What do you think?
Rate this book
The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State
One of the most unique aspects of anarchism as a political philosophy is that it seeks to abolish the state. But what exactly is “the state”? The State is like a vast operating system for ordering and controlling relations among human society, the economy, and the natural world, analogous to a digital operating system like Windows or MacOS. Like a state, an operating system “governs” the programs and applications under it and networked with it, as well as, to some extent, the individuals who avail themselves of these tools and resources. No matter how different states seem on the surface they share core similarities,
The State is a relatively new thing in world history The State is European in origin and outlook States are “individuals” in the eyes of the law The State claims the right to determine who is a person The State is an instrument of violence and war The State is above the law The State is first and foremost an economic endeavor Anyone concerned with entrenched power, income inequality, lack of digital privacy, climate change, the amateurish response to COVID-19, or military-style policing will find eye-opening insights into how states operate and build more power for themselves—at our expense.
Read by Bea Flowers, this audiobook If the state won’t solve our most pressing problems, why do we obey? It’s time to think outside the state.
The State is a relatively new thing in world history The State is European in origin and outlook States are “individuals” in the eyes of the law The State claims the right to determine who is a person The State is an instrument of violence and war The State is above the law The State is first and foremost an economic endeavor Anyone concerned with entrenched power, income inequality, lack of digital privacy, climate change, the amateurish response to COVID-19, or military-style policing will find eye-opening insights into how states operate and build more power for themselves—at our expense.
Read by Bea Flowers, this audiobook If the state won’t solve our most pressing problems, why do we obey? It’s time to think outside the state.
Audible Audio
Published December 9, 2022
16 people are currently reading
1458 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 17, 2024
I shouldn't have read this book at the same time as Resisting Borders and Technologies of Violence while my brain is already deep fried from my day job, I think I'll end up remembering these 2 as one, they are very complementary reads.
That being said, Laursen offers an interesting way to approach thinking about the state, one which I think might actually be more beneficial to read for those who would not readily identify as anarchists. It's a really accessible read even if you haven't read much/any anarchist thought, though I wouldn't really recommend it as an intro to anarchist thought.
That being said, Laursen offers an interesting way to approach thinking about the state, one which I think might actually be more beneficial to read for those who would not readily identify as anarchists. It's a really accessible read even if you haven't read much/any anarchist thought, though I wouldn't really recommend it as an intro to anarchist thought.
February 21, 2021
The State must go. But how? It’s rather entrenched. Eric Laursen tries to answer this question by focusing on the why instead of the how. In The Operating System, he tries to compare the State to a Microsoft Windows or an Apple iOS framework. Unfortunately, this does not help much, and the vast bulk of the book has nothing whatever to do with OSs, because no decisions can be made from their similarities that would affect the State. Nothing about an OS foretells what might befall a State.
Nonetheless, The Operating System, as an exhaustive argument for the value of anarchy, is a powerfully written and always challenging read. It is well organized, thoroughly annotated, peppered with pop cultural references and even the some mild shots of humor.
Getting rid of the State means anarchy, ie. no structure. It’s what defunding the police, eliminating the military and ditching the two party system would look like. “Anarchism is the only theoretical approach that fully recognizes the connection between capitalism and the State and completely denies the assertion that there is no alternative to either,” he says. So readers should be looking for the details of that alternative.
He says there are three reasons for the State. It provides a degree of personal security, a shared identity, including a sense that one’s voice us heard, and a path to material well being. In other words, membership has its privileges, and the State amounts to a collection of leaders and lawmakers who share a vision of how to implement that for their fellow citizens. At least some of them.
Laursen offers a very decent description of the way people think: “The State is our bulwark against chaos, poverty, autocracy and mob rule. We have no rights without the State, can never get justice without the State, and no abuse can ever delegitimize the State to the point of justifying forcible defiance or overthrow.”
But Laursen spends most of his time criticizing the State and not supposing what life would be like without it. It’s a fat target, constantly attacked from numerous angles, not just by anarchists. And one way or another, despite revolutions, economic collapses and various black swans, it always comes back, usually worse than before. The State is clearly and obviously imperfect, prejudiced, nationalistic, racist and selfish. But can anarchy, which should by definition avoid all those conditions, last long enough to establish itself before someone rises up to take it over? That is my question, and it goes unanswered.
It always reminds of the biblical entreaty that the meek shall inherit the Earth. How long do you think that will last before someone sees a golden opportunity to be king of his own kingdom?
At the center of every State is the Core Identity Group. That’s who builds the State and that’s who get the privileges of membership. Then there is the Other, discriminated against simply for not being in the core group. It’s the same story all over the world and throughout history. It is inequality, slavery and other such niceties, present in essentially every State to different degrees at different times. It makes the Core feel superior, and acknowledged as such by the State.
But if you get rid of the State, will you also be able to get rid of the discrimination? The book is not firm on this question at all. What it does make obvious is my claim that racism is not an American problem, as so very many seem to think. Racism in America cannot be fixed simply or easily, because it is a very basic, tribal defense mechanism, innate and evident all over the world and throughout history. I don’t see how getting rid of the State will solve anything at all concerning racism, and this book doesn’t make the case, either. Enforcing racial equality laws might be spotty under the rule of the State, but there is nothing to promise that anarchy would do it better.
Then there is capitalism. Would capitalism disappear without the State? Or is it true that capitalists appear throughout history, everywhere, filling a void, getting in the middle, exploiting a differential, making a buck at the expense of the Other. Laursen says to get rid of capitalism means getting rid of the State. But again, he doesn’t show that is true. What is true is that capitalism and its insipid little offspring neoliberalism, always find their way in States, whether they’re monarchies, autarchies, democracies, ochlocracies or kleptocracies. Getting ahead is just something someone in the Core Identity Group will realize they can exploit, and so they do. Removing the State from the equation does not automatically mean the selfish pursuit of filthy lucre suddenly vanishes. Far from it.
Most people consider social democracies, notably in the Baltic area, as beneficent examples of the State and what they should aspire to be. Laursen attacks the social democracies not for their support of most if not all their citizens, but for not being rabid successes. He says “The social democratic state was never able to devise a substitute for the strong emotional appeal that the national state supplied.” This is an odd basis for criticism, but The Operating System is nothing if not food for thought. It constantly challenges readers’ comfort levels with their own knowledge of world affairs, history, and economics. That is by far its biggest value.
It is easy to read The Operating System as if the State were always evil, that everything it stands for is evil and that its every motion or movement is evil. But it doesn’t have to read that way. With a little work, readers can make the book say no matter how hard it tries, what the State does exploits evil. Everything it does can be interpreted as evil, and everything it considers an accomplishment can be considered evil somehow. It’s just the nature of the beast and can’t be helped. But that still doesn’t promote or justify anarchy, or connect to computer operating systems.
Laursen has one writing tic that becomes very annoying as the book goes on. In an effort to be politically correct (I am guessing here), he puts (sic) after the initial reference to males in every passage he quotes from other writers. So the words man, men, he, him, his and so on are all followed by (sic), as if there were something wrong with the spelling or syntax, context or grammar. But after wasting a few moments trying to find why he has done this (repeatedly), it becomes clear there is nothing wrong with the sentences. It’s just the way they wrote a hundred, two hundred, four hundred years ago. It’s a very old convention in a language that has no neuter sex and a lot of male supremacy. It’s also odd that he only does this in the first instance. If it happens a second time in the paragraph, he does not call it out. He even (sic)s the word statesman. But not, for some reason, human. It is altogether a pointless distraction that adds absolutely nothing to his thesis, which gets lost in the (sic)s.
The closest Laursen comes to examining life in an anarchy is defining it as a stateless co-operative economy. Everyone works, contributes and cooperates, globally. Inequality melts away. Nobody profits off others, tries to get ahead or becomes too acquisitive. There are of course, no examples to reference, unlike States, which still come in every flavor ever attempted, from medieval kingdoms to populist disasters to gridlocked democracies. Anarchies never seem to take hold. Ten years after the Arab Spring, every single Arabic participant has either returned to its dictatorship or collapsed into lawlessness featuring terrorism. All the ideals expressed at the time never came to fruition. So is anarchy impossible per se? Laursen provides no analysis. All he can say is Somalia is no one’s idea of a successful anarchy.
Computer operating systems seek to provide a walled garden. Within it, the user can accomplish or achieve anything that programs written to conform to the system permit. So with nation-states. As long as you play the game, you can survive and often thrive. Go your own way and make your own rules and the state will seek you out and crush you. It has a monopoly on violence and controls the justice system.
Operating systems are enablers, but with limits. And if you try to break them, they stop working for you. So yes, there are correlations between the State and operating systems. But so what? That information tells you nothing about the rise of the State, its decline, its replacement or how to get to blissful anarchy. The book would have been precisely as interesting and valuable without any reference to a computer operating system.
David Wineberg
Nonetheless, The Operating System, as an exhaustive argument for the value of anarchy, is a powerfully written and always challenging read. It is well organized, thoroughly annotated, peppered with pop cultural references and even the some mild shots of humor.
Getting rid of the State means anarchy, ie. no structure. It’s what defunding the police, eliminating the military and ditching the two party system would look like. “Anarchism is the only theoretical approach that fully recognizes the connection between capitalism and the State and completely denies the assertion that there is no alternative to either,” he says. So readers should be looking for the details of that alternative.
He says there are three reasons for the State. It provides a degree of personal security, a shared identity, including a sense that one’s voice us heard, and a path to material well being. In other words, membership has its privileges, and the State amounts to a collection of leaders and lawmakers who share a vision of how to implement that for their fellow citizens. At least some of them.
Laursen offers a very decent description of the way people think: “The State is our bulwark against chaos, poverty, autocracy and mob rule. We have no rights without the State, can never get justice without the State, and no abuse can ever delegitimize the State to the point of justifying forcible defiance or overthrow.”
But Laursen spends most of his time criticizing the State and not supposing what life would be like without it. It’s a fat target, constantly attacked from numerous angles, not just by anarchists. And one way or another, despite revolutions, economic collapses and various black swans, it always comes back, usually worse than before. The State is clearly and obviously imperfect, prejudiced, nationalistic, racist and selfish. But can anarchy, which should by definition avoid all those conditions, last long enough to establish itself before someone rises up to take it over? That is my question, and it goes unanswered.
It always reminds of the biblical entreaty that the meek shall inherit the Earth. How long do you think that will last before someone sees a golden opportunity to be king of his own kingdom?
At the center of every State is the Core Identity Group. That’s who builds the State and that’s who get the privileges of membership. Then there is the Other, discriminated against simply for not being in the core group. It’s the same story all over the world and throughout history. It is inequality, slavery and other such niceties, present in essentially every State to different degrees at different times. It makes the Core feel superior, and acknowledged as such by the State.
But if you get rid of the State, will you also be able to get rid of the discrimination? The book is not firm on this question at all. What it does make obvious is my claim that racism is not an American problem, as so very many seem to think. Racism in America cannot be fixed simply or easily, because it is a very basic, tribal defense mechanism, innate and evident all over the world and throughout history. I don’t see how getting rid of the State will solve anything at all concerning racism, and this book doesn’t make the case, either. Enforcing racial equality laws might be spotty under the rule of the State, but there is nothing to promise that anarchy would do it better.
Then there is capitalism. Would capitalism disappear without the State? Or is it true that capitalists appear throughout history, everywhere, filling a void, getting in the middle, exploiting a differential, making a buck at the expense of the Other. Laursen says to get rid of capitalism means getting rid of the State. But again, he doesn’t show that is true. What is true is that capitalism and its insipid little offspring neoliberalism, always find their way in States, whether they’re monarchies, autarchies, democracies, ochlocracies or kleptocracies. Getting ahead is just something someone in the Core Identity Group will realize they can exploit, and so they do. Removing the State from the equation does not automatically mean the selfish pursuit of filthy lucre suddenly vanishes. Far from it.
Most people consider social democracies, notably in the Baltic area, as beneficent examples of the State and what they should aspire to be. Laursen attacks the social democracies not for their support of most if not all their citizens, but for not being rabid successes. He says “The social democratic state was never able to devise a substitute for the strong emotional appeal that the national state supplied.” This is an odd basis for criticism, but The Operating System is nothing if not food for thought. It constantly challenges readers’ comfort levels with their own knowledge of world affairs, history, and economics. That is by far its biggest value.
It is easy to read The Operating System as if the State were always evil, that everything it stands for is evil and that its every motion or movement is evil. But it doesn’t have to read that way. With a little work, readers can make the book say no matter how hard it tries, what the State does exploits evil. Everything it does can be interpreted as evil, and everything it considers an accomplishment can be considered evil somehow. It’s just the nature of the beast and can’t be helped. But that still doesn’t promote or justify anarchy, or connect to computer operating systems.
Laursen has one writing tic that becomes very annoying as the book goes on. In an effort to be politically correct (I am guessing here), he puts (sic) after the initial reference to males in every passage he quotes from other writers. So the words man, men, he, him, his and so on are all followed by (sic), as if there were something wrong with the spelling or syntax, context or grammar. But after wasting a few moments trying to find why he has done this (repeatedly), it becomes clear there is nothing wrong with the sentences. It’s just the way they wrote a hundred, two hundred, four hundred years ago. It’s a very old convention in a language that has no neuter sex and a lot of male supremacy. It’s also odd that he only does this in the first instance. If it happens a second time in the paragraph, he does not call it out. He even (sic)s the word statesman. But not, for some reason, human. It is altogether a pointless distraction that adds absolutely nothing to his thesis, which gets lost in the (sic)s.
The closest Laursen comes to examining life in an anarchy is defining it as a stateless co-operative economy. Everyone works, contributes and cooperates, globally. Inequality melts away. Nobody profits off others, tries to get ahead or becomes too acquisitive. There are of course, no examples to reference, unlike States, which still come in every flavor ever attempted, from medieval kingdoms to populist disasters to gridlocked democracies. Anarchies never seem to take hold. Ten years after the Arab Spring, every single Arabic participant has either returned to its dictatorship or collapsed into lawlessness featuring terrorism. All the ideals expressed at the time never came to fruition. So is anarchy impossible per se? Laursen provides no analysis. All he can say is Somalia is no one’s idea of a successful anarchy.
Computer operating systems seek to provide a walled garden. Within it, the user can accomplish or achieve anything that programs written to conform to the system permit. So with nation-states. As long as you play the game, you can survive and often thrive. Go your own way and make your own rules and the state will seek you out and crush you. It has a monopoly on violence and controls the justice system.
Operating systems are enablers, but with limits. And if you try to break them, they stop working for you. So yes, there are correlations between the State and operating systems. But so what? That information tells you nothing about the rise of the State, its decline, its replacement or how to get to blissful anarchy. The book would have been precisely as interesting and valuable without any reference to a computer operating system.
David Wineberg
September 1, 2021
My review: https://c4ss.org/content/55257
Laursen's treatment of the state as an expansionary, totalizing system, that attempts to subsume everything under its own logic, dovetails very closely with Marx's analysis of the similar logic of capital with its M-C-M' circuit. It's no coincidence that capitalism and the Westphalian nation-state had their origins at roughly the same time, and have existed symbiotically ever since.
Laursen's treatment of the state as an expansionary, totalizing system, that attempts to subsume everything under its own logic, dovetails very closely with Marx's analysis of the similar logic of capital with its M-C-M' circuit. It's no coincidence that capitalism and the Westphalian nation-state had their origins at roughly the same time, and have existed symbiotically ever since.
June 23, 2021
A powerful historical analysis, from ancient to modern times, of the authoritative power of the State. If you ever wondered about the view that the human progression from hunter-gathering to agricultural settlement was a tragedy, this book will explain why that might be true. The way the modern state allows itself the freedom to control speech and public opinion, to enforce secrecy, and to favor the economic entities that engage in extortionate monopoly is carefully documented. The work convincingly explains why current issues such as Covid 19, climate change, immigration, police “occupation” of ghettoes, weaponization, and racial inequalities are so persistent. For those who realize the fast-growing power of cyberspace to make privacy both cherished and hard to maintain, The Operating System offers the most lucid explanation possible.
June 11, 2022
The tempo is set in Maia Ramnath's introduction when she equates voting with fighting fascism (lol).
Then it's all pretty much filler from there. I'm not sure why Eric even bothered creating chapter titles since every section is exactly identical. He spends the entire book giving us a vague outline of the horrible things that States have done, and maybe a sentence or two about what could possibly be an alternative. The chapters, and the book title itself, beg inciteful ideas but never addresses them directly. It spends very little time defining what a State is (which is supposed to be the whole purpose of this work).
This is a very White/Western cis-man perspective, and it seems to have been written in order to prove how much Eric knows about global events. He completely ignores any and all anti-state liberation struggles from the Black, queer, and non-US anarchist movements. There's almost nothing of practical value here. Much of what it contains has already been dissected and critiqued elsewhere. I would not recommend this, and especially not as any kind of representative of anarchist philosophy.
Then it's all pretty much filler from there. I'm not sure why Eric even bothered creating chapter titles since every section is exactly identical. He spends the entire book giving us a vague outline of the horrible things that States have done, and maybe a sentence or two about what could possibly be an alternative. The chapters, and the book title itself, beg inciteful ideas but never addresses them directly. It spends very little time defining what a State is (which is supposed to be the whole purpose of this work).
