What do you think?
Rate this book
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm
This book asks—and tries to answer—several basic questions that affect all Leftists today. Will anarchism remain a revolutionary social movement or become a chic boutique lifestyle subculture? Will its primary goals be the complete transformation of a hierarchical, class, and irrational society into a libertarian communist one? Or will it become an ideology focused on personal well-being, spiritual redemption, and self-realization within the existing society?
In an era of privatism, kicks, introversion, and post-modernist nihilism, Murray Bookchin forcefully examines the growing nihilistic trends that threaten to undermine the revolutionary tradition of anarchism and co-opt its fragments into a harmless personalistic, yuppie ideology of social accommodation that presents no threat to the existing powers that be. Includes the essay, "The Left That Was."
In an era of privatism, kicks, introversion, and post-modernist nihilism, Murray Bookchin forcefully examines the growing nihilistic trends that threaten to undermine the revolutionary tradition of anarchism and co-opt its fragments into a harmless personalistic, yuppie ideology of social accommodation that presents no threat to the existing powers that be. Includes the essay, "The Left That Was."
86 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1995
21 people are currently reading
1184 people want to read
About the author
Murray Bookchin
120 books637 followersMurray Bookchin was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement, Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
November 3, 2008
A necessary critique, but bookchin, may he rest in peace, had a tendency to get a rather boring. This book forever changed the state of namecalling in the anarchist community, and chumbawamba even wrote a song about it.
January 23, 2022
I'm reading this for a writing project I'm working on, and it's turning out to be quite valuable despite Bookchin's histrionics (great thanks to my top boy Carl F. for the rec).
If "the left" can agree on anything, it's that we agree on nothing - on who the left consists of even, in the first place. Bookchin's particular gripe here is with a specific brand of anarchists - he terms them "lifestylists." For Bookchin, there are two kinds of anarchists. One lineage, the social anarchists, which starts at Kropotkin and Bakunin, has social "freedom" as its end goal. Thus social anarchism is definitionally transformative, i.e., it conceives of itself as firmly against capital; it organizes, struggles, with the view of achieving freedom for everyone. In this view of anarchism, interdependence always exists, freedom is always a social experience.
The other brand of anarchism is lifestylism, a libertarian form of anarchism whose proto practitioner was Pierre Joseph Proudhon (the very same one whom Marx brutally excoriated in "The Poverty of Philosophy"). Lifestylism's inward turn marks it. Its object is individual autonomy. According to Bookchin, modern lifestylism, starting from the situationists, consists of no more than "petty-bourgeois exotica, ... middle-class indulgences" masquerading as politics.
Lifestylists want, more than anything, to be left alone by the state to pursue their little projects of individual thriving. Having given up on their belief in the capacity of the state to change in fundamental ways, they resort to carving out spaces of transgression for themselves. Foucault then - with his notions of "personal insurrection" (and I suppose Judith Butler as well, with her thing about "playful subversion") is their high priest. What the lifestylists want is autonomy for themselves, the hollow cousin of freedom for all.
Bookchin thinks that the kind of anarchism espoused by the lifestylists is socially innocuous, "merely a safety valve for discontent against the prevailing order". Its aversion to institutions and collective action, its largely subcultural orientation combined with its tendency towards hedonic pursuit, means that bourgeois liberal society has nothing to fear from it. In the end, thinks Bookchin, lifestylism is selfishness as politics - or, in this case, apolitics.
I agree. There are few things more grating than running into a smug, self-satisfied leftist. Having given up on obtaining power (let alone using it) as a viable political project, this type of leftist - often a privileged one who can afford a sense of ironic detachment about the entire thing, resorts to criticism without material substance, to self improvement instead of collective organizing (and I have, many times, been this leftist). Thus, we end up being more interested in the minutiae of Lyotard and Deleuze's disagreements, for example, than in remediable actual life instances of poverty and other kinds of suffering in our communities. In turn, we forget that, as Rorty noted, we live in a real country populated by real people, and that the lives of these people could be transformed by organized and concerted pursuits of political power by the left.
One need not even buy Bookchin's anarchism for this position to hold, Any encounter with power by those who do not have it results either in confrontation or in retreat. The sort of retreat Bookchin is locating in the lifestylists exists even in those leftists who are not anarchists. These leftists need not envision no state at all. They could be the kind whose politics call, instead, for a different kind of state - one that works for its people. Nevertheless, these leftists, by doing nothing to bring about such a state, deciding, instead, to "work on themselves", deserve Bookchin's criticism just as much.
So while Bookchin here continues the grand old tradition of the left criticizing the left (for, funnily, being nothing more than an anti-materialist, purely rhetorically critical left), I think this is, despite his terrible style, one of those times it's warranted. Some of us fuckers on the left need to hear this shit.
If "the left" can agree on anything, it's that we agree on nothing - on who the left consists of even, in the first place. Bookchin's particular gripe here is with a specific brand of anarchists - he terms them "lifestylists." For Bookchin, there are two kinds of anarchists. One lineage, the social anarchists, which starts at Kropotkin and Bakunin, has social "freedom" as its end goal. Thus social anarchism is definitionally transformative, i.e., it conceives of itself as firmly against capital; it organizes, struggles, with the view of achieving freedom for everyone. In this view of anarchism, interdependence always exists, freedom is always a social experience.
The other brand of anarchism is lifestylism, a libertarian form of anarchism whose proto practitioner was Pierre Joseph Proudhon (the very same one whom Marx brutally excoriated in "The Poverty of Philosophy"). Lifestylism's inward turn marks it. Its object is individual autonomy. According to Bookchin, modern lifestylism, starting from the situationists, consists of no more than "petty-bourgeois exotica, ... middle-class indulgences" masquerading as politics.
Lifestylists want, more than anything, to be left alone by the state to pursue their little projects of individual thriving. Having given up on their belief in the capacity of the state to change in fundamental ways, they resort to carving out spaces of transgression for themselves. Foucault then - with his notions of "personal insurrection" (and I suppose Judith Butler as well, with her thing about "playful subversion") is their high priest. What the lifestylists want is autonomy for themselves, the hollow cousin of freedom for all.
Bookchin thinks that the kind of anarchism espoused by the lifestylists is socially innocuous, "merely a safety valve for discontent against the prevailing order". Its aversion to institutions and collective action, its largely subcultural orientation combined with its tendency towards hedonic pursuit, means that bourgeois liberal society has nothing to fear from it. In the end, thinks Bookchin, lifestylism is selfishness as politics - or, in this case, apolitics.
I agree. There are few things more grating than running into a smug, self-satisfied leftist. Having given up on obtaining power (let alone using it) as a viable political project, this type of leftist - often a privileged one who can afford a sense of ironic detachment about the entire thing, resorts to criticism without material substance, to self improvement instead of collective organizing (and I have, many times, been this leftist). Thus, we end up being more interested in the minutiae of Lyotard and Deleuze's disagreements, for example, than in remediable actual life instances of poverty and other kinds of suffering in our communities. In turn, we forget that, as Rorty noted, we live in a real country populated by real people, and that the lives of these people could be transformed by organized and concerted pursuits of political power by the left.
One need not even buy Bookchin's anarchism for this position to hold, Any encounter with power by those who do not have it results either in confrontation or in retreat. The sort of retreat Bookchin is locating in the lifestylists exists even in those leftists who are not anarchists. These leftists need not envision no state at all. They could be the kind whose politics call, instead, for a different kind of state - one that works for its people. Nevertheless, these leftists, by doing nothing to bring about such a state, deciding, instead, to "work on themselves", deserve Bookchin's criticism just as much.
So while Bookchin here continues the grand old tradition of the left criticizing the left (for, funnily, being nothing more than an anti-materialist, purely rhetorically critical left), I think this is, despite his terrible style, one of those times it's warranted. Some of us fuckers on the left need to hear this shit.
April 24, 2017
Viewed by many as dogmatic sectarianism this book has stirred much hatred for Bookchin and his work, and has almost irreparably destroyed his reputation.
Almost needless to say that such reactions are grounded very little in reality. Herein one finds very valid critiques (and even by Bookchin's admission incomplete) of what he deemed what is essentially anti-social behavior—or in other words: a commitment to oneself and a fuck-everyone else attitude. The notion that this is somehow sectarian is absolutely absurd, what Bookchin decries is that one cannot engage in any meaningful organization with people with these kinds of attitudes, which is almost a truism. Most poignantly, one must observe that these attitudes antagonistic to social organization are also to be found amongst the most avid liberals who know nothing but capitalism, and it is the saddest state to see the same mirrored in the left.
I have barely encountered few individuals with unwavering commitment to egoism (not even in a Stirnerite sense), and it was impossible to work with them on the most mild of things without stretching my wits to the limit. I cannot even imagine the pent up frustrations Bookchin had when writing this given his lifelong experience.
Now, besides a personal defense of these two essays it is important to emphasize that Bookchin also makes some very important clarifications regarding his work thus far, as a response to his critics.
Furthermore, the last essay, "The Left That Was: A Personal Reflection", is nothing short of heartbreaking, showcasing the tragedy of the left:
"If no such politics [anti-militarist, anti-nationalist, internationalist left] does not exist, the term Left should be permitted to perish with honor."
Almost needless to say that such reactions are grounded very little in reality. Herein one finds very valid critiques (and even by Bookchin's admission incomplete) of what he deemed what is essentially anti-social behavior—or in other words: a commitment to oneself and a fuck-everyone else attitude. The notion that this is somehow sectarian is absolutely absurd, what Bookchin decries is that one cannot engage in any meaningful organization with people with these kinds of attitudes, which is almost a truism. Most poignantly, one must observe that these attitudes antagonistic to social organization are also to be found amongst the most avid liberals who know nothing but capitalism, and it is the saddest state to see the same mirrored in the left.
I have barely encountered few individuals with unwavering commitment to egoism (not even in a Stirnerite sense), and it was impossible to work with them on the most mild of things without stretching my wits to the limit. I cannot even imagine the pent up frustrations Bookchin had when writing this given his lifelong experience.
Now, besides a personal defense of these two essays it is important to emphasize that Bookchin also makes some very important clarifications regarding his work thus far, as a response to his critics.
Furthermore, the last essay, "The Left That Was: A Personal Reflection", is nothing short of heartbreaking, showcasing the tragedy of the left:
"If no such politics [anti-militarist, anti-nationalist, internationalist left] does not exist, the term Left should be permitted to perish with honor."
Read
January 14, 2008This book is really a big waste. Bookchin wanted to engage in a silly sectarian brawl and ends up a loser. His other works were influential in their time and have some interest still but i'd pass on this one.
August 31, 2015
Although this beautifully refutes all the bullshit so dominant in nowadays' left, it does so in the most sectarian of ways.
I've found it quite easy to decide and act with both anarcho-individualists and social anarchists. The big obstacle being sectarians from either side. Toleration really is a gift.
Not so much an unbridgeable chism, but an overblown and unnecessary reaction to an anarchist quism.
I've found it quite easy to decide and act with both anarcho-individualists and social anarchists. The big obstacle being sectarians from either side. Toleration really is a gift.
Not so much an unbridgeable chism, but an overblown and unnecessary reaction to an anarchist quism.
December 22, 2010
Dogmatic crap.
February 20, 2020
This book comprises two essays: Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism and The Left That Was: A Personal Reflection.
The first, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, contrasts good and decent anarchist movements (social anarchists) with what Bookchin designates "lifestyle anarchism", by which, it turns out, he means any anarchists he doesn't like.
So far so good, mostly, but the execution leaves much to be desired, consisting as it does mainly of quoting various relatively high-profile anarchist writers who may or may not actually be awful people (Hakim Bey certainly is), laying out a few things they said, and expecting you to find them self-evidently objectionable. The fact that most of these people and much of their considerable following almost certainly would not reject or even take significant issue with the label "individualist" should be evidence enough that this is in no way sufficient.
Having not dealt with individualists that way, he then turns his attention first to poststructuralists and finally to primitivists, which have in common with individualists that they something something. He handles them in the same way, and when it comes to primitivists specifically agrees with some of their arguments and offers caveats that few actual anarcho-primitivists I've known would disagree with (though Zerzan, Bookchin's main foe for this section, presumably would). He also clearly has a view of pre-industrial and paleolithic societies that was many decades out of date even in 1995, however, and ironically at least as shaky as that of the worst primitivists, just in a different way.†
There are some good quotable lines in the conclusion,‡ but they feel like they should be following a much better essay. It's not that (all of) Bookchin's positions are bad—far from it! It's that unless you already agree with them—and many people, myself included, will—this essay will do nothing whatsoever to convince you or even to explain why things are the way they are. At best it should be seen as words of courage to a beleaguered majority-that's-convinced-itself-it's-a-minority, but that only works to the extent that only the choir it preaches to reads it; its actual effect has been and will continue to be to stoke sectarian infighting while contributing nothing except another set of names to call people.
The Left That Was is a shorter piece lamenting the decline of internationalism in modern leftist movements compared to those of the 19th and early 20th centuries (including the rise of allegedly leftist "national liberation" movements), and is generally less objectionable, though his historical overview is obviously guilty of the expected ahistorical and fundamentally idealist criticism levelled at the Soviet Union. It, too, exists only to whine that leftists are lefting wrong, and it, too, is right but not as persuasive as it could and should have been.
One day I'm going to find an anarchist writer who doesn't make me hesitant to call myself an anarchist too loudly, but it wasn't today.
--------
† Also: "Ironically, even the collective that produces Fifth Estate found it could not do without a computer and was “forced” to purchase one — issuing the disingenuous disclaimer, “We hate it!” Denouncing an advanced technology while using it to generate antitechnological literature is not only disingenuous but has sanctimonious dimensions:Such “hatred” of computers seems more like the belch of the privileged, who, having overstuffed themselve with delicacies, extol the virtues of poverty during Sunday prayers."
‡ "To argue that democracy and anarchism are incompatible because any impediment to the wishes of even “a minority of one” constitutes a violation of personal autonomy is to advocate not a free society but Brown's “collection of individuals” — in short, a herd. No longer would “imagination” come to “power.” Power, which always exists, will belong either to the collective in a face-to-face and clearly institutionalized democracy, or to the egos of a few oligarchs who will produce a “tyranny of structurelessness.”"
The first, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, contrasts good and decent anarchist movements (social anarchists) with what Bookchin designates "lifestyle anarchism", by which, it turns out, he means any anarchists he doesn't like.
In the traditionally individualist-liberal United States and Britain, the 1990s are awash in self-styled anarchists who — their flamboyant radical rhetoric aside — are cultivating a latter-day anarcho-individualism that I will call lifestyle anarchism. Its preoccupations with the ego and its uniqueness and its polymorphous concepts of resistance are steadily eroding the socialistic character of the libertarian tradition. No less than Marxism and other socialisms, anarchism can be profoundly influenced by the bourgeois environment it professes to oppose, with the result that the growing “inwardness” and narcissism of the yuppie generation have left their mark upon many avowed radicals. Ad hoc adventurism, personal bravura, an aversion to theory oddly akin to the antirational biases of postmodernism, celebrations of theoretical incoherence (pluralism), a basically apolitical and anti-organisational commitment to imagination, desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of everyday life, reflect the toll that social reaction has taken on Euro-American anarchism over the past two decades.
So far so good, mostly, but the execution leaves much to be desired, consisting as it does mainly of quoting various relatively high-profile anarchist writers who may or may not actually be awful people (Hakim Bey certainly is), laying out a few things they said, and expecting you to find them self-evidently objectionable. The fact that most of these people and much of their considerable following almost certainly would not reject or even take significant issue with the label "individualist" should be evidence enough that this is in no way sufficient.
Having not dealt with individualists that way, he then turns his attention first to poststructuralists and finally to primitivists, which have in common with individualists that they something something. He handles them in the same way, and when it comes to primitivists specifically agrees with some of their arguments and offers caveats that few actual anarcho-primitivists I've known would disagree with (though Zerzan, Bookchin's main foe for this section, presumably would). He also clearly has a view of pre-industrial and paleolithic societies that was many decades out of date even in 1995, however, and ironically at least as shaky as that of the worst primitivists, just in a different way.†
There are some good quotable lines in the conclusion,‡ but they feel like they should be following a much better essay. It's not that (all of) Bookchin's positions are bad—far from it! It's that unless you already agree with them—and many people, myself included, will—this essay will do nothing whatsoever to convince you or even to explain why things are the way they are. At best it should be seen as words of courage to a beleaguered majority-that's-convinced-itself-it's-a-minority, but that only works to the extent that only the choir it preaches to reads it; its actual effect has been and will continue to be to stoke sectarian infighting while contributing nothing except another set of names to call people.
The Left That Was is a shorter piece lamenting the decline of internationalism in modern leftist movements compared to those of the 19th and early 20th centuries (including the rise of allegedly leftist "national liberation" movements), and is generally less objectionable, though his historical overview is obviously guilty of the expected ahistorical and fundamentally idealist criticism levelled at the Soviet Union. It, too, exists only to whine that leftists are lefting wrong, and it, too, is right but not as persuasive as it could and should have been.
One day I'm going to find an anarchist writer who doesn't make me hesitant to call myself an anarchist too loudly, but it wasn't today.
--------
† Also: "Ironically, even the collective that produces Fifth Estate found it could not do without a computer and was “forced” to purchase one — issuing the disingenuous disclaimer, “We hate it!” Denouncing an advanced technology while using it to generate antitechnological literature is not only disingenuous but has sanctimonious dimensions:Such “hatred” of computers seems more like the belch of the privileged, who, having overstuffed themselve with delicacies, extol the virtues of poverty during Sunday prayers."
‡ "To argue that democracy and anarchism are incompatible because any impediment to the wishes of even “a minority of one” constitutes a violation of personal autonomy is to advocate not a free society but Brown's “collection of individuals” — in short, a herd. No longer would “imagination” come to “power.” Power, which always exists, will belong either to the collective in a face-to-face and clearly institutionalized democracy, or to the egos of a few oligarchs who will produce a “tyranny of structurelessness.”"
February 18, 2022
i read this a few days ago as a PDF that my friend sent to me and i didn't realize it was listed as a book on goodreads until yesterday, so here's my belated review. i think bookchin effectively identifies a corruptive force within the anarchist community, that being the lean towards petty bourgeois individualism. this is the idea that one's (privileged) choices to live outside of capitalism and focus upon self-improvement rather than building power is of any value in achieving socialistic anarchist ends, which bookchin argues, and i agree, it does not. he provides plentiful material for dunking on the dumpster-divers and camo-wearers who have never made any attempt at community organizing, at building power and working towards liberation for actual working class people, because of course the material conditions of lifestyle anarchists don't necessitate such action.
as someone quite immersed in this community, i had lots of fun with his message. that being said, this was boring and needlessly bogged down by discourse about other contemporary anarchist writers which, as someone who has yet to read much anarchist theory, i had a difficult time getting through. my real qualm with this book, however, is bookchin's complete dismissal of indigenous peoples, and, to a lesser extent, other non-western spiritualities or philosophies. he claims that anthropologists misunderstand and misinterpret the indigenous peoples they study, and he would be correct, but without having any knowledge of his own about the many, greatly varied cultures about which he is writing, he dismisses all indigenous cultures uniformly as following the same core tenants of western culture, of being exploitative of land and spiritually inept. he prioritizes enlightenment thinking above all, dismisses non-western thought and the immeasurable, irreversible damage western culture has done to the many colonized peoples of the world and the planet itself, and somehow considers this a takedown of zine-writers living off of daddy's money in gentrified neighborhoods.
as someone quite immersed in this community, i had lots of fun with his message. that being said, this was boring and needlessly bogged down by discourse about other contemporary anarchist writers which, as someone who has yet to read much anarchist theory, i had a difficult time getting through. my real qualm with this book, however, is bookchin's complete dismissal of indigenous peoples, and, to a lesser extent, other non-western spiritualities or philosophies. he claims that anthropologists misunderstand and misinterpret the indigenous peoples they study, and he would be correct, but without having any knowledge of his own about the many, greatly varied cultures about which he is writing, he dismisses all indigenous cultures uniformly as following the same core tenants of western culture, of being exploitative of land and spiritually inept. he prioritizes enlightenment thinking above all, dismisses non-western thought and the immeasurable, irreversible damage western culture has done to the many colonized peoples of the world and the planet itself, and somehow considers this a takedown of zine-writers living off of daddy's money in gentrified neighborhoods.
November 19, 2007
bookchin goes too far in his attempt to create an "unbridgeable chasm" between "social anarchists" and "lifestyle anarchists" in this polemic. there are a lot of good points here, mostly in relation to individualism and how it can degrade movements for social change. but bookchin takes it too far, lashing out at everything he identifies with a left-too-new, and his essay, "The Left That Was", at the end of the book is pure nostalgia and reveals his pessimism and lack of understanding over the Left That Is. i'm not saying the current left isn't without it's problems, including a focus on lifestyle changes rather than systemic changes, but bookchin goes too far in condemning movement activists of today.
also, he lashes out against spirituality and primitivism because they're not reasonable enough (bookchin favors the "Enlightenment"). again some good points, but he also reveals his unwillingness to adapt to new information and realities, such as the overwhelming anthropological research that shows a higher quality of life for 'primitive' people, living without classes and a State that force us to work and consume needlessly, such as in the industrial capitalism of today. i don't see how you can proclaim the end of classes and the State, then turn around and bash those cultures who live(d) without classes and the State as "harsh" and "brutish".
sorry if this review makes it seem like bookchin is a technophile anti-environmentalist, he is certainly not. i agree with him 98% on everything. he's 2% a grump.
also, he lashes out against spirituality and primitivism because they're not reasonable enough (bookchin favors the "Enlightenment"). again some good points, but he also reveals his unwillingness to adapt to new information and realities, such as the overwhelming anthropological research that shows a higher quality of life for 'primitive' people, living without classes and a State that force us to work and consume needlessly, such as in the industrial capitalism of today. i don't see how you can proclaim the end of classes and the State, then turn around and bash those cultures who live(d) without classes and the State as "harsh" and "brutish".
sorry if this review makes it seem like bookchin is a technophile anti-environmentalist, he is certainly not. i agree with him 98% on everything. he's 2% a grump.
July 3, 2015
Bookchin's worst book is a total waste of time. Don't pick it up unless you're interested in dogmatic rants and sectarian infighting.
November 11, 2009
As an anarchist who seeks a revolution in social and economic relations, what can one make of those who also claim the the anarchist label, but whose ideology seems not to stray beyond dumpster-diving and primitivism? Bookchin tackles this latter group – the “lifestyle anarchists,” as opposed to the “social anarchists” – head-on, forcefully arguing that their political program (if they can be said to have one) is inconsequential, able to be accomodated within existing power structures, and “insulat[ed:] from social reality.” What else to make of an ideology that for many means a return to a non-existent harmonious past, the elimination of technology, or even “voluntary illiteracy”? I would like to see more from Bookchin on the adherents of lifestyle anarchism rather than just the theorists, though he does ably dispose of the latter in short and convincing order.
May 1, 2011
Exhibit A: a good short introduction into what's plaguing modern anarchism. Saying there are bourgeois influences within anarchism is nothing new. Chomsky had stated long ago anarchism can absorb a plethora of influences, which is to its credit and hindrance. This book particularly has Hakim Bey and a number of others in its cross-hairs for promoting that which is the antithesis of social anarchism; safe lifestyle choices. Any option to overturn the state and capital requires social antagonism and grounded on a movements, and Bookchin really stresses this against various offenders who are peddling mysticism, individualism, anti-civilisation doctrines. A little over-stated at times but required reading nonetheless.
October 27, 2021
I think the reviews on this text are hilarious (insomuch as they are, in some sense, ridiculous). As far as the title goes, Bookchin does what he wants to do, for the most part. He repudiates lifestylism effectively through his four tenets of social anarchism, including critiques of its mysticism, egocentrism, and vagary. Fans of Stirner beware! (Tbh, I've not read Stirner much, but this text has convinced me to read briefly.)
Bookchin, at one point, attempts anthropology of indigenous cultures to prove the unsustainability of lifestylists' mystic and anti-primitivist idealizations. It's fine, but not well-researched/cited.
Worth a read if you're interested in lifestyle vs. social anarchism, but doesn't have much else to offer. I picked it up because of a Facebook thread lol.
Bookchin, at one point, attempts anthropology of indigenous cultures to prove the unsustainability of lifestylists' mystic and anti-primitivist idealizations. It's fine, but not well-researched/cited.
Worth a read if you're interested in lifestyle vs. social anarchism, but doesn't have much else to offer. I picked it up because of a Facebook thread lol.
Read
September 27, 2007This is an excellent critique of lifestyle anarchism by Murray Bookchin. He systematically rejects and negates several post-leftist anarchists and distinguishes the difference between autonomy and liberation. I found his critiques of John Zerzan's primitivism and Peter Lamborn Wilson(Hakim Bey) temporary autonomous zones and ontological anarchy to be very devastating.
March 9, 2025
Interesante! Muy de nicho, pero con buenas reflexiones. Lo más interesante es tanto el principio como el final. También a veces demasiado faltón y poco analítico. Pero muy guay. Tengo ganas de leer su libro de ecología.
"El poder siempre existirá, pertenecerá o bien a la comunidad en una democracia directa cara a cara y claramente institucional o bien en los egos de unos pocos oligarcas que crearán una tiranía de falta de estructura." Inquietante afirmación, teniendo en cuenta que es un libro de hace algún tiempo.
"El poder siempre existirá, pertenecerá o bien a la comunidad en una democracia directa cara a cara y claramente institucional o bien en los egos de unos pocos oligarcas que crearán una tiranía de falta de estructura." Inquietante afirmación, teniendo en cuenta que es un libro de hace algún tiempo.
October 12, 2025
a very necessary critique of individualist anarchism
"Ad hoc adventurism, personal bravura, an aversion to theory oddly akin to the antirational biases of postmodernism, celebrations of theoretical incoherence (pluralism), a basically apolitical and anti-organizational commitment to imagination, desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of everyday life, reflect the toll that social reaction has taken on Euro-American anarchism over the past two decades."
"Where social anarchism called upon people to rise in revolution and seek the reconstruction of society, the irate petty bourgeois who populate the subcultural world of lifestyle anarchism calls for episodic rebelion"
"Ad hoc adventurism, personal bravura, an aversion to theory oddly akin to the antirational biases of postmodernism, celebrations of theoretical incoherence (pluralism), a basically apolitical and anti-organizational commitment to imagination, desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of everyday life, reflect the toll that social reaction has taken on Euro-American anarchism over the past two decades."
"Where social anarchism called upon people to rise in revolution and seek the reconstruction of society, the irate petty bourgeois who populate the subcultural world of lifestyle anarchism calls for episodic rebelion"
June 24, 2018
Autonomy, like liberty, refers to the man (or woman) who Plato would have ironically called the "master of himself," a condition "when the better principle of the human soul controls the worse."
Brown's work exhibits the extent to which concepts of personal autonomy stand at odds with concepts of social freedom. In essence, like Goodman she interprets anarchism as a philosophy not of social freedom but of personal autonomy.
To be an anarchist - whether conuriunist, individualist, mutualist, syndicalist, or feminist -is to affirm a commitment to the primacy of individual freedom"
In any community, dissensus and dissident individuals -prevent the community from stagnating.
The most creative feature of traditional anarchism is its commitment to four basic tenets : a confederation of decentralized municipalities; an unwavering opposition to statism; a belief in direct democracy; and a vision of a libertarian communis t society.
In short, social anarchism must resolutely affirm its differences with lifestyle anarchism. If a social anarchist movement cannot translate its fourfold tenets - municipal confederalism, opposition to statism, direct democracy, and ultimately libertarian communism into a lived practice in a new public sphere; if these tenets languish like its memories of past struggles in ceremonial pronouncements and meetings; worse still, if they are subverted by the "libertarian" Ecstasy Industry
Everyone who sincerely wishes peace and international justice, should once and for all renounce the glory, the might, and the greatness of the Fatherland, should renounce all egoistic and vain interests of patriotism.
Brown's work exhibits the extent to which concepts of personal autonomy stand at odds with concepts of social freedom. In essence, like Goodman she interprets anarchism as a philosophy not of social freedom but of personal autonomy.
To be an anarchist - whether conuriunist, individualist, mutualist, syndicalist, or feminist -is to affirm a commitment to the primacy of individual freedom"
In any community, dissensus and dissident individuals -prevent the community from stagnating.
The most creative feature of traditional anarchism is its commitment to four basic tenets : a confederation of decentralized municipalities; an unwavering opposition to statism; a belief in direct democracy; and a vision of a libertarian communis t society.
In short, social anarchism must resolutely affirm its differences with lifestyle anarchism. If a social anarchist movement cannot translate its fourfold tenets - municipal confederalism, opposition to statism, direct democracy, and ultimately libertarian communism into a lived practice in a new public sphere; if these tenets languish like its memories of past struggles in ceremonial pronouncements and meetings; worse still, if they are subverted by the "libertarian" Ecstasy Industry
Everyone who sincerely wishes peace and international justice, should once and for all renounce the glory, the might, and the greatness of the Fatherland, should renounce all egoistic and vain interests of patriotism.
January 13, 2022
As a firmly communist, syndicalist, or indeed "social" anarchist, I did not expect to come away from this text feeling /more/ sympathetic towards Post-Leftism.
It is poorly argued, uses generalisations very liberally (especially by lumping all anarchism he doesn't like into "lifestylism"), and fails to engage with the specifics of Post-Leftism. I am still in agreement with Bookchin that individualist anarchist tendencies, especially those of the late 20th Century, are often irritating, pretentious, and in many cases useless - but he just does not argue his case very effectively.
I also noticed this tendency to overgeneralise in his shorter essay on anarcho-syndicalism, which he simplistically claimed to be dead, despite evidence to the contrary in Spain (well into his later lifetime).
I would say that the term "lifestylism" has some genuine use (but only as a pejorative and not a serious ideological descriptor) because of how insular and ineffectual some anarchists are, but the book overall is not especially brilliant. It is worth reading, but it should be from a critical angle.
It is poorly argued, uses generalisations very liberally (especially by lumping all anarchism he doesn't like into "lifestylism"), and fails to engage with the specifics of Post-Leftism. I am still in agreement with Bookchin that individualist anarchist tendencies, especially those of the late 20th Century, are often irritating, pretentious, and in many cases useless - but he just does not argue his case very effectively.
I also noticed this tendency to overgeneralise in his shorter essay on anarcho-syndicalism, which he simplistically claimed to be dead, despite evidence to the contrary in Spain (well into his later lifetime).
I would say that the term "lifestylism" has some genuine use (but only as a pejorative and not a serious ideological descriptor) because of how insular and ineffectual some anarchists are, but the book overall is not especially brilliant. It is worth reading, but it should be from a critical angle.
September 16, 2012
Should/Can anyone have a legitimate authority to define anarchism? Should we consider "Lifestyle Anarchism" within the tradition of Anarchist thought and action? These are difficult questions to respond to. I think, Bookchin's work may prove to be useful for those people who are unwilling to reduce Anarchism to "class-struggle" type of Anarchism on one hand, have distant feelings towards "Lifestyle Anarchism" on the other. Because of the time Bookchin wrote this book, his work doesn't address more contemporary tensions within Anarchism. However, in a world which turns every authentic value into a simulation, I believe Bookchin's arguments are quite relevant to present-day Anarchism's experience. Having said that, I felt the book had been based on exclusively Western Anarchism.
August 2, 2020
Un 80% del libro se trata de citar a autores anarquistas de bajo nivel para burlarse de sus argumentos o bien presentarles críticas obvias. Si hubiera sabido que gran parte del libro iba a ser refritos de ideas anarquistas desviadas, entonces sinceramente no lo habría leído. Rescato algunos puntos sobre comunismo libertario y el pensamiento de Kropotkin y Bakunin en los primeros capítulos, y el último capítulo donde propone una elaboración interesante sobre anarquismo social. El resto es meramente burlarse de anarquistas new age, primitivistas, egoístas y estilodevidistas, cuyas ideas no merecían ser reiteradas por casi 3/4 del libro.
July 29, 2014
Bookchin offers a critique of "Lifestyle Anarchism" which he groups certain behavior in, namely primitivism, some aspects of situationist theory, anti-civ, and temporary autonomous zones specifically that lack a social struggle goal but only offer an individualism that negates collective liberation. He posits they are devoid of the original intent of past left or anarchist struggles. Social anarchism is said to be the past intention and should be the current intention of the left, progressive, or anarchist struggles.
October 18, 2020
Bookchin content exemplary, the format hortible
Here you can read a thorough critique Bookchin makes of "lifestyle" anarchism which is exemplary in all respects.
The quality and formatting of this book is sad at best and clearly was posted for sale with zero quality control.
Almost unreadable the formatting is poor, lots of mistakes and true crap too be honest.
If I wasn't so interested in Bookchins content I would have returned for a refund.
Here you can read a thorough critique Bookchin makes of "lifestyle" anarchism which is exemplary in all respects.
The quality and formatting of this book is sad at best and clearly was posted for sale with zero quality control.
Almost unreadable the formatting is poor, lots of mistakes and true crap too be honest.
If I wasn't so interested in Bookchins content I would have returned for a refund.
May 20, 2008
from memory, this was a well-written book, so it gets three stars. convincing too. however, in retrospect i think Bookchin really overstates his case and would have done better to spend time critically examining both the positive and negative aspects of the counter-culture, rather than just lumping it all together as lifestylism.
July 19, 2019
կամ ես եմ վատ գրքեր ընտրում անարխիզմի վերաբերեալ, կամ իրօք մեծամասնութիւնը ջուր ծեծոցի ա։
վերցնել ծեծուած թեմա, ծեծուած գաղափարներ ու դրանք աւելի մեծ ուժգնութեամբ ծեծել։
ինչեւէ, շարունակում եմ որոնել իմ ուզած գիրքն անարխիստական։
վերցնել ծեծուած թեմա, ծեծուած գաղափարներ ու դրանք աւելի մեծ ուժգնութեամբ ծեծել։
ինչեւէ, շարունակում եմ որոնել իմ ուզած գիրքն անարխիստական։
June 23, 2007
Murray Bookchin's worst book. The second part about gun control is worth reading.
June 12, 2015
Bookchin makes some good points, but I'd recommend reading "Anarchy After Leftism" by Bob Black to get both sides of the story.
July 14, 2024
I hate it when Mommy & Daddy fight. While I would prefer that Bookchin had taken the high road and calmly engaged the "lifestyle" anarchists in a positive vision of working against the state each in their preferred way, there is still much that is worthwhile underneath the petty diatribes. No anarchist should have to decide between Hakim Bey's and Bookchin's approach. The initial fracture of the movement between individualist and collectivist anarchists demands a grand reunification. It's not just a question of style when I say Bookchin needs to lighten up: When he denigrates even the notion of a sovereign individual; when he pooh-poohs the notions of rights and inherent human worth; when he talks about the obvious necessity of direct democracy non-consensually rolling over minorities in the interests in imposing a "rational" society (after all: the trains have to run on time), alarm bells sound in my head. Is there a place for sovereign individuals like Hakim Bey in Bookchin's future? If not, where do the concentration camps and firing squads come in (all run confederally, of course)? Bey has seen the hidden lust for power underneath most revolutionaries' rhetoric and stands ready to instigate corrective anarchic insurrection as needed.
Hakim Bey (Peter Lamborn Wilson) had a simple question for anarchists: wouldn't it be nice to periodically taste real freedom while we wait around for the Revolution (a Revolution that historically always degenerates into a dystopian hellscape of authoritarian Puritanical conformity and coerced drudgery)? Bey preaches tactics for raising purposively furtive and temporary uprisings of freedom, hidden from Babylon, meant to be enjoyed and then abandoned before the SWAT team arrives. In Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism a grumpy and older Murray Bookchin lambasts Bey as a posturing distraction from the real, serious work for social change. But the same Bookchin in the much earlier Post-Scarcity Anarchism celebrated the anarchic play of the Dadaists and the antics and sensuality of the Sixties counterculture, while decrying the over-serious, dry-as-dust, repressed apparatchiks of the Left. That early Bookchin would've grokked the Diggers, and the Diggers would've certainly grokked T.A.Z..
T.A.Z. is fun. The language is over-the-top, iconoclastic to the extreme, and brilliant. Any Revolution that can't accommodate T.A.Z. is just another version of Babylon in the making. Bey is the Trickster imp of anarchism, the Dionysian gadfly biting the ass of the Apollonian Revolution. The essays are crazy, silly, repulsive, pretentious, hilarious, luminous, inspiring, and transformative. I imagine Bey would've been very comfortable hanging out with the Merry Pranksters on the bus or sauntering through the midnight alleys of Tangiers with Burroughs. Bey cries out to be a character in a Pynchon novel.
In "Listen, Marxist!" Bookchin says, "Above all, a social revolution cannot be achieved without the support of the youth, from which the ruling class recruits its armed forces. If the ruling class retains its armed might, the revolution is lost no matter how many workers rally to its support." Well, I've taught T.A.Z. to high school political philosophy students, and it's a damned effective text for undermining the kind of omnipresent brainwashing that encourages generation after generation of kids to fire into a crowd of peaceful protestors at the next Kent State or Black Lives Matter protest. T.A.Z. teaches real freedom and undermines unthinking conformity and uncritical obedience. You could have a lot of fun teaching an anarchism course using the Apology and Crito by Plato, Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism, T.A.Z., a good selection of Lysander Spooner essays, and Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism is an important text, and still quite relevant today. But If Bookchin really wants me to choose, I'm going to be a lifestyle anarchist.
Hakim Bey (Peter Lamborn Wilson) had a simple question for anarchists: wouldn't it be nice to periodically taste real freedom while we wait around for the Revolution (a Revolution that historically always degenerates into a dystopian hellscape of authoritarian Puritanical conformity and coerced drudgery)? Bey preaches tactics for raising purposively furtive and temporary uprisings of freedom, hidden from Babylon, meant to be enjoyed and then abandoned before the SWAT team arrives. In Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism a grumpy and older Murray Bookchin lambasts Bey as a posturing distraction from the real, serious work for social change. But the same Bookchin in the much earlier Post-Scarcity Anarchism celebrated the anarchic play of the Dadaists and the antics and sensuality of the Sixties counterculture, while decrying the over-serious, dry-as-dust, repressed apparatchiks of the Left. That early Bookchin would've grokked the Diggers, and the Diggers would've certainly grokked T.A.Z..
T.A.Z. is fun. The language is over-the-top, iconoclastic to the extreme, and brilliant. Any Revolution that can't accommodate T.A.Z. is just another version of Babylon in the making. Bey is the Trickster imp of anarchism, the Dionysian gadfly biting the ass of the Apollonian Revolution. The essays are crazy, silly, repulsive, pretentious, hilarious, luminous, inspiring, and transformative. I imagine Bey would've been very comfortable hanging out with the Merry Pranksters on the bus or sauntering through the midnight alleys of Tangiers with Burroughs. Bey cries out to be a character in a Pynchon novel.
In "Listen, Marxist!" Bookchin says, "Above all, a social revolution cannot be achieved without the support of the youth, from which the ruling class recruits its armed forces. If the ruling class retains its armed might, the revolution is lost no matter how many workers rally to its support." Well, I've taught T.A.Z. to high school political philosophy students, and it's a damned effective text for undermining the kind of omnipresent brainwashing that encourages generation after generation of kids to fire into a crowd of peaceful protestors at the next Kent State or Black Lives Matter protest. T.A.Z. teaches real freedom and undermines unthinking conformity and uncritical obedience. You could have a lot of fun teaching an anarchism course using the Apology and Crito by Plato, Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism, T.A.Z., a good selection of Lysander Spooner essays, and Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism is an important text, and still quite relevant today. But If Bookchin really wants me to choose, I'm going to be a lifestyle anarchist.
December 13, 2024
Consisting of two essays, "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" and "The Left That Was: A Personal Reflection", this work from Bookchin is an important addition to the library of any anarchist and libertarian socialist.
The former is a more thought out essay that consists of a scathing criticism of primitivist and adventurist strains of self-identified anarchism. I appreciate how Bookchin takes care to specify how these anti-technology strains of anarchism are radically at odds with the historical aims of anarchism, and are incompatible with any movement seeking socially-driven change.
I was thoroughly convinced that via historical revisionist beliefs including the myth of the noble savage, that technology instead of capitalism, is identified as the primary driver of suffering within society. Bookchin through the use of direct quotations from those he is presenting opposition to, meticulously paints a clear distinction between an anarchism based on collective freedom, and an anarchism based on the anxieties of an idle upper-middle class.
Though published in '95, there's some new relevance in particular to the section discussing Temporary Autonomous Zones. With the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone / Occupied Protest back in 2020 providing the first example in recent memory of the ideas he criticized in action.
The latter essay is accurate in its self-description as a personal reflection. Its reflection on the fall of the left as a united force and bastardization into supporting autocratic non-western regimes is far from new information for the informed leftist, and leaves some more to be desired if it wishes to be a convincing call to action for getting the left back on track. The last section of the essay includes a condemnation of nuclear power plants, which is the only thing I truly disagree with in the work.
Overall, I enjoyed the work. The namesake essay of course was my favorite of the two, but I consider this a worthwhile read both for its insights how short it is. At a mere ~60 pages for the first essay, this is a no-brainer read.
The former is a more thought out essay that consists of a scathing criticism of primitivist and adventurist strains of self-identified anarchism. I appreciate how Bookchin takes care to specify how these anti-technology strains of anarchism are radically at odds with the historical aims of anarchism, and are incompatible with any movement seeking socially-driven change.
I was thoroughly convinced that via historical revisionist beliefs including the myth of the noble savage, that technology instead of capitalism, is identified as the primary driver of suffering within society. Bookchin through the use of direct quotations from those he is presenting opposition to, meticulously paints a clear distinction between an anarchism based on collective freedom, and an anarchism based on the anxieties of an idle upper-middle class.
Though published in '95, there's some new relevance in particular to the section discussing Temporary Autonomous Zones. With the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone / Occupied Protest back in 2020 providing the first example in recent memory of the ideas he criticized in action.
The latter essay is accurate in its self-description as a personal reflection. Its reflection on the fall of the left as a united force and bastardization into supporting autocratic non-western regimes is far from new information for the informed leftist, and leaves some more to be desired if it wishes to be a convincing call to action for getting the left back on track. The last section of the essay includes a condemnation of nuclear power plants, which is the only thing I truly disagree with in the work.
Overall, I enjoyed the work. The namesake essay of course was my favorite of the two, but I consider this a worthwhile read both for its insights how short it is. At a mere ~60 pages for the first essay, this is a no-brainer read.
June 2, 2025
Un must read con el que, como anarquistas y viendo los lugares en los que estuvimos recientemente perdidos, continuar observando hacia dónde tenemos que ir (y construir) en el inminente futuro del ahora.
Si bien el tono de Bookchin en ocasiones puede resultar hostil, es también comprensible en base al panorama new age de los EEUU que le tocó sufrir (y la cantidad de personajes y excentricidades varias que tuvo que haber aguantado en su época).
Demasiado bien nos salió el Bookchin para cómo estaba el patio.
Las críticas a ese proto chamanismo individualista son tan certeras, que sirven para verlas reflejadas en marcos teórico-mentales de personas que he conocido prácticamente tres décadas después de haberse escrito el libro. Veo que los referentes teóricos y los autores destacados en los que basar los esquemas de pensamiento no han variado mucho.
Los análisis antropológicos son genuinamente buenos. Cuando Bookchin abordaba cuestiones relacionadas con la prehistoria para poner en entredicho las perspectivas primitivistas, lo hacía tan bien y siendo tan preciso que me trasladaba a mis antiguas clases de la asignatura en la facultad.
Ciertamente me leo esta obra, en la que también se abordan temas relativos al valor de la tecnología en sociedad, en una época que no va a estar exenta de reacciones con todo lo que se nos viene encima (relativo a inteligencias artificiales, robótica y diversas otras movidas propias del mundo cyberpunk este que se nos está quedando).
Que el Murray nos sirva de luz de guía ante el devenir de los próximos años.
A modo de conclusión: Apostar por la reconstrucción del comunismo libertario socialmente y a pie de calle (barrio, comunidad...), es un ideal más que necesario hoy para su materialización como proyecto político real.
El ser humano solo termina de construirse en sociedad. No hay solipsismos elitistas que valgan aquí. Nunca los hubo cuando el anarquismo tenía verdaderamente peso y fuerza política. No los valen tampoco ahora.
Si bien el tono de Bookchin en ocasiones puede resultar hostil, es también comprensible en base al panorama new age de los EEUU que le tocó sufrir (y la cantidad de personajes y excentricidades varias que tuvo que haber aguantado en su época).
Demasiado bien nos salió el Bookchin para cómo estaba el patio.
Las críticas a ese proto chamanismo individualista son tan certeras, que sirven para verlas reflejadas en marcos teórico-mentales de personas que he conocido prácticamente tres décadas después de haberse escrito el libro. Veo que los referentes teóricos y los autores destacados en los que basar los esquemas de pensamiento no han variado mucho.
Los análisis antropológicos son genuinamente buenos. Cuando Bookchin abordaba cuestiones relacionadas con la prehistoria para poner en entredicho las perspectivas primitivistas, lo hacía tan bien y siendo tan preciso que me trasladaba a mis antiguas clases de la asignatura en la facultad.
Ciertamente me leo esta obra, en la que también se abordan temas relativos al valor de la tecnología en sociedad, en una época que no va a estar exenta de reacciones con todo lo que se nos viene encima (relativo a inteligencias artificiales, robótica y diversas otras movidas propias del mundo cyberpunk este que se nos está quedando).
Que el Murray nos sirva de luz de guía ante el devenir de los próximos años.
A modo de conclusión: Apostar por la reconstrucción del comunismo libertario socialmente y a pie de calle (barrio, comunidad...), es un ideal más que necesario hoy para su materialización como proyecto político real.
El ser humano solo termina de construirse en sociedad. No hay solipsismos elitistas que valgan aquí. Nunca los hubo cuando el anarquismo tenía verdaderamente peso y fuerza política. No los valen tampoco ahora.
January 7, 2022
Bookchin nos acerca al pasado, nos narra una historia que sucedió en un "underground" las disputas ideológicas anarquistas que sucedieron, y suceden, por circuitos ajenos a las superficies académicas, activistas o públicas. A través de medios más bien marginales se disputa el potencial de lo primitivo, la ponderación del ego ante la colectividad, las tensiones entre autonomía y libertad y el anarquismo colectivista o social.
Todas estas discusiones nos ponen en contexto ante los opositores de bookchin, los anarquismos que ponderan al individuo sobre lo colectivo y que más se parecen a los neoliberales que a los grupos que buscan una profunda transformación social de raíz.
Editorial Virus nos trae un documento profundamente interesante para pensarnos y pensar nuestros roles en la colectividad mientras descubrimos si el mundo que soñamos tiene sentido o solo es una utopía.
No le pongo mejor calificación porque me parece que es un libro de difícil acceso, pues las discusiones que suceden en espacios de este corte son para grupos selectos, agradezco que ahora se pueda leer en español y tener a la mano el recurso para re-visitarlo a la menor provocación.
Todas estas discusiones nos ponen en contexto ante los opositores de bookchin, los anarquismos que ponderan al individuo sobre lo colectivo y que más se parecen a los neoliberales que a los grupos que buscan una profunda transformación social de raíz.
Editorial Virus nos trae un documento profundamente interesante para pensarnos y pensar nuestros roles en la colectividad mientras descubrimos si el mundo que soñamos tiene sentido o solo es una utopía.
No le pongo mejor calificación porque me parece que es un libro de difícil acceso, pues las discusiones que suceden en espacios de este corte son para grupos selectos, agradezco que ahora se pueda leer en español y tener a la mano el recurso para re-visitarlo a la menor provocación.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews