Two Cheers For Anarchism, by James C. Scott

When reading a book like this, it is important to remember that the libertarian traditions of the United States tend to be highly distinct from the anarchist traditions of Europe, which are more left-wing in nature and frequently include a high degree of tolerance for socialism in the support of egalitarianism that would not pass muster in the United States. Whatever this author’s background, he argues for anarchism from the point of view of European anarchism, so his hatred of capitalists is even greater than his (considerable) mistrust of governments. This limits his appeal to a reader like myself, it must readily be admitted, though at least some aspects of this rather fragmentary and personal account of various thoughts of the difference between order that is imposed from above and the more chaotic order that emerges bottom-up is certainly more congenial to me as a reader. My thoughts on this book are mixed, and it is likely that a book as messy as this one is going to get a mixed review from a variety of people who find different aspects of his non-systematic thinking congenial while finding fault with other seemingly incoherent and contradictory aspects of thought.

This book is a bit less than 150 pages and it is composed of six chapters that themselves are divided up into more than 25 fragments. The book begins with a list of illustrations and a preface that explains the author’s choice to write this book in a decidedly non-academic way. The author begins with various discussions about the uses of disorder and the context-dependent nature of charisma, and the way that “leaders” are frequently led about by the crowds that they are trying to mobilize that shape them through their responses and silence (1). This is followed by a chapter that talks about the difference between vernacular order and official order and how these interact in complex ways (2). After that there is a discussion about the production of human beings, including the regimentation that goes on in the family, in schools, in business, and in prisons (3). There is a chapter, my own personal favorite, that discusses what the author finds praiseworthy about the small and creative operations of the petit bourgeoisie (4). There is a chapter that the author writes that is in praise of politics as a means of overcoming the more insidiously biased nature of technocratic regimes of bureaucrats (5), and a final chapter that discusses the messy and particular nature of human experience and the constant state of flux involved with living things (6). The book then closes with notes, acknowledgements, and an index.

In general, the parts of this book that resonated most with me were the author’s praise of the petit bourgeoisie and the recognition of the importance of dignity and freedom from external control and surveillance to a great many people. It would be deeply interesting, as a thought experiment, to see what would happen to the extent that a society of petit bourgeoisie could be developed that would avoid the extremes of wealth and poverty that claim most contemporary regimes. The author’s just criticism of the rise of the tyrannical behavior of the state and the ways this has been manifested in many regimes over history is certainly worth paying attention to, and those libertarians who are blind to the possibility of abusive authority from corporate elites would do wise to ponder how life would be better without increasing power from either corrupt cronyism or corrupt totalitarianism, both of which threaten the well-being and freedom of ordinary people. If I am not enthusiastic enough about this book and its contents to give two cheers for anarchism, I do think the author’s note on the sort of low-grade but pervasive hostility to efforts at control are well worth understanding and emulating in a great many circumstances at the present time. If this book is wildly uneven, it does offer quite a bit that is worthy of commendation, reflection, and adoption for those who oppose thoughtless and demanding and frequently incompetent authorities.