Talking to anarchists is usually enough

and also how much do you want to read

Need a new label, bacon?

Reading is gay

I don't feel like it can be a good political philosophy then

What books do you need to read to be a liberal?

Or a conservative?

"Yes master, please do my thinking for me" -book readers

There's a lot of anarchist literature

Proudhon

Bakunin

First step to being an anarchist: don't be a pussy

Kropotking

Goldman

"No other human being who has ever lived has anything at all to offer me" -Tex

N shiet

Books on ideologies are stupid

But it's not absolutely necessary

If you need someone to tell you what to think you're a moron

if I want to be communist I read the communist manifesto, If I'm fascist I read doctrine of fascism, if I'm monarchist I read city of god, if I'm capitalist I read wealth of nations etc

Books are useful for learning actual stuff

Like science

But books on philosophy are a waste of time

You can read Proudhon's "What is property?"

If you're actually interested

But as I said

well I feel if you want to know how the entire country should be organized you should be educated

"The scientific method is not 'how to think'" -root

I like this form of communication

Independent thinking and discussing things with other anarchists is much more valuable

a lot of people start with an anthropological bent like KropotkiN. they start learning about the egalitarian nature of a lot of pre-industrial societies and how a lot of the horrible things about """"human nature""" society feeds us these days is just memes and that we can live better

Not necessarily other anarchists though

People in general tbh

>implying books on science are only about the scientific method

Brainlet

Some fags just want communism but think the Leninist project is shit and decide that burning shit and building communes in the here in now is the best bet

I communicate only in strawmans from now on, take it up with my agent if you have a problem with that

Anarcho-communists are morons.

Your strawmens are wrong

But they're at least usually good guys

Books on science are about the observable