1/18/23

As always, Wolff is a charming read, but I have to agree with Geuss' assessment: “Why be so daft as to start from this quasi-Kantian conception of ‘individual autonomy’ at all? If you do start from that assumption, you have no one but yourself to blame if you end up nowhere.” (Not Thinking Like a Liberal, 120). I knew that going in but it was an alright read nonetheless. Also it is very funny and makes complete sense that right-libertarians are attracted to the arguments. ( )

A wonderfully accessible treatise. Anarchism never sounded so good! ( )

The author postulates without argument that an enlightened man accepts only his own authority. Then he laboriously makes his way to the obvious conclusion that this postulate is incompatible with all arguments for political organization. He actually explicitly admits in the beginning that he has assumed an entire ethical theory without justifying it in any way, but then he just leaves it at that and goes on to state his tautological "defense" of anarchism. Not exactly the finest hour for anarchist philosophy.

Robert Paul Wolff’s “In Defense of Anarchism” is a well-organized fresh look at anarchism. Wolff discusses the conflict between authority and autonomy, the problems with democracy (with particular emphasis on the American democratic system), and the legitimacy of a State. While I do not subscribe to anarchism, Wolff puts forth an argument in this book that I found intriguing. I was not particularly knowledgeable about anarchism before reading this book and found Wolff’s theory of Marxism and anarchism easy to understand. I would recommend that anyone who has read or wants to read this books should also read Robert A. Dahl's "Democracy and its Critics" (specifically chapter 3 titled "Anarchism") for a critique of Wolff's theory. ( )