Talk:Peter Kropotkin/Archive 1

Archive 1

spelling out dates

I think it is plain that spelling out the months in dates will be clearer to most readers. Many people will read 1842-02-09 as 1842, 02-09, which is ambiguous. Furthermore, the ISO convention is not widely used, so at the very least one would need a link to an article explaining it. AxelBoldt — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelBoldt (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 May 2002 (UTC)

Betrayal

I think we should include somewhere in this article that he betrayed his country and his class, which, of course, he did. (Counter-revolutionary 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

That's your opinion, not a verifiable fact. Mike Dillon 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But as a country which, at this stage, was a monarchy he was betraying it in bringing about anorchism, also he is obviously betraying a class which was totally opposed to these beliefs. (Counter-revolutionary 01:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

No, he was just attacking his own status. That's not "betrayal". If I were a member of the government and attacked its current practices, that's not betrayal. Betrayal is someone like Wang Jingwei. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda of the Deed

Even if we dont post it on the main page, could a Kropotkin scholar please direct me to his works dealing with the propaganda of the deed? Freddieresearch 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin's Will

Not quite certain where to put this, but it is of relevance: I was just checking something in The Times on microfilm and, on 12 October 1921, page 1, there is an advertisement by a London based firm of solicitors seeking the whereabouts of Kropotkin's will, written in 1913. Jackiespeel 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Question - should the second flag (against Kropotkin's date of death) be the Soviet flag? Jackiespeel 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica

What kind of articles did he write for Britannica? Have they been used as a source for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe he wrote the article on anarchism, maybe others; the 1911 Britannica -- which had essays by other luminaries such as Freud -- is public domain and was used as source material for Wikipedia. --lquilter 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote the entry for anarchism, as well as some geography articles and possibly some science articles. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Punt and Dennis

The short lived Punt and Dennis BBC1 sketchshow featured a James Bond style spy parody whose nemesis was named Kropotkin, worth adding to the article? Probably not. But I thought i would throw that out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.202.168 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

There is very little information on this man's philosophy in this article and what there is is scattered about, which is odd seeing as he's a philosopher. Anyone want to help me start a section on it? Zazaban (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

There is only one citation listed in the article. Resources, please.Leebeck33 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Prince, Duke and Knyaz

Hello everybody! Is it ok to call Kropotkin "Prince"? In Russian he is called "Knyaz", in English the best word for it is "Duke". Just not to make misunderstandings. --Nagasheus (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prince" is at least as good a translation as "Duke." I'd say better. The Russian (borrowed from the German, I think) word for Duke is actually "Gertsag." 24.47.154.230 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Prince" is the designation I've always heard given Kropotkin. It also fits with the standard translation Prince Igor of the title of a Russian work from Kropotkin's lifetime that again has "Knyaz" in the original Russian.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideas?

I am shocked to see that someone labelled as an intellectual and a major influence of anarchism has almost a two page article without a mention to his political ideas. (except stating he is anarchist-communist) Books mentioned, activism is mentioned, but the ideas and organizations he recommends are absent. I'll try to get information through other means to add to this, but this article as long and correct as it might be, lacks a core content. --Iv (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is bizarre. Zazaban (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Created a section on his ideas. Zazaban (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

beard

didnt he have ringworm under that beard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Found a few other external links

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/toc.html - Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets

Seems to be some links on Wikiquote related to Peter Kropotkin and his works which aren't listed here. I'm not used to be editing Wikipedia, except the occasional spelling error, so if anyone could go ahead and copy the missing links from there to the Wikipedia article on him and vice versa.

Yours faithfully,

Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.99.113 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Communist?

I don't believe labeling Kropotkin as a communist is accurate, for this would entail his belief in a large, centralized government, which most assuredly he did not. Any cursory reading of Kropotkin's chapters in Mutual Aid on medieval towns shows his inclination towards local communities, not central states.Leebeck33 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

see anarchist communism, please. Zazaban (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Zazaban - Excellent point, and I was about to suggest clarifying Kropotkin as an "anarchist communist," but I see in the discussions under anarchist communism that there is some dispute in the use of this label. Nevertheless, the clarification would help if it doesn't stir more controversy than it's worth, since "communist" generally suggests Soviet-style, central-state communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebeck33 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The communist label is correct. He was a self-identified communist. It's not a label reserved exclusively for marxist-leninists. Zazaban (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did Kropotkin identify himself as a communist? Source. Also, was this identification before or after his disenchantment with the Bolshevik revolution? Also, is there any instance of anarcho-communism ever existing? --Leebeck33 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source (at the moment), but why do you ask if there is any instance of anarcho-communism ever existing? That is totally irrelevant to whether Kropotkin was one. --N-k (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Example of anarcho-communism existing: Paris Commune of 1871 perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.212.57 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"by authoritarian rather than libertarian methods"

I have been consuming a mono-diet of Kropotikin as the foundation (as it were) of anarchy as it evolved during my time as an activist in "la lucha" of the Lower East Side of NY during the 1980s. I was surprised to find marginal anarchists who are really capitalistic libertarians claiming an egotistic individualism as the basis of anarchy(which I can show to be a hard-to-treat personality disorder). I found some validity in this (though it contradicted my decade-long experience) in that so many anarchists have been terroristic, which is egotistical. And sure enough, classical libertarianism is in fact egotistical.

My point here is that "being libertarian" in Pytor's day is very different than today's libertarianism, which I feel is best represented by the anti-Yankee Tea Party with Sarah Palin. The definitions are confusing, and I am wondering if we need to find different terms to stress this anarchistic thread which is social and should have been pacifist and native-supporting. --John Bessa (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that I changed the line, double-checked the source (google books is useful!) and reverted my change. Still I think it is one of the biggest issues of our time, yet subtle--definitive in the sense of basic definitions. Another abstraction that may show a North American answer to Pytor's philosophy is Carl Rogers' personality theory or "19 point proposal" that extends pragmatism with its ideas of "self, experience, and process" to become person-oriented (or client-driven) therapy.--John Bessa (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

link

http://anarchive.virtualave.net/pers-kropot.htm - nonworking link --87.240.13.68 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9MH9HtB_-A - add link (Funeral of Peter Kropotkin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egor Rasstriga (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

In this part: "He attended the Anarchist Congress that met in London from July 14, 1881. Other delegates included Marie Le Compte, Errico Malatesta, Saverio Merlino, Louise Michel, Peter Tchaikovsky and Émile Gautier."

Peter Tchaikovsky is the Russian composer. The person who attended the conference was the revolutionayr Nicholas Tchaikovsky. https://archive.org/stream/anarchismotheres00gold#page/30/mode/2up/search/Tchaikovsky 109.57.45.139 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation Found

At the end of the section "Return to Russia" a citation is required for the claim that "He had spoken out against authoritarian socialism in his writings (for example The Conquest of Bread), making the prediction that any state founded on these principles would most likely see its own breakup and the restoration of capitalism."

At the end of the second paragraph of Chapter 12 of The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin writes: "Should an authoritarian Socialist society ever succeed in establishing itself, it could not last; general discontent would soon force it to break up, or to reorganize itself on principles of liberty."

https://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin12

Also page 143 Elephant Editions Anarchist Pocketbooks 4, 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.125.172 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

The Spartakus site at [[1]] has Kropotkin being in Brighton 1912-1917 (the Historical Directory site gives the Brighton address), whence he went to Russia after the Revolution. Jackiespeel 16:28, 2 March 2007

I have partially updated the timeline - more research needs to be done. Jackiespeel 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's of no great moment but he taught Arthur Ransome to ice skate. It's mentioned either in Ransome's Autobiography or Hugh Brogan's biography, can't remember which. 81.178.128.204 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Family

Was Kropotkin married? Who was the mother of his child? Other children? Brothers or sisters? Mdelashmit (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1887-1917

How is it that an entire 30 years are left out of Kropotkin's biography? Did nothing happen in these years? 2601:603:4D80:1DC7:564:8001:3FFB:18C5 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He was working, other sections of the page cover those years. For instance, The Conquest of Bread was published in 1892, and he wrote and edited and translated his and others' works at this time period as well. JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Kropotkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090630104916/http://bivir.uacj.mx/LibrosElectronicosLibres/Autores/PedroKropotkin/Pedro%20Kropotkin%20-%20Origen%20y%20evoluci%F3n%20de%20la%20moral.pdf to http://bivir.uacj.mx/LibrosElectronicosLibres/Autores/PedroKropotkin/Pedro%20Kropotkin%20-%20Origen%20y%20evoluci%F3n%20de%20la%20moral.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040607163737/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/KropotkinPeter.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/KropotkinPeter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Move to Pyotr?

I just reverted an IP who added Peter to the lede as that seemed unnecessary, however, on further thought, why do have this at "Peter" when that was not his name? My copy of Conquest of Bread has Petr, which is generally an older transliteration, but cf. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who is arguably much better known and almost always called "Peter Tchaikovsky" without an non-standard English embellishment on the "Peter". Should this page be moved to his proper name, many proper nouns on the English encyclopedia have their untranslated/untransliterated name as the page name. JesseRafe (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: Ι noticed that you added paraphrased text in the article.[2] from Manifesto of the Sixteen(permalink). This is copyright violation but you can easily fix it making a dummy edit and describe what you did in the edit summary.More...Cinadon36 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So many thanks Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Is his middle name Alexeevich or Alexeyvich?

Article says Alexeevich, hatnote says Alexeyvich. Which is right? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither. His middle name, a patronym, was Алексе́евич. There are many ways to transliterate that into the Latin alphabet, and you cite two of them. For the sake of consistency, somebody should pick one—preferably the one more commonly used in English sources—and use it throughout the article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• KarlMikhailEmmaPitr Posse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

It would be useful to read about critique of his thought, as with any other thinker or set of ideas. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On Kropotkin and the Labour Theory of Value

Hi, I would like to request some changes be made to the following section, Critique of Capitalism

It says, "Kropotkin disagreed with the Marxist critique of capitalism, including the labour theory of value, believing there was no necessary link between work performed and the prices of commodities."

This statement is problematic because Marx was NOT an adherent to 'the' Labour theory of value. Marx never believed commodities exchange according to the quantity of labour needed to produce them ("work performed"). This assertion is based on a fundamental misreading of Marx, developed by later Marxists.

Even Ricardo and Smith never believed that commodities will exchange according to the quantity of labour needed to produce them.

It is only followers of Sraffa who assert this position.

Bekken doesn't distinguish between the Sraffian interpretation of Marx vs Marx.

For this reason, the sentence I quoted above should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfulguy765790 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to this.

Response to moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybooboo78 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

? I'm wondering if you believe everything you read on the internet without actually reading the source material. A google search is not going to give you an in depth understanding of the material. Granted Kropotkin's opinions evolved and adapted to current situations to continue to push his narrative, some basic things cannot be avoided: such as how can anyone in there objective right mind think that Kropotkin was for globalization and propaganda of the deed (short of maybe regicide) after reading Mutual Aid? if so, they must need some reading comprehension training. I don't care if Professor so and so, wants to say I'm interpreting it wrong! they can take a hike, and so I think Kropotkin would have agreed that a full reliance on an over arching knowledge source or base (of which you only pull from, and do not contribute or investigate yourself is laughable). It is even stated in your own article (before I added anything at all), that he took his ideas of TRUE COMMUNISM from small tribal communities in Siberia (would you call that Marxist or Communist in the Modern sense?) Communism today is not what it was yesterday (let alone centuries ago?) Marxism is specifically addressing modern systems of organization (that are huge), there is no advocation towards the hunter-gatherer lifestyle or mention there of? The newspeak people are hard at work, rewriting traditional interpretations to fit their agenda; I guess old Kropotkin has come on the radar sometime after 2015 when I attended UC as an Anthropology major and did extensive research on his works and contributions (example being I don't remember anyone claiming that Kropotkin advocated violence, his writings repeatedly speak against it but, now everyone is saying he is no different then Emma Goldman?) and I bet not one of these clowns has read a single book of his...have you? Just because he coined the term Anarcho-Communism in "The Conquest of Bread" doesn't mean that his ideas haven't been hijacked? he was referring to True Communism (which is only possible at the tribal level, do some anthropological research on the matter and you will see) not Modern communism that is contingient on large scale applications-thus defeating Kropotkins whole aim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybooboo78 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I responded in the wrong place, but I'm attempting to clarify that Anarcho-Communism (as coined by Kropotkin) in the Conquest of Bread; the communist part, has indeed evolved overtime-and in my opinion is not what we today know as communism at all, name me a Communist today who advocates for a Hunter-Gatherer or tribal lifestyle?. This is due to my thinking that Kropotkin would more accurately (today) refer to himself as Anarcho-Primitivist the difference being the size of organization addressed. Sorry, no longer in school to challenge the orthodoxy, so here I am. Seriously , any one with a shred of critical thinking skills and self-knowledge can read his books for themselves and see this a blaringly obvious.

