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
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.
Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in new ways of community building or the current events unfolding in the region.
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.
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)
Murray Bookchin “Listen Marxist” https://www.marxists.org/archive/bookchin/1969/listen-marxist.htm
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
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.
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
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
I just read this: https://slrpnk.net/post/9405230
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?
I highly recommend “An Anarchist FAQ” :
https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html
This FAQ is what turned me to an Anarchist.
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?
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
Sandströms anarchist accounting and most stuff by Öcalan.
