What do you think?
Rate this book
About Anarchism
One of the finest short introductions to the basic concepts, theories and practical applications of anarchism. First written in the 60s, it has yet to be surpassed. This handsome new edition includes an introduction by his daughter, the British feminist author Natasha Walter.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
93 pages, Paperback
First published June 6, 2002
5 people are currently reading
104 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 7, 2012
There are several good introductions to anarchism, but this is probably the best and clearest for the complete novice. Very sensibly and unpretentiously written, divided into the following sections: "What anarchists believe", "How anarchists differ", "What anarchists want", and "What anarchists do".
The central insight of this books for me: That anarchism is an endpoint of both socialism and liberalism. That the anarchist view of history differs from the liberal view of progress and the Marxist historical dialectic, being one of conflict between the social and the authoritarian principles. That the different types of anarchism can be reconciled, or find expression, in the different spheres of the life of the individual and the group.
The central insight of this books for me: That anarchism is an endpoint of both socialism and liberalism. That the anarchist view of history differs from the liberal view of progress and the Marxist historical dialectic, being one of conflict between the social and the authoritarian principles. That the different types of anarchism can be reconciled, or find expression, in the different spheres of the life of the individual and the group.
October 7, 2015
I'm really happy I went ahead and read this, but it was damn slow-going. I tend to read longer books, and this book definitely reminded me why the long ones are so awesome. This book is very dense and difficult for those unfamiliar with anarchism, and though I'm very happy this book exists, I feel I need to read a much thicker book before I feel I have even a partial grasp of the strongest arguments for anarchism.
It's probably because I'm so young and so affected by movements that came about after this book was written--second wave and third wave feminism, critical race theory, the LGBT rights movement--as well as important advances in social psychology and discourse analysis. In short, this book does address in any length a single issue that I feel makes anarchism the least bit compelling, and thus turns me off to anarchism more than it turns me on to it.
I want to find the arguments that most compel me toward anarchism, and sadly they cannot be found in this book.
It's probably because I'm so young and so affected by movements that came about after this book was written--second wave and third wave feminism, critical race theory, the LGBT rights movement--as well as important advances in social psychology and discourse analysis. In short, this book does address in any length a single issue that I feel makes anarchism the least bit compelling, and thus turns me off to anarchism more than it turns me on to it.
I want to find the arguments that most compel me toward anarchism, and sadly they cannot be found in this book.
November 20, 2020
I have long been drawn to anarchism in theory, but any flirtations with it as a practical philosophy have always run into that Jello Biafra line from an old Dead Kennedys song:
"Anarchy sounds good to me
But who's gonna fix the sewers?
Or will the rednecks play
Dictator of the neighborhood?"
That about sums up my inability to really get behind anarchist thinking, and those are the types of basic questions that this little book can't answer.
A lot of fantasizing here about a better world. It's fantasy I can get on board with, it's my fantasy, it sounds beautiful. But there's just nothing here about how any of it could ever be MORE than fantasy. Walter says again and again that it's "not just fantasy, it could be real" but he doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how to make it real, and any little hints and suggestions that he does put forth are so obviously riddled with flaws and wishful thinking that you almost don't want him to go any deeper, don't want the fantasy completely destroyed.
My objection to current conservative Libertarianism is basically the same-- removing government doesn't mean that you've removed power, that you've removed authority. And as long as there's one person or one group who wants to exert power over others, the fantasy just doesn't work. We can all be peace loving free spirits on our organic farm, but when the guy with guns rolls into town, we work for him now. This stuff works only when EVERYONE wants it to work, or so close to everyone that there's no meaningful opposition. And there's no reason to think that anything buy a small minority is ever going to want it.
We live in a crowded, complicated world. I'd love for it to be less crowded and less complicated, but that's not the reality. And in a crowded, complicated world, there's a need for people to work together, to operate under shared notions of what is and isn't acceptable. There's a need for things to run smoothly. Government at its best should be nothing more than people coming together and figuring out how to do that.
Anyway, not a great book. A 2 really, but I'll give it 3 because the fantasy is a good one.
EDIT
After a moment's thought, I'm knocking this all the way down to a 1.
Here's the thing: Walter repeatedly talks about things that are free for all to benefit from, and argues that if these things are free, other things should and could be free. He seems to think that he's making the point that this fantasy is very achievable, because after all the best stuff is already free and outside the whole economic transaction realm, etc.
The free stuff he references includes libraries, public schools, roads, bridges, and so on.
Which, of course, isn't remotely "free."
Taxes pay for this stuff.
Taxes, which are raised by governments, which are the things he wants to completely abolish.
All the good stuff he lauds as evidence of the rationality of his movement is the stuff that his movement would essentially get rid of.
Which is just kind of stupid.
To stupid to get a 3, no matter how nice the fantasy.
"Anarchy sounds good to me
But who's gonna fix the sewers?
Or will the rednecks play
Dictator of the neighborhood?"
That about sums up my inability to really get behind anarchist thinking, and those are the types of basic questions that this little book can't answer.
A lot of fantasizing here about a better world. It's fantasy I can get on board with, it's my fantasy, it sounds beautiful. But there's just nothing here about how any of it could ever be MORE than fantasy. Walter says again and again that it's "not just fantasy, it could be real" but he doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how to make it real, and any little hints and suggestions that he does put forth are so obviously riddled with flaws and wishful thinking that you almost don't want him to go any deeper, don't want the fantasy completely destroyed.
My objection to current conservative Libertarianism is basically the same-- removing government doesn't mean that you've removed power, that you've removed authority. And as long as there's one person or one group who wants to exert power over others, the fantasy just doesn't work. We can all be peace loving free spirits on our organic farm, but when the guy with guns rolls into town, we work for him now. This stuff works only when EVERYONE wants it to work, or so close to everyone that there's no meaningful opposition. And there's no reason to think that anything buy a small minority is ever going to want it.
We live in a crowded, complicated world. I'd love for it to be less crowded and less complicated, but that's not the reality. And in a crowded, complicated world, there's a need for people to work together, to operate under shared notions of what is and isn't acceptable. There's a need for things to run smoothly. Government at its best should be nothing more than people coming together and figuring out how to do that.
Anyway, not a great book. A 2 really, but I'll give it 3 because the fantasy is a good one.
EDIT
After a moment's thought, I'm knocking this all the way down to a 1.
Here's the thing: Walter repeatedly talks about things that are free for all to benefit from, and argues that if these things are free, other things should and could be free. He seems to think that he's making the point that this fantasy is very achievable, because after all the best stuff is already free and outside the whole economic transaction realm, etc.
The free stuff he references includes libraries, public schools, roads, bridges, and so on.
Which, of course, isn't remotely "free."
Taxes pay for this stuff.
Taxes, which are raised by governments, which are the things he wants to completely abolish.
All the good stuff he lauds as evidence of the rationality of his movement is the stuff that his movement would essentially get rid of.
Which is just kind of stupid.
To stupid to get a 3, no matter how nice the fantasy.
June 23, 2023
Amazing primer. In only 50 pages, Walter writes clearly and simply in what serves as a call to action by it's mere existence. Of course, y0u should read the entire thing but a few of my favorite parts are below.
On building an Anarchist society
"So anarchists reject the idea of a social contract and the idea of representation. In practice, no doubt, most things will always be done by a few people--by those who are interested in a problem and are capable of solving it--but there is no need for them to be selected or elected. They will always emerge anyway, and it is better for them to do so naturally. The point is that leaders and experts do not have to be rulers, that leadership and expertise are not necessarily connected with authority."
On the so-called violent tendencies of Anarchists
"One of the oldest and most persistent prejudices about anarchism is that anarchists are above all men of violence. The stereotype of the anarchist with a bomb under his cloak is more than a century old, but it is still going strong. Many anarchists have indeed favored violence, some have favored the assassination of public figures, and a few have even favored terrorism of the population to help them destroy the present system.... Most anarchists have always opposed any violence except that which is really necessary--the inevitable violence which occurs when the people shake off their rulers and exploiters."
Before going on to add the all important of 0ft-overlooked point.
"The main perpetrators of violence have been those who maintain authority, not those who attack it. The great killers have not been the tragic bombers driven to desperation in southern Europe a century ago, but the military machines of every state in the world throughout history. No anarchist can rival the Blitz and the Bomb, no individual assassin can stand beside Hitler or Stalin."
On building an Anarchist society
"It is difficult to say what anarchists want, not just because they differ so much, but because they hesitate to make detailed proposals about a future which they are neither able nor willing to control. After all, anarchists want a society without government, and such a society would obviously vary widely from time to time and from place to place. The whole point of the society anarchists want is that it would be what its members themselves want."
On building an Anarchist society
"So anarchists reject the idea of a social contract and the idea of representation. In practice, no doubt, most things will always be done by a few people--by those who are interested in a problem and are capable of solving it--but there is no need for them to be selected or elected. They will always emerge anyway, and it is better for them to do so naturally. The point is that leaders and experts do not have to be rulers, that leadership and expertise are not necessarily connected with authority."
On the so-called violent tendencies of Anarchists
"One of the oldest and most persistent prejudices about anarchism is that anarchists are above all men of violence. The stereotype of the anarchist with a bomb under his cloak is more than a century old, but it is still going strong. Many anarchists have indeed favored violence, some have favored the assassination of public figures, and a few have even favored terrorism of the population to help them destroy the present system.... Most anarchists have always opposed any violence except that which is really necessary--the inevitable violence which occurs when the people shake off their rulers and exploiters."
Before going on to add the all important of 0ft-overlooked point.
"The main perpetrators of violence have been those who maintain authority, not those who attack it. The great killers have not been the tragic bombers driven to desperation in southern Europe a century ago, but the military machines of every state in the world throughout history. No anarchist can rival the Blitz and the Bomb, no individual assassin can stand beside Hitler or Stalin."
On building an Anarchist society
"It is difficult to say what anarchists want, not just because they differ so much, but because they hesitate to make detailed proposals about a future which they are neither able nor willing to control. After all, anarchists want a society without government, and such a society would obviously vary widely from time to time and from place to place. The whole point of the society anarchists want is that it would be what its members themselves want."
December 8, 2019
Originally published in 1969, worth the read.
“In practice most disputes between reformist and revolutionary anarchists are meaningless, for only the wildest revolutionary refuses to welcome reforms and the mildest reformists refuses to welcome revolutions, and all revolutionaries know that their work will generally lead to no more than reform, and all reformists know that their work is generally leading to some kind of revolution.”
“In practice most disputes between reformist and revolutionary anarchists are meaningless, for only the wildest revolutionary refuses to welcome reforms and the mildest reformists refuses to welcome revolutions, and all revolutionaries know that their work will generally lead to no more than reform, and all reformists know that their work is generally leading to some kind of revolution.”
March 9, 2018
A fine introduction and a great influence on my political ideology.
March 10, 2019
Nuorempana anarkismiin tutustuessa tää oli mielestäni hyvä kirja, mutta nyt uudelleen luettuna aika tympeä johdatus. Kaksi ja puoli tähteä.
May 17, 2024
A book detailing the ins and outs of contemporary anarchism. While a bit idealistic (as you would expect) a great an interesting read that shows how anarchism could work. Should be on every school’s required reading, especially anyone looking to go into politics. It acknowledges the idealistic nature of anarchism, but Walter makes a point that striving for anarchism will lead us probably two steps behind actual anarchism, which is better than what we have.
March 22, 2011
As far as introductions go, I think there aren't that many to rave about for anarchism. I didn't like Albert Meltzer's, Kropotkin's introductions and thought Emma Goldman's attempt was standard fare. Errico Malatesta's Anarchy is probably the best I have come across.
This by comparison is pretty poor. It gives a brief overview of the various schools, with Walters' own spin but its clear Walter is so on the liberal wing of anarchism its pretty grating to read.
This by comparison is pretty poor. It gives a brief overview of the various schools, with Walters' own spin but its clear Walter is so on the liberal wing of anarchism its pretty grating to read.
July 9, 2009
I've read this boook several times - it is one of the classics of anarchist writing. Bought several copies to give away to people.
November 10, 2009
A basic but decent introduction to broad anarchist ideas. If there is a fault it's that it's perhaps a bit 'big-tent' but that's because it's non-sectarian.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews