Scan barcode
bcjoneschrist's review against another edition
4.0
An ideologically terrific tome--a little less preachy than the Communist manifesto, with remarkable little nuggets of forward thinking by the Russian author.
Would recommend, folks!
Would recommend, folks!
gijshuppertz's review against another edition
3.0
The Conquest of Bread (Хлѣбъ и воля) uit 1892 van Peter Kropotkin is een van de fundamentele werken binnen het anarcho-communsme. Een stroming die op is gekomen voor de Russische revolutie in 1917, maar niet een even dominante invloed had als Marx zijn communistische manifest, hoewel het even interessant is om te lezen. Kropotkin verzet zich in The Conquest of Bread tegen de autoriteit en beschrijft het als een gevaar. Hij stelt een anarchistische samenleving voor waarbinnen men als collectief tewerk gaat en middelen deelt naar behoefte. Zijn centrale idee is dat ieder mens op die op dit moment ter wereld is, recht heeft op enkele basis middelen zoals een huis, kleding en eten, gezien ieders voorouders een rol hebben gehad in het creëren van de samenleving zoals deze op dit moment is. Zijn ideeën zijn soms wat utopisch, maar het is zeker interessant om te lezen hoe de wereld in zijn ogen vorm had kunnen krijgen, was het geen kapitalistische samenleving geweest.
Voor de volledige analyse; https://youtu.be/qI7LibcVwH8
Voor de volledige analyse; https://youtu.be/qI7LibcVwH8
mxunsmiley's review against another edition
3.0
I do think I still have a lot to learn regarding communism to hold coherent thoughts on where I stand politically, but I did find this an interesting read. I do agree with the conception of humanity that he presents here, how society could be structured after the revolution. After reading Goldman and now Kropotkin, I don't think I lie on the anarchist spectrum. I realize that we all have a common vision of a communist society, but I don't quite agree with the process to achieve it such as in the ways that Kropotkin suggested. I did very much appreciate how he stated that all work is valuable and we shouldn't pin one person's labor against the other, though. I have mixed feelings about this work as is obvious. I have a lot to think about after reading this as is also obvious.
solaireastora's review against another edition
2.0
An interesting but deeply flawed book.
I sympathize with Kropotkin’s anger at the injustices caused by the modern industrialized world, and many passages are insightful criticisms of deep-rooted problems that continue to be relevant today. I found his interpretation of ‘lazy’ workers particularly good. However as much his description of the problems is correct, I cannot agree with his solutions. He makes much of grounding his vision of a future society in ‘science’ and throws around many statistics and notes to try to illustrate the feasibility of his idea - but it falls apart for me for a few reasons.
Firstly and most importantly he lays out no mechanism for resolving conflicts within his anarchist communist society. With the abolition of the state, who has a monopoly on the use of force? No one. How are conflicts to be resolved between members of the community? With no police, judges, court system, or legal system capable of arbitrating disputes? Members could take vengeance or ‘justice’ into their own hands.
Secondly, there are no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between Kropotkin's proposed society and other societies around it. He dances around this by claiming that if once the revolution occurs it will spread rapidly around the world, but this would be unprecedented and I view it as highly unlikely. So, without a state and military, how would the anarchist society fare in an armed conflict with its centralized neighbours? Poorly. Anarchist societies cannot prevent themselves from falling prey to aggressive neighbours. Kropotkin’s overall view of human nature seems hopelessly optimistic in not allowing for conflicts to break out. A society must have a way for resolving disputes that doesn’t rely on everyone just being nice.
Thirdly, how are food-importing nations or areas to survive in his autarchic society? While dismantling our system of global trade could arguably have important benefits, living in an isolated, barter-system, autarky seems like it would be impossible for many nations and miserable for many more.
For these main issues and many minor ones - Who will seriously volunteer to clean the sewers and waste of this society? Could megaprojects like NASA be run and organized by part time volunteers? Who decides how and what to teach the children? - I find this book absurd. If his type of society could work it would actually exist somewhere on the planet in something more than a localized form.
I sympathize with Kropotkin’s anger at the injustices caused by the modern industrialized world, and many passages are insightful criticisms of deep-rooted problems that continue to be relevant today. I found his interpretation of ‘lazy’ workers particularly good. However as much his description of the problems is correct, I cannot agree with his solutions. He makes much of grounding his vision of a future society in ‘science’ and throws around many statistics and notes to try to illustrate the feasibility of his idea - but it falls apart for me for a few reasons.
Firstly and most importantly he lays out no mechanism for resolving conflicts within his anarchist communist society. With the abolition of the state, who has a monopoly on the use of force? No one. How are conflicts to be resolved between members of the community? With no police, judges, court system, or legal system capable of arbitrating disputes? Members could take vengeance or ‘justice’ into their own hands.
Secondly, there are no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between Kropotkin's proposed society and other societies around it. He dances around this by claiming that if once the revolution occurs it will spread rapidly around the world, but this would be unprecedented and I view it as highly unlikely. So, without a state and military, how would the anarchist society fare in an armed conflict with its centralized neighbours? Poorly. Anarchist societies cannot prevent themselves from falling prey to aggressive neighbours. Kropotkin’s overall view of human nature seems hopelessly optimistic in not allowing for conflicts to break out. A society must have a way for resolving disputes that doesn’t rely on everyone just being nice.
Thirdly, how are food-importing nations or areas to survive in his autarchic society? While dismantling our system of global trade could arguably have important benefits, living in an isolated, barter-system, autarky seems like it would be impossible for many nations and miserable for many more.
For these main issues and many minor ones - Who will seriously volunteer to clean the sewers and waste of this society? Could megaprojects like NASA be run and organized by part time volunteers? Who decides how and what to teach the children? - I find this book absurd. If his type of society could work it would actually exist somewhere on the planet in something more than a localized form.
vorticella's review against another edition
5.0
Really good. I loved it honestly. So inciteful and informative.
anauhiram's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
4.5
Great book if you're already into anarchism and looking to going some optimism on the movement. Data is obviously outdated but the ideas are great and super innovative.
wikxoxo's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
fast-paced
3.5
the principle arguments, especially those against capitalism, were strong - the argument that deciding who should benefit from private property because of the fluidity of contributions is impossible is especally profound.
however, the practical arguments were much less persuasive. often, kropotkin used unqualified assertions, stating that things simply would or wouldn't happen with very little depth or analysis to his claims. moreover, while there was some use of statistical modelling, many of the calculations seemed arbitrary. while this is a book of political philosophy therefore concrete statistics are not mandatory, they would back up his practical arguments IF he had used them correctly, which i feel he did not.
also, the part where he rallies about women's rights and talks about the need to liberate them from housework, only to end the chapter with "so they can raise the children" is hilarious to me.
however, the practical arguments were much less persuasive. often, kropotkin used unqualified assertions, stating that things simply would or wouldn't happen with very little depth or analysis to his claims. moreover, while there was some use of statistical modelling, many of the calculations seemed arbitrary. while this is a book of political philosophy therefore concrete statistics are not mandatory, they would back up his practical arguments IF he had used them correctly, which i feel he did not.
also, the part where he rallies about women's rights and talks about the need to liberate them from housework, only to end the chapter with "so they can raise the children" is hilarious to me.
spav's review against another edition
5.0
It is all about boldness of thought, initiative and true solidarity.
s_a_g_e's review against another edition
3.0
I understand this is a really important work in the leftist canon, but it was just too dry for me personally. I had difficulty getting through it.