Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:16 — 22.3MB)
We're releasing JUST THIS ONE Nightcap to the wider public so induce you all to go support us and so gain the ability to hear these free-wheeling, feeling-sharing, email-reading fiestas between every regular episode.
When we recorded this, we were still awaiting our Habermas recording; we discuss what secondary sources we use. How about you listeners?
Anarchism! Should we do an episode on it? We probably will, and probably before the end of 2020, but not immediately. Relatedly, should we have guests who are adherents of the philosophy we're discussing?
What was the episode we've recorded where the reading most pleasantly surprised each of us?
Finally, we talk about how to front-load our episodes so that folks who do not sign up to hear the part 2's still get a satisfying, self-contained experience. You know, because we care.
Bill Waters says
I’m not as much interested in political anarchy as I am conceptual anarchy … It is a much richer frame of reference.
Political anarchy is something that only has the potential to exchange one oppressive situation for another, where conceptual anarchy has the potential to change our personal perspective for ever…
Randall Miron says
Nice one Dylan, “I guess that’s a sourdough recipe”.
The Leibniz part one I just listened to seemed a “complete thought.” I want to hear part two but I don’t think I’d need to to get value from part one. I think you guys are right that trying to get too much in can be counterproductive. The written accompaniment is great, though not always available when one wants to listen, but it does the job a longer preamble might do.
Anarchism isn’t as juvenile as it may seem and has quite a rich tradition and large parts of Spain was arguably run by anarchist principle’s during their civil war 1936-39. It might be that you want consider that “real” anarchism, but it should be remembered that “anarchism” has mostly been used as a derogatory term given to one or more persons by others until some pretty in that group pretty much embraced it.
As for books I say Max Stirner is the most philosophical. His emphasis on the ego and egoism will probably both be a joy to read and seem quite juvenile. The “problem” with Stirner is that he really hasn’t much to do with the actual anarchist movement, so it would be a bit strange to read and discuss Stirner and then say you are done with anarchism.
Godwin, partner of Mary Wollstonecraft and father to Mary Shelley, is probably the earliest who gave a systematic defense of an anarchist society resembling what later anarchist strove for. Problem with Godwin is that his writings was very much forgotten during the forming years of the anarchist movement and later rediscovered.
A lot of anarchist thinker’s like Bakunin, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, etc only, or mostly, left short pamphlets and articles lacking in depth. Proudhon is maybe worth a read as he wrote books and had some philosophical arguments, but while anarchism as a movement reached it’s zenith in the beginning of the 20th century the influence of Proudhon and his vision of society had declined and vanished during the ending decades of the 19th century.
So I think Kropotkin as you said is the right choice for you and probably the best book is “The Conquest of Bread” even though there are a lot of chapters which isn’t very relevant (like how clothes should be redistributed when the revolution comes). “Mutual Aid” could also be interesting, but is mostly a book giving historical examples (although the natural examples have lived the longest in the public debate) of mutual aid and how it is a driving force in humanity’s development. He has a book on ethics, “Ethics: Origins and Development”, but is mostly a discussion on ethical thinkers throughout western history.