Anarchist Communism (Penguin Great Ideas) by Pyotr Kropotkin

Anarchist Communism (Penguin Great Ideas) 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

  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

  big words, confuse my brain 🧍cool tho
• 
  nico

  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.
• 
  Appu

  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.
• 
  Nuno R.

  "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."
• 
  Jake Wilhelmsen

  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.
• 
  André

  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.
• 
  Kira Griffin

  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

  '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.
• 
  Rafael Almada

  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

  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).
• 
  zainab khan

  really interesting—especially the point about food at the end
• 
  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.
• 
  Fin Quinlan

  Brilliant short read and introduction to anarchist communism. Obviously not very theoretical and detailed as it is only a 100 or so pages long but certainly a good short and sweet introduction
• 
  Madelyn Elizondo

  Good intro to theory, though I wouldn’t necessarily recommend for anyone who has read more contemporary Marxian literature. His argument was strongest at the beginning, then weakened as the essay continued. Sparked my interest in Revolutionary France, though, so that’s a plus(?).
• 
  Rares

  A book which might have been ruined for me, as I read the penguins great ideas books, which I assume is shortened to a large extent, but also by the fact that I have already read the conquest of Bread, meaning that this book felt as a regurgitation of the 'The conquest of Bread'
  
  - However, apart from that, this book still felt extremely repetitive, he says the same thing over and over again without really delving deep into how such ideas would be physically implemented, and when he does, his explanation is usually 'it will just happen because it is humanity for this to happen and humans will inherently do this', but arguably, humanity has reached this point in time, where such a book criticising the very structure that it has created is needed, by simply being humanity.
  It is not some magical dissociative force that has led to this current system, but warped and greedy humanity, and to demand that the global answer to toil and struggle is just inherently allowing humanity to do its thing, just sounds somewhat sloppy.
  
  However, even though it is anarchist, it does have good understanding of the failures of previous revolutions, specifically the French ones, and Kropotkin analyses how the cities managed to make enemies of the peasants, the peasants refused to help the cities, the cities massacred the peasants, and the poor riled up the poor to their side again, just to execute the revolutionaries, and implement another ancien regime-esque type of system if not a more brutal one, as seen during 'The White Terror'.
  
  He also analyses the excessive pompous nature of liberalism and leftism during a revolution, and how these middle class and liberal opportunists, manage to skew the revolutionary fervour into a prolonged debate about morals, enlightenment, and unnecessary governmental and parliamentarian positions, to which they elevate themselves in, while the poor of the revolution, the very backbone of the revolution, is being paralysed by a lack of food due as a result of ignorant priorities.
  
  However, even though Kropotkin is highly against rampant liberalism, that which has so evidently hijacked modern communist movements, his work comes unbelievably close to utopianism which puts man first above nature and everything else, even though he tries to dilute such a notion with aspects of 'community distribution' and 'national expropriation'.
  
  Book is worth a read, and I'm probably being excessively harsh, but be cautious while reading and always be sceptical.
• 
  Roxana Probably

  A love letter to communism.
• 
  Jenna-Mia

  "The human race has travelled a long way, since those remote ages when men fashioned their rude implements of flint and lived on the precarious spoils of hunting, leaving to their children for their only heritage a shelter beneath the rocks, some poor utensils - and Nature, vast, unknown and terrific, with whom they had to fight for their wretched existence."
  
  While I know a lot about how other anarchists view Kropotkin, this is my first time reading anything of his. I wasn't looking for it, stumbling upon it purely by chance, but I'm glad this was my starting point.
  
  His claims in the text are bold, but I think are often perceived as naïve as their boldness stems from extreme compassion and not extreme violence. The first introduction to Kropotkin is usually his idea of mutual aid - that species naturally work to better each other. This text outlines the revolution as a time of community as opposed to the usual idea of revolution being bloodshed. Social upheaval and the way it is thought about all too often falls into the same pattern. Kropotkin here lays the introduction for breaking that pattern. How much merit they hold to greater society I cannot say, but I think its important to recontextualize hegemonies. Especially as we're more than likely to not be aware of their existence in the first place.
  
