What does Holla Forums think of the works of Peter Kropotkin...

What does Holla Forums think of the works of Peter Kropotkin? I've just learned of him as the "Father of Anarcho-Communism" and I thought I'd ask you guys.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17#toc32
spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html
gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
marxist.com/meeting-lenin-kropotkin-bonc-brujevic1919.htm

Lord and saviour of the left

Bamp for Interest!
Never heard of this guy. . .

Mutual aid: a factor in evolution is my favourite leftist book bar none, even kapital.

The perfect foil to social Darwinist bs

explain why you hate science?

I'm not even surprised

Hey. I'm a Newfag from Holla Forums. I just wanted to use a Flag 'cause you have flags and we don't. Flags are cool and I thought the Satan looked cool. I'm Sorry. I'll be a Nazi again.

Sure thing buddy

welp I thought you were one of those regular too-edgy-for-pol-too-edgy-for-leftypol faggots who post on here

Care to elaborate?

It does not follow the scientific method, and is therefore not science. Do you read the horoscope, too?

The better average survival rates of the strongest and most well prepared social organisms is Pseudo-Science?
Do you read Christian anti-Machiavels?

why are you a Not Socialist?

This thread seems to have gotten off-Topic . . .
Could we get back on the point?

Kropotkin is pretty good and he demonstrates how mutual aid, not competition has shaped the human species.
I still favour anarchist collectivism over anarcho-communism, but I am basically fine with all anarchist tendencies.

I'm a Not Socialist, well kinda, because I think it is the duty of the state to support the People and stop the people from destroying themselves, though the level to which calling yourself a "Nazi" pisses faggots off is a big plus. But, I don't hate Jews or Blacks or anybody really, So I left Holla Forums and I'm looking for a new place to shitpost.

Wait a fucking second . . .
National Socialist . . . N a t i o n a l socialist
Does your board automatically change Nazi to "Not Socialist" ?

It doesn't change Nazi, but it does change National Socialist, since we hold the belief that National Socialism has nothing to do with Socialism.

Mutual aid is scientific debunking of the concept you moron. Social Darwinism was the pseudo intellectual bastardisation of darwins ideas, which does not even cohere to darwins works in any meaningful way other Han both being evolutionary theories

By this I presume you mean, "best at co-operating with the environment and other species" because all the evidence suggests that is the key evolutionary trait.

a variety of skills is needed to maintain a society, not a homogeny.

survival of the fittest, the fittest means "good at team work"

I don't understand some of the things social-darwiniggers say to justify their tripe. People have been avoiding "natural selection" since the beginning of things like shelter, cooking and clothes, which would prevent the "weak" from dying of bacterial infection and exposure, and thus being able to pass on their genes.

It's doubly weird, since all the ones I've spoken to try to mix it up with some "the jews have made us stray from our natural life!!! WE WUZ CAYVEMEN AND SHIEEET!"

*unable

fugg

Social darwinism is not a blanket term for applying understandings of biology on society; it was a specific interpretation of Darwinism applied in a specific manner to society, one that has been long discredited.

Going back to topic, Kropotkin was quite an important fellow as he not only refuted the social darwinist notion that "survival of the fittest" always means "survival of the individually strongest", but also began the shift from being the sort of individualistic, we-don't-like-capitalism-but-don't-really-know-how-to-completely-remove-it anarchism that Proudhon advocated to the social anarchy tendencies of Anarcho-Communism and syndicalism championed today.

...

Anyone got that "You wouldn't download bread" thing with Kropotkin on it.

Peter Kropotkin, a member of the Russian nobility and a member of the imperial Rurik dynasty, abandoned his princely title and pursued a lifetime of advocacy for the sciences, the poor and working classes, and for global anarchist and communist revolution. He inspired a generation of science advocates to become anarchists and communists.

"Knowledge is an immense power. Man must know. But we already know much! What if that knowledge — and only that — should become the possession of all? Would not science itself progress in leaps, and cause mankind to make strides in production, invention, and social creation, of which we are hardly in a condition now to measure the speed?"

His work reached across cultures to inspire the first anarchists in Japan and China. The most mainstream intellectual of anarchist thought in the early 20th century, he was asked to provide an entry for the philosophy for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in so doing wrote one of the most accessible overviews of the philosophy at the time, and was the first to identify Zeno the Stoic as a forerunner for libertarian socialist thought. He even reached Oscar Wilde's heart, so that the poet referred to Kropotkin as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia".

This same man who, in his authoritarian mindset, increased sectarian tendencies in the UK anarchist scene by his divisive denunciations. His anti-German sentiment drove him to support the Allies against the Central powers in the Great War which sowed division among anarchists near the end of his life. He lost friends and allies, and nearly was alone near the end of his life.

"It is very painful for me to oppose an old and beloved friend like Kropotkin, who has done so much for the cause of anarchism. But for the very reason that Kropotkin is so much esteemed and loved by us all, it is necessary to make known that we do not follow him in his utterances on the war…" – Errico Malatesta

Seeing the revolution in his homeland in Russia drove him in a final pilgrimage home, where he wanted to provide influence and leadership to the Russian anarchist cause. Once there, he saw it die around him when the Bolsheviks took power, and wrote "this buries the revolution." In a letter to Lenin, he wrote, "Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.
"Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? … If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages."

He fell ill and died a year later. So great was his popularity, that the Bolsheviks sought to use his casket for propaganda purposes, and dressed the event up as the death of a martyr for their cause. At the funeral march, they allowed political prisoners and anarchists to walk behind his body. It was the last time anarchists were allowed to gather for any demonstration in the Soviet Union. But he did not die brokenhearted. In a letter to a friend in the final year of his life, he wrote, "You know how I always believe in the future … Without disorder, the revolution is impossible; knowing that, I did not lose hope, and I do not lose it now."

He did a lot to grow and hurt the cause for which he gave up the aristocratic power he was born into, and died with nothing to show for it, but the strength of his ideas continue to inspire those who read them, and for that I'm glad you've brought his attention to those on this board who are unfamiliar with him.

"We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government. … I confess that I have always viewed Kropotkin as daftly idiosyncratic, if undeniably well meaning. … he was a man of strange politics and unworkable ideals, wrenched from the context of his youth, a stranger in a strange land …" – Stephen Jay Gould

first post best post.
Kropotkin is best girl. Mutual Aid should be required readings for anyone on the left, even tankies.
once you take away muh survival of the fittest, muh human nature, the right has no real argument left.

Kropotkin is pretty cool, and I think that at times contemporary anarchist theory and modern anarchists are a bit too eager to reject all the classics. His ideas are more of less the basis for the economy of anarchy - unless you are an individualist/mutualist anarchist I guess. I personally think that communism would be the way to go for some hypothetical anarchist society, but I guess markets would be a good solution if scarcity were to arise. Though whether or not individualist/mutualist economics would provide food, shelter, education, and other basic commodities to everyone for free and otherwise use currency for scare items/luxury items is really the main question I have over individualism (not that "individualism" is even fucking limited to market economics, but whatever) versus communism, because if individualism doesn't provide these things then it's not really that much better than capitalism IMO. Plus, fuck work and fuck wages and FUCK private property.

But in any event I think that Kropotkin is pretty much essential reading for anyone interested in anarchist theory. Even if you think his ideas are too limited and old fashioned (and IMO they are in a lot of ways even if they do quite extensively cover questions of economics), he's still worthwhile for understanding how classical anarchism differs from contemporary anarchism.

Really?

I'm not even surprised.

"An"coms and their descendants are fucking stupid.

that's a quote from Useful Idiot, not Hitler.
We just had a fucking thread about this.

Do a search by yourself, Nazis hate Capitalism too, and all the spastic shit spew sounds like spastic socialist bullshit to me.

Nazis pretend to hate capitalism, but Nazi Germany was essentially a corporatist state ruled by the military and the captains of industry.

"We don't like capitalism, but we use capitalism, but in our own way that it's not capitalism.."

IT'S PURE IDEOLOGY!

Hitler's first effort to rethink marxism:
Failed because they are all "jews". Hitler's socialism comes from Christian-Socialists movement he's been into for a long time. It has a lot of conservative values strapped upon its name of "socialism". Marxism is the basics of socialism and it was abolished because "all marxists are jews".

All Nazi shills of today are no different from Hitler. They all blame shit on joos like he did.

Let me guess… the USSR was not communist?

Stop with the retardation.

USSR was not communist. That's truth.

Actually USSR was socialist.

The USSR was not in any way communist, according to the most basic definition of communism, which is first and foremost stateless. Are you even trying?


Nope.

So what toy are saying is that Cristians cant be socialists.

what a fucking load of bullshit.

Nazi Germany basically was Nationalist Communism.

Excellent post nigga

"Christian" can't be socialist. Because he is supervised by upper cast of rich priests, who hide a lot of wealth inside their churches.

drop your flag, you're an absolute disgrace to anyone who calls himself anarchist

I Knew it commies always bite that hook.

Is there any substantial difference between Socialism and Communism?

because I cant.

Nazis aren't anticapitalist: they're just Keynesian by a different name. They still uphold the same systems of private ownership over the means of production, labor exploitation, capital accumulation, and markets. They just support nationalization of certain important industries and regulation of the markets (to an extent anyways, mostly insofar as to allow the state to effectively seize control over non-nationalized industries when they see fit). Still, private ownership was the name of the game, and Nazi lauded itself as being class collaborative.


The state formation was founded on communist principles, but it never even got close to achieving communism. By Lenin's own admission, what was established in the USSR was state capitalism. This was a system that was theoretically to be phased out after sufficient infrastructural and industrial development took place, but there was little incentive to do so once power was concentrated into the hands of non-democratic state administration. At BEST you could claim the USSR was socialist if you consider state ownership to be "worker's ownership" by extension of being a "worker's state," but that viewpoint mostly hinges on belief in the legitimacy of said state as a representation of the working class. Most Communists today tend not to support the USSR past Lenin (if that even) for this reason.

Christianity is not necessarily organized
T. Former christian

Live and let live, you bastard, if they want to worship an imaginary friend, then it's fine, as long as they don't mess with me.

who the fuck you think you are?
The Anarchist police of the "Stateless" Catalunia?

Socialism is a broad term that describes a system in which workers own the means of production, which can take a lot of forms (state or no state, markets or fully collectivized, etc).

Communism takes socialism a step forward by abolishing the state and class all together, creating a system where property (private, not necessarily personal) is held in common by the community as a whole rather than concentrating into the hands of the few at the expense of many.

Christian-socialists sound like an organization made by priests to me.

They will continue to exploit your workers though. And try to get into your economics. Religious leaders are politicians and businessmen in disguise. And they can bribe anyone.

What about the Drugs? Alcohol? or Cigarettes? are you going to abolish them as well? because they drain the income of the workers, it's almost like voluntary exploitation by it's users.
but to me everyone is free to do what ever they want, so if some one wants to be religious let them be, it's not of your damned business.

Ok
Citation needed.
Keynesians are thieves, just like the “workers” that want to steal the means of production that they never bought and never owned.
The Nazi Germany (state) owns all the means of production, just like the USSR did, or the "Anarchists" in Catalonia that stole pigs from houses and then come back give you food stamps.

That’s exactly why I grew tired of Ancommies, they talk a lot of horse shit without even citing their information, just like Ancaps you spew your dogmatic prayers to answer a question, simplify it the next time angry cat.

tbh this is actually kind of true

Basically Communism.


If the Workers own the means of production the classes are gone there would be no boss.

And what do you think? Being religious was considered the same as being an alcoholic in USSR.

Add to that famous marx works about opiate.

I believe we should make agitations against religion, but let people do at their homes what the want, as long as they don't build anything or organize their practices.

I didn't knew that do you have something where I can read about it?


I haven't read it can you link it.


an Objective Information campaign would be Ok.


100%


No, if its inside their domains, territory or property, I would let them do what ever they want.
as long as they don't bother me.

Read some of the dialogues between Hitler and Useful Idiot. Useful Idiot was, as the word filter implies, a useful idiot, but he appeared to at least be somewhat genuine about his socialist undercurrents. Hitler had him and his kind purged from the party for those views. Hitler

Let's think for a moment what sort of policies the Nazi government took part in. Large-scale economic interventionism, large social spending backed by debt during times of depression, regulation of business, etc. Hell, I'd even say nationalization of certain industries (again), but they actually scaled back on that comparatively speaking, just with increased government oversight.
Obviously there's a bit more to it than that, but the point is that it was just a slightly more controlled version of Keynes' ideas on CAPITALIST economics. The point of such ideas, as stated by the theorists themselves, was to prevent socialists rising to prominence in times of economic downturn: essentially life support for capitalism born out of the failures of classical economic theory.

Hardly. For one, in a Keynesian economy, money still flows to the capitalist class predominantly. You confuse Keynesian theory with ideas of direct wealth redistribution: Keynes' advocacy was for government intervention in the capitalist economy first and foremost, with only some indirect redistributive efforts put forward though public programs that were usually available to members of multiple strata of society.
Secondly, the capitalist only own the means of production in the first place due to having accumulated prior capital that was already based on the exploited labor of prior workers. It's a self-sustaining system that maintains the power (and usually sustains the composition) of the existing ruling class.

See pdf

Glad to see we're being intellectual about this.
Here's some bits where Lenin talks about the USSR and state capitalism. Keep in mind that state capitalism and socialism (and communism of course) are mutually exclusive.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

There's a difference in that socialism is a transitional position. You can have socialism while still having a state. You can have socialism while still having markets. You can have socialism while having both of the above simultaneously. You cannot have either of these things in a communist society.

Not them, but it's this text

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

They missed a key point, the aim of communism is to build a post scarcity society

To help you get your head around it think of it this way, for information as data… Movies, music, scientific papers etc technologically we are already there

polite sage

thank you I will read it.

but you still have to pay, for some new or exclusive content, there would be no incentive to create something new, if you cant gain profit from it.
do you catch me?

yea dude I remember all those artists who created great works because they wanted money true great works come from genuine interest, not from petty goals of money
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17#toc32

Said no one ever.

but I will give it a read.

He had some kind of utilitarian view on morals (ie. an action is "good" if it benefit society as a result) and I find it ambiguous. Otherwise he made some good points and his books are easy to read.

I would say that it's more that for works of genius it's more obsession and drive

Neither Mozart with his Requim, or Karl Marx with Das Kapital were driven by a profit motive. In fact in both cases they were racing against death to complete their works which were released post-humorously the psychoanalyst would refer to this as the Death Drive

In the case of science not so much, scientists are driven by the need to publish and the recognition they receive, in fact the german technological superiority of the 1800s to mid 1900s can be attributed to their lack of copyright laws for a time

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html

As for music and movies, consider that there is now more recorded music, and probably the same for movies than a person can consume in their lifetime

gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
what Stalin poster said

I think his idea was that in an ancom society actions that benifited the society would in turn benefit the individual itself as well, without one being sacrificed for the other.

...

Yeah, but they are very rare cases.


Competition > Cooperation

Ok, but they are special cases, just like Mozart and Marx for example.


Ideas should be free, the lack of copyright laws back me, but you still have to pay the Constant Capital and the Variable Capital if not there would be no incentive to create.

The vast majority of cases of scientific, technological, and artistic advancement come from those obsessed with the subject and not profit, especially considering the process of innovation is painstaking and non-profitable.

Regular people aren't obsessed with majestic Technological Projects or Discovering the Universe.

Be Realistic.

the_cooking_of_bread.pdf

A meeting between V.I. Lenin and P. A. Kropotkin
marxist.com/meeting-lenin-kropotkin-bonc-brujevic1919.htm

National Socialist

REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS
REED IT NIGGAS

Book read nigger

Calm down your Autism is showing.

Did you copy-paste this from somewhere? It's great. Screencapped just in case this is your original work.

YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT COOPERATIVES AND SYNDICATES BRO
YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT HOW I TOOK OVER THE SOVIETS BRO
STOP TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL POWER TO THE PEOPLE WE NEED A VANGUARD PARTY OK

You could have prevented this
t. doom Kropotkin

whats the difference between anarcho-communism and anarchism and communism?

Communism is the end (post-capitalist, not really the end of human societal development) stage that all/most leftists work to or believe will come about by itself. Anarcho-communism is a fleshed out system of how this would work without the need for a central planned state or horizontal structure, as well as how it can be implemented without the need for the socialist transitional period most Marxists believe in.

not him, but your post sounds like unfounded skepticism to me

There's some christians who feel they must dogmatically follow a strict church hierarchy, but there are others who shun human hierarchy, believing only god to be a worthy and inherent authority.

t. another former christian

It's original. If you want to hold on to it, I recommend cleaning it up a bit. It was somewhat rushed because I needed sleep. The details aren't wrong, but I didn't structure it with enough information or quotes. There's so much more to say. That and I didn't write the sentences as well as I could have, and it's a bit "comma happy" at points. I don't say this to tear it down, but if you want to rewrite it, just use this as a draft and take these points as suggestions.

I didn't touch on his exile from Russia; his initial support and eventual rejection of Propaganda of the Deed; his arrest on suspicion that he was involved in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand; or that he had been invited to participate in the Bolshevik party in Russia after the October Revolution, but he refused on the basis of his anarchist principles. I also could have thrown in more quotes from him. Look him up. I was one of the co-founders of the anarchist task force of editors on Wikipedia a few years ago, and we had updated quite a few articles related to him or about other anarchist thinkers like him.

"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold…. I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings… Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realize that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods … What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?" - A letter from Kropotkin addressed to Lenin, dated 21 December 1920.

You're doing god's Kropotkin's work user

he has his ideals