to put it another way, chomsky famously claimed that kropotkin never "made his point", or something like that. it's often forgotten that he also said that kropotkin argued his point as well as hobbes or whomever else did, but chomsky did famously concede that kropotkin didn't really prove his case.

that was before dawkins, who has synthesized the theory that kropotkin needed to prove his case.

there's a cultural opposition to dawkins on a lot of the fake left, but the fact is that they don't know their own history, and the lot of them are actually mostly conservatives, an ideology that's been largely discarded by mainstream politics. somewhere along the way, a lot of people got very confused, as they sought and built alternatives while blurring traditional political lines.

the fact is that the left, including the anarchist or libertarian left, is historically deeply anti-religious, as it comes so firmly out of the enlightenment. voltaire. godwin. paine. proudhon. marx. bakunin. kropotkin. malatesta. and now dawkins. these people, amongst themselves, have written some of the most brutal attacks on religion in the history of western civilization. and, these are the pre-eminent anarchist thinkers...

what somebody's going to need to do is properly synthesize dawkins with kropotkin, to give kropotkin what he needs to fill in his argument by drawing on the ideas of dawkins (and the theorists that dawkins drew heavily from). and, maybe it will be good enough to get chomsky to cede the point?