Anarchist Theory 101

[The Machine]

What is anarchism's Communist Manifesto? Where should I start. Out of Kropotkin, Malatesta, Proudhon, and Bakunin, which theorists are the most important and who and what should I read first? Am I missing anyone?

[Caj]

If you mean an introduction to anarchism is what you're looking for, I'd recommend Berkman's What is Anarchism? (http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman). You could also check out Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, which is another good, short introduction to anarchism. If you want a collection of works by various anarchist thinkers, the anthology No Gods, No Masters is great. Hope this helps.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Malatesta's "At the Cafe" is a really nice introduction to anarchism. Perhaps not as informative as others, but definitely most entertaining.

[Blake's Baby]

Anarchism's 'Communist Manifesto' I've always thought was the 'Communist Manifesto'. You may as well start with Marx. After all he's responsible for such gems as 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains' and 'the working men have no country' which are as fine expressions of an anarchist sensibility as I can think of.

Also, he wrote the openning address of the International Workingmen's Association; a document that every Anarchist organisation I know of sees as one of its founding documents. 'The emancipation of the working class will be won by the working class' is another of Marx's rather stirring phrases.

After that I'd personally recommend Kropotkin, and Alexander Berkman. I think Proudhon is irrelevent (his economics aren't a patch on Marx's, and I believed that for 20 years as an Anarchist too) and Bakunin is over-rated - though he does have the occassional pithy saying. But not everyone agrees about that so canvass opinions. Malatesta I don't know so much about.

Nestor Makhno is worth finding out about, as are Emma Goldman and Grigori Maximov. All were in the emerging Soviet Republic in the aftermath of the Revolution and their first-hand accounts (as with Berkman's) are very important.

There's a guy called Paul Avrich who wrote a book called 'Anarchist Portraits' - if you can get hold of it, do so; it gives biographical notes on a whole bunch of Anarchists and can serve as the basis for any research you might be interested in.

Or go to LibCom (the forum of Libertarian Communism) at www.libcom.org and start looking into their library. Who's to say what's important? Arshinov, Voltairine de Clayre, Durruti, Rocker... there is a huge list of Anarchists that might be considereed 'important'.

[ed miliband]

blake's baby said it best - when i try to explain anarchism to people i can't do so without turning to marx tbh

but also 'black flame' by lucien van der walt and michael schmidt - one of the few books i can say properly changed my perception of things

[Terminator X]

Two texts that turned me on to anarchism:

"Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" by Emma Goldman:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html

and

"The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. LeGuin:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-dispossessed

[MarxSchmarx]

In all honesty, I am convinced that the Anarchist FAQ online is probably the most comprehensive, coherent, and respectable defense of anarchist principles written thusfar. One serious advantage that the FAQ has is that it was basically written by committee, rather than the writings of one individual. Moreover, it speaks to a uniquely modern audience, and thus evinces consideration of material social changes that are thoroughly absent from the 19th century masters.

[Mather]

Anarchism's 'Communist Manifesto' I've always thought was the 'Communist Manifesto'. You may as well start with Marx.




blake's baby said it best - when i try to explain anarchism to people i can't do so without turning to marx tbh



This. Marx developed the method of historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism). Most class struggle anarchists are materialists and reject Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism).

So The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are both worth reading.

[Comrade Jandar]

I agree that one should read some Marx before getting into anarchist texts. If your looking for a very thorough explanation of anarchist theory and history I implore you to read Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Sydicalism by Micheal Schmidt and Lucien Van der Walt. This is hands down one of the most important pieces of anarchist literature in recent history. My only critique of it is that they really seem to not like Marx or Marxism.

[The Machine]

i should have said this in the op but no marx, i'd like this thread to be strictly anarchist theory. i've already read the manifesto anyways.

anarchism is not just marxism in a balaclava. it has it's own philosophical and theoretical tradition that i would like to explore.

[The Machine]

In all honesty, I am convinced that the Anarchist FAQ online is probably the most comprehensive, coherent, and respectable defense of anarchist principles written thusfar. One serious advantage that the FAQ has is that it was basically written by committee, rather than the writings of one individual. Moreover, it speaks to a uniquely modern audience, and thus evinces consideration of material social changes that are thoroughly absent from the 19th century masters.

I've skimmed through it before, but I know it gets a lot of criticism on here. Why is that?

[Comrade Jandar]

This. Marx developed the method of historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism). Most class struggle anarchists are materialists and reject Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism).

So The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are both worth reading.

The claim that most anarchists reject materialism is completely unfounded. In fact Bakunin, arguably the father of modern anarchism, greatly admired Marx's theory of historical materialism. I recommend this article by a Brazilian anarchist group.

http://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/materialism-and-idealism/

[Os Cangaceiros]

As far as the "anarchist classics" go, I consider myself to be very sympathetic to anarchism, but I wouldn't bother with most of them, unless you want to read them out of historical curiousity. I don't think there's much theoretical value to be had in the majority of them, if that's what you're looking for.

