Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism

by Marquis Bey

What Black liberation and anarchism have in common, and what they can offer each other.

Anarcho-Blackness seeks to define the shape of a Black anarchism. Classical anarchism tended to avoid questions of race—specifically Blackness—as well as the intersections of race and gender. Bey addresses this lack, not by constructing a new cannon of Black anarchists but by outlining how anarchism and Blackness already share a certain subjective relationship to power, a way of understanding and inhabiting the world. Through the lens of Black feminist and transgender theory, he explores what we can learn by making this kinship explicit, including how anarchism itself is transformed by the encounter. If the state is predicated on a racialized and gendered capitalism, its undoing can only be imagined and undertaken by a political theory that takes race and gender seriously.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Race, Theory, Philosophy, Feminism, Social Justice

96 pages, Paperback

Published August 18, 2020

Reviews

[Zoe · Rating 2 out of 5]

VERY academic. I would not be surprised at all if this book was originally written as Bey’s dissertation. There were big chunks of the book where I got so bogged down in the academic language that I couldn’t follow the thread, but there were also sections I found more accessible and interesting. My main experience of reading this book was wishing I could read a version of it that was written for the general public, instead of just people with advanced degrees.

And that’s fine- PhDs are allowed to write books for other PhDs. This isn’t meant to dissuade anyone else from reading Anarcho-Blackness, just to say that it was abundantly clear that this book was Not For Me, and I’m kinda bummed about it.

[Corvus · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seems like the perfect time for a release like Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism by Marquis Bey. With all of the inspiring and brave uprisings for racial justice currently going down, (and the usual false painting of anarchism being composed solely of rich white kids breaking windows for no reason,) amplification of the voices of Black anarchists is critical. When I saw that AK Press was going to be putting out this title, I got pretty excited. There is not nearly enough exposure of the words of Black anarchists out there. The writer is trans as well and thus, I knew this writing would likely be inclusive of all or many issues undeniably intersecting with Black anarchist theory and practice. As a result, I may have set my expectations too high. What I did not realize is that this book is a heavily academic text that perhaps could double as a graduate thesis. When I say academic, I don't just mean exploring theory, I mean it left me feeling at times like I wasn't smart or educated enough to grasp what Bey was saying. 109 pages of text took me quite a long time to crawl through as I found myself reading and rereading sections to make sure I grasped what was said. At other times, I felt that the book was having similar results of other academic texts I have read which is to say that it uses a lot of big words, huge quotes, and lots of gender studies language to say something that could be said in a simpler, more accessible manner. That is not to say that this book doesn't offer anything. Just know that, going into it, one should not expect a book designed to be accessible to most audiences- including perhaps marginalized Black people without access to college that Black-anarchism is supposed to liberate. It can however add something to the field of critical feminist, race, and anarchist studies. The review of literature it provides alone is reason for that.

Bey quickly discusses intentions for the text which are not to force labels onto Black activists and theorists even if their actions and theories fall in line with anarchism. The text leans more towards a gender and race studies lens in which Bey persuades the reader to understand why anarchism is linked to Queer and Black feminisms. Bey mentions that As Black As Resistance (also put out by AK Press,) was an inspiration for Anarcho-Blackness. As Black As Resistance is one of my favorite anarchist texts of all time and while it can also be heavier academic reading, I found it to be much more accessible and better constructed than Anarcho-Blackness. You will find a lot of Zoe Samudzi quotes throughout Bey's work and rightfully so. As I mentioned before, Bey offers a good review of much of relevant literature out there. I was a little perturbed to find a Gandhi quote opening the book due to Gandhi's history of anti-Black racism. From then on, though, the reader will find a lot of quotes from various anarchists, feminists, activists, and theorists throughout. I put a ton of page flags on the pages, much of the time to mark quotations from other texts.

Since the book is a collection of "notes toward a Black anarchism," the reader will find essays focusing on specific topics such as activist history, Black feminism, gender and Queerness, and so on. I found the final chapter in the book to be the most accessibly written. I always find myself on a seesaw of thoughts regarding academic texts like this. I absolutely believe there is an important place for critical studies and I do not believe that all texts need to be accessible to all readers. But, when a text focuses on the struggles of the most marginalized people in society, something feels a little off if said people can't access the text. I have a B.S. and have done my share of reading and writing papers and thus, I assume that if I struggle to grasp something, someone less educated and practiced than me may also struggle. That said, I have developed cognitive difficulties over time due to disability, so perhaps it's more accessible than I realize. There is, however, also something to be said about texts that require full attention, rereading, exploring citations, and so on, and how the reading process of those can be more involved in a good way. So, this text is an example of the latter. Perhaps those who would benefit most from this are academics or those who frequently read academic texts, particularly in gender and critical race studies, who need a better understanding of how anarchism fits into that. For those already more on board with this idea, I recommend going for As Black as Resistance by Samudzi and Anderson instead.

This was also posted to my blog.

[Gabriel Avocado · Rating 3 out of 5]

since bey invokes marx's 'ruthless criticism of all that exists', i will also invoke it here. i agree with much of marquis bey's positions and i have tried to engage with this book on its own terms to the best of my ability. i feel like i need to make my intentions known because i am not an anarchist. i actually agree quite a bit with anarchists but often things break down when we get to the post revolution aspect of things, something i am going to have to point out when we get there.

bey doesnt seek to relate blackness to anarchism but rather bring about the destruction of white supremacy, patriarchy, and cissexist values in present and theory. it is not black anarchism, they affirm, but anarcho-blackness, because the anarcho is a "driving force" against the above isms. there is a lot of discussion of destruction and negation in this, which is to be expected from an anarchist book. this isnt a diss either; i do try to engage anarchy as a theoretical and political force. i dont dismiss anarchism or anarchists offhand, since we have the same goals after all.

they affirm that 'to be ungoverned is not to oppose governance; to be ungoverned is to operate beyond governance, to become disaffected by it, not even acknowledging its legitimacy, being, in other words, ungoverned by governance.' and i can agree with this. bey's position on building the future is quite clear to me, in that they want to transcend what we believe is possible. we can do better than present and past, and the future is pregnant with possibility. we dont need to be constrained by our lack of imagination; it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, after all.

i think i should address something i keep seeing in the comments since im referencing the text so much here. people get caught up in the 'academic'-sounding prose but academic=/=difficult to read or understand. honestly, i find bey's writings to be quite poetic with heavy use of metaphor and flourish but grounded in reality and a heavy respect from those who came before them. theres nothing to dislike here, especially if youre coming from some of the sources bey draws upon like foucault and derrida (which, full disclosure, i am not haha). i think the 'academic' accusations stem from how serious and uninterested they are in making their writing to people who might come into the text with a closed mind. and frankly, theyre writing what they want. and what is more anarchist than that?

i enjoy how bey effortlessly weaves gender into theory and history, drawing it forward to the center along with race. perhaps my vocabulary and theoretical basis is too poor to really explain myself, because maybe 'along with' is not the right word. and bey makes this abundantly clear that there is no hierarchy to these identities, that they are one and the same and exist with but not without each other. this is the basis of modern intersectionality but also they take it further and extend into the nature of property and its abolition.

bey sums up the anarchist nature of abolition itself in the final chapter but i find this passage from 'unpropertied' to be the most explicit and succinct definition: 'Anarchism seeks, then, to remove the private ownership of property that sustains capital accumulation. Black anarchism must consider both senses by way of acknowledging and forming a politicized movement around the fact that the history of Blackness is testament to the fact that there are some whose property (essential characteristic) was property (an ownable thing).'

how does one imagine the end of property without recognizing that people were/are property and who that 'property' belonged TO? how does one imagine the abolition of private property while ignoring how slaves were both public and private property? (see j sakais settlers for more on how early capitalist development in the US colonies was entirely dependent on skilled and 'unskilled' african labor.)

so far there is really nothing i disagree with politically. in fact, i think if this werent a book about anarchism i would probably have enjoyed it a lot more. but unfortunately there is a lot i really didnt like about anarcho-blackness, and this is exclusively because of my own politics. im not here to refute someones ideology. i picked this book up because i wanted to understand anarchists on their own terms. bey is right that white anarchists have historically avoided touching upon race altogether (which is btw why i personally avoided anarchism like the plague; even marx and engels talked extensively about race, albeit imperfectly, and race and anti imperialism are massive parts of marxism no matter what economistic white marxists try and tell you).

but one of beys stated goals at the start of the book was 'to express what anarchism might be, what it might look like, when encountering a sustained engagement with Blackness in general, and Black queer and trans feminisms more specifically.' i think that was an early indicator (in the first paragraph lol) that i wasnt going to like where they take this. they claim they arent trying to bring non anarchist black people into anarchism:

'I know, I know, they [combahee river collective] don’t call themselves anarchists. But as stated at the outset of this volume, I care little about only claiming Black people, and in this case Black women, who deem themselves anarchists. I care little, too, about bringing people into the institutional fold of anarchism.'

there is much criticism of The State, and bey ONLY talks about explicitly capitalist states like the US. yes, the state is bad but as a communist i find it difficult to argue against any kind of state whatsoever immediately after capitalist collapse. yes the current state does all of these evil things that bey states. we are in complete and total agreement here. but the state is not the be all end all of exploitation. exploitation exists BEYOND and PRIOR TO the modern state, particularly the capitalist state. i know that anarchists use the state much like communists use the term capitalism but which states one refers to matters, as capitalism is a global system but states are generally localized affairs.

'Anarchy is an open rebellion. It cannot be closed, nor should it be closed, because its openness is what gives it its anarchic tenor for accepting the radical, the unknown that might arise when all we’ve known is dismantled.' what does this mean in practical terms? bey goes on to highlight how women like harriet tubman and sojourner truth practice anarchism in their rebellions against the slaveocratic united states, how black people live their lives largely abandoned by the state and are forced to seek refuge in each other and outside of official state recognition. this is undoubtedly true. in brazil, people in the slums rarely see the state intervene except to invade their homes and shoot their children. the state only exists as a great violator, a demonic force that uproots families and threatens their security. the state doesnt provide work or housing for black communities in slums, and so these communities are forced to make do through unregulated labor and building shacks in precarious locations.

but to me, this IS anarchy. they have to fend for themselves in a hostile world and it is clearly not paying off. the anarchism bey and other anarchists suggest is something more structured. but that is a frustrating assessment.

i think i got the angriest in the final chapter when they just outright lied?: 'The Black anarchism of, say, the Black Panthers is one in which they “blended anarchist positions with their revolutionary nationalism,” though there is a distinction to be made: Black anarchists do not hold on to a nationalist conception of an exclusionary, bordered State, as Marxist-Leninist Black Panthers do the BPP explicitly called for internationalist cooperation for black liberation in the here and now.' they werent 'holding on to' nationalism or bordered states. in fact, the bpp rejected simple nationalism, preferring INTERNATIONALISM that united all oppressed people towards the single goal of liberation. but i guess they were nationalists suddenly? this isnt like some deep obscure party statement either. a lot of huey p newtons theories were entirely based on the belief that liberation only occurs thru anticolonial struggle across state and ethnic borders. idk this genuinely frustrated me to the point where i wondered if bey just made it up as a way to contrast anarchism with MLism? but if youve ever read newton youd know he was very preoccupied with internationalism, and their very actions put that on display. but i guess everythings up for interpretation :|

something that drives me up a wall is the anarchist answer to a post capitalist world. while marxist leninists like myself believe there must be something to replace the vacuum after capitalist collapse, and that this something must be a worker-led state designed to protect worker interest, anarchists reject this by saying that all states are fundamentally oppressive. yes, i agree with this. and i also believe that oppressing the bourgeoisie (aka not allowing them to exploit people) is a fundamental good and is not the same thing as the present day dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. to say otherwise is like arguing that misandry or reverse racism exists; youre simply talking about the oppressed fighting back against an unjust world and how its as bad as the actual injustices. i will never agree with this and i do not believe one should allow themselves to be crushed in the name of morals.

i feel the need to bring this up because bey talks about street transvestite action revolutionaries (star) and their actions and politics in a way that makes me question if we're on the same page here. i dont want to quote the entire passage but star explicitly stated in their 1971 list of demands as an organization that 'We want a revolutionary peoples’ government, where transvestites, street people, women, homosexuals, Puerto Ricans, Indians, and all oppressed people are free, and not fucked over by this government who treat us like the scum of the earth and kill us off like flies, one by one, and throw us into jail to rot.' i agree with this 100%. no conditionals. but bey feels the need to explain that what star ACTUALLY meant isnt like, an actual government:

'What they envisioned from the experiential and social modality of their transness, their queerness, their Blackness and Latinxness was a different kind of “government.” Surely, an anarchist might question the yearning for any government at all, as governments operate through the means and intentions of the State. It could be argued, however, that STAR’s vision is not “governmental” in this sense, that “a revolutionary people’s government” is a radically re-understood approach to governance that bears few, if any, of the filigree and organs of a government in the traditional sense. For houseless, trans, gay, and otherwise oppressed people of Color to be free in fact necessitates the tearing down of “government,” thus the revolutionary people’s government is no government at all—it is, in a slant and perhaps admittedly an insufficient way, anarchist society.'

to be entirely fair, bey never once touches on non capitalist states and indeed focuses entirely on the US (making the strange accusation of the bpp's nationalism even more irritating as an international reader). what they envision past capitalism is a better world, and it is vague, probably intentionally so. a better world IS possible and can only be done through cooperation and solidarity. but this makes me feel like im not on the same page as bey is, like im reading the book wrong. im drawing upon my previous understandings of anarchism and socialism but perhaps i am not meant to do so. bey didnt fall into the anarchist trappings of denouncing socialist experiments so perhaps the goal is not to predict and outline what an idea post capitalist world looks like but to detail the fundamentally transgressive nature of blackness in the realm of revolutionary politics. i cant dismiss this possibility. but i also cant help but feel like this needed to be addressed, since post revolution is probably THE defining difference between socialists and anarchists.

i cant help but feel like im not the right audience for this. like i didnt read this book in the way it was intended to. i know im not an anarchist and all but i walked away with more frustrations and questions than anything else. i dont feel much closer to understanding the anarchist position because bey is moving away from that mainstream (read: white) position, which i fundamentally respect. perhaps this is enough, and perhaps i am looking for something that was never going to be answered and that is on me.

i think if you are an anarchist, particularly if youre nonblack, this is a fundamental book for you. id even recommend it to nonblack or black cishet leftists in general simply because i think bey does an incredible job of explaining what a better world could be for those of us (black, trans, gnc, women) who are othered by society. but i think if youve got a solid understanding of intersectionality and especially afropessimism, this doesnt seem to add much, but only bring together those ideas into one place (which is not invaluable!). its not as 'academic' as other reviewers claim it is and is quite a fast read so you might as well if you have the chance.

[Serah J Blain · Rating 5 out of 5]

As others have noted, this book is heavily academic, and I find that disappointing because it is, in all other respects, a beautiful book. But it will be inaccessible to many of the people I would most want to share it with. That said, this slim volume is so wonderfully full of vision for anarchizing anarchism and building a “horizontal, mutually aiding, radically non-hierarchal world.” In exploring how Blackness and transness engage with anarchism, the book takes us far beyond the classical anarchist vision of a Stateless society into one in which those marginalized by white supremacist cissexist heteropatriarchy can REALLY live, freely, fully, and well. It left me feeling hopeful and with many ideas for how to live in anarchic ways.

“We want you, yes you, are you listening? We want you to demand better by planting a garden and calling out white supremacist patriarchal cisheteropatriarchy; demand better by asking comrades and accomplices ‘You good?’ and punching Nazis; demand better by opening the door for the many-and-non-gendered kinfolk who you’ve just met for the first time and literally stealing from universities and jails and corporations. Do what you can, do all you can, where you’re at right now and wherever else you might end up.”

My hope is that other writers will use Bey as a key reference and help translate their concepts of anarcho-Blackness for a wider audience.

[ava! · Rating 5 out of 5]

i was always so turned off by the idea of reading theory bc i’m so tired of reading white men so it was really wonderful to read an anarchist text that is not just inclusive of Blackness and queerness but hinges on the message that Blackness and queerness are essential aspects of anarchy. really engaging and interesting, i learned a lot

[Bricola · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was very digestible for how academic and theory-heavy it was. I devoured it!

[JRT · Rating 3 out of 5]

This short book provides a highly (and I do mean highly) theoretical evaluation of the relationship between Blackness as a sociopolitical construction, and anarchism as a form of societal organization. The author analyzes how anarchism impacts Blackness and how Blackness impacts anarchism, situating “anarcho-Blackness” as the highest stage of radicalism insofar as it seeks to abolish all forms of oppression, each of which flows from state power.

Anarchism’s fundamental premise is that because the state requires enslavement, and Blackness has been synonymous with slaveness since the dawn of modernity, the state necessarily requires the subjugation and effective enslavement of Black people. Thus, to abolish the state (the goal of anarchism) is to abolish the slave status of African people. This is quite the revolutionary theory.

Interestingly, there is a strong Afropessimist bent to this book insofar as it posits that the destruction (“degradation”) of this anti-Black, capitalist, patriarchy is both a necessary condition for Black liberation and anarchist social organization. Afropessimists, similarly, believe that bringing about the “end of the world” is necessary to cure a foundationally anti-Black pathology among non-Black people generally, and white people specifically. Overall, this book provides useful information and insights on the topic, but admittedly, is highly dense and far too conclusory.

[Sucre · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book can be a little academic at times, but I found it easier to get into the flow of it as I kept reading. There's a lot of good shit in here, and it definitely has me thinking about many things in many different ways. My only critique is that of using the term "femme" in place of "woman" as this alienates gnc women like butches, studs, etc. and ignores the very real discrimination and hate they deal with on the daily.

edit: reread in 2026 and felt Ike I got a lot more out of this than I did the first time. still agree with the use of "femme" from previous review, but feel like so much of this is so well-written and comes at it from a place of deep love that I'm bumping up the rating to a 4.5

[Mel · Rating 3 out of 5]

How you feel about the book will definitely be related to how much patience you have for dense writing. All ratings are subjective and one of my criteria is whether or not I would recommend it and I just don't hang with many ppl who would want read this. It's kind of a shame because the way some ideas are brought together is interesting, but (as with most academic writing) it's like communicating through a distortion bubble.

[Lily · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an incredible wealth of knowledge, observation, critique, and analysis packed into such a short text from Marquis Bey. My head's still swimming from this one, but I loved the unraveling of anarchism, Blackness, feminism, anti-authoritarianism, and their relationships to one another (and all together).

Also, unlike for most books, the reviews for this manifesto are really interesting. There are disagreements, but people made a lot of excellent points (both concurring with Bey and critiquing them), and for once, I appreciated the Goodreads discourse. There's a first time for everything, right?

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

So much (almost all? All?) of the anarchist theory I've read was written by dead white men. It's a pleasure to read one by a living person of color. It's very dense, but also short and super inspiring.

[Saif Elhendawi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is quite dense and can be difficult to read despite its short length. It's use of academic jargon, frequent use of references, and the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the fundamentals of classical anarchists and of black radicalism, means that this book is not readily understandable for most. Nonetheless, the main point it is trying to communicate is simple enough: the classical anarchists didn't pay attention to blackness or gender but mainly focused on governmental and capitalistic oppression. Marquis Bey proposes a shift where blackness can anarchize anarchism. Basically, he is pointing out that for anarchism to be true to its core anti-hierarchical values, it needs to radically oppose social hierarchies of white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, transphobia, and other oppressive systems.

Bey is arguing for a radical type of activism that is "monstrously inclusive". In the sense that rather than allow the state to use its notions of normativity to avoid solidarity between marginalized and oppressed groups, activists should instead realize their common goal of abolitionism. Although, the book is talking about the abolition of property, building on classical anarchist theory, it extends this abolition to a fight against all systems of hierarchy. The book is in many ways a realization of the right wing's worst nightmares. It is postmodern, anarchic, Marxist, black, feminist, all the scary adjectives combined together.

Despite its clear message, the work is held back by its rhetoric. By design it can't be read by someone who doesn't already agree with its premises, familiar with its terminology, and aware of the traditions its building on. Thus, in a way it can be considered very much a "preaching to the choir" kind of text. If you are already coming from a place of familiarity, however, it really reads wonderfully, with almost poetic prose that is able to put into words many thoughts and ideas that I already agree with. Don't let the threat of "academic" and "dense" stop you from checking out this work, for it really does a great job of combining a lot of the left's agendas into an overarching goal that can bring solidarity to our front.

[daelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, for me (a first semester critical studies graduate student, with little prior experience with theory) felt like a constellation map - Bey situates Hortense Spillers, Susan Stryker, Michel Foucault, The Black Panther Party, Combahee River Collective, Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries and dozen more into this metaphorical "sky", and through a lens of Black queer feminism, examines the ways anarchism and Blackness are in conversation with one another. The book is intentionally explorative - Bey muddies our definitions ("de-linking", "undoing", and "necessarily corrupting") so we might collectively re-form them with more intention.

I see some reviews that felt it was too academically written, but I personally found the book super accessible, and have recommended it to some rad youth in my life. It's definitely a starting point, but Bey's notes are so great and extensive that it's easy to figure out where to go next when you finish.

[Connor Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times difficult as the author is more often concerned with precision in language than accessibility of ideas. But still, “Anarcho-Blackness” offers some compelling meditation on the bounds, or boundlessness, of anarchism and how they react to an intentionally Black and gender-disruptive approach. Most compelling for me was the continued emphasis on working for those who may not even exist yet. A call to continue unseating those hierarchies known and unknown in a continual effort to free all of us

[Nmcf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Earth shattering for me in this moment.

[graceofgod · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite the fact that it is not the best written book I've ever read, it was enjoyable nonetheless. I will always be a fan of Theory that's written in a very sincere way over technically well-written theory that has no pathos behind it. I also enjoyed this section in particular:

"What Black anarchists seek to do is to found a new society, not necessarily by bringing about the destruction of myriad edifices of terror, violence, circumscription, and normativity but by cultivating the spaces and places that, by dint of their existence, instantiate the impossibility of the normative bastions that now surround us. We might call this justice, might call this a non-utopic utopia, a sanctuary. We might call it the undercommons.

How, then, to do this? Upon a re-reading of The Undercommons, I was drawn, obsessively, to one phrase, one that struck me at first as dangerously wrongheaded. But, then, the revolutionary will always be dangerous. The revolutionary call that Moten and Harney require and that I’ve been obsessed with is this: they insist that our radical politics, our anarchic world-building must be “unconditional—the door swings open for refuge even though it may let in police agents and destruction.” As my grandmother might quip, what kind of foolishness is this? But it is not foolishness precisely because the only ethical call that could bring about the radical revolutionary overturning we seek is one that does not discriminate or develop criteria for inclusion and, consequently, exclusion.

If the door swings open without a bouncer checking names, it means that whoever shows up will be let in, unconditionally, without conditions. The ethical demand here is to be monstrously inclusive, a lesson learned in the Black Radical Tradition, Black feminisms, and trans activism. Yes, the Law might send agents to infiltrate our conspiratorial sessions. Or, even worse, as has happened, our enemy might show up and sit with us in prayer before gunning us down. But, at the same time, a salvational figure might show up or, better yet, a fugitive might show up, asking us to provide her refuge and a safe harbor. And we must let her in—this is what is to be done—we must feed and shelter her, because this fugitive, any fugitive, might be the one we didn’t know we were doing all this insurgent conspiratorial work for."

[Stevphen Shukaitis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Towards a Black Anarchism doesn’t simply sketch the contours of another possible politics, it dissolves the very coordinates that make politics legible in the first place. In a style that is as rigorous as it is fugitive, Marquis Bey invites us into a refusal that is not lack, but plenitude: the anarchic excess of Blackness that cannot be captured by state form, identity form, or even the comforting radicalisms of yesteryear. Like a subsonic disruption reverberating through the archive, Bey’s thinking dances with the fugitivity of Fred Moten, the ungovernability of Fanon, and the queered imaginaries of insurgent world-making – yet refuses to ossify into citation or lineage.

Reading Anarcho-Blackness feels less like consuming a text and more like being rerouted, scrambled, shaken loose. It practices a black anarchism that is not an ideology but a mode of breathing otherwise, thinking otherwise, living otherwise. It refuses the seductions of purity, coherence, or finality, moving instead through a militant inquiry of the undercommons – an experiment in becoming ungovernable not through spectacle but through opacity, intimacy, and continual unbecoming. This is not a book that tells you what to do. It reminds you that you were never supposed to ask permission.

[Wallace Pine · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bey makes many deeply questionable statements throughout the course of this book. He alternates between repeating pretty simple ideas over and over - anarcho blackness being different to black anarchism gets multiple pages of reiteration - and throwing out inpenetrable ideas that he never really explains. He also claims that a "people's government" is "anarchy" and says Lucy Parsons should be "castigated" for making a statement that he felt erased enslaved Black women in the south - despite Parsons herself being born enslaved. There's more but these really stuck out to me. In addition, Bey is currently in an accountability process for unspecified 'harm', which according to people who know him is a real pattern. This doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't read Anarcho-Blackness but I think it undermines the supposed feminism of the book somewhat. Overall I would say that this book is very good if you want to see the effect of attending private liberal arts college on the human brain, but if you want to learn about anarchism, black anarchism, blackness, gender, or coherent, reality-based ideas in general, I would skip this one.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book but the writing is needlessly verbose and complicated. He repeats himself again and again using different and difficult abstractions. There are certainly ideas worth reading about that involve concepts like "Blackness," "anarchism," and the "anarcho-" prefix. Some of his discussion on queerness and abolition are interesting. But again, these concepts could have been made accessible. Whoever the intended audience is for this work, it is definitely not the lay reading public. Don't beat yourself up if you don't understand a passage; move on. Take what you like and find other authors or groups who can make these concepts real. When you feel ready, come back to this work and see if it makes any more or less sense.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely critical text highlighting all the reasons classical anarchism and it's foundation felt exclusionary to me... Succinct, precise, well-researched — with theoretical depth and whole understanding on concepts of anarchy, Blackness, gender, feminism, capitalism, etc. this book in just a little over 100 pages offers a clear theory crucial to present unfolding. Highly recommend to anyone with a background knowledge of what anarchism is or not—given there is several to-the-point baseline descriptions throughout the text and to those who are looking for alternative theories that are all-encompassing in their scope of recognition. Well written and well-done.

[Adam Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking and timely meditations on the relationships and possible relationalities between Black, anarchist, feminist, queer and trans politics and movement. Not a chronological history or genealogy but one possible way to think a bit more expansively about radical, abolitionist and anarchic politics.

At times a bit theoretical, but that's kind of the point in order to break through some of the rigid bounds and limitations of other forms of theoretical thinking. Recommended.

Many more thoughts to collect...

Makes sense to read alongside William C Andersons works as well: 'As Black as Resistance' and 'The Nation on No Map'.

[Stuart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mr. Bey makes some compelling arguments (and retreads some anarchist theory to incorporate or center blackness and transness as open and thus anarchic identities) but I found the arguments overly academic in tone and specificity.

When Mr. Bey broke the academic 4th wall and used queer/black coded language it was startling and funny, clearly he is capable of writing like a human rather than a professor. Good, but I would love love LOVE an expanded version of this as a manual/praxis text for a general audience. I did make an extensive reading list out of the end notes, though.

[Kate Savage · Rating 4 out of 5]

The language in this short book was sometimes a little bit dead but the ideas were very lively. I especially appreciate it as a contrast to Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, which is stuck on the Great Ideas of Great Men. Marquis Bey is more interested in the wild liberatory experiments of people who never published a book. Which is not only more interesting, but also more ... anarchist.

[Cassandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does a good job of highlighting the inherent relationship between Black queer feminism and anarchism. There are some great passages in here that I saved to ponder, and I've made an extensive reading list from the footnotes. I'd only recommend this to anyone already heavily absorbed in academic texts, specifically political and gender/race studies texts. It's pretty dense which is ironic considering a key tenet of an anarchic society is accessible education for continued liberation.

[Sade · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually did not finish reading this book simply because the book is short, but the writing style makes it so very long. It definitely reads like someone's thesis. What I mean by that is the language and wording are very academic.

Did I understand what was being said? Sure. However, I didn't like reading and writing in an academic style when deeply embedded in academics, I surely don't want to read it in an everyday setting.

[Theo Dora · Rating 3 out of 5]

"...it is a Black queer feminist anarchist that disorders the various mechanisms that hierarchize, circumscribe, and do violence to the moments that do life on the outskirts of order (those moments of, as it were, unfettered and ungoverned sociality), an anticolonial sensibility." (3)

maybe i'm being paranoid but i feel like i can whiff the AK press editing throughout the book

[Rowan King · Rating 3 out of 5]

Even for a political theory book (a genre I’m very fond of), the prose here can feel very stilted and dense. There’s interesting stuff in this book, but for those looking for a more accessible read on the intersections of Blackness and Anarchism I would recommend Zoe Samudzi’s “As Black as Resistance” rather than this.

[Reza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anarcho-Blackness is not just Black Anarchism, and Bey hammers this home in so many ways. The book is dense and conceptually rich. It does a great job of showing the “dance” of anarcho and blackness and what that means.

[Renee Back · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. I've been way left of liberal for a few years now, but this book blew me away. It is definitely in an academic voice which is challenging for a lot of folks, but it's only 100 pages long. It was a much quicker read than I expected. Just lovely. Wonderful. Can't recommend enough.

[Sada · Rating 3 out of 5]

very dense and i often felt like what she was saying could be said in much simpler terms. but the writing style was creative and she brought up interesting points and theories. overall enjoyed the read but wish it was written in more accessible language