I'm beginning to come around to anarchism, got any reading suggestions?
I'm digging anarchists' more hands on, pragmatic approach to politics. I finished The Conquest of Bread a couple of weeks ago and I'm currently working my way through Bullshit Jobs. Any suggestions about theory, praxis, mutual aid, etc. would be appreciated
You may join local IWW, help with local food not bombs, go to some anarchist bookfair near you etc. About theory, there is a website called the anarchist library with a lot of books concerning anarchism for free!
Thanks for the tips! I've found a mutual aid group in my city and apparently there's a food not bombs chapter here too. I've looked through the anarchist Library a few times but their search function isn't the greatest and being pretty new to leftist ideology, anarchism in particular, a lot of the authors are completely unfamiliar to me. I'm not sure if what I'll be digging into is any good and/or too much for me to wrap my head around. I was hoping to find the general consensus among anarchists of where to start, what to look into, etc. so id be able to read more confidently and with most of the basics covered
Since you already read The Conquest of Bread I decided to leave out most of Kropotkin's shorter texts, as I assume that you should already be familiar with his ideas and principles.
Although not anarchists, I still find many libertarian Marxists to be pretty insightful as well (some may as well be Anarchists in denial).
Anton Pannekoek's and Rosa Luxemburg's works being some I really enjoy reading.
I also have What is Anarchism? (by Alexander Berkman) and Anarcho-Syndicalism (by Rudolf Rocker) standing on my bookshelf, but I haven't gotten around to reading them quite yet. If they sound interesting enough you could give them a try.
first off, I'm a Marxist but y'all are my comrades, so my suggestions are coming from the outside but these are a couple pieces I used when I was finding my feet politically. These are a couple of the works that I found that make a compelling case for anarchism.
Thank you, I appreciate it! I'm not 100% an anarchist but I've really become enamored with the concept and wanted to dive deeper. It scratches that social libertarian itch that a lot of other leftist ideologies don't spend a lot of time on (at least in my reading so far)
It really does. That is one upshot of anarchism for sure, it provides a framework for individual liberty that right-libertarianism kind of falls flat on by allowing corporate power to influence individuals as a stand-in for a state. Marxism also doesn't scratch that itch, you have to buy in to the need for a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective (which then come back around and benefit the individual, if all things go according to plan)
Fan of Bookchins work myself. I would suggest googling him, and if you're into podcasts: give srsly wrong a listen. Its libertarian socialist thought broken down in a podcast with skits and well humored education/interviews. Their discord also has a fantastic bookclub with live readings and discussion.
Can you recommend an episode or two to start with? Something representative of their typical quality, format, and tone? Preferably recent, too?
(Sorry if this is a bit of a weird request. I just like to know I'm giving a podcast a fair go, without having to listen to, like, 5 episodes to figure out what it's usually like. 😆)
It would kind of depend on what topics you're interested in. Episodes 242, 243, and the Social ecology series that starts at episode 219 are fantastic.
I would suggest listening to a few on topics you're curious about. Each non-series episode is easy to follow by itself, no need to start form episode one.
In addition to the great suggestions others have already provided, check out Emma Goldman's writings if you haven't already. They might appeal to you and she has some interesting takes.
My only suggestion is that much of Errico Malatesta's writings are better than Conquest of Bread. Don't take Conquest of Bread too seriously, in my opinion.
Awesome, thank you! I'd be happy to hear any other recommendations you have. I'm reading an anarchist programme by Malatesta next, then it's on to anarchy by Malatesta. I might dive a bit deeper into David Graeber's works after that. Bullshit Jobs was fascinating
Some more I thought of, by no means a comprehensive list though. Just what I've read on the subject that appealed to me as I was studying anarchism as a political philosophy.
Statism and Anarchy by Mikhail Bakunin
Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker
Mutual Aid by Kropotkin
Trotsky discusses anarchism in Marxism and Ararchism
Nestor Makhno has some interesting writings
Chomsky is good
Émile Armand has some good writings on Individualist Anarchism (he's very anti-conflict though, which I tend to disagree with)
Lastly, something I would strongly recommend if you're new to anarchist thought and philosophy is Anarchism: Arguments For and Against by Albert Meltzer.
I am leaving out tons of great writings and writers/philosophers/theorists (and theories)/poets/etc...
There is a lot out there. Let me know if you have any questions!
I found "At The Café" dialogues by Malatesta to be a very entertaining yet insightful reas, especially when it comes to discussions among leftists about power structures.
Beyond theory I found practical examples were extremely helpful in understanding how anarchist politics relate to real life, so I'd recommend Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan.
He's not an anarchist, per se, but Noam Chomsky is always good to read. I heard Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age is about anarchy? As well as Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Planet. Sadly, those are the only two I am aware of!
For a comprehensive overview of the diverse currents of anarchist thought and practice, I am really enjoying the Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. It can be downloaded on Annas Archive.
and the OP (though not the pamphlet author) sent me here.
Specifically, with a question. The author mentions offhandedly that in an anarchistic society there would be no need for lawyers. But in a society governed by consensus and consent, wouldn't professional advocates be more useful, not less? Any insight?
The best libertarian left anarchism-compatible modern critique of capitalism has been put forward by libertarian left economist David Ellerman. He himself is not an anarchist, but his critique was cited in the anarchist FAQ. He also explains why capitalist economists defense of capitalism is besides the point.
There are many disagreeing takes on everything from folks who identify as anarchist, but "no government" doesn't mean "nothing the government does should be done at all."
Instead the idea is to foster organization of society such that relationships of domination are minimized. Some frame this as the development of a much more active and empowered "civil society" of negotiation, production, and problem solving that, in its approach, is fundamentally at odds with and hampered by the authority-oriented organizational model of government.
And the notion of direct action emphasizes the difference between petitioning representatives to change the world on one hand, with taking up responsibility for action and organization yourself on the other.
It's really simple... the whole idea behind anarchism (and all libertarian socialist thought, for that matter) is to put the power of decision and action back into the hands of communities and not a bunch of far-removed and unaccountable political racketeers (which is essentially how anarchists view "formal" political establishments - and they are entirely correct in this view)
Or is this one of those things where people have invented new definitions
No. Nothing new about it... the meaning behind the term "socialism" (for instance) has always referred to a condition where the workers own the means of production. The big split in the left happened because Marxists believed the state could represent the workers - the Bakuninist anarchists believed the state would simply form a new "political elite" and simply become the new elite repressing the working class. This happened long before the Russian revolution... and subsequent events proved the anarchist side correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.
From my very limited understanding, anarchism can mean many things depending on your ideology and the context of conversation. When I mentioned it being more pragmatic and hands on, I meant in the sense of things like mutual aid or direct action. Instead of waiting for institutions to take the reins on social issues, you and a few buddies just do it instead. People are hungry? Then feed them. Homeless? Build shelters. That sort of thing.
There's also the idea of anarchism being less an ideology, and more a mode of activism. Challenging hierarchies to justify their existence and when they can't, working to dismantle them. I came across this talk by Noam Chomsky about anarchism that kind of made it click for me. That's about all I'm willing to say because I could be wrong or misinformed about these things; but that's where I was coming from.
I think anarchism is more about removing hierarchies, including gender roles and man's domination of nature.
The issue is that a governing body is pretty much always formed after some time. Murray Bookchin was an anarchist for a while, before creating a new idea of communalism.
It's essentially the idea of hyper localization, and democratic self-governing of small communities. The communities then delegate an individual to discuss larger issues with neighboring communities.
Bookchin also analyzed previous anarchist rebellions to see how they failed and why. He identified one of the largest contributing factors was that once the previous government's politicians were overthrown, the anarchists refused to "take power" and preferred to do nothing.
While the anarchists did anarchy things, capitalists went right back into positions of power unchallenged. Which is why Bookchin was no longer in supportof anarchism and developed a new philosophy. Which is actually being tested right now in Rojava.
Please See rule number 4 of this community and if this was really a naive question than please educate yourself about the very basics of Anarchism before posting in this community.
Oh and despite all its failings the USSR never claimed to be communist.
Many of the early anarchists weren't looking to "no government" as the ideal, but rather a different kind of government. One where any authority that exists is granted by those over whom it is exercised. An example would be a federation of local village and neighborhood governments. Every official is chosen directly by the people they will serve, not appointed from above by someone whose authority comes from something like their birth, wealth level, popularity with people outside the community, and so on.
This was in the context of a world that was still ruled by royalty and nobility, with a developing bourgeoise capitalist elite alongside them. They would agree with the socialists (and were mostly allied with them until the Bolshevik betrayal) about dealing with noble and capitalist elites, but disagree about replacing them with a centralized top-down party elite lead bureaucracy.