Technology promised us easier lives. *Looks down at notes*

Wait a second... ( )

I completely disagree but this is worth a read. Author was ahead of its time. By about 1000 years. I'm sure he'll be vindicated once machines take over. ( )

On the last page of The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin laments the state of humanity's response to new ideas.

With our minds already narrowed in our youth and enslaved by the past in our mature age, we hardly dare to think. If a new idea is mentioned - before venturing on an opinion of our own, we consult musty books a hundred years old, to know what ancient masters thought on the subject.

Well, Peter, when I first heard about anarcho-communism, I consulted an old book written by an old dude, which was you. I hope you don't take too much offense.

Kropotkin's most famous work contains very few surprises. When you think about how nice it would be to provide everyone with enough to not just cover their needs but also satisfy many of their wants, all without having to deal with a big government, you've got to expect that Kropotkin didn't come up with a feasible plan to bring this about. Otherwise, it already would have happened. We'd have all stormed the White House with bayonets and shit a long time ago.

In his introduction to my Penguin Classics Edition, David Priestland lays out some very important questions that Kropotkin leaves unanswered.

For instance, how easy would it be for the whole people to stage a revolution and expropriate the propertied classes without extensive conflict and violence? How can the sophisticated technological innovation he saw as so necessary for his society be assured in the absence of market incentives and modern finance? Can democratic assemblies really hope to run the economy smoothly and efficiently, and how will conflicts between different producer communities be resolved? Finally, how can people guard against the potential tyranny of the collective?

Since The Conquest of Bread doesn't answer these questions, my guess is that the answers are, respectively, not easy at all, it can't, they shouldn't, they won't, and I don't know, a really big moat?

Thankfully, Kroptkin's utility as a thinker comes independent of the revolution he failed to bring about. Name any modern political philosopher of note that would be willing to put both of these thoughts in the same book:

The development of individualism during the last three centuries is explained by the efforts of the individual to protect himself from the tyranny of capital and of the state.

Science and industry, knowledge and application, discovery and practical realization leading to new discoveries, cunning of brain and of hand, toil of mind and muscle - all work together. Each discovery, each advance, each increase in the sum of human riches, owes its being to the physical and mental travail of the past and the present. By what right then can anyone whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say - This is mine, not yours?

Both are true! Isn't it refreshing to find a thinker with concerns about the power of the state who doesn't want to grind poor people into sausage?

Now take those passages to heart, and imagine living like you believed them. If I recognize the debt I owe to both the people that came before me and the people that surround me, I'm going to be far likelier to support those around me who should be benefitting in the same way I do. And to avoid putting the burden of service on the state, which has earned its reputation as unhelpful and untrustworthy, I'm going to hold myself individually responsible for providing that assistance. No revolution required!

Is Kropotkin's view of human nature too optimistic? Perhaps. But rather than accept that he's wrong, why don't we try proving him right? We won't see the system of governance he hoped to see, but we can certainly be the species he believed us to be. ( )

Well, this was interesting to look over. Especially after my big focus on Chinese authoritarian capitalism over the past few weeks.

Kropotkin advocates a unique ideology, which might now be classified as 'anarcho-communism'. This combination was jarring, from my biased American viewpoint, especially because communism is immediately associated with central planning and statism. Kropotkin, to his credit, immediately identifies some of the problems with central planned economies.

After this, he constructs his new ideal society with loving detail, moving from the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter), to wages and the structure and distribution of goods, and education. He avoids much hard economic detail, and this book is made for mass discussion.

Now I find myself in agreement with him in more areas that I would have thought. Mechanization, technology, and planning have made many previously awful jobs much more reasonable and efficient. Women need to be brought out and made equal, of course, of course. Cooperation has worked in some fields, particularly with modern technology and the internet. I could go on about crowd-sourcing, the public domain, GNU, Creative Commons Licenses, and so forth. I agree that happy and autonomous workers are best, in terms of production, and happiness. Not to mention that there has been an empirically shown biological imperative for altruism. (see: Stephen Jay Gould's essay for further detail)

However, I confess I am distrustful that people will willingly buy into such ideas, what after the spread of the idea of rugged individualism. Or whether if people are simply good enough to willingly move over to communes, or participate in group or community thinking. Or if any moneyed interests will conspire to make such a society impossible. And this is coming from an avowed idealist/optimist. Although I'd much prefer this society to a Social Darwinist 'every man for himself' arena. Only too often have I seen evolution, a wonderful biological theory, tarnished by being used as a justification for societal misfortunes and inequalities.

Will such a utopia work? Perhaps. I'm not really sure. My inner empirical scientist wants to say 'try it out and let's see'. Perhaps that's the only way to be sure. ( )