  "The bold thought first, and the bold deed will not fail to follow."
• 
  Diemas Hawkins

  A very concise and passionate analysis on the injustices of the world's political and economic system and it's burdens on the working class. Pyotr's analysis is firm and his critique is brutal, not just to capitalism—but the shortcomings of socialism as well.
  
  His plight for anarchism and the abolishment of wage slavery is a haunting and brave argument that forces us to confront some of the biggest issues present. Is there any form of government that won't identify a single group to favour and protect at the expense of the masses? Be it capitalists, feudal nobles and kings — there will always be those who are protected from the structures they empower with their wealth.
  
  The question of whether or not states could remain as structures and evolve to finally serve the people, or whether true emancipation would only be possible through the abolishment of these structures; we need to explore these ideas in depth. Pyotr Kropotkin remains as one of the greatest critique of society to have ever lived, and his ability to give such a scathing critique in what is only a hundred or so pages is testament to his intellect and sharp eye for observation.
• 
  Tanja Janko

  Kropotkin has, without a doubt, an enormous historical significance, this book - considering it was written before the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban communist revolutions offers some compelling thoughts.
  
  I particularly appreciated his pragmatic approach and the trust he places in the abilities of the proletariat to handle the revolution.
  However, in the book he dismisses the “bad/evil” nature of people, which could damage the utopian dream he presented - he does not offer any preventive measures for the collapse of the anarchical systems.
  
  "All is interdependent in a civilized society; it is impossible to reform any one thing without altering the whole."
  
  “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 commercialism. It is high time for the worker to assert his right to common inheritance, and to enter into possession of it."
• 
  ash | spaceyreads

  Notes:
  
  • I don't do well with manifestos or similar texts - unfortunately I find they tend to inspire people that are already bought into the cause, and because I am new to anarchy, communism, and anarchist communism, I prefer to have a nuanced introduction into the issue and how it may intersect with different schools of thought;
  • His ideas have already been replicated in modern writing by modern anarchists - again, given my lack of understanding, I find it hard to understand how relevant his writing may be right now to specific modern concerns, like neoliberal capitalism, fourth wave feminism, the rise in inequality, and climate change;
  • I find it hard to draw out main points from his writing, perhaps because of his style of writing, and again, I've already seen some of these points demonstrated in other anti-capitalist, anarchist texts, and texts on political inequality, and race, class, and gender
• 
  Coltrane Bodbyl-Mast

  Despite my disagreements with Kropotkin, I do think he argues his point well, and at the time, there was not a lot which could properly contest his ideology. And, perhaps, at the dawn of the 20th century, his model may well have worked better than Lenin's- but now, it is uncertain. Kropotkin assumes a bonded people, one who are not atomized- one living in common struggle. While there are hints of this in the first world here and there, especially with unionizing efforts in customer service, it's disparate. Of course, this may just be exaggerating an otherwise not unique moment in history, but we are dealing with a population that are increasingly cyborgs in a most horrifying sense, increasingly distant from physical labor and ever more disconnected from their peers. The utopian ideal of Kropotkin truly is beautiful- but now is not its moment.
• 
  Joanie

  I'm not sure how to rate works that are formative pieces of European theory. This is an excellent foundational work on anarchist communism and I found a lot of it gripping and inspiring and somewhat frustrating to be here, over a hundred years later, still fighting for the "wellbeing of all." After he got into the means and strategies of revolution I kind of checked out because the political conditions are just so different today. I think Kropotkin's work pales a little in modern light because he's kind of Eurocentrist - although not UNcritical of colonialism - and has an unfettered positive attitude toward industry that ages a little poorly in the age of global warming. Giving this four stars just becuase it didn't really make it clear to me that this was just an excerpt so that's a little disappointing. Still, very easy introduction to Kropotkin and worth a read.
• 
  Amelia Morgan

  Peter Kropotkin was one of my key thinkers for anarchism for my politics A Level and someone who I studied for fun for my History A Level but he always stood out compared to other thinkers. I think his writings, while dated, simple and done before (and will be done again!), Still have a lot to offer. We need to remind ourselves that people writing at these times do not have the benefit of knowing how the modern world has enfolded and therefore have gotten just as much wrong as they did right.