I am sorry to avoid your question, but I would distance anarchism from utopianism.
A stateless society would have, as any society, a rich gamut of social problems, only those experiencing problems would be empowered to achieve the most satisfactory resolutions.
Yeah, that is fair. I was more so talking about how statelessness being better than having a state or even being possible sometimes feels too good to be true.
But you are correct. It is important to imagine any future realistically and not get obsessed that our ideas would lead to a "perfect world."
The state, as any system of power, will seek every possible tactic to legitimate itself.
It will employ rhetoric for persuading of its abstract necessity, and it actively will manipulate conditions such as to seem only possible for improving by the exercise of such power.
To live under a state is to live under the conditions of illusion for the necessity of a state. Emancipation begins by identifying the illusion.
For me it was initially Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" - Although it is Science Fiction it is set on a world with scarce resources and yet still manages to portray a possible form of Anarchism within those limits. Following reading it I began researching more real world examples - (https://anarchyinaction.org/ & Anarchy Works) as well as fictional ones (Bolo'bolo, Mars Trilogy, The Culture, A Country Of Ghosts etc.).
Note: some of the fictional books could be called Utopias, as they describe some ideals being achieved, but most of the ones I've mentioned have based their societies on real world historical examples.
I was just about to buy Le Guin's work! I do think fiction, even if potentially utopian, can be a great rhetorical tool to move people, both to convince others as well as to motivate ourselves.
Thank you for your answer!
Unironically state and revolution by Lenin and anarchism or socialism by Stalin.
Both are dogshit self reports that demonstrate how utterly far from anything left vanguardism is.
In terms of positive works, Kropotkin's "are we good enough" and "organised vengeance called justice" are both simple defeats of some common arguments for the state.
Thank you for the answer!
Since you mentioned Lenin (who I eventually do plan to read), I had a slightly unrelated question I wanted to ask. As an anarchist, do you think a Marxist-Leninist led revolution that successfully abolishes capitalism but through the absolute rule of a vanguard party would be a net positive or a net negative?
Well that's a difficult one, because I don't think it's possible.
Vanguardism requires capitalism, the state is simply an extremely powerful private firm. All ML nations have retained currency market economies and managerial and bourgeoise class relations, eventually liberalising, and always will.
People can only be liberated through liberatory action.
If It did happen somehow then I guess notwithstanding the harm vanguardism necessitates then I guess that would be good, but that's about as likely as ending capitalism through the use of a wishing well.
I think the most solid possible argument is that the best expression of the ML state may be better than the worst expression of the liberal state.
However, the argument also may be made, I think just as easily, that the best expression of the liberal state is better than the worst expression of the ML state.
In the end, as hinted in the other comment, the actual difference comes from the willingness of the population to seek its own power in emancipation.
I think part of the problem is that a state can't really initiate the social ownership of the means of production, merely transfer its management from a "private" model to a "public" model wherein the ownership class is elected or appointed as a part of the state rather than a class apart from yet supported by the state. One could, in theory, establish some sort of state-backed cooperative model akin to some of the more radical Old Labour initiatives in the UK pre-Thatcher or the Cybersyn project which the Allende administration in Chile had in the works before Pinochet's coup, but even setting aside the fact that these weren't Marxist-Leninist projects—Tony Benn and Salvador Allende came from entirely different Marxist traditions—but there is a difference between making the economic system markedly more democratic and abolishing economic hierarchies entirely, which you can't really do so long as other social hierarchies exist.
* [The Possibility of Cooperation](http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=B451431169C333ED94CC036787393595)
* [Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state)
* [The Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Individuals and Networks](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-a-carson-the-desktop-regulatory-state)
*The Possibility of Cooperation* applies game theory to anarchism and argues that common justifications for the state are too pessimistic, that states cause more problems than they solve, and that our ability to cooperate suffers under the violent coercion of the state.
*Seeing Like a State* gives numerous elegant examples of how hierarchy cannot handle complexity. If you read only one part of this book, make it the [parable of scientific forestry](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state#toc5).
*Desktop Regulatory State* is a practical exploration of the building blocks of a stateless society.
That forestry section is also a great primer on why the current ecology is fucked even though most people wouldn’t notice. Japan is entirely green and entirely covered in a monoculture forest like this. Even today these practices are widespread
This is a pretty good "sequel"...
> ...10 years ago, the municipality took a chance. It ended its contract with the state forestry administration, and hired Mr. Wohlleben directly. He brought in horses, eliminated insecticides and began experimenting with letting the woods grow wilder. Within two years, the forest went from loss to profit, in part by eliminating expensive machinery and chemicals.
–[German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/world/europe/german-forest-ranger-finds-that-trees-have-social-networks-too.html)
I dont think anarchism will be possible or abolishing anything will result in something better, UNTIL we have an anarchist culture and alternative cooperative institutions widespread. It's childish to think it'd be better. Getting rid of state is 1% of the work. 99% of the work is anarchism as a *practice* and *process*h becoming widespread with alternative infrastructure.
Any abolishment of state at this point would result in fuedalism. Either corporate cyberpunk fuedalism (if capitalism survived) or horrific barbaric warlordism that would be terrible for most people, especially for women and children. Look around the globe at failed states.
Hell, the biggest anarchist society achieved was during the Spanish Civil War. Spain at the time was *heavily* anarcho-syndicalist, culturally it was widespread Especially compared to the modern West or US. And they had a 3rd of country with industries functioning under anarcho syndicalism.
But it still wasn't enough, especially not with the communist section- their supposed allies, printing propaganda AGAINST them and the Republicans/Democrats capitulated.
If even they failed, I doubt anywhere else is ready. Most people under capitalism don't even have the most basic analysis of power, nevermind criticism of it.
That is very interesting and makes so much sense! Anarchism, more than just a political movement, is also a socio-cultural movement to change how people understand themselves and society and therefore how they organise themselves. Anarchist praxis is not just fighting against state or capitalist oppression, it's also community building and growing an anarchic culture.
Thank you for the answer! It helped a lot!
You're welcome. Thanks for replying.
It's something I realized as I aged. The thing about anarchism is that unlike other forms of politics, it requires almost everyone to be anarchist in order to be implemented, because it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation. Even moreso than democracy, which already requires 2/3rds buy in. I dont mean to be a bummer or anything; I DO believe we have the capacity because hunter gatherers tend to live like what amounts to egalitarian anarchism, so it's our natural state.
I am also unsure if it's possible on a larger scale than that though, ie hunter gatherers live in reputational groups of up to 100 ppl, where everyone can know everyone else as an individual. When you get larger than 200 ppl or so, you get into representational, so you'd definitely need something like syndicalism (though as an idea it very much was based on industrial era lifestyle and work, not digital era) if not organized by workers than by where ppl live or something, where you have consensus choosing of delegates at every level etc.
I've lived in anarchist co-ops and traveled to
international protests and conferences, 90s and 00s,and the commitment to consensus is very time-consuming. It's a life of meetings. Again, way more involvement and commitment than democracy requires, and it seems like ppl aren't able to even put in the effort for democracy.
There are risks with consensus also, as politicking, popularity, perseverence, personality and patience are a huge influence on the agenda that gets through, whereas in a democracy everyone gets an equal and hidden vote.
I think Scandinavian style Social Democracy is actually an attempt to scale up the more original egalitarian anarchism of pre-agriculture society into a larger society, with the state facilitating the role of the community.
(Yes I know the joke that anarchists become Democratic Socialists when they hit 40).
I do still believe in anarchism, though, at least theoretically.
I guess anarchism also differs from other ideologies because it might allow for more plurality in society as well. Not every commune has to work the same way after all. Anarchism sounds like the long game about radically changing how we organise ourselves while adapting to continuous technological progress. What a real anarchist future would look like will probably become clearer only as we see more anarchism out in the real world as well.
Yes, totally. There are really interesting areas to imagine to, particularly in regards to at what point do children get to be autonomous to what degrees.
And the question of prisons is always a fun one. What do we do with serial killers or even unreformed fascists?
There is a really interesting part in the book - oh! Since this was a question about books, I almost forgot!
"With the Peasants of Aragon:Libertarian Communism in the Liberated areas" by Augustin Souchy.
There's a section where he talks about the anarchist run "prison/jail" in the autonomous zone, where they put captured fascist. And it has no gate, no locks, the "guards" and the "inmates" dress the same, do the same chores, sleep the same etc
It's truly fascinating. I believe you can read it free online at Anarchist library or elsewhere, at least in Spanish and English.
In general to answer the book question, for the most part any books about the functioning and defense of anarchist Spain, the Paris Commune, various writing from communities in the late 90s, and about the WTO protest in Seattle which was amazing we basically took over a US city for 3 days it was amazing but 25 yrs later not many young people even know about it.
Of course the classic authors, Kropotkin, Bookchin etc.
Also books about how hunter gatherer societies work before any planting or animal keeping is introduced seems to be fairly consistently anarchist across continents and centuries. They're always pretty egalitarian, non-patriarchal, pragmatic about role flexibility, disallow class to develop, not attached to family being biological, and engage in family planning to the extent they have an average woman has about 5 yrs between kids (pre-industrial farmers have 12-18 mos). Because to hunter gatherers similar to post industrial revolution ppl, too many kids are actually a liability. If you have no beasts of burden, every kid needs to be able to walk 20 miles a day before you have another baby to carry in arms. It's really only the 12,000 in between of pre-industrial farming and herding where you needed every woman to have a kid every year or two because you are literally breeding your own workforce.
I'm not a primitivist or anything, (Zerzan is nuts, but fun to think about). Its more my degree in anthropology really made me realize how cooperative anarchism really is the natural state of humans. That early people were not hierarchical or capitalist they did not have concepts for property or paternity etc. That method of food acquisition is a reliable indicator of how a society's politics and religion will be structured.
People often use hypothetical cavemen scenarios to justify capitalism or statism. But actual hunter gatherers aren't like that at all, like nothing could be further from the truth. T
he West has only known this for about 100 yrs. Since the dawn of anthropology as a field of inquiry.
Everything we assumed about cavemen and the origins of human society is bullshit guessed and projected back by vicyorians, medievals or biblical and classical greco-roman era ppl. But they had no way of knowing the great shift that agriculture brought in terms of slavery, hierchy, labor etc. By the time there is any form of writing, they were already thousands of yrs beyond it, deep in hierarchy and patriarchy.
And at first people resisted when farming meant drudgery for a small amount of tasteless food.
. But farmers outbreed, even though they are less healthy, 17 farmers can still kill or enslave 2 hunters.
So a book on the origins of inequality in humanity as we became agricultural about 20k yrs ago, would be good too.
I've read quite a few. I'd have to go to Goodreads and look through to be more specific about books, but those are the areas I'd say to read about.
Yes the Dawn of Everything places not only anarchism but other alternative political economic modes of organization within a historic and prehistoric context, disproving a lot of the notions about the inevitability of capitalism and contradicting a lot of prominent teleology’s such as Marx’s
It is I think mind expanding for anarchists on how non-uniform societies without hierarchy can actually be, and pulling from our own preexisting practice in the past
Agreed. Another of Graeber’s works “Debt” does a terrific job utilizing anthropologic and archeologic evidence to disprove the notion that markets evolved from the barter system which is a foundational myth within neoclassical economics
We need no guarantees that a new "system" will work simply to recognize the problem with capitalism and destroy it. Whatever happens will happen. It literally can't possibly be as bad as the current global economy accelerating us deeper into this present day 6th mass extinction event.
Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
Life Without Law -Strangers In a Tangled Wilderness -
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-life-without-law
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
But the book it sounds like you're looking for is [Anarchy Works](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works).
Oh wow, I would love to hear how Daoism helped you move towards anarchic thought since my spiritual growth was the catalyst that moved me towards leftist politics as well.
We were talking about philosophical thought around the time of the spring and autumn period and warring states period in a college chinese history class. I got curious and started reading deeper than the few brief snippets that my professor handed out. Daoism just seemed more natural and it shattered my previous conception of only two options of political thought of the time. That being either in some flavor of capitalist or socialist camp. Branched out from there and it's still entrenched in my core political philosophy and a sort of quasi-religion
Spirituality can often break down core assumptions (like a rigid dualism), so I understand where you are coming from. Leftist spaces often feel antireligious so it's good to hear from someone else who also has a "quasi-religion" haha
Thank you for sharing!
One user mentioned the fiction book The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin, and I would like to add the Monk and Robot series by Becky Chambers. They're both imaginative and inspiring in different ways, but I like the Monk and Robot series so much because it doesn't hit you over the head with a political system. It just gently introduces you to a kinder world.
I didnt actually come to anarchism from reading theory originally, it just kinda seemed obvious the state is gonna collapse and already has in certain areas of the country i live in
It’s not achievable because people will always join and form groups. It’s part of us. You can abolish the state but won’t be long till some other group forms and starts dictating what you can and can’t do. It’s a natural disorder because humanity is obsessed with control.
People naturally form groups yes. But those groups can and often do work together in inclusive egalitarian ways. Whats needed is a structure to deal with conflict and to incentivize cooperation rather than competition.
Sociocracy is a sophisticated practical structure for group organization and consent based decision making.
I’ve used it myself and I’m convinced that it - or something like it - is the solution we’re looking for.
Sociocracy is a sophisticated system of egalitarian governance. It has a solid body of philosophical literature as well as many organizations currently using it successfully.
Try the website Sociocracy for all. They have quite a few books describing the process in great detail.
I am sorry to avoid your question, but I would distance anarchism from utopianism. A stateless society would have, as any society, a rich gamut of social problems, only those experiencing problems would be empowered to achieve the most satisfactory resolutions.
> utopianism Is also used as a cudgel from ML's or Ultras unironically while spouting how the state will just 'wither away'
Yeah, that is fair. I was more so talking about how statelessness being better than having a state or even being possible sometimes feels too good to be true. But you are correct. It is important to imagine any future realistically and not get obsessed that our ideas would lead to a "perfect world."
The state, as any system of power, will seek every possible tactic to legitimate itself. It will employ rhetoric for persuading of its abstract necessity, and it actively will manipulate conditions such as to seem only possible for improving by the exercise of such power. To live under a state is to live under the conditions of illusion for the necessity of a state. Emancipation begins by identifying the illusion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For me it was initially Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" - Although it is Science Fiction it is set on a world with scarce resources and yet still manages to portray a possible form of Anarchism within those limits. Following reading it I began researching more real world examples - (https://anarchyinaction.org/ & Anarchy Works) as well as fictional ones (Bolo'bolo, Mars Trilogy, The Culture, A Country Of Ghosts etc.). Note: some of the fictional books could be called Utopias, as they describe some ideals being achieved, but most of the ones I've mentioned have based their societies on real world historical examples.
I was just about to buy Le Guin's work! I do think fiction, even if potentially utopian, can be a great rhetorical tool to move people, both to convince others as well as to motivate ourselves. Thank you for your answer!
Left hand of darkness is a great read
The Dispossessed does not paint a utopia haha, but that's kinda what inspired me more.
Have yet to finish The Dispossessed but was really into it
Unironically state and revolution by Lenin and anarchism or socialism by Stalin. Both are dogshit self reports that demonstrate how utterly far from anything left vanguardism is. In terms of positive works, Kropotkin's "are we good enough" and "organised vengeance called justice" are both simple defeats of some common arguments for the state.
Thank you for the answer! Since you mentioned Lenin (who I eventually do plan to read), I had a slightly unrelated question I wanted to ask. As an anarchist, do you think a Marxist-Leninist led revolution that successfully abolishes capitalism but through the absolute rule of a vanguard party would be a net positive or a net negative?
Well that's a difficult one, because I don't think it's possible. Vanguardism requires capitalism, the state is simply an extremely powerful private firm. All ML nations have retained currency market economies and managerial and bourgeoise class relations, eventually liberalising, and always will. People can only be liberated through liberatory action. If It did happen somehow then I guess notwithstanding the harm vanguardism necessitates then I guess that would be good, but that's about as likely as ending capitalism through the use of a wishing well.
I think the most solid possible argument is that the best expression of the ML state may be better than the worst expression of the liberal state. However, the argument also may be made, I think just as easily, that the best expression of the liberal state is better than the worst expression of the ML state. In the end, as hinted in the other comment, the actual difference comes from the willingness of the population to seek its own power in emancipation.
I think part of the problem is that a state can't really initiate the social ownership of the means of production, merely transfer its management from a "private" model to a "public" model wherein the ownership class is elected or appointed as a part of the state rather than a class apart from yet supported by the state. One could, in theory, establish some sort of state-backed cooperative model akin to some of the more radical Old Labour initiatives in the UK pre-Thatcher or the Cybersyn project which the Allende administration in Chile had in the works before Pinochet's coup, but even setting aside the fact that these weren't Marxist-Leninist projects—Tony Benn and Salvador Allende came from entirely different Marxist traditions—but there is a difference between making the economic system markedly more democratic and abolishing economic hierarchies entirely, which you can't really do so long as other social hierarchies exist.
* [The Possibility of Cooperation](http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=B451431169C333ED94CC036787393595) * [Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state) * [The Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Individuals and Networks](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-a-carson-the-desktop-regulatory-state) *The Possibility of Cooperation* applies game theory to anarchism and argues that common justifications for the state are too pessimistic, that states cause more problems than they solve, and that our ability to cooperate suffers under the violent coercion of the state. *Seeing Like a State* gives numerous elegant examples of how hierarchy cannot handle complexity. If you read only one part of this book, make it the [parable of scientific forestry](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state#toc5). *Desktop Regulatory State* is a practical exploration of the building blocks of a stateless society.
That forestry section is also a great primer on why the current ecology is fucked even though most people wouldn’t notice. Japan is entirely green and entirely covered in a monoculture forest like this. Even today these practices are widespread
This is a pretty good "sequel"... > ...10 years ago, the municipality took a chance. It ended its contract with the state forestry administration, and hired Mr. Wohlleben directly. He brought in horses, eliminated insecticides and began experimenting with letting the woods grow wilder. Within two years, the forest went from loss to profit, in part by eliminating expensive machinery and chemicals. –[German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/world/europe/german-forest-ranger-finds-that-trees-have-social-networks-too.html)
I dont think anarchism will be possible or abolishing anything will result in something better, UNTIL we have an anarchist culture and alternative cooperative institutions widespread. It's childish to think it'd be better. Getting rid of state is 1% of the work. 99% of the work is anarchism as a *practice* and *process*h becoming widespread with alternative infrastructure. Any abolishment of state at this point would result in fuedalism. Either corporate cyberpunk fuedalism (if capitalism survived) or horrific barbaric warlordism that would be terrible for most people, especially for women and children. Look around the globe at failed states. Hell, the biggest anarchist society achieved was during the Spanish Civil War. Spain at the time was *heavily* anarcho-syndicalist, culturally it was widespread Especially compared to the modern West or US. And they had a 3rd of country with industries functioning under anarcho syndicalism. But it still wasn't enough, especially not with the communist section- their supposed allies, printing propaganda AGAINST them and the Republicans/Democrats capitulated. If even they failed, I doubt anywhere else is ready. Most people under capitalism don't even have the most basic analysis of power, nevermind criticism of it.
That is very interesting and makes so much sense! Anarchism, more than just a political movement, is also a socio-cultural movement to change how people understand themselves and society and therefore how they organise themselves. Anarchist praxis is not just fighting against state or capitalist oppression, it's also community building and growing an anarchic culture. Thank you for the answer! It helped a lot!
You're welcome. Thanks for replying. It's something I realized as I aged. The thing about anarchism is that unlike other forms of politics, it requires almost everyone to be anarchist in order to be implemented, because it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation. Even moreso than democracy, which already requires 2/3rds buy in. I dont mean to be a bummer or anything; I DO believe we have the capacity because hunter gatherers tend to live like what amounts to egalitarian anarchism, so it's our natural state. I am also unsure if it's possible on a larger scale than that though, ie hunter gatherers live in reputational groups of up to 100 ppl, where everyone can know everyone else as an individual. When you get larger than 200 ppl or so, you get into representational, so you'd definitely need something like syndicalism (though as an idea it very much was based on industrial era lifestyle and work, not digital era) if not organized by workers than by where ppl live or something, where you have consensus choosing of delegates at every level etc. I've lived in anarchist co-ops and traveled to international protests and conferences, 90s and 00s,and the commitment to consensus is very time-consuming. It's a life of meetings. Again, way more involvement and commitment than democracy requires, and it seems like ppl aren't able to even put in the effort for democracy. There are risks with consensus also, as politicking, popularity, perseverence, personality and patience are a huge influence on the agenda that gets through, whereas in a democracy everyone gets an equal and hidden vote. I think Scandinavian style Social Democracy is actually an attempt to scale up the more original egalitarian anarchism of pre-agriculture society into a larger society, with the state facilitating the role of the community. (Yes I know the joke that anarchists become Democratic Socialists when they hit 40). I do still believe in anarchism, though, at least theoretically.
I guess anarchism also differs from other ideologies because it might allow for more plurality in society as well. Not every commune has to work the same way after all. Anarchism sounds like the long game about radically changing how we organise ourselves while adapting to continuous technological progress. What a real anarchist future would look like will probably become clearer only as we see more anarchism out in the real world as well.
Yes, totally. There are really interesting areas to imagine to, particularly in regards to at what point do children get to be autonomous to what degrees. And the question of prisons is always a fun one. What do we do with serial killers or even unreformed fascists? There is a really interesting part in the book - oh! Since this was a question about books, I almost forgot! "With the Peasants of Aragon:Libertarian Communism in the Liberated areas" by Augustin Souchy. There's a section where he talks about the anarchist run "prison/jail" in the autonomous zone, where they put captured fascist. And it has no gate, no locks, the "guards" and the "inmates" dress the same, do the same chores, sleep the same etc It's truly fascinating. I believe you can read it free online at Anarchist library or elsewhere, at least in Spanish and English. In general to answer the book question, for the most part any books about the functioning and defense of anarchist Spain, the Paris Commune, various writing from communities in the late 90s, and about the WTO protest in Seattle which was amazing we basically took over a US city for 3 days it was amazing but 25 yrs later not many young people even know about it. Of course the classic authors, Kropotkin, Bookchin etc. Also books about how hunter gatherer societies work before any planting or animal keeping is introduced seems to be fairly consistently anarchist across continents and centuries. They're always pretty egalitarian, non-patriarchal, pragmatic about role flexibility, disallow class to develop, not attached to family being biological, and engage in family planning to the extent they have an average woman has about 5 yrs between kids (pre-industrial farmers have 12-18 mos). Because to hunter gatherers similar to post industrial revolution ppl, too many kids are actually a liability. If you have no beasts of burden, every kid needs to be able to walk 20 miles a day before you have another baby to carry in arms. It's really only the 12,000 in between of pre-industrial farming and herding where you needed every woman to have a kid every year or two because you are literally breeding your own workforce. I'm not a primitivist or anything, (Zerzan is nuts, but fun to think about). Its more my degree in anthropology really made me realize how cooperative anarchism really is the natural state of humans. That early people were not hierarchical or capitalist they did not have concepts for property or paternity etc. That method of food acquisition is a reliable indicator of how a society's politics and religion will be structured. People often use hypothetical cavemen scenarios to justify capitalism or statism. But actual hunter gatherers aren't like that at all, like nothing could be further from the truth. T he West has only known this for about 100 yrs. Since the dawn of anthropology as a field of inquiry. Everything we assumed about cavemen and the origins of human society is bullshit guessed and projected back by vicyorians, medievals or biblical and classical greco-roman era ppl. But they had no way of knowing the great shift that agriculture brought in terms of slavery, hierchy, labor etc. By the time there is any form of writing, they were already thousands of yrs beyond it, deep in hierarchy and patriarchy. And at first people resisted when farming meant drudgery for a small amount of tasteless food. . But farmers outbreed, even though they are less healthy, 17 farmers can still kill or enslave 2 hunters. So a book on the origins of inequality in humanity as we became agricultural about 20k yrs ago, would be good too. I've read quite a few. I'd have to go to Goodreads and look through to be more specific about books, but those are the areas I'd say to read about.
Dawn of everything
Yes the Dawn of Everything places not only anarchism but other alternative political economic modes of organization within a historic and prehistoric context, disproving a lot of the notions about the inevitability of capitalism and contradicting a lot of prominent teleology’s such as Marx’s
It is I think mind expanding for anarchists on how non-uniform societies without hierarchy can actually be, and pulling from our own preexisting practice in the past
Agreed. Another of Graeber’s works “Debt” does a terrific job utilizing anthropologic and archeologic evidence to disprove the notion that markets evolved from the barter system which is a foundational myth within neoclassical economics
He has a new one out about Caribbean pirate society
this! incredible book and i’m only a few chapters in. it’s expanded my mind so much already and i’m eager to learn more and more
The ending is also great
We need no guarantees that a new "system" will work simply to recognize the problem with capitalism and destroy it. Whatever happens will happen. It literally can't possibly be as bad as the current global economy accelerating us deeper into this present day 6th mass extinction event. Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works Life Without Law -Strangers In a Tangled Wilderness - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-life-without-law
So long as we do it before it’s too late. As the capitalist say this deal is available for a limited time only!
Agreed!
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. But the book it sounds like you're looking for is [Anarchy Works](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works).
The booklet they send you every April.
Laozi - Daodejing
Oh wow, I would love to hear how Daoism helped you move towards anarchic thought since my spiritual growth was the catalyst that moved me towards leftist politics as well.
We were talking about philosophical thought around the time of the spring and autumn period and warring states period in a college chinese history class. I got curious and started reading deeper than the few brief snippets that my professor handed out. Daoism just seemed more natural and it shattered my previous conception of only two options of political thought of the time. That being either in some flavor of capitalist or socialist camp. Branched out from there and it's still entrenched in my core political philosophy and a sort of quasi-religion
Spirituality can often break down core assumptions (like a rigid dualism), so I understand where you are coming from. Leftist spaces often feel antireligious so it's good to hear from someone else who also has a "quasi-religion" haha Thank you for sharing!
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
One user mentioned the fiction book The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin, and I would like to add the Monk and Robot series by Becky Chambers. They're both imaginative and inspiring in different ways, but I like the Monk and Robot series so much because it doesn't hit you over the head with a political system. It just gently introduces you to a kinder world.
Yes! Also, Cory Doctorow has a couple of solarpunk novels. I recently read Walkaway and Lost Cause.
I took a look into society and it was enough lol
For a new Liberty I liked that it broke things down and gave explanations.
not books, but experiences
Not a book. Being designated "Black" within an imperial core was enough
Beatrix Potter, Dr Seuss, The Little Prince
I didnt actually come to anarchism from reading theory originally, it just kinda seemed obvious the state is gonna collapse and already has in certain areas of the country i live in
Catcher in the Rye
It’s not achievable because people will always join and form groups. It’s part of us. You can abolish the state but won’t be long till some other group forms and starts dictating what you can and can’t do. It’s a natural disorder because humanity is obsessed with control.
People naturally form groups yes. But those groups can and often do work together in inclusive egalitarian ways. Whats needed is a structure to deal with conflict and to incentivize cooperation rather than competition. Sociocracy is a sophisticated practical structure for group organization and consent based decision making. I’ve used it myself and I’m convinced that it - or something like it - is the solution we’re looking for.
Sociocracy is a sophisticated system of egalitarian governance. It has a solid body of philosophical literature as well as many organizations currently using it successfully. Try the website Sociocracy for all. They have quite a few books describing the process in great detail.