اللاسلطوية: مقدمة قصيرة جداً

Very Short Introductions #116a

by Colin Ward, مروة عبد السلام (ترجمة)

عادةً ما تستحضر كلمة «اللاسلطوية» في الذهن صورًا للاحتجاج العنيف ضد الحكومات، ومؤخرًا أصبحت تستحضر صورًا للمظاهرات الغاضبة ضد كيانات على غرار البنك الدولي وصندوق النقد الدولي. لكن هل اللاسلطوية مرتبطة حتمًا بالفوضى والاضطرابات العنيفة؟ وهل اللاسلطويون ملتزمون بأيديولوجية متسقة؟ وما مفهوم اللاسلطوية تحديدًا؟

في هذه المقدمة القصيرة جدًّا يتناول كولين وارد اللاسلطوية من وجهات نظر متعددة: نظرية وتاريخية ودولية، وكذلك من خلال استكشاف كتابات أهم المفكرين اللاسلطويين، من كروبوتكين إلى تشومسكي. وأيًّا كان الاتجاه السياسي للقارئ، فإن الطرح الذي يقدمه المؤلف يضمن له فهمًا أفضل بكثير لمفهوم اللاسلطوية بعد قراءة هذا الكتاب.

للتحميل
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/93583507/

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Audiobook, Anarchism

108 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1981

About the author

Colin 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 ‘build it yourself’ system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal’s help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of ‘build it yourself’ having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, ‘I 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’. 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 Tŷ 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, ‘in every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.’ Ward himself goes on to observe: ‘Precisely 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’t get on the housing ladder’. Wards solution is that ‘there 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.’

Ward’s 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- ‘in small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop’

Reviews

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 4 out of 5]

اللاسلطوية هى الترجمة التى وجدها الكاتب مناسبة لترجمة الكلمة سيئة السمعه المعروفة حاليا و هى الأناركية أو كم تدعى الحكومات الفوضوية.

اللاسلطوية هى أم الثورات الإجتماعية التى تتشكل ضد الدولة ليس الا لكونها دولة فهى تعادى السلطة حيثما كانت و بأى طريقة كانت بشرط السلمية.

يرى الأناركيون أن الحكومات المركزية فكرة مضى عليها قطار السياسة منذ زمن و حان وقت تفكيكها لصالح كاميونات صغيرة شبه مستقلة تنظم أمورها بنفسها و تعتمد على موارد مستدامة قدر الإمكان و تتحد الكوميونات فى ولايات دون اندماج تام او استقلال تام و لا ينظمها الا مصالح سكانها و رأيهم مع حقهم فى الاندماج الطوعى و الإنفصال الطوعى ثم تنتظم الولايات فى قوميات ثم اتحادات كبرى قد تكون قارية تمهيدا للإتحاد العالمى. يؤمنون بحرية الفرد المطلقة و عدم وضع قيود اجتماعية او اقتصادية او دينية عليه بقوة القانون كما يدعمون المنظمات التطوعية و يعطونها دفة القيادة فى غالب الأمر.

لا يوضح الكتاب وضع الجيش و حماية الدولة ان كانت هناك ثمة دولة الا بالحديث عن جيش دفاع لا يسمح تسليحه بالهجوم على الحدود المجاورة و لم يبين ان كان هذا الجيش للكاميونات ام للكيانات الأكبر.

كون الكتاب مقدمة قصيرة جدا و وضح المسيرة التاريخية و الفلسفة و السياسات المختلفة للحركة الأناركية الا انه افضل بكثير من الغثاء المنتشر على مواقع الإنترنت الملىء بالمغالطات.

الحركة اللاسلطوية مرتبطة باليسار و ان لم تكن يسارية بالضرورة و لها تاريخ طويل من النضال و خصوصا ضد التكتلات الرأسمالية العالمية و متوحدة فى الغالب مع أحزاب الخضر. نموذج الكاميونات الصغيرة الشبه مستقلة موجودة فقط فى الكيبوتسات الإسرائلية بأغلب شروطة الفلسفة اللاسلطوية و ان لم يذكر الكتاب ذلك أبدا.

الكتاب جيد جدا و يصنف كفاتح للشهية للقراءة أكثر فى هذا الموضوع

[Ted · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 ‘What went wrong?’ 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’s 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 ¬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 ¬discerned in everyday human relations and impulses. Within this perspective, politics was about strengthening ¬co-operative ¬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’ve presented rather more detail for that chapter than for the remainder of the book.

Ch. 1 Definitions and Ancestors From the Greek ‘anarkhia’, “contrary to authority or without a ruler”. 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 “the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these.”

Ward starts off by mentioning several different sorts of anarchist thinker.

“The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist communism [note the small ‘c’; this is communism in the sense of ‘community’; also note that Ward uses ‘propaganda’ here, and elsewhere, in the non-pejorative sense: ‘the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement’], 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.” Further, “Some 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.”

“Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration.”

“There are several traditions of individualist anarchism”, one deriving from the German Max Stirner, and another from a series of 19th-century Americans, “who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all.”

“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.” (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:

… 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 Understanding Power 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 “prior justification”, that is, justification by simply saying “of course, that’s understood to be the case.” “The burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it – invariably.”)

Ward mentions four thinkers who have long been thought connected to the anarchist tradition (later in the book he refers to them as “my 19th-century mentors”). William Goodwin (1756-1836 – 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 The Conquest of Bread.

On anarchism’s 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, ‘anarchism’ 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, ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’ 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 “when 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”. These anarchists were no more successful than most subsequent political assassins. “But their legacy has been the cartoonist’s stereotype … and has provided another obstacle to the serious discussion of anarchist approaches.”


Here’s 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’t 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 “socialism”, and how anarchist ideas might be applied to the evolving 21st century forms of society. I didn’t really understand (no doubt some in Europe would) quite how he came to the conclusion that “socialism” 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: “It 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.’ [The book was published in 2004, so we can guess what he’s talking about.]

Ch 5. Containing deviancy and liberating work “Containing deviancy” 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’t be (the ultimate exercise of the state’s 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, “who envisaged a triumphant take-over of the factory by its workers” may now seem a forlorn hope, these aspirations “are close to the dreams of vast numbers of citizens who feel trapped by the culture of employment.”

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 “private” schools for working class children in the mid-nineteenth century. Ward says that “The anarchist approach has been more influential in education than in most other fields of life”, 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 “life” and the “real world” 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’t much in the system now to cause anarchists to rest on their supposed “more influential” third-place ribbons earned in the U.S. educational system.

Ch. 7 The individualist response I found this chapter quite agreeable. I’ve often thought the Libertarians in the U.S. seemed more like (the bad type of) anarchists than anything else. Without going into Ward’s analysis, I’ll just quote from the beginning and the end of the chapter:

(beginning) For a century, anarchists have used the word ‘libertarian’ as a synonym for ‘anarchist’, both as a noun and as an adjective … However, much more recently the word has been appropriated [he could have said “usurped”] by various American free marker philosophers … so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist ‘libertarian’ response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition.
o o o
(at the end) The American ‘libertarians’ 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.

Well, yes, that's good as far as it goes. He’s talking about academic economists, not a political movement. But in the U.S. the Libertarian world view has gone much farther than that. Let’s 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’t go there, and “neither will I”, he says veering away.

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 “had a federalist agenda that was a foretaste of modern debates on European unity.” What he’s talking about is the rise of the nation state in the 19th century, particularly with the unification of Germany and Italy, who had “left behind all those silly little principalities, republics, papal provinces, and city states, to become nation states, empires, and, of course, conquerors.” 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 …
[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.

Finally, he concludes

A resolution has been adopted by the council of Europe, calling for national governments to adopt its Charter for Local Self-Government, ‘to 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.’

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’s ‘cheap’ food; urban intensive food production, as in Singapore; Peter Harper’s distinction, not between Deep Ecologists and Social Ecologists, but between Light Greens (concerned with new technology of efficient energy, and “sustainable” 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.

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.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...)


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.

[آلاء · Rating 2 out of 5]

لا أظنني سأعاود المحاولة مع سلسلة مقدمة قصيرة جدا.. :(
الأحد ٧ أغسطس ٢٠٢٢.
تحديث: أعدت المحاولة مرتين:)٢٠٢٤.

