What do you think?
Rate this book
What is Anarchism?: An Introduction
“Anarchists believe that the point of society is to widen the choices of individuals.” Enlarged and updated for a modern audience, What is Anarchism? serves as a reference and an introduction to the development of anarchist thought for propagandists and proselytizers of anarchism, as well as teachers and students of political theory, philosophy, sociology, history. Edited and arranged by Vernon Richards of Freedom Press, it includes extracts from the works Errico Malatesta, Peter Kropotkin, Max Stirner, Emma Goldman, Charlotte Wilson, Michael Bakunin, Rudolf Rocker, Alexander Berkman, and more. Author and Wildcat cartoonist Donald Rooum gives context to the selections with introductions looking at “What Anarchists Believe,” “How Anarchists Differ,” and “What Anarchists Do,” along with providing helpful and humorous illustrations throughout the book.
150 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1992
11 people are currently reading
263 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 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 27, 2017
This was really interesting and it helped me to build a more mature understanding of the philosophy of anarchy which I (like most people, I suppose) had associated with "chaos" and disorder, when this is not (necessarily) the case at all. It raises a lot of good questions that I'd never thought to ask because we take so much of the operation of our societies for granted as necessary. This book's primary function is clearly biased and unabashed propaganda, and as a means of giving a sense of what anarchy means on a largely emotional level, rather than solidly explaining how it would come about. After a while, this flood of anarchist rhetoric feels redundant and unfulfilling for those wondering "OK, so what next?". It feels like anarchist doctrine generally avoids or dismisses the practical "how?" questions which is, to my mind, a failing. But, in theory, I'm very intrigued and I think there is a lot we should take from it. It would seem this philosophy has been much maligned and misunderstood.
June 21, 2020
‘The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.’
Aside from its many contradictions and fallacies, this nonetheless provides an excellent introduction to anarchism and contains the concise work of many of its greatest thinkers. Plenty of it will still resonate with people of all political persuasions.
Aside from its many contradictions and fallacies, this nonetheless provides an excellent introduction to anarchism and contains the concise work of many of its greatest thinkers. Plenty of it will still resonate with people of all political persuasions.
February 15, 2020
A rehash of the rotten ideas of the 19th century that lead to the Bolshevik party and later to Stalinism and Maoism. A blend of the main anarchist ideas and the keywords to make it more palatable. Of course there will be no "wage slavery" once the Central Committee decides what work you should do. Of course there will be no landlord system once the individual will have to grovel at the feet of the Local Housing Committee. And for no prisons, of course there will be, and many. They will start with the heretics who would like to perpetuate the old bourgeois practices of wages and landlording, but in a decade they will expand to anybody useful, say knowledge of how to steal technology from the Decadent Other Lands. But Rooum is right, in no time there will be "no prisons" because the whole land will be one sole Work Camp. And there will be no government, because they will call it a Central Committee. And no right to strike, as this is a worker commune and anyone opposing it is against the will of the workers. Or to quote:
> The main perpetrators of violence have been those who maintain authority, not those who attack it.
Hence going with a gun to kill the Representatives or the Jews, putting a bomb under the car of a King or the Production Manager at the Factory, these are all "defense" from those who are the exploiters.
> The main perpetrators of violence have been those who maintain authority, not those who attack it.
Hence going with a gun to kill the Representatives or the Jews, putting a bomb under the car of a King or the Production Manager at the Factory, these are all "defense" from those who are the exploiters.
October 12, 2023
AN EXCELLENT, SYMPATHETIC INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT, INCLUDING READINGS
Author Donald Rooum wrote in the first chapter of this 1992 book, “Anarchists believe that the point of society is to widen the choices of individuals. This is the axiom upon which the anarchist casts is founded… Anarchists strive for a society which is as efficient as possible, that is a society which provides individuals with the widest possible range of individual choices… Anarchism is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritocracy, theocracy, revolutionary governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all its forms… It would be a mistake to think of anarchism as essentially negative. The opposition to government arises out of a belief about society which is positive.” (Pg.1-2)
He continues, ‘The idea of anarchism is a society in which all individuals can do whatever they choose, except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do what they choose. This ideal is called ‘anarchy,’ from the Greek ‘anarchia,’ meaning absence of government.” (Pg. 2)
He adds, “Anarchists do not suppose that all people are altruistic, or wise, or good, or identical, or perfectible, or any romantic nonsense of that kind. They believe that a society without coercive instruments is feasible, within the repertoire of natural, imperfect, human behavior.” (Pg. 2)
He explains, “the word ‘anarchy’ is also used to mean unsettled government, disorderly government, or government at its crudest in the form of intimidation by marauding gangs (‘military anarchy’)… Both the proper and improper meanings of the term ‘anarchy’ are now current, and this causes confusion. A person who hears government by marauding gangs described as ‘anarchy’ on television news, and then hears an anarchist advocating ‘anarchy,’ is liable to conclude that anarchists want government by marauding gangs. Some anarchists have tried to overcome the confusion by calling themselves something different, such as autonomists or libertarians, but the effect has been to replace on ambiguity with another… The simplest way to avoid confusion would be to reserve the term ‘anarchy’ for its etymologically correct meaning, and call social disorder by some other term, such as ‘social disorder.’” (Pg. 3-4)
He suggests, “Fear of the lash, or penury, or hellfire, is not needed for inducing people to do useful things. It is needed to make people endure the stressful indignity which working-class people call ‘work’: responsibility without power, pointless drudgery, being talked down to by morons. Anarchists believe that everything worth doing can be done with ‘work.’ Many people confuse government with organization, which makes them suppose that anarchists are against band leaders and architects. But organizers and leaders are not the same as bosses. Anarchists have no objection to people following instructions, provided they do so voluntarily.” (Pg. 5)
He observes, “The difference which most often causes anarchists to separate into different groups is a difference, not of political opinion, but of presentational style. Some anarchists like to present anarchism by explaining the ideas and arguing the case. Others are impatient of argument, preferring blunt statements and calls to working-class action.” (Pg. 13)
He explains, “‘Neither God nor master’ is a traditional anarchist slogan, expressing the belief that God is a lie, invented to make slavery bearable. Many anarchists were atheists first and became anarchists later, after rejection of divine authority had cleared the path for rejection of human authority.” (Pg. 17)
He adds, “There are Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Hindu and Neopagan anarchists, for all of whom anarchism and religion are inextricable, as surely as anarchism and anti-religion is inextricable for other anarchists. One neopagan has described the summer solstice gathering as ‘the principal event in the anarchist calendar.’ Anarchism implies tolerance of different beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not involve coercion. Religious and anti-religious anarchists may argue, but they do not reject each other. There are those, however, who think the term ‘Christian anarchist’ an absurd self-contradiction.” (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, “The listed membership of the several national anarchist organizations is a few hundred at most. The number of participants in the 1992 anti-election rally in Trafalgar Square was variously estimated at 750 to 1,200. The total circulation of anarchist periodicals is less than thirty thousand, including those sold to non-anarchists. Judging by these indicators, the anarchists are a minuscule minority. Other indicators, however, suggest rather larger numbers…” (Pg. 20)
He observes, “There are anarchist workers’ co-operatives, which cannot avoid trading with capitalist society but are not directly dominated by a boss. There are anarchist communities, where people live in a non-authoritarian environment, sometimes holding all their assets in common… Anarchists are disgusted by the idea of houses standing empty when people are homeless, and have always support squatters’ movements… There have always been and are anarchist clubs, in rented and squatted premises… Anarchists often undertake to visit and communicate with prisoners who have few friends. Often the prisoners hold anarchist opinions or a deemed innocent, or both, but this is not always the case. These last two paragraphs may make anarchists look like ‘do-gooders.’ They would object to that description. But their commitment to widening the choices of individuals is not just a matter of publicizing anarchy and advocating revolution. It is also a matter of practical, direct action.” (Pg. 27-28)
The remainder of the book consists of brief selections from a variety of anarchist writers, such as: Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, William Godwin, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, and others.
This book will be of keen interest to anyone seeking a ‘positive’ introduction to the subject.
Author Donald Rooum wrote in the first chapter of this 1992 book, “Anarchists believe that the point of society is to widen the choices of individuals. This is the axiom upon which the anarchist casts is founded… Anarchists strive for a society which is as efficient as possible, that is a society which provides individuals with the widest possible range of individual choices… Anarchism is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritocracy, theocracy, revolutionary governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all its forms… It would be a mistake to think of anarchism as essentially negative. The opposition to government arises out of a belief about society which is positive.” (Pg.1-2)
He continues, ‘The idea of anarchism is a society in which all individuals can do whatever they choose, except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do what they choose. This ideal is called ‘anarchy,’ from the Greek ‘anarchia,’ meaning absence of government.” (Pg. 2)
He adds, “Anarchists do not suppose that all people are altruistic, or wise, or good, or identical, or perfectible, or any romantic nonsense of that kind. They believe that a society without coercive instruments is feasible, within the repertoire of natural, imperfect, human behavior.” (Pg. 2)
He explains, “the word ‘anarchy’ is also used to mean unsettled government, disorderly government, or government at its crudest in the form of intimidation by marauding gangs (‘military anarchy’)… Both the proper and improper meanings of the term ‘anarchy’ are now current, and this causes confusion. A person who hears government by marauding gangs described as ‘anarchy’ on television news, and then hears an anarchist advocating ‘anarchy,’ is liable to conclude that anarchists want government by marauding gangs. Some anarchists have tried to overcome the confusion by calling themselves something different, such as autonomists or libertarians, but the effect has been to replace on ambiguity with another… The simplest way to avoid confusion would be to reserve the term ‘anarchy’ for its etymologically correct meaning, and call social disorder by some other term, such as ‘social disorder.’” (Pg. 3-4)
He suggests, “Fear of the lash, or penury, or hellfire, is not needed for inducing people to do useful things. It is needed to make people endure the stressful indignity which working-class people call ‘work’: responsibility without power, pointless drudgery, being talked down to by morons. Anarchists believe that everything worth doing can be done with ‘work.’ Many people confuse government with organization, which makes them suppose that anarchists are against band leaders and architects. But organizers and leaders are not the same as bosses. Anarchists have no objection to people following instructions, provided they do so voluntarily.” (Pg. 5)
He observes, “The difference which most often causes anarchists to separate into different groups is a difference, not of political opinion, but of presentational style. Some anarchists like to present anarchism by explaining the ideas and arguing the case. Others are impatient of argument, preferring blunt statements and calls to working-class action.” (Pg. 13)
He explains, “‘Neither God nor master’ is a traditional anarchist slogan, expressing the belief that God is a lie, invented to make slavery bearable. Many anarchists were atheists first and became anarchists later, after rejection of divine authority had cleared the path for rejection of human authority.” (Pg. 17)
He adds, “There are Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Hindu and Neopagan anarchists, for all of whom anarchism and religion are inextricable, as surely as anarchism and anti-religion is inextricable for other anarchists. One neopagan has described the summer solstice gathering as ‘the principal event in the anarchist calendar.’ Anarchism implies tolerance of different beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not involve coercion. Religious and anti-religious anarchists may argue, but they do not reject each other. There are those, however, who think the term ‘Christian anarchist’ an absurd self-contradiction.” (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, “The listed membership of the several national anarchist organizations is a few hundred at most. The number of participants in the 1992 anti-election rally in Trafalgar Square was variously estimated at 750 to 1,200. The total circulation of anarchist periodicals is less than thirty thousand, including those sold to non-anarchists. Judging by these indicators, the anarchists are a minuscule minority. Other indicators, however, suggest rather larger numbers…” (Pg. 20)
He observes, “There are anarchist workers’ co-operatives, which cannot avoid trading with capitalist society but are not directly dominated by a boss. There are anarchist communities, where people live in a non-authoritarian environment, sometimes holding all their assets in common… Anarchists are disgusted by the idea of houses standing empty when people are homeless, and have always support squatters’ movements… There have always been and are anarchist clubs, in rented and squatted premises… Anarchists often undertake to visit and communicate with prisoners who have few friends. Often the prisoners hold anarchist opinions or a deemed innocent, or both, but this is not always the case. These last two paragraphs may make anarchists look like ‘do-gooders.’ They would object to that description. But their commitment to widening the choices of individuals is not just a matter of publicizing anarchy and advocating revolution. It is also a matter of practical, direct action.” (Pg. 27-28)
The remainder of the book consists of brief selections from a variety of anarchist writers, such as: Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, William Godwin, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, and others.
This book will be of keen interest to anyone seeking a ‘positive’ introduction to the subject.
January 18, 2016
A basic, simple, compact book on the basics of Anarchism. It's a must read for all those who want to understand that Utopia level that humanity will reach at one point of time. Is a must book for all those who want to understand the negative meaning around the word Anarchos. A recommend this book to every child and human, basic but once at your hand your mind will open to an alternative future.
April 5, 2021
A much better introduction to anarchism than Malatesta's pamphlets or Kropotkin's books. Definitely start with this as an introduction or a refresher on anarchism.
One of the best parts about this book is that it shows several different perspectives on anarchism; whether it be from the perspective of different authors or different years. Malatesta is quoted several times throughout several time periods which certainly helps the audience. The same questions are answered by different authors, which is a breath of fresh air. This introduction would not be as strong without all these different perspectives and quotes.
The best part, in my opinion, is that the book does not quote "anarchist capitalists", which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. It is clear from the start that capitalism contradicts anarchism and that the coercion inherent to capitalism will always ruin an anarchist society. Donald Rooum only uses the term anarchist capitalist once in the entire book!
I wish this book had more cartoons (Rooum is a cartoonist, after all). At the beginning of the book, Rooum shows us three cartoon characters that look very interesting, but they are basically never shown ever again.
One of the best parts about this book is that it shows several different perspectives on anarchism; whether it be from the perspective of different authors or different years. Malatesta is quoted several times throughout several time periods which certainly helps the audience. The same questions are answered by different authors, which is a breath of fresh air. This introduction would not be as strong without all these different perspectives and quotes.
The best part, in my opinion, is that the book does not quote "anarchist capitalists", which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. It is clear from the start that capitalism contradicts anarchism and that the coercion inherent to capitalism will always ruin an anarchist society. Donald Rooum only uses the term anarchist capitalist once in the entire book!
I wish this book had more cartoons (Rooum is a cartoonist, after all). At the beginning of the book, Rooum shows us three cartoon characters that look very interesting, but they are basically never shown ever again.
July 28, 2020
I was unsure of what anarchist's believed in and with all the recent protesting and wanton destruction by agitators labeled as anarchists, I had to find out. This book explained in a clear way the basic beliefs of anarchism. My opinion of anarchism is not relevant for this review. The short book was packed with quotes and excepts from historic anarchists from the 19th century to the 1990's. It gave a good overall explanation of the basic beliefs and the offshoots of their dogma, which are diverse and plentiful. I have to say that I have not heard of a pure anarchist state as it is a contradiction in itself. Believe in yourself and nothing else. Kind of like the John Lennon song Imagine. Be careful of what you wish for was my take away.
June 21, 2019
Excerpts from books were a bit all over the place. Not that this is a bad thing of course, since finding that many anarchist philosophers who had the same ideas would be impossible, but it can be confusing when one side of the page somewhat contradicts the other side. It doesn't explain much about how an anarchist society would actually function apart from saying that nobody really knows. Fair point, I guess, but it's nice to at least get an idea.
Considering I got this book for free as I actually wanted Berkman's book of the same title (which is FAR better in my opinion) and that it was a pretty quick read I won't complain too much.
Considering I got this book for free as I actually wanted Berkman's book of the same title (which is FAR better in my opinion) and that it was a pretty quick read I won't complain too much.
June 19, 2018
This little book is all over the place. Even thought it's supposed to be an introduction to anarchism, it doesn't deliver much content. Some articles are informative enough but majority of them seem to be included just to fill the space. I honestly can't say I know more about anarchism than I did a couple of days ago. If you're considering reading this book, do yourself a favour and find something else to read.
September 23, 2022
This is the first book I’ve finished in a very long time and I adored it very fun time everyone should read and then read the full length versions of everything inside of it (well not everything but most of it)
July 28, 2023
Does what it says on the tin. Nice approachable explanation of the basic beliefs of anarchism. I think it would be a great read for people who have some on the common misconceptions about what anarchism is.
February 20, 2020
Introductory for sure, but a rather shallow introduction. This is really just a collection of articles that are loosely grouped into a couple themes.
April 24, 2024
It is a great introduction to anarchism, addresses the most often posed questions and includes excerpts from classic works of anarchist philosophy.
January 24, 2017
Lord knows we need more books dedicated to bringing Anarchist ideas to the masses, and one thing that's appealing from Donald Rooum's What is Anarchism is how inviting it looks at a glance. First of all, it's slender but not comically so (about 150 pages), and the chapters are organized to address very important and specific questions, like Approaches to Anarchism, and Anarchism and Violence. Also, there are some cartoons here and there. I have read some very exhaustive Anarchist anthologies (like No Gods, No Masters, and the Anarchist FAQ), and honestly, a concise version that gets to the point is a very welcome entry.
Rooum's approach is to pick relevant pieces by the who's who of Anarchism to address each topic, and sure enough the big hitters are here, like Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin along with the more modern theorists like Murray Bookchin and Colin Ward. So as a greatest hits of Anarchism, What is Anarchism nails it. However, I was expecting a little bit more from this book...
I think the fact remains that even though these topics are still relevant, at this point a lot of Anarchist literature is dry and written for a completely different audience, so its age really shows. I was hoping What is Anarchism could bring these ideas up to date for the modern reader, much like Socialism, Seriously! by Danny Katch does so well. As such, What is Anarchism seems outdated and is hard to connect with.
So I've seen most of this stuff before, but at the same time I can still recognize the importance of Rooum's book. For newcomers curious with the Anarchist classics, this book can be very valuable. It just might do the trick
Rooum's approach is to pick relevant pieces by the who's who of Anarchism to address each topic, and sure enough the big hitters are here, like Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin along with the more modern theorists like Murray Bookchin and Colin Ward. So as a greatest hits of Anarchism, What is Anarchism nails it. However, I was expecting a little bit more from this book...
I think the fact remains that even though these topics are still relevant, at this point a lot of Anarchist literature is dry and written for a completely different audience, so its age really shows. I was hoping What is Anarchism could bring these ideas up to date for the modern reader, much like Socialism, Seriously! by Danny Katch does so well. As such, What is Anarchism seems outdated and is hard to connect with.
So I've seen most of this stuff before, but at the same time I can still recognize the importance of Rooum's book. For newcomers curious with the Anarchist classics, this book can be very valuable. It just might do the trick
Read
May 2, 2017Victim to the misconception that anarchism is impossible, utopic and often violent, I err toward [a dejected] participation in the current political structure. Imagine: “I did not vote in the recent election; I am anarchist.” in today’s climate. Eye-rolls aplenty, victim indeed. This text (a series of concise, relevant essays) is an essential tool for action—a guidepost for immediate individual anarchist involvement in society/politics. Anarchism starts from the individual and works upward. It is the priority of life over theory. It is the practice of Conscious Egoism. (And no, it’s not as simple as abstaining from an election. *wink*)
*
“I go round a boulder until I have enough gunpowder to blast it out of the way. I circumvent the rule of a nation until I have gathered the strength to overthrow it. I cannot reach the moon, but does that mean I must regard it as “sacred”? I do not surrender to you, I only wait. When I can come at you I will; and meanwhile, if I find any weakness in you, I will draw it to your attention.”—Max Stirner
*
If our politics is to be effective, our language needs to be simple and understandable, as well as beautiful.
*
“I go round a boulder until I have enough gunpowder to blast it out of the way. I circumvent the rule of a nation until I have gathered the strength to overthrow it. I cannot reach the moon, but does that mean I must regard it as “sacred”? I do not surrender to you, I only wait. When I can come at you I will; and meanwhile, if I find any weakness in you, I will draw it to your attention.”—Max Stirner
*
If our politics is to be effective, our language needs to be simple and understandable, as well as beautiful.
June 2, 2012
While the content and style are appropriate to provide a good overview and introduction into anarchism, the result is that this outdated movement comes across as both simple and naive. The discussion of the origins of human society, the arguments about crime in a society founded on anarchism and the refusal to answer such basic questions as to how you would get around the competition for finite resources gave me the sense that this is a movement whose time has truly passed, if ever it had really arrived.
October 7, 2021
I enjoyed this book a lot especially being an anarchist with a lot of issues when it comes to reading haha. it compiles a lot of short excerpts from other anarchist texts which makes them a lot easier to read and understand. The only part of this book that I really did not enjoy was the third section of the first part ( “what anarchists do” ) which can be skipped altogether in my opinion.
May 26, 2008
it is a very good book for those who wants to know and begin to learn about Anarchism.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews