The essay "Analysis of the Book 'Two Cheers of Anarchism'" discusses anarchism in terms of a concrete connection to the author's experience.
An analysis of the author’s central and peripheral ideas would reveal the following: James Scott explains that the author’s interest of anarchist critique is as a result of disillusionments as well as loss of hope in a revolutionary change. When he came to political; consciousness he discovers he has no hope I the revolutionary change. Change is because he needs to get away from certain conditions he does not like or approve of. He justifies this by making reference to Max’s anarchist critique as well as that of Lenin which seemed more relevant. He refers to the revolution in France that consequently led to confrontational Napoleonic state. In this sense, the author is not for revolutionary movements. He has given up in them.
He sees the revolutions as counterproductive. However, what brings about revolutions, especially political revolutions. It is dissatisfaction with the status quo. He advocates for anarchy as better since there are the voluntary agreements. In asserting that anarchist behaviors can be seen in people who have never even known about anarchy is indeed true because the anarchist philosophy exists in their political ways and agitations. His anarchist squint entails defense of politics as well as debate and conflict. This is a rather democratic one and seeks to tolerate differences. This implies to true freedom as a way to ensure true justice.