The shape of geography to come

Abstract

In this commentary, I offer a constructive critique of certain elements of Springer's (2014) paper, from an anarchist-geographic perspective. I welcome his paper in bringing to light some of the more politically problematic elements of (orthodox) Marxist thought, and raising important points about the practicalities of social change, but he does so in a rather binaristic manner. Accordingly, I address several elements of Springer's characterisation of both anarchism and Marxism-especially on political organisation and praxis-in order to nuance some of his arguments and draw out broader lessons for radical geographical scholarship and the future of the radical/revolutionary left in general.

Crisis, capitalism, and the anarcho-geographies of community self-help

“…As a social anarchist Kropotkin maintained, "a firm belief in the capacity of people to organise their lives without structures of domination and subordination -to coordinate everything from a family to an economy on a cooperative participatory basis" (Brietbart, 1981: 136). In this context anarchism, rooted in day to day life, has an inescapably spatial dimension: a key intersection that has been given greater recognition and visibility in response to the unfolding crises and acts of archy (see Ince 2012Ince , 2014White and Williams 2012;Springer, 2014a,b). In this respect the chapter reinforces Springer's (2013Springer's ( : 1607 reading of anarchist geographies:…”

Questioning authority

“…How change is brought about is another contentious question. On violence, Ince (2014) appropriately acknowledges that anarchists have more of a mixed history than Springer presents. Leo Tolstoy was a pacifist; Lucy Parsons urged her readers to ‘learn the use of explosives!’ Certainly, anarchists distinguish between violence against persons or animals and violence against private property (which many would argue is not violence).…”

“…In this, it does not displace feminist, critical race studies, or even Marxism, but rather complements and connects. The primary difference between anarchism and other anti-oppression politics is the anarchist goal of the removal of a formal state (Ince, 2014). This does not, however, make anti-statism the primary plank of anarchism.…”

For anarcho-geography! Or, bare-knuckle boxing as the world burns

“…At the heart of Ince’s evaluation is the idea the Marxism and anarchism might be more productively brought into conversation, so that a greater political affinity on the left might come to the fore. He suggests that the question ‘may be less about “ownership” of ideas and more about amassing the structures, attitudes, strategies and tactics that are conducive to building a world free of exploitation and domination’ (Ince, 2014: 277). Of course, Ince is absolutely correct and I’m entirely on the same page in my desire to see such a position advanced.…”