The one exception, in my opinion, is Rudolf Rocker's "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice", which is an excellent book. I've read it a number of times, I'd definitely recommend it.

[The Machine]

The claim that most anarchists reject materialism is completely unfounded. In fact Bakunin, arguably the father of modern anarchism, greatly admired Marx's theory of historical materialism. I recommend this article by a Brazilian anarchist group.

http://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/materialism-and-idealism/

uhh dude....

[The Machine]

As far as the "anarchist classics" go, I consider myself to be very sympathetic to anarchism, but I wouldn't bother with most of them, unless you want to read them out of historical curiousity. I don't think there's much theoretical value to be had in the majority of them, if that's what you're looking for.

The one exception, in my opinion, is Rudolf Rocker's "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice", which is an excellent book. I've read it a number of times, I'd definitely recommend it.

I don't see how reading Marx is of any more theoretical value.

[The Machine]

look if your a marxist or an anarchist who thinks that marx is the end all and be all of leftist theory maybe this isnt the thread for you

[#FF0000]

The Conquest of Bread is sort of interesting -- i don't know if it's especially useful these days, but it's worth checking out.

I'm sort of surprised no one mentioned the ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman -- but then again it's hella basic, so.

[The Machine]

The Conquest of Bread is sort of interesting -- i don't know if it's especially useful these days, but it's worth checking out.

I'm sort of surprised no one mentioned the ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman -- but then again it's hella basic, so.

how is any theoretical text useful today? how is the manifesto useful?

btw thanks everyone for the suggestions ive got a fuck of a summer reading list so far

[Blake's Baby]

i should have said this in the op but no marx, i'd like this thread to be strictly anarchist theory. i've already read the manifesto anyways.

anarchism is not just marxism in a balaclava. it has it's own philosophical and theoretical tradition that i would like to explore.

If you want to know about Anarchist theory you need to know about Marx. He influenced every Anarchist theoretician who came after him and he influenced every Anarchist organisation that existed after 1866. Marx is part of Anarchist theory, even if he wasn't an Anarchist.

[The Machine]

If you want to know about Anarchist theory you need to know about Marx. He influenced every Anarchist theoretician who came after him and he influenced every Anarchist organisation that existed after 1866. Marx is part of Anarchist theory, even if he wasn't an Anarchist.

Yeah and Proudhon influenced Marx, but you don't see Marxists telling people to read him before they read Marx.

I've already read the Manifesto and a bunch of essays, and fuck if I'm going to try and get through Capital. Literally every other theory thread on this forum is about Marx, can we talk about something different just this once?

[Blake's Baby]

Fair enough. I don't think Marx is the 'be-all and end-all of Anarchist theory', I don't even think Marx is the be-all and end-all of Marxist theory; but he is important. But if you've read the Manifesto and 'a bunch of essays' then that should do.

[#FF0000]

how is any theoretical text useful today? how is the manifesto useful?

Haha good point.

But yeah, Kropotkin's good to look into. The Conquest Of Bread and Fields, Factories, and Workshops are the two big things he's done.

Malatesta's a good one too, but I'm saying this based on his articles. I don't know much of his books. Anarchy is supposed to be good but I can't really recommend it. Never read it.

God and the State is one of those "classics" by Bakunin, along with Statism and Anarchy.

Moving ahead to more modern times, it might be a good idea to delve into some situationist stuff, maybe. Society of the Spectacle by Guy DeBord is pretty much the situationist text but I like Raoul Vanageim's Revolution of Everyday Life much more.

And you might as well get on into Proudhon if you want to learn about all things anarchism. What is Property? and all that.

Then there's some more contemporary anarchists like Murray Bookchin who wrote things like Post Scarcity Anarchism, and some other things that I can't really remember right now.

Bob Black wrote some shit too. The Abolition of Work is his big one, and he's got a lot of other good works to look into as well, e.g. Anarchy after Leftism.

So, yeah. I can think of more later maybe.

[revolt]

keep in mind that while Kropotkin wrote interesting things, he was a national chauvinist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see how reading Marx is of any more theoretical value.

Hmm, well, I didn't even mention Marx, but some Marxists (esp. the Italian autonomists like Bologna, Tronti, early Negri etc.) were heavily theoretical and dry, while in contrast many anarchist writers have more lively, inspired writing, but base a lot of their politics on moral perogatives rather than some kind of rigid, mechanical view of how society operates and evolves.

If you compare Emma Goldman's writings on Nietzsche (who she liked a lot) and freedom, and Marx's writings on value form or whatever, and there's definitely a difference. I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other, in fact several great social movements have based themselves largely on moral outrage, such as the American abolitionist movement, but there's a gap between the people on the left who wanted to try and find a way to explain human society the way Darwin explained evolution, and those who were simply content to base their politics on their individual outrage over how fucked up society was/is. I think anarchists usely mix the two methods.

[MarxSchmarx]

I've skimmed through it before, but I know it gets a lot of criticism on here. Why is that?

Honestly, I think it's one-upmanship; no one want to admit being inspired by something on the internet, much less because it was written by somebody alive.

[Mather]

For information on actual examples of anarchism in practice, there are numerous books on the Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) of the 1930s.

Gaston Leval: Collectives in Aragon (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spunk/Spunk110.html); Collectives in the Spanish Revolution (http://libcom.org/library/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval)

Sam Dolgoff: The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939 (http://libcom.org/files/25020337-The-Anarchist-Collective-Sam-Dolgoff.pdf)

Agustine Souchy: With the Peasants of Aragon (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/158/index.php)

[Tim Finnegan]

Some of Bookchin's stuff is alright, at least before he became the resident Grumpy Old Man of libertarian socialism. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend "The Forms of Freedom" and "Listen, Marxist!", which are both in the Post-Scarcity Anarchism compilation. ("Post-Scarcity Anarchism" is an interesting read, too, albeit more in a fun, speculative way than a useful, theoretical way.)

[Igor]

keep in mind that while Kropotkin wrote interesting things, he was a national chauvinist.

Reprehensible views don't discredit those of your views that indeed, are not reprehensible.

[Blake's Baby]

keep in mind that while Kropotkin wrote interesting things, he was a national chauvinist.

Got to agree with Igor (above) here. If Kropotkin is right about co-operation in society, or the technological possibilities of production (as examples), the fact that he supported the French state (strange position for an Anarchist) in WWI does not make his earlier work wrong.

The use of the term 'while' is interesting. I think Kropotkin's best work was pre-1900; and I'm not sure that there is any real evidence for his 'national chauvinism' before WWI.

So it might be more accurate to say, 'although Kropotkin wrote interesting things, towards the end of his life he supported French imperialism in WWI'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought of another good one: The Basic Bakunin (Writings 1869-1871), edited by Robert M. Cutler.

Pretty much forever dispelled any notions I had that Bakunin was a dummy. He was actually really smart and had a very sharp sense of political analysis.

[Caj]

I thought of another good one: The Basic Bakunin (Writings 1869-1871), edited by Robert M. Cutler.

Pretty much forever dispelled any notions I had that Bakunin was a dummy. He was actually really smart and had a very sharp sense of political analysis.

Bakunin on Anarchy, edited by Sam Dolgoff, is a better collection of Bakunin's works.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yeah and Proudhon influenced Marx, but you don't see Marxists telling people to read him before they read Marx.

Probably because Proudhon's theory was flawed, was rejected by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy, and because Proudhon supported competition, the market, etc.

[hatzel]

In a vain attempt to avoid being simply a Marxist with a black flag, I could suggest The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics which, though far from comprehensive, is worth reading because anarchists have a tendency to suck hard when it comes to economics, so when people at least try to give it a go it's a pretty monumental achievement that should make us all jump up and down and flap our arms excitedly in its general direction...before filling in the maaany gaps left untouched in that particular text, but hey, let's not piss on the parade just yet...

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

In all honesty, I am convinced that the Anarchist FAQ online is probably the most comprehensive, coherent, and respectable defense of anarchist principles written...

Too bad, i thought there was something new...

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

In a vain attempt to avoid being simply a Marxist with a black flag, I could suggest The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics which, though far from comprehensive, is worth reading because anarchists have a tendency to suck hard when it comes to economics, so when people at least try to give it a go it's a pretty monumental achievement that should make us all jump up and down and flap our arms excitedly in its general direction...before filling in the maaany gaps left untouched in that particular text, but hey, let's not piss on the parade just yet...

You can't be a marxist and an anarchist. Marxism centrally relies on a Materialist and Dialectic conception of history, while most anarchists seem to be for "voluntary" participation in the project of socialism, direct democracy, and mostly dispel the need for a scientific socialist basis for a revolutionary program, not to even mention they don't want a workers state.

Anarchists are not Materialists, which is the central assumption of Marxist philosophy.

[Ostrinski]

You can't be a marxist and an anarchist. Marxism centrally relies on a Materialist and Dialectic conception of history, while most anarchists seem to be for "voluntary" participation in the project of socialism, direct democracy, and mostly dispel the need for a scientific socialist basis for a revolutionary program, not to even mention they don't want a workers state.

Anarchists are not Materialists, which is the central assumption of Marxist philosophy.However, Marxists certainly do not monopolize the materialist philosophy, for it predates Marxism by a couple thousand years. I'm not in the opinion that anarchists can't adopt a materialist conception of society, either.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

However, Marxists certainly do not monopolize the materialist philosophy, for it predates Marxism by a couple thousand years. I'm not in the opinion that anarchists can't adopt a materialist conception of society, either.

Yeah, when I was an anarchist I accepted historical materialism. (Of course, I am not an anarchist anymore).

[campesino]

You can't be a marxist and an anarchist. Marxism centrally relies on a Materialist and Dialectic conception of history, while most anarchists seem to be for "voluntary" participation in the project of socialism, direct democracy, and mostly dispel the need for a scientific socialist basis for a revolutionary program, not to even mention they don't want a workers state.

Anarchists are not Materialists, which is the central assumption of Marxist philosophy.

what!? why can't someone be an anarchist and materialist. how does direct democracy and voluntary participation, conflict with materialism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Pretty much anyone can embrace materialism or at least aspects of materialism, it is certainly not the exclusive domain of Marxists.

For example, someone asked Hans Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe) about Marx's theory of history/historical change, to which Hoppe replied that he thought it was essentially correct.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Start here:

"Anarchy" - Errico Malatesta
"Anarchism: From Theory to Practice" - Daniel Guerin
"Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice" - Rudolf Rocker
"Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism" - Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt

Proceed to:
"Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas" - Robert Graham
"The Conquest of Bread" - Peter Kropotkin
"At the Cafe" - Errico Malatesta
"The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics" -various authors/editors


Websites:
Anarchist FAQ
LibCom

Both websites are useful and can answer a lot of questions, both big and small, about theory, practice, history, organizations, etc.
Books like "Black Flame" are invaluable, I refer to it very often. "Anarchism: A Documentary History" is worth checking out too, minus the first two chapters.

[Bronco]

Anarchists are not Materialists

lol have you ever actually read any Anarchist stuff? Take the very first paragraph of God and the State for example:


Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history.

[Tim Finnegan]

No, you see, Bronco, when WCOP says "materialists", what he means is "crusty Second International positivists". It's about a desperate attachment to creaking Victorian century bullshit, not metaphysics.


"Anarchism: A Documentary History" is worth checking out too, minus the first two chapters.
Is that the one that starts with an extract from the Tao Te Ching?

[hatzel]

I'm just gonna drop a bomb right up in here:

I don't like really much like Black Flame at all.

Not that it's not worth reading, but...I can't even begin to accept it as a 'final word' on anarchism, the coherent articulation of the single definition of anarchism. If they didn't pretend like it was I'd probably like it much better...

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Is that the one that starts with an extract from the Tao Te Ching?
No. The first chapter ("Early Texts on Servitude and Freedom") starts with people like Bao Jingyan, Etienne de la Boetie, and Gerrard Winstanley. The 2nd chapter ("Enlightenment and Revolution") has William Godwin, Jeal Varlet, and Sylvain Marechel. Only in the 3rd and 4th chapter does it start jumping to the 19th century. Out of 24 chapters, only the first 2 don't focus on socialists, anarchists, and organizations/unions.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ah. I remember leafing through a similar book that began with an extract from the Tao Te Ching and something Classical, either Cynic or Stoic, but obviously I'm getting mixed up.

[Desperado]

Anarchists are not Materialists, which is the central assumption of Marxist philosophy.

Lol what do you even mean? If you mean philosophical materialist (the only thing that exists is matter etc.) Marx wasn't even one (he said that it's an irrelevant scholarly question). If you mean class analysis, looking at society from its material reproduction, that's what most anarchists on this forum are. It's definitely compatible with "materialism". Hell Bakunin and Prodhoun went about spouting "materialism" (of both kinds). Please stop posting blind doctrine.

[black magick hustla]

rudolf rocker was a fucking genius. i read his "nationalism and culture" when i was like 14 or 15 and it turned me into hating the motherland forever. beyond bakunin, i think he was the sharpest of the anarchists. he rejected "marxist materialism" and instead praised liberals like locke and saw anarchism as a direct continuation of enlightment liberalism. but the man had an encyclopedic knowledge and was entirely a self taught worker that grew up in an orphanage.

i consider myself a kindred spirit to anarchism, because i think there is some value in the ethics associated with it, in lieu of the faux "objectivity" some marxists think they have, even if i am mostly a marxist because i like science and i can't stomach some of the rants about federalism, democracy, and decentralization.

anyway, i think tiqqun is wortwhile even if they don't consider themselves as anarchists, it has been mostly anarchists that have adopted it. i also like marx stirner, who wasn't anarchist either, but the anarchists are the one that have become his most faithful partisans - stirner was pretty refreshing when i read it because at that time his idea of surpassing the ghosts of nationalism, humanism, and religion with your ego and self-interest was refreshing to me. however, egoism grows pretty old after a while