This polemic approaches the subject of anarchism in relation to class struggle. It presents an argument against class-based society and hierarchy and advocates for a free and equal society based on individual dignity and merit.
Drawing from the authors’ experiences as activists and documenting the activities of other 20th-century anarchists—including clandestine activities and social change by any means—this fundamental text asserts that government is the true enemy of the people and that only through the dissolution of government can the people put an end to exploitation and war, leading to a fully free society. This is the 1970 edition.
Comments
Just thought I'd get this
Just thought I'd get this started. Add more later.
Finished.
Finished.
Amazing! Thanks
Amazing! Thanks
Juan Conatz
Juan Conatz
Cheers bruv
Wow thanks for that.
Wow thanks for that.
Spam!!!
Spam!!!
many, many years ago I could
many, many years ago I could not understand this book, sorry. It was one of the hardest reads ever. I suspect it was just too "british" in tone, langugae and outlook....which makes sense given that the authors are from that part of the world. maybe with the passage of time and age, i should come back and pck up my printed copy and give another read.
Have you read I Couldn't
Have you read I Couldn't Paint Golden Angels Albert Meltzer? Well worth it.
Syndicalist: It's so peppered
Syndicalist:
It's so peppered with so many British references, often without any explanation or footnotes, when I read it a few years ago it made sense to me but I thought it had so much Britspeak in it, it might not travel very well. Just flicking through it now, I've come across references to Keir Hardie, William Beverage, the Webbs, Henry Mayhew, Oz magazine, the Fabians, to name but a few. I'm not sure many people outside the UK would necessarily know who these people were. I think it could really benefit from a more expanded glossary for readers outside the UK.
Completely agree with Rat, I Couldn't Paint Golden Angels is well worth a read.
rat wrote: Have you read I
rat
I've read it...but there were some rough spots to read as well.
have you ever heard Albert speak (rest his soul)? Now that was often a challenge (for me!)
I have a textual question
I have a textual question important to me. The last paragraph of the chapter Rewards and Fantasies as reproduced here on libcom reads:
"A free society might ration those goods which are in short supply and cannot be available upon the formula of "each according to his needs". It can have nothing to do with superior decisions upon merits, or the goblin fluctuations of currency. For then it would cease to be free."
I strongly remember the paragraph reading:
"A free society might ration those goods which are in short supply and cannot be available upon the formula of "each according to his needs". It might issue labour credits. It can have nothing to do with superior decisions upon merits, or the goblin fluctuations of currency. For then it would cease to be free."
Ie a reference to labour credits. (Wording might be very slightly different) I've owned a couple of hardcopy editions over the years. Am I misremembering entirely? Or is there a difference between editions?