I read it as Kropotkin calling bread a conquistador and warning us of its right-wing tendencies and ratcheting effects, which is why he writes that there's "a right to bread" and how, with it, "the Revolution will be on the right road". Contrariwise, "great cities are left without bread".

He also points to its pernicious indoctrinating ways: "the worker’s child must go without bread!" and lurking omnipresence: "two departments round Paris could find ample bread"

He was telling us to be on the lookout and that getting rid of it was of the utmost importance: "the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions", "suppress the possibility of obtaining anything besides the bread", "is necessary to deliver the bread", "bread must be found", "produce the bread". Fortunately this shouldn't be too hard: "less than 6 half-days’ work could procure bread".

In desperate times, we should not just eat the rich: "in times of Revolution one can dine contentedly enough on a bit of bread and cheese" (cheese being identified as a collaborator).

The concerning parts of the book for me are:

1. the disregard for prison abolition—as he writes of how people will be better off once they "know that their daily bread is secured"—and the preoccupation with Russians as jailers: "But as soon as the Revolution comes, the Russian peasant will keep bread". However, at least we can have a party after: "After bread has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim", and the sentence is not especially long: "to have bread for a whole year". Also, while it seems that he does believe in people's justice to an extent: "give bread to everyone; to transform this execrable society", the people are a vengeful mob: 'which old institutions will fall under the proletarian axe, voices will cry out: "Bread';
2. the sinophobia and racism: "Let us make sure of bread to begin with, we shall see to china and velvet later on." (I think Velvet is one of those old-timey names like "Ceylon".)