Even though I don't think people necessarily need to be well-versed in the theory behind anarchism to subscribe to it (and I know that people who have read all the right books may not practice it consistently), as someone who is interested in anarchism (though I don't self-identify as an anarchist at this point), I would like to know more about some of the big theorists and different anarchist movements in history. Though it's hard to know where I would start.

There's a book--I can't think of the title but it's subtitled something like "an anarcha-feminist reader"--that I keep seeing an Monkeywrench and meaning to buy. It sounds like it could be right up my alley, and maybe help lead me in the direction of some other writers.

If I had more time I would read more about it. As it is, I am able to get through a book in about 2 weeks or so, and I'd rather spend my time figuring it out for myself, you know? But definitely I have been exposed to anarchist literature and theory here and there and have usually identified strongly with it.

There was a zine that I picked up awhile back called FUCK WORK that really rocked...mostly I like reading the personal stuff put out by small presses rather than the intellectual stuff, but that's just how I apply it in my life, you know? I'm not interested in the mechanics of smashing the state, I'm interested in the day-to-day application of autonomy.

I totally forgot my whole point there, which was to say that the reason I think I want to read anarchist theory is that I've read other kinds of theory and I don't know how to relate the different ideas in my head without reading more of the theory stuff behind anarchism. And I feel like I should sort of give theoretical anarchism equal time, in a weird way. OK. Done now.

excellent post and followup discussion everyone! this is all gravy to me. pardon me while i steal time from my employer to rant!

may i recommend the anarchist people of color web site, which although it sounds identity-based it's really highly educational for everyone interested about how anarchism is relevant to our daily lives. their electronic library and links list is one of the best out there.

i also am sort of a poseur anarchist, having basically been introduced to the concept by the sex pistols' second-hand regurgitation [via malcolm mclaren] of the situationists and the 1968 french student uprising. from there i moved on to the hardcore ANOK bands like the crass and poison girls, some early 80's nuclear freeze/radical feminist/vegans i hung out with, and reading books by emma goldman who may have been THE single most influential american anarchist, and trying to read all the way through bakunin without laughing hysterically, i mean i love him but he's a fruitcake. proudhon was also good for a few laughs. i found a lot of the latter-day punk rock anarchists to be stiflingly boring however, and became more interested in stories told to me by my sources in the international black blocs who didn't have time for subculture wanking. as a poet i have been enormously influenced by hakim bey [a.k.a. peter lamborn wilson] and his books "taz: the temporary autonomous zone" and "pirate utopias", among others.

i think that anarchism is difficult to define, and i tend to prefer to think of myself as anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. i'm all in favor of limited ad hoc collectivism but my selfish, libertarian sentiments are troubled by the perceived value of "socially responsible" behavior, art, etc. note that "public art" in the quest to be offensive to no one is usually the most boring.

i think that anarchism isn't a monolithic ideology but rather a tendency in idealistic people, and sometimes it takes the forms of spontaneous chaotic upswells in the popular consciousness. anarchism is sort of a hidden spiritus that inhabits mob psychology -- when we're at our worse we riot, when we're at our best we feed each other. the athletic, nonviolent and truly collectivist milieu of the old fashioned punk rock "thrash" pit once upon a time was a perfect sculpture in realtime of this concept. of course the headbangers turned it into "moshing" and that was the end of that.

i think that anarchism is a conundrum because it's a label taken on by people who see themselves as anticategorical and yet it remains a label. people think a lot and talk a lot about what anarchism is, and what it isn't, but i find that in real life it is indicated by situations between people. my favorite definition of it is the temporary social contract that arises between two human beings when they agree to cooperate without the intermediation of an external authority such as a government. i think when my neighbors organize 'hood basketball games on our corner, it's a form of anarchism, as is their tendency to feed everybody on the whole damn block whenever they make good on a fishing trip. i think that anarchists share what they have because it makes them feel richer. it's sort of a debunking of the scarcity model of commodities. i think. anyway, i wish i knew more about economics sometimes, but my gut feeling is that the abolition of the monetary system that the pro-dollar straussians in our government fear so much would eventually lead to a more or less anarchist society, which on good days seems to me to be inevitable. we were anarchists for the larger percentage of [unwritten] human history, and it seems likely that we could be again. on the other hand, maybe we'd end up like mad max beyond thunderdome. i really don't know.

I self-identify as anarchist, which is strange, because prior to discovering anarchy, I felt that pigeon-holing people into "ists" was taking them away from their freedom.

But even so, I'm not a book-larnin anarchist either. My partner reads, and he really enjoys it. We talk about it often, and sometimes he mentions an article/book/newsletter that grabs my interest, and I read a bit or all of the piece he mentioned. But overall, I'm more of a "common-sense" kinda girl as well.

And it seems to me that anyone who professes to be an anarchist really shouldn't get down on others for not being up on all the literature, because doesn't that expectation/rule/"should" go against what we stand for?

And I hadn't heard the term "Kaos kid" before, but I love it. LOVE. IT.

I don't think there are a lot of anarchists who would profess to judge people by how much they've read about anarchism, any more than they would profess to having any sort of hierarchy or to play who's-the-biggest-anarchist games. But doubtless those things do occur, and I've seen them happen. And this contributes to people (like dru, like me) sometimes feeling self-conscious for not being "anarchist enough" (which is kind of funny in my case since I haven't decided yet if I would ideally want to be an anarchist in the first place--but nevertheless it's true). Certainly, there are anarchists who subtly compete for cred or who don't have a very inclusive attitude towards people with slightly different views or who they don't think know enough about theory or whatever. But I think that our insecurity about that is probably more a result of living in a social system that fosters that kind of oneupmanship, and having internalized fears (based on experience) that if we claim an interest in something or self-identify with a group we will be quizzed or judged or hazed or somehow will risk rejection. Which is why we need anarchism, I guess.