What do you think?
Rate this book
Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications)
Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide
The rise of the worldwide anti-globalization movement has led to a renewed interest in anarchism, but many are still unsure of what it is that anarchists stand for. In this clear and penetrating study, Ruth Kinna goes right to the heart of the ideology, explaining the influences that have shaped anarchism, and the tactics and strategies that anarchists have used to bring about their goals. Drawing on a wide range of sources, from the classic accounts of Kropotkin and Bakunin to the work of modern anarchist thinkers, this insightful work will provide the perfect introduction to anarchism, the anti-globalization movement and the issue of whether anarchist ideals can ever be consistent with justifying violence for political ends.
192 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2005
30 people are currently reading
289 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 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 21, 2015
Uncecessarily dry.
February 22, 2016
It's not actually "a beginner's guide" to anarchism, it was too repetititve and annoying in some parts. The analysis was much deeper than what a supposed beginner needs to know about the subject of anarchism.
2 stars for the hard work and research that the author invested in it.
2 stars for the hard work and research that the author invested in it.
February 23, 2015
This was a hard read, the concepts did not flow for me.
March 6, 2019
The title should be: Beginner's guide to the history of anarchism. An important distinction I think. I wanted to learn something about anarchism but I learned more from reading wikipedia for 10 minutes. I assume this was some student's end term paper. The sudden and jarring insert in the middle discussing some obscure film was just bizarre and it's the only thing that kept me scratching my head.
December 13, 2025
a thorough overview of anarchist thought and ideology, going through the movement's major thinkers and arguments.
November 27, 2021
What is the point of anarchism? On the whole it has remained a fringe movement in politics, supported by a tiny minority, and with only modest achievements to boast. Anarchists insist that their movement has endured, indicating its value, but it has never grown to receive any significant level of support.
Some of the ideas of the anti-globalisation movement seem to resemble unconscious anarchism, but leftist groups are good at claiming to have wider support than they really have by trying to appropriate movements run by people unsympathetic to most of their causes.
I did not read this book because I support anarchism, I did not read it hoping to be persuaded to become an anarchist, and I do not finish the book as a newly-born anarchist. My wish only was to educate myself about a fringe movement, and hopefully avoid having too many misapprehensions in the future.
Indeed the book highlights, perhaps unintentionally, the shortcomings of anarchism. Perhaps any fringe group faces the same essential dilemma. Without widespread support, there are only two ways of getting one’s message across.
One is through small-scale gestures of direct and indirect action, where anarchists make symbolic protests against the state. The other is through violence. However this only allows the state to repress dissent further, while bringing the more aggressive and dominant members of the movement to the fore, the very ones who are most antipathetic to the true spirit of anarchism, which is about liberating everyone.
The only way that anarchism can make a significant difference is if it wins a large amount of public support, and that is something which anarchism has not been able to do for a variety of reasons. It is associated with extremism, and people are repelled by extreme positions.
However there is also the problem of unity within the movement. The left has always been more good at falling out with one another. As Ruth Kinna indicates, there is endless splintering within the anarchist movement, and this is harmful in that it sets about to lay the emphasis on differences within the movement, while ignoring the many similarities between its members.
Indeed this constant hankering after separatism is a problem with many movements. In recent times the LGBT movement has involved its members seeking ever more labels with which to define themselves, and new genders keep being named.
To respect these new appellations is often seen as inclusive, but I sometimes fear it is more exclusive. As with the many anarchist labels, there is the risk that members create a new label to denote tiny divergences from mainstream labels, and ultimately end up celebrating distinction rather than difference.
However distinction is the basis of future prejudice, in which you develop ever-smaller in-groups and larger out-groups, when it would be simpler to have larger groups with diversity, rather than tiny groups with uniformity.
The most successful movements are usually groups that allow a diverse range of opinions to fit under their umbrella. That is why conservatives and liberals have achieved more than anarchists. You can hold a wide range of beliefs and still count as broadly liberal or conservative, and allied with other liberals and conservatives. An anarchist rift that separates itself too firmly from other anarchists will never achieve much.
One can extend the same thinking to religions. The largest religions allow their members to embrace a wide range of supporting beliefs, and the religions that fail are those that impose a rigid grip on the lifestyle and attitudes of their members. I believe there was a Muslim terrorist group with just a handful of individuals in it who had convinced themselves that they would be the only people in the world who would go to heaven. Such absurd narrowing of the parameters can only lead to extinction.
The final problem for anarchists is that government, though unpopular, is still considered essential. Anarchism rests on the optimistic belief that putting people in charge of their own affairs will cause adequate systems to replace government, but most of us do not feel such touching faith in our fellow humans. Whatever the flaws of government, it is unclear what other system could better provide the services that the state at its best provides.
This brings me back to my opening question. If anarchism is unlikely to ever succeed, what is the point of anarchism? I would say that it is important if only because it offers an alternative to the establishment.
In recent times, the government and media have imposed a rigid right-of-centre consensus that suppresses any political opinion outside this range from having any influence, and this has resulted in a moribund system where political parties are rightly unpopular, but the public are left with no real alternatives.
The fringe beliefs, even when they are not being adopted, and even when they are wrong, provide fresh stimulus and ideas, and they identify problems with our existing system.
Whether or not government is the right structure to have, the anarchists are not totally wrong in their critique of it. They fear that the state is disempowering and corrupting, and they are right in this view. Too often the individual does something because the state has convinced them that it is right, not because they have thought it through for themselves.
People blindly take the views of the establishment and become like automatons. As the anarchists would say, government has hypnotised the public into accepting certain norms, and imposed a blanket conformity, supported by the workplace and the media.
Anarchists also feel that issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia are spread by government (and, I would add, by the media) as a way of dividing the public. Whether we accept this premise, I certainly feel that the state and the press have a serious level of blame in spreading prejudice and bigotry against minorities, and thereby corrupting the morals of the nation, making us hate people that we should not.
What would happen in a world in which people did not have prejudices foisted on them by their rulers and the press, I wonder? Imagine an elderly white couple discovering that a family of immigrants have moved in next door. Perhaps they would feel fear and aversion at first when they hear strange accents and languages, smell strange food, and see strange clothes.
Perhaps this would lead to hatred, or perhaps they would simply get used to it. What if the elderly couple needed a job doing that they were incapable of doing, say, cutting branches from a tree by their window? What if a member of the immigrant family kindly offered to do this? Perhaps the recognition that the other family are public-spirited would cause the elderly couple to ignore the ethnic differences, and respect that the immigrant family are not so unlike themselves after all, just ordinary people with different customs.
However what happens when the media and the government are on the scene spewing out racist stereotypes? The elderly couple are not merely nervous about difference, but automatically prejudiced from the start. If they are listening to the view that all immigrants are thieves, then perhaps they will not allow a member of the immigrant family to come into their house to cut the branches by their window. The families end up despising each other, and a chance to harmony and appreciation of diversity is lost.
Whatever the merits of the state, I do feel that power should reside closer to the community, and that decisions about issues should be dealt with by people closer to them, and not by distant figures with little understanding or sympathy.
I am unsure how anarchism would work in terms of reining in powerful or dangerous individuals who might subvert the freedoms of others, but I certainly think we should give careful thought to some of the ideas expressed by anarchists, and consider how we might better improve the current system that is still, in many key respects failing us.
Ruth Kinna’s book is an interesting study of a difficult subject. However, perhaps reflecting the fact that the book is one of a set on different ideologies, she puts little of herself into the book, and it is hard to tell what she thinks about anarchism.
Presumably she is either supportive or sympathetic, since she is written a book about it, but where does her heart lie? Does she consider the spiritualism of Tolstoy a tall story? Does Bakunin have her backing? Does she consider Kropotkin to be a crackpot? It would have been interesting to see more analysis and less explanation.
Some of the ideas of the anti-globalisation movement seem to resemble unconscious anarchism, but leftist groups are good at claiming to have wider support than they really have by trying to appropriate movements run by people unsympathetic to most of their causes.
I did not read this book because I support anarchism, I did not read it hoping to be persuaded to become an anarchist, and I do not finish the book as a newly-born anarchist. My wish only was to educate myself about a fringe movement, and hopefully avoid having too many misapprehensions in the future.
Indeed the book highlights, perhaps unintentionally, the shortcomings of anarchism. Perhaps any fringe group faces the same essential dilemma. Without widespread support, there are only two ways of getting one’s message across.
One is through small-scale gestures of direct and indirect action, where anarchists make symbolic protests against the state. The other is through violence. However this only allows the state to repress dissent further, while bringing the more aggressive and dominant members of the movement to the fore, the very ones who are most antipathetic to the true spirit of anarchism, which is about liberating everyone.
The only way that anarchism can make a significant difference is if it wins a large amount of public support, and that is something which anarchism has not been able to do for a variety of reasons. It is associated with extremism, and people are repelled by extreme positions.
However there is also the problem of unity within the movement. The left has always been more good at falling out with one another. As Ruth Kinna indicates, there is endless splintering within the anarchist movement, and this is harmful in that it sets about to lay the emphasis on differences within the movement, while ignoring the many similarities between its members.
Indeed this constant hankering after separatism is a problem with many movements. In recent times the LGBT movement has involved its members seeking ever more labels with which to define themselves, and new genders keep being named.
To respect these new appellations is often seen as inclusive, but I sometimes fear it is more exclusive. As with the many anarchist labels, there is the risk that members create a new label to denote tiny divergences from mainstream labels, and ultimately end up celebrating distinction rather than difference.
However distinction is the basis of future prejudice, in which you develop ever-smaller in-groups and larger out-groups, when it would be simpler to have larger groups with diversity, rather than tiny groups with uniformity.
The most successful movements are usually groups that allow a diverse range of opinions to fit under their umbrella. That is why conservatives and liberals have achieved more than anarchists. You can hold a wide range of beliefs and still count as broadly liberal or conservative, and allied with other liberals and conservatives. An anarchist rift that separates itself too firmly from other anarchists will never achieve much.
One can extend the same thinking to religions. The largest religions allow their members to embrace a wide range of supporting beliefs, and the religions that fail are those that impose a rigid grip on the lifestyle and attitudes of their members. I believe there was a Muslim terrorist group with just a handful of individuals in it who had convinced themselves that they would be the only people in the world who would go to heaven. Such absurd narrowing of the parameters can only lead to extinction.
The final problem for anarchists is that government, though unpopular, is still considered essential. Anarchism rests on the optimistic belief that putting people in charge of their own affairs will cause adequate systems to replace government, but most of us do not feel such touching faith in our fellow humans. Whatever the flaws of government, it is unclear what other system could better provide the services that the state at its best provides.
This brings me back to my opening question. If anarchism is unlikely to ever succeed, what is the point of anarchism? I would say that it is important if only because it offers an alternative to the establishment.
In recent times, the government and media have imposed a rigid right-of-centre consensus that suppresses any political opinion outside this range from having any influence, and this has resulted in a moribund system where political parties are rightly unpopular, but the public are left with no real alternatives.
The fringe beliefs, even when they are not being adopted, and even when they are wrong, provide fresh stimulus and ideas, and they identify problems with our existing system.
Whether or not government is the right structure to have, the anarchists are not totally wrong in their critique of it. They fear that the state is disempowering and corrupting, and they are right in this view. Too often the individual does something because the state has convinced them that it is right, not because they have thought it through for themselves.
People blindly take the views of the establishment and become like automatons. As the anarchists would say, government has hypnotised the public into accepting certain norms, and imposed a blanket conformity, supported by the workplace and the media.
Anarchists also feel that issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia are spread by government (and, I would add, by the media) as a way of dividing the public. Whether we accept this premise, I certainly feel that the state and the press have a serious level of blame in spreading prejudice and bigotry against minorities, and thereby corrupting the morals of the nation, making us hate people that we should not.
What would happen in a world in which people did not have prejudices foisted on them by their rulers and the press, I wonder? Imagine an elderly white couple discovering that a family of immigrants have moved in next door. Perhaps they would feel fear and aversion at first when they hear strange accents and languages, smell strange food, and see strange clothes.
Perhaps this would lead to hatred, or perhaps they would simply get used to it. What if the elderly couple needed a job doing that they were incapable of doing, say, cutting branches from a tree by their window? What if a member of the immigrant family kindly offered to do this? Perhaps the recognition that the other family are public-spirited would cause the elderly couple to ignore the ethnic differences, and respect that the immigrant family are not so unlike themselves after all, just ordinary people with different customs.
However what happens when the media and the government are on the scene spewing out racist stereotypes? The elderly couple are not merely nervous about difference, but automatically prejudiced from the start. If they are listening to the view that all immigrants are thieves, then perhaps they will not allow a member of the immigrant family to come into their house to cut the branches by their window. The families end up despising each other, and a chance to harmony and appreciation of diversity is lost.
Whatever the merits of the state, I do feel that power should reside closer to the community, and that decisions about issues should be dealt with by people closer to them, and not by distant figures with little understanding or sympathy.
I am unsure how anarchism would work in terms of reining in powerful or dangerous individuals who might subvert the freedoms of others, but I certainly think we should give careful thought to some of the ideas expressed by anarchists, and consider how we might better improve the current system that is still, in many key respects failing us.
Ruth Kinna’s book is an interesting study of a difficult subject. However, perhaps reflecting the fact that the book is one of a set on different ideologies, she puts little of herself into the book, and it is hard to tell what she thinks about anarchism.
Presumably she is either supportive or sympathetic, since she is written a book about it, but where does her heart lie? Does she consider the spiritualism of Tolstoy a tall story? Does Bakunin have her backing? Does she consider Kropotkin to be a crackpot? It would have been interesting to see more analysis and less explanation.
October 10, 2017
I started this book knowing that anarchist where anti-government and not much more. And I finished the book knowing that anarchist where anti-government and not much more.
Whilst I appreciate that the anarchist movement is by its very nature fragmentary and non-cohesive, with limited areas of agreement, I do not feel that this book has provided much elucidation of the conflicts. It feels like it should have either been a fraction of the length, or several times as long and allowed the various personalities and opinions more room to breathe.
I recently read Conrad's secret agent and picked this up to try to help me understand the background. I am moving on to Alex Butterworth's the world that never was, which initially at least looks much more fun and hopefully more relevant to Conrad.
Whilst I appreciate that the anarchist movement is by its very nature fragmentary and non-cohesive, with limited areas of agreement, I do not feel that this book has provided much elucidation of the conflicts. It feels like it should have either been a fraction of the length, or several times as long and allowed the various personalities and opinions more room to breathe.
I recently read Conrad's secret agent and picked this up to try to help me understand the background. I am moving on to Alex Butterworth's the world that never was, which initially at least looks much more fun and hopefully more relevant to Conrad.
November 22, 2022
As others have rightfully noted this book clearly concerns itself more with the history of anarchism rather than purposefully considering anarchism as a whole. None the less, it is certainly valid to try to approach anarchism from a historical perspective and clearly this does not entail that the book is less than one would have hoped for. Others have also commented that the book reads as academically dry and while I agree to the first premise that it is written in an academic manner I do not find the writing style to be dry. Its clearly not written in the same format as say Maletesta's wonderful introduction to anarchism ("at the cafe") with playful prose, but it does convey a sense of interest in the subject matter.
A downfall however with the book is that it does not address the current climate of anarchism at any length stopping its research for the most part in the middle of the twentieth century. I would have hoped the book covered more current events such as the revolutionary tendencies which took place in the early 2000's in Argentina.
Note: I don't like the star rating and as such I only rate books based upon one star or five stars corresponding to the in my opinion preferable rating system of thumbs up/down. This later rating system increases in my humble opinion the degree to which the reader is likely to engage with a review instead of merely glancing at the number of stars of a given book.)
A downfall however with the book is that it does not address the current climate of anarchism at any length stopping its research for the most part in the middle of the twentieth century. I would have hoped the book covered more current events such as the revolutionary tendencies which took place in the early 2000's in Argentina.
Note: I don't like the star rating and as such I only rate books based upon one star or five stars corresponding to the in my opinion preferable rating system of thumbs up/down. This later rating system increases in my humble opinion the degree to which the reader is likely to engage with a review instead of merely glancing at the number of stars of a given book.)
February 24, 2022
This is a thorough documentation of anarchism's factions, schools of thought, and thinkers—ranging from Tolstoy to the effing Unabomber—organized and sub-organized based on various themes and concepts. Even Ayn Rand— though she expressly rejected anarchism— is identified as an anarchist (an anarcho-capitalist) and taken into view. These examples show you how great a distance the author keeps from the subject matter in order to take everything into account and engage thinkers in conversation with one another before the reader's eyes. But you can't take an infinite distance and remain coherent in detail, can you?
One star for the thought-provoking ideas scattered around. Another lit for the breadth of the content, even though it didn't treat fully anarchists who are more inclined to make use of state tools and tactics (eg, elections) on a utilitarian or lesser-evilist basis, nor did it mention Graeber's work (deemed indispensable by many) under the rubric "Anarchy and Anthropology".
One star turned off because the book was too broad, another because I found most of the arguments flimsy, shallow, and/or glib, and another because of its quasi-condonation of violence.
One star for the thought-provoking ideas scattered around. Another lit for the breadth of the content, even though it didn't treat fully anarchists who are more inclined to make use of state tools and tactics (eg, elections) on a utilitarian or lesser-evilist basis, nor did it mention Graeber's work (deemed indispensable by many) under the rubric "Anarchy and Anthropology".
One star turned off because the book was too broad, another because I found most of the arguments flimsy, shallow, and/or glib, and another because of its quasi-condonation of violence.
March 30, 2024
I picked up this book when I was reading other anarchist texts and found myself frustrated at my own lack of general background knowledge of anarchism. This book did pretty much what I wanted it to: it covers basic tenets of anarchism, major figures of anarchist thought, and an overview of anarchist discourses. It's great if you're already at least a little familiar with leftist/anarchist concepts at an academic level and I found it an easy read compared to much more focused leftist texts. The book is very focused on western anarchism (particularly European and US American anarchism) which, while mostly understandable given that it's an introductory text, is still disappointing.
May 17, 2024
Was de wereld maar wat sociaal-anarchistischer. Maar over het boek: geen beginners guide, meer een diepgaand studieboek over alle ins en outs van deze stromingen. Het is dus ook echt heel droog, niet heel enthousiasmerend geschreven. Maar blijft een interessant onderwerp.
November 20, 2020
Clear and cogent, but not inspiring.
January 16, 2022
Great read at times.
June 4, 2015
A very informative, in-depth analysis of the tenets of anarchism including studies of various divergent factions within the movement and what key players had to say.
This is very much geared more towards politics students and those in politics as a career, rather than someone with an interest in the movement or looking for words to galvanise themselves around and be inspired to organise by.
If you are looking for inspirational, incisive things to read by anarchist writers, I strongly recommend you go read something by the main thinkers themselves (Piotr/Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Mikhail/Michael Bakunin to name but a few).
If you are looking for an introductory, sterile analysis of the finer details, sub-categories and facts about the anarchist movement, this book on the other hand will be more your thing.
This is very much geared more towards politics students and those in politics as a career, rather than someone with an interest in the movement or looking for words to galvanise themselves around and be inspired to organise by.
If you are looking for inspirational, incisive things to read by anarchist writers, I strongly recommend you go read something by the main thinkers themselves (Piotr/Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Mikhail/Michael Bakunin to name but a few).
If you are looking for an introductory, sterile analysis of the finer details, sub-categories and facts about the anarchist movement, this book on the other hand will be more your thing.
June 23, 2013
Got a better idea of what anarchism is about from reading this, and its various 'flavours'. Sometimes reads a bit like an undergrad dissertation where Kinna has written an interesting idea that doesn't really fit in the overall thread, but leaves it in anyway.
This is often to do with something a particular thinker or organisation has said or done- okay they did that, but what's it to do with the price of fish?...
This is often to do with something a particular thinker or organisation has said or done- okay they did that, but what's it to do with the price of fish?...
December 11, 2025
Wished it were less Eurocentric, less centered on classical Anarchism, etc., that it had addressed more contemporary concerns, like the Internet of things, etc., that it had more expansively addressed questions and intersections of class, race, gender, age, indigeneity, disability, etc. Weird how Kinna includes Ayn Rand as force of a strand of anarchism. Ditto her inclusion of anarcho-capitalism, which I regard as antithetical to anarchism. That said, it's still a useful primer.
October 5, 2015
Brilliant short book that sums up the general ideas of anarchism. A very easy read, simplifying more complex ideas whilst retaining their substance. Provides plenty of details on other thinkers so it is a good starter for someone interested in anarchism but not quite sure where to begin!
November 12, 2012
Chapter 2, "Anarchist Rejections of the State," is the best chapter in the book. The rest of the book feels muddled, and relies too heavily on certain trends or thinkers.
July 18, 2013
A little too academic for my tastes, but definitely introduces a broad range of ideas and provides plenty of resources for learning more.
September 19, 2013
Well, I was expecting a more down-to-earth book on Anarchism than that. This book just read too abstract and pretentiously scientific for my taste.
Read
February 17, 2021tolstoy and some others names this book gave me . That/s would be all
Read
September 28, 2017A good introduction to the main concepts behind anarchism. Certainly dispelled a lot of my own preconceptions.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews