Peter Kropotkin, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
The wage system is the thing to be abolished, and the collectivist who keeps it under a new name has not understood the revolution.12 To pay each worker in proportion to the labour he contributes — whether in money or in the labour-notes the collectivists propose — is to preserve the accounting of human beings in hours and to carry the whole apparatus of measurement, supervision, and inequality into the new society.3
And the accounting cannot even be done honestly, for no product is the work of one pair of hands: every loaf, every engine, every book is the fruit of the labour of all who came before and all who cooperate now, an inheritance no individual can be said to have earned as his separate portion. Since the wealth of society is a common inheritance, and since the first thing a revolution must secure is that no one starves while the granaries are full, the just principle is not "to each according to his work" but "to each according to his needs." Take the bread, the houses, the clothing, and guarantee well-being to all at once — this is the conquest of bread, and it is the only foundation on which real liberty can stand, for a hungry man is not free.
The objection that people will not work without the wage's compulsion mistakes the wage-slave, ground down by forced labour, for the free worker, who finds in useful and varied work, undertaken in common, one of the first needs of a full human life.45
Such a society would be compelled to abandon the wage-system altogether. It appears impossible that the mitigated Individualism of the Collectivist school could co-exist with the partial Communism implied by holding land and machinery in common — unless imposed by a powerful government, much more powerful than all those of our own times.Anarchist Communism, pp. 20–21
It is not worth while to make the attempt. 10 Freedom PampKUte, That is why certain CoUectivists, understanding the impossibility of maintaining a scale of wages in a society inspired by the influence of the Revolution, zealously advocate equality in wages. But they only stumble against fresh difficulties, and their equality of wages becomes a Utopia, as incapable of realisation as the wage scale of the others.The Wage System
And as long as the inhabited house, the held and the mill belong to individual owners, so long will it be requisite to pay them in some way before they will allow you to work in their fields oi' their mills, or to lodge in their houses. And it will also be requisite to pay wages to the worker, either in gold or in paper money or in labor notes exchangeable for all sorts of commodities.The Wage System
To preserve this system, those who now monopolize capital would be ready to make certain concessions; to share, for example, a part of the profits with the workers, or rather to establish a "sliding scale," which would oblige them to raise wages when prices were high; in brief they would consent to certain sacrifices on condition that they were still allowed to direct industry and to take its first fruits.The Conquest of Bread
Eight hours visiting the sick in a hospital will be worth the same as eight hours spent in earthworks or else in mines or factories. Some make a greater concession; they admit that disagreeable or unhealthy work--such as sewerage--could be paid for at a higher rate than agreeable work. One hour's work of a sewerman would be worth, they say, two hours of a professor's work.The Conquest of Bread
Anarchist communism — Kropotkin's distinctive position — is defined against both the individualist anarchists and the collectivists (including the Marxist "lower phase" formula, "to each according to his work"). The central modern challenge is the socialist-calculation problem raised by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek: that without market prices a complex economy cannot rationally allocate scarce resources, so a moneyless, need-based system must either fail or reintroduce central planning of the kind anarchism rejects. Kropotkin's decentralized, federated, need-based vision is also pressed by the historical record of centralized communism (which he himself opposed) and defended by the contemporary mutual-aid, commons, and degrowth movements, and by anthropologists (David Graeber) documenting non-market distribution.