Scan barcode
mizzzfortune's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.0
wickedmitch's review against another edition
4.0
Kropotkin does get a bit starry-eyed when it comes to describing his vision of an anarchist social order. However he is a skilled advocate for his position and makes a very compelling case for his vision even if I don’t agree with all his conclusions. I was also quite pleased with how readable this book is despite how long ago it was written.
nb_leftist's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
3.25
The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
One of the foundational texts of anarchist communism or anarcho-communism. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a required read, much better contemporary stuff but if you wanna see the genealogy of it, it’s worth checking out.
A lot of what he writes about relies on prometheanism, an ideology which prioritizes human needs over that of the ecosystem or other life. I’m not a fan of that but it was a prevailing idea at the time so it’s not necessarily something I can fault him for. On a more positive note, his observations on capitalism’s necessity for poverty and the resulting globalism (which he calls decentralization of production) are really cool to see. To counter globalism, he calls for higher amounts of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and—interestingly enough—urban agriculture. A lot of what Grace Lee Boggs calls for in “The Next American Revolution” is very similar and it’s cool to see that connection.
One of the foundational texts of anarchist communism or anarcho-communism. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a required read, much better contemporary stuff but if you wanna see the genealogy of it, it’s worth checking out.
A lot of what he writes about relies on prometheanism, an ideology which prioritizes human needs over that of the ecosystem or other life. I’m not a fan of that but it was a prevailing idea at the time so it’s not necessarily something I can fault him for. On a more positive note, his observations on capitalism’s necessity for poverty and the resulting globalism (which he calls decentralization of production) are really cool to see. To counter globalism, he calls for higher amounts of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and—interestingly enough—urban agriculture. A lot of what Grace Lee Boggs calls for in “The Next American Revolution” is very similar and it’s cool to see that connection.
crloken's review against another edition
4.0
I think people who characterize communism as being the worst of the Soviet Union should probably read this, as they may find that they agree with Kropotkin about a lot more than they think. Kropotkin has severe issues with state communists and authoritarians and thinks that ultimately these systems are doomed to fail. He also has severe problems with any capitalist system which he argues are built on exploitation.
Kropotkin's arguments against capitalism are fairly convincing. I especially appreciated his argument against the idea of the lone capitalist inventor, pointing out that even if he does it all on his own he is still working off of knowledge and technology discovered by others. We never do things completely on our own, and so for us to profit solely off of something many have worked for is not right. I find it pretty difficult to deny the pointless waste in capitalist countries: perfectly good food is thrown away while people starve, houses stay empty while people are forced to stay homeless, people work harder than they need to while others stay unemployed.
I also found his arguments against authoritarian states convincing. What I had more trouble with were some of his arguments of how an anarchist state would be run. I really would like to be convinced, but I don't quite buy it. The arguments for how people come together without direction are often referring to extraordinary situations, such as sinking ships, and I'm less convinced that this can be transferred to ordinary situations. I think we need some level of organization and agreement above just assuming people will take care of what needs to be done. I had a roommate once who seemed to think the only cleaning job was washing dishes, it's easy to come forward during exceptional situations but less so when its to do something like sweep the floor. I could be miss-characterizing his argument, but that's how I understood it.
Overall though it's a strong work and feels fairly immediate despite being over a century old. I think that in some circles the idea of communism has been demonized, and I think if people read more of these works it could at least help to show that communists aren't just secret totalitarians.
Kropotkin's arguments against capitalism are fairly convincing. I especially appreciated his argument against the idea of the lone capitalist inventor, pointing out that even if he does it all on his own he is still working off of knowledge and technology discovered by others. We never do things completely on our own, and so for us to profit solely off of something many have worked for is not right. I find it pretty difficult to deny the pointless waste in capitalist countries: perfectly good food is thrown away while people starve, houses stay empty while people are forced to stay homeless, people work harder than they need to while others stay unemployed.
I also found his arguments against authoritarian states convincing. What I had more trouble with were some of his arguments of how an anarchist state would be run. I really would like to be convinced, but I don't quite buy it. The arguments for how people come together without direction are often referring to extraordinary situations, such as sinking ships, and I'm less convinced that this can be transferred to ordinary situations. I think we need some level of organization and agreement above just assuming people will take care of what needs to be done. I had a roommate once who seemed to think the only cleaning job was washing dishes, it's easy to come forward during exceptional situations but less so when its to do something like sweep the floor. I could be miss-characterizing his argument, but that's how I understood it.
Overall though it's a strong work and feels fairly immediate despite being over a century old. I think that in some circles the idea of communism has been demonized, and I think if people read more of these works it could at least help to show that communists aren't just secret totalitarians.