What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #116a
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞: 賲賯丿賲丞 賯氐賷乇丞 噩丿丕賸
毓丕丿丞賸 賲丕 鬲爻鬲丨囟乇 賰賱賲丞 芦丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞禄 賮賷 丕賱匕賴賳 氐賵乇賸丕 賱賱丕丨鬲噩丕噩 丕賱毓賳賷賮 囟丿 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲貙 賵賲丐禺乇賸丕 兀氐亘丨鬲 鬲爻鬲丨囟乇 氐賵乇賸丕 賱賱賲馗丕賴乇丕鬲 丕賱睾丕囟亘丞 囟丿 賰賷丕賳丕鬲 毓賱賶 睾乇丕乇 丕賱亘賳賰 丕賱丿賵賱賷 賵氐賳丿賵賯 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丿賵賱賷. 賱賰賳 賴賱 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 丨鬲賲賸丕 亘丕賱賮賵囟賶 賵丕賱丕囟胤乇丕亘丕鬲 丕賱毓賳賷賮丞責 賵賴賱 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷賵賳 賲賱鬲夭賲賵賳 亘兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 賲鬲爻賯丞責 賵賲丕 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 鬲丨丿賷丿賸丕責
賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 噩丿賸賾丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賰賵賱賷賳 賵丕乇丿 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賲賳 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲鬲毓丿丿丞: 賳馗乇賷丞 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丿賵賱賷丞貙 賵賰匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 兀賴賲 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷賷賳貙 賲賳 賰乇賵亘賵鬲賰賷賳 廿賱賶 鬲卮賵賲爻賰賷. 賵兀賷賸賾丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱賱賯丕乇卅貙 賮廿賳 丕賱胤乇丨 丕賱匕賷 賷賯丿賲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賷囟賲賳 賱賴 賮賴賲賸丕 兀賮囟賱 亘賰孬賷乇 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
賱賱鬲丨賲賷賱
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/93583507/
賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 噩丿賸賾丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賰賵賱賷賳 賵丕乇丿 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賲賳 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲鬲毓丿丿丞: 賳馗乇賷丞 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丿賵賱賷丞貙 賵賰匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 兀賴賲 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷賷賳貙 賲賳 賰乇賵亘賵鬲賰賷賳 廿賱賶 鬲卮賵賲爻賰賷. 賵兀賷賸賾丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱賱賯丕乇卅貙 賮廿賳 丕賱胤乇丨 丕賱匕賷 賷賯丿賲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賷囟賲賳 賱賴 賮賴賲賸丕 兀賮囟賱 亘賰孬賷乇 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
賱賱鬲丨賲賷賱
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/93583507/
108 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1981
132 people are currently reading
3,171 people want to read
About the author
Colin Ward
59听books83听followersColin Ward was born in Wanstead, Essex. He became an anarchist while in the British Army during World War II. As a subscriber to War Commentary, the war-time equivalent of Freedom, he was called in 1945 from Orkney, where he was serving, to give evidence at the London trial of the editors for publishing an article allegedly intended to seduce soldiers from their duty or allegiance. Ward robustly repudiated any seduction, but the three editors (Philip Sansom, Vernon Richards and John Hewetson) were convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment.
He was an editor of the British anarchist newspaper Freedom from 1947 to 1960, and the founder and editor of the monthly libertarian journal Anarchy from 1961 to 1970.
From 1952 to 1961, Ward worked as an architect. In 1971, he became the Education Officer for the Town and Country Planning Association. He published widely on education, architecture and town planning. His most influential book was The Child In The City (1978), about children's street culture.
In 2001, Colin Ward was made an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.
Most of Ward's works deal with the issue of rural housing and the problems of overpopulation and planning regulations in Britain to which he proposes anarchistic solutions. He is a keen admirer of architect Walter Segal who set up a 鈥榖uild it yourself鈥� system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal鈥檚 help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of 鈥榖uild it yourself鈥� having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, 鈥業 don't believe in just letting it rip, the rich get away with murder when that happens. But I do want the planning system to be flexible enough to give homeless people a chance鈥�. In his book Cotters and Squatters, Ward describes the historical development of informal customs to appropriate land for housing which frequently grew up in opposition to legally constituted systems of land ownership. Ward describes folkways in many cultures which parallel the Welsh tradition of the T欧 unnos or 'one night house' erected on common land.
Ward includes a passage from one of his anarchist forebears, Peter Kropotkin, who said of the empty and overgrown landscape of Surrey and Sussex at the end of the 19th century, 鈥榠n every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.鈥� Ward himself goes on to observe: 鈥楶recisely a century after this account was written, the fields were empty again. Fifty years of subsidies had made the owners of arable land millionaires through mechanised cultivation and, with a crisis of over-production; the European Community was rewarding them for growing no crops on part of their land. However, opportunities for the homeless poor were fewer than ever in history. The grown-up children of local families can鈥檛 get on the housing ladder鈥�. Wards solution is that 鈥榯here should be some place in every parish where it's possible for people to build their own homes, and they should be allowed to do it a bit at a time, starting in a simple way and improving the structure as they go along. The idea that a house should be completed in one go before you can get planning permission and a mortgage is ridiculous. Look at the houses in this village. Many of them have developed their character over centuries - a bit of medieval at the back, with Tudor and Georgian add-ons.鈥�
Ward鈥檚 anarchist philosophy is the idea of removing authoritarian forms of social organisation and replacing them with self-managed, non-hierarchical forms of organisation. This form of federalism was put forward in part by Kropotkin and Proudhon and is based upon the principle that as Ward puts it- 鈥榠n small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop鈥�
He was an editor of the British anarchist newspaper Freedom from 1947 to 1960, and the founder and editor of the monthly libertarian journal Anarchy from 1961 to 1970.
From 1952 to 1961, Ward worked as an architect. In 1971, he became the Education Officer for the Town and Country Planning Association. He published widely on education, architecture and town planning. His most influential book was The Child In The City (1978), about children's street culture.
In 2001, Colin Ward was made an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.
Most of Ward's works deal with the issue of rural housing and the problems of overpopulation and planning regulations in Britain to which he proposes anarchistic solutions. He is a keen admirer of architect Walter Segal who set up a 鈥榖uild it yourself鈥� system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal鈥檚 help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of 鈥榖uild it yourself鈥� having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, 鈥業 don't believe in just letting it rip, the rich get away with murder when that happens. But I do want the planning system to be flexible enough to give homeless people a chance鈥�. In his book Cotters and Squatters, Ward describes the historical development of informal customs to appropriate land for housing which frequently grew up in opposition to legally constituted systems of land ownership. Ward describes folkways in many cultures which parallel the Welsh tradition of the T欧 unnos or 'one night house' erected on common land.
Ward includes a passage from one of his anarchist forebears, Peter Kropotkin, who said of the empty and overgrown landscape of Surrey and Sussex at the end of the 19th century, 鈥榠n every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.鈥� Ward himself goes on to observe: 鈥楶recisely a century after this account was written, the fields were empty again. Fifty years of subsidies had made the owners of arable land millionaires through mechanised cultivation and, with a crisis of over-production; the European Community was rewarding them for growing no crops on part of their land. However, opportunities for the homeless poor were fewer than ever in history. The grown-up children of local families can鈥檛 get on the housing ladder鈥�. Wards solution is that 鈥榯here should be some place in every parish where it's possible for people to build their own homes, and they should be allowed to do it a bit at a time, starting in a simple way and improving the structure as they go along. The idea that a house should be completed in one go before you can get planning permission and a mortgage is ridiculous. Look at the houses in this village. Many of them have developed their character over centuries - a bit of medieval at the back, with Tudor and Georgian add-ons.鈥�
Ward鈥檚 anarchist philosophy is the idea of removing authoritarian forms of social organisation and replacing them with self-managed, non-hierarchical forms of organisation. This form of federalism was put forward in part by Kropotkin and Proudhon and is based upon the principle that as Ward puts it- 鈥榠n small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop鈥�
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 241 reviews
September 24, 2022
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賴賶 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱鬲賶 賵噩丿賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賰賱賲丞 爻賷卅丞 丕賱爻賲毓賴 丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞 丨丕賱賷丕 賵 賴賶 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 兀賵 賰賲 鬲丿毓賶 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 丕賱賮賵囟賵賷丞.
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賴賶 兀賲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲鬲卮賰賱 囟丿 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賱賷爻 丕賱丕 賱賰賵賳賴丕 丿賵賱丞 賮賴賶 鬲毓丕丿賶 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丨賷孬賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賵 亘兀賶 胤乇賷賯丞 賰丕賳鬲 亘卮乇胤 丕賱爻賱賲賷丞.
賷乇賶 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷賵賳 兀賳 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賮賰乇丞 賲囟賶 毓賱賷賴丕 賯胤丕乇 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賲賳匕 夭賲賳 賵 丨丕賳 賵賯鬲 鬲賮賰賷賰賴丕 賱氐丕賱丨 賰丕賲賷賵賳丕鬲 氐睾賷乇丞 卮亘賴 賲爻鬲賯賱丞 鬲賳馗賲 兀賲賵乇賴丕 亘賳賮爻賴丕 賵 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 賲賵丕乇丿 賲爻鬲丿丕賲丞 賯丿乇 丕賱廿賲賰丕賳 賵 鬲鬲丨丿 丕賱賰賵賲賷賵賳丕鬲 賮賶 賵賱丕賷丕鬲 丿賵賳 丕賳丿賲丕噩 鬲丕賲 丕賵 丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱 鬲丕賲 賵 賱丕 賷賳馗賲賴丕 丕賱丕 賲氐丕賱丨 爻賰丕賳賴丕 賵 乇兀賷賴賲 賲毓 丨賯賴賲 賮賶 丕賱丕賳丿賲丕噩 丕賱胤賵毓賶 賵 丕賱廿賳賮氐丕賱 丕賱胤賵毓賶 孬賲 鬲賳鬲馗賲 丕賱賵賱丕賷丕鬲 賮賶 賯賵賲賷丕鬲 孬賲 丕鬲丨丕丿丕鬲 賰亘乇賶 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賯丕乇賷丞 鬲賲賴賷丿丕 賱賱廿鬲丨丕丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲賶. 賷丐賲賳賵賳 亘丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇丿 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賵 毓丿賲 賵囟毓 賯賷賵丿 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 丕賵 丿賷賳賷丞 毓賱賷賴 亘賯賵丞 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賰賲丕 賷丿毓賲賵賳 丕賱賲賳馗賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲胤賵毓賷丞 賵 賷毓胤賵賳賴丕 丿賮丞 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 賮賶 睾丕賱亘 丕賱兀賲乇.
賱丕 賷賵囟丨 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵囟毓 丕賱噩賷卮 賵 丨賲丕賷丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賳 賰丕賳鬲 賴賳丕賰 孬賲丞 丿賵賱丞 丕賱丕 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 噩賷卮 丿賮丕毓 賱丕 賷爻賲丨 鬲爻賱賷丨賴 亘丕賱賴噩賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱丨丿賵丿 丕賱賲噩丕賵乇丞 賵 賱賲 賷亘賷賳 丕賳 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賷卮 賱賱賰丕賲賷賵賳丕鬲 丕賲 賱賱賰賷丕賳丕鬲 丕賱兀賰亘乇.
賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯丿賲丞 賯氐賷乇丞 噩丿丕 賵 賵囟丨 丕賱賲爻賷乇丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵 丕賱爻賷丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 丕賱丕 丕賳賴 丕賮囟賱 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱睾孬丕亍 丕賱賲賳鬲卮乇 毓賱賶 賲賵丕賯毓 丕賱廿賳鬲乇賳鬲 丕賱賲賱賶亍 亘丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲.
丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱賷爻丕乇 賵 丕賳 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賷爻丕乇賷丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 賵 賱賴丕 鬲丕乇賷禺 胤賵賷賱 賲賳 丕賱賳囟丕賱 賵 禺氐賵氐丕 囟丿 丕賱鬲賰鬲賱丕鬲 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 賵 賲鬲賵丨丿丞 賮賶 丕賱睾丕賱亘 賲毓 兀丨夭丕亘 丕賱禺囟乇. 賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱賰丕賲賷賵賳丕鬲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱卮亘賴 賲爻鬲賯賱丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賯胤 賮賶 丕賱賰賷亘賵鬲爻丕鬲 丕賱廿爻乇丕卅賱賷丞 亘兀睾賱亘 卮乇賵胤丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賵 丕賳 賱賲 賷匕賰乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 匕賱賰 兀亘丿丕.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿丕 賵 賷氐賳賮 賰賮丕鬲丨 賱賱卮賴賷丞 賱賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀賰孬乇 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓
July 12, 2021
Anarchism: a very short introduction (Very Short Introductions #116), Colin Ward
Colin Ward explains what anarchism means and who anarchists are in this illuminating and accessible introduction to the subject.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賲丕乇爻 爻丕賱 2010賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲賵丿乇囟丕 毓亘丿丕賱賱賴蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮讴丕乇貙 1388貙 丿乇 176氐貨 賲氐賵乇貙 毓讴爻貙 卮丕亘讴9789642280193貨 賵丕跇賴 賳丕賲賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 賲讴鬲亘賴丕蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 - 鬲丕乇蹖禺 - 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 - 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 21賲
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 20/04/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Colin Ward explains what anarchism means and who anarchists are in this illuminating and accessible introduction to the subject.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賲丕乇爻 爻丕賱 2010賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲賵丿乇囟丕 毓亘丿丕賱賱賴蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮讴丕乇貙 1388貙 丿乇 176氐貨 賲氐賵乇貙 毓讴爻貙 卮丕亘讴9789642280193貨 賵丕跇賴 賳丕賲賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 賲讴鬲亘賴丕蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 - 鬲丕乇蹖禺 - 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 - 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 21賲
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 20/04/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
March 7, 2017
Historically, anarchism arose not only as an explanation of the gulf between the rich and the poor in any community, and of the reason why the poor have been obliged to fight for their share of a common inheritance, but as a radical answer to the question 鈥榃hat went wrong?鈥� that followed the ultimate outcome of the French Revolution.
Colin Ward (1924-2010) (Wiki photo)
This entry in the Oxford VSI series was written, not by an academic political theorist, but by a gentleman who was for decades the face of British anarchism, Colin Ward.
As Ken Worpole wrote in Ward鈥檚 obituary for the Guardian,
Following is a chapter by chapter review of what Ward has presented in this VSI. The first chapter is in fact a very very short introduction, not only to the book but to the subject; hence I鈥檝e presented rather more detail for that chapter than for the remainder of the book.
Ch. 1 Definitions and Ancestors From the Greek 鈥榓narkhia鈥�, 鈥渃ontrary to authority or without a ruler鈥�. Used derogatively until 1840 when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political/social ideology. Anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and 鈥渢he differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these.鈥�
Ward starts off by mentioning several different sorts of anarchist thinker.
鈥淭he mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist communism , which argues that property in land , natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes.鈥� Further, 鈥淪ome anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.鈥�
鈥�Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a 鈥榮ocial general strike鈥�, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers鈥� take-over of industry and administration.鈥�
鈥淭here are several traditions of individualist anarchism鈥�, one deriving from the German Max Stirner, and another from a series of 19th-century Americans, 鈥渨ho argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all.鈥�
鈥�Pacifist anarchism follows both from the anti-militarism that accompanies rejection of the state, with its ultimate dependence on armed forces, and from the conviction that any morally viable human society depends upon the uncoerced goodwill of its members.鈥� (my emphasis)
Ward says that for the anarchist, the state itself is the enemy; not only because the state is always watching, but because (even more so) the state is the guardian of the powerful in society. But a broader theme links all these threads of anarchist thought:
(Noam Chomsky agrees. In he states his view that whenever a person or institution exerts authority over another person or group, that authority must be capable of being justified. No form of authority or domination of hierarchy has 鈥減rior justification鈥�, that is, justification by simply saying 鈥渙f course, that鈥檚 understood to be the case.鈥� 鈥淭he burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it 鈥� invariably.鈥�)
Ward mentions four thinkers who have long been thought connected to the anarchist tradition (later in the book he refers to them as 鈥渕y 19th-century mentors鈥�). William Goodwin (1756-1836 鈥� the partner of Mary Wollstonecraft and father of Mary Shelley); Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-65, the first to call himself an anarchist); Michael Bakunin (1814-76, the Russian revolutionary who became famous for his disputes with Marx in the First International in the 1870s); and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). Kropotkin is the most widely read, on a global scale, of all anarchist authors; his most famous work is .
On anarchism鈥檚 enduring resilience:
How is it, then, that with anarchism having been presented the world over as a serious political and social choice, by so many thoughtful writers, over such a long period, 鈥榓narchism鈥� has such a bad reputation as it does in some societies? From my own experience, I know well that in the U.S. at least, and perhaps elsewhere, 鈥榓narchist鈥� and 鈥榓narchism鈥� have long been scare words. The image is always of bomb-throwing maniacs, a complete lack of societal order, utter chaos, every man for himself.
Ward traces this caricature of anarchism to the short period a century ago 鈥渨hen a minority of anarchists, like the subsequent minorities of a dozen other political movements, believed that the assassination of monarchs, princes, and presidents would hasten popular revolution鈥�. These anarchists were no more successful than most subsequent political assassins. 鈥淏ut their legacy has been the cartoonist鈥檚 stereotype 鈥� and has provided another obstacle to the serious discussion of anarchist approaches.鈥�
Here鈥檚 a brief rundown on some of the other chapters in the book.
Ch 2. Revolutionary moments Topics herein are the anarchist elements in the European revolutions of 1848; 20th century revolutions (Mexico, Russia), and an extended discussion of anarchist activities and achievements in Spain during the 1936-39 Civil War.
See also comment 16 below
Ch 3. States, societies, and the collapse of socialismand Ch 4. Deflating nationalism and fundamentalism These two chapters didn鈥檛 impress me very much, perhaps from lack of application on my part. The first seems to be a rambling essay on the difference between society and the state, the ultimate failure of 20th century 鈥渟ocialism鈥�, and how anarchist ideas might be applied to the evolving 21st century forms of society. I didn鈥檛 really understand (no doubt some in Europe would) quite how he came to the conclusion that 鈥渟ocialism鈥� had failed to achieve (or at least approach) its goals. Nor did I understand why he steadfastly insisted on criticizing socialism instead of Communism (which he mostly seems to ignore). Perhaps his point is that the anarchist simply knows that no matter how well-meaning the intentions, the modern bureaucratic societal structures are simply too large to ever work in an efficient and just manner. As for Chapter 4, one quote will perhaps give an indication of what his concern is: 鈥淚t is disappointing and unexpected for secular anarchists, who thought that wars of religion belonged to the past, now to have to confront issues of the recognition of difference, while they are trying to move on to the issues that unite rather than divide us.鈥� [The book was published in 2004, so we can guess what he鈥檚 talking about.]
Ch 5. Containing deviancy and liberating work 鈥淐ontaining deviancy鈥� actually is an ironic phrase (I take it) because the first part of the chapter is about prisons, people who are in prisons but shouldn鈥檛 be (the ultimate exercise of the state鈥檚 authority over the individual), suicide rates in prison, and so forth. The last part of the chapter addresses issues relating to the modern workplace, unions, and other labor structures in the modern state; and concludes that although the decades-old expectations of the anarcho-syndicalists, 鈥渨ho envisaged a triumphant take-over of the factory by its workers鈥� may now seem a forlorn hope, these aspirations 鈥渁re close to the dreams of vast numbers of citizens who feel trapped by the culture of employment.鈥�
Ch. 6 Freedom in education This seems to be an important chapter, but as an American reader I found it confusing in parts, because of the lengthy historical section on British 鈥減rivate鈥� schools for working class children in the mid-nineteenth century. Ward says that 鈥淭he anarchist approach has been more influential in education than in most other fields of life鈥�, and seems satisfied that education is on the right track and getting better. I wonder what he would think, however, if he thought for even a few moments on the American model, which in recent years has seemed to become increasingly under the autocracy of testing. Even the seemingly well-meaning goal of preparing children for 鈥渓ife鈥� and the 鈥渞eal world鈥� can be cynically seen as simply preparing the best of the young to take whatever places they can find in the corporate kingdom, with the rest being over-educated and over-indebted for the employment scraps left over.
These sorts of problems should be prime targets for anarchist solution-seeking. But there isn鈥檛 much in the system now to cause anarchists to rest on their supposed 鈥渕ore influential鈥� third-place ribbons earned in the U.S. educational system.
Ch. 7 The individualist response I found this chapter quite agreeable. I鈥檝e often thought the Libertarians in the U.S. seemed more like (the bad type of) anarchists than anything else. Without going into Ward鈥檚 analysis, I鈥檒l just quote from the beginning and the end of the chapter:
Ch. 8 Quiet revolutions is one in which I think my attention lagged. At least I didn't underline much, and when I finally got around to much later writing this review I said nothing about it. However,
see Comment 16 below.
Ch. 9 The federalist agenda revived my interest, and was even a bit inspiring. In it Ward returns to three of the 19th century anarchists from the first chapter: Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. He examines a number of observations of these writers, who 鈥渉ad a federalist agenda that was a foretaste of modern debates on European unity.鈥� What he鈥檚 talking about is the rise of the nation state in the 19th century, particularly with the unification of Germany and Italy, who had 鈥渓eft behind all those silly little principalities, republics, papal provinces, and city states, to become nation states, empires, and, of course, conquerors.鈥� He goes on,
Ch. 10. Green aspirations and anarchist futures is a fine conclusion to the book. In it Ward writes about the limits to growth; environmental issues relating to the high cost of the rich world鈥檚 鈥榗heap鈥� food; urban intensive food production, as in Singapore; Peter Harper鈥檚 distinction, not between Deep Ecologists and Social Ecologists, but between Light Greens (concerned with new technology of efficient energy, and 鈥渟ustainable鈥� consumption) and Deep Greens (small insulated houses, bicycles, home-grown food, repair and recycling); and the American anarchist Murray Bookchin, who is quoted on anarchist concepts being not on y desirable but necessary for viability of the planet.
Summary
Colin Ward put a friendly face on British anarchism for decades. In this book he has constructed an introduction to anarchism along the lines that he himself worked for in his own life. Not a doctrinaire ideology based on some historical strain of anarchism, but a thoughtful, and thought-provoking, attempt to elucidate how the various ideas forming the anarchist view can be useful in modern, even 21st-century, society. Ward ultimately was one who, rather than fear the future, strove to nourish seeds which he believed could make the future better than the present.
Colin Ward (1924-2010) (Wiki photo)
This entry in the Oxford VSI series was written, not by an academic political theorist, but by a gentleman who was for decades the face of British anarchism, Colin Ward.
As Ken Worpole wrote in Ward鈥檚 obituary for the Guardian,
Colin Ward, who has died aged 85, lived with the title of Britain's most famous anarchist for nearly half a 卢century, bemused by this ambivalent soubriquet. In Anarchy in Action (1973), he set out his belief that an anarchist society was not an end goal. Following Alexander Herzen, the writer and thinker known as the "father of -Russian socialism", Colin saw all distant goals as a form of tyranny and believed that anarchist principles could be 卢discerned in everyday human relations and impulses. Within this perspective, politics was about strengthening 卢co-operative 卢relations and supporting human ingenuity in its myriad vernacular and everyday forms.
Following is a chapter by chapter review of what Ward has presented in this VSI. The first chapter is in fact a very very short introduction, not only to the book but to the subject; hence I鈥檝e presented rather more detail for that chapter than for the remainder of the book.
Ch. 1 Definitions and Ancestors From the Greek 鈥榓narkhia鈥�, 鈥渃ontrary to authority or without a ruler鈥�. Used derogatively until 1840 when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political/social ideology. Anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and 鈥渢he differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these.鈥�
Ward starts off by mentioning several different sorts of anarchist thinker.
鈥淭he mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist communism , which argues that property in land , natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes.鈥� Further, 鈥淪ome anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.鈥�
鈥�Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a 鈥榮ocial general strike鈥�, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers鈥� take-over of industry and administration.鈥�
鈥淭here are several traditions of individualist anarchism鈥�, one deriving from the German Max Stirner, and another from a series of 19th-century Americans, 鈥渨ho argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all.鈥�
鈥�Pacifist anarchism follows both from the anti-militarism that accompanies rejection of the state, with its ultimate dependence on armed forces, and from the conviction that any morally viable human society depends upon the uncoerced goodwill of its members.鈥� (my emphasis)
Ward says that for the anarchist, the state itself is the enemy; not only because the state is always watching, but because (even more so) the state is the guardian of the powerful in society. But a broader theme links all these threads of anarchist thought:
鈥� their rejection of external authority, whether that of the state, the employer, of the hierarchies of administration and of established institutions like the school and the church. The same is true of more recently emerging varieties of anarchist propaganda, green anarchism and anarcha-feminism.
(Noam Chomsky agrees. In he states his view that whenever a person or institution exerts authority over another person or group, that authority must be capable of being justified. No form of authority or domination of hierarchy has 鈥減rior justification鈥�, that is, justification by simply saying 鈥渙f course, that鈥檚 understood to be the case.鈥� 鈥淭he burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it 鈥� invariably.鈥�)
Ward mentions four thinkers who have long been thought connected to the anarchist tradition (later in the book he refers to them as 鈥渕y 19th-century mentors鈥�). William Goodwin (1756-1836 鈥� the partner of Mary Wollstonecraft and father of Mary Shelley); Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-65, the first to call himself an anarchist); Michael Bakunin (1814-76, the Russian revolutionary who became famous for his disputes with Marx in the First International in the 1870s); and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). Kropotkin is the most widely read, on a global scale, of all anarchist authors; his most famous work is .
On anarchism鈥檚 enduring resilience:
Every European, North American, Latin American, and Asian society has had its anarchist publicists, journals, circles of adherents, imprisoned activists, and martyrs. Whenever an authoritarian and repressive political regime collapses, the anarchists are there, a minority urging their fellow citizens to absorb the lessons of the sheer horror and irresponsibility of government.In concluding the chapter, Ward covers anarchist ideas and proponents in Japan, China, Korea, India and Africa.
How is it, then, that with anarchism having been presented the world over as a serious political and social choice, by so many thoughtful writers, over such a long period, 鈥榓narchism鈥� has such a bad reputation as it does in some societies? From my own experience, I know well that in the U.S. at least, and perhaps elsewhere, 鈥榓narchist鈥� and 鈥榓narchism鈥� have long been scare words. The image is always of bomb-throwing maniacs, a complete lack of societal order, utter chaos, every man for himself.
Ward traces this caricature of anarchism to the short period a century ago 鈥渨hen a minority of anarchists, like the subsequent minorities of a dozen other political movements, believed that the assassination of monarchs, princes, and presidents would hasten popular revolution鈥�. These anarchists were no more successful than most subsequent political assassins. 鈥淏ut their legacy has been the cartoonist鈥檚 stereotype 鈥� and has provided another obstacle to the serious discussion of anarchist approaches.鈥�
Here鈥檚 a brief rundown on some of the other chapters in the book.
Ch 2. Revolutionary moments Topics herein are the anarchist elements in the European revolutions of 1848; 20th century revolutions (Mexico, Russia), and an extended discussion of anarchist activities and achievements in Spain during the 1936-39 Civil War.
See also comment 16 below
Ch 3. States, societies, and the collapse of socialismand Ch 4. Deflating nationalism and fundamentalism These two chapters didn鈥檛 impress me very much, perhaps from lack of application on my part. The first seems to be a rambling essay on the difference between society and the state, the ultimate failure of 20th century 鈥渟ocialism鈥�, and how anarchist ideas might be applied to the evolving 21st century forms of society. I didn鈥檛 really understand (no doubt some in Europe would) quite how he came to the conclusion that 鈥渟ocialism鈥� had failed to achieve (or at least approach) its goals. Nor did I understand why he steadfastly insisted on criticizing socialism instead of Communism (which he mostly seems to ignore). Perhaps his point is that the anarchist simply knows that no matter how well-meaning the intentions, the modern bureaucratic societal structures are simply too large to ever work in an efficient and just manner. As for Chapter 4, one quote will perhaps give an indication of what his concern is: 鈥淚t is disappointing and unexpected for secular anarchists, who thought that wars of religion belonged to the past, now to have to confront issues of the recognition of difference, while they are trying to move on to the issues that unite rather than divide us.鈥� [The book was published in 2004, so we can guess what he鈥檚 talking about.]
Ch 5. Containing deviancy and liberating work 鈥淐ontaining deviancy鈥� actually is an ironic phrase (I take it) because the first part of the chapter is about prisons, people who are in prisons but shouldn鈥檛 be (the ultimate exercise of the state鈥檚 authority over the individual), suicide rates in prison, and so forth. The last part of the chapter addresses issues relating to the modern workplace, unions, and other labor structures in the modern state; and concludes that although the decades-old expectations of the anarcho-syndicalists, 鈥渨ho envisaged a triumphant take-over of the factory by its workers鈥� may now seem a forlorn hope, these aspirations 鈥渁re close to the dreams of vast numbers of citizens who feel trapped by the culture of employment.鈥�
Ch. 6 Freedom in education This seems to be an important chapter, but as an American reader I found it confusing in parts, because of the lengthy historical section on British 鈥減rivate鈥� schools for working class children in the mid-nineteenth century. Ward says that 鈥淭he anarchist approach has been more influential in education than in most other fields of life鈥�, and seems satisfied that education is on the right track and getting better. I wonder what he would think, however, if he thought for even a few moments on the American model, which in recent years has seemed to become increasingly under the autocracy of testing. Even the seemingly well-meaning goal of preparing children for 鈥渓ife鈥� and the 鈥渞eal world鈥� can be cynically seen as simply preparing the best of the young to take whatever places they can find in the corporate kingdom, with the rest being over-educated and over-indebted for the employment scraps left over.
These sorts of problems should be prime targets for anarchist solution-seeking. But there isn鈥檛 much in the system now to cause anarchists to rest on their supposed 鈥渕ore influential鈥� third-place ribbons earned in the U.S. educational system.
Ch. 7 The individualist response I found this chapter quite agreeable. I鈥檝e often thought the Libertarians in the U.S. seemed more like (the bad type of) anarchists than anything else. Without going into Ward鈥檚 analysis, I鈥檒l just quote from the beginning and the end of the chapter:
(beginning) For a century, anarchists have used the word 鈥榣ibertarian鈥� as a synonym for 鈥榓narchist鈥�, both as a noun and as an adjective 鈥� However, much more recently the word has been appropriated [he could have said 鈥渦surped鈥漖 by various American free marker philosophers 鈥� so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist 鈥榣ibertarian鈥� response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition.Well, yes, that's good as far as it goes. He鈥檚 talking about academic economists, not a political movement. But in the U.S. the Libertarian world view has gone much farther than that. Let鈥檚 not mention Ayn Rand, or the elevation of personal greed and utter selfishness into not only admirable qualities, but almost (for true believers) moral imperatives. Well, Ward didn鈥檛 go there, and 鈥渘either will I鈥�, he says veering away.
o o o
(at the end) The American 鈥榣ibertarians鈥� of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammeled market capitalism.
Ch. 8 Quiet revolutions is one in which I think my attention lagged. At least I didn't underline much, and when I finally got around to much later writing this review I said nothing about it. However,
see Comment 16 below.
Ch. 9 The federalist agenda revived my interest, and was even a bit inspiring. In it Ward returns to three of the 19th century anarchists from the first chapter: Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. He examines a number of observations of these writers, who 鈥渉ad a federalist agenda that was a foretaste of modern debates on European unity.鈥� What he鈥檚 talking about is the rise of the nation state in the 19th century, particularly with the unification of Germany and Italy, who had 鈥渓eft behind all those silly little principalities, republics, papal provinces, and city states, to become nation states, empires, and, of course, conquerors.鈥� He goes on,
In the great tide of nationalism in the 19th century there was a handful of prophetic and dissenting voices, urging the alternative of federalism. It is interesting, at least, that those whose names survive were the three best-known anarchist thinkers of that century 鈥�Finally, he concludes
[and, several pages later]
After every kind of disastrous experience in the 20th century, the rulers of the nation states of Europe have directed policy towards several kinds of supranational entities. The crucial issue that faces them is whether to conceive of a Europe of States or a Europe of Regions.
A resolution has been adopted by the council of Europe, calling for national governments to adopt its Charter for Local Self-Government, 鈥榯o formalize commitment to the principle that government functions should be carried out at the lowest level possible and only transferred to higher government by consent.鈥�
This precept is an extraordinary tribute to Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin and the ideas that they were alone in voicing (apart from some interesting Spanish thinkers like Pi y Margall or Joaquin Costa).
Ch. 10. Green aspirations and anarchist futures is a fine conclusion to the book. In it Ward writes about the limits to growth; environmental issues relating to the high cost of the rich world鈥檚 鈥榗heap鈥� food; urban intensive food production, as in Singapore; Peter Harper鈥檚 distinction, not between Deep Ecologists and Social Ecologists, but between Light Greens (concerned with new technology of efficient energy, and 鈥渟ustainable鈥� consumption) and Deep Greens (small insulated houses, bicycles, home-grown food, repair and recycling); and the American anarchist Murray Bookchin, who is quoted on anarchist concepts being not on y desirable but necessary for viability of the planet.
A comforting thought for anarchists is the reflection that a society advanced enough to accept the environmental imperatives of the 21st century will be obliged to reinvent anarchism as a response to them.(See )
For a very strong case has been made by such authors as Murray and Bookchin and Alan Carter that anarchism is the only political ideology capable of addressing the challenges posed by our new green consciousness to the accepted range of political ideas. Anarchism becomes more and more relevant for the new century.
Summary
Colin Ward put a friendly face on British anarchism for decades. In this book he has constructed an introduction to anarchism along the lines that he himself worked for in his own life. Not a doctrinaire ideology based on some historical strain of anarchism, but a thoughtful, and thought-provoking, attempt to elucidate how the various ideas forming the anarchist view can be useful in modern, even 21st-century, society. Ward ultimately was one who, rather than fear the future, strove to nourish seeds which he believed could make the future better than the present.
January 26, 2025
賱丕 兀馗賳賳賷 爻兀毓丕賵丿 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 賲毓 爻賱爻賱丞 賲賯丿賲丞 賯氐賷乇丞 噩丿丕.. :(
丕賱兀丨丿 侑 兀睾爻胤爻 佗贍佗佗.
鬲丨丿賷孬: 兀毓丿鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 賲乇鬲賷賳:)佗贍佗伽.
丕賱兀丨丿 侑 兀睾爻胤爻 佗贍佗佗.
鬲丨丿賷孬: 兀毓丿鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 賲乇鬲賷賳:)佗贍佗伽.
賷胤賲丨 丕賱賳丕爻 廿賱賶 禺丿賲丕鬲 賵乇丕丨丞 兀賰亘乇貙 賵賲爻丕丨丞 禺氐賵氐賷丞 兀賰亘乇貙 賵爻賴賵賱丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲賳賯賱貙 賵廿丨爻丕爻 亘丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 兀賵爻毓. 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓 丕賱丕爻鬲賴賱丕賰賷 丕賱毓氐乇賷貙 賵賴賵 噩賵賴乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞. 廿賳賴丕 爻賲丞 賲丨賵乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱爻丕卅丿賷賳 兀賱丕 鬲鬲毓乇囟 丕賱胤賲賵丨丕鬲 丕賱丕爻鬲賴賱丕賰賷丞 賱賴噩賵賲 噩丕丿. 亘賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻貙 賮丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 丕賱乇爻賲賷丞 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲丞 囟賲賳丕 賴賷:芦丕氐賲丿賵丕 賲賰丕賳賰賲: 爻賳賱亘賽賾賷 乇睾亘丕鬲賰賲.禄 廿賳 丕賱卮毓丕乇 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 亘爻賷胤 廿賱賶 丿乇噩丞 賲賮噩毓丞:芦丕賱賲夭賷丿!禄
January 30, 2020
Last week, I was doing a workshop on safety culture in organisations, and was stressing the need for moving from a "bureaucratic" culture where everything was dependent on strict adherence to rules to an "aware" culture where safety was inbuilt into the consciousness of the employees, when I had an epiphany: if we extend the same logic to governments, democracy is needed only as long as people are not enlightened. The moment that happens, we don't need a government, as everyone will take care of everyone else. In fact, the logical form of government in an enlightened culture is anarchy!
Now, most people would get upset at this statement, because anarchism has got horrendously bad press; mainly due to the action of a bunch of anarchists at the turn of the Twentieth Century, who believed that the way to bring in the anarchist revolution was to assassinate monarchs, princes and presidents. Sadly this is only one facet of a serious philosophy which has had its learned adherents and which refuses to die.
The Oxford "Very Short Introduction" series is my go-to resource for first information on any subject that I don't have a clue about - and thankfully, one on Anarchism by Colin Ward was available. This book is a great primer on the subject - though you may need something more substantial if you are already up to date on the subject.
The author says
The main thinkers of the anarchist tradition were:
1. William Godwin (1756鈥�1836), English Philosopher
2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809鈥�65), French Propagandist
3. Michael Bakunin (1814鈥�76), Russian Revolutionary
4. Peter Kropotkin (1842鈥�1921), Russian Geographer turned Political Philosopher
Even though individual differences existed, all these thinkers were against the idea of the monolithic state and supported independent communes of mutually dependent human beings.
Of course, in the modern world, laissez-faire capitalism and religious fundamentalism are ruling the roost. Man's essential distrust of one another has led to him joining one camp or the other and demonising his rivals - and ironically, the same individualistic ideas which gave rise to anarchism also spawned right-wing libertarianism of the Ayn Rand variety, where the advancement of one's own selfish needs are seen as the ultimate aim of life. However, anarchism has not lost out fully. In our climate change resistance movements, in civil disobedience against right-wing governments across the world, and in tiny local experiments like the women's "Kudumbasree" movement in Kerala, one can still see the flame of the original philosophy burning, albeit stuttering a little.
Is anarchism good? After reading the book, I would reply with a resounding YES!, provided it is implemented as its original advocates wanted. Is anarchism practical? The idealist in me wants to say yes, but the realist responds with a firm no. But hey, I can still dream, can't I?
As John Lennon once said: "Imagine..."
Now, most people would get upset at this statement, because anarchism has got horrendously bad press; mainly due to the action of a bunch of anarchists at the turn of the Twentieth Century, who believed that the way to bring in the anarchist revolution was to assassinate monarchs, princes and presidents. Sadly this is only one facet of a serious philosophy which has had its learned adherents and which refuses to die.
The Oxford "Very Short Introduction" series is my go-to resource for first information on any subject that I don't have a clue about - and thankfully, one on Anarchism by Colin Ward was available. This book is a great primer on the subject - though you may need something more substantial if you are already up to date on the subject.
The author says
The word 鈥榓narchy鈥� comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology.This is a powerful, paradigm-shifting concept. We have been brought up to believe in the sanctity of the nation-state and the government, that we are unable to think of an alternative reality without one - not even as a "what-if" scenario. But is the state something which is so sacrosanct? For the majority of its existence, human civilisation has lived without the nation-state; even now, national borders are continuously in flux. We cannot rule out a future in which it may disappear altogether. That is the anarchist dream.
***
For anarchists the state itself is the enemy, and they have applied the same interpretation to the outcome of every revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is not merely because every state
keeps a watchful and sometimes punitive eye on its dissidents, but because every state protects the privileges of the powerful.
The main thinkers of the anarchist tradition were:
1. William Godwin (1756鈥�1836), English Philosopher
2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809鈥�65), French Propagandist
3. Michael Bakunin (1814鈥�76), Russian Revolutionary
4. Peter Kropotkin (1842鈥�1921), Russian Geographer turned Political Philosopher
Even though individual differences existed, all these thinkers were against the idea of the monolithic state and supported independent communes of mutually dependent human beings.
The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority.Also part and parcel of anarchism is pacifism - you don't need to go to war with your neighbour if there are no fictitious boundaries to protect: environmentalism - when one lives in a commune, one has to live in harmony with nature, and there is no need for "development"; liberating work from the assembly line; decriminalisation of the populace by replacing punishment with a therapeutic approach to crime; free liberal education instead of state-run schools teaching a common curriculum etc. If one looks at this closely, this resembles the communist utopia without the "proletarian dictatorship" - something Bakunin warned Marx against as it could give rise to totalitarian regimes, a prophecy which was frighteningly fulfilled in all communist countries.
Of course, in the modern world, laissez-faire capitalism and religious fundamentalism are ruling the roost. Man's essential distrust of one another has led to him joining one camp or the other and demonising his rivals - and ironically, the same individualistic ideas which gave rise to anarchism also spawned right-wing libertarianism of the Ayn Rand variety, where the advancement of one's own selfish needs are seen as the ultimate aim of life. However, anarchism has not lost out fully. In our climate change resistance movements, in civil disobedience against right-wing governments across the world, and in tiny local experiments like the women's "Kudumbasree" movement in Kerala, one can still see the flame of the original philosophy burning, albeit stuttering a little.
Is anarchism good? After reading the book, I would reply with a resounding YES!, provided it is implemented as its original advocates wanted. Is anarchism practical? The idealist in me wants to say yes, but the realist responds with a firm no. But hey, I can still dream, can't I?
As John Lennon once said: "Imagine..."
April 7, 2025
*亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 噩賳亘賴 賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲丕 讴賴 丌賳 賴丕 乇丕 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賮乇囟 賲蹖 讴賳蹖賲貙 亘丕 鬲賱丕卮 賴丕蹖 賮毓丕賱丕賳 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 賲賲讴賳 卮丿賴 丕賳丿.
亘乇丕蹖 賲孬丕賱 卮讴賱 賱亘丕爻 倬賵卮蹖丿賳 賲丕. 賲毓賲賵賱丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賲蹖 讴賳蹖賲 讴賴 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 鄣郯 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮貙 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 倬賵卮蹖丿蹖賲 亘賴 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 噩賳爻蹖鬲 賲丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖 卮丿貨 丕賲丕 亘丕 爻賳鬲 诏乇蹖夭蹖 乇丕丿蹖讴丕賱 賵 乇丿 讴乇丿賳 爻亘讴 賵 賲丿 睾丕賱亘貙 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 賴丕 丿乇 胤賵賱 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賳丿 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 倬賵卮卮 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賮乇丕賴賲 丌賵乇賳丿.
*丕蹖賳 讴乇賵倬賵鬲讴蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 夭賳丿丕賳 乇丕 ( 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 噩乇賲 ) 賳丕賲蹖丿. 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賲噩乇賲蹖賳 禺乇丿賴 倬丕 丿乇 夭賳丿丕賳 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 賲噩乇賲丕賳賴 蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 鬲乇 乇丕 賲蹖 丌賲賵禺鬲賳丿. 賴賲蹖賳 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 倬爻 丕夭 丌夭丕丿蹖 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 噩乇賲 賵 丨亘爻 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫簇�.
亘乇丕蹖 賲孬丕賱 卮讴賱 賱亘丕爻 倬賵卮蹖丿賳 賲丕. 賲毓賲賵賱丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賲蹖 讴賳蹖賲 讴賴 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 鄣郯 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮貙 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 倬賵卮蹖丿蹖賲 亘賴 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 噩賳爻蹖鬲 賲丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖 卮丿貨 丕賲丕 亘丕 爻賳鬲 诏乇蹖夭蹖 乇丕丿蹖讴丕賱 賵 乇丿 讴乇丿賳 爻亘讴 賵 賲丿 睾丕賱亘貙 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 賴丕 丿乇 胤賵賱 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賳丿 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 倬賵卮卮 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賮乇丕賴賲 丌賵乇賳丿.
*丕蹖賳 讴乇賵倬賵鬲讴蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 夭賳丿丕賳 乇丕 ( 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 噩乇賲 ) 賳丕賲蹖丿. 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賲噩乇賲蹖賳 禺乇丿賴 倬丕 丿乇 夭賳丿丕賳 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 賲噩乇賲丕賳賴 蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 鬲乇 乇丕 賲蹖 丌賲賵禺鬲賳丿. 賴賲蹖賳 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 倬爻 丕夭 丌夭丕丿蹖 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 噩乇賲 賵 丨亘爻 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫簇�.
July 16, 2018
賰丕賳 賲丨鬲丕噩 賷賰賵賳 兀胤賵賱 賵兀毓賲賯 賲賳 賰丿丞 卮賵賷丞
August 29, 2020
賲禺鬲氐乇 賵 賲賮蹖丿貙 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 賵 禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘丕 賲丨賵乇蹖鬲 丌乇丕蹖 讴乇賵倬丕鬲讴蹖賳貙 亘丕讴賵賳蹖賳貙 丕賲丕 诏賱丿賲賳 貙 倬乇賵丿賵賳 賵 诏丕丿賵蹖賳.
丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 讴鬲丕亘 "丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲" 丕夭 噩乇噩 賵賵丿讴丕讴 賲賳亘毓 讴丕賲賱鈥屫臂� 亘丕卮賴貙 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 卮乇賵毓 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 禺賵亘 丕賵賲丿.
芦賵丕賱丿賳禄 丕夭 賴賳乇蹖 丿蹖賵蹖丿 孬賵乇賵 賴賲 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 讴賵鬲丕賴鈥屬呚� 丿丕乇賲.
倬.賳 : 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 鬲丕蹖倬蹖 賵 賳诏丕乇卮蹖 亘蹖丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 讴鬲丕亘 "丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲" 丕夭 噩乇噩 賵賵丿讴丕讴 賲賳亘毓 讴丕賲賱鈥屫臂� 亘丕卮賴貙 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 卮乇賵毓 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 禺賵亘 丕賵賲丿.
芦賵丕賱丿賳禄 丕夭 賴賳乇蹖 丿蹖賵蹖丿 孬賵乇賵 賴賲 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 讴賵鬲丕賴鈥屬呚� 丿丕乇賲.
倬.賳 : 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 鬲丕蹖倬蹖 賵 賳诏丕乇卮蹖 亘蹖丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
November 16, 2014
Oxford's Very Short Introduction books have been hit-or-miss, in my experience; and this one, though not without its merits, goes into the "miss" column. It reads like a brochure for anarchism - and not a very good one at that - rather than an introduction to its concepts. According to the "history" portion of this brochure, whenever freedom expanded, that was anarchism, and whenever it contracted, as when the supposed anarchistic aims of history's revolutionary movements were rolled back or tempered, this was the product of various forms of statism. We are then treated to a rather disjointed series of vignettes on various pet issues, like the rate of imprisonment for victimless crimes, the state-sponsored conformism of public education systems, the (admittedly interesting) anarchist take on federalism, and environmentalism.
I think i'd be better off reading some of the names he gives us - Bakunin, Kropotkin, et al.
I think i'd be better off reading some of the names he gives us - Bakunin, Kropotkin, et al.
February 9, 2014
I am a big fan of Oxford UP's Very Short Introduction (VSI) series (disclaimer: I am a future author myself). Many of them are great introductions to complex matters, written by prominent authors in an accessible style. Rather than providing state-of-the-art overviews, they develop a particular approach to the topic at hand. Most of the times, this leads to very interesting and insightful books... sometimes, they are missed opportunities. Colin Ward's is one of these negative exceptions. It is throughout disappointing and at time infuriating. Not only does Ward fail to define "anarchism", not totally uncommon in the VSI series, he seems to include every positive historical example of opposition to authoritarianism and (corrupt) establishment as an example of anarchism, but also traces the roots of virtually every positive contemporary political phenomenon to some (obscure) texts of historical anarchists (e.g. European integration and Kropotkin). In the end, this is not an academic text on anarchism, it is a chummy and mostly uninteresting pamphlet on a highly complex and important political theory (or philosophical tradition), which deserves much better.
January 31, 2012
The sections on the penal and education systems are both excellent and worth a few minutes of anyone's time! The environmental stuff is also illuminating.
Leave the sheep to their bleating. Think for yourself. Act for the greatest good. Not because you are forced to by some central organisation but because in your own judgement it's the right thing to do.
Leave the sheep to their bleating. Think for yourself. Act for the greatest good. Not because you are forced to by some central organisation but because in your own judgement it's the right thing to do.
November 10, 2020
Ward clearly understands anarchism in a very limited scope, namely one that only affects him as a white man. He acts as though anarchy is only about class/relation to the state and not the disassembly of all hierarchies. Seeing as sexism and racism are two of the three biggest hierarchies (class obviously being the third), I find it disgusting that he did not 1) cite this as part of anarchism or 2) seek to cite more than one woman or ANY POC anarchists in this book. The best he did was to briefly mention Emma Goldman a few times and quote her once. This book did refer me to some useful resources that would be helpful if I'd never heard of/read about anarchism, but the author was very Eurocentric/narrow-minded, unable to conceptualize anarchy outside of the Western world and inaccurately identifying the inception of it. Though the term anarchism is relatively new, the ideals are much older than Proudhon/Bakunin/etc. Ward also claims that anarcha-feminism is a 鈥渕ore recently emerging variety鈥� of anarchism, which is patently untrue.
A short introduction doesn鈥檛 have to mean a shitty introduction. However, I will give this book 2 stars instead of 1 because it was somewhat useful in its limited scope and it showed me my first picture of a young Kropotkin
A short introduction doesn鈥檛 have to mean a shitty introduction. However, I will give this book 2 stars instead of 1 because it was somewhat useful in its limited scope and it showed me my first picture of a young Kropotkin
May 5, 2014
賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲鬲賲 氐賷丕睾丞 兀卮賰丕賱 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱鬲賳馗賷賲 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮睾賱賴丕 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱亘賷乇賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 兀睾賱亘 丕賱爻賱亘賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵爻毓 賮賷 卮乇丨賴丕 賲毓乇賵賮丞 賵賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賷賴丕 賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷賵囟丨 毓賲賱賷丕賸 賰賷賮 鬲胤亘賯 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞 賵賰賷賮 賷鬲賲 囟賲丕賳 噩賵丿丞 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩..
July 27, 2021
The first few chapters provide a decent overview of the history and core tenets of anarchism, but the book loses coherence once it gets into more specific topics such as anarchist views of education, environmentalism, etc. Ward's prose is clearer and more direct than a lot of political theorists', which is refreshing, but the downside is that he's not a very organized thinker; for example, he often fails to give any real context for the many quotations and historical examples he cites, making it hard to appreciate their relevance to the subject at hand. The ample sources are good, but in a book this brief I could have done with more simple explaining of ideas on Ward's part and fewer block quotes from other authors.
Despite occasional attempts to diversify, the book is also glaringly Eurocentric (the low point of the whole thing is a tedious chapter on the origins and future of the EU, masquerading as a discussion of federalism vs. nationalism), and, as it's now nearly two decades old, there's plenty of more recent history which for obvious reasons the late Ward can't get into. And, while I was pleasantly surprised that the publishers picked an author who actually professes to be an anarchist rather than someone with a more "neutral" centrist perspective, there's a depressing sense throughout the book that Ward doesn't really believe this philosophy can affect real change on anything more than the local level. This is the more realistic view, maybe, but I don't think there's any harm to a little bit of utopianism when you're trying to make the basic case for your particular politics鈥攅specially a politics which has been misunderstood and misrepresented as thoroughly through the years as anarchism has.
The main takeaway? You should probably just skip this and read The Conquest of Bread.
Despite occasional attempts to diversify, the book is also glaringly Eurocentric (the low point of the whole thing is a tedious chapter on the origins and future of the EU, masquerading as a discussion of federalism vs. nationalism), and, as it's now nearly two decades old, there's plenty of more recent history which for obvious reasons the late Ward can't get into. And, while I was pleasantly surprised that the publishers picked an author who actually professes to be an anarchist rather than someone with a more "neutral" centrist perspective, there's a depressing sense throughout the book that Ward doesn't really believe this philosophy can affect real change on anything more than the local level. This is the more realistic view, maybe, but I don't think there's any harm to a little bit of utopianism when you're trying to make the basic case for your particular politics鈥攅specially a politics which has been misunderstood and misrepresented as thoroughly through the years as anarchism has.
The main takeaway? You should probably just skip this and read The Conquest of Bread.
September 25, 2016
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 禺賵賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丕蹖賳噩丕 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 讴賴 丌禺乇丕蹖 蹖讴 亘丨孬 1 亘賴 5 賳賮乇賴 讴賴 賲賳 亘丕賵乇賲 賳賲蹖卮丿 賵丕賯毓丕 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賲 賳馗乇卮賵賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕卮賴 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 亘賴 卮賵禺蹖 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇 禺胤丕亘卮賵賳 讴乇丿賲 賵 噩賵丕亘 噩丕賱亘蹖 诏乇賮鬲賲 讴賴 賲賳 乇賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲 賳賲蹖丿賵賳爻鬲賳 賵 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 禺胤丕亘賲 讴乇丿賳.
賵 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇蹖 卮丿 讴賴 賲賳 禺賵丕爻鬲賲 亘丿賵賳賲 丕蹖賳 诏乇賵賴 讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 賲賳 亘賴卮賵賳 賲賳爻賵亘 卮丿賲.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 讴鬲丕亘 倬乇 丕夭 丕卮讴丕賱丕鬲 賲賮賴賵賲蹖貙 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 鬲丕蹖倬蹖 賵 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕蹖 亘賵丿. 亘賯丿乇蹖 讴賴 诏丕賴蹖 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 趩賳丿蹖賳 亘丕乇賴 蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲貙 亘丕夭 賴賲 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 丕夭卮賵賳 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 賳賲蹖卮丿 賵 蹖丕 胤賵乇蹖 丕卮丕乇賴 賵丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿 讴賴 丕賳诏丕乇 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖诏賴 丕蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿
鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賲 賴乇 賮氐賱 乇賵 禺賱丕氐賴 讴賳賲 讴賴 亘毓丿丕 賴賲 賯丕亘賱 禺賵賳丿賳 賵 賲乇賵乇 亘丕卮賴. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 乇賵 丿乇 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴賳賴
丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 亘鬲賵賳賲 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 亘賴鬲乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 鬲乇蹖 賴賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕乇賴 亘禺賵賳賲
賵 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇蹖 卮丿 讴賴 賲賳 禺賵丕爻鬲賲 亘丿賵賳賲 丕蹖賳 诏乇賵賴 讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 賲賳 亘賴卮賵賳 賲賳爻賵亘 卮丿賲.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 讴鬲丕亘 倬乇 丕夭 丕卮讴丕賱丕鬲 賲賮賴賵賲蹖貙 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 鬲丕蹖倬蹖 賵 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕蹖 亘賵丿. 亘賯丿乇蹖 讴賴 诏丕賴蹖 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 趩賳丿蹖賳 亘丕乇賴 蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲貙 亘丕夭 賴賲 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 丕夭卮賵賳 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 賳賲蹖卮丿 賵 蹖丕 胤賵乇蹖 丕卮丕乇賴 賵丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿 讴賴 丕賳诏丕乇 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖诏賴 丕蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿
鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賲 賴乇 賮氐賱 乇賵 禺賱丕氐賴 讴賳賲 讴賴 亘毓丿丕 賴賲 賯丕亘賱 禺賵賳丿賳 賵 賲乇賵乇 亘丕卮賴. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 乇賵 丿乇 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴賳賴
丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 亘鬲賵賳賲 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 亘賴鬲乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 鬲乇蹖 賴賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕乇賴 亘禺賵賳賲
February 18, 2020
I found it to be a little high level for an introduction; but provided a lot to think about. Brought forth diverse ways to think about Anarchism in the sense of the fact that it isn't just breaking all the shit down for no purpose. It's not just madness and mayhem. Anarchism/Anarchy serves a very distinct purpose that seems originally rooted in building shit up through breaking shit down or standing your ground or standing against.
This book was a good introduction to various theorists and schools of thought and a variety of anarchistic people/moments in history and future predictions of anarchism especially when it comes to climate change. Writer Colin Ward jumped around a lot - but I liked that, touched on some people in history I've been passingly curious about like Henry David Thoreau. Provides a lot more random shit to research.
This book was a good introduction to various theorists and schools of thought and a variety of anarchistic people/moments in history and future predictions of anarchism especially when it comes to climate change. Writer Colin Ward jumped around a lot - but I liked that, touched on some people in history I've been passingly curious about like Henry David Thoreau. Provides a lot more random shit to research.
July 21, 2016
This is the book you want to give to someone to show them very quickly that Anarchism is not a crackpot nonsense idea. It does a great job outlining the basic anarchist concepts like worker control, decentralization of political control and economic activity, and skepticism of power and hierarchy. Of course, as usual its vague on the specifics, but what can one really expect from a very short introduction? Anyway if someone wants to look up the specifics of anarchist organization its not difficult to find online.
There was a lot of great information in here about the practical influence of anarchism, which I think is the book's strongest point. For instance, office managers are more often now turning to anarchist models of workplace management, because they simply allow for more freedom and productivity than hierarchal models. Anarchism also helped normalize egalitarian clothing and marriage norms. Anarchic models also provided for social welfare, medical care, and public education before the state. In fact, the state co-opted the anarchic models, and forced the unwilling population into them, all the while degrading the quality and flexibility of the service in favor of centralized control and subservience to the general goals of the state authorities. This is all very uncontroversial history, but its not widely known outside of anarchist circles, and the specific scholarly communities which deal with the histories of these subject areas.
Anarchist models of federation are also becoming increasingly relevant, both as organizations like the E.U. seek to grapple with questions of localism and regionalism, and as the concept of the nation state loses relevance in a world of electronic global commerce. It is also interesting to note that many anarchists, despite their opposition to states and capitalist entities, used the operation of international law and transport, and the operation of firms on the market, to illustrate how non-centrally directed, action through unhomogonized institutions could result in order and prosperity.
One hang up. It doesn't give much credence to Stirner or egoist anarchism. The author cannot find Stirner comprehensible, which admittedly, is a problem, but he is no worse than any other German Idealist. Additionally, the author seems to discount American libertarianism, of the non-socialist variety. I think the author is too dismissive of this tradition. He basically writes them off as capitalist apologists and doesn't seem very familiar with their more radical literature.
Overall though, great work. It portrays anarchism as rational, practical, and historically grounded. It is revolutionary, but not utopian (any more.) And in a world where authoritarian, centralized, hierarchal modes of living have resulted in chaos and tyranny, anarchism seems increasingly relevant.
O ya and you can read it in a couple hours.
There was a lot of great information in here about the practical influence of anarchism, which I think is the book's strongest point. For instance, office managers are more often now turning to anarchist models of workplace management, because they simply allow for more freedom and productivity than hierarchal models. Anarchism also helped normalize egalitarian clothing and marriage norms. Anarchic models also provided for social welfare, medical care, and public education before the state. In fact, the state co-opted the anarchic models, and forced the unwilling population into them, all the while degrading the quality and flexibility of the service in favor of centralized control and subservience to the general goals of the state authorities. This is all very uncontroversial history, but its not widely known outside of anarchist circles, and the specific scholarly communities which deal with the histories of these subject areas.
Anarchist models of federation are also becoming increasingly relevant, both as organizations like the E.U. seek to grapple with questions of localism and regionalism, and as the concept of the nation state loses relevance in a world of electronic global commerce. It is also interesting to note that many anarchists, despite their opposition to states and capitalist entities, used the operation of international law and transport, and the operation of firms on the market, to illustrate how non-centrally directed, action through unhomogonized institutions could result in order and prosperity.
One hang up. It doesn't give much credence to Stirner or egoist anarchism. The author cannot find Stirner comprehensible, which admittedly, is a problem, but he is no worse than any other German Idealist. Additionally, the author seems to discount American libertarianism, of the non-socialist variety. I think the author is too dismissive of this tradition. He basically writes them off as capitalist apologists and doesn't seem very familiar with their more radical literature.
Overall though, great work. It portrays anarchism as rational, practical, and historically grounded. It is revolutionary, but not utopian (any more.) And in a world where authoritarian, centralized, hierarchal modes of living have resulted in chaos and tyranny, anarchism seems increasingly relevant.
O ya and you can read it in a couple hours.
March 5, 2012
Was expecting a good introduction on Anarchism, as someone who knows very little about it but has recently started getting into it.
He discusses very little that I didn't already know and he doesn't go indepth with anything in this book. Which I guess was what I should have expected. But this was a little too much of a gloss over for someone who has read the Wikipedia page on anarchy over a couple of times. I would recommend doing that instead of buying this, because of the fact that it is so brief.
The one thing I did like about this was his reasoning behind why the anarchists have failed at doing any successful revolutions or anything like that (besides Spain) . Ward proposes that anarchists have played a large role in every major revolution in history, but after the revolution is successful they end up being booted out by people who want to try and organize a workers state, so they keep getting kicked to the curb by people hungry for power.
This is the only memorable argument in the book but it is a quite interesting one that really made me think.
He discusses very little that I didn't already know and he doesn't go indepth with anything in this book. Which I guess was what I should have expected. But this was a little too much of a gloss over for someone who has read the Wikipedia page on anarchy over a couple of times. I would recommend doing that instead of buying this, because of the fact that it is so brief.
The one thing I did like about this was his reasoning behind why the anarchists have failed at doing any successful revolutions or anything like that (besides Spain) . Ward proposes that anarchists have played a large role in every major revolution in history, but after the revolution is successful they end up being booted out by people who want to try and organize a workers state, so they keep getting kicked to the curb by people hungry for power.
This is the only memorable argument in the book but it is a quite interesting one that really made me think.
November 17, 2022
interesting and enlightening, although i would have enjoyed a few more examples of anarchistic beliefs and systems
November 25, 2016
賲卮賰賱鬲賷 丕賱兀夭賱賷丞 賲毓 賰鬲亘 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲丞 賴賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 乇睾賲 噩賵丿丞 鬲乇噩賲丞 賴賳丿丕賵賷..賵賱賰賳賴 乇亘賲丕 毓丕卅賯 賱睾丞 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱亘毓賷丿丞 毓賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賱賷賴丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻!
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賯賷賲丞 賰亘丿丕賷丞 賱兀賷 卮禺氐 賷乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 兀賵 賰賲丕 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴丕 "丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞" 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲賰賮賷 兀亘丿賸丕 賱賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘賰賱 噩賵丕賳亘 賴匕賴 丕賱丨乇賰丞 賵賯丕卅丿賷賴丕
兀毓噩亘賳賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵兀賳氐丨 亘賴 兀賷 卮禺氐 賷乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱丕賳丕乇賰賷丞 亘毓賷丿賸丕 毓賳 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲乇賳鬲 丕賱賲鬲囟丕乇亘丞 賵乇亘賲丕 爻鬲賰鬲卮賮 兀孬賳丕亍 賯乇丕亍鬲賰 兀賳賰 兀賳丕乇賰賷 賮賷 噩夭亍 賲丕..賮丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賯胤 丨乇賰丞 爻賷丕爻賷丞 亘賱 賴賷 丨乇賰丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 鬲卮亘賴 廿賱賶 丨丿 賰亘賷乇 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賮賷 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲賴丕 丕賱亘爻賷胤丞 賵丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賰丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲賯丕賷丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞貙丕賱賲丨賱賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賲睾賱賯丞 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴丕.
賵乇亘賲丕 鬲亘丿賵 丕賱丕賳丕乇賰賷丞 亘毓賷丿丞 毓賳 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 爻賷丕爻賷賭賸丕 賵賷購鬲賴賲 賲賳丕氐乇賵賴丕 亘兀賳賴賲 丨丕賱賲賵賳 賵丕賴賲賵賳 賵賱賰賳 賷亘丿賵 兀賳賴丕 賲胤亘賯丞 亘卮賰賱 賲丕 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賭賸丕 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賷賭賸丕.
兀賳氐丨賰賲 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
:)
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賯賷賲丞 賰亘丿丕賷丞 賱兀賷 卮禺氐 賷乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 兀賵 賰賲丕 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴丕 "丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞" 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲賰賮賷 兀亘丿賸丕 賱賱廿賱賲丕賲 亘賰賱 噩賵丕賳亘 賴匕賴 丕賱丨乇賰丞 賵賯丕卅丿賷賴丕
兀毓噩亘賳賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵兀賳氐丨 亘賴 兀賷 卮禺氐 賷乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱丕賳丕乇賰賷丞 亘毓賷丿賸丕 毓賳 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲乇賳鬲 丕賱賲鬲囟丕乇亘丞 賵乇亘賲丕 爻鬲賰鬲卮賮 兀孬賳丕亍 賯乇丕亍鬲賰 兀賳賰 兀賳丕乇賰賷 賮賷 噩夭亍 賲丕..賮丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賯胤 丨乇賰丞 爻賷丕爻賷丞 亘賱 賴賷 丨乇賰丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 鬲卮亘賴 廿賱賶 丨丿 賰亘賷乇 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賮賷 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲賴丕 丕賱亘爻賷胤丞 賵丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賰丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賳馗丕賲 丕賱賲賯丕賷丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞貙丕賱賲丨賱賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賲睾賱賯丞 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴丕.
賵乇亘賲丕 鬲亘丿賵 丕賱丕賳丕乇賰賷丞 亘毓賷丿丞 毓賳 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 爻賷丕爻賷賭賸丕 賵賷購鬲賴賲 賲賳丕氐乇賵賴丕 亘兀賳賴賲 丨丕賱賲賵賳 賵丕賴賲賵賳 賵賱賰賳 賷亘丿賵 兀賳賴丕 賲胤亘賯丞 亘卮賰賱 賲丕 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賭賸丕 賵鬲丕乇賷禺賷賭賸丕.
兀賳氐丨賰賲 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
:)
July 21, 2015
. 鈥庁з勜Ｙ嗀ж辟冑娯� 賲氐胤賱丨 賷毓賳賷 丨乇賮賷賸丕 鈥�"鈥勜жз冑呪€�"鈥� 鈥Ｙ�"賱丕爻賱胤丞"貙 鬲賲 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 丕賵賱 賲乇丞 毓賳丿 爻賯賵胤 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賵氐毓賵丿 爻賱胤丞 丕禺乇賶 亘丿賷賱丞 孬賲 賷丨丿孬 賯鬲丕賱 賵丨乇亘 兀賴賱賷丞 賳鬲賷噩丞 "丕賱賰乇爻賷" 孬賲 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賮賵囟賶貙 賲孬賱 賲丕賷丨丿孬 賮賷 賱賷亘賷丕 賵賴匕丕 鬲胤亘賷賯 賲亘丕卮乇 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷貙 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇..賲賳 卮丕賴丿 賮賱賲 鈥�
V For Vendetta
鈥庂勝勜Ｘ堌з� 賵丕鬲卮賵賲爻賰賷 爻賷賮賴賲 亘胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丨丕賱 鈥�"鈥з勜Ｙ嗀ж辟冑娯�
鈥庁� 賵賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賮賵囟賶 賵丕賱鬲賲乇丿
鈥庂勜ж迟勜焚堎娯� 鬲毓賳賷 睾賷丕亘 丕賱鬲丕賲 賱爻賱胤丞 賵鬲賮賰賷賰 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 孬賲 丕爻鬲亘丿丕賱 賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 亘賲丐爻爻丞 卮毓亘賷丞 丕賮賯賷丞 賲鬲爻丕賵賷丞 貙.鈥勜ж迟勜焚堎娯� 賴賵 丕賱乇賮囟 丕賱賰丕賲賱 賱爻賱胤丞 賵丨賰賲 丕賱兀賯賱賷丞 賵鬲丨賰賲 丕賱鬲丕賲 賮賷 丕賱卮毓亘鈥�..鈥�
鈥庁з勝呝徺傌呚� 睾賷乇 賰丕賮賷丞 賱卮乇丨 丕賱賮賰乇 賱丕爻賱胤賵賷 亘卮賰賱 噩賷丿貙賵賱賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賵囟賵賷 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷 賵賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 丕賱禺.
V For Vendetta
鈥庂勝勜Ｘ堌з� 賵丕鬲卮賵賲爻賰賷 爻賷賮賴賲 亘胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丨丕賱 鈥�"鈥з勜Ｙ嗀ж辟冑娯�
鈥庁� 賵賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賮賵囟賶 賵丕賱鬲賲乇丿
鈥庂勜ж迟勜焚堎娯� 鬲毓賳賷 睾賷丕亘 丕賱鬲丕賲 賱爻賱胤丞 賵鬲賮賰賷賰 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 孬賲 丕爻鬲亘丿丕賱 賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 亘賲丐爻爻丞 卮毓亘賷丞 丕賮賯賷丞 賲鬲爻丕賵賷丞 貙.鈥勜ж迟勜焚堎娯� 賴賵 丕賱乇賮囟 丕賱賰丕賲賱 賱爻賱胤丞 賵丨賰賲 丕賱兀賯賱賷丞 賵鬲丨賰賲 丕賱鬲丕賲 賮賷 丕賱卮毓亘鈥�..鈥�
鈥庁з勝呝徺傌呚� 睾賷乇 賰丕賮賷丞 賱卮乇丨 丕賱賮賰乇 賱丕爻賱胤賵賷 亘卮賰賱 噩賷丿貙賵賱賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賵囟賵賷 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷 賵賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 丕賱禺.
December 12, 2011
Eye opening? Eye-poppping! I am an anarchist, there is no doubt. I am not, however, an anti-christ.
December 2, 2017
Anarchists, know how to express their beliefs. However, as an ex-anarchist, I believe that there are some fundamental problems with anarchism.
1. Anarchists offer a few cases of how lack of leviathan, may have improved our wellbeing. However, these cases are usually case studies, fails to take into account other factors, and they fail to make a comprehensive statical case for anarchism, which opposing views sometimes do.
2. They romanticize past. Which I will not go into.
3. They offer a great number of criticisms towards socialism, capitalism and Hobsianism, however, they lack any model of how we should be and how to get there.
Enough on anarchism. Let's talk about the book.
This book was a bit weird. It offered some very quick analysis of matters that I know a bit about. Like Iran, the country that I have lived all my life. If I'm not mistaken, it says that Shah was overthrown by elite religious figures(?). Which is really confusing as religious figures tried to reach the elite level, by overthrowing Shah. They were not elite. They became elite. Which completely reverses the argument that the author was trying to make.
there were some more of these weird claims and analysis. So I would not cite this book in my publications and it seems rather unfounded in many respects.
1. Anarchists offer a few cases of how lack of leviathan, may have improved our wellbeing. However, these cases are usually case studies, fails to take into account other factors, and they fail to make a comprehensive statical case for anarchism, which opposing views sometimes do.
2. They romanticize past. Which I will not go into.
3. They offer a great number of criticisms towards socialism, capitalism and Hobsianism, however, they lack any model of how we should be and how to get there.
Enough on anarchism. Let's talk about the book.
This book was a bit weird. It offered some very quick analysis of matters that I know a bit about. Like Iran, the country that I have lived all my life. If I'm not mistaken, it says that Shah was overthrown by elite religious figures(?). Which is really confusing as religious figures tried to reach the elite level, by overthrowing Shah. They were not elite. They became elite. Which completely reverses the argument that the author was trying to make.
there were some more of these weird claims and analysis. So I would not cite this book in my publications and it seems rather unfounded in many respects.
May 17, 2023
讴鬲丕亘 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 丕孬乇 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿 亘丕 賳丕賲 讴丕賲賱 丿乇丌賲丿蹖 讴賵鬲丕賴 亘乇 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貙 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貙 賲賮賴賵賲貙 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 鬲兀孬蹖乇丕鬲 丌賳 丕爻鬲.
賵丕跇賴 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 禺賵丕賴 蹖丕 賳丕禺賵丕賴 亘丕 亘丕乇 賲賳賮蹖 賴賲乇丕賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 讴賴 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 趩胤賵乇 讴丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丕賲乇賵夭賴 賲丕 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賵 乇賮丕賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲. 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿 亘丕 亘蹖丕賳蹖 賵丕囟丨 賵 卮蹖乇蹖賳 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘丕 鬲毓乇蹖賮蹖 乇賵卮賳 丕夭 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貙 賲禺丕胤亘 乇丕 丌诏丕賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 丕賵賱蹖賳 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 讴賴 亘賵丿貙 趩賴 夭賲丕賳蹖 賮乇蹖丕丿 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻乇 丿丕丿 賵 趩賴 賵丕賯毓賴鈥屫й� 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿.
賵蹖 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 乇賵卮賳鈥屫з嗀屫簇з� 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 丕夭 丨夭亘鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮貙 賲丕賳賳丿 賮賲賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 賲丨蹖胤鈥� 夭蹖爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 趩胤賵乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌蹖賳丿賴 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿 亘卮乇 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丿乇賳賴丕蹖鬲貙 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿 亘丕 賲賴丕乇鬲 鬲賲丕賲貙 乇丕賴鈥屫� 賲賵丕噩賴賴 亘丕 賲卮讴賱丕鬲 亘卮乇蹖 乇丕 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 賵 丕氐賵賱 丌賳 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 趩胤賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丿乇 乇丕賴 氐丨蹖丨 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴乇丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 芦賳賴 诏賮鬲賳 亘賴 夭賵乇 賵 馗賱賲禄 丿乇 賴乇 夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲.
賵丕跇賴 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 禺賵丕賴 蹖丕 賳丕禺賵丕賴 亘丕 亘丕乇 賲賳賮蹖 賴賲乇丕賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 讴賴 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 趩胤賵乇 讴丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丕賲乇賵夭賴 賲丕 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賵 乇賮丕賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲. 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿 亘丕 亘蹖丕賳蹖 賵丕囟丨 賵 卮蹖乇蹖賳 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘丕 鬲毓乇蹖賮蹖 乇賵卮賳 丕夭 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲貙 賲禺丕胤亘 乇丕 丌诏丕賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 丕賵賱蹖賳 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 讴賴 亘賵丿貙 趩賴 夭賲丕賳蹖 賮乇蹖丕丿 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻乇 丿丕丿 賵 趩賴 賵丕賯毓賴鈥屫й� 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿.
賵蹖 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 乇賵卮賳鈥屫з嗀屫簇з� 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻鬲 丕夭 丨夭亘鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮貙 賲丕賳賳丿 賮賲賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 賲丨蹖胤鈥� 夭蹖爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 趩胤賵乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌蹖賳丿賴 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿 亘卮乇 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丿乇賳賴丕蹖鬲貙 讴丕賱蹖賳 賵丕乇丿 亘丕 賲賴丕乇鬲 鬲賲丕賲貙 乇丕賴鈥屫� 賲賵丕噩賴賴 亘丕 賲卮讴賱丕鬲 亘卮乇蹖 乇丕 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 賵 丕氐賵賱 丌賳 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 趩胤賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丿乇 乇丕賴 氐丨蹖丨 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴乇丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丌賳丕乇卮蹖爻賲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 芦賳賴 诏賮鬲賳 亘賴 夭賵乇 賵 馗賱賲禄 丿乇 賴乇 夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲.
May 19, 2022
Ignore the naysayers, this is a concise yet surprisingly ample little title that is still hugely relevant for today.
As a contemporary late 20th and early 21st century commentator, Colin Ward鈥檚 congenial, non-sectarian, 鈥渂read and butter鈥� approach to extrapolating the most pertinent aspects of anarchist theory and practice (with an unequivocal emphasis on the practice) is truly refreshing for anyone who has become so tired with the superficial, online fanarchism and materialist pseudo-intellectualism so rampant in 鈥榓lternative鈥� political economy.
I had actually held out reading this for a long time, largely because I was unfamiliar with Ward but predominantly because of the ridiculously low GR score (3.52? Seriously??)
It鈥檚 kind of incredible, because it says much more about the people petulantly bemoaning how the book didn鈥檛 meet their expectations (like that鈥檚 a bad thing?) than it does about Ward, who is always incredibly insightful yet never verbose, making him ideal reading for those wanting to learn more about Libertarian Socialism in all its dimensions.
As a contemporary late 20th and early 21st century commentator, Colin Ward鈥檚 congenial, non-sectarian, 鈥渂read and butter鈥� approach to extrapolating the most pertinent aspects of anarchist theory and practice (with an unequivocal emphasis on the practice) is truly refreshing for anyone who has become so tired with the superficial, online fanarchism and materialist pseudo-intellectualism so rampant in 鈥榓lternative鈥� political economy.
I had actually held out reading this for a long time, largely because I was unfamiliar with Ward but predominantly because of the ridiculously low GR score (3.52? Seriously??)
It鈥檚 kind of incredible, because it says much more about the people petulantly bemoaning how the book didn鈥檛 meet their expectations (like that鈥檚 a bad thing?) than it does about Ward, who is always incredibly insightful yet never verbose, making him ideal reading for those wanting to learn more about Libertarian Socialism in all its dimensions.
September 21, 2008
A basically sound introduction to Anarchism as a political philosophy and as mode of political action but I have my criticisms.
The disappointment is that a cool analysis of an important trend in Western political philosophy is, in the end, bent to appropriate the entire anarchist tradition for a range of current social movements, some appropriately (chapter eight on social and economic protest) and some much less so (chapters nine and ten on federalist and green politics).
Yes, there is a link between the history of anarchism and, say, the green movement but there is a bit of convenient whitewashing going on here - fascistic thinking and technocratic dabbling have played as much of a role in greenery as ever did philosophies of human liberation.
At the end of the day, anarchism is an act of faith in human nature (one that is hard to square with the facts of human psychology) and a general spirit of struggle against oppresive systems - capitalist and state socialist - which is where it is most fruitful. It is also an intellectual deconstruction of great abstractions like the 'nation' although it can sometimes merely replace one set of fictions with another.
Ward's account of anarchism and its meanings is excellent until he gets closer to our own times. Perhaps Ward is just too 'engaged' in his subject. He is a 'veteran anarchist' himself so it is like asking Hobsbawm to write on the history of the Communist Party.
It seems to be a trend for publishers to accept books that are ostensibly objective but in fact are partially polemical (see our review of What Pagans Believe) in a contemporary context. Frankly, I just find it hard to trust the assessments in the final two chapters whereas I am very happy to rely wholly on the first eight.
One appreciates that this is a 'very short introduction' but Ward does a disservice to sympathetic readers in producing, towards the very end, after his considerable insights into the nineteenth and early twentieth century anarchist tradition, a rather selective account of its alleged contemporary manifestations which gently merge into what can only be described as implicit and selective policy proposals.
The sweeping aside of the American libertarian tradition in chapter seven is one concern but the adoption of federalist/regionalist and green agenda are just plain a-historical - this is a selective reading of the 'now' for subtle near-polemical ends.
To appropriate anarchism for the concept of a United States (regions) of Europe (implied through a reading of Bakunin), as such a term might now be understood, is disturbingly potty, given current realities, and to believe that anarchists were necessarily going to be into green issues - maybe Nazi Minister of Agriculture Walther Darre should have been an anarchist, huh! - is just plain daft.
Europeanism and environmentalism do have some anarchist elements but not nearly so much as Ward would like to claim - while his earlier attempt to 'diss' modern American economic libertarians as not mainstream anarchists may be true today but many an artisanal Proudhonist and nineteenth century opponent of Marx would have felt closer to them than to the interfering social movement protesters of today. This is the rejigging of ideological history on a grand scale.
We think that this implicit polemic is unhelpful - either the reader deserves a considered assessment from outside a movement or an obviously engaged history that masquerades as nothing else. The book ultimately seems intended to persuade and not to inform. However, it is well written and engaging, with material on the great names and events of anarchist history that deserves to be part of any civilised person's general knowledge.
There are fuller accounts of the history of anarchism (to be reviewed, we hope, later) and there are other more powerful intellectual investigations of what anarchism means today. This book has to be seen as a quick second division guide, a useful and slightly frustrating half-way house, well worth reading for many of the facts, a proper appreciation of the extra-European dimension to anarchism and for some sensible particular judgements and insights into contemporary alternative modes of thinking but it is not to be placed in the first rank by any means.
The disappointment is that a cool analysis of an important trend in Western political philosophy is, in the end, bent to appropriate the entire anarchist tradition for a range of current social movements, some appropriately (chapter eight on social and economic protest) and some much less so (chapters nine and ten on federalist and green politics).
Yes, there is a link between the history of anarchism and, say, the green movement but there is a bit of convenient whitewashing going on here - fascistic thinking and technocratic dabbling have played as much of a role in greenery as ever did philosophies of human liberation.
At the end of the day, anarchism is an act of faith in human nature (one that is hard to square with the facts of human psychology) and a general spirit of struggle against oppresive systems - capitalist and state socialist - which is where it is most fruitful. It is also an intellectual deconstruction of great abstractions like the 'nation' although it can sometimes merely replace one set of fictions with another.
Ward's account of anarchism and its meanings is excellent until he gets closer to our own times. Perhaps Ward is just too 'engaged' in his subject. He is a 'veteran anarchist' himself so it is like asking Hobsbawm to write on the history of the Communist Party.
It seems to be a trend for publishers to accept books that are ostensibly objective but in fact are partially polemical (see our review of What Pagans Believe) in a contemporary context. Frankly, I just find it hard to trust the assessments in the final two chapters whereas I am very happy to rely wholly on the first eight.
One appreciates that this is a 'very short introduction' but Ward does a disservice to sympathetic readers in producing, towards the very end, after his considerable insights into the nineteenth and early twentieth century anarchist tradition, a rather selective account of its alleged contemporary manifestations which gently merge into what can only be described as implicit and selective policy proposals.
The sweeping aside of the American libertarian tradition in chapter seven is one concern but the adoption of federalist/regionalist and green agenda are just plain a-historical - this is a selective reading of the 'now' for subtle near-polemical ends.
To appropriate anarchism for the concept of a United States (regions) of Europe (implied through a reading of Bakunin), as such a term might now be understood, is disturbingly potty, given current realities, and to believe that anarchists were necessarily going to be into green issues - maybe Nazi Minister of Agriculture Walther Darre should have been an anarchist, huh! - is just plain daft.
Europeanism and environmentalism do have some anarchist elements but not nearly so much as Ward would like to claim - while his earlier attempt to 'diss' modern American economic libertarians as not mainstream anarchists may be true today but many an artisanal Proudhonist and nineteenth century opponent of Marx would have felt closer to them than to the interfering social movement protesters of today. This is the rejigging of ideological history on a grand scale.
We think that this implicit polemic is unhelpful - either the reader deserves a considered assessment from outside a movement or an obviously engaged history that masquerades as nothing else. The book ultimately seems intended to persuade and not to inform. However, it is well written and engaging, with material on the great names and events of anarchist history that deserves to be part of any civilised person's general knowledge.
There are fuller accounts of the history of anarchism (to be reviewed, we hope, later) and there are other more powerful intellectual investigations of what anarchism means today. This book has to be seen as a quick second division guide, a useful and slightly frustrating half-way house, well worth reading for many of the facts, a proper appreciation of the extra-European dimension to anarchism and for some sensible particular judgements and insights into contemporary alternative modes of thinking but it is not to be placed in the first rank by any means.
March 29, 2012
This book is reasonably good, though I wouldn't call it an all encompassing survey. For example, the author openly admits to having never finished reading Stirner's 'ego and it's own', which seems like a pretty significant omission. Ward states that he found the work unreadable, but that is probably because Stirner was influenced by Hegel, who is notorious for being one of the most difficult philosophers to understand. While Ward seems to focus on the political nature of Anarchy, he makes no attempt to contextualize it's themes within the narratives of European philosophy, of which there are many connections.
Further, at least some points were poorly researched, such as Ward declaring Grey Walter the founder of cybernetics. Not only was the book titled 'cybernetics' published by Norbert Wiener 2 years before Walter's first book, but Walter was not even in attendance at the first Macy Conference, which is universally accepted as the birthplace of cybernetics as a discipline. It isn't really a significant point, but this, plus the lack of coverage of significant figures such as Stirner, suggest the author has focused his research in the areas that interest him and glossed over the rest.
That being said, the book is informative, and I did learn about thinkers I was not familiar with. I appreciated the attempts to link Anarchist thought to liberal movements (as well as criticisms of liberalism) that have had a significant impact on modern life. However, at times it almost felt like it was trying too hard to demonstrate the influence of anarchist thought, to the point that at times it seems a bit of a stretch.
Further, at least some points were poorly researched, such as Ward declaring Grey Walter the founder of cybernetics. Not only was the book titled 'cybernetics' published by Norbert Wiener 2 years before Walter's first book, but Walter was not even in attendance at the first Macy Conference, which is universally accepted as the birthplace of cybernetics as a discipline. It isn't really a significant point, but this, plus the lack of coverage of significant figures such as Stirner, suggest the author has focused his research in the areas that interest him and glossed over the rest.
That being said, the book is informative, and I did learn about thinkers I was not familiar with. I appreciated the attempts to link Anarchist thought to liberal movements (as well as criticisms of liberalism) that have had a significant impact on modern life. However, at times it almost felt like it was trying too hard to demonstrate the influence of anarchist thought, to the point that at times it seems a bit of a stretch.
Read
February 2, 2019Anarchy means 鈥渨ithout leader鈥�, though it is often associated with chaos and riots. French thinker Proudhon attaches the name to his political ideology: After the failure of the French Revolution, he realizes that the problem wasn鈥檛 a particular ruler, it was the concept of rule. Anarchist organizations should be voluntary, small, temporary, and function-oriented. The idea did work well for Spain for a while. After the Spanish revolution of 1936, private property was abolished in many parts of the country and land cultivation went through massive collectivization.
Even if we don鈥檛 want a whole sale anarchist society, the idea has influenced different aspects of society. The way we dress today is a break from 50 years ago where what we wore was restricted by class or gender. Also some ideas from anarchists are helpful. Kropotkin calls prisons 鈥渦niversities of crime鈥�. Such observations played a role in US penal system, facilitating the probation service.
Even if we don鈥檛 want a whole sale anarchist society, the idea has influenced different aspects of society. The way we dress today is a break from 50 years ago where what we wore was restricted by class or gender. Also some ideas from anarchists are helpful. Kropotkin calls prisons 鈥渦niversities of crime鈥�. Such observations played a role in US penal system, facilitating the probation service.
September 26, 2020
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 : 賱丕 賱賱丨賰賲 .
賷賲賰賳 丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷 賱賰賱 賲賳 丕賱賱賷亘賷乇丕賱賷丞 賵 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 .
賳卮兀鬲 賰鬲賮爻賷乇 賱賱賮噩賵丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賯乇丕亍 賵 丕賱兀睾賳賷丕亍 賮賷 賰賱 賲噩鬲賲毓 .
賳丕賯卮 賰賵賱賷賳 賵丕乇丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賲匕賴亘 亘卮賰賱 噩賲賷賱 賱賱睾丕賷丞 丨賷孬 亘丿兀 賱賳丕 亘鬲毓乇賷賮 亘爻賷胤 毓賳賴 賵 賲賳 孬賲 鬲胤賵乇賴 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵 丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 亘丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丕胤丕丨鬲 亘丕賳馗賲丞 丨賰賲 丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 .
鬲毓乇賮鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賱噩丿丿 賰賲丕 丕鬲囟丨 賱賷 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲 賳丕賱丕爻賲丕亍 丕賱賱丕賲毓丞 亘賴丕 , 丨鬲賶 丕賳 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賷 賵 睾丕賳丿賷 賵 賲丕乇鬲賳 賱賵孬乇 賰賷賳毓 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賯丿 鬲兀孬乇賵丕 亘賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 孬賵乇賵 .
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賰賲匕賴亘 丕噩丿賴 丨丕賱賲丕 賵睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱 賱賱鬲賳賮賷匕 丨丕氐丞 賲毓 丕賱丕賳馗賲丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞
賵 賱賰賳 賷賲賰賳賴 丕賳 賷鬲乇賰 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓丕鬲 賱鬲丨爻賷賳 賲孬賱丕 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱鬲噩乇賷賲 賵 丕賱丕賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞 .
賱賷 毓賵丿丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
賰賳鬲 賯丿 賯乇兀鬲賴 氐丿賮丞 賵 賱賰賳賷 丕丨亘亘鬲 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲夭賷丿 毓賳賴
賷賲賰賳 丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷 賱賰賱 賲賳 丕賱賱賷亘賷乇丕賱賷丞 賵 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 .
賳卮兀鬲 賰鬲賮爻賷乇 賱賱賮噩賵丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賯乇丕亍 賵 丕賱兀睾賳賷丕亍 賮賷 賰賱 賲噩鬲賲毓 .
賳丕賯卮 賰賵賱賷賳 賵丕乇丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賲匕賴亘 亘卮賰賱 噩賲賷賱 賱賱睾丕賷丞 丨賷孬 亘丿兀 賱賳丕 亘鬲毓乇賷賮 亘爻賷胤 毓賳賴 賵 賲賳 孬賲 鬲胤賵乇賴 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵 丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 亘丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丕胤丕丨鬲 亘丕賳馗賲丞 丨賰賲 丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 .
鬲毓乇賮鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賱噩丿丿 賰賲丕 丕鬲囟丨 賱賷 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲 賳丕賱丕爻賲丕亍 丕賱賱丕賲毓丞 亘賴丕 , 丨鬲賶 丕賳 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賷 賵 睾丕賳丿賷 賵 賲丕乇鬲賳 賱賵孬乇 賰賷賳毓 丕賳賮爻賴賲 賯丿 鬲兀孬乇賵丕 亘賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 孬賵乇賵 .
丕賱賱丕爻賱胤賵賷丞 賰賲匕賴亘 丕噩丿賴 丨丕賱賲丕 賵睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱 賱賱鬲賳賮賷匕 丨丕氐丞 賲毓 丕賱丕賳馗賲丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞
賵 賱賰賳 賷賲賰賳賴 丕賳 賷鬲乇賰 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓丕鬲 賱鬲丨爻賷賳 賲孬賱丕 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱鬲噩乇賷賲 賵 丕賱丕賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞 .
賱賷 毓賵丿丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
賰賳鬲 賯丿 賯乇兀鬲賴 氐丿賮丞 賵 賱賰賳賷 丕丨亘亘鬲 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲夭賷丿 毓賳賴
February 10, 2017
賰丕賳 賱賯丕卅賷 丕賱兀賵賱 亘氐胤賱丨 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 毓亘乇 丕賱兀毓賱丕賲 丕賱賲氐乇賷 兀賷丕賲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵 賲丕 鬲賱丕賴丕 賲賳 丨賰賲 毓爻賰乇賷 丨賷孬 兀爻鬲丿禺丿賲鬲 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賱賵氐賮 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丕鬲 丕賱毓賳賷賮丞(丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻毓賶 賱賴丿賲 賱丿賵賱丞)賯亘賱 兀賳 鬲爻亘丿賱 亘賲氐胤賱丨 "丕賱胤乇賮 丕賱孬丕賱孬"貙賵 賯丿 鬲毓夭夭鬲 鬲賱賰 丕賱氐賵乇丞 賲毓 兀禺亘丕乇 丕賱鬲馗丕賴乇丕鬲 丕賱睾丕囟亘丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丕氐乇 丕賱兀噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱兀賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 賵 兀囟胤乇丕亘丕鬲 賵丕賱 爻鬲乇賷鬲 賵 睾賷乇賴丕..賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰卮賮 賱賷 毓賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻 丕賱毓賲賷賯 丕賱匕賷 鬲賯賮 毓賱賷賴 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 賮賷 賲毓丕乇囟鬲賴丕 賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱爻賱胤丞 匕丕鬲賴丕........賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 兀氐丿丕乇 乇兀賷 賮賷 丕賱兀賳丕乇賰賷丞 賵 賮賱爻賮鬲賴丕 亘賳丕亍丕購 毓賱賶 賰鬲丕亘 賲禺鬲氐乇 賰賴匕丕 賱匕丕 賮丕賱賳噩賵賲 .丕賱兀乇亘毓 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賱毓乇囟賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 亘鬲賳爻賷賯 賵 兀賳 卮丕亘 丕賱睾賲賵囟 亘毓囟 賲賵丕囟毓賴
Displaying 1 - 30 of 241 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.