Living Without Domination defends the bold claim that humans can organise themselves to live peacefully and prosperously together in an anarchist utopia. Clark refutes errors about what anarchism is, about utopianism, and about human sociability and its history. He then develops an analysis of natural human social activity which places anarchy in the real landscape of sociability, along with more familiar possibilities including states and slavery. The book is distinctive in bringing the rigour of analytic political philosophy to anarchism, which is all too often dismissed out of hand or skated over in popular history.
It was pretty good. Definitely well written, as he leaves basically no room for misunderstanding of his words or point. But it also limits itself very much. I suppose there's a time and place for that type of paper but it strikes me as extremely analytic and myopic which is kind of ironic considering the subject matter. I also just disagree with some of his points, for instance his disdain for teleological views of history and civilization, but I can't really fault him too much for that.