This is a very White/Western cis-man perspective, and it seems to have been written in order to prove how much Eric knows about global events. He completely ignores any and all anti-state liberation struggles from the Black, queer, and non-US anarchist movements. There's almost nothing of practical value here. Much of what it contains has already been dissected and critiqued elsewhere. I would not recommend this, and especially not as any kind of representative of anarchist philosophy.
July 20, 2025
I haven't read much anarchist theory. I thought this was a decent introduction into thinking about the State and how intrinsically capitalism is to it. Much more readable than I was expecting.
June 4, 2021
This is an insightful book about the structure of the State: how it developed, but most importantly, how it works, including its intertwining with capitalism, which people working on alternatives need to recognize. It introduces some useful concepts for thinking about the State and its involvement with every aspect of our lives, helping one pull back and ask, "is it necessary here? Is it helpful?" One tidbit I've been thinking about: that every modern State has a "Core Identity Group" of its citizens that it privileges, in order to placate majority rule and/or its social/financial elites, which can't be done without in some way denying rights to members outside that group. (Some states do try to balance this, at least for a while, in the interest of stability, but when hardship comes, the (real or perceived) minority groups get tossed aside). This clearly has application to addressing white privilege, patriarchal systems, etc., which are based on members having been socialized into an identity as part of the Core Group, or not.
Since this a book written by an anarchist, I also appreciated that it addresses liberal complicity in the State and its worst aspects, while keeping the focus on the system, and the ways in which people are taught to believe the system is the only way to help anyone. But the more people work within the State, the more they become part of it.
For both of these paragraphs, there are national and international stories that have these exact issues at their hearts, but I don't want to get into tall the details. Probably we could find ones just as good on any random day.
As usual with these books, while it gave me some new tools for looking at our situation, the "where we go from here" portion is less satisfying. I guess the truth is that no one has a real practical answer to that problem yet.
Since this a book written by an anarchist, I also appreciated that it addresses liberal complicity in the State and its worst aspects, while keeping the focus on the system, and the ways in which people are taught to believe the system is the only way to help anyone. But the more people work within the State, the more they become part of it.
For both of these paragraphs, there are national and international stories that have these exact issues at their hearts, but I don't want to get into tall the details. Probably we could find ones just as good on any random day.
As usual with these books, while it gave me some new tools for looking at our situation, the "where we go from here" portion is less satisfying. I guess the truth is that no one has a real practical answer to that problem yet.
December 23, 2022
This was an extremely readable, vaguely Structuralist exploration of the State. Laursen begins with a call for anarchist theory to return to its anti-statist roots. While engagement with all kinds of hierarchies is vital, this polycentric field has often left critical analysis of the State by the wayside.
His emphasis is on the totalising nature of the State, which networks the formal and informal institutions that uphold the political, socio-cultural and economic spheres of our lives. Laursen discusses recent events (Covid, BLM, Jan 6 2021) and engages with theory from across the political spectrum. Ultimately, he asks us to challenge the State's effectiveness at doing the things that it claims it, and it alone, can do. A worthy challenge, I think.
One wee annoyance was that the footnotes' asterisks were printed too small. Sometimes I got lost when I couldn't match the footnote to the prose.
His emphasis is on the totalising nature of the State, which networks the formal and informal institutions that uphold the political, socio-cultural and economic spheres of our lives. Laursen discusses recent events (Covid, BLM, Jan 6 2021) and engages with theory from across the political spectrum. Ultimately, he asks us to challenge the State's effectiveness at doing the things that it claims it, and it alone, can do. A worthy challenge, I think.
One wee annoyance was that the footnotes' asterisks were printed too small. Sometimes I got lost when I couldn't match the footnote to the prose.
September 18, 2022
I think if I had stopped after chapter five I might have leaned more towards four stars. It's a very readable explanation of what a state is and how it functions and I could see recommending it to ppl who haven't thought much about the state and it's logic, especially how inextricable capitalism is from the state. But there isn't much there there on "shaking off the state" and the listing of state crimes in "why are we against the state" seems like preaching to the choir. Also, and I know this is nitpicky, the quotes from the famous often took away from what was an unusually readable book for this kind of subject matter. And why list Mariam Kaba as listed as Director of Project Nia. Why not just abolitionist? It's not impossible to give credit without credentials. If we are going to stop succumbing to the state's fetisization of leadership, that might be a good way to start.
August 23, 2021
I hosted a book launch with the author on May 18th, 2021. You can watch a recording here.
In The Operating System, author Eric Laursen has done a superb job of offering an approachable anarchist introduction to the modern state, which arose in Europe about 500 years ago. With journalistic thoroughness, Laursen explores competing understanding of the state, its relationship to concepts such as government and nation, variations on the state model, the interdependence between capital and state, the consequences of statism, and the basis for opposition to it.
Early in the book, Laursen puts forward the idea that we should understand the state as akin to an operating system, like Windows or Mac OS, providing a platform for efficient coordination and governance through ideas, doctrines, commands, and processes. This is a distinctly modern metaphor that I found useful but limiting. Operating systems are not inherently nefarious and technological rebels promote free and open-source operating systems like Linux (not the abolition of operating systems). Ultimately, I think the idea of states as operating systems deserved a chapter but perhaps not the title of the book.
Writing in the introduction, the author shares their desire to recenter an analysis of the state in the thinking of anarchists and the Left more broadly. Laursen argues that the contemporary focus on anti-oppression, direct democracy, and anti-capitalism is essential to revolutionary movements, but that those movements cannot accomplish their goals without a sharp analysis of the state. To support this claim—and to expound upon the many crimes of the state as purveyor of violence, inequality, exploitation, and patriarchy—the author offers numerous historical anecdotes. These are global, but disproportionarely from the USA where the author is based.
The Operating System is full of insights and I found myself taking copious notes in the margin. Unlike many works of political theory, which provide a thesis up front and then just endlessly restate that author’s argument, this book offers new ideas and digressions at each turn. I think that abolitionists will find Laursen’s ideas particularly useful to the project of creating a world without prisons and policing (I thought frequently about the implicit anti-statism of Victoria Law and Maya Schenwar's Prison by Any Other Name: The Harmful Consequences of Popular Reforms while reviewing this book). It would also read extremely well with Peter Gelderloos' Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation (also from AK Press).
“[We] see the State, both in its present form, in its very essence, and in whatever guise it might appear, [as] an obstacle to the social revolution, the greatest hindrance to the birth of a society based on equality and liberty, as well as the historic means designed to prevent this blossoming.” —Kropotkin, The State: Its Historical Role (1896)
In The Operating System, author Eric Laursen has done a superb job of offering an approachable anarchist introduction to the modern state, which arose in Europe about 500 years ago. With journalistic thoroughness, Laursen explores competing understanding of the state, its relationship to concepts such as government and nation, variations on the state model, the interdependence between capital and state, the consequences of statism, and the basis for opposition to it.
Early in the book, Laursen puts forward the idea that we should understand the state as akin to an operating system, like Windows or Mac OS, providing a platform for efficient coordination and governance through ideas, doctrines, commands, and processes. This is a distinctly modern metaphor that I found useful but limiting. Operating systems are not inherently nefarious and technological rebels promote free and open-source operating systems like Linux (not the abolition of operating systems). Ultimately, I think the idea of states as operating systems deserved a chapter but perhaps not the title of the book.
“When anarchists critique capitalism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression from a materialist perspective, but omit any direct analysis of the State or give it only a secondary role, they risk practicing not anarchist theory but a kind of Marxism ‘lite.’” —Eric Laursen, The Operating System (p 17)
Writing in the introduction, the author shares their desire to recenter an analysis of the state in the thinking of anarchists and the Left more broadly. Laursen argues that the contemporary focus on anti-oppression, direct democracy, and anti-capitalism is essential to revolutionary movements, but that those movements cannot accomplish their goals without a sharp analysis of the state. To support this claim—and to expound upon the many crimes of the state as purveyor of violence, inequality, exploitation, and patriarchy—the author offers numerous historical anecdotes. These are global, but disproportionarely from the USA where the author is based.
The Operating System is full of insights and I found myself taking copious notes in the margin. Unlike many works of political theory, which provide a thesis up front and then just endlessly restate that author’s argument, this book offers new ideas and digressions at each turn. I think that abolitionists will find Laursen’s ideas particularly useful to the project of creating a world without prisons and policing (I thought frequently about the implicit anti-statism of Victoria Law and Maya Schenwar's Prison by Any Other Name: The Harmful Consequences of Popular Reforms while reviewing this book). It would also read extremely well with Peter Gelderloos' Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation (also from AK Press).
March 4, 2025
La analogía del Estado como sistema operativo (un marco que dicta la lógica de cada interacción, aparenta ser neutral y ofrecer libertad de elección mientras mantiene el control) es una idea muy atractiva, pero considero que al final es sólo un título llamativo más que el eje real del libro. Es una metáfora introductoria, nada más. Caí en el clickbait (?)
El libro me parece una introducción limitada al anarquismo... Más una invitación a repensar la teoría del Estado desde una perspectiva anarquista que una obra que realmente profundice en sus implicaciones. No sé si es la experiencia laboral o de vida del autor, pero algo hace que el análisis sea restringido y deje fuera experiencias, enfoques más amplios. Su crítica a ciertas corrientes dentro del anarquismo es superficial y reduccionista, en ocasiones innecesariamente desestimando (aunque no parezca ser la intención inicial) el valor del materialismo histórico como herramienta.
Aunque me hubiese gustado más teoría sustancial y argumentos más rigurosos, no me desagradó completamente porque creo que el libro cumplió en el objetivo de reforzar el mensaje de que es urgente abolir el Estado, o que al menos tiene potencial de generar cuestionamientos en quiénes aún lo defienden como institución. Es un recordatorio de que las formas de organización fuera del Estado no solo han existido, sino que han sido exitosas por mucho más tiempo del que el propio Estado como conocemos se estableció.
El libro me parece una introducción limitada al anarquismo... Más una invitación a repensar la teoría del Estado desde una perspectiva anarquista que una obra que realmente profundice en sus implicaciones. No sé si es la experiencia laboral o de vida del autor, pero algo hace que el análisis sea restringido y deje fuera experiencias, enfoques más amplios. Su crítica a ciertas corrientes dentro del anarquismo es superficial y reduccionista, en ocasiones innecesariamente desestimando (aunque no parezca ser la intención inicial) el valor del materialismo histórico como herramienta.
Aunque me hubiese gustado más teoría sustancial y argumentos más rigurosos, no me desagradó completamente porque creo que el libro cumplió en el objetivo de reforzar el mensaje de que es urgente abolir el Estado, o que al menos tiene potencial de generar cuestionamientos en quiénes aún lo defienden como institución. Es un recordatorio de que las formas de organización fuera del Estado no solo han existido, sino que han sido exitosas por mucho más tiempo del que el propio Estado como conocemos se estableció.
January 9, 2022
I haven't read very much anarchist theory. This felt like an excellent primer and very effective for describing how to view the state with an anarchist lens and how beneficial it is for leftists and non-anarchists when considering why things are and how perhaps they could change. At times it gets heavy handed and a bit carried away with its framework and is peppered with assertions about the motives and secret dealings of the state that do not have citations or sufficient defense. For example, Laursen asserts that the state allowed the civil rights movement to succeed because it benefitted their struggles against Russia, whereas the prevailing understanding in the literature is exactly the opposite. The book would have been stronger without such over reaches, but I think it will still fundamentally transform my thinking going forward and has sent me off in new directions for future study.
March 13, 2023
This was a good reminder not to get lost in liberal versions of identity politics and to make sure advising the state is central to philosophy and organizing. There are decent arguments at a more macro level but, where I wanted more detail, it seemed lacking and where I needed less, it seemed repetitive. I agree with another reviewer that many of the chapters felt the same. However, this definitely puts forth some good arguments as to why reform doesn't work and why abolition of states is critical for liberation.
June 7, 2024
While I can sympathize with Laursen's main points, I don't find it overall convincing because the metaphor of the State as OS feels overrides his even most equitable arguments. As the book progresses his repetition of the State as an Operating System and the actions we must take through direct action is still nothing different than what you would read in most radical communist or socialist texts. Of course the end results that Laursen wants differs, but there is a hint of something ultimately reactionary, which makes me feel a little more uncomfortable with the book as a whole.
July 15, 2021
Good book. For me there weren't any new concepts or ideas, but the way Laursen tied a lot of them together was helpful. I often struggle with the difference between the government and the State and after reading this book I struggle slightly less.
May 3, 2025
A must read for any anti capitalist!!! This book is so insightful, inspiring, and essential for anyone who wants to build an effective and viable revolutionary movement.
October 17, 2025
the copy I read was really messed up so that didn't help lol... wish it would've made more of the OS analogy
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews