Permanently Deleted
Internet MLs and Maoists can be cringe too. Being online makes your ideology worse
So lots of people say read Bread Book, but a YouTuber I like made a video saying that’s not such a good idea for an introduction to anarchism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWe-SexSonY
Instead, she reccomends these two: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-an-anarchist-programme and https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
Malatesta is a great intro, especially “Anarchy”.
Anarchism and it’s aspirations is also very good, and a little more modern. I think it’s also a good starting point.
Lol I forgot about that part, i must have blocked it out of my mind. There are probably some more wild parts like that, but as far as general foundations and aspirations of anarchists (plus real world examples) it’s not bad.
It’s tough because anarchism (like communism) has a ton of different varieties.
Just as there’s traditional Marxists, MLs, Maoists, and more you have AnComs, Syndacilists, and more.
So any intro book is going to miss out on stuff.
To be honest, as trash as liberalism is, it has a couple pros, like easier competition with other productive world powers and greater (or at least perceived greater) individual liberties. The quote still sounds whack as hell tho because that first thing is absolutely not a good part of liberalism that is retained in anarchism
So it’s not just me? I’m halfway though the Bread Book rn and I’m like “dang - this book kind of sucks.”
He starts off really strong in the first few chapters, but it gets pretty loose and hand-wavey pretty quick. Like it doesn’t really seem like a serious book.
apart from it not really being meant as an introductory text, i think the problem is that kropotkin kinda set himself an impossible task, though of course a very understandable one, to put up an answer to those constant questions of “how are you gonna do minutiae <x, y, z> in an anarchist society eh? gotcha!”. its “okay heres an example of one way i think it could work” and i think he does a pretty decent job of providing an example, but such a response is just going to be handwavey by its very nature, and i think is absolutely always going to be unsatisfying to a lot of people. and the more concrete you try to go, the more things there are for people to poke holes in, and its hard to defend because we cant really predict how a fundamentally different future society will deal with concrete challenges that will likely look very different to what we think they will. it doesnt help that a lot of it feels like its perhaps a reasonable answer for 1900 paris but not an answer that would work for the current day.
i like what malatesta wrote:
spoiler
That’s all very well, some say, and anarchy may be a perfect form of human society, but we don’t want to take a leap in the dark. Tell us therefore in detail how your society will be organised. And there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a miner’s job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? … And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns.
If indeed our readers expect a reply from us to these questions, or at least to those which are really serious and important, which is more than our personal opinion at this particular moment, it means that we have failed in our attempt to explain to them what anarchism is about.
We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity!
We are very concerned with all the problems of social life, both in the interest of science, and because we reckon to see anarchy realised and to take part as best we can in the organisation of the new society. Therefore we do have our solutions which, depending on the circumstances, appear to us either definitive or transitory — and but for space considerations we would say something on this here. But the fact that because today, with the evidence we have, we think in a certain way on a given problem does not mean that this is how it must be dealt with in the future. Who can foresee the activities which will grow when mankind is freed from poverty and oppression, when there will no longer be either slaves or masters, and when the struggle between peoples, and the hatred and bitterness that are engendered as a result, will no longer be an essential part of existence? Who can predict the progress in science and in the means of production, of communication and so on?
What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.
Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos is good. Idk where you are in your political development, but you might find a lot of the arguments in there sort of unnecessary, since its main purpose is to give an overview of anarchism for someone with little to no knowledge of radical politics. So there’s a lot of debunking of stuff like, “what about human nature,” “who will pick up my garbage,” and “what is the incentive to work” - stuff you probably have already debunked for yourself if you’re here. But it does give an overview of anarchism, and answers the questions of “what is anarchism” and “how would an anarchist society operate.” It also gives a lot of “further reading” suggestions for its arguments, so it acts as a good jumping off point into anarchism.
I tried reading that to try and understand how anarchists think they could defend the revolution without police or a national military, and I still don’t understand. The writing tends to wander and tell unclear anecdotes, like a society the author portrays as anarchist resisted a state for two years as an example for anarchism’s effectiveness.
well hey I’m not an anarchist, but I do get what you’re saying about the writing. It can be a bit meandering, which is why I brought up the further reading sections as a way to further explore the points that the author makes or the things he brings up. I think a big part of the anecdotes is to say, well look, this is a good way to organize society. They give important lessons for how a future society based upon free association can operate.
“Anarchism and its Aspirations” is what I suggest to friends and Marixst comrades who want to understand Anarchism better, here is a link:
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=B1BDCFBA828417946098FBA9E493D093
Something to understand is that Anarchism and Marxism are contrasting approaches and have different priorities for which questions/problems they seek to answer. This is a good thing as it gives us multiple ways to understand and contrast building socialism.
Anarchism is particularly popular in countries within the Imperial Core that have an overwhelming State mechanism which crushes any centralized groups trying to organize against it. That is for an understandable reason, it is a response to the conditions caused by almost a century of centralized socialist parties being crushed and obliterated by the state.
I think both tendencies have a lot to offer, which is why I generally identify as an AnCom on most days. I do not think that socialism within the Imperial Core will be possible without the core first shattering, which will rely heavily on an anarchist framework.
The State seems to think similarly, which is why they wouldn’t shut the fuck up about anarchists during the BLM uprisings.
Good on you for apologizing and owning up to it.
