The Conquest of Bread

A goofy mess that occasionally hits the nail on the head. While arguably better than what Kropotkin called “Authoritarian Communism,” his own “Anarchist Communism” is at worst self defeating, at best silly. He claims that it will be a governmentless society, driven by cooperative action and decision, that will push society forward and provide the needs of every person; yet, he throws his hands up in the air for representational government. What exactly is the difference between the communal election of representatives versus the communal selection of guild leaders? Kropotkin has merely created bureaucracy with more steps and less internal communication.

However, the chapters on how scientific advancements should eradicate poverty are just as provocative today as they were when Kropotkin original wrote. The simple fact is, we've come much farther technologically than he ever could have imagined in terms of automation and technology, and yet rampant poverty is still the norm. He is correct that the greed of a few rich people is ultimately what holds back society. He's also, I believe, correct that most people would gladly work jobs if the jobs were meaningful, fairly compensated, and fairly scheduled. His utopian bent appeals to me, but lacks the thoughtfulness of more modern approaches, with concepts like UBI and mixed economies.

It's all the expropriation stuff that's concerning to me. I just don't have the communist blood in me; especially if representative government has to be thrown out along with ownership of production. I'm a socialist perhaps, but a democratic socialist, perhaps; but certainly one who believes the freedom of well-regulated markets (ie, capitalism with the tack and saddle firmly affixed to it), run by a representative government, with a well-educated citizenry, is the best way to go. But that government should also spend its money bettering the lives of its citizens, not its billionaires. If that government is not seeking to improve the well-being of its citizenry, then those folk should get up and throw a fit, which seems very democratic to me.

The problem then is not capitalism, but the rampant, unfettered crony-capitalism at work in the world today. Many European nations have achieved systems of functional democratic capitalism, with heavily state-funded systems of social welfare and service. And they all have representative governments. There is no need today for private health insurance, or the privatization of communal goods like the electric grid or water services, when living in a highly developed, highly wealthy nation. When living in the richest country in the history of the world, a country that routinely spends money on defense while cutting spending on social welfare programs, the only reason poverty continues to exist beyond the absolute margins of society is because the wealthy have decided exploitation is better for their bottom dollar. A well-fed, well-tended, well-educated citizenry is unlikely to be exploited because they not only know better but expect better.

Kropotkin and I agree that authoritarian government is one of the greatest plagues upon humanity, we just disagree with what to do about it (and perhaps disagree on what constitutes authoritarianism). He says less government achieved by force of the people; I say better government by the same measure. Certainly, in the day-to-day lives of the average American, the state does not come into play very often beyond the standardized laws that we interact with (seat belts, speed limits, taxes). The government need not be abolished but reformed, quickly and heavily, with a vicious hand that has the average person in favor rather than the elite. This requires the citizenry to vote in their own best interests however, which is sometimes difficult to convince them to do (because in American exceptionalism, according to the American dream, everyone is a kind of Schrodinger's millionaire, should only they work hard enough).

I admire Kropotkin for what he's aiming for, but find him kind of silly in how he goes about his arguments. Really, in The Conquest of Bread, there are no arguments at all, just rhapsodizing about a utopian society that should exist but doesn't, a society that will magically spring into existence without any kind of organizational force or forethought, if only the working-class would spring up and throw down the shackles of organize society. But the simple fact is anarchism will have its limits in terms of development because that society will be inefficient. Kropotkin makes good moral arguments but not reasonable ones, and beyond that never explains how his ideal society is to be achieved without any kind of centralized communication or regulatory system in place. Karl Marx, even for all the warts and problems with his brand of communism and theories thereof (some of which even he disavowed later in life), was not only a more compelling and convincing figure, but a better writer.