Prince Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin was born in 1842 and breathed his last in 1921. Kropotkin was a Russian noble. He was educated for army and at the age of twenty he became a military officer in Siberia.
Kropotkin’s great interest in science developed from his military training which he received to get a job. This moulded his life in future. He had a scientific mind and devoted his time and energy to the study of books on science.
As a military officer in Siberia Kropotkin got ample opportunity for geographical survey and expedition. Thus his shift from military service to geographical survey and expeditions enriched the subject profoundly. He contributed many articles to different journals.
Peter Kropotkin was a man of different mentality and attitude. His stay in military service could not satisfy his academic and intellectual requirements and desires and after serving several years he relinquished the job, and entered the University of St. Petersburg in 1867. His vast knowledge in geography brought for him the post of secretary of Geographical Society.
Even this vital administrative post could not detain him for long time. He moved to radical political movements. In 1872, Peter Kropotkin joined the International Workingmen’s Association. Later on he was deeply involved in subversive and anarchical activities. This led him to imprisonment in 1874.
He escaped from prison in 1876 and went to England. The England of the second half of eighteenth century was the centre of revolutionary activities, although she never experienced any revolution.
He also travelled to Switzerland and Paris. While in Paris he was again arrested by the French government in 1883. Released from prison in 1886 he went to England and settled there. While in exile, Kropotkin gave lectures and published widely on anarchism and geography. He returned to Russia after the Russian Revolution in 1917 but was disappointed by the Bolshevik state. The rest of his life was spent without political activity.
Peter Kropotkin was an evolutionist anarchist. But his evolutionism was more scientific than that of his predecessors. He wrote several books on anarchism such as ‘The Place of Anarchy in Socialist Evolution (1886), The Conquest of Bread (1888), Its Philosophy and Ideal (1896)’, ‘The State – Its Part in History (1898)’ and ‘Modern Science and Anarchism (1903)’. His deep interest in science, particularly biology and anthropology, opened before him new and enchanting vistas of knowledge and all these inspired him to study biological science with added interest.
-
The Funeral of Peter Kropotkin :anarchists:
-
A meeting between V.I. Lenin and P. A. Kropotkin :lenin-shining: :kropotkin-shining:
-
Words of a Rebel :anarchy:
-
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution :AC-AnarKitty:
-
Syndicalism and Anarchism :ancom:
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- 👊 Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
- 🧡 Disabled comm megathread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
men
I would like to start with the idea that I do, in fact, see the upside of communism and feminism. That's why I'm here. I'm here for more than the funny emotes. I read Beyond Blue and Pink, I read the Gender Accelerationist Manifesto, I'm reading Will to Change. I like Chapo and Citations Needed. I don't think modern feminism is anti-men. I think the main thrust of my argument has more to do with agreeing with you about capitalists and reactionaries hogging the airways. Even if you screamed and shouted about how modern feminism is not anti-man, the opposition has a giga platform that is talking to him and his friends and they would love to remind those men about the anti-man wave of feminism.My second point is that if the man needs to roll a gender check to be persuaded, it can feel like we need a nat 20 to stand a chance. What do I mean? Let's look at the purported manifesto from the other thread.
Clearly he's upset.
Then suddenly, bam! Traditional, stoic masculinity like an unconscious reflex before an outburst of violence. And it's celebrated by me and everyone else. It's celebrated so hard it makes the elites scared. As if the superstructure is an oroboros that can deal with a wound to the economic tail to feed the patriarchal head. At that hinge point where he was at a critical mass of righteous indignation leftist theory lost out to an outburst of vigilante justice informed by masculinity as we've ever known it.
It seems like, if ever a man wants to subconsciously/reflexively reach for the tradition of the smiling gladiator, it's a really really hard sell to get him to want to show solidarity instead (not to mention if women are the subject of his ire). I think you need the personal touch and support of a flesh and blood leftist to meet him where he is, consult him, and lead him to a more cogent understanding of society to stand a chance. It's a specialized skill set coupled with a rare belief system that needs to be in the hands of someone who would even want to help him on a day he'd even be open to help. Alternatively, because it's already baked into the super structure, you can just put Gladiator 1 on YouTube and then recommend a Jordan Peterson edit titled "Stop Fucking Around" over suspenseful music and call it a day for right wing grifting.
Attracting feminist women, fighting for economic emancipation, and motivation for solidarity rock if and only if you already understand the value of these things. I don't think there's a will intrinsic to the left (as opposed to a pragmatic will like developing a recruitment tool) to construct a competing model of masculinity. I think this is what I wanted to point at in fewer words. It would have to sate male-gendered pain, highlight the benefits of leftism, and avoid clashing with a more sensitive audience. Meanwhile archetypes like clan leader, stoic farmer, playboy, MGTOW, looksmaxxer, and violence enactor bend over backwards and bend the truth to try and appeal to that disaffected male. Each and every one absolutely toxic and irreconcilable to ideals of autonomy for and emotional connection with women. For this reason I think the proportion of men who give a shit when they're given a chance to interact with theory is lessened.
explosions, monster trucks, and big guns
I think you make some good an enlightening points which serves to remind me that we agree more than we disagree. I agree that a woman shooting the CEO would have been celebrated - the degree to which is suspect and likely less than him. A strategy of imaging what would happen if the genders are swapped has saved me from treading into dark places.I disagree. I think you can run into a lot of people who relish in how much they don't give a fuck about things that don't directly affect them. Someone told me I haven't spent enough on Palestine to have actually gave a fuck about it. They asked for dollar amount directly, received a non-answer, and used that as justification. I think being grillpilled or going on your winter arc (not in these words, but the same way just wanting to grill is to rugged individualism what the purple flavor of vitamin water is to the Coca Cola Company) beats out solidarity in a lot of people's hearts and minds. And it's hearts and minds informed by this individualism that enter into gendered issues of which some are relevant to choosing leftist philosophy. I seldom hear people espousing the importance of focusing on your locus of control also telling you to use it to help others unless you're already in a leftist space. The exception is suggesting volunteering as a line item in a list of things you can do to bring yourself out of a bad headspace.
I'm not sure what I believe about it or that I even have a worldview that's going to withstand the pressure test of talking through it, honestly. Let's find out, shall we? The October Revolution was an instance of gun violence but it was still generally a good thing and an act of heroism that I celebrate. The violent outburst and act of heroism in the case of United Healthcare isn't necessarily gendered, but the philosophy informing it seems at least male-coded if we grant that Luigi is the guy and the manifesto is real. Otherwise I feel like male gendered philosophy is reduced to when someone wants to use their penis to reproduce and they must oust someone else's penis for access to reproductive resources.
Which to say he didn't feel like they represent a ethically reprehensible institution, but that they violated a contract and threatened his family. And I think that is a distinction informed by the ideals of masculinity he references in the manifesto and imbibes his actions.
And this disagreement ties it together for me. I don't need to do much to think of a stoic farmer having a copy of the communist manifesto instead of a bible in his nightstand. I think I represent a minority belief with that. Let's start with Hasan Piker - I think he presents masculine, but not stereotypically so.
Hasan Piker (courtesy of NBC)
CEO of Black Rifle Coffee
He's a good influence and uses his platform well (I don't like his streams personally, I think it's boring when he gets stunlocked), but I don't think he's defining the meta of masculinity. He's going to get blocked out of hearts and minds by accusations of "just be attractive (or worse)" and he'd admit the same when he does segments like "giving Chadvice." If you can't tap into that disillusionment, you can't tap into the lines that get to the kids who grows up to think the military is cool or the entrepreneur who winds up peddling supplements and dropshipping courses.
I don't think these archetypes have a clean split from misogyny. I think there's a lot of fun and even some enlightenment to be had in genderswapping, but if you're going to tap into/confront/interact with gendered ideals, you're going to have to answer questions like "Why was Tywin Lannister wrong?" or "What was Patrick Bateman's facade and how was it meant to be torn down (I'm sure I can dig up some irl examples, but I'm a little treat goblin and these idols are expedient to my point)?" And I think those answers have to be palatable, succinct, and resonant. I think it's the same dynamic as the Epicurean paradox. It means that God has to be beyond understanding or you need a new paradigm of how you come to understand God. You either need to untie the Gordian knot of blame and anger or you need a shiny, new sword. And I'm not saying untying the Gordian knot is impossible either, just that it's rare and takes a craftsman's touch[1].
And God forbid the blame and anger involves romantic connection with women. Mewing, Chad/virgin, and rizz have become children's playthings. 10 years from now, when someone wants to tell a frustrated young man that women will respond better to you if you embody traditional gender roles, that marketing job is going to be as easy as when Coca Cola still had cocaine in it. "I heard you should seek to understand women and they'll recognize the upside of your personality." He'll say. "Oh, did a blue haired feminist tell you that?" The recruiter will respond, "Here's a chart about how your looks strongly correlate to your positively perceived personality. What you need is... aura... masculine aura." You could sell them anything at that point. Women's nature is X. Women's nature is Y. Z people are poisoning the culture. If they threaten you it's an act of war. You are on your own. Look how much they want to take from you with nothing in return. You should join the army.
And for that man to join a leftist space instead, he'd need to do self-crit because nobody else would feel safe engaging with him. For him to join the army, they'd pay for his college and give him a bunch of friends who agree with him. Hell, if he went to a looksmaxxing forum instead they'd validate his anger with scathing indictment of the other and they'd drown him in information about what to do about it. Everyone else has an easy to swallow poison pill. These places don't have to belong to men, but they do in ways that inseparable from gendered ideology. And I question whether, given a fair playing field (if it were as simple as choosing between pokemon red and pokemon blue), men at a hinge point would commonly choose leftist ideology as it stands compared to the quick, resonant, pointed anger of the individualist when questions of cishet gender expression are involved.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOCY7JN-Zec
Ethan Becker, digital artist, after having rolled his nat 20 to open his eyes about racism
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: