{"id":129,"date":"2025-11-21T18:40:09","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T18:40:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=129"},"modified":"2025-11-21T18:47:05","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T18:47:05","slug":"ursula-le-guin-and-utopia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/ursula-le-guin-and-utopia\/","title":{"rendered":"Ursula Le Guin and Utopia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

An obituary for the great fantasy and SF writer Ursula Le Guin. It concentrates, understandably, on The Dispossessed<\/em>. It appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em><\/a> No. 73 (Spring 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Ursula Le Guin and Utopia<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is with great sadness that I write this for one of my favourite writers, Ursula Le Guin, had died. The New York Times<\/em> called her \u201cAmerica\u2019s greatest living science fiction writers\u201d in 2016 but that does not really do her work justice: she was one of the world\u2019s greatest writers. It is just that she worked mostly in the Science Fiction and Fantasy genre. And like a few others \u2013 Michael Moorcock and Alan Moore spring to mind \u2013 also contributed to popularising anarchism outside political circles. Her SF novel The Dispossessed<\/em> (1974) is still by far the best account of an anarchist society, warts and all!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She was a great writer, one of the best ever. Needless to say, she was my favourite SF writer. Her alien worlds were, well, alien. Her characters, actual people and not cyphers. Her message, humane, egalitarian, libertarian, feminist. She died on January 22, so I hope she saw the women\u2019s marches across the world for as she put it in the 1980s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhen women speak truly they speak subversively \u2014 they can\u2019t help it: if you\u2019re underneath, if you\u2019re kept down, you break out, you subvert. We are volcanoes. When we women offer our experience as our truth, as human truth, all the maps change. There are new mountains. That\u2019s what I want \u2013 to hear you erupting. You young Mount St Helenses who don\u2019t know the power in you \u2013 I want to hear you.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Her parents were anthologists, and you can tell. Far too much of SF (and Fantasy) is just middle-class, middle-aged, white, 20th<\/sup> century American male (who has read or watched too many Westerns) projected into space (or into a cod-Middle Ages). The lack of thought about culture is made up for by some fancy hardware and battles against a thinly-veiled stand-in for \u201ccommunism\u201d (i.e., Stalinism). The \u201charder\u201d the SF, the more banal it appears to be. Not Le Guin. Her cultures reflect thought<\/em>, an awareness that the norms of the current patriarchal, racist, class society are not the only ones. Humanity has provided a diverse range of cultures across time and space, if having an imagination is too much hard work. Much of SF \u2013 particularly in its so-called \u201cgolden era\u201d \u2013 is not particularly imaginative. Again, not Le Guin \u2013 her works are imaginative in terms of \u201calien\u201d cultures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They were also subversive of the typical reader\u2019s assumptions \u2013 the hero of the Earthsea<\/em> series is dark-skinned, the main baddies white (and she publically lamented when the TV adaption turned that around). The Left Hand of Darkness<\/em> (1969) addressed gender, by means of a world were humans were genderless except for a week every month during which they could become male or female. Her The Word for World is Forest<\/em> (1976) exposed the horrors of imperialism long before Avatar<\/em> trod a similar path in 3D: but no white, male saviour for the \u2013 short, furry and green \u2013 natives in the Hainish universe, they freed themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She wrote so many books, short stories, articles, that it would be impossible to cover everything. So instead I will make a few comments about The Dispossessed<\/em> for it is that work \u2013 and the related short-story The Day Before the Revolution<\/em> (1974) \u2013 that she has a special place in anarchist hearts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, I must note something written on the Guardian<\/em> webpage after her death. It was an article on what you should read if you had not heard of her before:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBut the physicist Shevek, who is working on a method of interstellar communication called the Principle of Simultaneity, is becoming disillusioned with the anarchist philosophy of Anarres and travels to Urras to find more freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Do people even bother to read the books they summarise? This is a travesty of the book\u2019s plot and point. Shevek was not \u201cdisillusioned with the anarchist philosophy,\u201d he was seeking to make Anarres live up to its anarchist philosophy! He spends a lot of his time on Urras advocating anarchism \u2013 if I remember correctly, it is even noted that he was surprised that they allowed him to do so at the Urras equivalent of the United Nations (because his speech is not reported in depth in the popular newspapers). He even compares his academic life to his live in Anarres, considering the academic environment the closest to what he is used to back home \u2013 discussion between equals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he travels to Urras as part of his struggle to help break the crystallised structures on Anarres \u2013 which saw the decision to decline communication with anarchists on Urrras! He did not travel to Urras to \u201cfine more freedom\u201d \u2013 he was well aware of the hierarchical nature of the system and experienced it first-hand. He even escapes his \u201cfreedom\u201d at the university to join a mass anti-war protest\u2026 and he goes back to Anarres to continue to apply his anarchism to the crystallised libertarian society he seeks to bring back to its ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, an older comment but one which shares the same apparent unwillingness to understand the book and its message. The SF writer Ken MacLeod, who you would think should know better. I was somewhat surprised to read him proclaim the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt is the absence of political debate, as much as the absence of privacy and the relentless presence of morality, that makes the communism of Anarres, in Ursula Le Guin\u2019s anarchist classic The Dispossessed <\/em>(1974), so oppressive. When her hero Shevek finds himself in conflict with aspects of his society he has no forum in which to express it, no way to find like-minded individuals with whom he might find common ground; instead, his conflicts become conflicts with other individuals<\/em>. He is as isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state.\u201d (\u201cPolitics and science fiction,\u201d The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction<\/em> [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 230)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I must say that it makes a change for a (ex-?) Marxist to proclaim Anarchism would produce a society which would crush individuality under collective pressure \u2013 the usual charge is that we are just extreme liberals whose advocacy of \u201cindividualism\u201d would make all forms of organisation and community impossible (Max Stirner is usually invoked, in spite of him having no<\/em> impact on Anarchism until the 1890s). So it would be tempting to ignore this but the argument that social pressure can be oppressive is stronger and so worth discussing \u2013 particularly as many anarchists have argued the same thing and indicated how to combat it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of \u201cabsence of privacy,\u201d The Dispossessed<\/em> makes clear that people have as much privacy as they like \u2013 the environmental limitations of a desert moon pushing towards a more communal set-up. Kropotkin would not<\/em> have liked the predominant system that much \u2013 being on record as opposing hotel-like communes in favour of personal homes \u2013 but the possibility of personal\/family rooms was there and taken up. As for \u201cthe relentless presence of morality,\u201d any society \u2013 apart from the most atomised \u2013 will have some general set of social standards. On Anarres, these social standards allow quite a range of self-expression \u2013 no sexism, homophobia, etc. However, the negative impact of social pressure is one of the book\u2019s concerns \u2013 and one which anarchist thinkers have raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not sure what MacLeod means in terms \u201cthe absence of political debate\u201d as The Dispossessed<\/em> recounts disagreement on Anarres repeatedly: \u201cin the PDC debates in Abbenay\u201d with its \u201cfierce protests\u201d about supplying Urras with raw materials (83); \u201cAnybody can attend any PDC meeting, and if he\u2019s an interested syndic, he can debate and vote!\u201d (144); Shevek bringing up sending letters to Urras \u201cat the Physics Federation\u201d (137); the discussion on receiving people from, and sending to, Urras. (291-7). In the latter discussion it is noted that radio contact was disapproved being \u201c[a]gainst the recommendation of this council, and the Deference Federative, and a majority vote of the List\u201d as well the \u201cincreasing protests from the entire Brotherhood.\u201d (291, 293)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, much of what MacLeod calls \u201cthe relentless presence of morality\u201d is, in fact, political debate<\/em> \u2013 particularly in relation to the \u201cpersonal is political\u201d and so how best to apply libertarian principles in everyday live. Which includes working with other people in syndicates, communities and federations. He seems to forget that organisations are made up of other individuals<\/em> \u2013 and as the book make clear, Shevek and his comrades (like others) come into conflict with them in institutional settings, in syndicate and federative meetings by means of debates and\u2026 votes!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What of no possibility of finding \u201clike minded individuals with whom he might find common ground\u201d? MacLeod seems to have forgotten that Shevek and his colleagues form their own group<\/em> (\u201cthe Syndicate of Initiative\u201d) \u2013 as can any Anarres inhabitant \u2013 and use the resources of their society \u2013 as can any Anarres inhabitant \u2013 for their own ends. All of which is an expression of free communism \u2013 based as it is on individual initiative, free association and use rights to society\u2019s resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we have \u201cpolitical debate\u201d (both between individuals, within groups and across society), we have \u201clike-minded people\u201d coming together to fight the institutional and societal problems developing within libertarian communism \u2013 a far cry from MacLeod\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How a society described as being so rich in associational life can dismissed as resulting in someone being \u201cas isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state\u201d is lost on me. To place this in the context of the book, on Urras which is a hierarchical society marked by class and patriarchy, Shevek\u2019s room is bugged while a mass protest meeting he speaks at \u2013 after escaping from his surveillance \u2013 is fired upon by government troops, killing untold numbers, and afterwards State repression sees protesters being rounded up (imprisoned, if not shot).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Anarres perfect? No, that is the point of the book \u2013 it has evolved into a quasi-bureaucratic system (due to routine administration) based on majority rule (via societal pressure). Yet Shevek and his comrades are able to rebel against these pressures using the principles the society was formed on \u2013 nor are they actually stopped from doing so (the little mob which forms to stop Shevek\u2019s departure to Urras is ineffectual as well as being obviously spontaneously formed). They are subject to social pressure, disapproval by many others, but they are not \u2013 unlike on Urras \u2013 shot down or imprisoned for their activities after the appropriate \u201cpolitical debate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I should also note that Shevek and his comrades\u2019 activities are part and parcel of libertarian communism and not somehow against it. As Le Guin makes clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cfrom the start, the Settlers were aware that that unavoidable centralisation [i.e., a town where most of the headquarters of the federations and syndicates were based] was a lasting threat, to be countered by lasting vigilance.\u201d (86)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The \u201csyndicate of initiative\u201d is part of this process of \u201clasting vigilance\u201d \u2013 the problem being on Anarres that this vigilance has withered away by becoming crystallised (to use Kropotkin\u2019s term). Indeed, in Mutual Aid<\/em> elsewhere indicated that this was a recurring problem during society\u2019s evolution \u2013 and an anarchist society would also face this danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of which makes you wonder what makes Anarres \u201cso oppressive\u201d? Comparing it to actual<\/em> totalitarian states shows the stupidity of MacLeod\u2019s assertions. The worse example given in the book is of an artist driven insane by social pressure and its ramifications \u2013 which is one of the factors which drive the creation of the \u201csyndicate of initiative.\u201d Which must be placed in the context of the high levels of mental illness within hierarchical systems as well as how often people are driven mad as a result of repressive policies decided upon by the \u201cpolitical debates\u201d within Statist systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, I am now comparing a work of fiction with actual<\/em> social systems \u2013 but Le Guin\u2019s book makes you do that because it is quite a realistic utopia, populated by people<\/em> rather than political cyphers. Ultimately, for all its flaws, Shevek still defends Anarres and its principles on Urras and sees its obvious freedoms compared to that hierarchical regime. He returns to Anarres to participate in the growing movement seeking to eliminate the unhealthy developments within libertarian communism. Again, all very much in line with Kropotkin\u2019s comments in the \u201cConclusion\u201d of Mutual Aid<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt will probably be remarked that mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current \u2013 the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallised, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So MacLeod\u2019s summary of Le Guin\u2019s work leaves a lot to be desired \u2013 indeed, everything he lists as making Shevek \u201cas isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state\u201d is simply not supported by the book. Can there be conflict between community and individual autonomy? Yes and here MacLeod is on stronger ground but he is simply covering ground raised by others, as he notes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cOrwell\u2019s interest in, and aptitude for, politics as a practical art were negligible, but his interest in, and imaginative grasp of, the implications of political philosophies were deep. What he said in a sentence about the potentially repressive underside of the anarchist ideal summarizes most of the message of Le Guin\u2019s The Dispossessed<\/em>.\u201d (231)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Since MacLeod mentions Orwell, I would think it is sufficient to ask the question whether Shevek on Anarres is \u201cas isolated\u201d as Winston Smith in Oceania to show the weakness of MacLeod\u2019s position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet anyone familiar with anarchist thought would be aware that anarchists have also been aware of this danger. Indeed, an awareness of the authoritarian aspects of utopian socialism and their \u201cideal\u201d communities has always driven anarchism, not to mention the similar \u2013 if not totalitarian \u2013 possibilities of State socialism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proudhon made the same point \u2013 against what he termed \u201cCommunity\u201d and which is usually translated as \u201cCommunism.\u201d This was why he stressed that while ownership<\/em> should be undivided, use<\/em> had to be divided (see my \u201cProudhon, Property and Possession,\u201d ASR<\/em> 66). Although, I should note, Proudhon was addressing libertarian communism by their comments as that did not exist then. Similarly, communist-anarchists like Kropotkin were aware of this danger (indeed, Kropotkin said Proudhon was right to attack what was called communism in his day). More, anarchist-communists recognised the validity of these critiques and created a new<\/em>, libertarian, communism which addressed these issues as well as building in mechanisms to reduce tendencies towards them in anarcho-communism \u2013 for example, Kropotkin discusses its possible impact on individuality in Modern Science and Anarchy<\/em>, in the second section entitled \u201cCommunism and Anarchy\u201d (first published in France in 1913, it is finally out in English translation later this year by AK Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So let me be clear what we are talking about \u2013 not social pressure and intervention to stop actual anti-social acts (that is, stopping those who do actual harm to others) but rather social pressure against activities some others think of as somehow wrong but which harm no one. The actions of nosy-parkers, busy-bodies, gossips and such like \u2013 plus general social disapproval, particularly of those with avant-guard notions and who express them in action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This can be \u2013 has been, in many a small community \u2013 a problem. Yes, it can mean no anti-social behaviour but it can also be suffocating. So that is the germ of truth in this objection. However, as section I.5.6 of An Anarchist FAQ<\/em> argues, it is overblown. Particularly in a society which does not have hierarchical relations in production and elsewhere \u2013 where most people spend the bulk of their time and so shapes them most (excluding authoritarian education, which trains children to be bored and follow orders in preparation for their time in work).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, yes, there is a danger \u2013 but as with those who take anarchism and conclude, wrongly, an opposition to organisation as such, the alternative is worse<\/em>. For while even the best libertarian organisation can become bureaucratic, no organisation at all would make life impossible. Similarly, public pressure does not<\/em> disappear with laws and authorities \u2013 it gets bolstered<\/em> by them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take the racism of the Southern States of America, well, that became a national<\/em> issue after the decentralised self-organisation and direct action of the oppressed and their allies in those areas and the violent<\/em> State or State-backed repression against them could no longer be ignored. And it was an example of centralised political power<\/em> backing oppressive social customs within<\/em> the former slave States. Needless to say, we would expect external solidarity to happen in a libertarian society if such a development arose (presumably, in areas within which the social revolution had not taken place or been crushed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the case with any societal progress you care to think of \u2013 civil rights, feminism, the labour movement. They all start with a minority pushing at what is considered \u201cnormal\u201d and increasing freedom by flaunting convention \u2013 that is, by direct action<\/em>. Progress has never<\/em> been the gift of authority \u2013 it has always been won<\/em>. And the majority finally shift \u2013 but adding the State to the mix hardly makes those struggles easier. It only makes rolling those victories back easier \u2013 just look at the Trump regime, where State power is being used to do precisely that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All in all, if oppressive social pressure is an issue in an Anarchy \u2013 and it can be \u2013 adding political (and\/or economic) power does not make it disappear, quite the reverse. Does the customary rather than political nature of the pressure increase the totalitarian tendencies as Orwell suggests? Doubtful\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anarchist theory recognises the key role minorities<\/em> play in social change. Kropotkin stressed it (see \u201cRevolutionary Minorities\u201d in Words of a Rebel<\/em>), as did Emma Goldman (in \u201cMinorities versus Majorities,\u201d in Anarchism and Other Essays<\/em>) \u2013 and it is obvious. Oscar Wilde\u2019s The Soul of Man Under Socialism<\/em> being a must read in this regard. As Kropotkin put it in Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWell, then, those who will work to break up these superannuated tactics, those who will know how to rouse the spirit of initiative in individuals and in groups, those who will be able to create in their mutual relations a movement and a life based on the principles of free understanding\u2014those that will understand that variety, conflict even, is life, and that uniformity is death\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Shevek\u2019s odyssey is an example of this, of (to re-quote Mutual Aid<\/em>) \u201cthe self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element\u201d against the \u201cthe bonds, always prone to become crystallised, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual\u201d \u2013 or the self-managed associations of a free society. The \u201csyndicate of initiative\u201d is an expression of this minority within the libertarian communist society of Anarres. Progress will remain a product of the interaction of the few and the many, but without the vested interests associated with various social, economic and political hierarchies \u2013 and the coercive forces they can call upon in a non-anarchist society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So where does this get us? That Anarchy is not perfect, but we knew that. Like any social system it will have its problems, its contradictions, its areas in need of work \u2013 but, then, we have usually claimed Anarchy will simply be better<\/em> than the current system rather than perfect. It will be created by and made up of people, people who will be more rounded and better developed than under hierarchy but still flawed<\/em>. This awareness is why, unlike Marxists, we have always built into our systems safeguards against irremovable imperfections \u2013 safeguards such as federalism, election, mandates, recall, socialisation, etc. In short, there will always be arseholes \u2013 anarchists just think giving arseholes power over others is not a wise idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure, in self-management you may often be in a minority \u2013 but to see your ideas always be implemented means to either have no groups at all (an impossibility) or be a dictator (or owner, the terms are synonymous as Proudhon noted in 1840). Ironically, the more abstractly individualist a theory is, the more likely it will produce authoritarian<\/em> rather than libertarian social relationships \u2013 as shown by Lockean ideologies (like propertarianism). So not<\/em> getting your way all the time, ironically, ensures freedom \u2013 both yours and others. More, at least in libertarian socialism (unlike capitalism) you will have the resources available to form new associations if you feel that your current ones are ignoring you and your ideas \u2013 as is constantly mentioned in The Dispossessed<\/em> and \u201cthe syndicate of initiative\u201d does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not to deny the negative aspects of social pressure \u2013 but anarchists are aware of it and build an awareness of this into their ideas. I\u2019ve quoted Kropotkin already on the need for conflict, for variety. I\u2019ve also quoted him on the need for individual self-assertion against crystallised social institutions. So, yes, Orwell makes a valid point \u2013 but exaggerates it. As does MacLeod with his misreading of The Dispossessed<\/em> \u2013 which is full of discussion, disagreement, debate. Both fail to mention that anarchism is aware of the problem and has sought solutions \u2013 and Le Guin\u2019s book expresses them!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, Shevek remains an anarchist, argues for anarchism on Urras and returns to Anarres \u2013 for good reasons, as the book makes clear. I cannot envision Winston Smith doing likewise on Airstrip One \u2013 or wishing he faced the Thought Police rather than the disapproval of some of his neighbours\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le Guin, in short, produced a very astute book on anarchism, one aware of the problems and also aware that anarchists had predicted said problems and shown means of solving them. It is a classic \u2013 and I gain something new every time I read it. It deserves better than MacLeod\u2019s summary \u2013 particularly as those comments are refuted by the book itself, as I have indicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, MacLeod was friends with the late, great Iain Banks. I should say a few words about their respective \u201cutopias.\u201d The difference is stark \u2013 the culture is, to coin a phrase, a Post-Scarcity Anarchism<\/em> (another classic you should read) while Anarres is very much a \u201cscarcity\u201d anarchism (although the standard of living is high, it is limited by the ecology of the desert moon the anarchists settled 170 years before). Which makes The Dispossessed<\/em> a far more realistic work. Banks postulates a level of technology which is, basically, magic and so he magics away all the issues any real<\/em> anarchist society would face. The Culture manages with super-intelligent computers and hyper-advanced technology \u2013 but if your system is dependent upon advanced technology (or impossible assumptions) then it best avoided (an economy needs to work if the computers crash!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anarres, however, manages it with the technologies of the 20th<\/sup> century \u2013 or slightly advanced versions \u2013 which makes it more relevant and appealing, in spite of its desert moon setting and the impact that has on the libertarian communist society depicted. Sure, Le Guin did magic \u2013 in her Earthsea<\/em> books! Anarres presents a society which you could see working today<\/em>, not hundreds of years in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it is hardly a utopia in this sense, unlike the Culture. In terms of its social organisation, again it is based on federations of syndicates and communities. Again, hardly utopian. Also, the people are people who seem aware of the need to treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. It hardly staggers belief that people brought up with enough to eat, taught to think rather than repeat, treated as people and not resources, would generalise what is now considered the best of us. Its flaws are equally believable \u2013 an informal bureaucracy has started to develop and co-operation has started to become conformity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shevek and his comrades see the problem and work on a solution which is straight out of anarchist theory. This is because anarchists are aware that people are imperfect and any society we create will be imperfect. We are well aware that even the best society will have flaws and need work. The struggle for freedom does not end with a successful revolution \u2013 things crystallise and it needs active minorities to shatter them in a progressive manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is anarchism utopian? No \u2013 for its does not postulate anything unbelievable or impossible about humans or social life. It does not seek perfection, just better<\/em> (which would not be hard!). The people who are utopian are those who criticise anarchism \u2013 incorrectly, as it happens \u2013 for believing in the natural goodness of people rather than recognising that people are bad and who then turn around and say that a few of these bad people should be given power over the rest. So people will abuse freedom but not power\u2026 such is the position of \u201crealistic\u201d people!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So The Dispossessed<\/em> does not contradict communist-anarchism nor undermine it. Those who claim otherwise should read more communist-anarchist thinkers. As Le Guin did \u2013 and it shows. The book is a classic \u2013 of both SF and anarchist thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of which shows the power and importance of Le Guin\u2019s work. Her works are full of people<\/em> and address real issues, like the best SF work it is about now<\/em> rather than the future. She will be missed \u2013 but her writings will endure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An obituary for the great fantasy and SF writer Ursula Le Guin. It concentrates, understandably, on The Dispossessed. It appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review No. 73 (Spring 2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-obituary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions\/134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}