💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › jon-bekken-an-anarchist-faq.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:03:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: An Anarchist FAQ Author: Jon Bekken Date: 2013 Language: en Topics: book review, An Anarchist FAQ, Iain McKay, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review Source: Retrieved on 28th January 2021 from https://syndicalist.us/2013/05/08/an-anarchist-faq/ Notes: From Anarcho-Syndicalist Review #59, Winter 2013
Iain McKay, An Anarchist FAQ Volume 1 (AK Press, 2008), 555 pages, $25
paper. Volume 2 (AK Press, 2012), 561 pages, $25 paper.
This two-volume compilation includes the great bulk of the material
assembled online in the Anarchist FAQ by ASR contributor Iain McKay and
other comrades over more than a decade. Established to confront
misrepresentations of anarchism that have proliferated particularly in
the online universe (allegedly anarchist tendencies exist there that
have no apparent manifestation in the material world in which the rest
of us live), AFAQ quickly evolved into a much broader overview of
anarchism, as a social movement and as a set of ideas.
It is impossible to do justice to the 1,136 pages in these two volumes.
Volume 1 opens (after three introductions which explain the origins and
evolution of the project) with an overview of anarchism, followed by
sections explaining why anarchists oppose hierarchy, capitalism and the
state; summarizing the anarchist critique of capitalist economics;
reviewing how statism and capitalism operate as an intertwined system of
exploitation and oppression; offering an anarchist analysis of the
ecological crisis, and refuting the notion that there could be some sort
of “anarcho”-capitalism. An appendix reviews the origins of three major
anarchist symbols: the black flag, the red-and-black flag and the
circled A. Volume 2 opens with a survey of individualist anarchism,
which remains implacably hostile to capitalism despite its differences
with the social anarchism embraced by most anarchists; followed by an
explanation of why anarchists (who McKay rightly insists are part of the
broader socialist movement) reject state socialism; an overview of
anarchist thinking about the shape of a future, free society; a section
addressing contemporary anarchist practice (involvement in social
struggles, direct action, organizational approaches, alternative social
organizations, child rearing, and social revolution); followed by a
brief bibliography.
Each major section is divided into smaller sections and subsections
(presented in question form and using an outline numbering system that
probably works better online) addressing specific aspects of the topic.
The writing and organization are clear, if rarely captivating, and the
tone is reasoned and constructive. However, at times, McKay does show
his exasperation with the persistent misrepresentations of the Marxists
and the “anarcho”-capitalists (who, as he rightly points out, have
nothing whatsoever to do with anarchism and receive attention here far
out of proportion to their actual significance in the world in large
part because of their early adoption of and highly vocal presence on the
Internet). Evidently, the ravings of the “anarcho”-primitivists have
received less attention online and so they pass unmentioned here. As the
book is devoted to political and social thought and action, there is
also virtually no attention given to anarchist tendencies in art and
literature, or to the post-modern “anarchisms” which dominate so much
academic publishing on the subject of late.
McKay and his fellow contributors give serious consideration even to
anarchist tendencies with which they clearly disagree. Thus,
platformism, syndicalism and synthesis all receive respectful treatment,
presenting the arguments proffered for and against. Thus, Bookchin’s
libertarian municipalism is presented on its own terms before a short
critical assessment (1092–93). (This tolerant policy can extend too far,
as with the citations to the notorious police informer Bob Black, who
can evidently be excerpted to make it appear as if he has a coherent
social analysis, though nothing could be further from the truth.) Here
and throughout the two volumes there is heavy reliance on direct
quotations. The FAQ draws upon and tends to synthesize a wide array of
(primarily anarchist) sources, in keeping with its broader mission of
presenting a broad anarchist approach to a general public, rather than
exploring differences within the movement or advocating for a particular
school of thought. The emphasis is definitely upon the classics of
anarchist thought, but McKay and his contributors have read widely and
include citations not only to anarchist writers but also to social
scientists and historians whose work tends (whether intended to or not)
to bolster the anarchist position.
By way of summation, and to give a bit of the flavor of the whole, I
will briefly discuss Section I: What would an anarchist society look
like? This 168-page section is broken up into subsections on libertarian
socialism, a discussion of the balance between the insanity of drafting
blueprints for the future and thinking about the sort of society we wish
to build, considerations of the structural aspects of an anarchist
economy and an anarchist society, consideration of how an anarchist
economy might function, a review of the Spanish Revolution as an example
of anarchism in practice (if also under severe constraints), and short
discussions of the balance between individualism and society and the
so-called Tragedy of the Commons.
This is a lot of terrain to cover, but the questions are essential.
McKay’s discussion is grounded in the classics, and (correctly)
presuppose that anarchism represents a particular strand of socialism,
quoting Bakunin:
We are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege and
injustice, and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
(839)
The text then methodically establishes the necessity of socialism, the
practicality of our vision, explains why any lover of freedom must
reject markets, and refutes the absurd (but oft-preached) notion that
capitalism distributes social resources efficiently. And that’s just the
first 30 pages. The section refutes mainstream economists’ critiques of
self-management (critiques based not on examining actual practice but
rather on mental exercises based on assumptions that nowhere exist), and
reviews the long history of self-management in practice.
However, as McKay argues, social ownership of the means of life, and of
production, is essential to any meaningful freedom. While anarchists
have advocated for different methods for distributing the product of our
necessarily social labor, and hence for different systems for organizing
the economy, all anarchist visions are necessarily based upon social
ownership and free access to the means of production. McKay explores the
ways in which overlapping federations of syndicates and associations
(most organized for specific purposes, as anarchists have generally been
skeptical of schemes which try to centralize the entire sphere of human
life into a single, totalized organization) can cooperate to meet the
incredibly varied range of human needs and desires.
Throughout, McKay raises and refutes the objections we have all heard a
thousand times, not only theoretically but with extensive examples from
real life (something far more congenial to anarchist theory than to the
doctrines of either the capitalists or the state socialists). Anarchism,
he shows (like Kropotkin and Dolgoff before) offers an eminently
practical approach ideally suited to coordinating large, complex
societies.
My main objection to this section is the part where McKay suggests (to
quote the title) that “anarchists desire to abolish work.” In the actual
text, he is more clear, noting that
Work (in the sense of doing necessary things or productive activity)
will always be with us. There is no getting away from it; crops need to
be grown, schools built, homes fixed, and so on. No, work in this
context means any form of labor in which the worker does not control his
or her own activity.
But what purpose is served by using commonly understood terms such as
“work” in so technical a way? It must necessarily lead to confusion, on
the one hand, and on the other enable charlatans such as the
aforementioned Bob Black to sneak their obfuscations into the anarchist
camp. Far better to speak of wage slavery, or, as Chomsky often does, to
authoritarianism in the economic sphere.
Far too much of our labor is of course wasted under present
arrangements, and our workplaces are sites of subjugation and misery. In
an economy controlled by workers and organized around meeting human
needs, we could soon slash the work week to 16 hour or less, reorganize
workplaces to make them both safer and more fulfilling, abolish the
ruthless division of labor that has some think and others serving as the
minions of those who decide, and redirect the entire sphere of
production in fundamental ways. This would transform our relation to our
work, as well as to the products of our labor. But while we might well
take genuine pleasure from joining with our fellow workers to fulfill
our needs and our desires, not all work will be pleasurable in and of
itself, as is suggested here.
Anarchists have not come to agreement as to how production will be
coordinated and social priorities decided upon, and so McKay leaves
these questions open (while discussing some of the leading proposals).
This is an issue ASR has been exploring in our series on anarchist
economics, and which I suspect is at the root of the otherwise
inexplicable attraction many feel to the Parecon scheme. Personally, I
find Kropotkin’s treatment of these issues more compelling, even if it
is a century old. AFAQ does effectively integrate the experience of the
Spanish Revolution (also presented in a well-crafted 31-page section
that concludes this chapter) into the discussion. But in general, I fear
the pluralistic approach embraced in this treatment – while capturing
the diversity of the movement – undermines the coherence of the
argument, as well as eliding the congruence between our broader social
visions and the means we advocate that is one of the unique strengths of
the anarcho-syndicalist approach.
In short, McKay and his fellow contributors have made a substantial
contribution in creating and maintaining the online introduction to
anarchism, and refutation of the endless objections of those who can not
conceive of a society free of oppression and exploitation. It will serve
as an invaluable reference to those unfamiliar with our ideas and our
movement, or to those who have recently embraced anarchism but have yet
to explore and reflect upon the tradition. However, its breadth and
pluralism are both its greatest strength and its most notable weakness.