يطمح الناس إلى خدمات وراحة أكبر، ومساحة خصوصية أكبر، وسهولة في التنقل، وإحساس باحتمالات أوسع. هذا هو المشروع الاستهلاكي العصري، وهو جوهر المجتمعات الحديثة. إنها سمة محورية في السياسة والاقتصاد السائدين ألا تتعرض الطموحات الاستهلاكية لهجوم جاد. بل على العكس، فالرسالة الرسمية المفهومة ضمنا هي:«اصمدوا مكانكم: سنلبِّي رغباتكم.» إن الشعار الأساسي بسيط إلى درجة مفجعة:«المزيد!»

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 word ‘anarchy’ 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.
***
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.

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.

The main thinkers of the anarchist tradition were:

1. William Godwin (1756–1836), English Philosopher
2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–65), French Propagandist
3. Michael Bakunin (1814–76), Russian Revolutionary
4. Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), 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..."

[Yasamanv · Rating 4 out of 5]

*بسیاری از جنبه های زندگی ما که آن ها را بدیهی فرض می کنیم، با تلاش های فعالان آنارشیست ممکن شده اند.
برای مثال شکل لباس پوشیدن ما. معمولا فراموش می کنیم که کمتر از ۵۰ سال پیش، چیزی که می پوشیدیم به طبقه‌ی اجتماعی و جنسیت ما محدود می شد؛ اما با سنت گریزی رادیکال و رد کردن سبک و مد غالب، آنارشیست ها در طول قرن بیستم توانستند راحتی و آزادی پوشش بسیاری را برای افراد متفاوت فراهم آورند.

*این کروپوتکین بود که برای اولین بار زندان را ( دانشگاه جرم ) نامید. بسیاری از مجرمین خرده پا در زندان از دیگر زندانیان روش های مجرمانه ی حرفه‌ای تر را می آموختند. همین تعاملات پس از آزادی منجر به افزایش جرم و حبس دوباره می‌شد.

[Amira Mahmoud · Rating 3 out of 5]

كان محتاج يكون أطول وأعمق من كدة شوية

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 3 out of 5]

مختصر و مفید، توضیح آنارشیسم و خواسته‌های آنارشیست‌ها با محوریت آرای کروپاتکین، باکونین، اما گلدمن ، پرودون و گادوین.

احتمالاً کتاب "آنارشیسم" از جرج وودکاک منبع کامل‌تری باشه، اما این کتاب برای شروع به نظرم خوب اومد.
«والدن» از هنری دیوید ثورو هم در برنامه‌ی کوتاه‌مدت دارم.

پ.ن : اشتباه تایپی و نگارشی بیداد می‌کنه.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[C M · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Sally McRogerson · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Becca · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 “more recently emerging variety” of anarchism, which is patently untrue.

A short introduction doesn’t 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

[Bushra · Rating 3 out of 5]

يجب أن تتم صياغة أشكال جديدة للتنظيم في المجتمع بدلاً من تلك التي تشغلها الدولة من خلال البيروقراطية أغلب السلبيات التي توسع في شرحها معروفة ومتفق عليها لكنه لم يوضح عملياً كيف تطبق هذه الرؤية الجديدة وكيف يتم ضمان جودة النتائج..

[Z. · Rating 3 out of 5]

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—especially 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.

[Reyhaneh · Rating 2 out of 5]

داستان خوندن این کتاب از اینجا شروع شد که آخرای یک بحث 1 به 5 نفره که من باورم نمیشد واقعا دوستانم نظرشون چیزی باشه که بیان میکنند، به شوخی دیکتاتور خطابشون کردم و جواب جالبی گرفتم که من رو دموکرات نمیدونستن و آنارشیست خطابم کردن.
و این طوری شد که من خواستم بدونم این گروه کی هستن که من بهشون منسوب شدم.
متاسفانه کتاب پر از اشکالات مفهومی، جمله بندی، حتی تایپی و ترجمه ای بود. بقدری که گاهی با خوندن چندین باره ی جملات، باز هم مفهومی ازشون برداشت نمیشد و یا طوری اشاره وار بودند که انگار ادامه ی کتاب دیگه ای هستند
تا جایی که تونستم سعی کردم هر فصل رو خلاصه کنم که بعدا هم قابل خوندن و مرور باشه. نویسنده سعی کرده بود این دیدگاه رو در موضوعات مختلفی بررسی کنه
امیدوارم بتونم کتاب های بهتر و روان تری هم در این باره بخونم

[chantel nouseforaname · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Nativeabuse · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[anastasia tasou · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting and enlightening, although i would have enjoyed a few more examples of anarchistic beliefs and systems

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

مشكلتي الأزلية مع كتب السياسة والفلسفة والشعر المترجمة هي الترجمة رغم جودة ترجمة هنداوي..ولكنه ربما عائق لغة المصطلحات البعيدة عن اللغة المتعارف عليها بين الناس!

الكتاب يحتوي على معلومات قيمة كبداية لأي شخص يرغب في معرفة ما هي اللاسلطوية أو كما يطلق عليها "الأناركية" ولكنها لا تكفي أبدًا للإلمام بكل جوانب هذه الحركة وقائديها

أعجبني الكتاب وأنصح به أي شخص يرغب في معرفة الاناركية بعيدًا عن صفحات الانترنت المتضاربة وربما ستكتشف أثناء قراءتك أنك أناركي في جزء ما..فالأناركية ليست فقط حركة سياسية بل هي حركة اجتماعية اقتصادية تشبه إلى حد كبير العصر البدائي في تعاملاتها البسيطة والواضحة كالتعامل بنظام المقايدة في المجتمعات الصغيرة،المحلية أو المغلقة على نفسها.
وربما تبدو الاناركية بعيدة عن التطبيق بشكل كبير سياسيـًا ويُتهم مناصروها بأنهم حالمون واهمون ولكن يبدو أنها مطبقة بشكل ما اجتماعيـًا وتاريخيـًا.

أنصحكم بقراءة الكتاب

:)

[Tariq Alferis · Rating 2 out of 5]

. ‎الأناركية مصطلح يعني حرفيًا ‫"‬لاحاكم‫"‬، ‫أو"لاسلطة"، تم استخدام المصطلح اول مرة عند سقوط السلطة المركزية وصعود سلطة اخرى بديلة ثم يحدث قتال وحرب أهلية نتيجة "الكرسي" ثم تحدث الفوضى، مثل مايحدث في ليبيا وهذا تطبيق مباشر للفكر الأناركي، الأناركي من القرن التاسع عشر..من شاهد فلم ‬
V For Vendetta
‎للأخوان واتشومسكي سيفهم بطبيعة الحال ‫"‬الأناركية
‎؛ ومفهوم الفوضى والتمرد
‎لاسلطوية تعني غياب التام لسلطة وتفكيك السلطة المركزية ثم استبدال مؤسسات الدولة المركزية بمؤسسة شعبية افقية متساوية ،.‬لاسلطوية هو الرفض الكامل لسلطة وحكم الأقلية وتحكم التام في الشعب‫..‬
‎المُقدمة غير كافية لشرح الفكر لاسلطوي بشكل جيد،ولم يتحدث عن الفروقات الفكر الفوضوي الاشتراكي وليبرالي الخ.

[Dafydd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening? Eye-poppping! I am an anarchist, there is no doubt. I am not, however, an anti-christ.

[Amirography · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[کافه ادبیات · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب آنارشیسم اثر کالین وارد با نام کامل درآمدی کوتاه بر آنارشیسم، کتابی درباره معنای واقعی آنارشیسم، مفهوم، فلسفه و تأثیرات آن است.

واژه آنارشیسم خواه یا ناخواه با بار منفی همراه است، اما در این کتاب می‌خوانیم که آنارشیست‌ها چطور کاری کرده‌اند که امروزه ما زندگی روزمره و رفاه خود را داشته باشیم. کالین وارد با بیانی واضح و شیرین از ابتدای کتاب، با تعریفی روشن از آنارشیسم، مخاطب را آگاه کرده و به او می‌گوید که اولین آنارشیست تاریخ که بود، چه زمانی فریاد آزادی سر داد و چه واقعه‌ای را رقم زد.

وی در خلال کتاب به معرفی روشن‌اندیشان آنارشیست از حزب‌های مختلف، مانند فمنیست‌ها یا طرفداران محیط‌ زیست می‌پردازد و می‌گوید که چطور اندیشه‌های آن‌ها آینده سال‌های بعد بشر را رقم زده است.

درنهایت، کالین وارد با مهارت تمام، راه‌حل مواجهه با مشکلات بشری را با تکیه بر مفهوم آنارشیسم و اصول آن بیان می‌کند و می‌گوید چطور می‌توان از این مفهوم در راه صحیح استفاده کرد.

کتاب آنارشیسم کتابی برای آشنایی با قدرت «نه گفتن به زور و ظلم» در هر زمینه‌ای است.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

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’s congenial, non-sectarian, “bread and butter” 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 ‘alternative’ 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’s kind of incredible, because it says much more about the people petulantly bemoaning how the book didn’t meet their expectations (like that’s 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.

[Tim Pendry · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction by Colin Ward in 1998, on a scorching April afternoon, tucked into a wooden chair at the National Library, pen in hand, sweat on brow, and anarchy in my notes. It felt oddly appropriate—reading about the rejection of rigid authority while being surrounded by colonial architecture and bureaucratic silence.

Ward’s book is a marvel of clarity. In under 150 pages, he dismantles popular myths about anarchism—that it’s chaos, violence, or utopia gone wrong—and reclaims it as a practical, humane, and historically rich mode of political thinking. His emphasis is on everyday anarchism: bottom-up organization, mutual aid, community-led decision making. Not a manifesto, but a lived ethic.

What struck me most that day was how anti-ideological Ward’s anarchism is. It isn’t about tearing down the state and replacing it with a new order; it’s about growing alternatives in the cracks. It felt like philosophy with calluses—earthy, decentralised, and deeply ethical.

I remember pausing often, looking through the louvered windows at the gulmohar trees, and thinking how far this idea was from the slogans of street politics or textbook theories. Anarchism, as Ward framed it, wasn’t fire—it was compost. Quiet, slow, transformative.

A slim book, yes. But it cracked something open in me that day. Sometimes, radical thought wears a librarian’s cardigan and whispers.

[Michael Huang]

Anarchy means “without leader”, 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’t 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’t 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 “universities of crime”. Such observations played a role in US penal system, facilitating the probation service.

[الكاتبة writer · Rating 3 out of 5]

اللاسلطوية : لا للحكم .
يمكن اعتبارها كما قال الكاتب التصور النهائي لكل من الليبيرالية و الاشتراكية .
نشأت كتفسير للفجوة بين الفقراء و الأغنياء في كل مجتمع .

ناقش كولين وارد هذا المذهب بشكل جميل للغاية حيث بدأ لنا بتعريف بسيط عنه و من ثم تطوره عبر التاريخ و ارتباطه بالعديد من الثورات التي اطاحت بانظمة حكم ديكتاتورية .
تعرفت على الكثير من المفكرين الجدد كما اتضح لي ارتباط العديد م نالاسماء اللامعة بها , حتى ان تولستوي و غاندي و مارتن لوثر كينع انفسهم قد تأثروا بكتابات ثورو .
اللاسلطوية كمذهب اجده حالما وغير قابل للتنفيذ حاصة مع الانظمة السياسية الحالية
و لكن يمكنه ان يترك العديد من الانطباعات لتحسين مثلا قانون التجريم و الانظمة التعليمية الحالية .
لي عودة لمناقشة الكتاب
كنت قد قرأته صدفة و لكني احببت قراءة المزيد عنه

[Fathy Sroor · Rating 3 out of 5]

كان لقائي الأول بصطلح الأناركية عبر الأعلام المصري أيام الثورة و ما تلاها من حكم عسكري حيث أستدخدمت الكلمة لوصف المجموعات العنيفة(التي تسعى لهدم لدولة)قبل أن تسبدل بمصطلح "الطرف الثالث"،و قد تعززت تلك الصورة مع أخبار التظاهرات الغاضبة التي تحاصر الأجتماعات الأقتصادية و السياسية العالمية و أضطرابات وال ستريت و غيرها..لكن الكتاب كشف لي عن الأساس العميق الذي تقف عليه الأناركية في معارضتها لوجود السلطة ذاتها........ليس من الحكمة أصدار رأي في الأناركية و فلسفتها بناءاُ على كتاب مختصر كهذا لذا فالنجوم .الأربع للكتاب لعرضه الفكرة بتنسيق و أن شاب الغموض بعض مواضعه