Top lad or the toppest lad?

fun fact: market socialism is an oxymoron

you leftcoms are alright in my book
nothing is sacred, critique everything

He was an accomplished Geologist and contributed significantly to the accurate understanding of the geological history of Siberia. His work on cooperation in Evolution is outdated(like allmost everything on biology from that time period) but it contribute and has its rightful place among relevant historical works on evolution.

The war fair enough, not liking labour notes is a good thing though

Also the last three chapters are basically a history book not and academic book about evolution, really only the first chapter covers that, the rest is more anthropological

BASED

stalin wa a good boy he dint do nothin he just wanted to help out man he just wanted to grow the industry he didnt mean it he just sent all them people to the gulag by accident he didnt hurt nobody

I would be really surprised if that title wasn't held by some random unnamed Slav, likely from around the current territory of Poland.

1. A centralized society using labour notes is literally capitalism by another name

2. Germany was in the wrong in both World Wars

3. He rejected Marx's critique of political economy because it was ham-fisted and overly simplistic, lacking nuance about how the real world plays.

...

Germany was just honoring their contract with Austria Hungary. Austria decided to genocide Serbia after the assassination.
No side was particularly wrong.

Not to suck Kropotkin's dick or anything but:
His support of the Entente during the war was two fold. On the one hand, he didn't like Germany in the slightest (though was by no means the first or only person to express such sentiments). On the other hand, he did point out that, if Germany was pushed to defeat in the war, it would likely provide fertile ground for the revolution to overtake the crippled and failing state, providing a launching-pad for revolutionary aid through the rest of Europe given the central location. This turned out to be half-truth; revolution did occur, but it happened only after Russia had begun its own and it failed to take control.
Those weren't really new developments from Kropotkin though, he merely was among the most well-known proponents of such a position.
This was in large part due to his disdain of Bakunin's collectivism which relied too heavily on the labor notes as essentially the continuation of the wage system in that it denied the workers access to the products of their own labor (among other issues). This wasn't an incorrect critique necessarily, but rather unpragmatic if it is understood to be a fundamentally temporary measure.
His issue was mostly with Marx attempting to use scientific/mathematical language and models to try and convey his ideas rather than the ideas themselves, stating that such efforts were laughable as it was presented. This was largely "rectified" by later theorists like Pannekoek and Bordiga who expanded on those concepts, but that was mostly after Kropotkin had quieted from public life or had died.

No.

Anarchists have been the butt of Marxism for too much, even though they've definitely been buttheads:youtu.be/feepQg_Dx7U?t=12m14s.

The future of the real movement must and will involve the ruthless critique of Marxism with the spirit and principles of anarchism.

How?

Anti-Germanism doesn't just mean the hatred of Germans. Anti-German is a left position that has its roots in the '80s anti-war left movement in Germany itself. It's basically "communism yes, but Germany needs to die because Holocaust". See here for a historical overview of it and a critique of it that basically outs it as the idpol it is: thecharnelhouse.org/2015/03/05/the-anti-german-ideology-towards-a-critique-of-anti-german-communism/.

When I say that Kropotkin is similar to the anti-Germans, I say that because he followed the same pattern of condemning them with no actual regard for the class composition of Germany, just like the supposedly "socialist" anti-Germans do.

You literally don't understand the purely rationing function of labour notes and what centralization means for Marxists. I have absolutely no doubt that this is the case, although you're free to try and prove me wrong.

Every bourgeois nation even is in the wrong because is it is bourgeois. Marxist communism went into the split that formed the Third International which revealed who was truly anti-imperialism and pro-class war unconditionally led by Lenin, and Kropotkin triggered something similar in anarchism with N.B. Malatesta opposing him and his Manifesto of the Sixteen: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html.

Your post is ham-fisted, overly simplistic, lacking in nuance and most importantly: lacking the most generic understanding of Marx as evidenced by the very post.

I thought you weren't (I gave him an 8/10?), but you do end up doing so, sadly.

This is full dicksuckery. If you bring up Marx and Engels' anti-Slavic racism I'm not gonna defend it. That shit isn't just a historically-excusable position; it was already bullshit then.

This reminds me of the vulgar anti-imperialists of today: "if we particularly support the crushing of South Korea, our venerable comrades in the Democratic People's Republic will lead the way to communism!". Communism goes beyond this circular thinking; the belief that imperialism is first a doing but indeed first a being dependent on doings.

So not a truth, but a bullshit wager that could potentially have even been abated had the influence he had on international anarchy instead been in support of ending the gruesome murder of workers by other works and a true class war against bourgeois society. Truly worthwhile of USSR-era whataboutism.

Kropotkin was incredibly influential on this, and again it's like me excusing Marx for his treatment of the anarchists in the IWA. Fuck, at best I can understand his motives and his reaction to anti-semitism provoked by his critiques, but I can't excuse it at all.

Again, he didn't just get to this complete splitting with Bakunin, Malatesta, et cetera with no consequences. It legitimately factionalized anarchism on a gigantic scale, something never seen before.

Here again I contend that Kropotkin proved either incapable of actually understanding the implications of society's centralization and labour notes (not very likely), or that he was incapable of actually providing even the other anarchists outside of the Marxists with any good actual arguments against them (more likely), which is what made the split so rough and alienating in international anarchism.

Look at my first post again. I literally say it to you, and so does Marx if you read him: Marx and Marxism do not present themselves as a science, and every instance of formulae and cycle representations into sequences are merely there to visually represent theory.

You know what was even more laughable? The fact that in this instance Kropotkin showed himself not to just primitively precurse anti-Germanism before, but also Molyneux: by having no arguments.

First of all, why not mention Bukharin here, the most disciplinarily accomplished of the three examples I mentioned? And second, where did you get the idea that Pannekoek and Bordiga "expanded" on Marx or Marxism when they were Marxists: the type of people not to pass something inherently theoretical as scientific?

Pannekoek, outside of assaulting Darwinism from the Marxist POV and being a groundbreaking astronomer, wrote on Kropotkin's very good theories of mutual aid as they came out. In the milieu of the time, where Kropotkin came out, there is no doubt that he read them and knew about them. Kropotkin was just as much of a butthead as Marx would have been were he still alive, and it's frankly completely fucking gay that you give him the succ for it despite promising us you wouldn't.

Kropotkin's still a strong 8/10 tbh.

Always marry Kropotkin. Hes just such a cute grandpa

Bretty gud, but Malatesta needs more love.

But the ass is the best part.

leftcoms on this board have the best takes and highest effort. i've been saying this since forever that if you ignore some of the smug this is true.

It only appears high effort because they use 100 words where 10 is necessary and quote at length in almost every post, usually accompanied by the same spammed links

ehhh naah

The leftcom criticism of Rojava is that capitalist relations aren't abolished, not that "it's not important", whatever that means.

Nah, best takes go to the Zizekfag.

What all ultra critiques of Rojava desperately try to point out is something else. They all acknowledge that Rojava is immensely important, first as a geopolitical player in the SCW and, if it survives, will also be in the greater ME too.

What they try to address is the real context of what happens there politically. Beyond what is an admirable assault against ISIS and locals that have terrorized the Kurdish people for decades now, lie many big questions, like: is the project in any meaningful way proletarian in character; does it have any such prospects; how does Rojava's desire to federalize into Syria manifest itself and, beyond all online left pretenses and mostly the Graeberite propping up of the situation as "revolutionary", is there really any such thing as a meaningful prospect to go beyond capitalism there, whether it is bourgeois or not?

I think they've until now been more generous than that. The total negation of capitalism does not happen over night. What matters is, is there really any prospect for this, or will we have another one on the list of disappointments when all things are said and done?