Rules Without Rulers: The Possibilities and Limits of Anarchism

by Matthew Wilson

This book is about the possibility of organising society without the state, but, crucially, it makes the claim, contrary to much anarchist theory, that such a life would not entail absolute freedom; rather, as the title suggests, it would mean creating new forms of social organisation which, whilst offering more freedom than state-capitalism, would nonetheless still entail certain limits to freedom. In making this argument, a secondary point is made, which highlights the book’s originality; namely, that, whilst anarchism is defended by an increasing number of radicals, the reality of what an anarchist society might look like, and the problems that such a society might encounter, are rarely discussed or acknowledged, either in academic or activist writings.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics

244 pages, Paperback

First published August 29, 2014

Reviews

[Rein · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good and conscientious critique of current and classical anarchist theory inasmuch it tries to evade difficult problems or dismiss internal contradictions, written by someone whose own political allegiance is very much with the goals anarchism tries to achieve. At times, though, the argument drags on and tends to repeat itself, or stays too long with a detail that does not merit so much attention. I agree with most of what the author has to say (except some philosophical standpoints, f.ex. he identifies ethics and morals, which leads to a number of "paradoxes" that would not really be such if you made the difference between the two concepts) and also learned a lot from the book, notably about newer theories of "postanarchism" and picked up quite a few hints for further reading. It might have benefitted from a more careful editing process though - quite often you find in a text a reference to such-and-such author's book from, say, 1993, and in the bibliography the author is listed with two works from 2003 and 2008, so no way to tell where the quote comes from. Academic anarchism has to have its rules as well :)

[Ideas Sleep Furiously · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book every aspiring progressive should read in order to fully appreciate and understand the complexities of ethics, power dynamics, and coercion. All of which Wilson shows, masterfully, do not exist in a vacuum or are the mutually exclusive concomitants to capitalism and the liberal state, but which exist in spite of them.

A powerful analysis and critique of anarchist theory and praxis, written in the hope that it will make the movement stronger through an acknowledgement of its inherent limitations.

[Ari Stillman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rules Without Rulers is a remarkably helpful book for demystifying inconsistencies within the anarchist tradition and locating them within a logic that may be alien to those outside the tradition. Wilson structures the book as a philosophical proof of sorts – both building on and signposting his argument throughout. In this manner, the book begins conceptualizing "anarchist common sense" to set the agenda for addressing the limits of freedom, ethics, power, and consensus before making the case for prefiguration as the way forward. As Wilson notes that anarchism has suffered from poor reflexive criticality in addressing its shortfalls and lack of broad appeal, he argues for the importance of working through the logistics of possible outcomes not as blueprints but to illustrate that anarchism is ultimately oriented toward creation of a better world rather than dismantling authority and power structures in the current one.

While it may be a reflection of limited literature within the anarchist tradition or rather scarce works considered gospel, the book engages with surprisingly few texts in assembling a portrait of anarchist ideas. Likewise, matching in-text with the works cited for further information occasionally reveals the wrong year or a missing reference entirely. I would have liked to see an index as well to home in on certain ideas within and across the conceptual roadmap. These issues apart, the content of the book remains entirely worthwhile and accessible.

[Andy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a weird book: I was frustrated the entire time I was reading it. I don't think Wilson is wrong on any important counts, but his tone and his arguments all feel a little disingenuous. He claims to be offering a critique of anarchism from within, but he uses "anarchists" in this strange strawman-y tone that puts me on edge. Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with the close-minded anarchist orthodoxy he's condemning but it seems like Wilson is willing to pull any contradiction he can find from a century of anarchist literature, never mind its relevance to the real present day discourse. It seems to me that he's taken an active debate about anarchist theory in half: the stuff he doesn't like he's put on one side (these are his "anarchists") and he takes up the opposing side with repeated claims about anarchists' unwillingness to think about the ideas he's offering. So I end up largely agreeing with the content, but from an annoyed and combative position.

I really wanted to like this book after reading the introduction, but this book felt like a bait-and-switch. Like a flashy dissertation which didn't have enough to say, so it just did a literature summary with the tone of an original argument.

[Ipnofobia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una critica di un anarchico all’anarchia, afferma che forse l’ideale non è tutto bianco e nero: la coercizione non è sempre un male contro il bene, la libertà non è un termine assoluto così come la morale. Cosa stiamo sbagliando? perché l’anarchismo non viene preso sul serio? Il rifiuto teorico dovrebbe davvero essere una massima assoluta?
In questo saggio Wilson analizza da Proudhon a Bookchin per comprendere a fondo a cosa ci riferiamo quando parliamo di etica, potere e libertà. Consiglio per chi cerca nuovi spunti di riflessione verso la sinistra moderna :)

[David Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone interested in anarchist politics, philosophy, and thought. This book asks the tough questions that many anarchist writers have ignored or brushed over, and in the final chapter offers a few suggestions for directions to look for solutions.

[Shar Siddiqui · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beginning is a little slow, but once you get past that lots of great ideas and nuanced discussions on anarchy and the myths around it.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very necessary anarchist self- criticism

[Shafiq Razak Rajan · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I like about this book? It's honest. It doesn't claim that anarchism is flawless. It avoids sounding like dogmatic pamphlet that chose to realize an Utopian vision while conveniently forgetting the technicalities of actually constructing that utopia. Too many propagandists fall for this. Anarchists among them.

For Wilson, anarchism fails in coherently planning for a post-state society. Too many anarchists, Emma Goldman included, despises planning for anarchist society simply because they want to avoid the tyranny of social planning (remember the communist experiments of the Soviet Union, Mao's China and Khmer Rouge's Cambodia). However, as a result, the public don't buy something they don't know. They'd rather stick with the familiar devil - Capitalism - than being under an angel who they do not know very well.

Also, Wilson criticizes the absolutist notion of freedom among anarchists. Freedom from what? The state? Even without the state, Wilson argues, there are other forms of social control that can create an oppressive environment. For instance, a community can still tyrannize its subjects that do not conform to its norms.

Okay, somehow we did manage to get rid of the state. And every member in the community is of the same rank. They are all enlightened into believing that no one should be the leader. No one claims absolute leadership. Still, there is another form tyranny - the tyranny of structurelessness (first introduced by feminist Jo Freeman). Since there is no official leadership position, the dominant members of the group can still control the hegemony by vocalizing and forcing the ideas in group discussions and debates. It is also harder to get rid of those leaders. Because, they have no official positions. They cannot simply be made to resign or vacate their positions. They are there to stay. They have controlled the group hegemony.

And how do we resolve conflicts among group members? The act censuring itself, though it avoids the tyranny of the majority (voting), will in effect initiate the tyranny of the minority (those who block a censure, even though only one person does that). How do we resolve disagreements among members of different values? In this matter, Wilson dismisses John Rawls' argument that conflict can be solved through a value-neutral third party (aka a liberal government) since the concept of being value-free itself is value laden (the Liberal values), and its values are opposed by the value systems of others (think of the Islamic legal system).

There are many issues that anarchists fail to resolve. There is not enough theoretical work in developing the anarchist philosophy, since many of them believes that actions matter more than theoretical philosophizing.

Therefore, Wilson proposes two sets of actions: 1) develop a rough plan for what an anarchist society works like and 2) create anarchist initiatives within the framework of the system (like workers' cooperatives) so that the anarchists can promote their ideology to the public and, at the same time, be able to obtain real-life data and lessons on developing an anarchist society.

I have some fundamental disagreements with anarchism. Yes, I believe for power to emerge from the bottom, but I don't think being structureless is sufficient to provide mankind lasting security. But any book that is honest, non-dogmatic and self-critical will be on the shelf of my mind for a long time.