Anarchy In Action

by Colin Ward

Alternate cover for 0900384204/9780900384202

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Anarchism, History, Sociology, Political Science

181 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 1973

About the author

Colin Ward was born in Wanstead, Essex. He became an anarchist while in the British Army during World War II. As a subscriber to War Commentary, the war-time equivalent of Freedom, he was called in 1945 from Orkney, where he was serving, to give evidence at the London trial of the editors for publishing an article allegedly intended to seduce soldiers from their duty or allegiance. Ward robustly repudiated any seduction, but the three editors (Philip Sansom, Vernon Richards and John Hewetson) were convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

He was an editor of the British anarchist newspaper Freedom from 1947 to 1960, and the founder and editor of the monthly libertarian journal Anarchy from 1961 to 1970.

From 1952 to 1961, Ward worked as an architect. In 1971, he became the Education Officer for the Town and Country Planning Association. He published widely on education, architecture and town planning. His most influential book was The Child In The City (1978), about children's street culture.

In 2001, Colin Ward was made an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.

Most of Ward's works deal with the issue of rural housing and the problems of overpopulation and planning regulations in Britain to which he proposes anarchistic solutions. He is a keen admirer of architect Walter Segal who set up a ‘build it yourself’ system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal’s help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of ‘build it yourself’ having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, ‘I don't believe in just letting it rip, the rich get away with murder when that happens. But I do want the planning system to be flexible enough to give homeless people a chance’. In his book Cotters and Squatters, Ward describes the historical development of informal customs to appropriate land for housing which frequently grew up in opposition to legally constituted systems of land ownership. Ward describes folkways in many cultures which parallel the Welsh tradition of the Tŷ unnos or 'one night house' erected on common land.

Ward includes a passage from one of his anarchist forebears, Peter Kropotkin, who said of the empty and overgrown landscape of Surrey and Sussex at the end of the 19th century, ‘in every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.’ Ward himself goes on to observe: ‘Precisely a century after this account was written, the fields were empty again. Fifty years of subsidies had made the owners of arable land millionaires through mechanised cultivation and, with a crisis of over-production; the European Community was rewarding them for growing no crops on part of their land. However, opportunities for the homeless poor were fewer than ever in history. The grown-up children of local families can’t get on the housing ladder’. Wards solution is that ‘there should be some place in every parish where it's possible for people to build their own homes, and they should be allowed to do it a bit at a time, starting in a simple way and improving the structure as they go along. The idea that a house should be completed in one go before you can get planning permission and a mortgage is ridiculous. Look at the houses in this village. Many of them have developed their character over centuries - a bit of medieval at the back, with Tudor and Georgian add-ons.’

Ward’s anarchist philosophy is the idea of removing authoritarian forms of social organisation and replacing them with self-managed, non-hierarchical forms of organisation. This form of federalism was put forward in part by Kropotkin and Proudhon and is based upon the principle that as Ward puts it- ‘in small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop’

Reviews

[Petter Nordal · Rating 5 out of 5]

What makes this such a good read is not that Ward is correct in every analysis--I find that some of his arguments avoid legitimate problems by focusing elsewhere--but it's lucidity. If you think anarchy is disorder and violence, read this book and understand what anarchists actually want: a peaceful, coöperative utopia made out of the people and the planet that we already have. And really, in a world where so much focus is on idiotic commercialism, I'm happy to spend some time focusing on what people actually do right.

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anarchists have always delivered the most withering of social critiques. Their shortcoming has typically been in the alternatives they offer. This book, despite the barricade-evoking title, is an attempt at remedying this. Ward sees examples of voluntary, unregulated cooperation everywhere and builds on these to provide a framework for how an anarchist society might function in a complex, industrialised world. His scope is wide - from family structure to education to housing to play. His argument simple – there is no need to ‘smash the state’, nor is there some utopian endpoint, rather the seeds of change lie all around us. It really is a most beguiling read.
Sentus Libri 100 word reviews of overlooked books.

[Marius Jaan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grateful that PM Press brought back this classic. Ten years since the last edition came out from Freedom Press. There’s a reason why this book has been reprinted, now for the fifth time, since coming out in 1973. In spite of some dated references, Ward’s book is an accessible, easy to read introduction to anarchism. Fortunately, PM included the Introduction to the Second Edition: a cheat sheet to what Ward presents in his book. Useful, too, in getting your feet wet if you’ve not read anarchist material for a bit.

I’m biased towards several sections. The first three chapters about anarchy, the state, order, and leadership offer some of the most readable, cogent, and friendly framings of key anarchist concepts that I’ve found. Not bloated. Not fuck you. Not academic. Just viable, practical words. Excellent stuff.

Ward’s take on education, both in “Schools No Longer” as well as throughout the text is particularly useful. Can’t say I agree in all places; however, like most of his writing, his points are well made, the evidence consistent, and the arguments usually persuasive.

Not so keen on the discussions of families, “Play as Anarchist Parable,” and “The Breakdown of Welfare.” Just did not read as engaging or effective as the other pieces. I’ll go back and reread in a couple months to reassess. My point here is that even if you don’t agree or are not in accord with his claims, it’s still worth reading and working through Ward. It’s not wasted effort, and a lot can be gained just be reading good writing about anarchism. While I applaud books like Chris Robe’s Breaking the Spell that address anarchist history and practice, I also want to be sure that even anarchist academic texts are accessible to most audiences. Ward’s work sets an excellent bar as your friendly, local anarchist read.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a collection of essays, and, as one would expect, therefore uneven. Some of the chapters were underdeveloped or clearly dated, but others offered very intriguing and tangible glimpses of what a (more) anarchist society might look like (the chapters on family, housing, schools, and the "self-employed society" are particularly notable).

While this book could be interpreted as anti-revolutionary, I think it is better understood as providing an alternate framework of social organization that can develop in a nascent way underneath and alongside domineering society. Something in the meantime to connect means and ends while we work for truly revolutionary change. Consider this quote: "The argument of this book is that an anarchist society, a society which organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices..." (p. 18).

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had no idea what anarchy as a principle of personal, political and social organization was before I read this book. Now I guess I know a tiny bit at least.

[Kernel Panic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scardinare il luogo comune che vede l'anarchismo come sinonimo di caos, di totale assenza di regole: questo l'obiettivo di Colin Ward fin dai primi paragrafi. Per farlo attinge con padronanza sia dai pensatori classici del pensiero anarchico - come Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin - sia dal pensiero di chi, come Karl Marx, dall'anarchismo finì per prendere le distanze. La critica alla società capitalistica dei consumi mossa da Colin Ward - così come quella al socialismo - ha toni pacati ma non risparmia niente e nessuno: dall'eccesso di amministrazione dei governi alle falle dell'istruzione pubblica, all'iniqua distribuzione delle risorse, alla disumanità delle istituzioni, senza tralasciare l'annosa questione delle carceri e dei sistemi punitivi, finendo per toccare i temi dell'ambientalismo e del progresso tecnologico: ad ogni problematica sociale è contrapposta una soluzione fornita dal pensiero anarchico. Una lettura che rivela la natura umana liberandola dai pregiudizi e dalle pesanti sovrastrutture sociali accatastate nel tempo, un meditato elogio dell'auto-organizzazione e della libertà d'azione che, benché manchi di scendere nei dettagli nei punti dove occorrerebbe - a tal fine esistono altri testi - costituisce un'ottima introduzione alle possibilità offerte da una filosofia poco compresa e spesso del tutto assente dai dibattiti sia pubblici che privati, più per pregiudizio che per altro.

[Jacken · Rating 5 out of 5]

exellent overveiw of anarchism as a social relationship, backed up by loads of examples of working alternatives to the state in loads of areas of life (from the international postal network to the Malinowskian gift economies in the Trobriands)

the focus on the social relationship side means that there is not much dicussion of anarchism as a politics of opposition (to capital, patriarchy, racial hierarchy etc...), and this, with Ward's rejection of things like community watch services as un-anarchist leads to the slightly dispappointing conclusion that 'pure anarchism' is unrealistic (when it's not...)

but overall, one of the clearest arguments for the reorganisation of society along anarchist lines that i have read...

[Cristina Rold · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un testo attualissimo. Si tende a pensare all'anarchismo come a qualcosa di storico che oggi rimane solo nelle speranze utopistiche di qualche nostalgico.
Qui invece l'autore propone una riflessione molto pratica sui diversi aspetti della società che potrebbero essere modificati da questa "che non è una rivoluzione politica, ma un'autodeterminazione sociale".
Insomma, lascia con l'idea che non dobbiamo sederci aspettando che qualcuno faccia la rivoluzione (che peraltro come diceva Gaber "oggi no, domani forse, ma dopodomani di sicuro!), ma che ognuno di noi nelle piccola cose che riguardano la sua vita possa organizzarsi in maniera più libera da certi schemi autoimposti e non necessari.
Alcuni sono necessari, ma molti che diamo per scontati non lo sono.
Apriamo qualche porta.

[Totochelamouche · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the very time when the 'irresistible trends of modern society' seemed to be leading us to a mass society of enslaved consumers they are reminding us of the truth that the irresistible is simply that which is not resisted.

Obviously some people are conspicuously lacking in this pent-up anxiety and guilt, the kind of people who are singularly successful in supportive, rather than punitive, work with delinquents or deviants, people who are sufficiently at ease with themselves to cope with the mental strain, the irritation and time-consuming tedium which our deviants frequently impose on us. If we want to change society it is probably more important for us to find out what produces people like them than to find out what makes delinquents.

Discipline, routine, obedience and submission were the characteristics sought in the well-regulated institution, best obtained in an enclosed environment, away from the distractions, comforts, seductions and dangerous liberties of ordinary society. In the nineteenth century - the great institution-building age - indeed, the same characteristics were sought in the ordinary 'open' institutions of outside society, the factory, the school, the developing civil service, the patriarchal family.

And John Vaizey, remarking that "everything in our social life is capable of being institutionalised, and it seems to me that our political energies should be devoted to restraining institutions" says that "above all ... institutions give inadequate people what they want - power. Army officers, hospital sisters, prison warders - many of these people are inadequate and unfulfilled and they lust for power and control."

There seems to be an immense anxiety and fear floating around in our society which is out of proportion to actual dangers.

Welfare is administered by a top-heavy governmental machine which ensures that when economies in public expenditure are imposed by its political masters, they are made by reducing the service to the public, not by reducing the cost of administration.

We are always offering superior advice to those third world countries where 'aid' is dissipated in the cost of administering it, but we are in just the same situation ourselves.

One of the possibilities they see is of a dual labour market: a high-pay, high-technology, aristocracy of labour and a low-wage, low-skill sector, and beyond both the mafiosi of big bosses and little crooks.

Suppose the only plausible economic recovery consists in people picking themselves up off the industrial scraphead, or rejecting their slot in the micro-technology system, and making their own niche in the world of ordinary needs and their satisfaction.

Why do people consent to be ruled? It isn't only fear; what have millions of people to fear from a small group of professional politicians and their paid strong-arm men?

It is as though every individual possessed a certain quantity of power, but that by default, negligence, or thoughtless and unimaginative habit or conditioning, he has allowed someone else to pick it up, rather than use it himself for his own purposes.

He gives this as a homely example: "If the butcher weighs one's meat with his thumb on the scale, one may complain about it and tell him he is a bandit who robs the poor, and if he persists and one does nothing else, this is mere talk; one may call the Department of Weights and Measures, and this is indirect action; or one may, talk failing, insist on weighing one's own meat, bring along a scale to check the butcher's weight, take one's business somewhere else, help open a cooperative store, and these are direct actions." Wiecks observes that: "Proceeding with the belief that in every situation, every individual and group has the possibility of some direct action on some level of generality, we may discover much that has been unrecognized, and the importance of much that has been under-rated. So politicalised is our thinking, so focused to the motions of governmental institutions, that the effects of direct efforts to modify one's environment are unexplored. The habit of direct action is, perhaps, identical with the habit of being a free man, prepared to live responsibly in a free society."

An interesting and deliberate example of the theory of spontaneous organisation in operation was provided by the Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham in South London. This was started in the decade before the Second World War by a group of physicians and biologists who wanted to study the nature of health and of healthy behaviour instead of studying ill-health like the rest of the medical profession.

We usually conclude that the punitive, interfering lover of order is usually so because of his own unfreedom and insecurity. The tolerant condoner of disorder is a recognisably different kind of character, and the reader will have no doubt which of the two is easier to live with.

The military psychologists learned that what they considered to be leader or follower traits are not exhibited in isolation. They are, as one of them wrote, "relative to a specific social situation - leadership varied from situation to situation and from group to group."

Elsewhere in his paper on 'work democracy' he notes that: "If personal enmities, intrigues and political manoeuvres make their appearance in an organisation, one can be sure that its members no longer have a factual meeting ground in common, that they are no longer held together by a common work interest..."

Most people in fact are 'educated' beyond their level in the industrial pyramid. Their capacity for invention and innovation is not wanted by the system.

Creativity is for the gifted few: the rest of us are compelled to live in the environments constructed by the gifted few, listen to the gifted few's music, use the gifted few's inventions and art, and read the poems, fantasies and plays by the gifted few. This is what our education and culture condition us to believe, and this is a culturally induced and perpetuated lie.

You can post a letter from here to China or Chile, confident that it will arrive, as a result of freely arrived at agreements between different national post offices, without there being any central world postal authority at all.

But will it ever happen? Will this humane and essentially anarchistic vision of a workable future simply join all the other anarchical utopias of the past? Years ago George Orwell remarked: If one considers the probabilities one is driven to the conclusion that anarchism implies a low standard of living. It need not imply a hungry or uncomfortable world, but it rules out the kind of air-conditioned, chromium-plated, gadget-ridden existence which is now considered desirable and enlightened. The processes involved in making, say, an aeroplane are so complex as to be only possible in a planned, centralised society, with all the repressive apparatus that that implies. Unless there is some unpredictable change in human nature, liberty and efficiency must pull in opposite directions.

This step is imposed by the necessity for each healthy man and woman to spend a part of their lives in manual work in the free air; [...]

The development of the school and the university as broiler-houses for a place in the occupational pecking-order have given rise to the de-schooling movement and the idea of the anti-university.

But, as Alexander Herzen put it over a century ago: "A goal which is infinitely remote is not a goal at all, it is a deception.

Several different threads of thought are woven together in Sennett's study of "personal identity and city life." The first is a notion that he derives from the psychologist Erik Erikson that in adolescence men seek a purified identity to escape from uncertainty and pain and that true adulthood is found in the acceptance of diversity and disorder.

The poor of the Third World shanty-towns, acting anarchically, because no authority is powerful enough to prevent them from doing so, have three freedoms which the poor of the rich world have lost. As John Turner puts it, they have the freedom of community self-selection, the freedom to budget one's own resources and the freedom to shape one's own environment. In the rich world, every bit of land belongs to someone, who has the law and the agents of law enforcement firmly on his side. Building regulations and planning legislation are rigidly enforced, unless you happen to be a developer who can hire architects and negotiators shrewd enough to find a way round them or who can do a deal with the authorities.

This story reveals a great deal about the state of mind that is induced by free and independent action, and that which is induced by dependence and inertia: the difference between people who initiate things and act for themselves and people to whom things just happen.

Ultimately the social function of education is to perpetuate society: it is the socialising function. Society guarantees its future by rearing its children in its own image. In traditional societies the peasant rears his sons to cultivate the soil, the man of power rears his to wield power, and the priest instructs them all in the necessity of a priesthood.

The most devastating criticism we can make of the organised system is that its effects are profoundly anti-educational. In Britain, at five years old, most children cannot wait to get into school. At fifteen, most cannot wait to get out.

Finding some corner which the adult world has passed over, and making it their own. How can children in towns find and appropriate this kind of private world when, as Agnete Vestereg of the Copenhagen Jung Playground writes: Every bit of land is put to industrial or commercial use, where every patch of grass is protected or enclosed, where streams and hollows are filled in, cultivated and built on?

Do we really accept the paradox of a free and self-developing childhood followed by a lifetime of dreary and unfulfilling toil? Isn't there a place for the adventure playground or its equivalent in the adult world?

But is the Community Workshop idea nothing more than an aspect of the leisure industry, a compensation for the tedium of work? Daniel Bell, commenting on the "fantastic mushrooming of arts-and-crafts hobbies, of photography, home woodwork shops with power-driven tools, ceramics, high fidelity, electronics" notes that this has been achieved at a very high cost indeed - "the loss of satisfaction in work."

You cannot expect men to take a responsible attitude and to display initiative in daily life when their whole working experience deprives them of the chance of initiative and responsibility.

This is why they present every kind of scheme for 'workers' participation', 'joint management', 'profit sharing', 'industrial co-partnership,' everything in fact from suggestions boxes to works councils, to give the worker the feeling that he is more than a cog in the industrial machine while making sure that effective control of industry is kept out of the hands of the man on the factory floor.

These examples of on-the-job workers' control are important in evolving an anarchist approach to industrial organisation. They do not entail submission to paternalistic management techniques - in fact they demolish the myths of managerial expertise and indispensability.

Industry is not dominated by technical expertise, but by the sales manager, the accountant and the financial tycoon who never made anything in their lives except money.

Private cars? Why do people always want to go somewhere else? Is it because where they are is so intolerable? And what part did the automobile play in making the need to escape? What about day to day convenience? Is being stuck in a traffic jam convenient? What about the cost to the country? Bugger the 'cost to the country,' that's just the same crap as the national interest. Have you seen the faces of old people as they try to cross a busy main road? What about the inconvenience to pedestrians? What's the reason for buying a car? Is it just wanting to have it? Do we think the value of a car rubs off on us? But that's the wrong way round. Does having a car really save time? What's the average hours worked in manufacturing industry? Let's look it up in the library: 45.7 hours work a week. What's the amount of the family's spending money in a week that goes on cars? 10.3 per cent of all family income. Which means more like 20 per cent if you've got a car because half of us don't have one. What's 25 per cent of 45 hours? Christ, 9 hours!

The products which are available for purchase are not the products which we would prefer to have.

The paradoxes of contemporary capitalism mean that there are vast numbers of what American economist calls no-people: the army of the unemployed who are either unwanted by, or who consciously reject, the meaningless mechanised slavery of contemporary industrial production.

The problem that faces every individual and every society is quite different, it is how to provide people with the opportunity they yearn for: the chance to be useful.

We may thus conclude that there is an essential paradox in the fact that the state whose symbols are the policeman, the jailer and the soldier should have become the administrator and organiser of social welfare. The connection between welfare and warfare is in fact very close.

[David Grobgeld]

I liked it a whole lot until literally the last page when Ward says that an anarchist society would have certainly never put a man on the moon. Wow, if I believed that I would not even remotely have entertained the notion of anarchism.

[Scott Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The preface is a concise and incisive criticism of social democracy. The rest of the book is quote-worthy in its evaluation of every part of our state-authoritarian global society. The problem is the "in Action" part of the title; there is little “action” to be found in the book.

Yes, each chapter has examples of voluntary organisations addressing critical social issues. But few, if any, of the examples are anarchist. I was reminded of the "finger pointing at the moon" Zen koan. The premise of the book is mutual aid is all around us. But is that anarchy?

Colin Ward states anarchist principles demand organisations that arise from voluntary, functional, temporary and small groups. So: TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone

But, the rise of Consent Culture as captured in Ask: Building Consent Culture shows anarchist principles can make meaningful social change… even inside a state structure!

Regardless, the conclusion leaves no inspiration for the liberty lover:

Is an anarchist society possible? We can only say, from the evidence of human history, that no kind of society is impossible. If you are powerful enough and ruthless enough you can impose almost any kind of social organisation on people— for a while. But you can only do so by methods which, however natural and appropriate they may be for any other kind of 'ism'— acting on the well-known principle that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs— are repugnant to anarchists, unless they see themselves as yet another of those revolutionary elites 'leading the people' to the promised land. You can impose authority but you cannot impose freedom. An anarchist society is improbable, not because anarchy is unfeasible, or unfashionable, or unpopular, but because human society is not like that, because, as Malatesta put it in the passage quoted in the last chapter, "we are, in any case, ony one of the forces acting in society."

[Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

Above all I think Colin's clarity of thought and writing style are what makes this such a rich and classic book. Putting down on paper how anarchism as theory can be put into practice in all manner of fields - family, work, housing, social care, social planning - and make it seem achievable and convincing, can only be done if the writing and thinking isn't convoluted. Clarity runs through it.

Written in 1973 there were plenty of optimistic examples coming to life to show these principles being enacted, and some of these references seem dated today, with hindsight showing up their limitations against the power of rampant global capitalism, the expansion of which was barely beginning in the early seventies. And while not every last proposition remains convincing, many do. Above all the general principles remain untarnished.

The historical and broader theory background sections in the book are really great and concise - there's more of that kind of thing in Colin's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2004), which is an excellent primer.

Finishes with very quotable last lines: "Anarchism in all its guises is an assertion of human dignity and responsibility. It is not a programme for political change but an act of social self-determination." ......the question is, without a programme of political change what room exists to enact social self-determination? My impression is the space to do so gets smaller and smaller with each passing year, as capitalism pushes further and further into every possible space: internal, external, private and public. Its partly what leads me to conclude we need a combination of democratic socialism from above and anarchism-in-action from below, working in tandem. I think this is a simliar conclusion that Erik Olin Wright comes to in How to Be an Anticapitalist in the 21st Century (Verso, 2019). In fact, its basically the same position Leo Panitch make's in The Socialist Challenge Today, which I read just after this.

[Fiona McLary · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate the conceit of this book, but unfortunately it feels dated to me relative to much older works by Goldman and Kropotkin. I also found myself leery of the sections on children, families, and education given how many episodes the podcast Behind the Bastards has devoted to similar supposedly revolutionary educational institutions that just turned out to be child abuse factories. (They literally just put out an episode on a person that Ward quotes in chapter 12 -- not saying that Ward agreed with him 100%, it's just unfortunate.)

That said, this book is not without its merits. The chapter "The Breakdown of Welfare" hit particularly hard for me as someone who experienced institutional psychiatric care as a net positive, but at the same time saw how much needless suffering it caused the other patients (and me, to a lesser degree). I also thought that the final chapter was brilliant in its pragmatism, compassion, and hope. And I do indeed think that this book could serve as an excellent explanation and persuasive argument for skeptics, given that it fully grounds anarchist principles in natural, ever-present patterns of human behavior and social organization. It's a refreshing and grounding reminder for those of us feeling overwhelmed in the face of so much tyranny today that small steps matter and that our ideals are inherent to human nature -- and such things cannot be legislated or oppressed out of existence. I just wish it had come in a more enjoyable and relevant package.

[Lee Osborne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This looked like a good introduction to anarchist ideas, and it certainly was. I had some knowledge of the subject already, although it's interesting that the author considers this book to be a sequel to Mutual Aid by Kropotkin. I tried reading that a while ago, but found it pretty impenetrable and gave up. I might have to revisit it.

The book was mostly pretty readable, and made its arguments clear, although it was originally written in 1973 and this does show in places. In the UK at least, the state did a lot more than it does now, and the rise of communications technology and the power of corporations has changed a lot. I found my eyes glazing over in a few places, as some bits felt quite dated and less relevant to today's world.

It's interesting, though, because the author points out that the ultimate goal of socialism/communism is a society that looks a lot like an anarchist ideal - but the route to it is very different. The communist puts their faith in revolution, but the anarchist chooses to opt out of government control completely.

This did a lot to convince me that an anarchist society is a viable and worthwhile thing to strive towards. Many of the arguments presented are sensible and thought-provoking, especially at a time like this, when government abuse of power is a serious problem. It's certainly encouraging me to read more, and think carefully about how I might live in the future.

[D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hiyerarşik, merkezi, idari örgütlenme kavramına benzer bir sibernetik eleştiri de Donald Schon tarafından 1970 Reith Dersleri'nde ortaya atılmıştır. Schon burada şöyle yazar : " Merkezden çevreye modeli toplumumuzda, yüksek düzeyde uzmanlaştırma gerektiren organizasyonların büyümesi ve yayılması için egemen model olagelmiştir. Böyle bir sistemde bir örnek, basit bir mesaj gereklidir. Sistemin karmaşık durumlarla başa çıkabilme yetisi basit bir mesaja ve bir örnek kopyalama yoluyla gelişime dayanır." Anarşistler gibi o da " bir merkez yoluyla birbirine bağlanmak yerine birbirleri aracılığıyla diğerlerine bağlanan öğelerden" oluşan ağları alternatif olarak görmektedir; bu ağların ayırt edici özelliği " sistemin dağılmamasını sağlayacak kadar güçlü olan altyapı ile herhangi bir merkezi destek veya kolaylaştırıcının olmaması, liderlik esaslarının ortaya çıkıp değişmesi, kapsam, karmaşıklık, istikrar, homojenlik ve esnekliklerdir." ( sy : 61 )

[Ottaviaburzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro illuminante, perché la concezione che si ha di "anarchia" nel mondo moderno è quella di rivoluzione, sangue, assenza di ordine.

Invece l'anarchia può essere organizzazione: nelle pieghe del capitalismo, in tutte le reti di relazioni informali che naturalmente si costituiscono e cercano di ingannare questa società srovegliante e diseguale.
In realtà la massima libertà presuppone una grande responsabilizzazione dell'individuo, ed è interessantimo leggere come il principio possa essere applicato (e spesso lo è stato) in tutti gli aspetti della vita sociale: istruzione, lavoro, gioco, amore...

Sì certo, la società anarchica non manderebbe mai l'uomo su marte. Ma la vita semplice di comunità informali in cui i bisogni e i rapporti sono lasciati alla autodeterminazione del singolo sarebbe sicuramente è una alternativa molto più sostenibile, giusta ed egualitaria rispetto a quanto ci è imposto.

Un libro per pensare e per cercare l'anarchia, e darle spazio.

[Omace · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's honestly closer to a 3.5 for me. I've got issues with the chapter about self employment because I think Ward mischaracterized how anarchists go about changing the division of labor, and if this is your first introduction to anarchist ideas, you may get the wrong impression. However, the book itself is still quite good at laying out the basics of anarchism as a practical mode of organizing society and why it's not only feasible in the present, but one of the best methods for orginizing society.

[Cody Bastida · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd recommend this to Anarchists new and old. An old anarchist won't learn too much in terms of theory, but there's plenty of new examples and science that would be useful to an old Anarchist. And new anarchists will learn an Anarchist history with reasonings and critiques of society.

My only issue is my Americanness. Colin used a lot of british anarchist history. Which he did a good job of explaining the what's while keeping it short and sweet. I loved learning about them and I'm interested to know more.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

What does anarchy mean to you? Disarray, disorganisation & disintegration? Lawlessness & chaos? Let this book disabuse you of these simplistic views and replace them with countless examples of how local organization of social functions produce superior outcomes for all humans (and the planet). Ward places anarchy alongside communism as a solution to our sick capitalist society, but rather than replacing the capitalist state with a communist one argues for the abolition of the state & all its institutions. While not entirely convincing there is plenty to make you stop & think here

[Michal Paszkiewicz · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read - I am fairly convinced as to self-organisation allowing better functioning of society, however I also disagree with many concepts presented in this book - not all groups of people are capable of self-organisation and any form of freedom can't be decided by a single activist. Banning religion, for example, serves as an incredible oppression akin to that of the Soviet Union and should be avoided by progressive anarchists.

[Ivan Savić · Rating 2 out of 5]

It tries to sum society problems and to present of some examples of anarchistic solutions across the world and time. But I don't think the author did it well, I didn't feel convinced of solutions efficiencies. For me it was a bit hard to follow, I felt like it was jumping a bit form topics to topics and frequently changing conversation direction. I couldn't concentrate on reading and couldn't extract much from the book.

[tay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great collection of essays about how anarchism has worked throughout society is various forms & can work. Many of the ideas will resonate with most people. You may be surprised to find that you agree or live on some level with anarchist. Glad I read it. Eager to learn more about anarchy, as it’s a subject I am not as familiar as I would like to be. Very readable!

[Neon Snake · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and concise volume with solid examples of where anarchism can, has, and does work.

If I have any criticism, and it's not really one, it's the idea that an anarchist society cannot (would not?) build a Concorde, nor go into space. I suspect it's much more likely with anarchism than without - or at least, if it did happen, it would be open to many more people than it is today!

[Darran Mclaughlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and brief introduction to what anarchism is through showing what it would mean in practice across a number of different fields, from architecture, to education, to mental health services, the workplace and prison. It provides an interesting provocation and I think it's well worth reading, even if you aren't an anarchist.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is so important because it not only demonstrates successful implementations and occurrences of non-hierarchal and decentralized power structures, it teaches you how to look for and see them for yourself. Once you can see anarchy occurring in your everyday life as a victim of capitalism, you are able to implement anarchy and become part of the fight. A really special read.

[Silvia Battagliarin · Rating 5 out of 5]

BELLISSIMO. Lo ho amato per ogni pagina. Ti fa capire quanto l'anarchia sia e allo stesso tempo non sia un utopia.
Riporta parte degli scritti di importanti filosofi e politici comunisti ed anarchici, ne spiega le parole e te ne fa innamorare.
Trovo inoltre che sia fondamentale per comprendere a pieno i concetti di teorie fin troppo sottovalutate.
se ci piace la politica LEGGETELO.

[Benedetta Ventrella (rienva) · Rating 5 out of 5]

La parola “anarchia” a volte è usata come sinonimo di disordine. Colin Ward capovolge questa lettura e mostra l’autentico significato dell’anarchia. Organizzazione spontanea e mutevole di persone che non si strutturano in gerarchie piramidali. Il fuoco sotto la cenere che brucia nascosto anche nelle società in cui viviamo ogni qualvolta le persone si organizzano spontaneamente per un obiettivo comune.

[Agung Wicaksono · Rating 4 out of 5]

Salah satu referensi tentang cara mempraktikkan konsep anarkisme di dalam kehidupan bermasyarakat. Selain itu, di buku ini, dijelaskan juga tentang masalah yang akan terjadi jika anarkisme diterapkan, tapi juga disertai jalan keluarnya.

[Ducky T · Rating 4 out of 5]

a little outdated but still an amazing recap of how anarchist actions exist in a society and the potential for tapping into them for greater revolutionary action. lost a star for not advocating for direct violence against the state.

[Woodrow Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book, although it's a little outdated at time. Ward accomplished the impossible by writing in a way that appeals to individualists and collectivist without alienating either. A fantastic read that is poorly missed in every collection that lacks it.