What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against
This is the second revised edition of Anarchism: Arguments For and Against and was the edition that Albert Meltzer was working on at the time of his death on May 7th, 1996. This book was an important one to Albert and it was one whose arguments he came back to often in his other writings.
Albert had become increasingly concerned about what he saw as the ghettoisation of anarchism. Separated from the working class base so necessary to achieve social revolution, anarchism could easily fall into the twin traps of philosophical radicalism or revolutionary arrogance, the "we're more militant than anyone else" approach. Both stands have appeared in British anarchism alongside a sometimes demoralising and destructive incestuous approach to revolutionary change. Anarchists talk only to other anarchists and are unable to relate to the vast majority of people who are not of their belief and see anarchism as a rather exotic or illogical idea.
This then was Albert's attempt to examine arguments people may have about why anarchism can never work and to counter them. He also examines the basic tenets of anarchist thought and practice and in doing so destroys some of the myths that have been created about anarchist theory and action. It's a book fro those of us who try to win people over to our ideas in everyday life and such it is a book that tries to break down the walls of the ghetto that anarchism has become trapped in.
Albert had become increasingly concerned about what he saw as the ghettoisation of anarchism. Separated from the working class base so necessary to achieve social revolution, anarchism could easily fall into the twin traps of philosophical radicalism or revolutionary arrogance, the "we're more militant than anyone else" approach. Both stands have appeared in British anarchism alongside a sometimes demoralising and destructive incestuous approach to revolutionary change. Anarchists talk only to other anarchists and are unable to relate to the vast majority of people who are not of their belief and see anarchism as a rather exotic or illogical idea.
This then was Albert's attempt to examine arguments people may have about why anarchism can never work and to counter them. He also examines the basic tenets of anarchist thought and practice and in doing so destroys some of the myths that have been created about anarchist theory and action. It's a book fro those of us who try to win people over to our ideas in everyday life and such it is a book that tries to break down the walls of the ghetto that anarchism has become trapped in.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
10 people are currently reading
435 people want to read
About the author
Albert Meltzer
20 books18 followersAlbert Meltzer, described by Emma Goldman as a "hooligan and rascal who knows nothing of anarchism and syndicalism" was actively involved in the class struggle for 60 years of his life. He is the author of numerous works on anarchism and its practice, and his autobiography, I Couldn't Paint Golden Angels: Sixty Years Of Commonplace LIfe and Anarchist Agitation, was published before he died.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 12, 2023
A BRIEF (AND HONEST) PERSPECTIVE OF MANY ASPECTS OF ‘WORKING CLASS’ ANARCHISM
Author Albert Meltzer wrote in the Introduction to this booklet, “It is not without interest that what might be called the anarchist approach goes back into antiquity; nor that there is an anarchism of sorts in the peasant movements that struggled against State oppression over the centuries. But the modern Anarchist Movement could not claim such precursors of revolt as its own more than the other modern working class theories. To trace the modern Anarchist movement we must look closer to our own times. While there existed libertarian and non-Statist and federalist groups, which we would now call anarchist, before the middle of the nineteenth century, it was only about then that they first became what we now call Anarchists. In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism: Godwin, Proudhon and Hegel. None of the three was in fact an Anarchist, though Proudhon first used the term…” (Pg. iii)
He continues, “Godwin is the father of the Stateless Society Movement; which … diverged into three lines. One, that of the Anarchists… Two, that of American Individualism… the second line of descent … is responsible for the ‘Pacifist Anarchist’ approach… the third school of descent … is simple liberalism… [Godwin’s] idea of the Stateless Society was introduced into the working class movement… For many years… Anarchists continued to form part of the Socialist Movement… By the time of the Second World War, Anarchism had been tried and tested in many revolutionary situations and labor struggles… There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of the philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in practice… The idea of Anarchism survived the failure of anarchist organization.” (Pg. iii-vi)
He states, “Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is here to all the preceding ages. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties, imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the state, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.” (Pg. 1) He notes, “Any class may be revolutionary in its day and time, only a productive class may be libertarian in nature, because it does not need to exploit.” (Pg. 3)
He acknowledges, “It is true that in Great Britain… the anarchists have not yet succeeded in building up an effective organization. This is a valid, internal criticism. But it is untrue to say that there CANNOT BE such a thing as anarchist organization… all organization need not be run from the top downwards.” (Pg. 5)
He asks, “Is pacifism a trend within the anarchist movement? The pacifism of Gandhi, etc., is essentially authoritarian. The cult of non-violence as such always implies an elite, the Satyagrahi, who keep everyone else in check either by force or by moral persuasion. The general history of the orthodox pacifist movements is that they always attempt to dilute the revolutionary movement; but may come down on the side of force either in an imperialist war or buy condoning aggressive actions but the governments it supports. However, it would be true to say that many Anarchists do consider it compatible with their Anarchism to be pacifists.” (Pg. 9-10)
He admits, “Anarchists can, of course, ‘seize power,’ quite as much as strict teetotalers can get blind drunk… but they would require another name afterwards. Anarchists in power would not necessarily be any better or worse than socialists of liberals.; they might be as bad as communists or fascists; they would, we hope be totally ineffective because unprepared, there task is not to ‘seize power’… but to abolish the bases of power. For power to ALL means power to nobody in particular.” (Pg. 11)
He clarifies, “Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system that they wish to abolish (Republicans would abolish the Monarchy; Secularists would abolish the Church… Pacifists would abolish the Army). Anarchists are in fact unique in wishing to abolish all. Nobody but the Anarchists wishes to abolish the police.” (Pg. 15
He suggests, “A FREE SOCIETY would vastly extend the range of communal products that would be free. It might be that ome products were in short supply and would have to be rationed by some means. It could be by ‘labor value’ tickets… it could be by ordinary ‘fair rationing’ in the case of many items, food included; it might be that some means of exchange, similar to money but not based upon the wages system which immediately brings equality, might be used. We cannot lay down economic laws for a future FREE society.” (Pg. 20)
He states, “Work is not something that is GIVEN by the employer. He may have the legal right to distribute work, but only because a demand for it has bene made. He wealth of the country is due to the workers.” (Pg. 21)
He wonders, “‘Who will do the dirty work?’---This is a question society has to ask itself, not merely the anarchist society… Only a clairvoyant could tell what an anarchist society would do; it is plain to all of us what it would NOT do (use force, since it would lack repressive machinery). The question implies a criticism of prosperity and freedom, which bring problems in their train.” (Pg. 22-23)
He admits, “This is often a vexed question: do anarchists believe in leadership or not? Obviously not, because the leadership principle leads to the elite party, and the elite party to government. Yet for all that there IS such a thing as leadership. Some people in some circumstances, do naturally ‘give a lead.’ But this should not mean that they are a class apart.” (Pg. 23)
This brief booklet is not the best ‘overview’ of the subject, but it is a convenient way to introduce some concepts about Anarchism.
Author Albert Meltzer wrote in the Introduction to this booklet, “It is not without interest that what might be called the anarchist approach goes back into antiquity; nor that there is an anarchism of sorts in the peasant movements that struggled against State oppression over the centuries. But the modern Anarchist Movement could not claim such precursors of revolt as its own more than the other modern working class theories. To trace the modern Anarchist movement we must look closer to our own times. While there existed libertarian and non-Statist and federalist groups, which we would now call anarchist, before the middle of the nineteenth century, it was only about then that they first became what we now call Anarchists. In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism: Godwin, Proudhon and Hegel. None of the three was in fact an Anarchist, though Proudhon first used the term…” (Pg. iii)
He continues, “Godwin is the father of the Stateless Society Movement; which … diverged into three lines. One, that of the Anarchists… Two, that of American Individualism… the second line of descent … is responsible for the ‘Pacifist Anarchist’ approach… the third school of descent … is simple liberalism… [Godwin’s] idea of the Stateless Society was introduced into the working class movement… For many years… Anarchists continued to form part of the Socialist Movement… By the time of the Second World War, Anarchism had been tried and tested in many revolutionary situations and labor struggles… There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of the philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in practice… The idea of Anarchism survived the failure of anarchist organization.” (Pg. iii-vi)
He states, “Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is here to all the preceding ages. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties, imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the state, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.” (Pg. 1) He notes, “Any class may be revolutionary in its day and time, only a productive class may be libertarian in nature, because it does not need to exploit.” (Pg. 3)
He acknowledges, “It is true that in Great Britain… the anarchists have not yet succeeded in building up an effective organization. This is a valid, internal criticism. But it is untrue to say that there CANNOT BE such a thing as anarchist organization… all organization need not be run from the top downwards.” (Pg. 5)
He asks, “Is pacifism a trend within the anarchist movement? The pacifism of Gandhi, etc., is essentially authoritarian. The cult of non-violence as such always implies an elite, the Satyagrahi, who keep everyone else in check either by force or by moral persuasion. The general history of the orthodox pacifist movements is that they always attempt to dilute the revolutionary movement; but may come down on the side of force either in an imperialist war or buy condoning aggressive actions but the governments it supports. However, it would be true to say that many Anarchists do consider it compatible with their Anarchism to be pacifists.” (Pg. 9-10)
He admits, “Anarchists can, of course, ‘seize power,’ quite as much as strict teetotalers can get blind drunk… but they would require another name afterwards. Anarchists in power would not necessarily be any better or worse than socialists of liberals.; they might be as bad as communists or fascists; they would, we hope be totally ineffective because unprepared, there task is not to ‘seize power’… but to abolish the bases of power. For power to ALL means power to nobody in particular.” (Pg. 11)
He clarifies, “Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system that they wish to abolish (Republicans would abolish the Monarchy; Secularists would abolish the Church… Pacifists would abolish the Army). Anarchists are in fact unique in wishing to abolish all. Nobody but the Anarchists wishes to abolish the police.” (Pg. 15
He suggests, “A FREE SOCIETY would vastly extend the range of communal products that would be free. It might be that ome products were in short supply and would have to be rationed by some means. It could be by ‘labor value’ tickets… it could be by ordinary ‘fair rationing’ in the case of many items, food included; it might be that some means of exchange, similar to money but not based upon the wages system which immediately brings equality, might be used. We cannot lay down economic laws for a future FREE society.” (Pg. 20)
He states, “Work is not something that is GIVEN by the employer. He may have the legal right to distribute work, but only because a demand for it has bene made. He wealth of the country is due to the workers.” (Pg. 21)
He wonders, “‘Who will do the dirty work?’---This is a question society has to ask itself, not merely the anarchist society… Only a clairvoyant could tell what an anarchist society would do; it is plain to all of us what it would NOT do (use force, since it would lack repressive machinery). The question implies a criticism of prosperity and freedom, which bring problems in their train.” (Pg. 22-23)
He admits, “This is often a vexed question: do anarchists believe in leadership or not? Obviously not, because the leadership principle leads to the elite party, and the elite party to government. Yet for all that there IS such a thing as leadership. Some people in some circumstances, do naturally ‘give a lead.’ But this should not mean that they are a class apart.” (Pg. 23)
This brief booklet is not the best ‘overview’ of the subject, but it is a convenient way to introduce some concepts about Anarchism.
May 29, 2025
Most media, governments, countries, and educational institutions have perpetuated a mythos around anarchism that has resulted in most people carrying a lot of pre-existing baggage about what it means. Anarchism is steeped in notions of wanton disorder, criminality, dishonest anti-liberty framings, barbarism, passing phases of punk teenage rebellion, and an alleged collapse of society which would thrust us into another dark age. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against addresses these notions directly and puts forth a clear philosophy on what anarchism is and what it is not.
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against is an apologia of anarchism. It’s written by a lifelong anarchist - Albert Meltzer. Despite its title implying it may otherwise be a “more objective” (is that possible in politics?) analysis between arguments for and arguments against. The arguments against are presented as the various critiques of opponent factions of anarchism such as fascists, marxists, the average person, social democrats, and so on (put plainly - all statists). Meltzer then works to dismantle their opposing arguments often by pointing at their hypocrisy, illogicality, or dishonesty. It isn’t necessarily bad that Meltzer himself puts forth a title that is a bit deceptive on its surface. I suspect the intent was to lure in the sort of folk who would benefit from his defense and explanations.
Socialism, communism, and anarchism are often lumped together as “the left”. This book helped me draw a clearer boundary (ultimately one of statism and liberty) between anarchist philosophy and communist philosophy.
Overall this is a pretty short, easy read. Meltzer uses brevity and direct language. I can only see people struggling with this if they don’t know the political terminology. You can or should look it up as you go in these instances.
As a quick aside, the cover art also absolutely rips. A marionette with its strings cut reading a book on anarchy goes incredibly hard.
Here are some quotes I grabbed that I’d like to be able to easily return to. I found them all to either be poignant, illuminating, uniquely iconoclastic, delineating, or even sometimes prophetic.
An absolute all-timer clap-back:
On the notion that ultimately we the people can wield immense power in our refusal to be unjust:
Laws are immaterial abstractions and require our willful acceptance:
On power:
Absolute dunk on reformers:
On the perpetuation of crime and the unfortunate absolution of normal people participating in abolishing crime:
We often hear leaders bare a heavy curse, but followers bare an even darker one:
On Statism:
On the suppression and criminalization of syndicalism:
On the hypocrisy of free market economists and the state’s monopoly of a symbolic currency:
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against is an apologia of anarchism. It’s written by a lifelong anarchist - Albert Meltzer. Despite its title implying it may otherwise be a “more objective” (is that possible in politics?) analysis between arguments for and arguments against. The arguments against are presented as the various critiques of opponent factions of anarchism such as fascists, marxists, the average person, social democrats, and so on (put plainly - all statists). Meltzer then works to dismantle their opposing arguments often by pointing at their hypocrisy, illogicality, or dishonesty. It isn’t necessarily bad that Meltzer himself puts forth a title that is a bit deceptive on its surface. I suspect the intent was to lure in the sort of folk who would benefit from his defense and explanations.
Socialism, communism, and anarchism are often lumped together as “the left”. This book helped me draw a clearer boundary (ultimately one of statism and liberty) between anarchist philosophy and communist philosophy.
Overall this is a pretty short, easy read. Meltzer uses brevity and direct language. I can only see people struggling with this if they don’t know the political terminology. You can or should look it up as you go in these instances.
As a quick aside, the cover art also absolutely rips. A marionette with its strings cut reading a book on anarchy goes incredibly hard.
Here are some quotes I grabbed that I’d like to be able to easily return to. I found them all to either be poignant, illuminating, uniquely iconoclastic, delineating, or even sometimes prophetic.
An absolute all-timer clap-back:
“Those who use the word ‘Anarchy’ to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard government as necessary, if they think we could not live without Whitehall directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well-being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that Anarchy means the opposite to what government guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion and consider government to be tyranny, are right too in considering Anarchy (no government) to be liberty. If government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.”
On the notion that ultimately we the people can wield immense power in our refusal to be unjust:
“The old British custom of sentencing poorer classes to death for minor thefts above a small pecuniary value was not abolished by Parliament nor by the judges, but by the final refusal of juries to admit when forced to a guilty verdict that the goods were above that value.”
Laws are immaterial abstractions and require our willful acceptance:
“When minds are changed, laws become obsolete and sooner or later law enforcers are unable to operate them.”
On power:
“Their task is not to ‘seize power’ (those who use this term show that they seek personal power for themselves) but to the bases of power. Power to all means power to nobody in particular.”
Absolute dunk on reformers:
“A ‘reformist’ is not someone who brings about reforms (usually they do not, they divert attention to political manoeuvring): it is someone who can see no further than amelioration of certain parts of the system.”
On the perpetuation of crime and the unfortunate absolution of normal people participating in abolishing crime:
“ ‘What would you do without a police force?’ Anarchists are always asked. Society would never tolerate murder, whether it had a police force or not. The institutionalisation of a body to look after crime means that it not only ‘looks after’ and nourishes crime, but that the rest of society is absolved from doing so.”
We often hear leaders bare a heavy curse, but followers bare an even darker one:
“What above all is the curse of leadership is not the leaders themselves, but agreement to being led blindly - not the faults of the shepherd but the meekness of the sheep. What would the crimes of Hitler have amounted to, had he had to carry them out by himself?”
On Statism:
“[The face of socialism] dropped it libertarian ideas for Statism. ‘Socialism’ gradually came to mean State Control of everything and therefore, so far from being another face of Anarchism, was its direct opposite. From saying originally that ‘the Anarchists were too impatient’ the parliamentary socialists turned to a criticism of the Anarchist levelled at them by people who had no desire to change society at all, whether sooner or later. They picked up what is essentially the conservative criticism of Anarchism which is that the State is the arbiter of all legality and the present economic order is the only established legal order. A stateless society - or even its advocacy - is thus regarded as criminal in itself! It is not as a law but to this day a police constable in court - or a journalist - will, for this reason, refer to Anarchism as if it were self-evidently criminal.”
“Anarchism as such [...] could never be illegal, because no laws can make people love the State. It is only done by false ideals such as describing the State as ‘country’ “
On the suppression and criminalization of syndicalism:
“Since the Russianisation of ‘Communism’, turning away from both parliamentarism and democracy, it has suited the social-democrat to speak of criticism from the revolutionary side as being necessarily from those wanting dictatorship. The Anarchists, who can hardly be accused of dictatorship - [...] - must therefore be ‘criminal’ and whole labour movements have been so stigmatised by the Second International. This was picked up by the U.S. Government with its ‘criminal syndicalism’ legislation which was similar to that in more openly fascist countries.”
On the hypocrisy of free market economists and the state’s monopoly of a symbolic currency:
“Once free socialism competes with capitalism - as it would if we would choose to ignore the State’s symbolic money and deal in one of our own choosing which reflected real work values - who would choose to be exploited? Quite clearly no laissez-faire economist who had to combine his role with that of party politician would allow things to do that far.”
October 12, 2010
An odd and interesting little book. This is a brief volume, numbering scarcely 90 pages--and the pages themselves are small in size. It begins by discussing the nature of anarchism--key tenets, the role of class, viewing a new society. Then, he moves to considering a series of critiques against anarchism--from Marxists, liberals, feminists, fascists, and so on. Then, he rebuts these. Some of his attackes strike me as a demolition project on straw men. Nonetheless, his discussion does provide a pro and con on the critiques and one can get a better sense of the ideological debates involved.
So, an okay book, but one that is a bit brief and a bit simplistic.
So, an okay book, but one that is a bit brief and a bit simplistic.
December 17, 2008
Although a short read, this book a difficult one. Because the language is written in such a complicated way, it takes reading the page 2 or 3 times to fully understand it. For such a difficult read, not much interesting information is conveyed. The one thing that I got from this book is it forever changed the way I think about modern labour unions verses the the more representative unions of the early American labor movement. For that one part, it was worth the read but I would not recommend this book to anyone else, especially those just getting into anarchist ideology.
December 31, 2019
Parts of this book were difficult for me to understand because of the way it was written, but I came out of it with a better idea of anarchism is and why some people oppose it, which is why I picked it up in the first place.
January 26, 2026
My biggest criticisms are based on the writing style and the level of information given. This is definitely useful as a long pamphlet for any anarchist who is looking to convince others to form a more egalitarian society. I got it for $3.95 at a bookshop in Asheville, and I'd never heard about it, and although my rating is low, I'm happy to have it.
This book is really only for people who already have a comprehensive understanding of anarchism as well as other political factions. Albert Meltzer pretty much assumes you know everything and he has to explain nothing. I can't tell whether that comes from laziness, a scattered mind, or a general mission to create a concise, nearly bullet-point style cheat sheet for any anarchist that is already well-informed. At times the writing is very casual, at times more formal. I suppose it's the anarchist in him that rejects consistency and form.
There are some interesting counterpoints to popular arguments against anarchism.
1) If you believe anarchism is bad because it is generally illegal, you not only assume we live under some sort of tyranny which imposes a nonconsensual reality to all, you also must be comfortable with the fact that your own ideology, whether you call it liberal democracy or socialism or whatever, is illegal in many parts of the world, and yet, as things change, these ideas get 'liberated'. So by assuming the illegal aspect of anarchism is bad, you must have a pretty good argument for why legality in this sense is more important than actual democracy.
2) Parliamentarianism is not the same as democracy. The mainstream media and powers that be conflate the two because by pretending elitism is actually consensual rule by the demos, they are able to soothe any argument against it. It begs the question - why doesn't Donald Trump go on tangents about anarchists? I mean, maybe Antifa, because it can easier be obscured and conflated as a group, and because the concept of antifascism is harder to understand than just 'no rules', but there's another reason. Donald Trump and 'conservatives' generally plaster anarchists as Marxists, or woke radical leftists, because this masks the openly authoritarian, statist intentions of modern day liberalism. Essentially, it is easier to rely on prejudice than demonstrate a liberal critique of anarchism in an obviously statist society.
3) Probably the anarchist's central belief is that power corrupts absolutely and so the fight is against power on a personal level. At this point in time, it's difficult and unthinkable for many to understand a world without police. Considering we have gone most of our history on this godforsaken planet without them, this is jarring to the anarchist. We all believe that the people who seek power are not the ones who should have it, yet we call the cops when we feel threatened, and reflexively obey and respect anyone in a uniform. What this means simply is that we have conceded power to the institutions because we believe they are better at handling things than we. A simple analogy: when you lived with your mom, maybe she did your laundry for you. You moved out and started doing it on your own (hopefully before that, but anyways). Would you go back to living with your mom, sacrificing your newfound freedom for convenience? Was it even all that convenient, given the other things? We as a society can look out for each other; we've done it before. We've only become complacent and conceded power to the institutions enough to the point where we see no way out. We've absolved our responsibility; we need to find it again.
This book is really only for people who already have a comprehensive understanding of anarchism as well as other political factions. Albert Meltzer pretty much assumes you know everything and he has to explain nothing. I can't tell whether that comes from laziness, a scattered mind, or a general mission to create a concise, nearly bullet-point style cheat sheet for any anarchist that is already well-informed. At times the writing is very casual, at times more formal. I suppose it's the anarchist in him that rejects consistency and form.
There are some interesting counterpoints to popular arguments against anarchism.
1) If you believe anarchism is bad because it is generally illegal, you not only assume we live under some sort of tyranny which imposes a nonconsensual reality to all, you also must be comfortable with the fact that your own ideology, whether you call it liberal democracy or socialism or whatever, is illegal in many parts of the world, and yet, as things change, these ideas get 'liberated'. So by assuming the illegal aspect of anarchism is bad, you must have a pretty good argument for why legality in this sense is more important than actual democracy.
2) Parliamentarianism is not the same as democracy. The mainstream media and powers that be conflate the two because by pretending elitism is actually consensual rule by the demos, they are able to soothe any argument against it. It begs the question - why doesn't Donald Trump go on tangents about anarchists? I mean, maybe Antifa, because it can easier be obscured and conflated as a group, and because the concept of antifascism is harder to understand than just 'no rules', but there's another reason. Donald Trump and 'conservatives' generally plaster anarchists as Marxists, or woke radical leftists, because this masks the openly authoritarian, statist intentions of modern day liberalism. Essentially, it is easier to rely on prejudice than demonstrate a liberal critique of anarchism in an obviously statist society.
3) Probably the anarchist's central belief is that power corrupts absolutely and so the fight is against power on a personal level. At this point in time, it's difficult and unthinkable for many to understand a world without police. Considering we have gone most of our history on this godforsaken planet without them, this is jarring to the anarchist. We all believe that the people who seek power are not the ones who should have it, yet we call the cops when we feel threatened, and reflexively obey and respect anyone in a uniform. What this means simply is that we have conceded power to the institutions because we believe they are better at handling things than we. A simple analogy: when you lived with your mom, maybe she did your laundry for you. You moved out and started doing it on your own (hopefully before that, but anyways). Would you go back to living with your mom, sacrificing your newfound freedom for convenience? Was it even all that convenient, given the other things? We as a society can look out for each other; we've done it before. We've only become complacent and conceded power to the institutions enough to the point where we see no way out. We've absolved our responsibility; we need to find it again.
December 2, 2019
I found myself agreeing with much of what Meltzer wrote, however, there is a fundamental leap in his logic that makes the entire position untenable. That is the leap of declaring property to be theft. Meltzer does not expand upon what he means by this, neither does any anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist of any stripe.
I think that Meltzer should have studied more economics before he passed away, when he said that “arguments from economics are bunkum” I literally laughed out loud.
His critique of anarcho-capitalism is the weakest critique I have ever read. The book as a whole has reinforced my belief that anarcho-capitalism is the only philosophically consistent variant of anarchism.
Also, this doesn’t disprove his arguments, but my copy of the book was riddled with typos. Not very professional and does not lend credibility
I think that Meltzer should have studied more economics before he passed away, when he said that “arguments from economics are bunkum” I literally laughed out loud.
His critique of anarcho-capitalism is the weakest critique I have ever read. The book as a whole has reinforced my belief that anarcho-capitalism is the only philosophically consistent variant of anarchism.
Also, this doesn’t disprove his arguments, but my copy of the book was riddled with typos. Not very professional and does not lend credibility
Read
July 25, 2023My biggest criticism is that you cannot market this as an introductory text for the “average person” but be inherently isolating to anyone unfamiliar to the fundamental understandings of political ideologies and historical events, as well as use diction that makes the text inaccessible
April 24, 2025
An interesting, short book about anarchism. I would have liked to read about Meltzer’s concept of an anarchist society; the nuts and bolts of how such a society would be run. Maybe that’s in one of his other books.
November 13, 2016
The author assumes familiarity of terms, and given its from the UK even of I did know those terms do they have the same meaning here as there? I'm sure I bought this however many years ago to address my ignorance on the subject. But I don't think I know much more about anarchy than I did this morning when I started it.
August 8, 2007
A very basic (VERY basic) introduction to some sort of anarchist principles--but def. skip this one in place of Murray Bookchin or Noam Chomsky.
February 17, 2013
I really enjoyed this book and read it in just a day would highly recommend!
May 8, 2013
For an academic book review that book was good !
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews