Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Part 1. Portrait of the Anarchist as an Old Man -- 1. Out with the Old, in with the Ne -- 2. From New Anarchism to Post-anarchism -- Conclusion to Part 1 -- Part 2. Coming Out of Russia -- Introduction to Part 2 -- 3. Nihilism -- 4. Mapping the State -- Conclusion to Part 2 -- Part 3. Revolution and Evolution -- Introduction to Part 3: The General Idea of Anarchy -- 5. Anarchism: Utopian and Scientific -- 6. The Revolution Will Not Be Historicised -- Conclusion to Part 3 -- Reviewing the Classical Anarchist Tradition -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

What do anarchists stand for? In this clear and penetrating study, Ruth Kinna goes directly to the heart of this controversial ideology, explaining the influences that have shaped anarchism and the different tactics and strategies that have been used by anarchists throughout history to achieve their ends. Kinna covers themes both historical and acutely contemporary, including: Could anarchy ever really be a viable alternative to the state? Can anarchist ideals ever be consistent with the justification of violence? How has anarchism influenced the anti-globalization movement? Ruth Kinna is Lec

AbstractThis article outlines a concept of anarchist internationalism as non‐domination. The discussion falls into two parts. The first outlines the general theory, building on the analysis of the anarchist critique of republicanism, describing anarchist internationalism as cosmopolitan and based on a permanent "right of secession." The second part considers how this general conception was developed in the context of anti‐colonial struggle and nationalist resurgence. It examines Ananda Coomaraswamy and Rudolf Rocker's responses to the global spread of capitalism and the evolution of the European state. Their contrasting critiques of nationalism and images of international community expose shortcomings and biases in the application of non‐domination and tensions which test cosmopolitan ties and voluntary agreements. Yet their work also demonstrates that anarchist internationalism is not a failed dream of class solidarity and that, understood as a principle of non‐domination, it promotes emancipatory, transformative processes directed against static configurations of power.

This book chapter is under embargo until 04/10/2020 ; In a book called Free Speech for Radicals, Herber Newton, a heretical priest active in New York in the late nineteenth century, claimed that 'Anarchism is in reality the ideal of political and social science, and also the idea of religion' (in Schroeder 1916: 14). Newton's assertion, that anarchism is fundamentally religious, is deeply contested but from a twenty-first century perspective his coupling of anarchism and political science is also striking. Even accepting that the link he makes between these two terms is mediated by the reference to an ideal, hinting at a utopian aspiration that many anarchists would embrace, the conjunction jars. This chapter considers some reasons why, looking within both at conceptions of political science adopted in American and British academia in the course of the twentieth century and at anarchist literatures. The discussion considers how debates about the relationship between the analysis of politics and the legitimation of established power relations contextualize anarchist engagements with political science, how differences about the scope, application and character of scientific method have complicated this engagement and how overlaps between these two currents of argument help explain some very different anarchist approaches to the field. My argument is that Newton's view is a productive one, from which anarchists have much to gain. And the final section of the chapter examines some examples of anarchist political science, drawing on the work of C. Wright Mills and Peter Kropotkin.

This book chapter is in closed access until 18 months after publication. ; This paper brings anarchist perspectives to bear on the Charles Mills' and Carole Pateman's critical review of Rawlsian contract theory to explore the possibility of re-appropriating 'master's tools' to advance radical change. It uses a concept of prefiguration to consider how activists operate within the framework of the state to promote libertarian politics and it recovers an anarchist conception of free agreement to explore the theoretical grounding of this activism. The argument is that the state is re-imagined through the active contestation of the powers states reserve to determine the rightness of actions and the underpinning principles of justice. The argument has three parts. The first discusses Charles Mills' analysis Rousseau's contract theory to redress structural domination as an exemplary model of contemporary theoretical reimaging. The second part of the paper develops a critique of Mills' position, drawing on the work of Carole Pateman and Martin Buber. The final section discusses the reclamation of the state's powers through direct action.

This is a chapter from the book "Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy", the full publication details are available here: http://www.brill.com/products/book/brills-companion-anarchism-and-philosophy#TOC_1 ; This chapter examines anarchist feminism as a politics that has emerged through critical engagements with both anarchism and non-anarchist feminisms. As a current within anarchism, anarchist feminism is rightly linked to the writing of leading anarchist women, typically neglected in anarchist canons. Yet in different historical moments anarchist feminism has emerged as a critique of feminism as well as an assessment of anarchist movement practices and principles. The argument is that contemporary anarchist feminism is contextualized by a powerful historical narrative which has both marginalized anarchism within feminism and described feminism's intersection with anarchism as a transformative moment. This narrative is described by a wave theory which stresses the successive disruptions of feminism, each building on the earlier disturbance to advance a modified politics. The first section gives an account of feminist wave theory, to show how the boundaries of feminism have been constructed in ways that are neglectful of, if not antithetical to, anarchism. It then sketches two anarchist responses to wave theory, showing how activists have sought to find tools within anarchism to develop anarchist feminism or, alternatively, turned to feminism for anarchism's re-invention as an anarchist feminist politics. The final two sections examine the impact of wave narratives on contemporary anarchist feminisms and consider what the writings of prominent anarchist women contribute to anarchist feminist thinking.

Closed access for 36 months after publication. Permission is strictly limited for personal use only and the material is not to be re-published or distributed for commercial purposes without prior permission of the author and the publisher. This work is part of a collection titled Kropotkin: Reviewing the classical anarchist tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016) http://www.euppublishing.com ; The primary aim of this book is to rescue Kropotkin from the framework of classical anarchism and to highlight aspects of his political thought that have been lost as a result of the interest that his science has generated, particularly the theory of mutual aid. The chapters situate his thought in the context of late nineteenth-century debates and show how he helped shape anarchism as a distinctive politics which was quite different to the philosophy ascribed to him. Like his friend Elisée Reclus, Kropotkin was part of a European movement that, as Marie Fleming argues, 'developed in response to specific social-economic grievances in given historical circumstances'. Kropotkin contributed enthusiastically to the formation of an anarchist tradition and even endorsed Paul Eltzbacher's dispassionate, analytical study Anarchism: Seven Exponents of the Anarchist Philosophy. However, his understanding of anarchism was more fluid and open than Elzbacher's and instead of seeking to define set of characteristic core concepts, Kropotkin identified anarchism with a tradition of political thought and a set of political practices. By presenting an analysis of Kropotkin's work that does not treat the science of mutual aid as the key to this anarchism, the discussion shows how he understood this tradition and located himself within it. A second aim of this book is to explain Kropotkin's politics. As well as being regarded as one of the key theorists of classical anarchism, Kropotkin is remembered for his controversial decision to support the Entente powers against Germany. This choice is often described as a betrayal of principle which reflects his virulent Germanophobia, on the one hand, and potent Russian nationalism on the other. I argue that Kropotkin's alignment, and his subsequent defence of constitutionalism in Russia in 1917 is explicable in terms of his anarchism and that his consistent application of principle exposes some important differences within anarchism about internationalism and the idea of the state. These differences support very different ideas about the nature of solidarity and anti-militarism, for example, as well competing conceptions of class. The analysis builds on the existing political biographies and studies of Kropotkin's political thought to contextualise Kropotkin's thought and provides a textual analysis of published and unpublished work to offer an interpretation that highlights the revolutionary impetus and political thrust of his writing.

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Contemporary Political Theory. The definitive publisher-authenticated version KINNA, R., 2016. Book Review: Postanarchism, Saul Newman. Contemporary Political Theory, 16 (2), pp. 278–281. is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2016.15 ; Book Review of Saul Newman's Postanarchism, Edinburgh: Polity Press, 2016. ISBN 9780745688749

This is chapter three in the book, Reassessing the Transnational Turn: Scales of Analysis in Anarchist and Syndicalist Studies [Routledge]. ; This chapter examines Kropotkin's sociology of the state. It outlines his analysis of the modern European state's emergence in order to illuminate the transnational dimension of his thinking. Kropotkin presents a powerful critique of imposed uniformity and injustice in the context of an appreciation of linguistic and cultural diversity, or national difference. He establishes the artificiality of state organisation, which he associates with a particular principle of sovereignty, to highlight the fluid nature of state boundaries and the anarchistic and disintegrative forces that had the potential, sadly unrealised, to challenge the extension of statism in Europe. Kropotkin's argument, that transnationalism has the potential to undermine or reinforce statist principles helps explain his fears about the spread of European militarism, Prussian Caesarism and his apparently paradoxical stance on the war in 1914.