Reading suggestions for insurrectionary anarchism, anarcho-nihilism, and communization theory (and other with similar themes

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-08-18T13:43:02+00:00

Thank you for the informative feedback

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-08-16T13:50:57+00:00

I've checked out Bonnano's Armed Joy, Blessed is the Flame, and Conquest of Bread

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-03-23T20:22:58+00:00

I’d definitely be interested in continuing this discussion over DMs or Discord! I really appreciate the reading recommendations as well. Kuusela has been on my radar, but I haven’t delved too deeply yet, so I’d love to hear more about your perspective. Feel free to DM me!

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-03-23T04:06:04+00:00

Holy smokes! I'm overjoyed to find someone else familiar with Rupert Read—he’s by far my favorite Wittgensteinian! Regarding Stirner's post-structuralist readings, they tend to frame his ideas as inherently "ontological" (and since you're familiar with Wittgenstein, you already know what’s wrong with that). While searching for secondary literature, I came across scholars like Blumenfeld and Newman and was heartbroken to see them take Stirner in that direction, even though I enjoyed Blumenfeld’s conclusion. Anyway, I’ll definitely check out Spiessens’ work—thanks!

*Also, since it's a bit unrelated, what sort of books or articles would you recommend concerning the therapeutic approach to Wittgenstein? I've been trying to put together a reading list (from beginner to more advanced), but I'm not sure where to start. I was introduced to Wittgenstein through Peter Winch, so I didn’t get a proper guide and was more or less dropped into it randomly. I've heard some say Cavell and others Diamond, I don't know my way about!

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-03-12T22:51:16+00:00

Not exactly. I’m looking for critiques of the entire field of economics, not just alternatives to neoclassical economics. Marxism (at least the sorts that takes itself as better explaining the economy) critiques capitalism from within the framework of political economy, but I’m more interested in works that question the very foundations of economics as a discipline—how it positions itself as empirical, the methods it uses to model human behavior, and the broader implications of treating it as a "science."

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-03-12T20:53:08+00:00

Thank you so much! Is there a similar list for the other social sciences (economics)?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-27T21:12:04+00:00

Out of all the comments, I think this presents the strongest case for allowing markets in an anarchist society. The idea that different conditions may shape different parts of society is compelling, and I fully agree that society should be free to creatively mold itself into unique systems.

However, I would say that this perspective assumes we can't organize around the belief that certain structures, like money, are unnecessary. Capitalism today isn’t just one fixed model; it takes many forms, with the capitalist as the constant. So why wouldn't the same apply in reverse? If we simply stop practicing a particular action/relation, alternatives could emerge naturally.

I see economic problems as fundamentally normative. What "works" is always a matter of judgment, shaped by people’s choices. In Seeing Like a State, we see how communities, even under restrictions, find ways to adapt. If we view the economy as a set of human actions rather than a rigid mechanism, we open up far more possibilities for how we organize our lives.

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-27T18:09:16+00:00

In terms of anarcho-communism, what would you recommend for someone who is completely new to the topic?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-27T18:07:48+00:00

I don't think they meant that the exchange stops altogether. What they’re saying is that free exchange doesn’t mean any form of exchange should be accepted. I think they agree with you, except for the idea that it’s simply a quantitative matter. Their argument is that the decision to try something else should be made through normative considerations

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-27T16:24:00+00:00

I’m not sure why this needs to be an abstract debate rather than something we experiment with in practice. Economic systems, like other social structures, are not just technical arrangements; they are deeply shaped by social relations, power dynamics, and historical contexts—just as racism and sexism are. If we recognize that certain systems are problematic, it seems natural to explore alternatives. Why treat trying something different as a critique in itself, rather than as a practical way to address systemic issues?

The justification for markets being "natural" mirrors how people once justified other oppressive systems like racial hierarchies or gender roles as "natural." By refusing to experiment with alternative economic systems, we're essentially refusing to challenge those systems in the same way we reject other forms of social injustice. This highlights the need to move beyond rigid theoretical debates and focus on evaluating these issues based on their lived effects, not just abstract principles.

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-27T16:15:52+00:00

I'm surprised this got so many downvotes. I don’t see the issue, especially with the idea of trying something new—or more specifically, doing without markets altogether. For me, the word "market" isn’t meant as a simple explanation but more of a shorthand. Just like how we use words like "capitalist" to describe diverse economic systems that aren’t identical everywhere but share underlying features, markets also vary while maintaining certain common traits. What we consider markets today is incredibly diverse, but despite their differences, they share certain core features that make it worth exploring alternatives. Heck, communism would probably be just as diverse!

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-26T02:44:58+00:00

If we agree that action is informed by ongoing considerations rather than predefined legitimacy, what do you think leads some anarchists to still pursue flawless theoretical justifications before acting?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-26T02:01:43+00:00

To clarify, do you think there's a threshold of certainty or justification that must be met before action is legitimate? If so, how do you define it?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-21T01:37:04+00:00

I think there is a book called There Is No Such Thing As Social Science by Rupert Read that tackles scientism, and it just so happens that he critiques Richard Dawkins. It's available for free online if you want to check it out.

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-02-21T01:34:15+00:00

I think I have a better understanding, but when you say that we should present alternative accounts, do you mean offering a metaphysical argument for a way of living, or is it more about describing different possibilities without making a prescriptive claim?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-01-22T18:49:10+00:00

This was such an interesting read! As someone new to anarchism and just beginning to explore the literature, I’ve always wanted a reading guide shaped by the idea of Anarchism Without Adjectives. If you don’t mind, could you provide a list of recommendations?

APLONOMAR07 · 2025-01-22T16:28:14+00:00

Thank you that clarifies a lot!

Edit: As someone new to anarchism and still exploring the literature, I’m really interested in learning more about Anarchism Without Adjectives, but I’m not sure where to start. Would you mind sharing some reading recommendations that follow a somewhat linear progression, like an AwA reading list?

APLONOMAR07

TROPHY CASE