by Rob Van Gerwen (Cambridge, 2001);, ed.

Launched in 1936 by left intellectuals close to or affiliated with the American Communist Party, Science and Society has nevertheless maintained itself as an independent and non-sectarian vehicle for debate on the Marxist left.

by Patrick Maynard and Susan Feagin (Oxford, 1998);Anne D.

Sheppard,  (Oxford, 1987);Kai Hammermeister,  (Cambridge, 2002); and, ed.

by Catriona MacKenzie and Natalie Stoljar (Oxford, 2000);John F.

Capitalist anarchism is a real problem. It has its coherent central theory as set out by Nozick, Hayek and others, and a doctrine of market freedoms. It has turned out not only to be the most successful form of decentralized decision making ever invented – as Marx so elegantly demonstrated in Capital – but also a force for an immense centralization of wealth and power in the hands of an increasingly powerful oligarchy. This dialectic between decentralization and centralization is one of the most important contradictions within capital (see my Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism) and I wish all those, like Springer, who advocate decentralization as if it is an unalloyed good would look more closely at its consequences and contradictions. As I argued in Rebel Cities (2013a), decentralization and autonomy are primary vehicles for producing greater inequality and centralization of power. Once again, Bookchin sort of agrees: “at the risk of seeming contrary, I feel obliged to emphasize that decentralization, localism, self-sufficiency, and even confederation, each taken singly, do not constitute a guarantee that we will achieve a rational ecological society. In fact all of them have at one time or another supported parochial communities, oligarchies, and even despotic regimes” (2014: 73-74). This was, by the way, my main problem with the stance taken by Gibson-Graham in their pursuit of totally decentralized anti- capitalist alternatives.

The term is used especially in reference to our lack of of .

Every revolution, indeed, even every attempt to achieve basic change, will always meet with resistance from elites in power. Every effort to defend a revolution will require the amassing of power – physical as well as institutional and administrative – which is to say, the creation of government. Anarchists may call for the abolition of the state, but coercion of some kind will be necessary to prevent the bourgeois state from returning in full force with unbridled terror. For a libertarian organization to eschew, out of misplaced fear of creating a “state”, taking power when it can do so with the support of the revolutionary masses is confusion at best and a total failure of nerve at worst (Bookchin, 2014: 183).

Horty,  (Oxford, 2001);Nuel Belnap, Michael Perloff, and Ming Xu,  (Oxford, 2001); andCarol A.

Graeber D (2002) The new anarchists. New Left Review 13: 61-73.

* is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of . He was a participant in the Harper's Magazine forum "School on a Hill," which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site .

Graeber D (2009) Direct Action: An Ethnography. Oakland: AK Press.

Example: "All senators are eligible to vote on legislation, but no homeless people are senators, so all homeless people are eligible to vote on legislation."The problem with any such reasoning is that the exclusion of one class from another cannot provide deductively certain grounds for the inclusion of either of these classes with another.

apparently held that what is good, so that there can be no genuine instance of ακρασια [akrásia].

Compare and contrast experimental research and case study

The differential roles to which individuals are assigned in a society, he argued, are clearly signified not only by the presence of particular notions in its cultural, but even more dramatically by the absence of others.

Mele,  (Oxford, 1992);George Ainslie,  (Cambridge, 2001); andJustin Gosling,  (Routledge, 1990).

by Gregory Elliott (Blackwell, 1994).

Launched in 1949 by independent Marxists in New York, Monthly Review became associated most importantly with the work on modern capitalism by Paul Baran and Paul Sweey and more recently with John Bellamy Foster’s contribution to a Marxist analysis of the environmental crisis.

Recommended Reading:Samuel Alexander,  (Thoemmes, 2000) andSamuel Alexander,  (Ayer, 1940).

(Cambridge, 1993); andMatt Ridley, (Penguin, 1998).

by David Cooper, Crispin Sartwell, and Joseph Margolis (Blackwell, 1995); (Routledge, 2001);Colin Lyas, (UCL Press, 1997);Paul Crowther, (Cambridge, 2002);, ed.