Sages and Movements
An Incomplete Peter Kropotkin Bibliography

The bibliography produced below is the result of research undertaken as part of my Kropotkin anthology project (Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology, AK Press, Spring 2014). While working on this project, it soon became clear that only a fraction of Kropotkin’s anarchist writings have been translated into English and that no comprehensive bibliography of his libertarian writings existed. Various accounts of his ideas and life include bibliographies in various states of completion as well as numerous references to articles and letters, yet there had been no attempt to collate this information and so existing lists of Kropotkin’s works were incomplete. The list on Anarchy Archives,[1] for example, does not include many of the works referenced in Miller’s Kropotkin.[2] Caroline Cahm’s bibliography is excellent for the period 1872 to 1886, as would be expected, but concentrates only on important works after that.[3] I set out to address this lack. The current bibliography is still incomplete, nevertheless it provides the most comprehensive listing of Kropotkin’s work to-date. Hopefully, it will be of use to other researchers working on Kropotkin and his ideas and provide the basis for a complete bibliography in the future.

The research has raised issues about the relationship between influential thinkers and the wider movement and about the distorting effect that a lack of primary sources has on our understanding of both. Here, I seek to explore both issues before presenting an incomplete bibliography of Kropotkin’s libertarian articles, books, pamphlets and published letters.

The Importance of Primary Sources

Unlike Marxists, anarchists have never relied on state-resources for the production of definitive Collected Works – and where collections have been produced (Œuvres Bakunin, for example) they have not been published in English, which seems particularly insular to writers in other languages. As a result researchers often lack access to the primary sources required to produce a comprehensive account of, say, Proudhon’s and Bakunin’s ideas. In terms of movements, the challenges are even greater, not least because it involves a multitude of resources (newspapers, conference minutes and resultions, etc.) by a multitude of authors. To take just one example, James Guillaume’s four volume L’Internationale: Documents et Souvenirs (1864-1878) has never been translated into English, so ensuring English language activists and researchers understanding of the First International and its debates is, at best, incomplete or, at worst, inaccurate.[4]

The lack of, and so unfamiliarity with, primary sources has not treated anarchist thinkers well. This can be seen from Proudhon who has been subject to such inaccurate claims that many think he advocated ideas he explicitly denied. For example, in contrast to much of the secondary literature, he stressed in an open letter his opposition to individual property and argued that, in spite of his opposition to state socialism, ‘it does not follow at all… that I want to see individual ownership and non-organisation of the instruments of labour endure for all eternity. I have never penned nor uttered any such thing: and have argued the opposite a hundred times over… I believe in an order wherein the instruments of labour will cease to be appropriated and instead become shared’.[5]

As became clear when creating this incomplete bibliography, Kropotkin also suffers from this since much, if not most, of his output is neither translated nor collated. So while George Woodcock should be praised for his 11-volume edition of Kropotkin’s Collected Works, the title is a misnomer. It makes available a significant amount of his output in English, but it not complete as it does not include his many articles for Freedom nor those in French and Russian. Yet these are important in order to fully grasp of Kropotkin’s ideas, as he noted they ‘are more expressive of my anarchist ideas’.[6] The most easily available of his texts are those that are very general and theoretical, not those dealing with the concrete political and strategic issues facing the anarchist movement. This allows him to be cast as a visionary or as a theorist rather than as an anarchist militant, actively grappling with challenges facing the workers’ movement and anarchist strategies within and outwith it to produce social transformation.

Kropotkin mentions in passing anarchist advocacy of direct action, class struggle and revolutionary unionism in these general introductions to libertarian ideas, but he focuses on these practical matters in his articles in anarchist newspapers. As he acknowledged in one polemic over syndicalism in 1907, ‘I now ask myself if it would not be useful to make a selection of these articles’ on the labour movement ‘and publish them in a volume’. Had he done so, the historical record would show that he had ‘always believed that the working class movement — organised in each trade for the direct conflict with Capital (today in France it is called Syndicalism and ‘direct action’) constitutes true strength, and is capable of leading up to the Social Revolution and realising it’.[7]

Direct Struggle Against Capital aims to be, in part, that volume. By drawing together these articles as well as those relating to social revolution (and the problems it would face), it should go some way to ending the myth of Kropotkin as ‘The Gentle Prince of Co-operation’ or the impractical visionary who believed in a painless revolution which would instantly produce a free society. As the bibliography shows, the reality is that he was a committed practical revolutionary class warrior who had a clear vision of how to create a revolution (by anarchist participation in popular movements, particularly trade unionism) and how difficult this would be.

Against Sages, For Context

The re-assessment of Kropotkin’s work raises another key question: why bother with Kropotkin? Anarchism is a social movement and some may argue that concentrating on a few bearded dead white-men does the history of anarchism a disservice. Kropotkin would have agreed, arguing that anarchism ‘originated in everyday struggles’ and all anarchist writers did was to ‘work out a general expression’ of anarchism’s ‘principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings’.[8]

The nature of the intellectual contribution Kropotkin describes is borne out by the two most significant anarchist thinkers before Kropotkin. Rather than being an isolated thinker, Proudhon developed his ideas in the context of the rise of the French workers’ movement and its demands for self-managed workplace associations to replace wage-labour as well as the 1848 revolution.[9] Bakunin contributed to anarchism by taking up and deepening ideas already expressed within the International Working Men’s Association (IWMA) by workers across Europe, namely the syndicalist idea of unions as the means of both fighting capitalism and replacing it.[10]

So Paul Avrich’s suggestion that syndicalist ideas had ‘originated’ in the 1860s and 1870s when ‘the followers of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International were proposing the formation of workers’ councils designed both as a weapon of class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis of the future libertarian society’[11] is only partly correct. Workers did not wait for Bakunin but raised these ideas, before he joined the International, at the Brussels conference in 1868 and again, after he joined, at the Basle Congress the following year.[12] He ensured his influence by championing them. This is not to deny his importance in developing revolutionary anarchism, it is simply to recognise that he was part of a wider movement and influences flowed both ways.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the fixation on famous thinkers (‘sages’) flows from the work of a non-anarchist, Paul Eltzbacher (1868-1928). His 1900 book Anarchism presented a chapter on Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker and Tolstoy. This, by necessity, downplayed the anarchist movement and its links with the wider socialist and labour movements. Worse, it gave a distinctly false impression as two chapters covered thinkers (Godwin and Stirner) who had no impact on the development of anarchism until the 1890s.

Unfortunately, subsequent authors who were libertarians followed this model. George Woodcock’s Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements reduced the number of ‘sages’ to six (by dropping Tucker) but redeemed the situation somewhat by covering the movement in various countries in its second half. Peter Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism followed Woodcock in format (thinkers followed by movements) but expanded the number of ‘sages’ and included a women (Emma Goldman). The division of ‘sage’ and ‘movement’ still placed the focus on the former at the expense of the latter.

Yet the political and social context provided by social movements is vital to understand anarchism. While Kropotkin, particularly in his later works (notably the article on Anarchism for the Encyclopaedia Britannica) presented anarchism as something which has existed as long as hierarchical authority has, anarchism is better understood as being a specific socio-economic theory and movement which was born in the nineteenth century. Before 1840 no theory was called ‘anarchism’ nor was there any popular movement termed ‘anarchist’ by its members. This does not mean that anarchistic theories and movements did not exist but that they only became retrospectively proclaimed as anarchist once the anarchist movement discovered them – as with, for example, Stirner and Godwin in the 1890s.

That Eltzbacher included both because anarchists retroactively made the identification changes does not change the problems inclusion produces and regardless of the merit of the ideas of Godwin and Stirner, it would be anachronistic to discuss them or thinkers in ancient Greece when sketching anarchism. This was recognised by Kropotkin: ‘Within these federations [of the IMWA] developed… what may be described as modern anarchism‘.[13] It was in the IWMA that many of the strategies normally associated with anarchism first developed: ‘a vast organisation of trade unions, which it was intended to spread all over the world, and which would have carried on, with international support, the direct struggle of Labour against Capital’.[14]

The ‘sage’ perspective forgets that Kropotkin was, initially, one militant amongst many (not signing his contributions to the anarchist press until the 1890s, two decades after joining the movement). He came to prominence for many reasons, some of them personal (an ex-aristocrat who escaped a Tsarist prison to go into exile; a brilliant writer; a gifted scientist) but mostly political (he was part of a wider movement whose ideas he helped shape and champion). This can be seen from the two key debates he took part in as a militant: on the benefits of (libertarian) communism and participation in the labour movement. Neither was invented by him: he simply championed ideas which had already been raised within the IWMA by other libertarians.

The ‘sage’ perspective assigns a determining influence to gifted individual rather than an interactive, mutual, influence between him/her and the movement. Its flaws can be seen when said ‘sage’ makes comments which are fundamentally inconsistent with their politics, such as Kropotkin’s support for the Allies in World War I which isolated him from other anarchists. If, in the 1880s, Kropotkin came to prominence because he helped push anarchists towards libertarian communism and involvement in the labour movement, it was because his work reflected, reinforced and enriched a trend in that direction within the movement. If in 1914 he was isolated, it was precisely because his position was at odds with the bulk of the movement and his personal attributes and ideas correspondingly had no impact.

The Unknown Kropotkin?

While it may be tempting to proclaim the arrival of an ‘Unknown Kropotkin’ in listing these articles, we must resist. A close reading of his general works shows that the Kropotkin of those articles, the one who consistently advocated an International based purely on labour unions committed to ‘the direct struggle of Labour against Capital‘,[15] can be found there as well. That far too many commentators on his ideas seem happy to utilise secondary sources should not distract us from this fact.

Part of the problem rests in those who championed Kropotkin after his death. Those who proclaim themselves heir to a thinker inevitably shape how that person is viewed. Thus Benjamin Tucker’s work in translating and popularising Proudhon, while helpful, also resulted in his ideas becoming viewed through the prism of Tucker’s politics and so the significant differences between the two were obscured. For example, Proudhon’s call for ‘industrial democracy’ and the end of wage labour by co-operative production finds no echo in Tucker.[16]

In terms of Kropotkin, his revolutionary class struggle anarchism became less well known thanks to those in the post-war period who favoured reformism referencing him. He became identified almost exclusively with Mutual Aid, peaceful co-operation and encouraging libertarian tendencies within capitalism. Even informed libertarian socialists like Maurice Brinton accepted this interpretation of Kropotkin’s ideas.[17] At its most basic, this is a misreading of Mutual Aid (which is hardly silent on class conflict and points to unions as examples of mutual aid under capitalism) but unfortunately few seek out primary sources before pronouncing judgement.

The articles listed in the bibliography confirm Kropotkin’s long-standing support for syndicalist tactics and the ‘great contest between labour and capital — which constitutes the very essence of modern history’.[18] They also point against claims by George Woodcock that the 1890s saw Kropotkin concluding it was now a case of anarchism arriving by evolution.[19] This reflects Woodcock’s re-evaluation of his own politics, his move away from the revolutionary anarchism he previously advocated and into an academic career, rather than an accurate account of the evolution of Kropotkin’s ideas. True, Kropotkin was concerned with anarchists applying their principles in the ‘here and now’ but primarily, although not exclusively, in trade unions and other popular movements.[20]

Any change in Kropotkin’s activity does not reflect a change in his politics but is better explained by factors Woodcock himself notes: age (Kropotkin was in his fifties and sixties); ill-health; research for his books and articles; and the need to earn a living.[21] Moreover, as any libertarian activist knows, contributions to the movement’s press reflect what the writer thinks it needs. Kropotkin would have little need to reiterate previous arguments and ideas – whether this was on social revolution (he revised articles for The Conquest of Bread in the early 1890s) or anarchist involvement in the labour movement (the rise of syndicalism showed that this argument had been won within libertarian circles).[22]

He did write on the labour movement, for example producing a series of articles in the early 1900s on socialism for Freedom which argued against parliamentarianism and for union direct action which were subsequently reprinted as the pamphlets Socialism and Politics and The Coming Revival of Socialism. Workers had to maintain their ‘trade organisations in full mental and material readiness for war… it is only by the constant menace of a declaration of war, and by real war… that the workers have won any victories; while the tactics of the politicians have always been to weaken the anti-capitalist labour organisations’.[23] He argued that ‘although a general strike is a good method of struggle, it does not free the people that use it from the necessity of an armed struggle against the dominating order’[24] and that French syndicalists ‘considerably attenuated the resistance that the Social Revolution will probably meet with on its way’.[25] He stressed the necessity of popular uprisings in the run up to social revolution.[26]

These writings are not consistent with Woodcock’s interpretation. While Kropotkin may have been less optimistic about the prospects for revolution than he had been in the 1880s, the revolutionary class struggle orientation he had expressed since joining the IWMA in the early 1870s remained.[27] This is reflected by the works listed in the bibliography.

The consistency of Kropotkin’s politics raises an interesting question about ‘propaganda by the deed’. The term ‘propaganda by the deed’ was first used in anarchist circles in its modern form by Paul Brousse in 1877,[28] its verbal support in the movement peaked in the early 1880s and its most famous period was in France from March 1892 to June 1894 when it became to mean individual acts of violence against representatives of capitalist society. Given this and Kropotkin’s advocacy of syndicalist tactics in 1880-1[29] and after the London Dockers’ strike of 1889, the common notion that anarchists turned to syndicalism in response to the failure of ‘propaganda by the deed’ seems untenable – particularly given the syndicalist ideas championed by Bakunin and other revolutionary anarchists in the First International.[30] This suggests that anarchist involvement in the labour movement was not a response to ‘propaganda by the deed’ at all, that these individual acts were completely unrelated to the rise of syndicalism which had already started. The study of Kropotkin’s articles during 1889-92 provides a fruitful line of research to see how far leading anarchists returned to advocating libertarian involvement in the labour movement before the French ‘propaganda by the deed’ period started.[31]

Conclusion

This bibliography, incomplete as it is, presents the material needed to challenge the all-too-common notion that Kropotkin was a dreamer, presenting enticing visions of a better world but with no idea how to reach it. In reality, he was keenly aware of the need to understand capitalism and the state, to participate in the oppositional movements and struggles within it and to learn the lessons of previous revolutions to ensure the success of the next one.

In terms of the interaction between ‘sages’ and the movement, we must remember that it is all the unknown working class anarchists (past, present and future) whose hopes and struggles make Kropotkin relevant. He, like Proudhon and Bakunin, popularised the ideas in the movement and lessons learned from previous revolts in his own, unique, fashion. Yet, without the movement, its struggles and debates, his impact would have been less aas would have been his contribution to anarchism.

The fixation on the ‘sage’ is to be expected in a hierarchical society in which the few rule the many. That the dominant (class) perspective is ubiquitous does not excuse those who should know better (libertarians!) from repeating it. So while reacting to the old school of anarchist history (as popularised by Woodcock), we must be wary of an over-reaction and of going too far in the other direction. We must remember our ‘sages’ while always placing them in the context their writings reflect – the wider movement. Neither can be completely understood without the other.

An Incomplete Peter Kropotkin Bibliography

This lists of all books, pamphlets and articles by Kropotkin discovered during the research for Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (AK Press, Spring 2014). It is by no means complete, but is as comprehensive as possible. As well as original research, it draws upon the following books: Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-1886 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) by Caroline Cahm; Evolution & Revolution (Sydney: Jura Books, 1996) by Graham Purchase; Kropotkin by Martin A. Miller (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1976); A Short History of Anarchism (London: Freedom Press, 1996) and Bibliographie de l’Anarchie (Brussels/Paris: Bibliothèque des Temps Nouveaux, 1897), both by Max Nettlau; Kropotkin: The Politics of Community (New York: Humanity Books, 2004) by Brian Morris; and Paul Avrich’s ‘Kropotkin in America’ in Anarchist Portraits (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Books

This is a list of Kropotkin’s anarchist books. It does not attempt to list all the many translations of these works.

Pamphlets

This is a list of Kropotkin’s most significant pamphlets issued during his lifetime. It does not attempt to list all the many translations of these works.

Kropotkin’s Collected Works (Black Rose)

George Woodcock edited Kropotkin’s Collected Works shortly before his death in 1995. Its 11 volumes include all his major writings as well as numerous important essays and articles. This collection is by no means complete, missing out the articles collated in Act for Yourselves, for example, not to mention numerous articles in anarchist papers in Britain, France and Russia.

• Volume 1: Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1989)

• Volume 2: Great French Revolution (1989)

• Volume 3: Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (1989)

• Volume 4: The Conquest of Bread (1990)

• Volume 5: Russian Literature: Ideas and Reality (1991)

• Volume 6: In Russian and French Prisons (1991)

• Volume 7: Words of a Rebel (1992)

• Volume 8: Ethics: Origin and Development (1992)

• Volume 9: Fields, Factories and Workshops[33] (1996)

• Volume 10: Fugitive Writings[34] (1993)

• Volume 11: Evolution and Environment[35] (1995)

Anthologies

This lists all anthologies that contain only works by Kropotkin. All decent anthologies of anarchism contain extracts by Kropotkin but space precludes listing these as well.

An incomplete listing of anarchist articles, letters and prefaces by Kropotkin

This is a comprehensive, but incomplete, listing of articles by Kropotkin along with letters, prefaces, introductions and postscripts added to new editions of his works. It does not include all the articles in concluded in Conquest of Bread nor the many articles produced for the Russian papers Khleb i Volya (1903-5, 1909) and Listki ‘Khleb i Volya’ (1906-7).[42] His extensive scientific writings, including the non-anarchist entries for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, are not listed.

[1] Available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/kropotkinbiblio.html

[2] Martin A. Miller, Kropotkin (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1976)

[3] Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-1886 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

[4] See, for example, the discussion on Proudhon’s influence in the collectivisation debates within the First International in ‘Introduction’, Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology (Edinburgh/Oakland/Baltimore: AK Press, 2011), Iain McKay (ed.), 36-39

[5] ‘Letter to Pierre Leroux’, Property is Theft!, 499

[6] quoted in Nicholas Walter, The Anarchist Past and Other Essays (Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications, 2007), 112.

[7] ‘Anarchists and Trade Unions’, Freedom, June, 1907.

[8] ‘Modern Science and Anarchism,’ Environment and Evolution (Montreal/New York: Black Rose, 1995), 58, 57.

[9] K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).

[10] Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice (Edinburgh/Oakland: AK Press, 2004), 46-7, 54.

[11] The Haymarket Tragedy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 73

[12] Revolution from 1789 to 1906 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962), P.W. Postgate (ed.), 393-4.

[13] ‘Anarchism,’ Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (New York: Dover Press, 2002), Roger N. Baldwin (ed.), 294. The thesis of Black Flame is mostly correct and finds support in Kropotkin’s work: the modern anarchist movement emerged in the First International and syndicalism is an integral part of the revolutionary anarchist tradition. Its key flaw is, ironically given its desire to be true anarchism’s historical development, denying the term anarchist to Proudhon. (Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt, Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism – Counter-Power volume 1 [Edinburgh/Oakland: AK Press, 2009]).

[14] Peter Kropotkin, The Coming Revival of Socialism (London: Freedom Press, 1904), 8.

[15] ‘Kropotkin’s Letter [to French and British trade union delegates]’, Freedom, September 1901.

[16] ‘Introduction’, Property is Theft!, 45-6

[17] ‘The Russian Anarchists – And Kropotkin’, For Workers’ Power (Edinburgh/Oakland: AK Press, 2004), 86-8

[18] quoted in Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 350.

[19] G. Woodcock and I. Avakumovic, The Anarchist Prince: a biographical study of Peter Kropotkin (London: Boardman, 1950), 244-6

[20] See, for example, ‘Le Premier Mai 1891’ (La Révolte, October 18; October 25; November 1); ‘The Chicago Anniversary’ (Freedom, December 1891); ‘Commemoration of the Chicago Martyrs’ (Freedom, December 1892).

[21] Let us not forget that many of his mainstream works like Mutual Aid and Fields, Factories and Workshops originally appeared as paid-for work

[22] Kropotkin’s articles on anarchist involvement in the trade union movement during the periods 1881-2 and 1889-1892 (and beyond!) show the contestability of claims that the rise of syndicalism saw a turn ‘away from Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism’ towards an ’emphasis on workplace and trade union struggle.’ (Lewis H. Mates, ‘The Syndicalist Challenge in the Durham Coalfield before 1914’, 57-77, Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red [London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012], Alex Prichard, Ruth Kinna, Saku Pinta and David Berry (eds.), 61)

[23] Politics and Socialism (London: Freedom Group, 1903), 15.

[24] ‘Zakliucheniia s’ezda,’ Russkaia Revoliuciia i Anarkhizm: Doklady i Zakliucheniia 1906 g. (London: Kleb i Volia, 1907), P. A. Kropotkin, (ed.), 10 (Translation: Josephien van Kessel)

[25] Preface, Émile Pataud and Émile Pouget, How We Shall Bring about the Revolution: Syndicalism and the Cooperative Commonwealth (London: Pluto Press, 1990), xxxvi.

[26] ‘Insurrection et révolution’, Les Temps Nouveaux, 6 August 1910

[27] As he noted in 1902, he had ‘always preached active participation in the workers’ movement, in the revolutionary workers’ movement.‘ (‘Letter to Nettlau,’ Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution [Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970], Martin A. Miller (ed.), 304).

[28] The term initially referred to revolts like the Paris Commune and the (failed) insurrections organised by the Italian section of the IWMA (for example, the April 1877 insurrection in province of Benevento).

[29] As Caroline Cahm persuasively argues, Kropotkin did not support ‘propaganda by the deed’ and coined ‘the spirit of revolt’ as an alternative. This is reflected in his writings on the labour movement in the early 1880s.

[30] See my ‘Another View: Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism,’ Anarchist Studies 20:1.

[31] Like Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta urged libertarian involvement in the labour movement and May First events in 1890-2 (Davide Turcato, ‘Collective Action, Opacity, and the "Problem of Irrationality": Anarchism and the First of May, 1890-1892’, Journal for the Study of Radicalism 5:1, Spring 2011)

[32] Mother Earth, November and December 1916, January, February and March 1917.

[33] This is the abridged version of the work edited by Colin Ward and entitled Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow.

[34] This contains the following pamphlets: Must We Occupy Ourselves with an Examination of the Ideal of a Future System?; Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles; Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal; Anarchist Morality; and The State: Its Historic Role.

[35] Includes Modern Science and Anarchism and the articles: ‘The Theory of Evolution and Mutual Aid,’ The Nineteenth Century and After, January, 1910; ‘The Direct Action of Environment on Plants,’ The Nineteenth Century and After, July, 1910; ‘The Response of the Animals to Their Environment’ Part 1, The Nineteenth Century and After, November, 1910; ‘The Response of the Animals to Their Environment’ Part 2, The Nineteenth Century and After, December, 1910; ‘The Inheritance of Acquired Characters: Theoretical Difficulties’, The Nineteenth Century and After, March, 1912; ‘Inherited Variation in Plants,’ The Nineteenth Century, October, 1914; ‘Inherited Variation in Animals,’ The Nineteenth Century, November, 1914

[36] This includes: The Spirit of Revolt; Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles; Anarchist Morality; Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal; Modern Science and Anarchism; Law and Authority; Prisons and their Moral Influence on Prisoners; Revolutionary Government, The Russian Revolution and the Soviet Government (being: ‘Letter to the Workers of Western Europe’ and ‘What to Do?’); An Appeal to the Young; and ‘Anarchism’ (from Encyclopaedia Britannica). Many of these pamphlets are abridged, although this is usually not indicated in the text. While the editor states that all bar four of Kropotkin’s pamphlets published in English are included, it does not include ‘Revolutionary Studies’ (1892), ‘The Development of Trades Unionism’ (1901), ‘Politics and Socialism’ (1903) and ‘The Coming Revival of Socialism.’ (1904)

[37] Includes ‘Must We Occupy Ourselves with an Examination of the Ideal of a Future System’; ‘The Commune of Paris’; ‘The Russian Revolutionary Party’; ‘Expropriation’; ‘The State: Its Historic Role’; ‘The Revolution in Russia’; ‘Letter to Nettlau’; ‘Letter to Steffen’; ‘Letter to Brandes’; ‘Conversation with Lenin’; and ‘Two Letters to Lenin’

[38] Includes ‘Politics and Socialism’ as well as ‘On Order’, ‘The Situation’ and a revised translation of ‘The Commune of Paris’ from Words of a Rebel and extracts from ‘Must We Occupy Ourselves with an Examination of the Ideal of a Future System.’

[39] This includes the pamphlets: The Spirit of Revolt; An Appeal to the Young; Law and Authority; Prisons and their Moral Influence on Prisoners; Modern Science and Anarchism (abridged); The Wage System; and ‘Anarchism’ (from Encyclopaedia Britannica). It also has selections from the books: Memoirs of a Revolutionist; Mutual Aid; The Great French Revolution; The Conquest of Bread; and Fields, Factories and Workshops.

[40] The ‘other writings’ are: ‘Western Europe’ (newly translated from the Russian edition of Memoirs of a Revolutionist), ‘Anarchism’ (from The Encyclopaedia Britannica), ‘Message to the Workers of the Western World’, two Letters to Lenin and ‘What is to be done?’

[41] Contains ‘Communism and Anarchy’ (Freedom, July and August 1901), ‘Proposed Communist Settlement: A New Colony for Tyneside or Wearside’ (The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, 20 February, 1895) and ‘Advice to Those About to Emigrate’ (Freedom, March 1893)

[42] Bread and Freedom and Leaflets from ‘Bread and Freedom’ (respectively). Kropotkin’s articles are listed by M. Korn, ‘P. A. Kropotkin i russkoe revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie’ in G.P. Maksimov (ed.), P. A. Kropotkin i ego uchenie, Chicago: Federatsiia Russkikh Anar-Komm, 1931

[43] Included in a different translation in No Gods, No Masters.

[44] In Mother Earth, May 1912.

[45] Included in a different translation in No Gods, No Masters.

[46] Included in Revolutionary Pamphlets.

[47] An edited version is included in Revolutionary Pamphlets.

[48] Included in Revolutionary Pamphlets.

[49] Included in Revolutionary Pamphlets and No Gods, No Masters.

[50] An Abridged version was published in Benjamin Tucker’s Liberty February 17, 1883.

[51] Edited version in Mother Earth, June 1906.

[52] Alternative translation appeared in Mother Earth, September 1907

[53] According to his biographer Martin A. Miller, Kropotkin wrote ‘frequent’ letters to the London Times. (Kropotkin, p. 201)

[54] Included in a different translation in No Gods, No Masters and Revolutionary Pamphlets

[55] An edited version is included in Revolutionary Pamphlets as ‘What to Do?’