Sympathetic but uncomprehending liberals and socialists have often tended to regard Kropotkin as something of a naïve and impractical idealist. Yet he always maintained that idealism had to be expressed in action – action which should be in conformity with and directed towards the attainment of clearly articulated aims and ideals. He was by inclination, in fact, a man of action, indeed a man ever impatient for action, who, in spite of a tendency like most revolutionaries of the time to underestimate the strength of the capitalist state, had an informed and often astute grasp of contemporary politics. Nettlau was nearer the truth when he remarked that in comparison with Reclus, Kropotkin's anarchism seemed ‘harder, less tolerant, more disposed to be practical’, and his defects, as Nettlau's implies, were actually those of the uncompromising yet sophisticated and skilled agitator.

The European anarchist movement which emerged from the Anti-authoritarian International at the end of the seventies was faced with an incredibly difficult situation. As well as an increasing hostility between itself and the rest of the socialist movement there was an intensification of government persecution in response to anarchist agitation and insurrectionary activity. It also had to contend with a demoralisation in its ranks leading to the withdrawal of Guillaume and Schwitzguébel from active involvement and the defection, first of Costa and Brousse, then later Gautier, Bernard and Liégeon. Kropotkin undoubtedly played an important and generally constructive role in this situation.