Just Couldn’t Finish Reading: Anarchism – A Beginner’s Guide by Ruth Kinna (FP: 2005) [173pp]
My first DNF of the year! This actually surprised me a bit. I’ve been interested, if not a fully paid-up fanboy, of Anarchism since at least my late teens/early 20’s and not just in the usual ‘youth’ mould of hating ‘The System’ and wanting to be ‘Free’. For a while there I was actually on a mailing list from an Anarchist bookshop in London (pre-Internet life!!) so was probably on a file somewhere in the depths of MI5 HQ. I became very interested in the early Anarchist works and appreciated what they were trying to get at. Unfortunately, this particular volume didn’t rekindle my love of the subject in the way I’d expected.
It’s hard to pin down exactly why I decided not to finish this – after around 75 pages. It was definitely ‘dry’ whilst covering ground I was mostly familiar with. I think my problem was that the author seemed to be focused on the *many* strands of Anarchism (some of which were frankly contradictory on the face of it) and then proceeded to say how each strand differed on its position to Power, the State and much else besides. Keeping track of who believed what and why quickly gave me a headache. I think it would’ve been a better approach to cover the *wide* movement withing Anarchism and then detail each individual thought stream and outline their beliefs on a host of topics. Sure, you’d have to cover some ground multiple times, but I think that would’ve made for a more coherent approach – but that’s just me!
Anarchists (apart from the bomb throwing variety in the 19th century – which I really need to read up on) definitely have my sympathies even if I don’t regard or call myself an Anarchist. For those who don’t yet know I’m primarily a Socialist with other Left-wing affinities. Some Anarchist thought certainly resonates with me, but from the Socialist wing so if push came to shove, you’d probably find me aligned with the Anarcho-Syndicalists. Actually, my interest in Anarchism is one reason why I’m interested in the Spanish Civil War where, I think, Anarchism had a real chance to achieve something major in world politics. George Orwell was certainly impressed with them when he fought in Spain and, from what I know about them, they deserve that high regard. Anyway, despite this book not being for me (and not being recommended especially as a ‘beginner’s guide) I’ll be reading more about this odd-ball political philosophy in the coming months.
[Labels Added: 0, Labels Total: 69]
8 comments:
I have a volume on anarchism (of all stripes, I believe) that's been sitting on my shelves already. As you know, I share similar inclinations though from a different angle. I got interested in it via the left, when I was in college and reading Emma Goldman, and sometimes called myself a "left libertarian". One problem I had at the time (and still do) was that I can't imagine what a stable anarcho-syndicalist society would look like. That's probably why by 2013 I'd dropped the "left" part -- especially seeing as I'd already begun embracing a more organic rather than functional view of society. When I was trying to articulate my view of an ideal society, it was a small town surrounded by fields in which the stores and farms were all locally owned and operated, and the town was essentially one integrated unit. (Hence my interest in distributism, which is bascially that vision but with -ism appended to it.) A lot of libertarians double as anarchists, including Michael Malice, but I think at heart I'm just a communitarian who hates the state, hates corporations, and distrusts anyone planning other people's lives. My ability to embrace right-anarchism is largely limited by (1) the fact that humans are inevitably tribal/gang oriented and power structures always create themselves, from organized crime to the state, and (2), corporations are another power structure and are no less potentially tyrannical than gangs/state. There's a strong argument that governments are responsible for creating monopolies by creating the legal fiction of corporations to begin with, but as far as I can tell, Google's power was gained through people voluntarily surrendering to it.
I've thought (and mentioned) before that we have very similar political beliefs (generally) except you come at things from the Right & I come at things from the Left. Maybe its as simple as the fact that you grew up in a small town surrounded by farms and I grew up in a fairly big city surrounded by factories. Liverpool has a *long* and radical political history which I probably took in with my mother's milk. It was, at least for a while, the centre of Trotskyism in England!
This book mentioned the WIDE spectrum of Anarchism (or at least people who *call* themselves Anarchists - including the Libertarian end of things...). I actually think the [main?] difference between us is that we both see the same problems but we just disagree on the solutions. I'm sure that we'd probably come to a fair accommodation over a few beers! [lol]
We are indeed Tribal and I completely disagree with the idea that we're atomised self-seeking individuals and nothing else. I think that's a huge part of the overall problem of modern society - the fact that some people think we can ignore our own biology and anthropology with impunity. We can't. We're APES who sometimes believe that culture is more fundamental than DNA. Power structures do indeed self generate. It's inevitable given our *long* history as a species. The 'trick' is to get the right power structure. Corporations have one focus - money/profit. Remember that and you can understand what they do. Governments also have one focus - power. Ditto.
Yeah, sorry about the whole 'corporation' thing... We did that..... But it seemed like a good idea at the time and it did give us control of India for a few generations before we had to run it directly....
Well, the funny thing is that I re-entered the right FROM the left...or at least, parts of my thinking that were right-oriented didn't come into focus until I began engaging intellectually with politics, which at the time would have been left-oriented. Thereafter the two sympathies tended to shape the other in odd ways. One of my early grievances with industrial capitalism, for instance, was its destruction of human culture, replaced with homogenization and consumer-culture. This attachment to culture and tradition could be (and did) get me dismissed from leftist circles like RevLeft back in the day, but I defended it on evolutionary grounds: culture is what MAKES the human story possible. When I began exploring market libertarianism, it was from the basis of attacking poverty: I'd started realizing that the state is often an impediment to people creating value and getting ahead, sometimes from Good Intentions and sometimes because it's being used by vested interests. A salient example would be occupational licensing -- there's a documentary out there on a young black woman who wanted to go into business braiding hair, but she wasn't allowed to without laying out five figures to get a barber/cosmetology license. Licensing makes theoretical sense in high-risk areas like medicine and electrical work, but is largely redundant when there are voluntary trade certifications. CompTia certifies people who pass several exams on software and hardware, for instance, and the A+ certification is an entry ticket into IT support careers. I could go on and on about regulatory capture – corporations backing regulations that they already comply with, but which kneecap smaller competitors. This is a big deal in the food industry, as I’ve learned from Pollan, Salatin, etc. I have this right-left fusion when it comes to responding to issues of the day – for me the consequences of government/corporate policy for the working class are the same as those consequences on the family, since people are generally working to create & support their families. That’s one of the reasons I’m a little intrigued at some threads of the populism that’s steadily rising in the GOP – because they’re starting to realize that some pro-market decisions can have some good effects on families, but at the same time have bad effects. That thread has been there for a long time (one of my relatives regards Clinton with contempt not because of Monica Lewinsky, but because of NAFTA) but these days it’s growing. What I see on the other side is uninspiring at best and revolting at worst, unfortunately: there are a few people with nuance and ideas, like Andrew Yang, but on the whole it’s all “Let’s create a government program to do things”. At this point, I’m 11 years sold on the idea that emergent bottom-up solutions are better than top-down command/control solutions – and part of my brain now has a permanent market libertarian tenant who constantly argues with the other parts. This is why I joke that I don’t even agree with myself some of the time.
Arguing with yourself is how you improve your ideas.
Came for the 19th century anarchists, stayed for the Andrew Yang reference... XD Both of you shared some interesting thoughts!
Have either of you read The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad? I have not read it fully, but it is about this topic.
Right now I'm reading a book of local history called Massacred for Gold. It's a well-researched piece on a horrific crime that occurred in the 1880s. One would assume that this region was largely self-governed, and to be sure, it wasn't like the federal government was heavily involved in day-to-day affairs. But certain figures and families would rise to prominence and become forces (for good or evil) in their communities. I'm not sure these expressions of local power were much pleasanter to deal with... you've got just as much a problem on your hands if your neighbor is stealing your horses vs Uncle Sam taking a too-large cut of your income. Regional culture also takes effect, so that I am not sure if they were less homogenized than we are, maybe just at a smaller scale.
Speaking of organized crime... I had mentioned this current reading to another friend, and that led to him getting me up-to-speed on the modern-day Mafia in Sicily. Disturbing stuff.
Interesting thoughts are what we do here - at least sometimes... [grin]
I read 'Secret Agent' back in 2014. My review is here:
https://cyberkittenspot.blogspot.com/2014/02/just-finished-reading-secret-agent-by.html
It was an interesting, if somewhat slow, book. I should try more Conrad next year.
One of the things that Anarchists are quite clear about is that rejection of the State and even power structures, does not mean rejection of organisation. Certainly as far as I know there's no rejection of the Group in favour of absolute Individuality. But I haven't read any Anarchist stuff for ages (not counting this fail) so my memory/knowledge is more than a little rusty at this point.
If you are interested in exploring anarchism further, a good place to look is in the fiction of Joseph Conrad. His novel, The Secret Agent, has a nice take on anarchists who are not particularly effective, but worth reading about, if for no other reason than to enjoy Conrad's beautiful prose.
James, I think I was responding to Marian's question about that very same book when you posted your question.
I read 'Secret Agent' back in 2014. My review is here:
https://cyberkittenspot.blogspot.com/2014/02/just-finished-reading-secret-agent-by.html
I should be sampling Conrad again next year - probably 'Lord Jim'.
Post a Comment