💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › leonard-williams-anarchism-revived.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:23:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism Revived Author: Leonard Williams Date: 2007 Language: en Topics: introductory, history, theory, practice Source: *New Political Science*, Volume 29, 2007 — Issue 3. DOI: 10.1080/07393140701510160
Long regarded as a dated school of political thought, anarchism has been
rejuvenated in the last decade or so. From anarcho-punk bands putting
out “noise music” to bands of young people sporting black attire and the
circle-A, its cultural symbols are widely present. Self-identified
“anarchists” have often taken center stage at protests directed at major
political and financial institutions. My central purpose in this article
is to explore the variety of ideological orientations found in the
contemporary anarchist movement, as expressed by several of its
theorists—from Chomsky and Bookchin, on the one hand, to Zerzan, Bey,
and Black, on the other. The article highlights a few of the
metaphysical issues raised by today’s anarchism—rationalism versus
anti-rationalism, technology versus nature, creeds versus deeds—and
concludes by identifying the fundamental principles characteristic of
contemporary anarchism.
If the question of the twentieth century for Marxists was Why was there
no revolution in the West?, it seems that the question for anarchists at
the beginning of the twenty-first century is What metaphysic should
guide the revolution? For people who have long had such phrases as “No
God, No Masters” inscribed on their banners, it perhaps seems odd for
them to place such an emphasis on metaphysic in their political thought.
However, because of the complexity of today’s social and political
context the realm of first principles—metaphysic—appears to be a
singularly appropriate domain for an anarchist.
As odd as it may be to talk about metaphysic as the basis for anarchist
thought, it may be odder still (at least to some political observers)
that one should talk about anarchism at all. Long regarded as a dated,
if not irrelevant, school of political thought, anarchism nevertheless
has undergone yet another revival in the last decade or so.[1] From
anarcho-punk bands putting out “noise music” to bands of young people
sporting black attire and the circle-A, its cultural symbols are widely
present. More importantly, self-identified “anarchists” have often taken
center stage at protests directed at such institutions as the World
Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and
the Organization of American States.[2] Who are these new anarchists,
what do they believe, and what do they want?[3] Without extensive
interviews with activists, questions regarding their social psychology
would be difficult to answer. Indeed, given the limitations of this
article, they primarily are questions for another day. For a political
theorist, though, questions concerning beliefs and programs are both
more interesting and more easily answered. My central purpose in this
essay, then, is to explore the variety of ideological orientations found
in the contemporary anarchist movement, as expressed by several of its
theorists.
Of course, identifying the prominent theorists of this new anarchism is
not an entirely straightforward matter. At present, in fact, “we have
two co-existing generations within anarchism: people whose political
formation took place in the 60s and 70s … and younger people who are
much more informed, among other elements, by indigenous, feminist,
ecological and culture-criticism thinking.”[4] Today’s anarchists
(particularly those profiled in mainstream media coverage of major
protests) are primarily a group of young people noted more for their
cultural apparatus and their penchant for direct action. Very few of
them seem to refer to such theorists of anarchism as Bakunin, Proudhon,
Goldman, or Rocker; even fewer perhaps have bothered to study their
classic works.
Moreover, many contemporary anarchists overtly disdain abstract or
academic theory. For example, Albert Meltzer asserts that anarchism
should be conceived as “a creed that has been worked out in action
rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectual idea.”[5]
Observers and thinkers can identify any number of variants, schools, or
labels associated with anarchism—libertarian communists,
anarcho-syndicalists, punks, primitivists, social ecologists, or
individualists, just to name a few.[6] What is distinctive about this
list is that it reflects Andrej Grubacic’s observation that the
different types of anarchists “are distinguished by what they do, and
how they organize themselves to go about doing it.” The point, it seems,
is not to argue about correct revolutionary theory or outline day-to-day
life in utopia, but rather to practice the revolutionary actions that to
them will actually make a difference. Anarchism is thus more a tactical
than a strategic theory.[7]
Not only is anarchism generally conceived as a practical creed, it is
primarily a creed formed in the context of activism. As Grubacic
observes, the new anarchism “exists only in a dialogue: it came into
being by interaction with other participants in the planetary
circulation of struggles. The secret of new anarchism, of it’s [sic]
‘irresistible charm,’ is it’s [sic] openness to the world of struggles.”
This orientation toward practice and action naturally makes it hard to
locate any particular group of theorists that every anarchist or
anarchist wannabe must read. Besides, even if that were possible, one
would be reminded that anarchists are not supposed to follow blindly any
set of views propounded by so-called authorities. In short, as many of
today’s anarchists persuasively argue, anarchism must necessarily mean
different things to different people.[8]
Still, the task of identifying key theorists has been made a bit easier
by the fact that many anarchists today (even anti-technology
primitivists) have used the World Wide Web to reach out to potential
adherents. Indeed, several websites that are devoted to informing people
about anarchism do so by offering links to the writings of both classic
and contemporary theorists.[9] In studying anarchism’s current
manifestations, I particularly sought references to contemporary
theorists and theories of anarchism. A small number of theorists
received multiple mentions by anarchist websites, and since these
theorists also refer to each other (sometimes critically so), their
works therefore became the focus of this study. Further, as other
political observers began to comment on the revival of anarchism, the
names of additional theorists relevant to the study readily emerged.
The first principles of an ideology such as anarchism often appear to be
an elusive quarry. Even its defenders regard anarchism as more an
evolving tradition—a set of overlapping and sometimes competing
traditions or aspects—than a general theory or a coherent ideology.[10]
Because it transforms itself to fit the vicissitudes of time, place, and
circumstance, any effort to set forth a contemporary platform for
anarchists is likely doomed to failure. In this regard, with its
situational and relative character, anarchism appears to be rather like
conservatism—at least as it was described by Samuel Huntington.[11]
Indeed, sometimes it seems that the only thing that is constant about
anarchism is its inconstancy; as John Moore observes: “Regardless of the
content of its praxis during any period, the distinctive character of
anarchism remains its continual capacity to redefine and reconfigure
itself.”[12] Nevertheless, despite the absence of any universal
anarchist credo, enough family resemblances among particular bodies of
anarchist thought occur to make it possible for us to talk about
anarchism as a discourse, if not an ideology.
At the most basic level, anarchism is fundamentally opposed to the
existence of the State and the authority relations that the State
codifies, legitimates, or represents.[13] Although its origins can be
traced to Enlightenment thinkers in the eighteenth century (Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and William Godwin, for example) or even to Taoist thought,
anarchism has been associated primarily with certain political and
social movements of the nineteenth century. In recent decades, however,
anarchist thought has moved beyond its central focus on the State or
capital to embrace wide-ranging thinking about such matters as the
environment, technology, work, and the status of women.[14] Through it
all, anarchism seems to retain its central character as a viewpoint
opposed to the presence of coercion, hierarchy, and authority in human
affairs.[15]
Among the theorists writing about anarchy today one can find any number
of strains of thought with various labels—social ecology, primitivism,
ontological anarchy, anarcha-feminism, or anarcho-syndicalism, for
example. To be sure, some strains have seen greater development or have
been given more attention than others. This is not the place, however,
to develop an extensive catalogue of the different types of anarchist
views; such a catalogue may not even be useful. Instead, let us explore
the outlines of contemporary anarchism by first discussing the ideas of
two theorists who have done much to keep the anarchist tradition alive
in the United States—namely, Noam Chomsky and the late Murray Bookchin.
Although he is often cited as an influential figure, Chomsky initially
did not claim to be an anarchist thinker. Indeed, in a 1976 interview,
he chose to identify himself as little more than a “derivative fellow
traveler.”[16] Though he had introduced Anarchism, a book by Daniel
Guerin published in 1970, Chomsky has long been better known for his
persistent critiques of American foreign policy and the mass media than
for his contributions to anarchist theory. These incisive critiques
served to keep his name prominent among succeeding generations of
anarchists, if only because of the continuing importance of issues
related to war, globalization, and a media-saturated society. Yet, as
anarchist theory and practice revived, Chomsky gradually warmed to the
label and, in 1996, explicitly proclaimed that his “personal visions are
fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and
classical liberalism.”[17]
On balance, what Chomsky has written or said about anarchism amounts to
this: anarchism, opposed as it is to both exploitation and domination,
constitutes a libertarian variant of socialism.[18] Its fundamental
approach, as he noted in a 1995 interview, is “to seek out and identify
structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of
life, and to challenge them.”[19] In his view, advanced industrial and
technological societies “raise possibilities for self-management over a
broad scale that simply didn’t exist in an earlier period.”[20] As a
result of these views, Chomsky has been criticized for either relying
upon notions of workers’ control and self-management or positing an
industrial, highly organized, radically democratic society as a
revolutionary goal. Indeed, so rationalist and pragmatic is Chomsky that
he finds contemporary circumstances to be ones in which anarchists may
need to defend, rather than simply attack, certain state
institutions—while nevertheless seeking to democratize them.[21]
For the most part, though, Chomsky has remained above the fray by
generally avoiding polemical disputes with other anarchists. The same
cannot be said for Murray Bookchin. First coming to notoriety with the
publication of Post-Scarcity Anarchism, he has long been a central
figure in the anarchist pantheon.[22] Often hailed as the most
significant anarchist theorist of the twentieth century, he has also
been criticized for being a statist masquerading as an anarchist.[23] In
some respects, perhaps, such criticism is the fate of any figure so long
on the public stage; but in others, the reception that Bookchin received
may be traced to the ideological factions into which anarchists have
divided themselves.
Bookchin was one of the first social thinkers to link environmental and
political concerns and to show the interconnections between ecology and
anarchism. Labeling his approach “social ecology,” Bookchin saw each
domain as marked by participatory freedom, ever-increasing
differentiation, mutuality and community, and unity in diversity.[24] To
embrace social ecology is to denounce hierarchy in the name of creative
freedom and enriching diversity; it is to favor renewable energy and
human-scale technology, along with decentralized economic and political
structures. The goal of Bookchin’s “libertarian municipalist agenda … is
to reopen a public sphere in flat opposition to statism, one that allows
for maximum democracy in the literal sense of the term, and to create in
embryonic form the institutions that can give power to a people
generally.”[25]
Bookchin’s approach to anarchism emphasizes not only a generalized
respect for the environment, but also an Aristotelian conception of
politics. Indeed, his preference for rational discourse and radical
democracy brought Bookchin considerable criticism from younger
anarchists who viewed the anarchist movement as not merely anti-state
but also broadly anti-political. Bookchin initially shared their
concerns with rooting out all forms of domination, declaring anarchism
to be “a libidinal movement of humanity against coercion in any form,
reaching back in time to the very emergence of propertied society, class
rule, and the state.”[26] However, Bookchin later turned away from such
a position of global negativity; rather than give free rein to political
libido, for example, he issued a reminder that anarchism should be
conceived as a “programmatic” movement. Where he once argued that
anarchism could not be viewed as a uniform ideology, he later came to
identify anarchism with a “commitment to four basic tenets: a
confederation of decentralized municipalities; an unwavering opposition
to statism; a belief in direct democracy; and a vision of a libertarian
communist society.”[27]
What marks thinkers like Chomsky and Bookchin seems to be their reliance
on the rationalist tradition.[28] Chomsky’s work, for example, focuses
primarily on scrutinizing the ideological presumptions of contemporary
political decisions and discourse. He is better at taking arguments
apart, showing their contradictions, than he is at discussing questions
of value or outlining the features of a new society. Indeed, like Marx,
Chomsky believes that one should not try to sketch those features in too
much detail.[29] Focused as he is on the intellectual critique of what
governmental leaders do and say, rationalism must clearly be at the
center of his activity, even when Chomsky states his predilection and
preference for anarchism.
Bookchin was even more rationalistic than Chomsky, and in some respects,
more combative. For Bookchin, metaphysical issues were front and center,
vital to the future of anarchism. Noting a long-standing tension between
“a personalistic commitment to individual autonomy and a collectivist
commitment to social freedom,” Bookchin sided with the latter as the
best (if not the only) understanding of what anarchism is all about. In
a 1995 essay, “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism,” he severely
criticized the latter tradition for its adventurism, postmodernism, “a
basically apolitical and anti-organizational commitment to imagination,
desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of
everyday life …”[30] Bookchin’s rationalism could also be seen in his
support for technology (albeit locally organized and human-scale
technology—using renewable energy where possible), his belief that
evolution is directed toward greater complexity, his insistence that
anarchism be an organized social movement, and his deliberative
conception of politics.
Such leftist rationalism (which began to be challenged in the late
1970s) had seemed passé, if not retrograde, by the 1990s. In 1989, for
example, the activists who published No Picnic in Vancouver wrote that
they “strongly reject and resist the tendency to categorize and don’t
believe in blueprints for ‘revolution.’”[31] Declaring themselves
“people, not ism-oids with a cause,” they preferred to identify what
they liked or hated about contemporary life rather than worry about
sterile debates concerning theory and strategy. This point of view
regards any anarchism rooted in the traditions of leftist politics as
unhappily trapped in dead dogmas and boring rhetoric.
By contrast, the Toronto activists who published Kick It Over declared
in 1985 that they were not part of an “official” anarchist movement (or
even an “official left”); instead, they would embrace spontaneity—“the
triumph of life over dogma.”[32] Bob Black echoed their complaint,
finding no better example of leftist anarchy’s sterility than
Bookchin—whom Black regards as a “municipal statist.”[33] For Black,
Bookchin’s preference for local government and direct democracy reflects
an adherence to rationalist ideology and to politics as usual, not a
commitment to thoroughgoing anarchy. The goal of these critics of
rationalism has been to move anarchism beyond its leftist affiliations,
to go “beyond Bookchin” and his abstract theorizing and
system-building.[34] Instead, today’s anarchists seek inspiration and
energy from whatever anti-authoritarian sources emerge in politics and
culture.[35]
In contrast to Bookchin and Chomsky, a more diverse group of anarchist
theorists has emerged in the last two decades. Their political lives and
concerns can be traced either to the New Left or to the new social
movements that have come to shape politics in many countries. This group
of theorists includes people like John Zerzan and David Watson (a.k.a.
George Bradford), who came to anarchism from ecological activism; Hakim
Bey and Bob Black, who take a postmodernist or post-structuralist
approach to anarchism; and still other theorists who either propose an
eclecticism or enter the debate only to take issue with particular ideas
and practices. Some of these theorists have become quite well known
among activist youth, while others have remained on the margins of
contemporary anarchist discourse.
Several years ago, a journalistic profile of activists opposed to
gentrification in the Pacific Northwest highlighted the influence that
John Zerzan had acquired in the Eugene, Oregon, area. The profile
identified Zerzan, rightly, as “a leading advocate of primitivism, which
goes far beyond matters of how the state is or isn’t constructed,
considering technology and most of what we consider civilization to be
deeply pathological and needing to be eliminated.”[36] As a result of
such profiles, it was not long before the anarchist label became
associated with the ideas of primitivism.[37]
The arguments made by primitivists often begin by identifying the ills
associated with modern life—not only hierarchy and domination (racism,
sexism, and the like), but also physical and mental illnesses, stress,
violence, and ecological destruction.[38] Once these forms of
unhappiness are diagnosed, their true cause is revealed to be not simply
modernity but civilization itself. Defenders of civilization often
suggest, as Sigmund Freud did, that some psychic and political
repression may well be necessary—if only to keep us from falling back
into another dark age or a Hobbesian state of nature.[39] Zerzan
counters such a claim by noting that recent anthropological and
archaeological findings indicate “that life before
domestication/agriculture was in fact largely one of leisure, intimacy
with nature, sensual wisdom, sexual equality, and health. This was our
human nature, for a couple of million years, prior to enslavement by
priests, kings, and bosses.”[40]
Zerzan’s argument might be seen as a sort of reverse-Weberianism, one
that calls for a “re-enchantment” of the world. Re-enchantment is
central to the eco-anarchist project of simultaneously building respect
for nature and undermining the claims of hierarchy. For the
primitivists, our disenchantment with the world has several root
causes—notably, “technics” (technology), domestication and agriculture,
the division of labor, urbanization, and even language itself. Each such
phenomenon has worked to embed people in systems that not only stress
conformity and obedience, but also produce a serious rift between human
beings and nature. The only way to emerge from the chains of
civilization, from the bonds of the “megamachine,” is to join together
our new insights into the nature of primitive societies with the
traditional anarchist analysis of power relations.[41] In doing so, we
will move toward the ultimate goal of creating an ecological,
harmonious, anti-authoritarian society—“a world of the face-to-face, in
which even names can be forgotten, a world which knows that enchantment
is the opposite of ignorance.”[42]
Enchanting the world once again (re-establishing both a respect for and
a mystical union with nature) makes for an intriguing metaphysic, to be
sure. Yet it need not provide any direct response to the political
question of how people warped by civilization might actually cast it
aside. In the minds of many people, the stereotypical anarchist response
to the world’s ills might be to assassinate a politician, toss a bomb,
or throw rocks either at commercial windows or at police officers in
riot gear. While he certainly never advocated the most violent acts,
Zerzan did seem to endorse trashing—primarily in the name of doing
something (anything) that might help dismantle the system. In his view,
the problems that social-change activists have faced stem from not being
thoroughgoing enough in their efforts to bring about a new society: “Our
biggest obstacle lies in forgetting the primacy of the negative.
Hesitation, peaceful coexistence—this deficiency of desire will prove
fatal if allowed to be ascendant. The truly humanitarian and pacific
impulse is that which is committed to relentlessly destroying the
malignant dynamic known as civilization, including its roots.”[43]
Forsaking the more mystical side of today’s anarchism, Hakim Bey
suggests that both primitivists and “extropians” (people who postulate a
techno-utopia) suffer a common failing—they both presume to have the
answer to all of society’s problems. In contrast to their totalizing
approaches, Bey’s work presents a postmodernist brief for indeterminacy,
ambiguity, and choice—in short, for a truly non-authoritarian approach
to social change. Bey promotes the Temporary Autonomous Zone, the TAZ,
as the revolutionary vehicle that “will release a hundred blooming
flowers, a thousand, a million memes of resistance, of difference, on
non-ordinary consciousness—the will to power as ‘strangeness.’”[44]
In a flurry of images and allusions, Bey encourages anarchists to
abandon the old categories and approaches, the ideologies and movements
of the past, in order to embrace an “ontological anarchism.”[45] Purity
and consistency are to be set aside as one liberates the imagination
through spontaneous acts of Poetic Terrorism (PT) and Art Sabotage (AS).
What is the difference between the concepts? Referring to an action by
the Yippies in the 1960s, Bey observes that to “throw money away at the
Stock Exchange was pretty decent Poetic Terrorism—but to destroy the
money would have been good Art Sabotage.”[46] Stressing play, as well as
the realization of desire, this approach suggests that one should act in
the here and now to create zones of freedom (TAZs) amid broader contexts
of life marked by hierarchy, domination, and ugliness. For Bey,
it is the festival (with its ZeroWork and “promiscuity”) that functions
as the crucial insurrectionary praxis or principle of social
mutability—the creation of festal space; the creation of carnival to
fill the festal space—the creation of the temporary autonomous zone with
the No Go Zone—festival as resistance and as uprising, perhaps in a
single form, in a single hour of pleasure—festival as the very meaning
or deep inner structure of autonomy.[47]
Still, in the final analysis, no single course of action can be
recommended. This is particularly true in today’s post-Cold War context,
wherein work for good causes appears to have no revolutionary
consciousness or guiding myth, while illegal activity lacks both
consciousness and results.[48] The point is to leave the question of
what to do up to those who will actually do it, much as most anarchists
prefer to leave the construction of the new society to those who will
build it after the revolution. In such a context, Bey’s approach
emphasizes acts of aesthetico-political freedom—what might be called
Opposition Now.
Bob Black, a theorist involved in many of the debates circulating among
today’s anarchists, shares Bey’s preference for an “ontological” or a
“lifestyle” anarchism. In fact, he believes that anarchists should move
beyond the categories of right and left, even beyond their socialist
roots, in order to borrow ideas and approaches from such diverse sources
as primitivism, situationism, punk culture, and even “beer culture.”
Creating this new, “Type 3”-anarchism would also require a new
vocabulary, so Black suggests that “anarchy-ists [should] call
themselves anarchs … because, like the corresponding distinction of
monarch from monarchist, it designates not what we believe but what we
are, insofar as our power permits: powers unto ourselves.”[49]
Just what is the positive content of this anarchy-ism? For Black, it
centers on something of a revival of Charles Fourier’s concerns with
making work pleasurable and playful. In other words, anarchism should
steadfastly call for the “abolition of work.” As Black puts it, “we have
to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing
variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes, indistinguishable from
other pleasurable pastimes, except that they happen to yield useful
end-products.”[50]
Similarly, for David Watson, the new anarchism should embrace a very
non-programmatic, eclectic approach to creating the new society. Watson
believes that anarchism should draw on the whole of human
experience—“from our primordial animist kinship with the phenomenal
world, to the wisdom bequeathed to us by archaic civilizations, to
modern traditions of revolution, freedom and return”—for its
inspiration. Indeed, anarchists “must be both unsentimental and
generous, finding ways to enhance diversity, communal responsibility and
autonomy in whatever context we find ourselves.”[51]
So far, we have seen how many of today’s anarchists have rejected some
of the traits associated with Western civilization. These activists have
rejected—often in strong, even vulgar terms—not just what might be
regarded as negative features of that civilization (namely, hierarchy,
deism, or patriarchy), but also what mainstream culture typically deems
as positive aspects (such as rationality, capitalism, or parliamentary
democracy).[52] In short, technology and the “domination” of nature,
language and rationalism, politics and work—all of these phenomena have
been criticized, if not abandoned, by today’s anarchist theorists. If
civilization is problematic, one must return to nature; if work no
longer fulfills, try play; and if political theory and organization do
not bring about the revolution, then embrace the idea that anything
goes—make love, not war; make art, not politics.[53]
As both Michael Albert and Bookchin have noted, there are limits to both
primitivism and lifestyle anarchism. Albert has particularly been
critical, noting that Zerzan’s “mistake is to rightly notice various
horrible technologies but then wrongly attribute the problem they pose
not to mutable social structures and institutions which impose the bad
features on the technologies and the bad technologies on us, but to the
entire category of technology per se.”[54] In a similar vein, Bookchin
believed that these variants of anarchism have become too
individualistic, too personalistic. “Lifestyle anarchism, largely
because it is concerned with a ‘style’ rather than a society, glosses
over capitalist accumulation, with its roots in the competitive
marketplace, as the source of ecological devastation, and gazes as if
transfixed at the alleged break of humanity’s ‘sacred’ or ‘ecstatic’
unity with ‘Nature’ and at the ‘disenchantment of the world’ by science,
materialism, and ‘logocentricity.’”[55] For Bookchin, the approaches of
Zerzan and Bey inevitably lead to an irrationalist hedonism rather than
any useful, critical analysis of society.
Whether or not one accepts such critiques, an eclectic amalgam of
anarchist theory and practice appears as the only alternative to taking
sides in the debate between the advocates of social anarchism and those
favoring lifestyle anarchism. More than anything else, it seems, today’s
anarchists opt for a characteristic stance of theoretical
open-endedness. Thus, the typical theorist sees in today’s anarchism a
worthy diversity and pluralism, rather than a destructive factionalism.
In other words, doctrinal differences among anarchists are assumed to be
surface differences of emphasis rather than deep differences of
principle.[56] Sometimes, though, a theorist will regard these
differences within the anarchist family as a matter of serious concern.
For instance, Tom Wetzel roots such conflicts in “different
circumstances of life” (e.g., whether one is a dropout or a
wage-earner), different perceptions of the tactical political situation,
or even “underlying philosophical differences … on issues like the
relation of the individual to the social collectivity, how to analyse
the structure of society, how to envision the alternative to
capitalism.”[57]
Because controversies are inescapable, it is not uncommon for a theorist
to seek to unify and purify the anarchist movement, to call it back to
long-standing principles. For example, once he left primitivism behind
for anarcho-syndicalism, Graham Purchase sought common ground in
observing that the anarchist movement “has always distrusted
large-scale, wasteful industrial practices and deplored the
regimentation involved in work and the factory system, and has placed
its faith in the self-governing, environmentally integrated
community.”[58] Similarly, Chaz Bufe, somewhat affiliated with
Bookchinism, called attention to the disarray among activists.[59] In
his view, anarchists should recognize that what they have in common is
more important than what divides them. Indeed, their widely shared and
fundamental concepts—“mutual aid, noncoerciveness, voluntary cooperation
rather than competition, nonhierarchical organization, decentralization,
and individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility”—must
necessarily be at the center of any viable attempt to create a new
society.[60]
In many respects, though, the writings in anarchist “infoshops” and
“zines” often try to avoid becoming anything resembling political
treatises. Laying out the basic values and central principles of
anarchism, reminding people of the prominent figures in the history of
anarchism, or dispelling the still dominant stereotype of the mad
bomber—these are the common expressions that often pass for theory among
today’s anarchists. As a worldview, anarchism thus is neither a cultural
milieu nor an individual lifestyle; it is neither formal membership in
an organization nor a willingness to discuss abstract ideas. Instead,
anarchism “is practical activity which in whatever small way helps to
increase mutual aid, destroy capitalism and bring about libertarian
communism.”[61]
Not surprisingly, then, theory often takes a back seat to the action
orientation that has long characterized the anarchist tradition. For
anarchists, as the first issue of the Vancouver-based Open Road
proclaimed in 1976, “theories and abstractions must be tested in
concrete practice,” and therefore, anarchist journals often “are more
concerned with reporting on what people and organizations are doing than
what they talk about doing.”[62] It is not their values (whether
decentralization, liberty, or consensus, for example) that make
anarchists unique; rather, “what distinguishes anarchists from the rest
of society is our emphasis on direct action to achieve our goals.”[63]
The concept of action here refers to everything from do-it-yourself
media to neighborhood organizing, from promoting alternative energy to
providing free food to the poor and homeless. For example, chapters of
the group Food Not Bombs have tried to live out the spirit of mutual aid
in the here and now, not in some distant post-revolutionary future.
Although it focuses on promoting non-violence and vegetarianism, its
other concerns with consensus decision-making and ecological
sustainability have made it attractive as an example of practical
anarchy.[64] For activists attracted to these groups, the message of
anarchism is to take charge and directly address the immediate issues in
one’s community rather than work to promote some governmental solution
to a problem.[65]
For other activists, the messages from today’s anarchists center on more
explicitly political forms of direct action. Both the Ruckus Society and
the Direct Action Network provided training in and support for
non-violent direct action for any number of organizations. In major
protests, other groups have preferred more yippie-like efforts, such as
those of the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade, the guerrilla gardening
collective (formed to do battle with international agribusiness by
reclaiming urban areas for greenspace), and even the Anarchist Marching
Band. Whether in the form of street demonstrations or an urban
bookstore, many of today’s anarchists are more focused on getting things
done and much less concerned with developing a political philosophy or
taking sides in polemical disputes.[66] In some sense, Dave Neal speaks
for these “inductive” anarchists when he writes that—since “no tract or
manifesto can possibly cover all human dreams, hopes and aspirations”—it
is patently obvious that “only two things really matter: 1) organizing
solidarity among working people; 2) encouraging popular direct
action.”[67] Anarchy, in short, is for anybody—not just theorists and
ideologues.
In such a circumstance, then, what role is there for an anarchist
theorist or intellectual? An anarchist theorist committed to the
movement, it seems, has to be careful to avoid what the Chinese
Communists once called “commandism”—being too far in front of the people
or functioning as a self-proclaimed (and self-important) leader.
According to Grubacic, an anarchist intellectual “should not lecture,
not dictate, not even necessarily think of oneself as a teacher, but
must listen, explore and discover.”[68] Yet one cannot dispense with
theory altogether. To do so, again as the Chinese Communists noted,
would mean falling victim to the opposite evil of “tailism”—simply
following behind the people, without providing adequate guidance for
them. Though there may be no universal approach to anarchism, there has
to be a role for reflexive thought—if only in theorizing anarchist
practice: “Even more than High Theory, what anarchism needs is what
might be called low theory: a way of grappling with those real,
immediate questions that emerge from a transformative project.”[69]
Before we conclude our examination of the new anarchism, one question
that remains is Why did the ideology of anarchism re-emerge to capture
the imagination and allegiance of a new generation? Abby Scher has
identified three elements in its contemporary appeal: (1) today’s
anarchism stresses a practical radicalism; (2) today’s younger
anarchists may be attracted by the stories of anarchism’s martyrs; and
(3) anarchism’s advocacy of direct action.[70] With the exception of the
second explanation, these points seem reasonable. For a distinctly
non-historical generation of activists, stories of martyrs—tales of
anarchists past—are not all that likely to have played a significant
role in motivating today’s anarchists. It is hard to believe that an
individual donning the costume and attitude of the Black Bloc imagines
himself or herself as a reincarnation of a martyr from the anarchist
brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Hence, it would seem that a better
understanding of the attraction of anarchism today requires rephrasing
and supplementing Scher’s account.
Anarchism appeals as an ideology partly because we now live in an age of
diminished hopes and dreams. Efforts to overthrow capitalism by Marxist,
Leninist, or Maoist revolutions all ended in greater tyranny, not in the
onset of any promised realm of freedom.[71] The fall of Communism, the
failures of modern government and politics, and a growing
dissatisfaction with traditional discourse have all created a political
culture marked by emptiness. People no longer believe that politics is a
worthwhile enterprise, one that either requires or rewards their
sustained attention.[72] If anything, people have for some time turned
inward in the search for anything to believe in, some element of faith.
It may be rather ironic that the decline of utopia has led youthful
activists to embrace the most utopian of ideologies. “But the new themes
of the New Anarchism, or, better yet, the New Anarchisms also have
popular appeal—not because they pander to prevalent illusions but
because they pander (and why not?) to prevalent disillusions.”[73] In
the absence of faith in government, faith in people—that is, faith in
the like-minded souls found in neighborhoods, face-to-face communities,
and interpersonal relations—seems like a natural alternative. It is no
wonder, then, that today’s anarchists often characterize their efforts
in terms of affinity groups and a movement of movements.[74]
Add to this the fact that any number of contemporary cultural trends
stress the triumph of individuality and the spontaneity of action. One
can point to the anti-authoritarian tendencies of post-structuralist
thought—particularly with its critique of prevailing modes of discourse,
but also with its stress upon the mix of aesthetic and political
concerns found in the concept of performance.[75] Alternatively, one can
highlight the pervasive individualism of American culture, ostensibly
reaching new levels of intensity as we came to “bowl alone.”[76] Yet we
must not overlook the increased emphasis in our culture upon the
importance of community service by volunteers, working primarily through
religious and civic organizations. The prevailing spirit of the age
seems to be that no one can tell us what to do—particularly no
outsider—but we know we must act, act in ways that achieve tangible
results for the people most immediately around us.
Above all else, it seems to me that anarchism is resurgent because, in
some real sense, there is no place left for radicals to go in an age of
globalization.[77] The state has been made increasingly irrelevant by
ever more distant, yet ever more powerful corporations. The Old Left was
discredited for promoting centralized or bureaucratic governmental
solutions, while the New Left foundered on identity politics and the
aging of its cadres. Even feminism may have been both encompassed and
transcended by anarchism’s opposition to all relationships of power.[78]
Apparently, no extant ideology can serve our need for a secular
religion; nor does one seem likely to be invented in this cynical,
postmodern age. With the decline of politics, there is only culture.
With the decline of community, there is only oneself. In short, with the
long-term tension between political and cultural radicals clearly
decided in favor of the cultural ones, anarchy is indeed for anyone and
everyone.[79]
Certainly, anarchy is for anyone with a utopian bent, for anyone seeking
to explore a realm of infinite possibility, for anyone believing “that
everyone, not just a small elite, is entitled to a satisfactory
life.”[80] Perhaps it is this thoroughgoing radicalism that has made
anarchism the most viable worldview for radicals today. Contemporary
anarchism, Albert suggests, “is the widely awakening impetus to fight on
the side of the oppressed in every domain of life, from family, to
culture, to state, to economy, to the now very visible international
arena of ‘globalization,’ and to do so in creative and courageous ways
conceived to win improvements in people’s lives now while leading toward
new institutions in the future.”[81]
The metaphysical issues raised by today’s anarchism—rationalism versus
anti-rationalism, technology versus nature, creeds versus deeds—are not
only where we began, they must also be where we end. At present, no
single effort to call activists back to first principles or to get
theorists to focus on practical actions seems ready to bridge the chasms
in the anarchist movement. Anarchism today is theoretically diverse,
philosophically fragmented, and practically divided. Both the allure and
the frustrations of anarchism can be found in the observation that it
“is more than just a political philosophy; it is a way of life that
encompasses political, pragmatic, and personal aspects.”[82] Despite the
revived interest in anarchism brought about by the alternative
globalization movement, the sheer diversity of approaches to anarchist
thought and action may well make it difficult for a unified movement to
be identified, let alone built and sustained.
What, then, are the key elements of a metaphysic suitable for today’s
anarchists? One element that remains unquestioned is anarchism’s bedrock
commitment to opposing authoritarianism in almost any form. To be sure,
anarchists continually struggle against tendencies toward hierarchy and
authority, both in the broader society and in their own organizations.
Roberto Michel’s “iron law of oligarchy”—and the allied threats of
expertise and bureaucracy—remains a perpetual thorn in the side of
anarchist theory and practice. Still, despite the obstacles to
liberation that exist, few anarchist activists or theorists (whether
rationalist or not) could not be characterized as favoring both freedom
and equality. As Grubacic observes, anarchists “believe that human
freedom and happiness would be best guaranteed by a society based on
principles of self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid,
and because we reject all forms of social relations based on systemic
violence, such as the state or capitalism.”[83] Anarchists must
necessarily believe that humans can indeed pursue their own goals, can
indeed live in peace and harmony with others in society. In this sense,
the anarchist project is about the process of changing “our
relationships with each other, institutions, technology and our
environment.”[84]
Another noteworthy element of the anarchist metaphysic is that anarchism
can no longer be regarded as singular, let alone monolithic.
Fundamentally, anarchism is plural; it is a movement of movements.[85]
Today’s anarchists recognize (with radical feminists and
post-structuralists) that no one nexus of oppression exists; because
oppression comes from many sources, the theories and practices of
liberation also have to be multifaceted and open-ended. As a result,
anarchism has become a more synthetic ideology than it was in the
classical period. By expanding on anarchism’s traditional focus on
anti-authoritarianism, trying to comprehend the totality of domination,
today’s anarchists seek “to highlight not only the state but also gender
relations, and not only the economy but also cultural relations and
ecology, sexuality, and freedom in every form it can be sought, and each
not only through the sole prism of authority relations, but also
informed by richer and more diverse concepts.”[86]
Finally, contemporary anarchism, not unlike the anarchism of the past,
fundamentally remains a theory of practice, a tactical theory.
Propaganda of the deed, as opposed to the development of a “scientific
socialism,” was a central preoccupation for the classical anarchists.
That preoccupation has not dissipated among anarchists in the
twenty-first century. Indeed, given that contemporary anarchists have
adopted largely post-structuralist perspectives, they believe that doing
what one can, wherever one can, however one can, provides the only
prospect of making any headway in the battle against the machine. At
present, then, anarchist practice seems to focus on building a “transfer
culture”—a set of institutions, resources, skills, and experiences that
delegitimize authority and induce a change in perspective, all the while
insisting that there is an alternative to the present order.[87]
Anarchism thus “is not opposed to organization. It is about creating new
forms of organization. It is not lacking in ideology. Those new forms of
organization are its ideology. It is about creating and enacting
horizontal networks instead of top-down structures like states, parties
or corporations; networks based on principles of decentralized,
non-hierarchical consensus democracy.”[88]
[1] Anarchism has long been in and out of fashion. Its classical period,
extending from 1860 to 1939, is associated with the working-class
movements of the nineteenth century and the anti-fascist struggles of
the Spanish Civil War. See Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen,
“Introduction: Why Anarchism Still Matters,” in Jonathan Purkis and
James Bowen (eds), Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in
a Global Age (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), p. 3. In
the US context, we can point initially to the 1960s as a time of
revival, prior to the more recent one discussed here. Indicative of
anarchism’s vicissitudes are two collections of essays: Howard J.
Ehrlich, Carol Ehrlich, David DeLeon and Glenda Morris (eds),
Reinventing Anarchy: What Are Anarchists Thinking These Days? (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) and Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), Reinventing
Anarchy, Again (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1996).
[2] Karen Goaman, “The Anarchist Travelling Circus: Reflections on
Contemporary Anarchism, Anti-Capitalism and the International Scene,” in
Purkis and Bowen, Changing Anarchism, op. cit., pp. 163–180; David
Graeber, “The New Anarchists,” New Left Review 13 (2002), pp. 61–73;
Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), The Anarchist Papers (Montréal: Black Rose
Books, 2002); Jeff Shantz, “Beyond the State: The Return to Anarchy,”
disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory 12 (2003), pp. 87–103.
[3] By locutions such as “new anarchists” or “today’s anarchists,” I
mainly refer to anarchists writing in English, primarily in the United
States and Canada. Given the confines of the essay format, as well as
the diversity of anarchisms extant, any discussion of anarchist thought
and action will be necessarily partial and incomplete.
[4] Andrej Grubacic, “A Talk on Anarchism and the Left,” <
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID = 7716> (accessed
July 12, 2006). Cf. Purkis and Bowen, “Introduction,” op. cit.; Dave
Morland, “Anti-Capitalism and Poststructuralist Anarchism,” in Purkis
and Bowen, Changing Anarchism, op. cit., pp. 23–38.
[5] Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, revised
edition (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1996), p. 18.
[6] Andrej Grubacic, “Power and Revolution: The Anarchist Century,” <
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID = 10243> (accessed
July 12, 2006); Shantz, op. cit.; Nicolas Walter, About Anarchism,
updated edition (London: Freedom Press 2002); Tom Wetzel and Michael
Albert, “About Anarchism: Tom Wetzel Interviewed by Michael Albert,” <
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID = 5&ItemID = 4106>
(accessed July 12, 2006).
[7] Grubacic, “Power and Revolution,” op. cit.; Todd May, The Political
Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994); Morland, op. cit.
[8] Grubacic, “A Talk on Anarchism and the Left,” op. cit.
[9] Anarchist writings can be found online at Internet Anarchist
University < http://www.infoshop.org/iau.html>, An Anarchist Reading
List < http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-read.html>, Spunk Library <
http://www.spunk.org/>, and The Anarchist Library <
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/index.html>. Printed works by
anarchists may also be obtained through AK Press <
http://www.akpress.org/>, among other sources.
[10] Walter, op. cit., pp. 51–63.
[11] Samuel Huntington, “Conservatism as an Ideology,” American
Political Science Review 51:2 (1957), pp. 454–473.
[12] John Moore, “Prophets of the New World: Noam Chomsky, Murray
Bookchin, and Fredy Perlman,” <
http://www.nothingness.org/sociala/sa20/20moore.html> (accessed June 8,
2000).
[13] Alan Carter, “Analytical Anarchism: Some Conceptual Foundations,”
Political Theory 28:2 (2000), pp. 230–253.
[14] Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen describe this responsiveness to new
social movements as reflecting a paradigm shift within anarchism. See
Purkis and Bowen, “Introduction,” op. cit., p. 5.
[15] Walter, op. cit., p. 32.
[16] Noam Chomsky, “The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism,” in Barry
Pateman (ed.), Chomsky on Anarchism (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2005), p. 135.
[17] Noam Chomsky, “Goals and Visions,” in Pateman, op. cit., p. 191.
[18] Noam Chomsky, “Introduction,” in Daniel Guerin (ed.), Anarchism:
From Theory to Practice (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), pp.
vii–xx; “Notes on Anarchism,” in Pateman, op. cit., pp. 118–132.
[19] Noam Chomsky, “Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future,” in
Pateman, op. cit., p. 178.
[20] Chomsky, “The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism,” op. cit., p. 136.
[21] Chomsky, “Goals and Visions,” op. cit., p. 194; Chomsky,
“Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State,” in Pateman, op. cit., pp.
212–215.
[22] Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism (Montréal: Black Rose
Books, 1971).
[23] Bob Black, Anarchy after Leftism (Columbia, MO: Columbia
Alternative Library, 1997), pp. 76–87.
[24] Janet Biehl (ed.), The Murray Bookchin Reader (London: Cassell,
1997), pp. 40–41.
[25] Janet Biehl (ed.), The Murray Bookchin Reader (London: Cassell,
1997), p. 175.
[26] Janet Biehl (ed.), The Murray Bookchin Reader (London: Cassell,
1997), pp. 144–145; Bookchin, op. cit., p. 211.
[27] Biehl, op. cit., p. 170.
[28] Purkis and Bowen, “Introduction,” op. cit., pp. 2, 9.
[29] Noam Chomsky, “Interview with Barry Pateman,” in Pateman, op. cit.,
p. 222.
[30] Murray Bookchin, “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm,” <
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html>
(accessed June 4, 2000).
[31] Allan Antliff (ed.), Only a Beginning: An Anarchist Anthology
(Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2004), p. 51.
[32] Allan Antliff (ed.), Only a Beginning: An Anarchist Anthology
(Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2004), p. 101.
[33] Black, op. cit.
[34] David Watson, Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a Future Social Ecology
(Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1998).
[35] This is consistent with post-structuralist views of the
multifaceted nature of power and resistance. See May, op. cit.; Morland,
op. cit.
[36] Geov Parrish, “The New Anarchists,” <
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9935/features-parrish.shtml>
(accessed June 4, 2000).
[37] Steve Millett, “Technology Is Capital: Fifth Estate’s Critique of
the Megamachine,” in Purkis and Bowen, Changing Anarchism, op. cit., pp.
73–98; Michael Albert, “Anarchism = Zerzan?,” <
http://www.zmag.org/zerzan.htm> (accessed May 17, 2006).
[38] John Zerzan, Future Primitive and Other Essays (Brooklyn, NY:
Autonomedia, 1998).
[39] Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton,
1961).
[40] Zerzan, op. cit., p. 16.
[41] Millett, op. cit., pp. 73–98; John Moore, “A Primitivist Primer,” <
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/primer.html> (accessed June 16, 2000).
[42] John Zerzan, “Language: Origin and Meaning,” <
http://www.primitivism.com/language.htm> (accessed July 19, 2007).
[43] John Zerzan, “On the Transition: Postscript to Future Primitive,” <
http://www.primitivism.com/transit.htm> (accessed July 19, 2007).
[44] Hakim Bey, “Primitives and Extropians,” <
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/primitives.htm> (accessed July 19, 2007).
[45] Hakim Bey, “Boundary Violations,” <
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/boundary.html> (accessed July 19, 2007).
[46] Hakim Bey, T. A. Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological
Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, 2^(nd) ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 2003).
[47] Hakim Bey, T. A. Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological
Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 2^(nd) ed. 2003),
p. 12.
[48] Hakim Bey, “Millennium,” <
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/millennium.html> (accessed July
19, 2007).
[49] Bob Black, “My Anarchism Problem,” <
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp001644.html> (accessed
April 28, 2000), emphasis in original.
[50] Bob Black, “The Abolition of Work,” in Ehrlich, Reinventing
Anarchy, Again, op. cit., p. 246.
[51] Watson, op. cit., pp. 240–241.
[52] Antliff, op. cit., pp. 64–65.
[53] The range of anarchist thinking reflected here is profiled in James
Bowen, “Moving Targets: Rethinking Anarchist Strategies,” in Purkis and
Bowen, Changing Anarchism, op. cit., pp. 117–128.
[54] Albert, op. cit.
[55] Bookchin, “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism,” op. cit.
[56] Walter, op. cit., p. 63.
[57] Wetzel and Albert, op. cit.
[58] Graham Purchase, “Anarcho-Syndicalism, Technology and Ecology,” <
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/aste.html> (accessed June 10,
2000).
[59] Chaz Bufe, “A Future Worth Living!” <
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/future.html> (accessed June
10, 2000); “Listen, Anarchist!,” <
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/listen.html> (accessed June
10, 2000).
[60] Bufe, “A Future Worth Living!,” op. cit.
[61] Meltzer, op. cit., p. 61.
[62] Antliff, op. cit., p. 13.
[63] “What Do Anarchists Do?,” < http://www.infoshop.org/do.html>
(accessed June 11, 2000). Cf. Bowen, op. cit., and Goaman, op. cit.
[64] Chris Crass, “Towards a Non-Violent Society: A Position Paper on
Anarchism, Social Change and Food Not Bombs,” <
http://www.practicalanarchy.org/fnb_crass.html> (accessed June 8, 2000).
[65] “A Quick Guide to Anarchy for Journalists,” <
http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-QuickGuide.html> (accessed June 4, 2000).
[66] Abby Scher, “Anarchism Faces the ‘90s,” Dollars & Sense 222 (1999),
pp. 30–35.
[67] Dave Neal, “Anarchism: Ideology or Methodology?,” <
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/practice/sp001689.html> (accessed
April 23, 2000).
[68] Grubacic, “Power and Revolution,” op. cit.
[69] Grubacic, “Power and Revolution,” op. cit
[70] Scher, op. cit.
[71] Grubacic, “Power and Revolution,” op. cit.
[72] Walter, op. cit., pp. 12–13.
[73] Black, Anarchy after Leftism, op. cit., p. 145, emphasis in
original.
[74] “Black Bloc Interview,” in Roussopoulos, op. cit., pp. 186–190;
Peggy Kornegger, “Anarchism: The Feminist Connection,” in Ehrlich,
Reinventing Anarchy, Again, op. cit., pp. 160–162.
[75] May, op. cit.
[76] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[77] Graeber, op. cit.; Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen, “Conclusion:
How Anarchism Still Matters,” in Purkis and Bowen, Changing Anarchism,
op. cit., pp. 213–229; Shantz, op. cit.
[78]
L. Susan Brown, “Beyond Feminism: Anarchism and Human Freedom,” in
Ehrlich, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, op. cit., pp. 149–155.
[79] Christopher Lasch, “The Disintegration of the New Left,” in James
A. Gould and Willis H. Truitt (eds), Political Ideologies (New York:
Macmillan, 1973), pp. 336–346.
[80] Simon Read, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Anarchism, But
Were Afraid to Ask (London: Rebel Press, 2004), p. 12.
[81] Michael Albert, “Anarchism?!” ZNet (2001), <
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2001-2005/2010albert.htm>
(accessed May 17, 2006).
[82] Liz A. Highleyman, “An Introduction to Anarchism,” <
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html> (accessed July 19,
2007).
[83] Andrej Grubacic, “Towards Another Anarchism,” <
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID = 5&ItemID = 2991>
(accessed July 12, 2006).
[84] Bowen, op. cit., p. 119.
[85] Purkis and Bowen, “Conclusion,” op. cit., p. 213.
[86] Grubacic, “Power and Revolution,” op. cit.; Michael Albert,
“Anarchism Today,” <
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-08/07albert.htm> (accessed
August 7, 2006).
[87] Howard J. Ehrlich, “How to Get from Here to There: Building
Revolutionary Transfer Culture,” in Ehrlich, Reinventing Anarchy, Again,
op. cit., pp. 331–349.
[88] Graeber, op. cit., p. 70.