Abstract
In this commentary, I offer, from an anarchist–geographic perspective, a constructive critique of certain elements of Simon Springer’s article. I welcome his article for bringing to light some of the more politically problematic elements of (orthodox) Marxist thought. Springer raises important points about the practicalities of social change, but he does so in a rather binaristic manner. Accordingly, I address several elements of Springer’s characterization of both anarchism and Marxism – especially on political organization and praxis – in order to nuance some of his arguments and draw out broader lessons for radical geographical scholarship and the future of the radical/revolutionary left in general.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
