would be left in fifty years but ruins. There is not even a thought, or an invention, which is not common property, born of the past and the present." (pp. 7-8)

"We have all been bent on studying the dramatic side of revolutions so much, and the practical work of revolutions so little, that we are apt to see only the stage effects, so to speak, of these great movements: the fight of the first days; the barricades. But this fight, this first skirmish, is soon ended, and it is only after the breakdown of the old system that the real work of revolution can be said to begin." (pp. 26-27)

"all giving themselves an awful importance while the real strength of the movement is in the streets." (p. 29)

"we must recognize, and loudly procalim, that everyone, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, the right to live " (p. 31)

"It has always been the middle-class idea to harangue about 'great principle' - great lies rather! The idea of the people will be to provide bread for all. And while middle-class citizens, and workmen infested with middle-class ideas, admire their own rhetoric in the 'talking shops', and 'practical people' are engaged in endless discussions on forms of government, we, 'the utopian dreamers' - we shall have to consider the question of daily bread." (p. 77)

[Matthew Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are not two ways of becoming a millionaire.

Pyotr Kropotkin's foundational work of anarchist communism, The Conquest of Bread, from which this little volume is extracted, resonates far too strongly over a century after the death of its author. The cover quotation, "Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor"; the way anarchist and cooperative/communist organisation in the everyday world are ignored in favour of cynical dismissal; the descriptions of exploitation - there's not a lot that needs updating. We haven't come up with a new way of making a millionaire (or billionaire). The English translation - uncredited, although a footnote makes it clear that there is a translator at work here - is readable and quotable. There is much of value here.

The flaw, though, is a big one. Kropotkin's argument is rooted in the idea that the Earth can produce food in abundance and the only thing limiting its exploitation is intentional scarcity. This is not true. The forests of which he praises the clearing, the marshes drained, were not merely 'unproductive' land in need of human management, but essential components of a natural environment that kept the planet healthy for life. I know that there's no way Kropotkin could have known about global warming, but it does take the shine off somewhat to read about the limitless abundance of the Earth. It's OK, though, because those he's arguing against still make this mistake, believing that it's reasonable to solve a temporary, human-made economic crisis with resource exploitation, as if they were unlimited; and subsequent anarchists have written more and eloquently on the centrality of environmental sustainability to the anarchist mission. With this in mind, Anarchist Communism is an excellent read.

[Rafael Almada · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brings a very interesting perspective into not only revolutionary approaches, but also the process of revolution itself and the challenges that may come with the establishment of anarchist communism. It is amusing to see Kropotkin foresee a lot of the issues later revolutions faced. Overall it is an easy read, which is a great compliment for something intended for "the masses". It's also short, so you can always read a bit during lunch break or before bed. I liked that bit where he called out Twitter as well (truly a man ahead of his time).

[Miguel Felix · Rating 4 out of 5]

Set the foundations for anarchist communism, so no doubt it is of immense historical relevance. But, the lack of well supported strategies in an anarchical system to prevent its collapse (people exploiting people again) bothered me. The revolutionary tone and the trust deposited in the oppressed class is amazing and valuable since a lot of socialist theorists end up just dismissing the intelectual and organizing abilities of the proletariat, but once again I wasn’t convinced of the long term sustainability of communism without an organizing body/state (at least as a transitional mechanism for an eventual anarchic system).

[Luke Dylan Ramsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

B+/A-

While I enjoyed this book a good amount, it’s rather slight, overly positive about human nature, outdated, and a bit… unrealistic, maybe?

Obviously an influence on Le Guin’s The Dispossessed.

Definitely need to read more socialist / anarchic philosophy, and this did whet that appetite even further.

[Max Svalgard · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I could give this 3.5 I would since it's closer to that than a 3. I enjoyed this quite a bit, many aspects are dated (like the classic talking about savages that don't wear clothes that many theorists of this era enjoyed doing) but the core notions ring true and are excellent. Bread for all.

[nin. · Rating 4 out of 5]

my fav part was when the dude explained point after point exactly where the ussr project failed … 35 years before its establishment.

edit: i had to change the rating and add a star cuz now i see this mofo’s ideas/ critiques EVERYWHERE.

[Juna Jamet]

I finished this a few days ago but I forgot to update, Kropotkin’s a very sensational writer and theres some great theory in here but its very obviously meant to be provocative more than anything as most programs are, The Manifesto is written similarly.

great foundational work though.

[zainab khan]

really interesting—especially the point about food at the end

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rip Pyotr Kropotkin, you would have loved The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

[Zosia · Rating 3 out of 5]

rather disappointing on the ‘anarchist’ part
not radical enough and really naive in its optimism

[Sophie]

A very insightful analysis of how wealth is accrued and the injustice of capitalism. He makes a few assumptions that I don’t find convincing when it comes to the solution, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t worth reading.

[oviya · Rating 4 out of 5]

rad !

[Benjamin Hollis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and stimulating political theory, that shines with hope and belief in humanity - not naivety - and is an extremely timely and poignant reminder that society is what we choose to make it. Things can be different and without authors like Kropotkine, even fewer people would be conscious of it.

[Lara Husain · Rating 1 out of 5]

Whole bunch of yap