
I wrote the Anarchist Cookbook in 1969. Now I see its premise as flawed - ballard
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/anarchist-cookbook-author-william-powell-out-of-print
======
pvnick
I was deeply touched while reading this piece - I felt that Powell was
speaking almost directly to me. I was one of those children who suffered from
a learning challenge. I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what
I stuck out like a sore thumb. I was ostracized by both teachers and peers. In
my isolation I found a sense of control in software development.

During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through
it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives
and weapons. In high school I experimented with drugs and got very close to
flunking out. I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit.
I was very angry and paranoid, and the idiotic policies put in place during
the Bush years had a lot to do with that.

Nowadays I'm a completely different person. I'm deeply religious, I try and go
out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier
person. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a great
college. I believe the world would be a much better place if people would try
harder to understand and love each other and show mercy. Reading this piece by
one of my childhood mentors very much evoked a feeling of vindication.

~~~
wil421
> I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a
> sore thumb.

Yup

> During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through
> it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives
> and weapons.

Yup

> I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit.

Yup

> I was very angry and paranoid

Still fighting the anger I have from no where. I am not paranoid though the
Snowden stuff is making me somewhat.

> I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much
> happier person.

These are things I try to do otherwise I find myself acting ill towards
people.

I am not sure which hit me more the article or your comment. Glad to see there
are others who acted the way I did in my younger days and are striving to
become a better person everyday. This past May I finally graduated from a
decent regional college with a degree in Information Systems and now have an
awesome job doing what I love.

~~~
pvnick
I am so happy to have read your comment. The Snowden stuff hit me pretty hard
as well, and I actually organized my town's rally for the Restore the Fourth
demonstrations. If you ever want to talk and get to know each other, my email
is in my profile, please feel free to reach out :)

------
LukeWalsh
> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the
> illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.

I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of
the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every
major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to
anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is
inherently illogical.

~~~
Crito
Quite. Bloodlust is a dangerous thing, but total pacifism is still a fairly
radical idea that I don't think many people _actually_ buy into when the
rubber meets the road. Pacifism has claimed few victories, suggesting that
historic incidents could have been better solved with pacifism is a good way
to make yourself look very silly very quickly.

Pacifism is a tool, not a silver bullet. For revolutionaries and
reformationists, there is no silver bullet.

~~~
dionidium
Just to pile on here, you'll usually find that people who claim to be
pacifists will say, "oh, well, yeah, of course we had to fight Hitler" when
confronted. They don't actually even think of themselves that way, in other
words.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
That's not necessarily hypocritical. You can be a pacifist in most situations
and acknowledge that sometimes violence is called for.

~~~
evanspa
But then you're not a pacifist. By definition (at least my understanding /
interpretation), a pacifist considers violence unjustifiable in any and all
situations.

~~~
Jtsummers
Like most things, it's a spectrum. There are pacifists who won't partake in
violence. Either by their action or the action of someone on their behalf
(i.e., they'd argue against their nation going to war). There are also
pacifists who won't partake in violence in their own defense, but might to
defend others. And others will resist throwing the first punch, but are
willing to defend themselves and others with violence if forced to. And there
are plenty of other variations on this theme.

And if you really want to go to the definition, wiktionary [1] has it as:

    
    
        1.One who loves, supports, or favours peace;
          one who is pro-peace.
        2.One who avoids violence.
        3.One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
    

Opposition to and avoidance of violence. Not necessarily an absolute rejection
of it (though that is likely the ideal of all pacifists).

[1]
[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pacifist](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pacifist)

~~~
oinksoft
No! Pacifism has no spectrum, like anarchism. You can't have a little bit of
government with anarchism any more than you can have a bit of violence with
pacifism.

~~~
Jtsummers
Read up on pacifism and its history and various philosophies. I use spectrum
to indicate that there are a variety of pacifist philosophies and I'm not
wrong, because there are a variety of pacifist philosophies. They all desire a
world with _zero_ violence. But some are willing to defend themselves or
others against violence with violence, while others are not. Some won't even
allow you to defend them, they'd rather fall on the sword than let another
perform a violent act for their sake. To think that there's a singular
philosophy on this issue is a totally ignorant position to take.

~~~
oinksoft
How can you claim pacifism if you resort to violence? Pacifism is the
rejection of violence, full stop. The ambiguity lies in the definition of
"violence." Tolstoy called voting, paying taxes, and engaging in commerce
forms of violence, for instance. Regardless, only using physical violence in
defense doesn't make you a pacifist, it just means you don't attack people.

------
vezzy-fnord
It's worth noting that the author recanting his book isn't as of recent. In
fact, he dropped his views all the way back in 1976.

This editorial review on the Amazon page for the book might offer some more
insight:
[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902)

Oh, and might I add, _The Anarchist Cookbook_ isn't flawed so much in that it
presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the
recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the
book already knew this.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not familiar with the book; are the recipes simply handling dangerous
chemicals? Are the methods shoddy? Or are they written _intending_ to harm the
preparer as a form of sabotage?

~~~
Crito
Most of them are just overly optimistic. Overestimating the
size/power/destructive power of things that ultimately would be little more
effective as weapons than firecrackers (though like firecrackers, more than
capable of maiming the handler...)

If you wanted to make such a book properly, you would be best off describing
things that you did not invent (or worse, dream up but never tried) but
instead things that have actually been used. For example, describe how the
Finns used storm matches to make Molotov cocktails (which they used to great
effect against Soviet tanks, though modern tanks will not be vulnerable to
those sort of attacks. That should also be mentioned prominently in this
hypothetical _" Cookbook-done-right."_)

------
bnolsen
I don't know. I went to a county fair recently where the local city police
were proudly displaying their DHS funded heavily armored, turreted and gun
ported urban assault vehicle. I was frankly utterly appalled that a bunch of
local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be
allowed to run around with military grade hardware when there's a national
guard armory not far away that should be much more qualified and better
trusted with that same piece of equipment.

So with rampant stupidity and reports of massive swat team abuse cropping up
in the US what tools are available to the citizens to counter this? Seems the
anarchist cookbook is probably on that list.

A tool is a tool, people really need to be encouraged to use them responsibly
and punished if used irresponsibly.

~~~
watty
Why would one use The Anarchist Cookbook to defend themselves against heavily
armed cops? I think a gun would be more effective than a tennis ball filled
with match heads.

~~~
DrStalker
I think everyone needs to take a step back here and start by deciding if
violent resistance is the correct way to protest the increasing weaponization
of the police before we start trying to solve the problem of which tools to be
violent with.

------
pessimizer
So the violence of the ANC didn't end the violence of Apartheid, and the
violence of the Allies didn't end the violence of the Axis?

edit: I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon
their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK
achieved.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _I 'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their
> non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK
> achieved._

You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism.
In those two cases, the violent side lost specifically because they were
violent.

I'm not convinced that violence is never called for, but pacifism clearly
_can_ work in at least some circumstances.

~~~
pessimizer
>You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism.

I don't mean it to be. I mean to say that the strength of pacifism comes from
the violent reaction to it.

------
grantlmiller
wow, what an interesting personification of the entire baby boomer
generation's evolution from anti-establishment to the establishment.

~~~
pessimizer
Yes. It's the personal statement of a very privileged person who (like the
rest of the 60s) was probably inspired to empathy with the civil rights
movement triggered by the threat of the draft, but has now transferred his
empathy to the more exotic minorities populating his new life of international
adventure.

Now his personal feeling of threat comes more from the revolution than the
state, so his opinion of revolution has changed.

Hopefully the consolation that no one will be able to download, take out from
a library or buy his book without being put on a list by secret intelligence
services will make him feel a little better about writing it.

------
grannyg00se
"The basic premise behind the Cookbook is profoundly flawed"

I didn't think the cookbook _had_ a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full
of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave
a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed
in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with
friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group
discussion.

------
totalrobe
Newsflash - young man is rash and inflammatory & old man sees error in his
ways.

~~~
dj-wonk
And the reformed, wise old man wants to erase all traces of his former book?
Maybe he could gather them up and burn them?

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Having read the article, I don't know where you gleaned that. Desiring for new
copies not to be printed is not the same as wanting previous copies or
"traces" of their existence to be destroyed.

------
Houshalter
I agree with the author. Terrorists rarely if ever achieve their stated goals,
and just end up hurting innocents. But he is wrong that violence can't be used
to prevent violence.

>The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's
non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because
Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-
violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including
those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an
entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted
non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only
solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands.

-Robert Bruce Thompson

~~~
aluhut
Well they managed to scare the whole world pretty good in the last decade.
With the help of our governments of course but in the end everyone says, it's
their doing.

~~~
Houshalter
They cause damage of course, but they never achieve their actual goals:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong....](https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong.com/lw/51/terrorism_is_not_about_terror)

[http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror](http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror)

>"In a [previous study of mine] assessing terrorism's coercive effectiveness,
I found that in a sample of 28 well-known terrorist campaigns, the terrorist
organizations accomplished their stated policy goals 0 percent of the time by
attacking civilians."

>"The seven puzzles...are: 1) terrorist organizations do not achieve their
stated political goals by attacking civilians; 2) terrorist organizations
never use terrorism as a last resort and seldeom seize opportunities to become
productive nonviolent political parties; 3) terrorist organizations
reflexively reject compromise proposals offering significant policy
concessions by the target government; 4) terrorist organizations have protean
political platforms; 5) terrorist organizations generally carry out anonymous
attacks, precluding target countries from making policy concessions; 6)
terrorist organizations with identical political platforms routinely attack
each other more than their mutally professed enemy; and 7) terrorist
organizations resist disbanding when they consistently fail to achieve their
political platforms or when their stated political grievances have been
resolved..."

------
rch
As a youth I had a copy of the Improvised Munitions Handbook. Imagine my
surprise when it showed up in Toy Story!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_H...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook)

------
ececconi
> I suspect that these children have taught me a great deal more than I have
> taught them.

Very great statement. I've done volunteer work before and have come to the
same realization.

~~~
wibkemarianne
This is an insult to the intelligence of the children. You're claiming that
they are so poor at learning, and you are so superior at learning, that all of
their learning combined is dwarfed by the learning of a single man--you.

Any teacher who learns more than his collective students is a failed teacher.
Period. Such a teacher's life has been worthless--this is a mathematical fact.

Being proud of gaining more from your volunteer service than did the people
you are supposed to be helping is not something to brag about. It is morally
reprehensible and brings to mind all of the criticisms of poverty tourism that
have so often been levied against your type of exploiter.

Usually, the money that wealthy poverty tourists spend on travel would be
thousands of times more efficient had they just donated that money.

You are gleeful that you profited more from your volunteer work than the
supposed recipients did. Your self-reported tale of exploitation is
disgusting.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
You're taking a little kind of cliche platitude and running in a weird
direction with it ... really weird ...

~~~
wibkemarianne
Oh no! Someone on the internet says my highly upvoted analysis is.... "weird"!

What a worthless comment.

~~~
vidarh
You seem to be trying very hard to start off with getting off on the wrong
footing on HN given how confrontational you are being. Your "highly upvoted
analysis" can't possibly be that highly upvoted given the low karma of your
account.

------
jqm
Dang right it was flawed! Especially the part about being able to smoke banana
peels. No buzz and this (then) 16 year old had a sore throat for a week!

------
transfire
I doubt the publication makes one iota difference to the individual. The
person you are worried about is already in that state of mind and there are
now an infinite number of other resources (the Internet) for them to draw
upon. If you are truly concerned, write a new book entitled something like "If
You Want to Read the Anarchist Cookbook, You Should Read This Book Instead!"

------
rexreed
"The Cookbook serves no purpose other than a commercial one for the publisher"
\-- and that's precisely why it won't go out of print. Regardless of the
intentions of the writer and the reader, it is a very popular book and
therefore something lucrative to sell. If it were to disappear from print,
ironically, it would make it even more valuable.

------
brettvallis
I was an anarchist in high school too. I was an over-achieving individualist
who took personal affront to the norms and rules imposed on all school kids,
and people in general. I researched anarchy philosophy and policy as it
presented itself over the years. It worked for me: I felt that people could be
trusted to behave correctly without the imposition of external rules and laws
and the violent enforcement thereof. Obviously I was wrong. But I remain
basically committed to my original ideals: an ethically motivated individual
does not need to be ruled by fear and force. What, however, does that same
individual do when confronted by the violent - or even not so violent but
still evil - application of the rule of law?

~~~
etherael
Anarchocapitalism has some interesting answers to this question. It's not a
utopian variant that believes everyone can simply be trusted not to behave
badly.

~~~
KingMob
Anarchocapitalism, while interesting, has as little to do with historical
anarchist thinking as The Anarchist Cookbook does.

------
ihsw
Off-topic: thank you mods for changing the original submission title, it was
quite inflammatory.

Terrorism -- or (more to the point) political expression by violence -- is not
at all a means to end violence, and it would be foolish to pretend that it can
ever be. As a matter of fact that is the point of the submitted article. The
original title claimed that the Cookbook's author felt terrorism is "a
worthless strategy" but such a title contrasts so strongly with the actual
article that it boggles my mind how the original submitter even came to that
conclusion.

Terrorism is just another form of political expression, and calling it
worthless is like calling a hammer worthless where a screwdriver would be more
appropriate.

~~~
Crito
Terrorism is such an overloaded word that I think it is next to useless if you
want to convey any sort of point clearly.

It is better to speak of things more specifically. Topics like assassinations,
industrial sabotage, propaganda, and bombing campaigns all deserve individual
treatment; talking about "terrorism" has the tendency to lump them together.

Some of the things that frequently fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" _do_
have the potential to end violence. Even things that are violent.

Because of the fuzzy and subjective nature of the word _" terrorism"_ it is
always possible to assert that examples of "terrorism" working are not
examples of "true" terrorism, but if we are wary of that loophole by being
purposely inclusive, there are examples in history of terrorism ending
violence. The show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu is an example that
springs to mind immediately. Allied resistance movements during the Second
World War are another (such as Operation Heads, an assassination program run
by the Polish resistance:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads)).

------
orionblastar
It isn't about using violence against the government. It is about getting the
government to reform itself to stop using violence to solve world and domestic
problems.

We don't need violent protests now that we have the Internet and can leak
documents exposing government corruption and write about truths to inform
people and allow them to vote in different politicians.

~~~
wibkemarianne
The most violent thing to do is to do nothing to change the status quo because
the status quo is upheld by perpetual institutionalized violence.

Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence
against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against
the human species, and threatening that species with extinction.

Violent acts that may stop the extinction of life on Earth are not only
justified... they are morally obligatory.

We are in the last hours of humanity. The species won't be saved by squeamish
old boomers.

~~~
JoshuaDavid
>Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence
against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against
the human species, and threatening that species with extinction [Citation
needed].

Who is threatening the human species with extinction. I can think of several
ways that humanity could go extinct, but none of them would benefit any
government. Be specific.

~~~
wibkemarianne
It's called the climate change apocalypse, and every major government is
hurtling our species toward it. Hawaii University just released the best data
we have so far: sea level rises are inevitable, mass destruction of coasts
worldwide, hundreds of millions of refugees, famine, drought, and extinction
of huge proportions of higher life forms across the planet.

The only remaining debate is whether we will experience apocalyptic horrors of
Biblical degree, whether just humans will go extinct, or whether all life on
Earth will go extinct. These are our three possible futures. The Permian mass
extinction has oft been cited.

You are morally condemned for your ignorance. You are part of the problem.
Shame on you.

~~~
dj-wonk
Yes, climate change is a gigantic issue. But the existence of collective
action problems does not imply conspiracy or even willful neglect. It is easy
to blame one person or one entity, but that is missing the point. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action#Collective_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action#Collective_action_as_a_response_to_climate_change)

~~~
wibkemarianne
That's a non-sequitur. No one claimed there is a conspiracy or willful
neglect.

Why would you even make that argument? What possible help could that be?

It doesn't matter WHY governments are causing the extinction of the human
species. All that matters is that THEY ARE. If some institution, system,
person, class, group is accidentally causing the extinction of the species, it
matters not what their motive is. Any violence toward them that could be
successful is morally obligatory. Even killing 90% of the human species is
preferable to extinction--destroying all technology for instance is preferable
to extinction.

Why are you making dumb arguments that we should do nothing in the face of
scientifically proven extinction threat? Do you WANT the species to end?!

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Eh, I think you are too wound up about it.

~~~
wibkemarianne
Yeah you're right. Extinction of our species is not really something anyone
should speak passionately about. We should all just be non-chalent. Ya know,
like middle schoolers trying desperately to be cool.

You are actually so threatened by what I'm saying that you feel the need to
follow me around on HN and add your worthless 2 cents. It's actually rare to
see your kind of empty, mindless blabber here on HN. But it does make me
laugh.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
No, I just comment when I see posts I want to respond. I don't always look at
the usernames. It just so happens you made two weird, hyperbolic posts on the
same thread. :)

------
fsckin
Nothing new in this, he's held this opinion for quite some time:

[http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/](http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/)

------
squozzer
I see another premise. Which is, without knowledge, one has fewer options to
resist violence. Now as to the utility of the knowledge provided, who can say?

------
escherba
That seemed like a well-intentioned article, but his story strikes me as
paradigmatic though:

* Year 1969. Writes _the_ Anarchist Cookbook.

* Years 1973-75. Becomes a teacher.

Interpret at will.

------
rurban
Yes:

> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the
> illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.

------
m0skit0
Because now you're older. Don't worry, the older, the more conservative.

------
jdimov
Violence is the physical expression of fear. When you fight something, you
give power to it (while giving away your own power). All fearful things
disappear - but only after you've stopped fearing them.

