What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchy After Leftism
A reply to, and an assault on, Murray Bookchin's 'Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism,' Bookchin himself, Bookchinism, and so called 'anarcho-leftism.'
178 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
7 people are currently reading
287 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 17, 2015
Reading Bob Black’s Anarchy after Leftism, I am struck by how relevant his critique of Bookchin is almost 20 years hence, and his description of why certain forms of primitivisms should be taken seriously, and yet how wrong his prediction of the death or dwindling of certain kinds of anarchist leftism, which have seen several cycles of death and rebirth whereas most of the non-primitivism post-leftists outside of CrimethInc have disappeared or at least retreated from polemics. Indeed many of the critiques Black makes of leftism have been made by people who he has a distinctive distaste for: Marxists. That said, I feel we should focus on why someone should read this book now, and what is right about Black’s argument with Bookchin. There are some flaws and omissions in this book, which I do think we should address, but overall this book is more import than its polemic against Murray Bookchin’s Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism.
Some context is necessary for both why one would want to approach a polemic against Murray Bookchin and my own background in this debate. In 1996, I was still running ‘zines in a small town in Georgia in High School, having been politicized as a teen largely in the vein of Chomsky and Jello Biafra, I had been folllowing the debates in anarchism without truly understanding them. I feel about the two polemics and was turned off by the tone and ad hominems of both; however, the urgency and seemingly scientific of Bookchin appealed to me. I realized, however, that Bookchin’s developments were problematic overtime, and when I re-read him, the moralism overshadowed the talk of technological developments. Furthermore, while post-leftism in the main did not impress me, Bob Black’s arguments are stronger than I originally thought. Now, however, we have Ursula K. Le Guin writing prefaces to new editions of Bookchin’s work and experiments in Kurdistan by former Stalinist who have been attracted to Bookchin. Ironically, getting endorsements from the larger anarchist community post-Occupy, often somewhat uncritically. Such developments are not new in anarchism, which has as strained relationship to both Marxism and nationalism–often actding repealed and attracted. Platformists still predominantly use Maxist political economy, and anarchists from Bakunin to Shin Chae-ho have found racial nationalism harder to drop than the state. Bookchin definitely did not fall into the later, but grativated towards a highly managerial municipalism based off of technology and “direct” democracy.
While often hilarious, Black’s digs are sometimes irrelevant or personal, however, he does illustrate that the “development” of Bookchin’s thought had put him in direct contradiction with his earlier writings, and often in a way that mimicked that Marxists that Bookchin made his reputation criticizing. Now, Black can get lost chopping down trees and missing the forest in his glee on exposing inconsistencies in defense of his friends, but polemics from the 1970s conflicting with polemics from the 1990s of a man who is now dead over a decade can seem boring. Like many of Marx’s polemics agianst the other Hegelians, it is interesting for notes on both thinkers developments, but not directly relevant to anything currently. It does, however, make one wonder why so few people called Bookchin to account to explain his developments. An honest person may change his or her mind, but never without a proper accounting.
Black’s points, however, depart and develop at a larger critique of “leftism” from a point of view that acknowledges leftism was important in the development of anarchist thought. Now, I increasingly recoil from reifications of the political spectrum, but let’s assume here that Black is linking leftism to both liberal and socialist tendencies which are hostile to egoism. This is not entirely new, as Situationists even defined their socialist in terms of selfish interests and not on any moral grounds of collective benefit and self-sacrifice. Not only did they defend it, they laid at an argument which Black recapitulates:”someone who is in your movement not from selfish reasons cannot be trusted not to change their minds and randomly flutter from one ideology to another. Black, however, implies that class or identity positions alone due not ensure that interest even if there is real oppression and/or expliotation aimed at that identity.
Black’s other strong criticisms are not so much a defense of primitivism–which Black distances himself from without explicitly critiquing–but his pointing out that many of the assumptions of technological futurists and urbanists have a horrible track record. The prediction of labor saving technology to release us from labor has seemingly always increased labor. Black points out that it did lessen the responsibilities of toil, even in the case of domestic work. Instead of compensating women for their domestic labor, the labor-saving technologies led to being expected to both both domestic and wage labor. Black, who makes more than a few swipes at feminism which can make you wince a bit, does point out that he suspected that first forms of class oppression were actually sex-based and came from agricultural labor. Black points out that he expected this trend to continue, and the entire structure of the economy since 1996 seems to vindicate him on this point. Yes, perhaps, there COULD be a way around capitalist technology being used this way, but it does not follow that it necessarily will. Black points out that most of the readings of hunter gather societies given in Bookchin actually don’t match many anthropologists studies of them, and that many of the statistical arguments were misleading and speculative.
Black’s critique of communitarian municipalism and (semi) direct democracy are more developed elsewhere, but they are key here too. Black points out how exclusive and arbitrary Athenian democracy could be even by “progressive” standards. There is little new there, but his points about the development of familial dominance even in the Swiss Cantons as well as their abilities to be socially restrictive are key. Like many communists pointed out about syndicalism, involving more people in the production may mitigate some of the problems of work hierarchies, it by no means undoes it. The same logic applies to direct democracy and federated states.
Now, there are a few points that Black doesn’t address which are telling. He doesn’t give his critique of primitivism nor does he acknowledge how far John Zerzan would take his arguments. (To be fair to Black, I actually can’t remember if Zerzan had attacked all abstract thought as civilizational reification by 1996). He does not address that there are three ways to read primitivism: Primitivism as a necessity after an inevitable collapse (descriptive), primitivism as a vision to brought about by violence (normative), and primitivism as voluntary re-wilding (volunteeristic). The later was the view of Jacque Camatte, but Zerzan seems to shift between normative and descriptive through the year. Furthermore, Zerzan has recently made polemics against Sternite anarchism which do seem to render his claim as normative. Black then does not address the claims that normative primitivsim would require both a massive population die-off and a violence that would likely destory any foragable environs. This is a pretty big lapse, but it would only apply to one reading of primitivism. Bookchin slams all the arguments under mysticism as well, so its not really a point for Bookchin here entirely either. Furthermore, my classification schema is not used by primitivists themselves in any formal sense.
Lastly, one gets a feeling that Black was premature to announce the dominance of post-left trends in Leftism at the end. Who can blame someone from aspirational predicting as Marxists, anarchists, and other socialists have done this aspirationally since 1848. The social and historical context changed, making Black’s criticisms relevant again but, at least for now, leaving a lot of post-left anarchy in low print number books and the internet archive. This is not Black’s fault, although Black did not write many books for many, many years after this polemic. He has recently returned to Bookchin himself writing a 400-page analysis of Bookchin’s entire oeuvre. Furthermore, most of the writing on this has gone in the minutiae of anarchist gossip: recriminations and denouncements far beyond what either Black or Bookchin engaged in litter the reviews. While parts of this book are flawed, it is a very provocative book in a way that is smarter than it seems. Leftists, Bookchinites, and even various kinds of Marxists would do well to deal with its arguments (and not the personalities that produced the debate.)
Some context is necessary for both why one would want to approach a polemic against Murray Bookchin and my own background in this debate. In 1996, I was still running ‘zines in a small town in Georgia in High School, having been politicized as a teen largely in the vein of Chomsky and Jello Biafra, I had been folllowing the debates in anarchism without truly understanding them. I feel about the two polemics and was turned off by the tone and ad hominems of both; however, the urgency and seemingly scientific of Bookchin appealed to me. I realized, however, that Bookchin’s developments were problematic overtime, and when I re-read him, the moralism overshadowed the talk of technological developments. Furthermore, while post-leftism in the main did not impress me, Bob Black’s arguments are stronger than I originally thought. Now, however, we have Ursula K. Le Guin writing prefaces to new editions of Bookchin’s work and experiments in Kurdistan by former Stalinist who have been attracted to Bookchin. Ironically, getting endorsements from the larger anarchist community post-Occupy, often somewhat uncritically. Such developments are not new in anarchism, which has as strained relationship to both Marxism and nationalism–often actding repealed and attracted. Platformists still predominantly use Maxist political economy, and anarchists from Bakunin to Shin Chae-ho have found racial nationalism harder to drop than the state. Bookchin definitely did not fall into the later, but grativated towards a highly managerial municipalism based off of technology and “direct” democracy.
While often hilarious, Black’s digs are sometimes irrelevant or personal, however, he does illustrate that the “development” of Bookchin’s thought had put him in direct contradiction with his earlier writings, and often in a way that mimicked that Marxists that Bookchin made his reputation criticizing. Now, Black can get lost chopping down trees and missing the forest in his glee on exposing inconsistencies in defense of his friends, but polemics from the 1970s conflicting with polemics from the 1990s of a man who is now dead over a decade can seem boring. Like many of Marx’s polemics agianst the other Hegelians, it is interesting for notes on both thinkers developments, but not directly relevant to anything currently. It does, however, make one wonder why so few people called Bookchin to account to explain his developments. An honest person may change his or her mind, but never without a proper accounting.
Black’s points, however, depart and develop at a larger critique of “leftism” from a point of view that acknowledges leftism was important in the development of anarchist thought. Now, I increasingly recoil from reifications of the political spectrum, but let’s assume here that Black is linking leftism to both liberal and socialist tendencies which are hostile to egoism. This is not entirely new, as Situationists even defined their socialist in terms of selfish interests and not on any moral grounds of collective benefit and self-sacrifice. Not only did they defend it, they laid at an argument which Black recapitulates:”someone who is in your movement not from selfish reasons cannot be trusted not to change their minds and randomly flutter from one ideology to another. Black, however, implies that class or identity positions alone due not ensure that interest even if there is real oppression and/or expliotation aimed at that identity.
Black’s other strong criticisms are not so much a defense of primitivism–which Black distances himself from without explicitly critiquing–but his pointing out that many of the assumptions of technological futurists and urbanists have a horrible track record. The prediction of labor saving technology to release us from labor has seemingly always increased labor. Black points out that it did lessen the responsibilities of toil, even in the case of domestic work. Instead of compensating women for their domestic labor, the labor-saving technologies led to being expected to both both domestic and wage labor. Black, who makes more than a few swipes at feminism which can make you wince a bit, does point out that he suspected that first forms of class oppression were actually sex-based and came from agricultural labor. Black points out that he expected this trend to continue, and the entire structure of the economy since 1996 seems to vindicate him on this point. Yes, perhaps, there COULD be a way around capitalist technology being used this way, but it does not follow that it necessarily will. Black points out that most of the readings of hunter gather societies given in Bookchin actually don’t match many anthropologists studies of them, and that many of the statistical arguments were misleading and speculative.
Black’s critique of communitarian municipalism and (semi) direct democracy are more developed elsewhere, but they are key here too. Black points out how exclusive and arbitrary Athenian democracy could be even by “progressive” standards. There is little new there, but his points about the development of familial dominance even in the Swiss Cantons as well as their abilities to be socially restrictive are key. Like many communists pointed out about syndicalism, involving more people in the production may mitigate some of the problems of work hierarchies, it by no means undoes it. The same logic applies to direct democracy and federated states.
Now, there are a few points that Black doesn’t address which are telling. He doesn’t give his critique of primitivism nor does he acknowledge how far John Zerzan would take his arguments. (To be fair to Black, I actually can’t remember if Zerzan had attacked all abstract thought as civilizational reification by 1996). He does not address that there are three ways to read primitivism: Primitivism as a necessity after an inevitable collapse (descriptive), primitivism as a vision to brought about by violence (normative), and primitivism as voluntary re-wilding (volunteeristic). The later was the view of Jacque Camatte, but Zerzan seems to shift between normative and descriptive through the year. Furthermore, Zerzan has recently made polemics against Sternite anarchism which do seem to render his claim as normative. Black then does not address the claims that normative primitivsim would require both a massive population die-off and a violence that would likely destory any foragable environs. This is a pretty big lapse, but it would only apply to one reading of primitivism. Bookchin slams all the arguments under mysticism as well, so its not really a point for Bookchin here entirely either. Furthermore, my classification schema is not used by primitivists themselves in any formal sense.
Lastly, one gets a feeling that Black was premature to announce the dominance of post-left trends in Leftism at the end. Who can blame someone from aspirational predicting as Marxists, anarchists, and other socialists have done this aspirationally since 1848. The social and historical context changed, making Black’s criticisms relevant again but, at least for now, leaving a lot of post-left anarchy in low print number books and the internet archive. This is not Black’s fault, although Black did not write many books for many, many years after this polemic. He has recently returned to Bookchin himself writing a 400-page analysis of Bookchin’s entire oeuvre. Furthermore, most of the writing on this has gone in the minutiae of anarchist gossip: recriminations and denouncements far beyond what either Black or Bookchin engaged in litter the reviews. While parts of this book are flawed, it is a very provocative book in a way that is smarter than it seems. Leftists, Bookchinites, and even various kinds of Marxists would do well to deal with its arguments (and not the personalities that produced the debate.)
December 22, 2010
In this book, the professional character assassin, snitch, disillusioned SubGenius cultist, white supremacist*, and misogynist is on full-display.
This is the text where Black lays his ugly little ideology naked for the world to see: "Cleansed of its leaftist residues, anarchy - anarchism minus Marxism - will be free at being what it is."
Black goes on to lay out his specific complaints about Marxism: "Bakunin considered Marx, [...] his [...] capacity as [...] a Jew [...] to be a hopeless statist. [...] [D]oes this sound like anyone familiar?" (This is a reference to Black's intellectual arch-enemy Murray Bookchin, a man of Jewish descent.)
Thus we see what anarchy "cleansed" of "Jewish" Marxism truly is - nihilistic, right-wing third positionism. This book is dangerous and its publisher should be boycotted.
*Additionally, Black wrote a brief article for Green Anarchy in which he ruthlessly insulted Tibetan culture, regularly refers to Indians by epithets such as "Shitting Bull", (according to Churchill's A Little Matter of Genocide), and (according to a former member of Processed World) refers to jazz as "nigger music".
This is the text where Black lays his ugly little ideology naked for the world to see: "Cleansed of its leaftist residues, anarchy - anarchism minus Marxism - will be free at being what it is."
Black goes on to lay out his specific complaints about Marxism: "Bakunin considered Marx, [...] his [...] capacity as [...] a Jew [...] to be a hopeless statist. [...] [D]oes this sound like anyone familiar?" (This is a reference to Black's intellectual arch-enemy Murray Bookchin, a man of Jewish descent.)
Thus we see what anarchy "cleansed" of "Jewish" Marxism truly is - nihilistic, right-wing third positionism. This book is dangerous and its publisher should be boycotted.
*Additionally, Black wrote a brief article for Green Anarchy in which he ruthlessly insulted Tibetan culture, regularly refers to Indians by epithets such as "Shitting Bull", (according to Churchill's A Little Matter of Genocide), and (according to a former member of Processed World) refers to jazz as "nigger music".
September 4, 2008
Can a dude hate on Murray Bookchin any more?
This book is actually pretty crucial to the idea of "post-left" anarchy-ism. Writing style like the man himself is abrasive, full of humor but also deadly serious.
This book is actually pretty crucial to the idea of "post-left" anarchy-ism. Writing style like the man himself is abrasive, full of humor but also deadly serious.
Read
March 5, 2009It's a response to an essay by Bookchin, but it very briefly and densely and creatively and fiercely/directly describes many different kinds of anarchism and their history throughout the 20th century (and slightly before?). summary from the last chapter: "The old anarchism - the libertarian fringe of the Left That Was - is finished. The Bookchinist blip was a conjunctional quirk, an anomalous amalgam of the old anarchism and the New Left to which [Bookchin:] fortuitously added a little pop ecology and... his weird city-statist fetish."
February 6, 2017
So this is a very engaging read. Black attacks Bookchin for the entire book, but as someone who's been memed into reading The German Ideology, I was shocked to find that polemic could be readable.
But I'd hoped from seeing the reception and title of the book that the attack on Bookchin was just a front for a broader critique of leftism as a whole. I'm writing this in 2017, when the black bloc is congratulating itself for smashing up a college campus, and see quite a bit wrong with leftism and anarchism. Evidently, Black does that in his other books; he describes post-left anarchy in contradistinction to Bookchin in a few paragraphs (anti-political, hedonistic, individualistic, suspicious of technology, anti-work) and names three outdated trends in anarchism that represent the failings of leftism (old-timey fundamentalist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcha-feminism). Black piqued my interest a bit, but I was not satisfied with his presentation of "anarchy after leftism." Mostly you get "anarchy after Bookchin." For that matter, I don't recall him describing exactly what "leftism" is. What are the tenets, strategies and ideals that constitute leftism which holds anarchism back? It can't be the laundry-list of Bookchin commandments, because Bookchin is not an anarcha-feminist. He's also not a New Leftist, which seems (to me, and I can guess to Black as well) a big part of leftism nowadays.
Two of Black's critiques jump out to me as insightful and relevant: direct democracy and technological progress. Bookchin seems to idolize Athenian participative democracy, blind to its darker side including slavery. But even crazier is, as Black points out, Bookchin does not seem to realize that direct democracy is mind-numbingly dull, draining, and aimless. I think Black is right, and find myself simply baffled that leftist anarchists, such as those present in Occupy, want to criticize representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy. The problem is democracy, or more generally, politics. Black also deflates Bookchin's orthodox Marxist faith in technological progress, pointing out that new technology is developed to cut prices, not work hours. This can't be whisked away by saying "but once the revolution happens, that technology will be there for our communist utopia!" Yeah sure whatever. Black drops a nice little potentially accelerationist line as well: "The overworked and unemployed - now there's a potentially revolutionary force." Well no that's not necessarily accelerationist, but Black is refreshingly skeptical of the role technological progress is supposed to play in radical politics: he's not a utopian (orthodox Marxist or Left Accelerationist, as in Srnicek and Williams), nor is he a luddite. There are also two or three chapters defending primitivist anarchism ala Zerzan from Bookchin. Primitivism is not really my thing, but there are some interesting things here.
So this is a fun read. I just wouldn't expect many eye-opening perspectives on anarchy after leftism.
But I'd hoped from seeing the reception and title of the book that the attack on Bookchin was just a front for a broader critique of leftism as a whole. I'm writing this in 2017, when the black bloc is congratulating itself for smashing up a college campus, and see quite a bit wrong with leftism and anarchism. Evidently, Black does that in his other books; he describes post-left anarchy in contradistinction to Bookchin in a few paragraphs (anti-political, hedonistic, individualistic, suspicious of technology, anti-work) and names three outdated trends in anarchism that represent the failings of leftism (old-timey fundamentalist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcha-feminism). Black piqued my interest a bit, but I was not satisfied with his presentation of "anarchy after leftism." Mostly you get "anarchy after Bookchin." For that matter, I don't recall him describing exactly what "leftism" is. What are the tenets, strategies and ideals that constitute leftism which holds anarchism back? It can't be the laundry-list of Bookchin commandments, because Bookchin is not an anarcha-feminist. He's also not a New Leftist, which seems (to me, and I can guess to Black as well) a big part of leftism nowadays.
Two of Black's critiques jump out to me as insightful and relevant: direct democracy and technological progress. Bookchin seems to idolize Athenian participative democracy, blind to its darker side including slavery. But even crazier is, as Black points out, Bookchin does not seem to realize that direct democracy is mind-numbingly dull, draining, and aimless. I think Black is right, and find myself simply baffled that leftist anarchists, such as those present in Occupy, want to criticize representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy. The problem is democracy, or more generally, politics. Black also deflates Bookchin's orthodox Marxist faith in technological progress, pointing out that new technology is developed to cut prices, not work hours. This can't be whisked away by saying "but once the revolution happens, that technology will be there for our communist utopia!" Yeah sure whatever. Black drops a nice little potentially accelerationist line as well: "The overworked and unemployed - now there's a potentially revolutionary force." Well no that's not necessarily accelerationist, but Black is refreshingly skeptical of the role technological progress is supposed to play in radical politics: he's not a utopian (orthodox Marxist or Left Accelerationist, as in Srnicek and Williams), nor is he a luddite. There are also two or three chapters defending primitivist anarchism ala Zerzan from Bookchin. Primitivism is not really my thing, but there are some interesting things here.
So this is a fun read. I just wouldn't expect many eye-opening perspectives on anarchy after leftism.
March 25, 2017
To start with, this book is a lot of fun to read. Actual content aside, Black is an entertaining writer (though he sometimes plays fast and loose with punctuation and grammar.) His exhaustive dismantling of Murray Bookchin's "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" is nothing if not enjoyable. Black's arguments are nasty, personalized, and not terribly fair, but that's been a characteristic of the debate for a rather long time, so one shouldn't hold it against him.
I will admit that I tend to be predisposed to Black's side of the argument. Bookchin's dismissal of the grab-bag of tendencies that he lumps together under "lifestyle anarchism" has always struck me as a bit reductionistic and misguided. While there is certainly a critique that can be made of any or all of these tendencies, Bookchin, in my opinion, failed to make his case. And Black, at great length, calls him on it, and, in my opinion at least, comes out the victor in the argument.
Where this book comes up a bit short is in living up to the promise of its title. Black spends so much time taking apart Bookchin that he has little left to actually address the notion of post-left anarchy. Which is a shame, since its an interesting notion, and also one that needs more than a single chapter, especially since the notion is very easy to misinterpret as a less than savory ideology. And Black really should have given more than a paragraph to his critique of feminism. He's right to note certain reactionary tendencies - recall the alliance of a subset of feminism with the right, when opposing pornography in the 70s and 80s, and in opposing trans rights today - but a single paragraph dismissal is both unfair, and unfortunately reminiscent of similar dismissals from the MRA movement today.
All in all though, an entertaining book, and a worthwhile one.
I will admit that I tend to be predisposed to Black's side of the argument. Bookchin's dismissal of the grab-bag of tendencies that he lumps together under "lifestyle anarchism" has always struck me as a bit reductionistic and misguided. While there is certainly a critique that can be made of any or all of these tendencies, Bookchin, in my opinion, failed to make his case. And Black, at great length, calls him on it, and, in my opinion at least, comes out the victor in the argument.
Where this book comes up a bit short is in living up to the promise of its title. Black spends so much time taking apart Bookchin that he has little left to actually address the notion of post-left anarchy. Which is a shame, since its an interesting notion, and also one that needs more than a single chapter, especially since the notion is very easy to misinterpret as a less than savory ideology. And Black really should have given more than a paragraph to his critique of feminism. He's right to note certain reactionary tendencies - recall the alliance of a subset of feminism with the right, when opposing pornography in the 70s and 80s, and in opposing trans rights today - but a single paragraph dismissal is both unfair, and unfortunately reminiscent of similar dismissals from the MRA movement today.
All in all though, an entertaining book, and a worthwhile one.
June 21, 2013
Liberals be warned. Bob Black is out for your babies.
Caustic, inflammatory, and spot on.
Despite others' attempts at character assassination, Bob has always managed to do an amazing job pointing out the failings of anarcho-liberalism. We're again entering another waning period of reformism-disguised-as-anarchy, and it's time again to put nails in the coffin.
Caustic, inflammatory, and spot on.
Despite others' attempts at character assassination, Bob has always managed to do an amazing job pointing out the failings of anarcho-liberalism. We're again entering another waning period of reformism-disguised-as-anarchy, and it's time again to put nails in the coffin.
April 15, 2008
This is a fun, but probably not all that productive, diatribe against Murray Bookchin, the founder of the school of thought known as "social ecology", and his ideas.
I enjoyed it more for the more general rejection of leftism because of its authoritarian, technophilic tendencies.
I enjoyed it more for the more general rejection of leftism because of its authoritarian, technophilic tendencies.
August 30, 2015
This is a book born out of frustration. Bob Black was hurt by the pain of his dead idols. So he generates a work of christian apologetics to defent those dead.
September 6, 2024
This is a very well argued, in my opinion, rebuttal of Bookchin's "Social Anarchist vs Lifestyle Anarchism" and a somewhat harsh criticism of Bookchin's status as an anarchist. I really liked it, although that last rant agains syndicalism and feminism seemed a little weird to me.
May 3, 2013
Bob Black thoroughly debunks Murray Bookchin's "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm" while meticulously exposing the inconsistencies in Bookchin's Social Ecology. Black has the gift of being able to get complex ideas across in a humorous and easy to read style. Anarchy After Leftism is a great introduction to Post Left Anarchist thought. Anyone seriously interested in understanding modern day Anarchism would do well to read this book.
December 12, 2014
He uses the term "post-left anarchy" a lot, but he doesn't give many clues as to what it might be. Plus there's sone random anti-Semitism at the beginning and some random misogyny at the end. Other than that, a decent book.
March 18, 2008
The politics are good, but the entire book is dedicated to trashing Murray Bookchin, which certainly gets old.
October 5, 2009
i'm not a fan of bookchin or any social ecologist shit but this book is just an attack on bookchin. valid points but kind of lame...
October 10, 2009
What Rants and raves but never gets too boring? Why it's Bob Black commentator and Lewis Black of the anarchist community.
Read
November 17, 2009Buku bagus buat anda yang tidak puas dengan Leftism
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews