The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism

Pelican Books #32

by Ruth Kinna

Often associated with chaos or disorder, anarchy defies definition and routinely gets a bad press. And yet from Occupy to Pussy Riot, Noam Chomsky to David Graeber, this philosophical and political movement is as relevant as ever. Contrary to popular perception, different strands of anarchism - from individualism to collectivism - do follow certain structures and a shared sense of purpose: a belief in freedom and working towards collective good without the interference of the state.

In this masterful, sympathetic account, political theorist Ruth Kinna traces the tumultuous history of anarchism, starting with thinkers and activists such as Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman and through key events like the Paris Commune and the Haymarket affair. Skillfully introducing us to the nuanced theories of a range of anarchist groups from around the world, The Government of No One reveals what makes a supposedly chaotic movement particularly adaptable and effective over centuries.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Society, Social Justice, Anarchism

411 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2019

Reviews

[Jaweria Sana · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an excellent introduction to anarchism, and as someone who is just starting to identify as an anarchist, I really appreciate Kinna’s insistence throughout the book that anarchism should not be narrowed down to an inflexible, defined political ideology because that would go against its very essence. According to her, the reason it is so hard to crystallise anarchism as a rigid set of principles is because it rejects a structured and cohesive ideological construction. It rejects limiting itself to a few key concepts propounded by white men, because there is the fear that its history and ideology as a movement would be too eurocentric, when in reality, anarchism could be seen as a wide set of movements across time and space, transcending nationalities, and united by their distinctive anti-authority nature. The only somewhat firm and unchanging description that anarchism could have as a substitute for definition is that it’s etymologically derived from the greek word anarchia, literally meaning the govt of no one. And that, according to her, could be considered anarchism’s inherent feature - that it rejects the authority and the existence of a State. Its roots as an anti-state ideology could explain its frictions with marxism, bolshevism, as well as with reactionary right-wing ideologies.

Kinna, in subsequent chapters, explores the practice of anarchism, and the question of the centrality of violence in anarchist propaganda. She provides a very balanced account of organisationalists within the anarchist current who opposed violence as a revolutionary tactic and focused on grassroots organisation, and anti-organisationlist individualists, who believed in propaganda by the deed, and argued that violence by anarchists was a valid response to the structural violence of the state-capital nexus. Kinna also draws our attention to contemporary anarchism, and how its relations to the nineteenth century anarchism, as envisioned by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, have changed and evolved. For instance, feminism as an integral component of anarchism was a fairly recent inclusion, and present-day anarchist politics have become more inclusive as a result of the acknowledgment of intersecting axes of domination that cut across class lines and are also based on the oppression with respect to gender, sexuality, race, religion, etc.
Kinna focuses on the obvious anti-capitalist theme that is central to anarchist politics but she also provides a very neat account of the well-grounded and comprehensive anarchist critique of Marxist class analysis which tends to lump together different oppressed groups under a homogenising proletarian class, and traces the root of every kind of oppression to economic oppression.
The last chapter focuses on the prospects of anarchism, and its success and failures as a movement. She points out that it is nearly impossible to objectively measure how successful anarchism has been in ushering a new utopia, and instead asks the readers to look at anarchism as a process in which anarchists try to adopt anarchisation as a lifestyle. Drawing inspiration from various contemporary movements like Occupy and Pussy Riot, she drives home the point that it’s possible to practise anarchist politics within the realm of the State and capital, and stresses the importance of direct action and mutual aid.
The book is a sympathetic account of the turbulent history, theory and practice of anarchism, and Kinna does a commendable job of bringing to fore not only the various contradictions and conundrums that anarchists face, but also the responses that various anarchists have tried to come up with. This book should not be looked at as a manifesto, in that it doesn’t provide definite answers to a lot of hard questions regarding the practice of anarchism, but as a resource guide for an anarchist who is just beginning to shape their politics along the lines of non-domination.

[Buffalo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a mixed bag. Whilst I appreciate the goal, to represent the variety and diversity of thought that comes under the banner of Anarchism, it suffers from a lack of through-line or structure, and an emphasis on breadth over depth. Without an overall argument or oganising principle, we end up with a series of disorganised chapters each vaguely centred on a broad theme.

As to the lack of structure, Kinna says that this is an attempt to do justice to the spirit of anarchism, which rejects the canonisation of individuals or the requirement of adherence to any specific dogma or idea. This is fair to an extent, but many anarchists have written books true to this spirit which still have a sense of direction and a clear structure (See for instance Peter Marhall's "Demanding the Impossible").

More problematically, many ideas are introduced, but their implications and complexities are not fleshed out with sufficient detail for a proper understanding. A reader new to the topic will therefore come away from the book with a large vocabulary of terms and phrases that anarchists utilise, but an underdeveloped sense of how these terms are interpreted. A book isn't a menu; a little bit of everything isn't necessarily going to give a fuller understanding.

More of a nitpicky point, but some of the examples chosen are bizare. Why the begin the book with the example a not well-known non-anarchist (who turns out to have been a paedophile)? Why choose Tolstoy's christianity as a topic for more detailed discussion, when its influence has been so small relative to other ideas and thinkers?

Nothing in the book is wrong, and overall it isn't terrible. I was just hoping for more.

[Artur Matos · Rating 1 out of 5]

A terrible mess of a book. I've learned more about anarchism from reading Wikipedia than trying to make sense of this book. Disorganized and badly written.

[Gustav Osberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gives a broad but shallow overview of Anarchy’s history, practices, figures and prospects. It mostly serves to introduce topics and other thinkers to look further into, but its applicability is limited. The book’s tone is bland and lacks any vision or passion, making its arguments unconvincing, which is a shame since anarchism and its core pillars of, e.g., self-determination and autonomy are potent concepts.

[mats · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a book I would recommend for someone new to anarchism. Mainly because it is not the most inspiring text, as the author's approach is as neutral and balanced as possible, careful not to reveal any personal sympathies on anything remotely debatable.

Yet I find this book very useful for someone who is already familiar with at least a few aspects of anarchist theory. This thorough academic account offers a systematic mapping that allows to put one's knowledge into broader context. The many distinctions introduced in this book are so clear and well organized that it would probably be possible to schematize most of the text visually.

[Jason Borga · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a history of schisms in anarchist movements since the 19th century this merits four stars. As a general introduction it is a little lacking in theoretical and practical discussion, focusing instead on the timeline of various sub-movements, complete with many diagrams. I would have liked a little more on the philosophical arguments drawn upon by some of the earliest anarchists. There is an admirable attempt made to bring in quotations from authors who are less frequently invoked, but sometimes the quotes themselves just don’t seem to illustrate the intended principles. The most egregious example is a cringe-inducing block from professional neoliberal apologist and former linguist Stephen Pinker. Nonetheless, a worthwhile read for those who want to get an understanding of some of the historical divisions underpinning the current landscape of anarchist and libertarian ideologies.

[Loona Mets · Rating 4 out of 5]

võib-olla mitte just parim sissejuhatus anarhiasse kui ideoloogiasse, kuid kui liikumisega veidi rohkem tuttav olla, on siiski tegu väga huvitava ning põhjaliku ülevaatega paljudest anarhistidest, erinevatest lähenemistest sellele ideoloogiale, anarhistlikest kogukondadest ja liikumistest. raamat, mille juurde kindlasti mitmetel kordadel tagasi kavatsen pöörduda.

"Anarchy doesn't have any platform or vision for society. There is no ideal to strive for; no image of what is perfect. As anarchists, we recognize nothing is perfect, not even nature. And it is the imperfections that we embrace, because it is the opposite of striving for an external ideal. Imperfection means diversity and beauty. We realize that whatever type of life we lead, we will not be perfect; and that no matter what type of community we make, it will not be perfect. Whether in a perfect or imperfect society, problems will arise - both large and small. In a perfect society, these problems are all addressed with the same ideal; however, in an imperfect society they can be dealt with as they really are: each problem is different, needing a different solution." ( Anarchy Against Utopia! )

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent enough attempt to map the history and practice of anarchism and anarchist practice since the time of Proudhon to present date.

Kinna tries to present the history of anarchism and draws out the major threads and themes within anarchist discourse and the areas of divergence sensitively without weighing in on which approaches she prefers. It's a reasonable entry point into the history of anarchism and the aspirations of anarchists but I don't think it makes a particular inspiring case for anarchism. Perhaps because I am broadly familiar with anarchist concepts there seemed little new in the book which meant I found it interesting but not particularly engaging.

The book maps some of the early European figures, it traces the early divergences along the lines of individualism and social anarchism with some really helpful mapping (I find that when I think of anarchism it is rare to stand on one side of the divergence here, recognising that I personally place both these strands really high in my values and principles - I imagine most anarchists are the same. Indeed, I find questioning by some politicos rather bizarre when they ask, 'but what kind of anarchist are you!!). Likewise, there is some really useful mapping of anarchist approaches from insurrectionist and revolutionary approaches to 'small a anarchism' - a term I hadn't heard before. I've realised that as I have got older I am far more aligned to 'small a anarchism', which I have interpreted as living as anarchist a life as possible as an example in a non-anarchist world. A case in point, some of the work I am doing with people right now is about removing hierarchies and where they exist removing the influence of hierarchies and exploring ways of 'getting things done' collaboratively and consensually. I am open about it, but I am sharing with people that this way of working is what anarchists do as we explore decisions being made differently....

I digress, but I hope this shows that the book has given me some value, if only to think about my own approaches a little more.

There is some discussion about anarchist approaches to the future and the concept of utopias (or not!). I think most anarchists dream of a better world but are under no illusions that it is hard work and also always a work in progress. There are several pages wasted in my view sharing the utopic fantasy of Hans Widmer which I interpreted as, 'this is the dream of one man and far away from how a community may imagine a future'. There are also conclusions which are a bit downbeat suggesting that anarchism isn't possible and has failed. I don't accept that - I think society in some cases changes very quickly and in others very slowly. In the absence of a state like body controlling everything anarchism often occurs under the radar and rather than a revolution overnight, anarchists are continually building a future in small ways - preconfiguring the world we want to live in. It's a constant work in progress.

I really like the tight focus of the book - particularly how it draws in the different strands of thought without bringing in adjacent political approaches which are not anarchist (like the confused individuals who are the so-called anarcho-capitalists). I also like that about a fifth of the book is mini-biographies of anarchists mentioned in the book - this moves the book away from the usual three of Kropotkin, Bakunin and Proudhon and is inclusive. There were a few I hadn't heard of before so it was good to read about them. It's a big bugbear of mine when anarchism slips into 'great man-ism' so this was welcome. Anarchist thought didn't stop in 1921 when Kropotkin died!

A good third of the book is footnotes to Kinna's sources - again, this is welcome because the curious can then go and learn more from those whose ideas she tries to pull together.

I guess this is where the book fails to a degree though - I don't think anyone reading it will go, 'right I am an anarchist now' and whilst the mapping of the history and ideas and practices is a great attempt, because the book is quite short it is all at surface level - there is actual very little discussion of 'anarchy in action' other than a few paragraphs here and there.

The book is quite accessible though but will likely leave readers wanting more - the book isn't half as dense as 'An Anarchist FAQ' but if this whets the appetite I'd recommend this text for getting into more detail https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...

Likewise, I think many of the texts referenced will be available in here https://theanarchistlibrary.org/speci...

A good book, which sadly left me wanting just a little bit more.

(I have noticed that the author Ruth Kinna has recently done a podcast with Little Bigger Anarchism https://anchor.fm/little-bigger-anarc...)

[Chris May · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't mind me, just radicalising myself.

[Tammam Aloudat · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always found it difficult to know more about anarchism despite reading a fair amount of its literature. Unlike more "systematic" and formed ideologies where there are canons and bibles to read and supposedly follow, anarchism doesn't accepts gods or masters, or many theorists for that matter. Reading Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Goldman will give many ideas but won't be a fair understanding of the totality of what anarchism is and why it would work. This has changed reading Ruth Kinna's beautifully written book. I have hardly come across a book on a topic this complex and varied that is so readable and enjoyable. Kinna has used this book to tell a story that makes sense and has avoided writing it in an overly scholarly way that would be less readable.

The book makes the intuitive believer, like myself, more informed both of the logic and critique of anarchism and gives the new person much to mull about. All is very useful in an age of vicious capitalism and populism feeding on people and opressing everyone but the 1%, this understanding is needed if such oppression is to be combatted even if one doesn't want to be an "anarchist", there is much to be learned and practiced about collective action and cooperation.

[Rajiv Chopra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book by Ruth Kinna is good, but not perfect. It is a good place to start if you want to understand the historical antecedents of anarchic thought. It appears, however, that most authors who developed and propagated anarchic thought lived in Europe towards the end of the 19th century.

Ruth Kinna has focussed, therefore, on these authors. There are some significant points that most people forget and which she points out:
1. Most anarchists are doomed to failure or do not fully achieve their ends
2. Anarchism does not equate with violence.

While she has done an excellent job in analyzing people like Tolstoy or Kropotin she has not paid enough attention to modern anarchists. Political and social contexts have changed since the 19th century, and the world is an interconnected place. There are anarchists everywhere.

She ought to write a follow-up book that brings anarchic thought into the current context.

[Price Northington · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is an essential primer for any person who’s already on some level immersed or at the very least aware of anarchism as an ideology. If you’re completely unaware, I might recommend others. Instead of providing the depth of analysis that a historical book may have on a specific topic, this book covers a wide range of topics and presents the history of anarchism instead.

What this presentation does is cover the wide range of ideas and developments over the course of its history and presents this in an approachable and streamlined manner. There are some moments that give me pause such as the reference to the SCUM Manifesto being a piece of anarcha-feminist literature despite the author never citing herself as one, but due to how she approaches the rest of the book, this is either a blip that can be overlooked or has context that may be lacking from this book.

What this book does well more than anything is serve a narration of a reference collection. She references a 1,000 and 1 names that have touched the history of this ideology and gives a million different places for any interested reader or existing anarchist to dive into to gain further knowledge of whatever topic they choose.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong and wide-ranging exploration of anarchist thought and practice. I particularly liked the ability of the author to navigate the nuances and complexity of anarchism while maintaining clear sight on the goals of freedom (non-domination), equality and solidarity.

"The emergence of urban guerrilla movements prompted a new debate about political violence. One of the central arguments of the widely circulated pamphlet You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship was that urban guerrillaism replicates the relationships of domination in the state. It was ‘vanguardist and authoritarian’. … “It is fractured thinking to identify the essence of revolution as illegality or as armed confrontation with the repressive instruments of the state. This totally obscures the essence of our objection to this society which is not simply a disgust with state violence … The essence of revolution is not armed confrontation with the state but the nature of the movements which back it up, and this will depend on the kinds of relationships and ideas amongst people in the groups, community councils, workers councils, etc. that emerge in the social conflict.”

[Roel Peters · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is truly packed with anarchist ideas and history. It's telling that a third of the book's pages are biographies and references. I think the author did a terrific job at amassing all this information. However, the structure of this book is a complete mess. The five chapters made no sense and felt like a long unstructured blob. It would have been the same book without any chapters at all. Luckily, I have a background in political theory. Otherwise, this book would be really hard to digest.

I'm only starting my journey into anarchist theory, and I did get from this book what I expected from it. On top of that, the book contains some very compelling arguments against things that we take for granted in the western world: democracy, a constitution, laws, individualism, ...

An interesting read, but a very tough one, given the vague structure of the book. I wouldn't recommend it to a lot of people.

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

The standard recommendations for an overall anarchist history usually fall to the now increasingly out-of-date Anarchism by George Woodcock, or Peter Marshall's enormous Demanding the Impossible. The former is over 50 years old, and the latter can keep your head spinning with plenty of detours into the deeper recesses of philosophy. All of which means that a contemporary, lightweight account is more than due. This is a lightning quick read and never gets bogged down, while the biographical section at the end means that the flow or the main text isn't concerned too much with back stories.

[Luke Echo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I made it halfway through this meandering text before giving up. Kinna clearly draws on a wealth of familiarity with the "canon" of anarchism, but, as other readers have remarked, the text lacks structure and motivation.

Random facts and snippets are strung together in a bewildering manner that leaves one wanting something. The discussion of theory/philosophy is unsatisfying, as the justifications for certain positions are never revealed. There is a lot of historical detail, but it doesn't coalesce into anything. I just couldn't be bothered finishing it.

[samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was a great start for me to learn about anarchism and it's criticism, whether it's between anarchists themselves or non-anarchists. i still need a re-read probably just to get more closure, but at least i got the basics. i know the framework and i know which i can identify with the most. sometimes i find it difficult to comprehend the debates between A or B, but i think Ruth Kinna was able to conclude several key points.

[Stephen King · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phew, this isn’t what you’d call an ‘easy read’ but I certainly came away with a much more nuanced understanding of the range of philosophies and traditions which fall under the umbrella of ‘anarchist’ thought - from federated self help orgs to communalism to the occupy movements. It also has a useful compendium of biographies of key anarchist thinkers and activists.

[Pame · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good a introduction for anarchisim. Ruth Kinna has great insights but sometimes I felt the conclusions were not strong or were a little bit vague. I was specially dissapointed by the last chapter were she does not have a strong point about the feasibility of anarchisim. Overall is a good book if you are discovering anarchisim since is full with references.

[Alexei · Rating 4 out of 5]

Не что-то особенное, но книга даёт хороший экскурс в историю анархизма, позволяет составить собственный курс по дальнейшему изучению анархистских идей. Информативно, полезно. Многие пишут, что книга не способна зажечь в читателе то самое бакунинское пламя анархии, и это так, но мне кажется, она и не для того писалась. А поставленные цели она выполняет вполне.

[Tom Booker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introduction to and overview of anarchism. Will teach you the different spectrums to which different anarchists belong to. Also has biographical information on anarchists that are addressed in the book. The author is anarchist or has sympathies to anarchism, but treats all the material in a neutral and fair tone.

[Becky · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't know if I'm just being stupid but this felt very poorly structured and was a bit of a slog to get through. learnt some cool stuff though and the biography seems particularly useful for further reading!

[Jean Gourevitch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very poor written book, not analogical and flowy, but rather chaotic and rather boring. I could be interested in a few pages, then 60 pages of boredom, than another good 20. Wasn't worth it, Wouldn't recommend for new anarchists.

[Mark Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

It doesn't make a clear or convincing case for anarchism. To be fair, that may be more of a reflection of the deficiencies of anarchist ideas than of this book.

[Constantin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good anthology of prominent and idiosyncratic anarchist thinkers and anarchistic debates throughout history.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great coverage and comparative review of anarchist thought and history

[Liam Keegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book as a start point, but for people who perhaps know a little more than the very basics, there are probably better alternatives out there

[Bokpetra · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

[Lizzie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for a university course on politics and freedom. did the job.

[Mahender Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introductory book on Anarchism