Deliberation Makes People Consistently Selfish

[Ben]

There is no correct belief system, beliefs are not reality. It's only when you drop your beliefs, systems, generalizations, stereotypes, and whatever else you think you know about yourself or the world that you see reality as it really is.

If you were immortal and lived forever, would you ever follow or create an authoritarian system? They are systems based off of fear that inevitably attempt to break people down into roles and neglect their true nature, all for the purpose of what? Preservation, and in the end, everyone dies anyway. Or let me ask you the opposite question, if you knew you were going to die very soon, would you continue to believe in systems or follow strict authoritarian rule, whether internal or external?

One should follow no system at all and enjoy every second of their lives free of systems and thought patterns. For the present moment is all that is real, and nothing can make a lasting difference, positive or negative, for anyone. There is only life energy. You may be very alive with very good thyroid function, but it isn't any better than dying on a hospital bed, you can only adapt better to your environment, that's it. Dying animals do not suffer, they do not compare their pain to the pleasure they felt or can feel outside of the present moment.

As humanity had gained the ability to speak and think about systems, the past, and the future, it has also become disconnected from nature, the present, and reality as it is. The next step for any human being is to put himself or herself above the thoughts, judgements, and belief systems that disconnect them from nature and the flow of pure energy. Unity, love, and compassion are inevitable then. The huge multitude of problems in today's society, whether in nutrition, medicine, education, law, government, or any system, will not be solved until the actual basis of society, the people, change.

 

[Amazoniac]

My rant below is just for entertainment purposes, I am not looking to start an argument
I agree that at some point it would depend on the definition of selfishness. I like your last statement that a person with good health/metabolism would not concern themselves too much with the riches of someone else but will be busy improving their own lifestyle. As far as helping others, I think the situation where a charitable person gives money and encourages bad behavior in the recipient is in cases where the recipient is in a bad state of health and as such has no interest in doing anything productive, being rather "happy" to collect money from everybody else as donation. For that reason, I personally do not view handing out money to strangers as necessarily good thing.
However, what I do think is a good idea is help (mostly through time investment) the person in need so that their health/metabolism improves to a degree where they do not need or want handouts anymore, and then become productive and future oriented like their benefactors.
So, here is something from personal experience that I think would clarify my points. The Soviet system was keenly aware of the fact that if you consistently take from the excellent members and just give it freely to the lazy bums, very soon you would have an environment where nobody would want to work and the state will collapse. So, contrary to popular opinion and knowledge in the West, the Soviets (1950s and later) were very good at identifying those excellent individuals and encouraging their growth, as long as officially they stayed within the approved framework of views. Privately, the excellent people were allowed to do pretty much what they wanted to. For the "mediocre" and worse, the system devised a solution and sort of took it to the extreme. Basically, if you were a bum or somehow an unproductive individual, you were NOT allowed to beg on the streets or get charitable donations. In some situations, even your willing benefactors were prohibited from "helping" you b/c just like you mentioned the state believed that handing out help indiscriminately would encourage more unproductive behavior. So, if you were the bum you would be taken against your will and subjected to medical examination and/or treatment, and upon improvement in health you will be given a stern warning and a choice - no more begging, ever. If you want to eat and live well you will have to work for that and be productive. The state would find you work of course and as much as it was an involuntary system it did try to match whatever work preferences you had to the work you were assigned to do. Otherwise, if you were in demonstrably good health and refused to be productive you go to jail, where most often you will be forced to work whether you like it or not as part of some "rehabilitation" program.
So, the Soviet system viewed begging, laziness, and generally bummy behavior as a health issue that could be corrected, and for many people it was. There were some cases that were "incorrigible" and were assigned to a system for lifetime monitoring and maintenance, but even those were consistently being "treated" for some sort of condition.
Btw, Ray wrote about some of these issues and events in his "Mind and Tissue" book.
Now, I am not sure libertarians would agree with the state forcing individuals to do things, even if the thing you are forced to do is to improve your health. But the Soviet system was concerned with giving everyone an equal chance in life, maximizing the number of excellent people, and a large part of that "chance" is health. So, they viewed it as acceptable to force people on health matters so that then people will have a true choice to exercise their potential - a potential the Soviets thought was of equally great magnitude for everyone in good health.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the libertarian world freedom of choice is paramount. So, already excellent people will continue to make excellent choices and tend to multiply that excellence through their children, while the lazy bums will continue to decay in their bad health and rely on handouts all as a result of their bad "choice". Btw, there won't be any handouts since libertarians view handouts as counterproductive and unhelpful in the long run. While on the surface it looks like everyone is exercising their free choice and the system "selects" for people based on their excellence, I would argue that the people with wrecked health hardly exercise a choice at all. Unless there is an external stimulus (or force) to bring the bums out of their health misery they will stay that way and propagate it through their children as well. The system will encourage a tremendous polarization, coming seemingly as a result of free choices. Note - I am absolutely NOT advocating just getting from the rich (healthy) to give to the poor (sick). That would probably be the worst choice, since likely it won't cure the sick and will also make the healthy sick as well by taking away both their resources and their motivation. However, the polarized system is NOT good and something must be done to at least initially help the poor/sick. How exactly this is done so that it complies with libertarian free choice I have no clue yet but I am thinking about it
Sorry about the long rant.

Dr Abram Hoffer MD, PhD 1917 – 2009 - Alliance for Natural Health International
"my patient is cured when he is able to pay income tax"

 

[MatheusPN]

This thread is great! It has an earlier version of Haidut, it has a person who sums Anarcocapitalism, seductively.
Initially, I wanted to only smash the idea, now I want to further that and annihilate Ancaps
So please Ancaps and anyone, help me, where I am not correct, where I'm uneducated?

Cooperation vs Competition
Why rewarding selfishness is bad

Ancap stimulates people to be selfish, to be favorable in out-competing the rest, who detains the Military/ manipulative sovereignty, dominate and dictate, it also permits monopoly of the terrain, allowing and aiding dynasties/ monarchies. Ancap is awfully hierarchical
The community that invests in short term victory, like wars or capital only success, will retain the most advantages, a pyrrhic conquest one.
Why empower research in the origin of our lives if only the future generation, of short terms, of psychos, will benefit in the Ancapistan?

Money, Capitalism over everything
How a 99% Ancap society would prevent a Machiavellian plan by Oligarchic billionaires? By betraying their fundamental principle? By forcing people to not sell or work to Billy Gates? Or PNA isn't the only minimal factor of justice in Ancap?
Ancap is very vulnerable to coercion because it allows psichos billionaires to succeed thanks to selfish/ hypo people

Solution
Very straightforward and better for everyone wanting a tree, to cooperate, to divide it, so each one can work for their half or cooperate in their work and use.
Much easier to determine who has the privilege of something if he is who worked for it. And…
What can be used to dominate another, like gold mines or forests, can't be privatized

If you think that selling the Amazoniaco sticks, to whoever pays the most is fine then you think a monopoly is fine. Anarchy is about how to reduce authoritarianism!
Let's permit that they sell the beaches to Billy Gates. Regulating it would be very problematic and in Ancapistan it’s against their fundamentals right?

If you find Amazoniaco and cooperate, everyone wins

Monopoly. Hierarchy.
Ancapism, just competitive behavior, would result in Monarchic-Lands, Kingdoms
"The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist...” -Rothbard the founder of Anarco-capitalism
Again, incredibly hierarchical, allowing and benefiting a very authoritarian society, alike Kingdoms

Minarchy, Fascist. Ancap, Billy Gaites
A minarchist state is just a dormant psycho controlling all the Nukes
An Ancap Land is just a terrain wishing to be dominated by the Billy Gaites

Question
Who is an important leader/ producer of Ancap who isn’t supremacist or racist?

Anarchic Utopia
Anarchy notions are tough to establish because manipulation/ coercion can prevail everywhere
How to solve authoritarianism is difficult if not by Hyperthyroid being! In a plentiful and altruistic community
Utopic anarchy involves anti-authoritarianism which includes noticing the truth. So we would attain the creationist class what this disproves?
@Drareg @Wagner83 @DaveFoster @LeeLemonoil @Giraffe @Cirion @tankasnowgod@Lejeboca @Rafael Lao Wai @methylenewhite

 

[MatheusPN]

The problem of Ancaps: Short term vs long-term. Dialect Materialism. War/ Domination> Cooperation, science

 

[DaveFoster]

This thread is great! It has an earlier version of Haidut, it has a person who sums Anarcocapitalism, seductively.
Initially, I wanted to only smash the idea, now I want to further that and annihilate Ancaps
So please Ancaps and anyone, help me, where I am not correct, where I'm uneducated?

Cooperation vs Competition
Why rewarding selfishness is bad

Ancap stimulates people to be selfish, to be favorable in out-competing the rest, who detains the Military/ manipulative sovereignty, dominate and dictate, it also permits monopoly of the terrain, allowing and aiding dynasties/ monarchies. Ancap is awfully hierarchical
The community that invests in short term victory, like wars or capital only success, will retain the most advantages, a pyrrhic conquest one.
Why empower research in the origin of our lives if only the future generation, of short terms, of psychos, will benefit in the Ancapistan?

Money, Capitalism over everything
How a 99% Ancap society would prevent a Machiavellian plan by Oligarchic billionaires? By betraying their fundamental principle? By forcing people to not sell or work to Billy Gates? Or PNA isn't the only minimal factor of justice in Ancap?
Ancap is very vulnerable to coercion because it allows psichos billionaires to succeed thanks to selfish/ hypo people

Solution
Very straightforward and better for everyone wanting a tree, to cooperate, to divide it, so each one can work for their half or cooperate in their work and use.
Much easier to determine who has the privilege of something if he is who worked for it. And…
What can be used to dominate another, like gold mines or forests, can't be privatized

If you think that selling the Amazoniaco sticks, to whoever pays the most is fine then you think a monopoly is fine. Anarchy is about how to reduce authoritarianism!
Let's permit that they sell the beaches to Billy Gates. Regulating it would be very problematic and in Ancapistan it’s against their fundamentals right?

If you find Amazoniaco and cooperate, everyone wins

Monopoly. Hierarchy.
Ancapism, just competitive behavior, would result in Monarchic-Lands, Kingdoms
"The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist...” -Rothbard the founder of Anarco-capitalism
Again, incredibly hierarchical, allowing and benefiting a very authoritarian society, alike Kingdoms

Minarchy, Fascist. Ancap, Billy Gaites
A minarchist state is just a dormant psycho controlling all the Nukes
An Ancap Land is just a terrain wishing to be dominated by the Billy Gaites

Question
Who is an important leader/ producer of Ancap who isn’t supremacist or racist?

Anarchic Utopia
Anarchy notions are tough to establish because manipulation/ coercion can prevail everywhere
How to solve authoritarianism is difficult if not by Hyperthyroid being! In a plentiful and altruistic community
Utopic anarchy involves anti-authoritarianism which includes noticing the truth. So we would attain the creationist class what this disproves?
@Drareg @Wagner83 @DaveFoster @LeeLemonoil @Giraffe @Cirion @tankasnowgod@Lejeboca @Rafael Lao Wai @methylenewhite

Cooperation is most effective, but there needs to be trust and an abundance of energy, and humans have neither, at least applied universally, at the moment.

 

[MatheusPN]

Cooperation is most effective, but there needs to be trust and an abundance of energy, and humans have neither, at least applied universally, at the moment.

Yes and further, Anarchic cooperation is more effective and because it interferes/ hinders the rise in supremacy through what can be used to subjugate another, can't be privatized. So psychos won't have benefits through making another worse/ inferior. Quite the contrary! Cruelness will be indirectly/ directly punished!

For me you were inclined to libertarianism/ Ancapism/ Privatarianism or I was right?

"The narrative that competition and the rat race uplifts everyone is necessarily false, because the rats who climb to the top of the rope have every incentive to cut it behind them. Everything they value is offered as an incentive to keep everyone else from succeeding." -Caitlin Johnstone
Curiosity: Synchronicity, made her twitt things concerning exactly those topics I started. Recently.
Promising ideas like these being spread is great

The day after bringing that post, I had additional insights...

 

[MatheusPN]

Plato asserts that the truth can be achieved through reason, a priori, if he was the king or ruler, any idea from him could be imposed with only words as a foundation. Something that the majority, defends currently, especially in the lockdown.
Yes, Plato was authoritarian and Oligarchical! If, of course, in his books, he truly believed that or they weren't changed/ influenced. Probably all of that.
"philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize"

Hey, who's the most lovely doctor in the Realm?
Or in an Ancap world: who has the most power to destroy/ conquer?

 

[MatheusPN]

"That the equalization of property exercises an influence on political society was clearly understood even by some of the old legislators. Laws were made by Solon and others prohibiting an individual from possessing as much land as he pleased." -Aristotle
Huge opposition in government judgment in relation to Plato.
@Such_Saturation I was impressed by some posts of you in 2015 and I think you would like. Also, confusedly I thought you were an ancapist...
Wow, Such, a once very active member was last observed in April!? So I will do the opposite @ecstatichamster I hope it's useful and enjoyable to you

 

[MatheusPN]

"Privatize everything, privatize the sea and the sky, privatize the water and the air, privatize justice and the law, privatize the passing cloud, privatize the dream, especially if it’s during the day and open eyed. And finally, for the embellishment of so many privatizations, privatize the States, surrender once and for all their exploitation to private companies through an international share offering. There lies the salvation of the world. . .
and while you’re at it, privatize your whore mothers.”
or "privatize yourself, the whore who breed them all"
— José Saramago

Anarchists differentiate: Private property/ Capitalism from personal/ posession property
The capitalist is for the monopolies like Standard Oil, to establish wage slavery while the other is for you, your car
@mrchibbs @Regina I highly feel you two will enjoy

Marxist-Leninist, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, are centralized systems, compatible with Fascist systems, hierarchical systems, Anti-Socialist systems.
Anarchy is a decentralized system, with free association and dissent, dissociation

 

[MatheusPN]

Anarchism aspires to decentralize power. Capitalism favors the centralization of power, through the concentration of wealth and consequently culminates in the formation of some State/ kingdom (oligarchy/ dictatorship). Ancaps want to be dominated by the rich and powerful.
Only with the decentralization of power, in a non-hierarchical system with true democracy, free association and dissent, dissociation, we will achieve an ethical anti-authoritarian humanity.

Ancaps: "The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist...” -Rothbard
(I almost did a repost...) So added something...

 

[Energizer]

Solid writeup. My only disagreement would be with this statement "Marxist-Leninist, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, are centralized systems, compatible with Fascist systems, hierarchical systems, Anti-Socialist systems."

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state... Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing."

“We are not utopians, we do not “dream” of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and "foremen and accountants".” - V.I. Lenin

“It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

"Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.”

“Undoubtedly, our path is not of the easiest; but, just as undoubtedly, we are not to be frightened by difficulties. Paraphrasing from the well-known words of Luther, Russia might say: ‘Here I stand on the frontier between the old, capitalist world and the new, socialist world. Here on this frontier I unite the efforts of the proletarians of the West and of the peasantry of the East in order to shatter the old world. May the god of history be my aid!”

“Advance towards socialism cannot but cause the exploiting elements to resist the advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable sharpening of the class struggle.” - Joseph Stalin

Stalin was a pupil of Lenin's and adopted many of his same ideas. From the best I can tell, their goal was for the poor working class the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and ruling elite, and eventually transition to a stateless society. Contrary to the notion that they wanted to rule with an iron fist, the goal was actually the opposite. They being poor themselves, were not enemies of the working class, and held a very positive reputation in the Soviet Union from the workering class and poor who saw them as allies in the struggle for a better quality of life. Their negative reputation, and the negative reputation of communism as well as socialism, seems to mostly stem from anti-communist brainwashing churned out by the CIA, Leon Trotsky, Kruschevites, and oppositional factions within the former SU and modern Russia. The difficulties of WWII coupled with a Trotskyist CIA conspiracy to smeer communism, socialism, Stalin, and paint a bleak picture of the Soviet Union as if the struggles of the country and its people were a result of socialism, rather than a result of the outside forces and oppositional anti-communist factions within and outside of the SU. These forces intended to disrupt the rise of communism, particularly the US gov't, and its fascist co-conspirators helped foster the modern neoliberal cultural environment that exists today, pushing the "left" in the direction of the "right" and helping create a contrived ideological schism between anarchists and socialists.

So that is why, as an anarchist, I don't see the socialism of Lenin and Stalin as distinct in any major way from anarchism, they are extremely similar. They wanted the same things ultimately. Also I think that a strong case could be made for their methods, because they simply are more organized than anarchists and align themselves with the working class. Socialists, imo, are ideological allies in the struggle towards this world.

The only difference was their methods. Unfortunately Stalin in particular has acquired a bad reputation in Western academia in the history books, but he was one of the leaders of socialism, and his negative reputation, whether fair or not or accurate to history (which I personally doubt), has cast a very negative light on socialism itself -- guilt by association. It's an effective propaganda technique and one that is convenient for the oligarchs who see socialism and socialist movements as a threat to their hegemony.

Now that's not to say they were perfect, they definitely made plenty of mistakes. And there were problems with the implementations of socialism. But these problems were a reflection of the complexities of the time including the CIA conspiracy to dismantle communism everywhere including in the Soviet Union, with Trotsky as one of the lead co-conspirators in attempting to destroy the Bolshevik party. There is a reason Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union, he was a potent source of disinformation for the left and helped create the schism we have today between the political movements. Trotsky was no leftist, he was a fascist sympathizer who couched his writing and speeches in the thin veneer of leftist rhetoric.

Although to some degree the implementation of socialism eventually failed with the dissolution of the SU, the ideas were always were in theory, the exact same as that of the goal of anarchists: a stateless, non-hierarchical society. Also, the achievements of socialism should not be taken for granted, imo. The achievements of the SU to the power of socialism in solving many of the problems that existed in the time, bringing literacy up of the peasant populations and turning formerly illiterate countries of the SU into extremely literate populations with a flourishing of science and scientific research that is still being felt in the West. These achievements of socialism are often glossed over, but they are not insignificant. Russian brain science is many decades ahead of neuroscience and psychology in the West, in part because of Soviet socialism improving literacy and education, and thus scientific output. Ray even wrote an entire book about the achievements of Soviet brain science and psychology, Mind and Tissue.

The difference is, the anarchists wanted immediately to do without any state power, and the socialists wanted to transition to this stateless society gradually, the socialists regarding the latter as a more pragmatic approach. The recent obfuscation of fascism and communism seems to be not only the confusion about language but also a result of the deliberate anti-communism propaganda efforts:

Anti-Communism is a Fundamentalist Religion, Now Followed by Billions

Anti-Communism in the West and in its colonies, is a tremendous industry. It is easily the greatest and on-going propaganda campaign in the history of the world. Its metastasis has been spreading even into the core of the Communist and socialist countries themselves.

All of that is because the Western, imperialist countries know perfectly well that their empire can only survive if Communism collapses.

It is because the very essence of Communism is the perpetual struggle against imperialism.

The damning fact about a lot of intellectual leaders in the anarchist circles praised in the West is many of them were sympathetic to imperialism and had no problem bashing socialism or the struggle of communism:

Anarchist hero Murray Bookchin was a Zionist who whitewashed Israeli colonialism and war crimes

What is not often mentioned, however, is that — like many of his anarchists and “libertarian socialist” peers — Bookchin was very soft on imperialism, and in some cases downright apologetic.

Specifically, Bookchin was a Zionist who publicly whitewashed and even rationalized Israel’s crimes against humanity. He also frequently demonized independent post-colonial governments in the Global South, echoing imperialist propaganda and chauvinistic myths about countries targeted by the United States for regime change....

... Bookchin saw right-wing “free-market” libertarians as his political allies, and demonized the international communist and socialist left as “totalitarian.”

Lenin, after meeting with Kropotkin had this to say about his ideas and anarchism:

"How old he has become," Vladimir Ilyich said to me. "Now he is living in a country that is bursting with revolution, where everything has been completely turned upside down, and he cannot think of anything else but to talk about the cooperative movement. There you have the poverty of ideas of the anarchists and all other petty bourgeois reformers and theoreticians, who at a moment of massive creative activities, at the time of a revolution, are never able to come up with a good plan or with good practical advice. For if we did what he says for but a minute, then tomorrow we would have the autocracy back in power and we would all, including himself, be chatting around a streetlamp, and he only because he calls himself an anarchist. And how well he wrote, what wonderful books, how refreshing and how precisely did he formulate and did he think, and now that is all in the past and nothing is left... But of course he is very old and we must surround him with care and help him with everything he needs as far as possible, but that needs to be dealt with very delicately and very carefully. He is very useful and precious for us because of his whole terrific past and because of everything he has done. Please do not lose sight of him, take care of him and his family and keep me informed about everything, then we will discuss it together and help him."

A meeting between V.I. Lenin and P. A. Kropotkin

It is very difficult to disagree with Lenin about one thing, anarchists are not organized! Unlike the Bolsheviks, self-described anarchists usually do not do anything to change the established order and have no gameplan. Anarchists should develop a gameplan and should organize and learn from the wisdom of the Bolsheviks in terms of developing a coherent organization and gameplan. Kropotkin however, was organized, and did activism in Europe and Russia, he wasn't just an arm-chair theoretician. But Kropotkin was very old by the time he met Lenin, so that's probably why Lenin saw him in such a pitiful way.

One thing is indisputable. Even if the dictatorship of the party were an appropriate means to bring about a blow to the capitalist system ( which I strongly doubt), it is nevertheless harmful for the creation of a new socialist system. What are necessary and needed are local institutions, local forces; but there are none, anywhere. Instead of this, wherever one turns there are people who have never known anything of real life, who are committing the gravest errors which have been paid for with thousands of lives and the ravaging of entire districts.

Kropotkin himself saw the necessity for the need of organization. Ultimately, while I am more sympathetic to Kropotkin's ideals than Lenin's, I share Lenin's concerns over the lack of organization and lack of revolutionary politics in modern anarchism, the lack of a guiding ideology and pragmatic gameplan within modern anarchism, of how anarchist politics often just is "petty bourgeois" theorizing and doesn't contribute to any substantive action. Simultaneously we should be aware of corruption that tends to occur with centralization of power, which is a vindication of Kropotkin's views. But an anarchist society must be able to defend itself against capitalist aggressors if it is to survive at all.

Letter to Lenin

What is the future of anarchism?

 

[MatheusPN]

@Energizer I think a reply to this in your thread, 92%, would be more adequate.
Thanks, man, after you alerted me and presented some works. I am unsure how the SU operated. Maybe Kropotkin wasn't very aware of what was happening in the SU.
Anarchists and Communists love these chats, started nicely then become harsh. Nice to know about Bookchin, didnt know much about him...

Anarchist organization? Take a look at platformism/ especifism, platformism was very improved by Makhno a incredible work! So much that it become the principal strategy employed to this day. The Bolsheviks, thanks to Trotsky propaganda and with support and some orders from Lenin, destroyed the Ukranian anarchists right after Mahknovia defeated the White Army.
Mahkno a peasant semi-illiterate, sucesfully organized an effective army of peasants.

"hostility to the city nourished the movement of Makhno, who seized and looted trains marked for the factories, the plants, and the Red Army; tore up railroad tracks; shot Communists. Of course, Makhno called this the anarchist struggle with the state. In reality, this was the struggle of the infuriated petty property owner against the proletarian dictatorship". This is only one of the hostilities against Mahkno by Trotsky.

Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov and Stalin were extremely critics of Kropotkin and anarchism.
Kropotkin is very critic of Marxism, Stalin, the bolsheviks and of Lenin.
Kropotkin was a hero, he had everything to have a nice and tranquil life as a noble prince, but he fought.
My Visit to Kremlin by Mahkno, when he encountered Lenin and Sverdlov, sums incredibly well the tough relation between the Bolsheviks and the anarchists.

Kropotkin,
On Lenin: "Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing."

On SU: "Unhappily, this effort has been made in Russia under a strongly centralized party dictatorship. This effort was made in the same way as the extremely centralized and Jacobin endeavor of Baboeuf. I owe it to you to say frankly that, according to my view, this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralized state communism under the iron law of party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning to know in Russia how not to introduce communism, even with a people tired of the old regime and opposing no active resistance to the experiments of the new rulers."

Stalin: "The third "accusation" of the Anarchists consists in denying that Social-Democracy is a popular movement, describing the Social-Democrats as bureaucrats, and affirming that the Social-Democratic plan for the dictatorship of the proletariat spells death to the revolution, and since the Social-Democrats stand for such a dictatorship they actually want to establish not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but their own dictatorship over the proletariat."
Evidently, anarchists were right, Stalin.