Read tiny bits and read a few people talking about it, have a copy on my shelf waiting for me with loads of other stuff, so can't be much help.
But the whole thing as far as I understand it was that BOTH competition between species (so not really anti-darwinian) and co-operation within species are major factors of evolution. Co-operation within species being the overall most important indicator of survival. Ants and humans good examples.
More interestingly, what's the presentation for?
I'm studying anthropology and I'm doing a course on economic anthropology. I have to talk about kropotkin to my class but it's ok cos no one else had heard of him and my tutor is kinda hazy on the details so I can pretty much wing it.
Thanks tho, that's kinda what I'd gleaned form reading the conclusion on the wikipedia entry but in easier language 
8)
Have you seen this?
"Kropotkin Was No Crackpot" - Stephen Jay Gould (for those who don't know he's like the American version of Richard Dawkins)
http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm
"As the title suggests, Kropotkin argues, in his cardinal premise, that the struggle for existence usually leads to mutual aid rather than combat as the chief criterion of evolutionary success. Human society must therefore build upon our natural inclinations (not reverse them, as Huxley held) in formulating a moral order that will bring both peace and prosperity to our species. in a series of chapters, Kropotkin tries to illustrate continuity between natural selection for mutual aid among animals and the basis for success in increasingly progressive human social organization. His five sequential chapters address mutual aid among animals, among savages, among barbarians, in the medieval city, and amongst ourselves."
[...]
"This Russian school of Darwinian critics, Todes argues, based its major premise upon a firm rejection of Malthus's claim that competition, in the gladiatorial mode, must dominate in an ever more crowded world, where population, growing geometrically, inevitably outstrips a food supply that can only increase arithmetically. Tolstoy, speaking for a consensus of his compatriots, branded Malthus as a "malicious mediocrity.""
[...]
" Kropotkin begins by acknowledging that struggle plays a central role in the lives of organisms and also provides the chief impetus for their evolution. But Kropotkin holds that struggle must not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. It must be divided into two fundamentally different forms with contrary evolutionary meanings. We must recognize, first of all, the struggle of organism against organism for limited resources--the theme that Malthus imparted to Darwin and that Huxley described as gladiatorial. This form of direct struggle does lead to competition for personal benefit.
But a second form of struggle--the style that Darwin called metaphorical--pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. Organisms must struggle to keep warm, to survive the sudden and unpredictable dangers of fire and storm, to persevere through harsh periods of drought, snow, or pestilence. These forms of struggle between organism and environment are best waged by cooperation among members of the same species-by mutual aid. If the struggle for existence pits two lions against one zebra, then we shall witness a feline battle and an equine carnage. But if lions are struggling jointly against the harshness of an inanimate environment, then lighting will not remove the common enemy--while cooperation may overcome a peril beyond the power of any single individual to surmount."
HTH.
Yeah, what AnarchoAl and Catch said.
Mutual Aid was basically a reaction to Huxley's take on Darwinism, which overemphasised intra-specific competition and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwin actually talked about cooperation too, but Kropotkin expanded on it, as well as highlighting the continuity between cooperation in animals and cooperation within human societies.
I guess if you're interested in the anthropology side of it you can safely ignore the chapter about mutual aid among animals and skip to the various human societies. If you skim it you can probably find plenty of good examples to use in your presentation (although some of them were probably bullshit, so you might have to check that they haven't been debunked).
I'd recommend The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley too - similar subject matter but from a much more up-to-date evolutionary perspective. Explains how selfish genes can make us altruistic.
from a anthropological view point not sure how well mutal aid will go down. Its socioboligical and evoluntionist, not things that are very popular in anthropological circles. Kropotkins bit on human societies (savages and barbarians and the like), like most anthropology of that period, isn't going to have much validity today. Also got to ask is a sociobological arguement more acceptable cos it reaches 'left-wing' conclusions? Usually the sort of people that wouldn't touch sociobiological theroy with a barge pole become a lot more receptive when its co-operation that's programmed in to us not competion. Bookchin makes a similar point, saying that mutal aids important as a work highlighting symbios and interdependce in ecology rather than as a work of sociology.
Jay Gould (for those who don't know he's like the American version of Richard Dawkins)
considering the two were quite bitter intellectual oppents, i'm not sure they'd haved like that discription. 
But a second form of struggle--the style that Darwin called metaphorical--pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species.
not sure it a simple distinction as that. The abotic physical environment is produced as a result of interaction with the biotic evolutionary world. Everyting from the chemical content of the atmosphere, the salinty of the oceans to rain fall pattern is a result ecological impact of life. So any attempt to pit the external 'environment' against the speciies makes little sense. if you want there is 'co-operation' between the as one interacts with the other to make the physical environment more ameanable to life.
I only ever skimmed Mutual Aid, but one thing that stood out about it from that skimming and other mentions of it was that Kropotkin emphasised evolution taking part at the level of species rather than Dawkins' later more convincing argument that evolution takes place at the level of the gene - I think Kropotkin centred on "group selection", the now debunked view that evolution can select genes for organs or behaviors that are good for the group but bad for the individual by acting on the differential survival of groups and species. Whereas Dawkins argues that it biological heredity takes place at the level of the gene ie. those genes that infer an advantage on individuals will occur more frequently in fuutre offspring.
Yeah, but to be fair Kropotkin (or anyone else at the time) wouldn't have known shit about how genes work, beyond basic Mendelian inheritance. And a lot of his examples could probably be applied at the gene level rather than the group level and still make sense.
But as I said before, you'd be better off reading Ridley for the actual biology - Kropotkin's interesting for historical reasons and coz he was an anarchist.
im just saying how this sort of argument will likely be recieved in anthropology today. The early history of anthropology is ignored cos of it's association with colonalism and racism. That's why mot anthroplogy course will start with teaching malinowski, the first 'proper' ethnographer, everything before that becomes its own primitive pre-history. Its important for anthropology's construction of its own identity to make sure these things have no validity. Its histrocial validity might be of interest if you writing about the develpoment of sociobological theroy or lniks between evolutionary theory and politics, but in relation to econmic anthropology think the links are quite tenuous.
Yeah, but to be fair Kropotkin (or anyone else at the time) wouldn't have known shit about how genes work, beyond basic Mendelian inheritance. And a lot of his examples could probably be applied at the gene level rather than the group level and still make sense.But as I said before, you'd be better off reading Ridley for the actual biology - Kropotkin's interesting for historical reasons and coz he was an anarchist.
aye I wasn't having a pop at Kropotkin or anything, I realise Kropotkin was important for that time, just that for a anthroplogy presentation now that it might be worth mentioning improvements on the theory.
Isn't Brian Morris still at your uni? Brilliant lecturer, fund of knowledge and quite keen on Kropotkin if i remember rightly. Try and have a chat with him if he's still about. Interesting, clever bloke and very sweet too.
Yes, you guess it, i'm the sec of his fan club. Obviously not much help for the asignment with time being so short.
Mutual Aid by Prince Kropotkin aged 9 1/2
today i was walking in the estate with nanny and we saw some squirrels which is unusual because their habitat probably isn't in russia but jack doesn't know a russia equivalent anyway back on story these squirels were so cute and they were hungry because the winter was cold they were like the poor peasants who were so strong and free on daddys land and one of them had some nuts and then he shared it with the other squirrel so he wasn't hungry it was so cute and it made me realise that living things naturally like to co-operate and this shows that being free is natural and anarchy is in science and is natural and an anecdotal account, contrary to darwin and accepted science, could possibly convince anarchists over 100 years later
the end
A bit of a tangent, but I've just come across a couple of articles that are kind of relevant.
brian Morris is still around at my uni, but only part time
As far as kropotkin and anthropology today goes, well yeah they did start off teaching us Malinowski, but atm we're doing a course about the political history of anthropology and different ways of thinking about the State, lots of fun fun Rousseau, Morgan, Engels and funilly enough Kropotkin. Malinowski etc started the whole cultural relativism ball rolling, but before that the emphasis was much more on trying to work out human universals and how come people had become unequal etc.
So whilst it's not an anthropological text in the strictest of terms, and is evolutionist etc, it's more the ideas he had and how they fit into the history of thought about society and "the nature of man" and stuff.
And anyone, it was my department that told me to read it so I at least hope they won't then tell me it's invalid! 
Thanks everyone for the input tho
Scotland faces more council strikes after local government employers refused to increase a 2.5% pay offer.
Documents produced by the Situationist International or groups the Situationists were involved with during the mass strike and revolt of the glorious May 1968 in France.
An entertaining and atmospheric account of May 68 from street level, alongside amusing correspondence betweed Fred and the libcom group.
First issue of an irregular workers' bulletin put together by users of the website, libcom.org. This issue focuses on the 2008 pay dispute over sub-inflation pay offers.
Ok, has anyone read this and can give me brief run down of what exactly he was getting at?
I'm mean to be giving a presentationon it on Thursday and there's no way I'm going to have read it all by then...