What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anarchists
The Anarchists The Men Who Shocked an Era (Library of the 20th Centuy)
- GenresHistory
127 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
1 person is currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
H.R. Kedward
9 books1 followerHarry Roderick Kedward is a British historian.
Kedward specialized in the history of Vichy France and of the Resistance. Oral history formed a central part of Kedward's historical approach, as he has interviewed hundreds of ordinary Frenchmen and women about their experience of being in the Resistance.
He has also published a general history of 20th century France, under the title La Vie en Bleu.
Kedward specialized in the history of Vichy France and of the Resistance. Oral history formed a central part of Kedward's historical approach, as he has interviewed hundreds of ordinary Frenchmen and women about their experience of being in the Resistance.
He has also published a general history of 20th century France, under the title La Vie en Bleu.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 8, 2015
As part of the 'Library of the 20th Century' series this book is both compact and handsome. The author seeks to cover as much as he possibly can in a some what small and sleek book while sharing many pages with photographs and paintings from the period. He manages to do this well.
Roderick writes about the late 19th century - early 20th century radical 'left' wing anarchists who rejected authority in its many forms. Most of them were reactionaries born into subjugation, witnessing the many abuses of power whether it be theological, the monarchy, the State or that of a business interests. For the most part the anarchist stand-stood to oppose capitalism, at least the form of capitalism so imagined in their minds. A capitalism depicted by Marx and other reactionaries which was both imperialistic as well as exploitative.
This form of capitalism as so defined would often be considered as corporatism, cronyism, mercantilism and out right Statism. But never really true capitalism because in essence that as it stands in its truest, freest form is in fact anarchical. But alas the language is so merged with illusory beliefs as to what one defines as such that ideals are based upon the some times real and often imagined depictions of this capitalism.
The book manages to cover most of the anarcho-syndacilists of the era and seeks to explain their ideology. It manages to also cover some of the individualists which for the most part stand a part from their more collective minded cousins.
Roderick in his writing offers some of the views of the non violent theorists who rejected the violence of the more famous Anarchists of active consequence. Not enough I felt was spent covering the non violent Anarchists. That being said this was a book which is best used as an intro to such a deep area of interest.
It is interesting to note that even 100 years hence 'we' still have an obsession with fear mongering when it comes to an ideological group. The collective narrative for the most part concerns it self with the radicals or violent players of any ideological movement, however unrelated they may be. Most Anarchists of their day were disjointed and non centralised, by the ideologies very nature. Because of this lack of general cohesion it is wrong to condemned all when one or some who declared them self an anarchist committed a violent act.
Certainly the movement for the most part did set to define itself as a reactionary force which would use violence to usurp the power base. While other Anarchists were pacifists or condemning of the chaotic violence that many both the State and their 'ideological' peers enacted. Just as in our present age we have a new obsession with a certain Theological idealism which is fearfully defined as being violent due to the actions of a relative few.
And yet the violence that has emerged from both of these groups, dare I say all such groups in history, usually arises in some response to a violent oppression or conduct in the first place and is ultimately a ...blowback or unintended consequence of historical realities conveniently ignored by the collective narrative.
This is what I feel the weakness of the book is. A lack of consideration as to why and what the 'Anarchists' opposed. It simply accepted that for a time these individuals violently emerged and then fell away. Almost as though their ideals of voluntarism, in what ever form, was an alien emergence while the status quo of obedience and near absolute authority is the 'correct' path.
A good read and informative all the same.
72 %
Roderick writes about the late 19th century - early 20th century radical 'left' wing anarchists who rejected authority in its many forms. Most of them were reactionaries born into subjugation, witnessing the many abuses of power whether it be theological, the monarchy, the State or that of a business interests. For the most part the anarchist stand-stood to oppose capitalism, at least the form of capitalism so imagined in their minds. A capitalism depicted by Marx and other reactionaries which was both imperialistic as well as exploitative.
This form of capitalism as so defined would often be considered as corporatism, cronyism, mercantilism and out right Statism. But never really true capitalism because in essence that as it stands in its truest, freest form is in fact anarchical. But alas the language is so merged with illusory beliefs as to what one defines as such that ideals are based upon the some times real and often imagined depictions of this capitalism.
The book manages to cover most of the anarcho-syndacilists of the era and seeks to explain their ideology. It manages to also cover some of the individualists which for the most part stand a part from their more collective minded cousins.
Roderick in his writing offers some of the views of the non violent theorists who rejected the violence of the more famous Anarchists of active consequence. Not enough I felt was spent covering the non violent Anarchists. That being said this was a book which is best used as an intro to such a deep area of interest.
It is interesting to note that even 100 years hence 'we' still have an obsession with fear mongering when it comes to an ideological group. The collective narrative for the most part concerns it self with the radicals or violent players of any ideological movement, however unrelated they may be. Most Anarchists of their day were disjointed and non centralised, by the ideologies very nature. Because of this lack of general cohesion it is wrong to condemned all when one or some who declared them self an anarchist committed a violent act.
Certainly the movement for the most part did set to define itself as a reactionary force which would use violence to usurp the power base. While other Anarchists were pacifists or condemning of the chaotic violence that many both the State and their 'ideological' peers enacted. Just as in our present age we have a new obsession with a certain Theological idealism which is fearfully defined as being violent due to the actions of a relative few.
And yet the violence that has emerged from both of these groups, dare I say all such groups in history, usually arises in some response to a violent oppression or conduct in the first place and is ultimately a ...blowback or unintended consequence of historical realities conveniently ignored by the collective narrative.
This is what I feel the weakness of the book is. A lack of consideration as to why and what the 'Anarchists' opposed. It simply accepted that for a time these individuals violently emerged and then fell away. Almost as though their ideals of voluntarism, in what ever form, was an alien emergence while the status quo of obedience and near absolute authority is the 'correct' path.
A good read and informative all the same.
72 %
April 19, 2024
I love this series, and the others like it such as the Pan/Ballantine History of World War II - every time I see one of these I buy it. Short, pithy histories of a concept or period of history (in this case, both), written (usually) by an academic, and profusely illustrated. They are a great introductory work on a particular topic.
Anarchism is a hard one to nail in such a format, but Roderick Kedward has done a good job to lay out the basics of the concepts and history of the movement. He explains the nature of Anarchism, emphasizing individual choice and the hatred of the idea of government. He begins with the great Russians Kropotkin and Bakunin and then describes in some detail the anarchist outrages in Europe and the ideological battle between the individualists and the anarcho-syndicalists.
His focus is on Western Europe - France, Italy and Spain in particular, but also with mentions of Russia and England. This book was published in 1971, and Kedward implies that anarchism had died as a political movement since World War II as Europe moved to a welfare state. He doesn't really discuss the phenomenon of 1968, and of course this book was published way before the resurgence of anarchist ideas in our current century.
As a brief introduction to the concept and history of the Anarchist idea, this book isn't bad - I'm sure you could pick it up for less than the price of a cup of coffee, and it's much more fulfilling.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
Anarchism is a hard one to nail in such a format, but Roderick Kedward has done a good job to lay out the basics of the concepts and history of the movement. He explains the nature of Anarchism, emphasizing individual choice and the hatred of the idea of government. He begins with the great Russians Kropotkin and Bakunin and then describes in some detail the anarchist outrages in Europe and the ideological battle between the individualists and the anarcho-syndicalists.
His focus is on Western Europe - France, Italy and Spain in particular, but also with mentions of Russia and England. This book was published in 1971, and Kedward implies that anarchism had died as a political movement since World War II as Europe moved to a welfare state. He doesn't really discuss the phenomenon of 1968, and of course this book was published way before the resurgence of anarchist ideas in our current century.
As a brief introduction to the concept and history of the Anarchist idea, this book isn't bad - I'm sure you could pick it up for less than the price of a cup of coffee, and it's much more fulfilling.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
January 17, 2018
The book is well researched and the author really did an outstanding job of presenting the whole development and influence as well as anarchism all over the world. The photos are outstanding especially with the references to art which is my interest and there are some writing about art in the book. The only reason for the lower rating of three is because although he researches anarchism, he makes closing remarks about Christianity and Marxism and the Kingdom of God as myths....I think it is an intellectual error....Why? In research and building a case say - (let us stretch it a bit) about motorcars and then talking in your conclusive statements about the sea...it is just ridiculous! He should have stayed with his topic...It is strange how many "intellectuals" make this type of error - it would never do in a PHD.... Nevertheless still an informative read.
January 28, 2015
This is a fairly dense, though nicely illustrated little book about Anarchy. Much is abstract, dealing with the topic in a theoretical sense while covering historical manifestations of anarchy.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews