It’s technically a work of fiction but The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin can maybe be considered an anarchist book. It does a deep delve into an anarchist society and how it could theoretically be organized. In my opinion it could also be interpreted as a critique, but I think it’s stronger for it.
There are, and like any social/political group it’s not a monolith but has plenty of various subsections that would broadly be called “anarchist” but aren’t themselves all in agreement (and at times accuse others of not being “real” anarchists). This watered down meme is just [insert political group here] Utopianism jingoism. Of course people tend to help each other that are like them, leftists tend to be more likely to help outside their tribal communities, but the extent to how much they help and under what circumstances is not blind enabling. If I see a person drowning I’m not going to ask who they voted for before helping. If I see some Trumper with a flat tire… fix it yourself, asshole.
There’s plenty, and they can help, but you ain’t gotta read em. They’re guides and ideas. Nobody ever told me I needed to read Proudhon to think the state’s bad, and usually older texts become more of historical interest than theory interests. When I wanted to understand anarchism I was told to go out and engage in praxis.
Fully agree that that’s the way to learn. Do praxis, theory will develop.
However, I recommend the bread book to anyone I think might enjoy reading something like it. It changed my life fundamentally to see some one lay out the math of how a society could function like that. As suggested above,nthe dispossessed is also an amazing work of theory disguised as a very fun sci fi read. I routinely quote “where do you go when you die in hell” ever since reading it
Are there no anarchist books? I’m pretty sure there are and anarchy doesn’t mean willful ignorance.
It’s technically a work of fiction but The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin can maybe be considered an anarchist book. It does a deep delve into an anarchist society and how it could theoretically be organized. In my opinion it could also be interpreted as a critique, but I think it’s stronger for it.
Fantastic book! For anyone interested, you can read it here.
There are, and like any social/political group it’s not a monolith but has plenty of various subsections that would broadly be called “anarchist” but aren’t themselves all in agreement (and at times accuse others of not being “real” anarchists). This watered down meme is just [insert political group here] Utopianism jingoism. Of course people tend to help each other that are like them, leftists tend to be more likely to help outside their tribal communities, but the extent to how much they help and under what circumstances is not blind enabling. If I see a person drowning I’m not going to ask who they voted for before helping. If I see some Trumper with a flat tire… fix it yourself, asshole.
There’s plenty, and they can help, but you ain’t gotta read em. They’re guides and ideas. Nobody ever told me I needed to read Proudhon to think the state’s bad, and usually older texts become more of historical interest than theory interests. When I wanted to understand anarchism I was told to go out and engage in praxis.
Fully agree that that’s the way to learn. Do praxis, theory will develop.
However, I recommend the bread book to anyone I think might enjoy reading something like it. It changed my life fundamentally to see some one lay out the math of how a society could function like that. As suggested above,nthe dispossessed is also an amazing work of theory disguised as a very fun sci fi read. I routinely quote “where do you go when you die in hell” ever since reading it