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
I highly recommend “An Anarchist FAQ” :
https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html
This FAQ is what turned me to an Anarchist.
Seconding this.
AFAQ gives overviews on topics with a lot of quoting from books and essays. It often notes that a book is ‘essential reading’ for a certain topic.
So it’s not only an informative read in itself, it’s a great source for people looking for reading recommendations.
Awesome, thanks! Sounds a lot like what I’ve been looking for
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
and libcomm.org
Fixing: https://libcom.org/
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.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution and anything else Kropotkin, sounds like you read the bread book and liked it (it’s a banger)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dean-spade-mutual-aid (haven’t read this one but heard good things)
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)
I also find a lot of Marxism to be agreeable. I’ve read a bit of Marx, the principles of communism by Engles, I’m about half way through Imperialism by Lenin. I’ve done some reading on life in the USSR, the Chinese revolution, as well as Allende and project cybersyn. There’s some great concepts laid out and good arguments as well. Where Marxism/ML/MLM kind of lose me is social liberties. I’m coming from the perspective of “my rights end where yours begin”. We all ultimately make concessions to our freedom in order to peacefully live in a society. I feel a governments only duty to social issues is to intervene when a groups rights are being violated and to not interfere otherwise. There’s some nuance to that obviously but speaking generally I feel it’s a good rule to go by
I see a lot of praise for China and modern day Russia from Marxists spaces online. And while I’m able to admit I’m not the most informed on life in either of these countries, China particularly because its pretty difficult to find reliable info on the social climate there. Things like the Uyghur concentration camps, LGBT rights, racism, and general discrimination along social lines seems pretty common and largely accepted. I get it’s kind of the pot calling the kettle black on these things coming from the US, but I’d think a socialist government would be better equipped and much more willing to tackle these problems. Support for modern Russia just straight up doesn’t make sense to me. They’re a capitalist society, rife with inequities and corruption like every other capitalist state. I see no reason to support them. The amount of support for them leaves a sour taste in my mouth. As I continue to learn that may change but it’s hard reconciling what I read with what I see
@BarrelAgedBoredom @purahna Those on the left supporting post-soviet Russia tend to fall into two camps, I’ve noticed:
-
Nostalgic tankies who love seeing old Soviet military gear parading through central Moscow, and just want the USSR back (I get it but it’s a terrie basis on which to stake out a political stance)
-
Edgelord “brocialists” trying to play the intellectual with the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” card. Probably uses words like “degenerate” and “kulak” and is on their way to being a straight up fascist, but are too far up their own arse to notice.
This is a big thing that turned me off lemmygrad and expanded my political horizon (I was rather hardcore MLM). The more I’ve read and interacted in different groups, the more I’ve realised my inherent stance is anti-authoritarian and seek a collectivist way of life.
-
Lenin
Between Light and Shadow - Last words by sub-comm. Marcos https://roarmag.org/essays/subcomandante-galeano-between-light-shadow/
Vanguardism is not a Marxist attribute alone, some anarchists if not most entertain this tendency however contradictory to libertarian principles and values. I think Malatesta and Emma Goldman indirectly placed criticism to those that adopt it. What it means to reject it is a deep libertarian (anti-capitalist of course) issue that few realize and recognize.
If there is ever going to be any synthesis between vanguard revolutionaries and those libertarian proposals the praxis zapatistas have engaged in 31 years and the EZLN in 41.5 years should be carefully understood.
Murray Bookchin “Listen Marxist” https://www.marxists.org/archive/bookchin/1969/listen-marxist.htm
first anarchist revolution, The Paris Commune, was marxist. marxism is anarchist 'til you introduce Lenin’s stuff, which i don’t
i’m not marxist (im hegelian) but i consider many marxists to be anarchists
I haven’t read any anarchist books myself yet, but I have read plenty of shorter texts I found online (mostly from The Anarchist Library).
Here are a few I found to be worth a read (in no particular order):
- Abolish Money! - Shūsui Kōtoku
- Are We Good Enough? - Peter Kropotkin
- Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! - David Graeber
- Ethics: Morality of the State - Mikhail Bakunin
- Power Corrupts the Best - Mikhail Bakunin
- Prisons and Crime - Alexander Berkman
- The Jobless - Alexander Berkman
- Where I Stand - Mikhail Bakunin
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.
- Letter on Workers Councils - Anton Pannekoek
- Theses On The Fight Of The Working Class Against Capitalism - Anton Pannekoek
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.
Thanks! I’ll check them out
On Anarchism, Noam Chomsky.
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.
give srsly wrong a listen
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.
Thanks!
An aside, but you should consider crossposting this to !anarchism101@lemmy.ca - it could use the posts!
EDIT: It could use more subscribers, too, of course!
Can do!
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.
Here’s a good starting point: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html
Sweet, thanks!
Good youtube channels would be nice too. So far i just know of submedia
Noncompete is pretty good, but posts infrequently. They have a sizeable backlog though. He’s an intersectionalist ancom if you’re curious
Sweet, thanks
Hey, someone posted some more comments in this thread and while I was here I thought of your comment. I just found zoe baker, she’s a PHD in anarchism and I’ve liked a lot of her content. You may be interested in it as well
Thanks! Ill search for her work
I also recommend Renegade Cut, Andrewism and Think That Through.
What is Property by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
Luigi Galleani
Emma Goldman
There’s a lot. I could make a more comprehensive list when I get done with work, if you’d like.
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!
Awesome, I appreciate it! Especially the inclusion of something that would seem to have (at least some) criticisms of anarchism. I’ve been having trouble finding good faith critiques of leftist thought be it Marxism, anarchism, Maoism, etc. Searching “criticism of x” usually results in right wing hit pieces
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.
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.
Sounds interesting, I’ll check it out!
Sandströms anarchist accounting and most stuff by Öcalan.
Pyter Kropotkin’s Mutual aid and conquest of bread.
Both have somethings that are out dated. But both are very good for foundational understanding of anarchy.
I’m digging anarchists’ more hands on, pragmatic approach to politics
I saw this post from /all…
But isn’t the entire point of anarchy no government, how exactly do you think thats “hands on”?
Or is this one of those things where people have invented new definitions for existing terms like saying the USSR was communist?
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.
I think what they mean by hands on is most likely direct action. That would include going to protests and participating in projects of mutual aid.
how exactly do you think thats “hands on”?
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.
I never took socialism seriously as it is seriously economic and non-political, then I read Gustav Landauer write about socialism, starting off very metaphysically, and I thought it would have been a waste of time, but the further I read the more interesting it became.
So right wing circles in the US in the 50s, in defense of capital and in their infatuation with anti-communism, propelled and financed this pseudo doctrine and ideology called libertarianism, that is nearly the exact opposite of libertarianism. Passively libertarians in the US adopted the term libertarian socialist to deviate from this near fascist pseudo-ideology.
Why I dislike the term socialist for being economic, because I think there are political (decision making processes on matters of common interest) attributes to class and not just economic. The same way Marx very well explains exploitation mechanisms in producing profit, oppression is used to build power within a class system. Whether parent, life partner, teacher, boss, supervisor, … the most oppressed and the most exploited form the bottom class, no matter what you would call it. And that class, based on both exploitation and oppression needs to organize and liberate itself.
But will the liberators and the liberated end up in the same class of a classless society? Just because “means of production” change ownership, titles, and jurisdiction, will the abused, tortured, oppressed, be free?
We have tons of “theoretical writing” that doesn’t necesseraly constitute a theory on the one side, and a hard “theory” on the other that is too busy defending its orthodoxy and universal value, let alone allow space for criticism, re-evalutation, and re-examination on whether it can still interpret current social, economic, and political conditions.
Welcome to anti-capitalism at a loss and stagnation
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.
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.
No worries, I’ll just block this community.
…?
Chomsky is considered an anarchist but does talk about justified/unjustified hierarchies.
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.
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.
How the fuck is it NOT hands on if there’s no government in the way? Whose hands do you think we’re talking about?
