What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchism, Anarchist Communism, and The State: Three Essays
Amid the clashes, complexities, and political personalities of world politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Peter Kropotkin stands out. Born a prince in Tsarist Russia, sent to Siberia to learn his militaristic, aristocratic trade, he instead renounced his titles and took up the 'beautiful idea' of anarchism. Across a continent he would become known as a passionate advocate of a world without borders, without kings and bosses. From a Russian cell to France, to London and Brighton, he used his extraordinary mind to dissect the birth of State power and then present a different vision, one in which the human impulse to liberty can be found throughout history, undying even in times of defeat. In the three essays presented here, Kropotkin attempted to distill his many insights into brief but brilliant essays on the state, anarchism, and the ideology for which he became a founding nameanarchist communism. With a detailed and rich introduction from Brian Morris, and accompanied by bibliographic notes from Iain McKay, this collection contextualises and contemporises three of Kropotkin's most influential essays.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
160 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 6, 2019
5 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
About the author
Pyotr Kropotkin
384 books973 followersPyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, prince, Russian anarchist, and political philosopher, greatly influenced movements throughout the world and maintained that cooperation, not competition, the means, bettered the human condition.
Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин, other spelling: Pëtr Kropotkin, Pierre Kropotkine), who described him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ, which seems coming." He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops , and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . He also contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition .
Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин, other spelling: Pëtr Kropotkin, Pierre Kropotkine), who described him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ, which seems coming." He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops , and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . He also contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 6, 2023
Kropotkin is compelling when he's talking about the irrationality of class society. And I agree with the basic idea of the unity of radicalism and socialism. But I think his arguments on "free agreements" and other features of anarchism don't really make much sense. Or, at least, I can imagine a situation where society has evolved to that point, but the idea that it would spontaneously generate out of a social revolution seems pretty absurd. He gives railroads as an example of something that could be run on free agreements instead of rigorous laws, which I feel like is probably the opposite.
October 15, 2023
TWO ESSAYS EXPLAINING ANARCHISM, AND ITS RELATION TO COMMUNISM
[NOTE: this review pertains to the two articles, ‘Anarchism’ and ‘Anarchist Communism’ that were edited by Nicolas Walter, and published by Freedom Books in 1987.]
Editor Nicholas Walter explains in his Introduction, “‘Anarchist Communism’ first appeared in 1887 as a pair of articles in ‘The Nineteenth Century,’ the leading monthly paper … The titles of the two articles were significant—‘The Scientific Bases of Anarchy’ (February 1887) would remind readers of the positivist tradition … This pair of articles was by no means Kropotkin’s first or last or fullest summary of anarchist theory in general or anarchist communism in particular… But ‘Anarchist Communism’ is distinguished by being particularly clear and straightforward. ‘Anarchism’ was written in 1905… This article was by no means Kropotkin’s first and fullest summary of anarchist history… Both ‘Anarchism’ and ‘Anarchist Communism’ were frequently reprinted and translated into other languages for half a century… Nevertheless a qualification should be entered. Kropotkin was during his life… the best-known anarchist writer… But he was never accepted as an authority, even by his closest associates… but he was in many ways a pioneer, and his philosophical and historical ideas … still are important to the anarchist ideology.
Kropotkin begins ‘Amarchism’ with the statement, “Anarchism … the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government---harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations … would… substitute themselves for the State in all its functions.” (Pg. 7)
He explains, “the Anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of---not for increasing and widening the powers of the State, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “the present writer[‘s] aim [was] to prove that Communism … has more chances of being established than Collectivism… and that Free, or Anarchist, Communism is the only form of Communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies. Communism and Anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable… during a revolutionary period, a large city---if its inhabitants have accepted the idea---could organize itself on the lines of Free Communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, I exchange for a half-day’s, or a five-day’s work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by every one if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims---educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on.” (Pg. 19-20)
He begins ‘Anarchist Communism’ by explaining, “Anarchy, the No-Government system of Socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economical and the political fields which characterize our century, and especially its second part. In common with all Socialists, the Anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And, in common with the most advanced representatives of political Radicalism, they maintain that the idea of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations---freely constituted---all the infinitely varied needs of the human being. As regards Socialism, most of the Anarchists arrive at its ultimate conclusions, that is, at a complete negation of the wage system and at Communism.” (Pg. 23)
He observes, “It has thus become obvious that a further advance in social life does not lie in the direction of a further concentration of power and regulative functions in the hands of a governing body, but in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional---in a subdivision of public functions with respect both to their sphere of action and to the character of the functions; it is in the abandonment to the initiative of freely constituted groups of all those functions which are now considered as the functions of government.” (Pg. 28)
He notes, ‘a walk through the rich shops of any city and a glance at the manner in which money is squandered now, can give an approximate idea of this indirect limitation. When a rich man spends a thousand pounds for his stables, he squanders five or six thousand days of human labor, which might be use, under a better social organization, for supplying with comfortable homes those who are compelled to live now in dens… Preachers thunder against luxury… But the economist sees more than that in our modern luxury: when millions of days of labor are spent every year for the satisfaction of the stupid vanity of the rich, he says that so many millions of workers have bene diverted from the manufacture of those useful instruments which would permits us to decouple and centuple our present production of means of subsistence and of requisites for comfort.” (Pg. 35)
He points out, “Education is the privilege of the few. Not because we can find no teachers, not because the workman’s son and daughter are less able to receive instruction, but because one can receive no reasonable instruction when at the age of fifteen he descends into the mine, or goes selling newspapers in the streets. Society becomes divided into two hostile camps; and no freedom is possible under such conditions.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “most of the Anarchists maintain that the very next step to be made by society, as soon as the present regime of property undergoes a modification, will be in a Communist sense. We are Communists. But our Communism is not that of either the Phalanstery or the authoritarian school: it is Anarchist Communism, Communism without government, free Communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims prosecuted by humanity since the synthesis of the two chief aims prosecuted by humanity since the dawn o history---economical freedom and political freedom.” (Pg. 45)
He asserts, “When I see writers who boast that they are the workers, and write that the manual workers are an inferior race of lazy and improvident fellows, I must ask them: Who, then, made all you see round you; the houses you live in, the chairs, the carpets, the streets you enjoy, the clothes you wear? Who built the universities where you were taught… And what would become of your readiness to ‘work,’ if you were compelled to work in the above conditions all your life at a pin’s head? No doubt, anyhow YOU would be reported as a lazy fellow!” (Pg. 54)
This book will be of great interest to those studying Kropotkin, and Anarchism.
[NOTE: this review pertains to the two articles, ‘Anarchism’ and ‘Anarchist Communism’ that were edited by Nicolas Walter, and published by Freedom Books in 1987.]
Editor Nicholas Walter explains in his Introduction, “‘Anarchist Communism’ first appeared in 1887 as a pair of articles in ‘The Nineteenth Century,’ the leading monthly paper … The titles of the two articles were significant—‘The Scientific Bases of Anarchy’ (February 1887) would remind readers of the positivist tradition … This pair of articles was by no means Kropotkin’s first or last or fullest summary of anarchist theory in general or anarchist communism in particular… But ‘Anarchist Communism’ is distinguished by being particularly clear and straightforward. ‘Anarchism’ was written in 1905… This article was by no means Kropotkin’s first and fullest summary of anarchist history… Both ‘Anarchism’ and ‘Anarchist Communism’ were frequently reprinted and translated into other languages for half a century… Nevertheless a qualification should be entered. Kropotkin was during his life… the best-known anarchist writer… But he was never accepted as an authority, even by his closest associates… but he was in many ways a pioneer, and his philosophical and historical ideas … still are important to the anarchist ideology.
Kropotkin begins ‘Amarchism’ with the statement, “Anarchism … the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government---harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations … would… substitute themselves for the State in all its functions.” (Pg. 7)
He explains, “the Anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of---not for increasing and widening the powers of the State, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “the present writer[‘s] aim [was] to prove that Communism … has more chances of being established than Collectivism… and that Free, or Anarchist, Communism is the only form of Communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies. Communism and Anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable… during a revolutionary period, a large city---if its inhabitants have accepted the idea---could organize itself on the lines of Free Communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, I exchange for a half-day’s, or a five-day’s work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by every one if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims---educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on.” (Pg. 19-20)
He begins ‘Anarchist Communism’ by explaining, “Anarchy, the No-Government system of Socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economical and the political fields which characterize our century, and especially its second part. In common with all Socialists, the Anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And, in common with the most advanced representatives of political Radicalism, they maintain that the idea of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations---freely constituted---all the infinitely varied needs of the human being. As regards Socialism, most of the Anarchists arrive at its ultimate conclusions, that is, at a complete negation of the wage system and at Communism.” (Pg. 23)
He observes, “It has thus become obvious that a further advance in social life does not lie in the direction of a further concentration of power and regulative functions in the hands of a governing body, but in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional---in a subdivision of public functions with respect both to their sphere of action and to the character of the functions; it is in the abandonment to the initiative of freely constituted groups of all those functions which are now considered as the functions of government.” (Pg. 28)
He notes, ‘a walk through the rich shops of any city and a glance at the manner in which money is squandered now, can give an approximate idea of this indirect limitation. When a rich man spends a thousand pounds for his stables, he squanders five or six thousand days of human labor, which might be use, under a better social organization, for supplying with comfortable homes those who are compelled to live now in dens… Preachers thunder against luxury… But the economist sees more than that in our modern luxury: when millions of days of labor are spent every year for the satisfaction of the stupid vanity of the rich, he says that so many millions of workers have bene diverted from the manufacture of those useful instruments which would permits us to decouple and centuple our present production of means of subsistence and of requisites for comfort.” (Pg. 35)
He points out, “Education is the privilege of the few. Not because we can find no teachers, not because the workman’s son and daughter are less able to receive instruction, but because one can receive no reasonable instruction when at the age of fifteen he descends into the mine, or goes selling newspapers in the streets. Society becomes divided into two hostile camps; and no freedom is possible under such conditions.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “most of the Anarchists maintain that the very next step to be made by society, as soon as the present regime of property undergoes a modification, will be in a Communist sense. We are Communists. But our Communism is not that of either the Phalanstery or the authoritarian school: it is Anarchist Communism, Communism without government, free Communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims prosecuted by humanity since the synthesis of the two chief aims prosecuted by humanity since the dawn o history---economical freedom and political freedom.” (Pg. 45)
He asserts, “When I see writers who boast that they are the workers, and write that the manual workers are an inferior race of lazy and improvident fellows, I must ask them: Who, then, made all you see round you; the houses you live in, the chairs, the carpets, the streets you enjoy, the clothes you wear? Who built the universities where you were taught… And what would become of your readiness to ‘work,’ if you were compelled to work in the above conditions all your life at a pin’s head? No doubt, anyhow YOU would be reported as a lazy fellow!” (Pg. 54)
This book will be of great interest to those studying Kropotkin, and Anarchism.
December 16, 2025
Somewhat dry and dense. The third essay “The State: Its Historic Role” might have been the best of the three. Some of the concepts throughout the book were news to me. I appreciated the challenge to Malthusian ideas of population as prejudices that boiled down to English middle-class snobbery against the lower classes who “couldn’t figure out how to put a condom on” (my words). Agriculture and technology produces an abundance of food that could feed millions of people if we only allowed it.
I’m not enough of an evolutionary scientist or historian to judge these claims of Kropotkin’s but it’s certainly heady stuff. It’s not taught in schools very widely, this concept that the state — centralized authority and decision-making and violent power — rendered the Russian Revolution into the Soviet Union and was a great evil, just as Guérin’s “Jacobinization of the French Revolution” was the mistake of an epoch. I’m not sure, in the 21st century, I can fully buy into Kropotkin’s views on human nature which seem optimistic and sunny in a post-State federation of free communes and guilds. I would love to be wrong.
I’m not enough of an evolutionary scientist or historian to judge these claims of Kropotkin’s but it’s certainly heady stuff. It’s not taught in schools very widely, this concept that the state — centralized authority and decision-making and violent power — rendered the Russian Revolution into the Soviet Union and was a great evil, just as Guérin’s “Jacobinization of the French Revolution” was the mistake of an epoch. I’m not sure, in the 21st century, I can fully buy into Kropotkin’s views on human nature which seem optimistic and sunny in a post-State federation of free communes and guilds. I would love to be wrong.
January 5, 2026
Very fascinating! I’ve been wanting to get into Kropotkin for a while and this was my first time reading him.
I found his writing and analysis very approachable without it ever feeling simple. I’ll definitely be revisiting the essay on the state as it’s easily the most dense of the three. I find his arguments against Marxist socialism a bit thin (although I’ve felt that Marxists and Anarchists talk past each other’s points for a while though lol). The essay on anarchist communism was my favorite.
I found his writing and analysis very approachable without it ever feeling simple. I’ll definitely be revisiting the essay on the state as it’s easily the most dense of the three. I find his arguments against Marxist socialism a bit thin (although I’ve felt that Marxists and Anarchists talk past each other’s points for a while though lol). The essay on anarchist communism was my favorite.
November 26, 2021
“They want to direct the renewal of a society by means of decrees and electoral majorities... what childishness!” I can just see Kropotkin on Twitter today. I found this collection of essays to be useful and interesting, and I particularly appreciated Kropotkin’s discussion of the origins of the state, historical societies that existed before the state, and ways that people navigated conflicts and disagreements before there was a state legal system.
January 24, 2020
Some of Kropotkin's most famous essays, provided with detailed footnotes and bibliographic notes by Iain McKay. Can be a bit of a slog in parts, but Kropotkin's writing still remains as relevant and insightful for those interested in anarchist philosophy and theory.
September 1, 2019
Great book. Informative and easy(ish) to read.
September 10, 2024
Interesting perspective. Definitely different than anything I’ve read before. Challenged some view points of mine
November 14, 2023
Historically interesting, but not necessarily applicable to today.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews