1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
|
<html>
<head>
<title>An Anarchist FAQ after ten years</title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="center">
<h1>An Anarchist FAQ after ten years</h1>
</div>
It is now ten years since <a href="http://www.infoshop.org/faq">"An Anarchist FAQ"</a> (AFAQ) was
officially released. A lot has happened over that time,
unfortunately finishing it has not been one of them!
<p>
Over that decade, AFAQ has changed considerably. It was
initially conceived as a energy-saving device to stop
anarchists having to continually make the same points
against claims that "anarcho"-capitalism was a form of
anarchism. As would be expected, the quality of the initial
versions was pretty mixed. Most of it was extremely good
(even if we do say so ourselves!) and has required little
change over the decade (mostly we have built upon and
expanded the original material). A few bits were less good
and have been researched more and rewritten. We have also,
of course, made mistakes and corrected them when we have
been informed about them or have discovered them ourselves.
<p>
In general, though, our initial work has stood up well and
while we were occasionally wrong on a few details, the general
thrust of even these areas has been proven correct. Overall,
our aim to produce an FAQ which reflected the majority of
anarchist thought, both currently and historically from an
international perspective, has been a success as shown by
the number of mirrors, links and translations AFAQ has seen
(being published by AK Press confirms this).
<p>
Since the official release, AFAQ has changed. When we
released it back in 1996, we had already decided to
make it a FAQ about anarchism rather than an FAQ on why
anarchism is anti-capitalist. However, the first versions
still bore the marks of its origins. We realised that this
limited it somewhat and we have slowly revised the AFAQ so
that it has become a resource about anarchism (indeed, if
it were to be started again the section on "anarcho"-capitalism
would be placed into an appendix, where it belongs). This
means that the aim of AFAQ has changed. I would say that it
has two related goals:
<p><blockquote>
1. To present the case for anarchism, to convince people they
should become anarchists.
<p>
2. To be a resource for existing anarchists, to use to bolster
their activism and activities by presenting facts, arguments
and figures to allow them to defend anarchism against those
opposed to it (Marxists, capitalists, etc.).
</blockquote><p>
Te second goal explains why, for example, we spend a lot of time
refuting capitalist economics and Marxism/Leninism (partly,
because many of the facts and arguments are in academic books
which are unavailable to the general public). We hope that
AFAQ has proved useful to our comrades as much as we hope we have
convinced non-anarchists, at best, to become anarchists, or,
at worse, to take our ideas seriously. Hopefully, the two aims
are mutually complementary.
<p>
Not only as AFAQ changed over the last ten years, so has the
anarchist and general political landscape on the internet.
When AFAQ was being initially created, the number of anarchists
on-line was small. There were not that many anarchist webpages
and, relatively speaking, right-wing "libertarians" were un-opposed
in arguing that "anarcho"-capitalism was a form of anarchism (the
only FAQ was Caplan's biased and inaccurate "Anarchist Theory FAQ").
As a non-American, I was surprised that this oxymoron even existed
(I still am, as are all the anarchists I mention it to). Anarchism
has always been a <b>socialist</b> theory and the concept of an
"anarchism" which supported the economic system anarchism was
born opposing is nonsense. Arguing with its supporters and reading
up on it convinced me that the only real link it has with anarchism
is simply its attempted appropriation of the name. [1] Hence the
pressing need for a <b>real</b> anarchist FAQ, a need AFAQ successfully
met.
<p>
Luckily, over the 1990s things changed. More anarchists went online,
anarchist organisations created a web presence and the balance of
forces changed to reflect reality (i.e. there are far more anarchists
than "anarcho"-capitalists). The anti-capitalist movement helped,
putting anarchists back in the news (the BBC even linked to AFAQ
for those interested in finding out what anarchists wanted!) Even
in the USA, things got better and after Seattle genuine anarchism
could no longer be ignored. This produced some articles by
"anarcho"-capitalists, explaining how there are two forms of
anarchism and that the two have nothing or little in common (if
that is the case, why call your ideology anarchism?). Anarchist
organisations and activism increased and the awareness that anarchism
was anti-hierarchy, anti-state <b>and</b> anti-capitalist increased.
As an added bonus, some genuine individualist anarchists appeared,
refuting the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism was merely a form of
"updated" individualist anarchism. All these developments were
welcomed, as were the words of praise and encouragement we received
for our work on AFAQ from many anarchists (including, it must be
stressed, individualist ones). Today, genuine anarchism in all its
forms has a much greater profile, as is anarchist opposition to
"anarcho"-capitalism and its claims. We hope AFAQ played a role,
however small, in that process.
<p>
Of course, the battle is not over. On Wikipedia, for example,
right-"libertarians" are busy trying to rewrite the history of
anarchism. Some anarchists have tried to counteract this attempt,
and have meant with differing degrees of success. We urge you to
get involved, if you have the time and energy as numbers, sadly,
do seem to count. This is because we anarchists are up against
people who, apparently, do not have a life and so can wage a war
of attrition against those who try and include relevant facts to
the entries (such as the obvious anti-capitalism of "traditional"
anarchism, that anarchism is <b>not</b> compatible with government or
hierarchy -- hence an-<b>archy</b>! -- or that calling yourself an
anarchist does not necessarily make it so). It is a shame that
such a promising project has been derailed by ideologues whose
ignorance of the subject matter is matched only by their hatred
of AFAQ which they deny is a "credible" or valid reference on
anarchism.
<p>
I am not surprised that AFAQ is hated by the "libertarian" right
(nor will I be surprised if it is equally hated by the authoritarian
left). After all, it presents the case for genuine anarchism,
exposes the claims of a capitalist "anarchism" for the nonsense
they are and shows how deeply authoritarian right-wing "libertarianism"
actually is. That the FAQ can be called "biased" by these people
goes without saying (it is, after all, a FAQ about anarchism
written by anarchists). What seems funny is that they just do not
comprehend that anarchists take offence to their pretensions of
labelling their ideology "anarchism," that we would seek to refute
such claims and that their notion that "anarcho"-capitalism is
anarchist is far more biased. Let us hope that more academics
will pay attention to this and the obvious fact that there is a very
long list of anarchists, famous and not-so-famous, who consider the
whole concept an oxymoron.
<p>
Equally unsurprising is the attempt to deny that AFAQ is a valid
reference on Wikipedia. This boils down to the claim that the
authors are "nobodies." Given that Kropotkin always stressed that
anarchism was born from the people, I take that intended insult
as a badge of pride. I have always taken the position that it is
not who says something that counts, but what they say. In other
words, I would far sooner quote a "nobody" who knows what they
are talking about than a "somebody" who does not. As AFAQ
indicates with its many refutations of straw man arguments
against anarchism, there are plenty of the latter. Ultimately,
the logical conclusion of such an argument is that anarchists
are not qualified to discuss anarchism, an inherently silly
position but useful if you are seeking to turn anarchism into
something it is not.
<p>
Given that even such an usually reliable expert as the late,
great, Paul Avrich made mistakes, this position is by far
the most sensible. Between what a suitably qualified "expert"
writes and what actual anarchists say and do, I always go
for the latter. Any serious scientist would do so, but
sadly many do not -- instead, we get ideology. A
classic example is Eric Hobsbawm's thesis on "Primitive
Rebels" which he decided to illustrate, in part, with the
example of Spanish anarchism. As we recount as part of our
appendix on "Marxism and Spanish Anarchism" while being
undoubtedly a "somebody" and immensely qualified to write
on the subject, his account was utter nonsense. This was
proven beyond doubt when an anthologist interviewed the
survivors of the Casas Viejas massacre. Their account of
the event had only appeared previously in anarchist papers
at the time and both, needless to say, refuted Hobsbawm.
<p>
So, to be called a "nobody" is quite a complement, given
how many of the "somebodies" have not stopped being ignorant
of anarchism from putting pen to paper and exposing that
ignorance to the world (the worse recent example of this,
outside of Marxism, must be George Monbiot's terrible comments
in his "Age of Consent"). So, when it comes to saying what
anarchism is, I turn to anarchists. This is what the "experts"
should be doing anyway if they were doing their job, although
some do not.
<p>
Are we "qualified" to write about anarchism? Well, the
the collective has always been made up of anarchists,
so we have an anarchist FAQ written by anarchists. It has
always been a popular site, given the number of mirrors,
translations and links it has been given (one mirror called
it "world famous"). It is being published by AK Press, one
of the leading anarchist publishers in the world.
<p>
I am the main editor and contributor to AFAQ. While one
contributor to Wikipedia claimed I as an American academic,
this is not the case. I have a "real" job and work on AFAQ in
my spare time (I do despair when people, particularly leftists,
assume that wage slaves are incapable of producing works like
AFAQ). I have been always been an anarchist since becoming
politically aware which means I have been an anarchist activist
for approximately 20 years (time flies when you are having
fun!). I have been a member of numerous anarchist groups
and have contributed to many anarchist publications and websites.
As can be seen from my personal webpage [2], I regularly
contribute articles to <b>Freedom</b> (the leading English-language
anarchist newspaper). Rarely does an issue come out without
something by me it in. Moreover, some of the longer articles
have appeared in <b>Black Flag</b> (before and after I joined
its editorial committee). My works have also been published in
<b>Scottish Anarchist</b>, <b>Anarcho-Syndicalist Review</b> and <b>Free
Voices</b> and some have been translated into other languages. I
am also an invited columnist for the
<a href="http://www.infoshop.org">www.infoshop.org</a> and
<a href="http://www.anarkismo.net">www.anarkismo.net</a> webpages (neither of which I am otherwise
involved with). In addition, I have been invited to speak at
anarchist conferences in Scotland and Ireland, as well as by
Marxist parties to debate the merits of anarchism. Due to
family commitments, my specifically anarchist activities are
pretty much limited to writing these days, but I remain a
reasonably active trade unionist.
<p>
I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether we are
"qualified" to write about anarchism or not!
<p>
But as I said, I always consider what is said more important than
who says it. The fact that AFAQ is so popular with anarchists is
what counts and I hope that we continue to be. We are always
looking for help and suggestions, so if you want to get involved
or want something added or changed, please contact us -- we
consider AFAQ as a resource for anarchists and we want it to
reflect what anarchists think and do. [3] However, if you do want
something changed or added be prepared to do some or all of the
work yourself as we have our own plans on future developments
and may not be able to provide the time or energy for other
changes. Also, if you spot a mistake or a typo, please inform us
as no matter how often we check things errors do creep in. We
take our task seriously and correct all errors when informed
of them (differences in interpretation or terminology are not,
of course, errors). [4]
<p>
Speaking personally, I have enjoyed being part of this project. I
have learned a lot and have gained a better understanding of many
anarchist thinkers and historical events. For example, I can
now understand why Daniel Guerin was so interested in Proudhon
and why it has been a crying shame that Voltairine de Cleyre's
works have been unavailable for 8 decades. As such, my
understanding and appreciation of anarchism has been enriched
by working on AFAQ and I hope that others have had a similar
experience reading it. On the negative side, I've had to
read some terrible books and articles but very few, if any, of
those were anarchist. But this is minor. The work has been worth
it and while it has taken longer than any of us had imagined at
the start, I'm glad that we are still working on it ten years
later as AFAQ is much improved for all that time and energy.
If nothing else, this work has reinforced my belief in the
positive ideas and ideals of anarchism and confirmed why I
am became an anarchist so long ago. And, let me be honest, I
would not do it unless I enjoyed it!
<p>
What of the future? Obviously, we know that AFAQ is not the final
word on anarchism (we have always stressed that this is <b>An</b>
Anarchist FAQ and not "The Anarchist FAQ," although some do call
it that). The immediate aim is to revise the existing main
sections of AFAQ for publication, which we are slowly doing. In
the process some previous work is being added to and, in some
cases, totally revised. After ten years, our knowledge of many
subjects has expanded considerably. We have also asked a couple
of individualist anarchist comrades to have a look over section
G and hopefully their input will flesh out that section when it
comes to be revised (for all its flaws, individualist anarchism
deserves far more than to be appropriated by the right and social
anarchists should be helping its modern supporters attempts to
reclaim their radical tradition). [5] Once the revision of the main
body of AFAQ is complete, the appendix on the Russian Revolution
will be finished and then all the appendices will be revised.
<p>
After that, AFAQ will be added to once new information becomes
available and new anarchist social movements and ideas develop.
We have not covered everything nor does AFAQ discussed all
developments within anarchism in all countries. If you think we
have missed something, then contact us and we can arrange to
include the subject and issues missing. As noted above, though,
do <b>not</b> expect us to do all the work for you. This is a resource
for the movement and, as such, we expect fellow anarchists to
help out beyond merely suggesting things they expect <b>others</b>
to do!
<p>
Hopefully, after summarising 19th and 20th century anarchism,
the anarchists of the 21st century will use that to build and
develop new ideas and movements and create both viable anarchist
alternatives under statism and capitalism and, eventually,
a free society. Whether we do so or not is, ultimately, up to
us. Let us hope we can rise to the challenge! I do hope that
anarchists can rise above the often silly arguments that we
often inflict on each other and concentrate on the 90%+ that
unites us rather than the often insignificant differences
some consider so important. One thing is sure, if we do not then
the worse will happen.
<p>
Finally, another personal note. On the way to work, I go past a
little park. This little oasis of green in the city is a joy to
behold, more so since someone has added this piece of graffiti
to one of its walls:
<div align="center"><p>
<i>"Resistance is <b>never</b> futile! Have a nice day, y'all. Love
Friday, XXX"</i>
</div><p>
With that in mind, we dedicate the ten year anniversary release
of "An Anarchist FAQ" to all those "nobodies," all those anarchists
who are not famous or have the appropriate "qualifications",
but whose activity, thoughts, ideas, ideals, dreams and hopes
give the "somebodies" something to write about (even if they fail
to get some, or even all of it, right).
<p>
Iain McKay
<p>
<u><b>Notes</b></u>
<p>
1. While "anarcho"-capitalism has some overlap with individualist
anarchism, it lacks the radical and socialist sensibility and aims
of the likes of Tucker which makes the latter anarchist, albeit a
flawed and inconsistent form. Unlike the former, individualist
anarchism <b>can</b> become consistent anarchism by simply applying
its own principles in a logical manner.
<p>
2. Under my pseudonym "Anarcho" (given what's on it, I'm surprised
I bother using "Anarcho" these days as it is obvious who writes the
articles). It is available here: <a href="http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html">http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html</a>
<p>
3. Apologies for those who sent emails over the years and never
received a reply -- some were lost and, given how much busy we
are, emails are always the first to suffer.
<p>
4. For a discussion of one early incident, mentioned in the Wikipedia
entry on AFAQ, see my article (<i>"An Anarchist FAQ, David Friedman and
Medieval Iceland"</i> on my webpage). Suffice to say, once we became
aware of his new criticism this year (Friedman did not bother to inform
us directly), we sped up our planned revision and expansion of that
section and corrected the few mistakes that had remained. In summary,
it can be said our original critique remained valid in spite of some
serious errors in details caused by a failure to check sources in a
rush to officially release it. We learned our lesson and try not to
make the same mistake again (and have not, as far as I am aware).
<p>
5. A few people have said that AFAQ does not give equal billing to
individualist anarchism. However, in terms of numbers and influence
it has always been very much a minority trend in anarchism outside of
America. By the 1880s, this was probably the case in America as well
and by the turn of the 20th century it was definitely the case (as
noted by, among others, Paul Avrich). As such, it is hardly a flaw
that AFAQ has presented the majority position on anarchism (social
anarchism), particularly as this is the position of the people
involved.
</body>
</html>
|
