Product Description

Important writings by the leading theorist of anarchism, including the brief but moving "Spirit of Revolt," "Law and Authority," an argument for social control through custom and education; "Prisons and Their Moral Influence on Prisoners," an unparalleled description of the evils of the prison system, and other documents. An invaluable addition to the libraries of instructors, students, and anyone interested in history, government, and anarchist thought.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #111349 in Books
• Published on: 2002-01-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780486419558
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Customer Reviews

Outmoded but certainly worth the read
Prince Peter Kropotkin was the first thinker since William Godwin to construct a full system of anarcho-collectivism. This collection consists of a bunch of satisfying niblets (yes, niblets) of that system, some better than others.

First, anyone into anarchism has got to read Kropotkins essay of that title for the Encyclopedia Britannica. It has to be the clearest written, most well-stated short intro around. His essay on "The Anarchist Morality (written oddly enough as a retort to some kids who, after stealing some books, justified it with "To each according to his need.")The early essays, which take us through the first hundred-or-so pages are the best, as they get into the underlying theory of anarchism and what "sponteneous order" might look like. Of course "Modern Science and Anarchism" is a complete misnomer because the essay is heavy on philosophical speculation with not much scientific speculation. The latter essays are more-or-less historical propoganda and will be of interest to the history student.

Still, in a world of inarticulate and often unsavory characters, Kropotkin comes off as astute, thoughtful, clear and insightful. Of course, science has (done its best to?)prove Kropotkin wrong on his altruistic evolutionary theories. Even modern "reciprical altruists" in the wake of Dawkins, Wilson and Ridley are looking less altruistic and more reciprical. I guess only time will tell. Hmmmm....

Anarchism as it should be explained
Kropotkin writes with the heart of one true to his ideals, with depth that Marx cannot reach, and intelligence that few can exceed. Revolutionary and scientist, this anti-aristocratic man of aristocratic birth explains elegantly and pleasantly the sound empirical foundations of his theory of anarchist philosophy. From the bottom up, he creates his compelling arguments in support of a world where all men and women are equal, where private property is abolished, and all work together, freely and voluntarily for the common and individual good. The libertarian communism of Kropotkin inspires orders of magnitude beyond the authoritarian communism described by Marx. His pamphlets, contained in the book, bring to life this long maligned political philosophy called anarchism. If you read these works and walk away without a sympathetic view towards anarchism, you have either not truly read them or your soul has become poisoned with the dark sufferings of life under capitalism.

Historically important, but charmingly naïve
This collection of anarchist writings by Peter Kropotkin is important historically for the inspiration it provided to other revolutionaries, but the understanding of human nature and social dynamics is charmingly optimistic and naïve.

Kropotkin was one of the best thinkers and writers of the Russian revolutionary philosophers. He was born a noble and renounced his title. He was trained as a Tsarist army officer and became an opponent of the Tsar and supporter of the serfs. He was educated as a military geographer in a time when this was synonymous with 'spy', and became an expatriate supporting his fellow anarchists, communists, and other revolutionaries. He inspired a number of other folks from his end of the political spectrum including Lenin, but his family refused a Soviet state funeral when he passed away. He spent several hours chatting with Jefferson Davis' widow and Booker Washington one afternoon. He travelled throughout Europe, America, and Siberia. Quite the character. This is a collection of his short writings, selected to represent his beliefs as succinctly and thoroughly as possible.

His statement of the problem that concerned him is clear; "The chasm between the modern millionaire who squanders the produce of human labor in a gorgeous and vain luxury, and the pauper reduced to a miserable and insecure existance". His answer is the absense of a 'coersive' government and only professional organizations grouped by function, i.e. a rail coalition, a postal league, a carpenters union, etc. Prisons, the most extreme case of government coersion, would be done away with and offenders, even the most hardened violent offenders would be given a stringent regimen of hugs until they were ready to be nice.

And therein we find the naïveté. Kropotkin's fundamental failing was his inability to understand the predatory nature of humans. His vision of social justice and order would be a trivial challenge to a high functioning and charismatic sociopath, like Slobodan Milosovic, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro. Donald Trump (Not that Donald Trump is a high functioning sociopath, just that he is the archtypical capitolist) could subvert Kropotkin's egalitarian vision without straining himself. It also depended on the absense of competition for resources, which would be the most bizarre notion to someone from an Arab or Central Asian culture. And it requires a world without competition, which is a surreal assumption as populations increase and resources remain constant at best, but more often are dimininshing. His vision is utopian, but completely disconnected from the realities of his world in the last half of the nineteenth century and only worse in the first half of the twenty-first century.

Kropotkin must have been a very nice person, and a very unhappy one, as are most people who have a well developed and defined vision of how things should be, but have not allowed for human nature. He wanted people to be passionate about their work, regardless of their trade. He believed everyone should work with their hands in addition to whatever intellectual endeavor they pursued. He believed in a classless and just society.

To bad he didn't apply equal effort to solving lesser problems that could be fixed rather than chasing an unobtainable ideal.

E. M. Van Court