Customer Reviews

In Defense of Anarchism (with a New Preface)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First, a disclaimer: this book is not about how some form of anarchism might operate. It is purely theoretical, arguing for "philosophical anarchism" based on the imperitive of not undermining personal autonomy. So don't expect it to defend anarchists in the Spanish Civil War or something. That's not what it is about.

But, the book is excellent. I am no anarchist, but the arguments set forth here are completely convincing. If we value autonomy--and almost everyone claims they do--then these are the necessary conclusions. Wolff's comments on majoritarianism vigorously ring the bell of indisputable truth. This is not what you learned in high school government class.

The book is quite short. The preface is a fun read, as Wolff talks about the how the book came into being, but once the first chapter starts, he is all business. But though it deals almost exclusively with philosophical ideas, it had no problem keeping my attention. A short 80 pages has given me a whole new understanding of the justifcation of government. Consider my philosophical cobwebs knocked out.

I'm puzzled by the people who claim that this book doesn't offer any defense of anarchism. Surely its main argument - that its the only system of government that can possibly be ethically justified - is defense enough. Indeed, since one assumes ethics are one's highest obligation, one would assume this is the best possible defense - that any alternative would be plain and simply wrong.

In any case, most of the other things people are saying about this book are spot-on. It's clearly-written, engaging, and short. The biggest sticking point for people will be the book's explicit Kantian bent. As a Kantian, I must simply say, "Get over it."

This book, at 80 pages, had me really excited at the halfway point. HIs critiques of the existing systems of government- especially direct, representitive, and majoritarian democracy are deft and well formulated. I figured that as the author had presented his case against the state pretty well by page 40, he'd have a great affirmitive case for anarchism.

WRONG!! There was no case. Once he'd laid down his anti-government case, he simply repeated most of what he'd wrote one more time. Even the last sub-chapter 'Utopian Glimpses of a World Without States" didn't attempt anything. That in mind, the books title is not only misleading, it is a fabrication. AS there is no defences of anarchism here, it might best be called 'Critiques of the Idea of Government."

Well, the two stars I gave it were for amazing clarity in writing. This book, under a worse writer, could've easily been two hundred or more pages but Wolff keeps it short and energetic. Also, his critiques of the state (especially on voting procedure and inadequacies in district-representation) were great.
To Close, I must mention that there are many books similar to this one that are far superior to this one. For a great deffense of anarchism (favoring the market) read Randy Barnett's "Structure of Liberty." For a good defense of anarchism (favoring no market) read Proudhon's "What is Property" and for a book questioning the legitamacy of the state coming to a minarchist- libertarian- conclusion, the true classic is Robert Nozick's "Anarch, State and Utopia."

This book covers many of the objections against democracy and serves as a good introductory point for anyone experimenting with anarchistic thought.

This is not so much about "anarchism" as it is about the legitimation crisis of representative and majoritarian democracy.

The book started out in the 1960s as an essay called "The Fundamental Problem of Political Theory", but eventually came to be called "The Impossibility of a Solution to the Fundamental Problem of Political Philosophy". In the conflict between authority and autonomy, even representative and majoritarian democracy faces a crisis of legitimation.

A "legitimate state" turns out to be a myth. The only possible legitimacy is in a direct democracy where there is a complete 100% consensus on a given issue, and then such a "vote" only applies to the subject of that vote. Of course such a thing would be extremely rare, and thus such a notion of state legitimacy is effectively useless.

I'd have to rank this as one of my top recommended books because the author does indeed focus in on identifying the fundamental problem of political philosophy and efficiently demonstrates to his own chagrin that a solution is impossible. Such a text should be considered foundational to all social and political philosophy since all else follows.

The arguments are much in line with classic liberalism & libertarianism.

I agree that the title is misleading. This is a great book for criticizing the legitimacy of government--it does that well, covering various forms of government and concluding on the necessary requirements for legitimate government. His argument that no government is legitimate seems strong to me, but he's not really *defending* anarchy, as he's accepting it as the only legitimate political arrangement. It's his "default" position.

The last section where he's talking about the possibility of anarchism is the worst section, since he doesn't seem to actually believe in an efficient, working anarchy, and makes economic mistakes concerning a free market, or a market where there is no government to regulate it. He probably should have left this section out and just summarized his points as a wrap-up.

This is a short book and an easy read. One flaw is that it's really only making one argument, so if someone doesn't find the argument persuasive, the book provides no alternatives. Still well worth reading, though.

Wolff's book is more an interesting critique of democracy than a stirring defense of anarchism, but it is a worthy read. It is hard to find fault in his logic that autonomy is compromised by any political system (unanimous direct democracy, notwithstanding), but Wolff does not present specifics as to which conditions are necessary for anarchy to successfully supplant an "authoritarian" government.

...not a practical argument for anarchism; which is precisely why (as a reviewer below noted) there are no specifics presented. Indeed, Wolff does not seem to even think anarchism *is* practical.

The title is misleading, as Wolff's essay is not so much apologia for anarchist ideas about social structures, it is in fact an exploration of the apparent paradox between the authority of the state and the moral autonomy of the individual. After running through the arguments for various kinds of representative and direct democracy, Wolff concludes that the only form of government which is morally acceptable (that is, which does not subvert moral autonomy) is 'unanimous direct democracy', which for obvious reasons is not a practical form of government. Wolff concludes that, from the perspective of moral philosophy, anarchism is the only acceptable social arrangement.

Wolff's treatment of the subject was rather illuminating for me, it finally revealed to me why political scientists as a whole do not regard anarchism as an ideology; it is instead considered a moral stance independent of political and economic issues, despite what some people might assert.

I've been thinking a little bit about his arguments, and they all seem sound. But I'm inclined to agree with Wolff's sentiments that even if the authority of the state truly cannot be reconciled with moral autonomy, the alternative is not practical. I was briefly considering pursuing the line of argument that societies as a whole can possess moral autonomy, and that a 'social moral autonomy' would outweigh the individual's moral autonomy. The obvious problem with this argument, though, is that if you accept it, it can make any form of government acceptable.

By chance I ran across this book as a used bookstore. I am glad I picked it up. Wolff arguments are well thought out, and should definitely get one thinking. Especially if your someone who values autonomy, as most of the arguments appeal to autonomy and personal liberty. There's a lot of good stuff in this book. In any case, change seems to manifest when people are willing to think outside the box.

Wolff began teaching a political science course, believing that government was justified. He wasn't too sure just *how* it could be justified, so he promised his students that he would find out by the end of the term. What he found out was that all arguments that attempt to justify government are flawed, and that moral autonomy requires anarchy. He does a good job presenting this argument, but his reliance on Kant's conceptions seems to me to make it of rather limited value, since most individuals do not find Kant persuasive. Even for someone interested in anarchism, Wolff's book is at best aleatory material.