The Conquest of Bread -- Peter Kropotkin

The first two segments of Chapter 1 of Peter Kropotkin's work: The Conquest of Bread. Written in the late 19th Century, the entire work argues the case for Anarcho Communism, disparaging the notion of private appropriation, but the segments I have chosen are an eloquent criticism of capitalism in particular.

Many thanks to the user itrainsinoctober for pointing me toward this work.

This is my first attempt at an upload, so please be gentle!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• communism
• capitalism
• kropotkin
• history
• politics
• socialism
• economics
• france
• 19th
• century
• awesome

[Lodatzor]

@CHARLIE10SHERRARD

Um, no-one. I don't believe you've caught what the author is trying to say. He advocates the utter lack of a State.

[bigpapi255]

@CHARLIE10SHERRARD You quoted milton friedman almost verbatim. Conservatives often fail to realize that an "entrepreneur" is nothing more than a dictator of a small state. No one is forcing you to patronize or work at his company just like no one forces you to live in China, but you must work for a boss to survive and you must live in a state to survive until we all wise up and organize society ourselves democratically.

[SlyFox70100]

Anarchy Forever

[Lodatzor]

Is this an unconvincing argument? Perhaps, and quite possibly. I'm not 100% sold on it either, as I am cynical with regard to our own species. But THAT is what communism argues; it's nothing like what Stalin, Lenin, Mao or even Castro did.

I'm only going to such lengths to detail what the actual premise of communism is, so that we can isolate it from straw men, and invalid criticisms.

Do you still believe the ACTUAL communist proposal is flawed? And if so, what about it fails to satisfy you?

[Lodatzor]

So, the question then is: is it better to have property, and the necessary level of state power to defend and uphold it, or to do away with property, and thus remove the need for a state?

The communists choose the latter; their argument is that by removing the division of resources that property establishes, you remove the primary motive for anyone to seek to overpower others in the first place. If one can obtain all they need simply by reaching for it, what need is there to deprive another?

[Lodatzor]

"It protects people from being taken over."

In what way? The only way property can do this is if the state validates and protects the property claim. In which case, the state and all it's machinations (including taxation) are perfectly valid. If the state did not do this, then it would be down to each individual to protect their property using the level of force they are personally capable of employing.

Which is exactly the same as it would be if property rights didn't exist at all.

[Lodatzor]

The creation of a black (or indeed any) market depends entirely upon the idea that property can be owned, and thus can be traded based upon exclusive ownership of such property; either established by private property laws or by a state imposing property equality.

What communism does is reject the entire notion that nothing can be owned at all, except one's own self. Thus, resources are available to all, in lieu of exclusivity, and thus any kind of market is rendered invalid.

[Lodatzor]

But to move to your next point, why would the state need to distribute anything at all, according to communism? If the state is distributing or allocating property, then it is still bound to the notion of property itself. Someone dividing up property or resources based upon a desire to be 'even' is no different in principle than dividing these things up according to claims of private ownership; only the equation for division is different.

Do you see what I mean?

[Lodatzor]

@RefractableMe

"I would argue communism never worked"

I would counter by saying that it's never been actually achieved. That doesn't dismiss criticism of it, any more than proponents of lasseiz-faire capitalism cannot dodge criticism by stating that THAT has never been tried either, but in this case the examples to hand truly are rendered invalid by their inherent dissonance with the concept itself.

The USSR was never communist, for example. Ever.

[RefractableMe]

@Lodatzor I would argue communism never worked. The state would have to insure everything was distributed evenly to stop black markets from forming which would create positions of power which would be abused. Property allows people to conserve land or use it. It protects people from being taken over. Not always altruistic motives. If someone where to pollute and cause damages it would have to be compensated. The majority/corrupt represses the minority. Where's the motivation for dirty jobs?

[Lodatzor]

Without an imposed authority, there cannot be corruption. And since that imposed hierarchy is only necessitated by the idea of protecting property, both can be done away with in the same stroke.

If I dig the clay out of the earth to make a statue, am I not doing it because I want to make a statue? Is that not my primary purpose? I fail to see why I would do so for personal gain other than to sell it, which I feel is a very POOR motivation, and not very likely to produce great results.

[Lodatzor]

As for coordination. I have understand your fears regarding corruption, but then, that's because we're used to thinking in terms of having a central power hierarchy. The State demands adherence to its authority.

But the State is not required for planning, any more than property is required for motivation. Voluntary participation and altruism are our most potent forms of organization, and leadership still exists within them. Cooperation, not competition, the latter being inefficient anyway.