Response to Carrie-read my comments to PeaceRay? also I agree with Anarchist, but not Anarcho-Communist as understood today...on top of that where is your references to the subject I bring up-I'm going to continue to pull this thread and I'm not going back to school to attempt to correct these misleading insinuations-I'm going directly to the PEOPLE, you have not figured this out yet?Bennybooboo78 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just one example, though I know you guys always down play Gould-I don't. https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybooboo78 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC) fine make me do the work for you? read it and weep https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-communism-its-basis-and-principles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybooboo78 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@AxelBoldt, Aymatth2, Byelf2007, Carrite, Ninmacer20, Pgan002, and Roller26: Hi, I am pinging you as active editors who have some of the most edits on this article, plus Roller26 who has reverted some edits in this matter.

I believe the crux of the matter is that Bennybooboo78 is making an argument that Kropotkin should be considered as anarcho-primitivist rather than anarcho-communist, or that Kropotkin's views changed over time so that he should be considered to be the former more than the other.

I am not a subject matter expert in this, although I hope one or more of you may be. I am still waiting for secondary or tertiary reliable sources to back Bennybooboo78 assertions. Currently, I do think that anarcho-communism is still an apt association with Kropotkin until convinced otherwise. Kropotkin is certainly mentioned prominently in the anarcho-communism article & not at all in the anarcho-primitivist article.

I think that Stephen Jay Gould's 1997 piece, "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot"., that Bennybooboo78 mentioned, sheds no light on the distinction as it never mentions communism nor privitism, although it mentions anarchism plenty. Peaceray (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The article says what Kropotkin did and what he said or wrote, is well sourced and seems balanced. He was not always consistent. He was at the Anarchist Congress in London from 14 July 1881, where it was agreed that propaganda by the deed was the path to social revolution, but in 1887 he wrote that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". I do not see the problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bennybooboo78 — In Wikipedia terms, the important thing isn't what any individual says about Kropotkin, but rather what the overwhelming majority of expert scholarly literature says about him. He is characterized as an anarchist or an anarcho-communist. If you think that's wrong: publish a juried scholarly article or a book making your case and that will become part of the discourse. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It's obvious that the lead sentence has gone overboard with descriptives "... was a Russian anarchist, socialist, revolutionary, economist, sociologist, historian, zoologist, political scientist, human geographer[12] and philosopher who advocated anarcho-communism. He was also an activist, essayist, researcher and writer." Any proposals for a more guidelines compliant (and more readable) lead sentence?

For reference the relevant guidelines are at MOS:OPENPARABIO, which states:

The first sentence should usually state:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)

However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section.

And MOS:ROLEBIO.

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources.

The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

...

In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic).

Question, if you had to use one word to describe him, what should that one word be? If you had to choose one reason why he is notable, what would that reason be?

LK (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)