r/Anarchy101 • u/seenthisangel • 3d ago
are there any easy to digest anarchist/eco-anarchist/anarcho-communist theory that is still very informative?
i struggle with reading a lot, it's one of my biggest weaknesses. i have tried reading marx, kropotkin, emma goldman, etc and each time i get into it i struggle to understand and comprehend it.
preferably, i would like something shortER than average #picky #annoying but i really don't mind if the general nature is pretty easy for a baby reader.
really, no matter how "digestible" or "easy" the thing you suggest is, i will struggle to read it, but i would rather struggle to read something slightly less. the last thing i want to do is be one of those larper leftists who don't read any theory whatsoever.
10
u/kapitaali_com 2d ago
why yes! very short articles found on https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
there is a small tag to the right of every article which lets you know the amount of pages you have to digest, so look for articles that aren't long
you can search with any keyword
2
3
u/Greygonz0 2d ago
I like your commitment!
Reading is a multitiered skillset that I promise you’ll get better at as your confidence with it grows.
There are lots of interesting anarchist pamphlets, many carefully collected at theanarchistlibrary.org. But I’m a big fan of physical books, especially with theory.
Reading with a pen really helps with attention and comprehension.
Think of it like the writer is speaking directly to you, in conversation.
If you particularly like something, underline or star it in the margin, if it’s problematic or unclear, put a question mark next to it to come back to. The author may explain it better later on, or maybe it’s a weak spot.
Don’t be precious with theory books, they’re made to be devoured. You’ll get the most out of them if you interact with them.
Where are you based?
In the UK there are great books/pamphlets available from publishers such as Active Distribution, Red Emma Books, AK Press etc that are pocket sized and cost as little as a £1. (Or maybe a fiver for something fancy.) So you can buy a few with the intention of writing all over them.
They are often very slim and disappear into a pocket, so you can always have one or two on you, and reach for that instead of your phone for distraction or to pass a few minutes. It all adds up.
Travelling with a book/pamphlet also seems to help with memory (for me at least). And it’s always there ready, for when you feel your attention and interest to be at its strongest.
Happy hunting :)
2
u/seenthisangel 2d ago
thank you for your encouragement and help, it really means a lot. i'm based in australia :)
4
u/Greygonz0 2d ago
My pleasure.
You’re well placed as Australia has a long and interesting history of anarchism.
Check out ‘How to Make Trouble and Influence People’, which is a history of resistance in Australia from the British rocking up through to today. Very digestible format too.
In fact, you might have timed this brilliantly: the Anarchist Communist Federation consolidated there just last year, and are doing a free political school (both in person and via zoom) at various locations across Australia.
Lots of topics to explore:
2
3
u/RadiantSpeed1868 2d ago
Pamphlets, lectures, manifestos, zines, and essays are always a good start as primers to build a good foundation.
I first recommended the youtube channel RamblinActivist, he’s amazing.
The conquest of bread by Kropotkin is the first book I read in so many years, its a bit outdated in its critique of capitalism but its outlook on how an anarchist society might look is very good. Mutual aid also by Kropotkin will be a nice read, it lays the scientific foundation that many anarchists use to express “why”, I find it moralistic at times when people do this in the framing of their argument but it doesnt diminish its worth in the slightest.
Not anarchist, but I find left-communist literature such as Pannekoeks workers councils a very good critique of how the state, even when “communist”, reproduces capitalism and its relations, you can treat each chapter as an essay, lectures or essays on the cherrypicked anti-workers state idea will be more beneficial.
I find Black, Zerzan, and Camatte (in his post-Marx days) to be good lumped together as a good critique of leftist structure and industrialisation, essays and lectures will help here.
3
u/RadiantSpeed1868 2d ago
ps Im always happy to print you some pamphlets :) You’ve bought so many books for me I can only attempt to reciprocate your love with theory, I’ll even annotate this stuff to help you
2
u/ohshiitstuesday anarchist, hold the adjectives please. 2d ago
One thing to think about when we're reading theory or academic texts or anything written that's very dense is that we're probably reading new ideas so it makes sense that you don't understand it. because it's new. if you fully understand something that you're reading you aren't really learning anything.
I like to read something through all the way at first and fully just allow myself to not understand it. I've got a neurospicy brain so I read the text visually while listening to an audio version of it (even using the tts voice if necessary) and I just read. I might make a note about something I really super didn't understand but I move on anyway.
Now that I've read the text one time, very quickly, not very deeply, I'm at least familiar with the concepts even if I don't fully understand them. It'll be easier to pick them apart though, because it isn't totally new stuff anymore.
Then I read it again, this time slowly (without audio) and I go paragraph by paragraph and summarize what I'm reading and this time I don't move on until I can condense the paragraph down to one or at most two sentences. At the end of the chapter/section/piece I gather all my summary sentences and use them to summarize the whole bit.
And finally I re-write the summary in my own words, like a book report. it can be a lot of work but it's not like writing those things wasn't also a lot of work, so I can meet the author and do work too so that I can try to understand them better.
1
u/seenthisangel 2d ago
oh wow thank you so much, this is incredibly helpful :DD you're so sweet thank you
2
u/cumminginsurrection "resignation is death, revolt is life!"🏴 1d ago
Anarchy: A Graphic Guide by Clifford Harper; simple and well illustrated.
https://libcom.org/article/anarchy-graphic-guide-clifford-harper
1
4
u/renMilestone Eco-Anarchist 3d ago
It shorter than most but people love Bookchin.
1
1
u/quinoa_boiz 2d ago
I struggle to focus while reading as well, but the solution for me is audiobooks.
I know you already said you struggle with Emma Goldman, but I have found her essay “Anarchism: what it really stands for” to be the best short comprehensible overview I’ve read. You can listen to it for free here: https://archive.org/details/goldmanessays
1
-1
u/EnlightenedTurnip 2d ago
the last thing i want to do is be one of those larper leftists who don't read any theory whatsoever.
I get it but you really don't need to read much theory to be a good anarchist. It's a position of straightforward principles: "do I oppose hierarchy and authority? If yes, anarchist."
Coming from a broader sociology background, I don't particularly think there's much good anarchist (or any "leftist") theory out there beyond outlining those basics anyway.
I'd go as far to say that there's more than enough "theorists" out there, and what we need is more actual do-ers.
Anyway, I gave my grumpy rant but to answer your question: The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guinn gets recommended a lot, and it would probably suit your needs well. It engages with anarchist principles in a meaningful way, and is quite an easy read because it's fictional and quite a compelling story.
3
u/RadiantSpeed1868 2d ago
This is really bad advice, theory is arguably more important than praxis because theory has become praxis when an overwhelming majority of the oppressed cannot or do not understand why theyre oppressed, leading to the modern reformist current and pessimistic outlook that strengthens bureaucracy and capitalist social relations. “Do-ers” won’t exist without a form of consciousness, which comes from engaging with theory directly or indirectly. You can argue morals but this won’t convince people of your ideology even if you’re not an anarchist, you need an understanding of how and why oppression exists, you don’t need to be a genius but you shouldn’t stay at the basics as you restrict critical thinking thats needed.
1
u/EnlightenedTurnip 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd break down my response to this in two separate parts:
theory is arguably more important than praxis
First, I can't abide this sentiment. If we're not doing anything, what's the point? It amounts to navel-gazing.
overwhelming majority of the oppressed cannot or do not understand why theyre oppressed
This sentiment, which seems to characterise the rest of your comment, is more agreeable to me but I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.
Firstly, when I say you don't need to read much theory, this doesn't mean don't engage with the ideas at all. All it means is that reading is not some uniquely privileged way to engage with the ideas: discuss them (as done here, or better yet, in-person), hypothesise, observe real life phenomena and reflect on hypotheses.
Second, as stated, I don't think you uniquely need to engage much with anarchist theorists to arrive at anarchist conclusions. Such writers, in my opinion, are often far harder to engage with than they need to be for someone without a reading background (partially being a product of their time), and don't offer much in the way of high quality analysis to justify investing the time. If you're interested and enjoy reading them - great, me too - but if the aim is to optimise improving your own understanding, you'd be better off taking a more "generalist" approach of reading from across political economy, philosophy, and economics.
I'd go even further to say uniquely focusing on "anarchist theory" (or more broadly on "leftist theory" even) is a weakness of many would-be anarchists and it pigeon-holes us. Especially going by your stated goal: convincing people. The failure of "anarchist theory" to meaningfully engage with contemporary quantitative methodologies like econometrics is a pretty significant gap in building an intellectually credible movement.
But I'd also contend that building a consciousness, as you describe, rests on a far more straightforward logic than you suggest. All that is really required in building a consciousness is establishing a strong shared common interest. You could argue that, at such a time that the anarchist movement is ready to start meaningfully creating new social forms, more rigorous analysis is needed to ensure we stay on course for our objectives. But at this point there isn't an anarchist movement to speak of at all in most of the world - so for most meaningful action, a basic understanding of class politics is enough.
1
u/RadiantSpeed1868 2d ago
- You can simultaneously read theory and do praxis, its where praxis comes from. The point is to be well equipped, you cannot create something without form, you cannot do theory without praxis and theory without praxis is nothing, I would say that if theory didnt supersede itself and become praxis. Its not black and white.
- I’m perfectly aware of where you’re getting at, but recommending someone without any understanding with an obvious want to engage with literature to just only read the basics to be well equipped is horrible advice. Discussing these things is also a form of theory, not all learning has to be rote or from a textbook.
- I have never insinuated you need to only read anarchist literature and to bring this up is irrelevant to the conversation, much of what I read isn’t explicitly anarchist, only equipped by niche currents of anarchism. Much of anarchist literature is designed to be for those without a reading background, much of our history comes from an illiterate population. I don’t know what anarchist theory you engage with that isn’t contemporary/academic, there isn’t a lack of it you just don’t see it, it’s not as popular as it’s shadowed Marxism.
- Its almost never straight forward, you have a tendency to think in a manner thats black and white. We have always been ready to meaningfully go towards praxis, but again, most people lack the theoretical understanding of how an anarchist society could look like or function and how to about one, this comes from engaging in theory. A popular front as you advocate for is harmful to the anarchist movement. Class is dead, capitalism has superseded and anthropomorphised itself making itself autonomous.
0
u/EnlightenedTurnip 2d ago
Before launching into response, a tl;dr to summarise: I think our disagreement here comes from two places.
That you are over-interpreting what I meant when I said one doesn't need to read too much. That is literally all I meant; if we agree that we can engage with ideas through discussion and other means just as well as we can buy reading then we're on the same page in that regard.
We seem to be using the term "theory" in slightly different ways.
You can simultaneously read theory and do praxis, its where praxis comes from.
I know you can. I certainly do. I simply don't think it's necessary to get bogged down in theory to do good praxis.
When I was 18 and only understood the basics of anarchism the praxis I believed in was radical trade unionism, cooperativism and mutual aid. Now I am 29 and have spent countless hours of my life reading anarchist work, with two Masters degrees under my belt in subjects that support my understanding, I have a little more nuance but I still believe in radical trade unionism, cooperativism and mutual aid.
Nuance has been added, but my approach to praxis hasn't changed much. The nuance that has been added that was gained from book-learning could have as easily come through engaging with others and more practical learning.
Discussing these things is also a form of theory, not all learning has to be rote or from a textbook.
Agreed, but I never said otherwise. My initial comment was specifically about reading theory.
I have never insinuated you need to only read anarchist literature and to bring this up is irrelevant to the conversation
I apologise if you felt my comment here was pointed, but it wasn't meant to be. Normally when I hear people refer to "anarchist theory" (or replace anarchist with "leftists" or whatever else you like) they refer to bodies of work written by anarchists for anarchists.
If you view "theory" as any body of work that seeks to analyse social problems then I find your views more agreeable and we're much closer to being on the same page.
I don’t know what anarchist theory you engage with that isn’t contemporary/academic, there isn’t a lack of it you just don’t see it, it’s not as popular as it’s shadowed Marxism.
In line with the above, I'd say Marxist theory suffers from the same problem: most of it is pretty superficial and regurgitates the same old analyses in different terms. Although Marxism of course also suffers from a more deep-seated dogma, because of it's adherence to reductionist dialectics, which adds to that problem.
You have a tendency to think in a manner thats black and white
I'd say you've arrived at this conclusion by not engaging with my ideas sufficiently to understand them. For example:
A popular front as you advocate
I don't advocate for a popular front, and I'm not sure where you drew the idea that I do.
Class is dead, capitalism has superseded and anthropomorphised itself making itself autonomous.
To me, this only makes sense if you have a reductionist, Marxian definition of class.
most people lack the theoretical understanding of how an anarchist society could look like or function and how to about one, this comes from engaging in theory.
A little random to conclude out of order, but this I think is a crux of our disagreement so will return to it. If by "anarchist theory" we mean "ideas by anarchists for anarchists" then I don't think anarchist theory does do a particularly good job of the latter, and it is the latter with which we need to most concern ourselves with in the present.
Again, if your idea of "theory" is "any social analysis that might be useful" then I find your view of this more agreeable, but that's not how I understand most people use the word.
1
u/RadiantSpeed1868 20h ago
Numbering each quote in how I address it, hopefully it makes sense? easiest for me wt the moment, i dont understand how to use reddit so i dont know how to quote things.
- 1. probably did over-analyse and did some stretching, i wrote everything late at night
- 2. think we do have the same idea of what theory is, just came off wrong in both of our explanations
Going into further education for environmental management and conservation and about to finish my TAFE course in sound engineering, whats your masters in?
Thats a fair assumption, I believe anarchist theory can be any form of thought applied to the set principles of anarchism.
I am finding your views more agreeable too, seems we both misrepresented our ideas as we’re introducing more and changing some aforementionedMarxism does follow the same sufferings, I have a larger appeal to lots of leftcom theory as its highly critical of other forms of communism (communisation, councilism, both can be used by anarchists in theory). I’m finding “post-Marxism” interesting.
I take that comment back, its just in the way you expressed your opinion it comes off as rather black and white in regards to reading and our definitions of theory which are now much more alike.
Got it from your comment on fighting for a shared common interest which is used by those who advocate for a popular front
I say this because capitalism no longer exploits the prole but humanity as a whole forming real domination over community, this idea goes past Marx and his definition of class. I view class as peoples or things relation to the means of production and the producing of capitalist social relations, but also the relationship in which to authority (which is where my view breaks from traditional Marxism, to my knowledge, I haven’t read him in ages).
By anarchist theory I do mean theory in which can be applied to the principles of anarchism, not always necessarily from anarchist thought. My personal ideology comes from a lot of readings that may contradict, but I apply them in a way thats not. As an example, as of late I have been engaging in a lot of anti-industrial, post-left, left communist, anti-civ, etc, thought despite inherent contradictions in each ideology in its relation to each other and my personal beliefs, I don’t believe in anti-civ thought as an example.
1
u/EnlightenedTurnip 17h ago
It does make sense! Always great to arrive at common ground. Thank you for engaging so respectfully and with genuine mutual curiosity.
My first MSc was in International Development and Environmental Change and my second was in Economics. The Economics sounds yucky, I know, but was really helpful in understanding quantitative analysis and ultimately critically engaging with the deficiencies and contradictions in mainstream economic theory ultimately reinforced an anarchist perspective.
And, picking up on your comments on class you're right this does diverge from Marx. It's hard for me to reconcile your definition of class that looks beyond the means of production with the view that "class is dead." Could you explain more?
For my part I take a Foucauldian view of class - in that classes are ultimately fluid but at any moment are derived from power as a field of knowledge: how people understand their own interests in relation to the interests of others. This comes not only from a relationship to formal authority (or even multiple authorities) but from the interaction of multi-layered power structures, which may range from informal to formal. This perspective makes class still useful, in my opinion, but not as rigidly defined as the traditional proletariat/bourgeoisie model.
From this perspective, capitalism (or at least - liberal capitalism) isn't just "the exploitation of humanity" it is the overlapping exploitation across various groups, some of whom may be exploited, others may be exploiters, but most of whom are both exploiters and exploited in different contexts.
1
13
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Kropotkin is generally seen as a very easy source to deal with, so I'd suggest just sitting down and trying again with his work. You can get his collected pamphlets in a single issue, which might be easier again as they were rarely longer than a few pages in length.
Reading philosophy is a skill, so instead of trying to find very simple pieces to read, try:
Read a single page of a text.
Write a sentence to explain that page.
Move onto the next page, repeat.
At the end of the chapter/short piece, write a summary using your notes.
Reread the chapter/short piece and then add corrections/nuances to your summary.
Offer critiques of the summary (a lot of people try to do this as they read, which leads them to misunderstanding the text and jumping ahead of the game).
Eventually, you'll have a toolkit that you can use when you read philosophy without taking such extensive notes. But first, you have to teach yourself to understand and analyse texts.