On Anarchism
- Downloads：3773
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-05 08:54:04
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Noam Chomsky
- ISBN：0241969603
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
On Anarchism is an essential introduction to the Noam Chomsky's political theory。
On Anarchism sheds a much needed light on the foundations of Chomsky's thought， specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power。 The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short， accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism。 Refuting the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea， and disputing the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism， this is a book sure to challenge， provoke and inspire。 Profoundly relevant to our times， it is a touchstone for political activists and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of anarchism， or of Chomsky's thought。
'Arguably the most important intellectual alive' New York Times
Noam Chomsky is the author of numerous bestselling and influential political books， including Hegemony or Survival， Failed States， Interventions， What We Say Goes， Hopes and Prospects， Gaza in Crisis， Making the Future and Occupy。
Nathan Schneider is the author of Thank You， Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse and God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet。
On Anarchism sheds a much needed light on the foundations of Chomsky's thought， specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power。 The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short， accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism。 Refuting the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea， and disputing the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism， this is a book sure to challenge， provoke and inspire。 Profoundly relevant to our times， it is a touchstone for political activists and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of anarchism， or of Chomsky's thought。
'Arguably the most important intellectual alive' New York Times
Noam Chomsky is the author of numerous bestselling and influential political books， including Hegemony or Survival， Failed States， Interventions， What We Say Goes， Hopes and Prospects， Gaza in Crisis， Making the Future and Occupy。
Nathan Schneider is the author of Thank You， Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse and God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet。
Reviews
Behzad
，
This book is more like a collection of past essays and interviews from Chomsky rather than a coherent book but nevertheless it does have an overarching narrative covering the concept of Anarchism， its historical roots and what Chomsky calls “libertarian socialism”。 It does contain sharp criticism to both corporate capitalist systems as well as centralised planned economies of communist societies and rejects both in favour of a truly free society which is capable of furthering humanity’s creative This book is more like a collection of past essays and interviews from Chomsky rather than a coherent book but nevertheless it does have an overarching narrative covering the concept of Anarchism， its historical roots and what Chomsky calls “libertarian socialism”。 It does contain sharp criticism to both corporate capitalist systems as well as centralised planned economies of communist societies and rejects both in favour of a truly free society which is capable of furthering humanity’s creative potential。 If nothing else the last chapter “Language and Freedom” is well worth the read。 。。。more
tom
，
not the primer on anarchist thought it claims to be！！ a baffling selection of essays， transcribed interviews， lectures。。。 some of the content is interesting but it's impossible to recommend this disjointed presentation。 nice and short and with a big cool circle A on the cover。 the book a well meaning parent might have bought you for xmas in your teens if u asked for "an anarchy one" not the primer on anarchist thought it claims to be！！ a baffling selection of essays， transcribed interviews， lectures。。。 some of the content is interesting but it's impossible to recommend this disjointed presentation。 nice and short and with a big cool circle A on the cover。 the book a well meaning parent might have bought you for xmas in your teens if u asked for "an anarchy one" 。。。more
David Johann Lensing
，
»Barack Obama， whom this generation’s door-knocking helped elect but whose administration strengthened the corporate oligarchy， waged unaccountable robot wars， and imprisoned migrant workers and heroic whistleblowers at record rates。 So much for “socialism”。« | Insgesamt eher Kompilation als eigenes Werk。 Aus alten Notizen: 。。。interessante Ansichten zum Themenkomplex Anarchismus/Sozialismus， mit Fokus auf spanischem Bürgerkrieg 1936， eine Art »Anarchie-Gesellschaftsexperiment«， das hätte funktio »Barack Obama， whom this generation’s door-knocking helped elect but whose administration strengthened the corporate oligarchy， waged unaccountable robot wars， and imprisoned migrant workers and heroic whistleblowers at record rates。 So much for “socialism”。« | Insgesamt eher Kompilation als eigenes Werk。 Aus alten Notizen: 。。。interessante Ansichten zum Themenkomplex Anarchismus/Sozialismus， mit Fokus auf spanischem Bürgerkrieg 1936， eine Art »Anarchie-Gesellschaftsexperiment«， das hätte funktionieren können， wenn’s nicht niedergeschlagen worden wäre。 Chomsky argumentiert gut und stellt eine Kommune aus besagtem Krieg als Beispiel dar。 Thematisch （bzgl。 historischem Hintergrundwissen） besteht da viel Nachholbedarf meinerseits。 Nur ein Gedanke noch: Vielleicht war die Idee von den »Freien Gebieten« aus dem Buch »Germany 2064«， die ich so bescheuert fand， gar nicht so falsch， so fernliegend， sondern nur Anarchismus im hier beschriebenen Sinne， in die Tat umgesetzt。Das Büchlein beinhaltet auch ein Interview mit Chomsky。 。。。more
Shaq
，
Couldn't understand a lot of it but I learned some things nevertheless。 Wouldn't really recommend this for people who are just starting to read about the anarchy movement but still， read it if you want。 If it means anything， this is my first book that I read about anarchism and I didn't really understand most of it but then again， it talks a lot about politics in the West （duh！） and I am not a Westerner。 Couldn't understand a lot of it but I learned some things nevertheless。 Wouldn't really recommend this for people who are just starting to read about the anarchy movement but still， read it if you want。 If it means anything， this is my first book that I read about anarchism and I didn't really understand most of it but then again， it talks a lot about politics in the West （duh！） and I am not a Westerner。 。。。more
Elania Hunt
，
I wish Chomsky’s writing was more accessible， love what he has to say and how he talks and I learnt a lot from this but his language is a challenge。
Natasha Bouran
，
Essays I will be coming back to again and again 。。。Fair warning: The third chapter is a bit of a dry read， and Chomsky assumes some previous knowledge of the Spanish Civil War。
Theofanis Ampatzidis
，
This is a great， short book that gathers some important notes， chapters and interviews of Prof。 Chomsky。 It is a great， quick introduction to professor's comments and thoughts on anarchism， current system and how we could make it better。I would totally recommend it to have a read。 It will give you a very good idea of the characteristics of the existing system all over the world， and what needs to be done， individually and collectively。 This is a great， short book that gathers some important notes， chapters and interviews of Prof。 Chomsky。 It is a great， quick introduction to professor's comments and thoughts on anarchism， current system and how we could make it better。I would totally recommend it to have a read。 It will give you a very good idea of the characteristics of the existing system all over the world， and what needs to be done， individually and collectively。 。。。more
Oli
，
A rather short collection of disjointed essays by Chomksy from different times （from 1970 to 2002） What he has to say in each is interesting but there are more substantial and coherent works he has written。 The content itself is actually decent altho sometimes a bit disconnected from the theory itself。
dentro kouneli
，
"the basic principle i would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority & domination & hierarchy， every authoritarian structure， has to prove that it's justified—it has no prior justification。 [。。。] the burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it—invariably。 & when you look， most of the time these authority structures have no justification: they have no moral justification， they have no justification in the interests of the "the basic principle i would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority & domination & hierarchy， every authoritarian structure， has to prove that it's justified—it has no prior justification。 [。。。] the burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it—invariably。 & when you look， most of the time these authority structures have no justification: they have no moral justification， they have no justification in the interests of the person lower in the hierarchy， or in the interests of other people， or the environment， or the future， or the society， or anything else—they're just there in order to preserve certain structures of power & domination， & the people at the top。so i think that whenever you find situations of power， these questions should be asked—& the person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it。 & if they can't justify it， it's illegitimate & should be dismantled。 to tell you the truth， i don't really understand anarchism as being much more than that。 as far as i can see， & it's just the point of view that says that people have the right to be free， & if there are constraints on that freedom then you've got to justify them。 sometimes you can—but of course， anarchism or anything else doesn't give you the answers about when that is。 you just have to look at specific cases。"[love u， noam 💚] 。。。more
Kieran Wood
，
The book itself is a composite of multiple sections from interviews and other Chomsky books。 I think this disconnected nature would in most cases make something like this hard to follow。 However Chomsky is a very good communicator， and that shines through in this book quite well。 His ability to take concepts and tie them to familiar events that people experience， and in telling stories from his own past helps to cement the philosophical foundations he builds。 Unlike many other writers on this to The book itself is a composite of multiple sections from interviews and other Chomsky books。 I think this disconnected nature would in most cases make something like this hard to follow。 However Chomsky is a very good communicator， and that shines through in this book quite well。 His ability to take concepts and tie them to familiar events that people experience， and in telling stories from his own past helps to cement the philosophical foundations he builds。 Unlike many other writers on this topic I do feel like he gives clear and decisive argumentation with historical and contemporary examples to bolster his case quite well。 Overall I think this book gives a fantastic overview of the anarchist philosophy and political history across several countries。 。。。more
Philip Obiofuma
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 It were very similar I p
Sam Stroud
，
I think I'm probably just too dumb for this。 I think I'm probably just too dumb for this。 。。。more
Madison Brownley
，
A really enlightening and interesting book。 At some points quite a challenging read （esp。 the long section on the Spanish Civil War） but overall generally accessible for people with no prior knowledge on Anarchism and hugely thought-provoking。
Jesse Field
，
This is a revealing little volume published for the “anarcho-curious，” a circle of readers that includes me， I realized as I read the introduction by Nathan Schneider。 We are trying to sort out how much， or how little， we have really gotten from what increasingly looks like a coherent 300-year period of state capitalism， and what should be the direction for the future。 “Anarchism” in Chomsky’s various formulations here is an intriguing path to envisioning a longer term future based on principles This is a revealing little volume published for the “anarcho-curious，” a circle of readers that includes me， I realized as I read the introduction by Nathan Schneider。 We are trying to sort out how much， or how little， we have really gotten from what increasingly looks like a coherent 300-year period of state capitalism， and what should be the direction for the future。 “Anarchism” in Chomsky’s various formulations here is an intriguing path to envisioning a longer term future based on principles of mutual aid， fairness， and suspicion of both the capitalist and the state forces leaving us in a “wage slave” state。 Over the course of 2020， I began to often think that the biggest problem with American conservative thought was just that it ought to have distrusted capitalists as much as it did governments。 Trust belongs in some kind of ethical framework that values humanity and nature in some sensible way， along with dignity and respect and life and getting people out of poverty。 As Schneider says in his introduction， Chomsky is so valuable to us because he is a bridge back to the progressive thinkers of an earlier era， thinkers like George Orwell， and the organized labor movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries， as well as the short-lived Spanish anarchosyndaclist movements in Barcelona and other cities during 1931 and 1936。 Maybe also the generation of 1848 before that。 And certainly the writings of Schelling， and Wilhelm von Humboldt， and John Stuart Mill， on liberty and its significance in political and social institutions。 And Rousseau before that。 All of us， even students of history like myself， live in a state of pitiful “amnesia，” which means that we constantly re-invent our approach to state capitalism， making the same mistakes， and placing our trust in the same dogmas。 The Occupy movement after 2008 should not have been surprised to face state violence， for example。 Now even the Occupy movement fades quickly into the haze of the distant past。 The opening essay， “Notes on Anarchism，” is just that， notes， but valuable notes， as Chomsky recommends what to read and think about to as we， the anarcho-curious， test the waters beyond our mainland of liberal humanist thinking。 According to historians of anarchism Daniel Guérin and Rudolf Rocker， anarchism is a form of socialism that sets up freedom as the central purpose， in opposition to “guardianship” in any of the social and political forms guardianship takes。 Chomsky himself puts it this way: [T]he basic principle I would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority and domination and hierarchy， every authoritarian structure， has to prove that it’s justified—it has no prior justification。 For instance， when you stop your five-year-old kid from trying to cross the street， that’s an authoritarian situation: it’s got to be justified。 Well， in that case， I think you can give a justification。 But the burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it—invariably。 And when you look， most of the time these authority structures have no justification: they have no moral justification， they have no justification in the interests of the person lower in the hierarchy， or in the interests of other people， or the environment， or the future， or the society， or anything else—they’re just there in order to preserve certain structures of power and domination， and the people at the top。 This principle appeals to me on multiple levels， as citizen， as a teacher， as a student of ethics。 And it is straightforward to understand why Bolsheviks and Maoists and all the other communist political philosophies who wanted to co-opt state power would attack socialist libertarian movements as ferociously as state capitalists。 So this seems to be what happened to anarchosyndicalists in Spain in 1936， according to both Orwell and Chomsky。 （I read Homage to Catalonia last year。 Unfortunately， neither Chomsky’s essay here， on Gabriel Jackson’s 1966 authoritative history of the Spanish revolution， nor Orwell’s work， actually gives the history of the anarchosyndicalists。 So I remain ignorant in this area， but very curious。）Some of the best material here is taken from interviews。 Chomsky joked that he wasn’t invited to speak on national television because he lacks “concision，” which he glossed to mean that he used evidence。 But in fact he does lack concision， at least in his written essays， showing very marked tendencies to overuse long quotes in his “Notes on Anarchism，” and meandering through many pages of critique of Prof。 Gabriel Jackson’s liberal humanist bias against the anarchosyndicalists， when a more impactful essay would have sought to directly tell us the history of said anarchosyndicalists。 But in his interviews， he is warm and clear and insightful — no wonder he has inspired so many， and continues to make interviews the center of his practice。 I especially admired， in the excerpt from Understanding Power， his answer to a woman in the audience who asked， Noam， since you’re an anarchist and often say that you oppose the existence of the nation-state itself and think it’s incompatible with true socialism， does that make you at all reluctant to defend welfare programs and other social services which are now under attack from the right wing， and which the right wing wants to dismantle？ To which he replied， Well， it’s true that the anarchist vision in just about all its varieties has looked forward to dismantling state power—and personally I share that vision。 But right now it runs directly counter to my goals: my immediate goals have been， and now very much are， to defend and even strengthen certain elements of state authority that are now under severe attack。 And I don’t think there’s any contradiction there—none at all， really。For example， take the so-called welfare state。 What’s called the “welfare state” is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food， and to have health care and so on—and as I’ve been saying， those programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle， by the labor movement， and the socialist movement， and so on。 Well， according to the new spirit of the age， in the case of a fourteen-year-old girl who got raped and has a child， her child has to learn “personal responsibility” by not accepting state welfare handouts， meaning， by not having enough to eat。 Alright， I don’t agree with that at any level。 In fact， I think it’s grotesque at any level。 I think those children should be saved。 And in today’s world， that’s going to have to involve working through the state system; it’s not the only case。So despite the anarchist “vision，” I think aspects of the state system， like the one that makes sure children eat， have to be defended—in fact， defended very vigorously。 And given the accelerating effort that’s being made these days to roll back the victories for justice and human rights which have been won through long and often extremely bitter struggles in the West， in my opinion the immediate goal of even committed anarchists should be to defend some state institutions， while helping to pry them open to more meaningful public participation， and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society。 I risk making Chomsky’s style error by continuing to quote this long and worthwhile answer。 The idea that we have to be patient and build upon the history of political institutions while organizing and educating ourselves as a society “to pry open” the political institutions for “more meaningful” participation is an insight that applies on more levels than just the welfare state example here。 We may also point， after reading Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All， to the need to do major development projects in the most impoverished regions of the world， like Congo and Uganda and Brazil， building power plants， including coal plants， and hydroelectric power， and doing high-concentration agricultural development in both grassland and forested areas。 A purist vision of nature may wish for such countries and communities to “leapfrog” the industrial revolutions that drove growth in the wealthy countries， but that is wishful thinking at best and Malthusian inhumanity at worst。 If we look at the humans on the ground as major players in the ecological system， we can see how the best way to stabilize the stocks of natural resources in an area is to bring those people the level of stability they need to create and demand better and more responsive political institutions。 There must be connection between Chomsky’s opinion that we solve practical problems first while envisioning new ways of being free in the future and his reflections on language as a model of freedom within structure。 But the points that he makes in that final piece are “speculative and sketchy” as he says， worth a re-read and follow up， though I don’t see the connections fully yet。 Overall， though， this was worth the read。 It invites us to be optimistic and practical， in spite of all the challenges ahead。 And whether or not we take on the label “anarchist，” we do well to re-think and refine our sense of what it means to be free。 。。。more
Steven Forrest
，
A fascinating and deeply engaging book on anarchism。 The book consists of previously published pieces by Noam Chomsky， which are linked together to present an insightful perspective on anarchism。 It challenged some of my previous thoughts on anarchism and raises important points on what freedom means， the tension between the state and anarchism in history， as well as focusing on Spain's brush with anarchism。 The book did not 'convert' me to anarchism， but did challenge me and broadened my intell A fascinating and deeply engaging book on anarchism。 The book consists of previously published pieces by Noam Chomsky， which are linked together to present an insightful perspective on anarchism。 It challenged some of my previous thoughts on anarchism and raises important points on what freedom means， the tension between the state and anarchism in history， as well as focusing on Spain's brush with anarchism。 The book did not 'convert' me to anarchism， but did challenge me and broadened my intellectual horizons。 Would recommend as a good introduction to anarchism。 。。。more
Felix
，
3。75/5
Miss
，
I am really proud of myself for finishing this & working hard to grasp all the concepts。 I am no philosopher but l did enjoy many of the concepts， and it has now raised some good questions in my mind about the state of society。
Siyu
，
This collection feels incoherent to me - going to pick another entry point。。。
Jared
，
Gave me a way better understanding of what anarchism really should be understood as。
Mauro Morellini
，
inizia con una lunga tirata sulla guerra del Vietnam， capitolo che non ho ben capito così c'entri in questo libro。 Prosegue con la guerra di Spagna e sì， l'ho trovato pertinente。 Il resto è una raccolta di conferenze， interviste che sono sicuramente interessanti （Chomsky è Chomsky） ma ammetto che ho fatto un po' fatica ad arrivare alla fine inizia con una lunga tirata sulla guerra del Vietnam， capitolo che non ho ben capito così c'entri in questo libro。 Prosegue con la guerra di Spagna e sì， l'ho trovato pertinente。 Il resto è una raccolta di conferenze， interviste che sono sicuramente interessanti （Chomsky è Chomsky） ma ammetto che ho fatto un po' fatica ad arrivare alla fine 。。。more
stephanie
，
this is literally the worst book i have ever read。。。 on anarchism my ass more like on NOTHING
Halle Murphy
，
Nathan Schniders introduction immediately made me rethink wroking examples of mutual aid and Chomsky's section on ‘defending the welfare state’ made a particular impression on me in regards to abolishing state powers very far in the future in order to keep from seceding the power we do have， in a very flawed system， to corporations。 One of his early points about collective amnesia of the anarchist legacy may be something I needed to take in more deeply as I found the chapter about the Spanish an Nathan Schniders introduction immediately made me rethink wroking examples of mutual aid and Chomsky's section on ‘defending the welfare state’ made a particular impression on me in regards to abolishing state powers very far in the future in order to keep from seceding the power we do have， in a very flawed system， to corporations。 One of his early points about collective amnesia of the anarchist legacy may be something I needed to take in more deeply as I found the chapter about the Spanish anarchist tradition didn’t quite stick in my mind; but I hope I can learn more about it and other anarchist movements through other forms of media， in addition to maxist-leninest socialist state structures。 The book was easy to read and understand （although I made need to brush up on my philosophy and read the last chapter again）。 。。。more
KatzeKet
，
Good collection of essays from Chomsky regarding anarchism as an ideology。 It is a collection of both interviews and essays and touches upon subjects such as scholarship with the Spanish Civil War， language and freedom， and a basic introduction to anarchism in general。Good introductory book， recommend。
Megan
，
An interesting read， however， it was a times dense and overly academic which could make it difficult to process and inaccesible。
Lucas Ashley
，
This is an incredible collection of works that provided me with a basic understanding of anarchist thought and history。 Chomsky relies on analysis from various philosophers as well as classical liberal ideology from the past。 He details his ideas of human nature and how that potential is the basis for the activism needed to develop a freer and more just society， where “freely constituted social bonds replace the fetters of autocratic institutions。”
Lewis Isbell
，
Maggies farm no more
S。
，
This is my third time reading him。 I have read last year "who rules the world？"， and before it I couldn't finish Hegemony or Survival。 Not used to his ideas yet， but I found this short one really helpful ！There's some credit to give to Nathan Schneider for the light hearted introduction， that I spent a week almost just to read : it was very comprehensive of what was awaiting but not revealing the depth of thought to which Chomsky would go to not just explain but dissect anarchism。 I kept in my m This is my third time reading him。 I have read last year "who rules the world？"， and before it I couldn't finish Hegemony or Survival。 Not used to his ideas yet， but I found this short one really helpful ！There's some credit to give to Nathan Schneider for the light hearted introduction， that I spent a week almost just to read : it was very comprehensive of what was awaiting but not revealing the depth of thought to which Chomsky would go to not just explain but dissect anarchism。 I kept in my mind his most basic and traditional definition of anarchism， that is : "。。。democratic control of communities， of workplaces， of federal structures， built on systems of voluntary association， spreading internationally。。。"But what distinguishes Chomsky probably from other anarchists if I'm not mistaken is the fact that he is not against working through the current system， which is not exactly pro-socialism。 He depicts this clearly during one of the interviews transcripted in this book。What's more is that in order to give a whole perspective on what anarchism meant， and how it could be seen as a successful vision for society， he detailed the Spanish revolution to illustrate the anarchist experience in Barcelona and Valencia。。。 Something that always fascinated Orwell。What I probably like most in his books is the clarity and extent of details to which he goes to track historical facts， or just explain logically his point。 This he says is mandatory for him to be not just understood but to answer his unpopular opinions aka， if he says Kadhafi is a terrorist he doesn't need evidence， however accusing George Bush of the same thing he is expected to demonstrate why he would say that ？Not going to lie I missed the philosophical strolls I took down existential lane and miss that time and courage I had to grab a copy of De l'esprit des lois and followed Montesquieu in his long demonstration， and this just served this yearning right。 I almost forgot about Fourier and his valuable input in urban planning theories : flexing urban/rural layouts for buildings called phalanstère to serve his idea of a society， his utopia。 I gotta admit that I have a deep respect for anyone who'd had the epiphany of a utopia， carried on believing in it and theorizing about it scientifically - those visionaries are goals。 Proudhon too 。。。 Which probably says more that enough on Françoise Choay， she had a delight in lavishly describing their era as l'urbanisme progressiste， and gotta admit that Le Corbusier's Chartes d'Athènes seemed like a pamphlet， some sort of commercial next to their rich traités 。。。 But let's not judge the man， let's give him some credit for trying ！ "Nobody's smart enough to design a society， you've got to experiment。"In any case， the other important notion that was extensively discussed to my delight was freedom and authority。 Long story short : authority according to anarchists had to be legitimate meaning justified if not， it shouldn't even be there， while freedom is your raison d'être as a human being， you should enjoy your total freedom to do whatever you think you want to explore， instead of living in under a wage slavery 。。。In short， the man is not a radical he just wants you to think for yourself and imagine how it is to be free 。。。And honestly I closed the book with more questions than answers， so I'll just forget about him for a while now ！The bonus was his talk on Language and Freedom， one hell of link he established there ！ 。。。more
Nikos Tsentemeidis
，
Ξεκαθαρίζει πολλά πράγματα μέσα από συνεντεύξεις του。 Σίγουρα ο αναρχισμός δεν είναι κάτι συγκεκριμένο。 Γενικά πολύ ενδιαφέρον
Carlisle
，
Cleared up several necessary distinctions-Radical， but also very much not。
Keyur Prabhu
，
A goldmine of extremely well articulated ideas that is mostly way too dry to read。
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=On Anarchism
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=On Anarchism&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,On Anarchism&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0