💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-review-of-black-flame.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:32:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Review of Black Flame
Author: Anarcho
Date: October 14, 2009
Language: en
Topics: book review, anarcho-syndicalism
Source: Retrieved on 1st February 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=370

Anarcho

Review of Black Flame

Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and

Syndicalism

Lucien Van der Walt and Michael Schmidt

AK Press (2009)

This is an excellent work. Wide ranging, both in terms of subjects

covered and geography. The latter makes a welcome break from most

accounts of anarchism which are sadly all-too Eurocentric. The former

sees anarchist analysis expanded from the usual subjects of political

authority and economic class into gender and imperialism (and national

liberation struggles). It covers such perennial issues as anarchist

organisation (including Platformism), the Spanish Revolution and a host

of others.

Black Flame gets almost everything right. It concentrates on the

mainstream of anarchism, class struggle anarchism (collectivist,

communist and syndicalist anarchism, in other words). It is

comprehensive, discussing all important issues, people and movements.

The authors are right in showing the anarchist roots of syndicalism and

exposing the Leninist myth that anarchism and syndicalism are

fundamentally different. They debunk the notion that Sorel was the

creator or main theoretician of syndicalism. They place anarchism where

it should be: as part of the wider socialist movement, its libertarian

wing. It is right to say that anarchism is “a product of the capitalist

world and the working class it created” (p. 96) and that thinkers and

activists alike “defined anarchism as an anticapitalist ideology and a

form of socialism.” (p. 46) It does a great job in discussing the ins

and outs of our movement and theory, using practice to illuminate our

ideas.

I have two somewhat minor quibbles about it, which I hope that the

comrades will take as positive feedback to an outstanding contribution

to anarchist theory and history.

The first, minor, criticism is the claim that Daniel De Leon, Big Bill

Haywood and James Connolly can be included in the broad anarchist

tradition. They were Marxists! By no stretch of the imagination can they

be considered anarchists. The reason why Black Flame has “described De

Leonism as a form of syndicalism” is that “syndicalism was a type of

anarchism” and “self-identification as a Marxist or an anarchist is less

important than the content of the ideas adopted, and the ideas of the

IWW are certainly within the ambit of the broad anarchist tradition.”

(p. 161)

But that is confusing a tactic with a theory. Syndicalism is an

anarchist tactic, and like other tactics can be utilised by

non-anarchists. Thus we can have Marxist as well as anarchist

syndicalists (although the irony of Marxists subscribing to the ideas of

Bakunin rather than Marx should be stressed). They themselves

acknowledge this when arguing that the Italian syndicalists who later

became fascists were not really syndicalists. But they were – they just

happened to be Marxist syndicalists! However, they are right that the

IWW should be considered as part of the wider anarchist tradition. Its

revolutionary unionism is straight out of Bakunin, not Marx.

My major criticism is their relegation of Proudhon to being a forerunner

of anarchism. It is strange to read that Proudhon was not an anarchist

and that “the anarchists took [from him] the notion of the

self-management of the means of production, the idea of free federation,

a hatred of capitalism and landlordism, and a deep distrust of the

state”! (p. 84) So, except for anti-statism, anti-capitalism,

anti-landlordism, federalism, communes, self-management, the vision of a

revolution from below, the name “anarchist”, what has Proudhon done for

us?

Given his contributions to anarchism, which Bakunin and Kropotkin built

upon, can we seriously suggest he was not an anarchist? Yes, he was not

a revolutionary anarchist but not an anarchist at all?

When discussing Proudhon, Black Flame makes a rare error, stating that

“workers were not exploited in the market, as Proudhon believed, but at

the workplace.” (p. 86) In fact, Proudhon saw wage-labour causing

exploitation – hence his call for its abolition by workers associations.

Yes, in the First International the “mutualists supported small

proprietors” but unless you believe in forced collectivisation, we all

do! Yes, it “generalised acceptance of common ownership as a core demand

of the popular classes” (p. 84) but that position was shared by the

mutualists within it who only rejected public ownership of land.

Black Flame also has an excellent discussion of the sadly too common

“problem” of how to define anarchism, effectively refuting those who

reduce anarchism to just “anti-statism.” They rightly argue that

anarchism is a form of socialism with its roots in working class

protest. By basing itself on the actual development of anarchism as a

theory, it rightly rejects the all too common history of anarchism

framed by a list of grand-thinkers of anarchism, starting with Godwin

and Stirner. This is flawed for the reasons the book outlines. Neither

had an influence on how anarchism developed as a movement, being

rediscovered in the 1890s and the links with anarchism recognised.

As such, Black Flame is right to not discuss Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoy

and American individualist anarchism in detail. Yet it is wrong to

exclude them from anarchism – they were anti-capitalist and anti-state –

so while their influence was nowhere as important as Proudhon, Bakunin

or Kropotkin, it would fair to mention but not concentrate upon them.

The mainstream is social anarchism and, in particular, revolutionary

social anarchism and the book correctly reflects that.

It rightly rejects the “dictionary definition” of anarchism – as if a

rich socio-economic theory and social movement can be summed up in such

a way! As Black Flame stresses, anarchism needs to be defined in terms

of its ideas and history, not by who calls themselves an “anarchist” or

has been so-labelled. While being anti-state is necessary to be an

anarchist it is not sufficient – as can be seen from the fact that

anarchists themselves have never restricted their politics so.

Black Flame is a wonderful book which every anarchist will enjoy

reading. It is well researched, well argued and should be read by every

one interested in anarchism. Do yourself a favour and buy it now! You

won’t be disappointed. Roll on volume 2.