What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchism: Left, Right and Green
German scholar on leading US anarchist theorists
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
153 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1994
59 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 19, 2008
This book wonderfully shows Ayn Rand in the worst possible light as something of a proto-nazi and anti-semite.
May 16, 2024
Ulrike Heider's 'Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green' is a very unique book and deserves credit for their effort to critically examine the 'anarchist' tradition. First, what I really like about this book is that they cover and engage the legacy of Sam Dolgoff! I am not sure I have ever heard anyone else talk about Dolgoff, besides when I saw his son Anatole Dolgoff speak about this book on his father: 'Left of the Left: My Memories of Sam Dolgoff' Most people who read Bakunin know the legendary green book, but pay no attention to the translator who of course is Sam Dolgoff. That said, Heider's recap andd review of the anarchist tradition, at least in the first section/anarcho-syndicalism is riddled with what I see as basic errors if your at all familiar with he anarchist tradition. For starters, I don't care for Max Stirner's Anarchism--I might even reject it--but his anarchism is a part of the anarchist tradition and is not capitalist or based on private property at least not in the way that faux 'anarcho'-capitalist argue for. They call some of Bakunin's critique of Marx "off the mark" suggesting he was practically motivated by passion without really providing context to the battle of the first international both on personal and ideological lines. They accuse Bakunin of being anti-intellectual using a quote out of context. When you read the quote in the context Bakunin is making the point that Spanish people--peasants and workers--were able to revolt against foreign intervention. Bakunin is hardly courting anti-intellectualism here and talks about the importance of scientific inquiry elsewhere like in 'God and the State'. Likewise Heider brings up Bakunin's passion for clandestine organization again without the proper context and content of the thought before moving on quickly to call Kropotkin a utopian. Kropotkin was a scientist whose book Mutual Aid describes how cooperation is a natural evolutionary feature of the world--how in the world do you derive utopianism from that? Likewise Kropotkin's 'The conquest of Bread' is a very non-utopian break down of his ideas and critique. The charge of utopian is a Marxist smear that people just regurgitate over and over again. Heider moves on to besmirch Alexander Berkman, who gave up 14 years of his life trying to avenge the workers murdered by pinkerton thugs during the Homestead Strike, by calling him a terrorist while readily admitting they don't understand how his actions match his writing, which I would conclude is probably because the author did not read them.
Heider's summary of Chomsky's position is admiral, yet left to stand as is without a critical word. One part I expected there to be push back is when Chomsky suggests that anarchism is the "legitimate heirs to the legacy of bourgeois liberalism"--a position that Bakunin staunchly rejects in his critique of Rousseau, but again that requires actually reading the primary source material.
As I often suggest when reviewing books on anarchist thinkers, read the primary sources if you really want to understand what the anarchists themselves believed.
Heider's summary of Chomsky's position is admiral, yet left to stand as is without a critical word. One part I expected there to be push back is when Chomsky suggests that anarchism is the "legitimate heirs to the legacy of bourgeois liberalism"--a position that Bakunin staunchly rejects in his critique of Rousseau, but again that requires actually reading the primary source material.
As I often suggest when reviewing books on anarchist thinkers, read the primary sources if you really want to understand what the anarchists themselves believed.
October 14, 2008
Finally! I had gradually read a good third of this in the Fall of 2007, but was so tired of renewing it from the library, that I gave up. Dutifully re-read it September 2008 and finished. Continuing on my journey through anarchist theory. Though I didn't like it a whole lot, I feel like it was an important piece to what I'm trying to make a well-rounded study of anarchism.
Heider explicitly identifies as a left-wing anarchist, and goes to great lengths to strip the other two strands of any legitimate claim to anarchism (how can the right wingers call themselves anarcho-capitalists? It's a contradiction of terms!, argues Heider). The book is a bit of a drag when she goes a bit to long and zealously against the other two strands. What's good about the book? It's a very easy read. No need to fear esoteric philosophical vocabulary. Heider illustrates theory using the words of anarchist spokespeople from her interviews, interjected with her own, readable research.
The book's perspective is unique; Heider is a German who tours the U.S., having conversations with major anarchist figures across the spectrum. And that's part of her thesis; something frequently overlooked; that there is a spectrum within anarchism. It's odd, really. Heider's classification could be challenged. Beyond these pages, I've never heard someone identify as “right-wing anarchist,” though Heider's analysis seems quite accurate. While all anarchists are concerned with the value of “freedom,” there's a stark difference between the scale of liberation: the collective versus the individual. It follows that much of the difference between left-wing anarchists (including anarcho-syncicalists and communitarian anarchists) and right-wing anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists and libertarians) lies in their contrasting theories of the state: “While social anarchists seek to abolish the state as the source of private property, the individualists want to eliminate it because they see it as an obstacle to private property” (3). Accordingly, what the reorganization of society should look like is radically different between the two poles, one of a highly organized federalized system of democratic decision-making and mutual aid, and another of very atomized collection of self-interest-serving egoists relating to one another in free association. In other words, the left envisions workers in control of all areas of social life, whereas the right envisions the market in control.
Heider is (deliberately) very partisan in her review of the two sides, and persuasively so. Indeed, the book caused me to identify with greater degree to anarcho-syndicalism and increased my fear of more right-libertarian thinking. And, by her thorough overview, Heider certainly sharpened my contempt for political thinkers drawing from intellectually-bankrupt objectivist philosophy. What I wasn't prepared for, though was the frightening “green anarchists.” Even within green anarchism there is quite a diversity of thought, ranging from neo-primitivists (Heider doesn't use this term) who are essentially techno-phobes, to those who believe new technologies are the solution to capitlaist- and state-led ecological destruction. Heider reveals how some of the anarchists of the green variety have fascist tendencies and align themselves with xenophobic causes of “population control.” In other words, they say that immigrants should be deported and restricted from entering because they are to blame for the over-extraction of our natural resources. I had a hard time believing that people actually think this way until I saw an ad (in The Nation of all places!) for a coalition of so-called environmentalist and nativist groups.
I recommend this read for left-wing anarchists. If you're interested, you can read the refutes to the other strands, but more interesting is simply deepening your understanding of anarcho-syndicalism through Heider's unique presentation of figures and their thought.
Heider explicitly identifies as a left-wing anarchist, and goes to great lengths to strip the other two strands of any legitimate claim to anarchism (how can the right wingers call themselves anarcho-capitalists? It's a contradiction of terms!, argues Heider). The book is a bit of a drag when she goes a bit to long and zealously against the other two strands. What's good about the book? It's a very easy read. No need to fear esoteric philosophical vocabulary. Heider illustrates theory using the words of anarchist spokespeople from her interviews, interjected with her own, readable research.
The book's perspective is unique; Heider is a German who tours the U.S., having conversations with major anarchist figures across the spectrum. And that's part of her thesis; something frequently overlooked; that there is a spectrum within anarchism. It's odd, really. Heider's classification could be challenged. Beyond these pages, I've never heard someone identify as “right-wing anarchist,” though Heider's analysis seems quite accurate. While all anarchists are concerned with the value of “freedom,” there's a stark difference between the scale of liberation: the collective versus the individual. It follows that much of the difference between left-wing anarchists (including anarcho-syncicalists and communitarian anarchists) and right-wing anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists and libertarians) lies in their contrasting theories of the state: “While social anarchists seek to abolish the state as the source of private property, the individualists want to eliminate it because they see it as an obstacle to private property” (3). Accordingly, what the reorganization of society should look like is radically different between the two poles, one of a highly organized federalized system of democratic decision-making and mutual aid, and another of very atomized collection of self-interest-serving egoists relating to one another in free association. In other words, the left envisions workers in control of all areas of social life, whereas the right envisions the market in control.
Heider is (deliberately) very partisan in her review of the two sides, and persuasively so. Indeed, the book caused me to identify with greater degree to anarcho-syndicalism and increased my fear of more right-libertarian thinking. And, by her thorough overview, Heider certainly sharpened my contempt for political thinkers drawing from intellectually-bankrupt objectivist philosophy. What I wasn't prepared for, though was the frightening “green anarchists.” Even within green anarchism there is quite a diversity of thought, ranging from neo-primitivists (Heider doesn't use this term) who are essentially techno-phobes, to those who believe new technologies are the solution to capitlaist- and state-led ecological destruction. Heider reveals how some of the anarchists of the green variety have fascist tendencies and align themselves with xenophobic causes of “population control.” In other words, they say that immigrants should be deported and restricted from entering because they are to blame for the over-extraction of our natural resources. I had a hard time believing that people actually think this way until I saw an ad (in The Nation of all places!) for a coalition of so-called environmentalist and nativist groups.
I recommend this read for left-wing anarchists. If you're interested, you can read the refutes to the other strands, but more interesting is simply deepening your understanding of anarcho-syndicalism through Heider's unique presentation of figures and their thought.
August 16, 2008
excellent...
August 2, 2011
Comprehensive study of the left/right anarchist scene of contemporary USA.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews