                      An Anarchist FAQ after ten years

   It is now ten years since [1]"An Anarchist FAQ" (AFAQ) was officially
   released. A lot has happened over that time, unfortunately finishing it
   has not been one of them!

   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 and sections were 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. 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).

   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:

     1. To present the case for anarchism, to convince people they should
     become anarchists.

     2. To be a resource for existing anarchists, to use to bolster their
     activism and activities by presenting facts and arguments to allow
     them to defend anarchism against those opposed to it (Marxists,
     capitalists, etc.).

   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.

   Not only has 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 socialist
   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 real anarchist FAQ, a need AFAQ
   successfully met.

   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 and 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.

   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 not compatible with government or hierarchy -- hence
   an-archy! -- 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.

   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.

   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.

   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.

   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.

   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.

   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
   Freedom (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 Black Flag (before and after I joined
   its editorial committee). My works have also been published in Scottish
   Anarchist, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review and Free Voices and some have
   been translated into other languages. I am also an invited columnist
   for the [2]www.infoshop.org and [3]www.anarkismo.net 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.

   I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether we are "qualified"
   to write about anarchism or not!

   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 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]

   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 became an anarchist so long ago. And, let me be honest,
   I would not do it unless I enjoyed it!

   What of the future? Obviously, we know that AFAQ is not the final word
   on anarchism (we have always stressed that this is An 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.

   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 not 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 others to do!

   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.

   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:

   "Resistance is never futile! Have a nice day, y'all. Love Friday, XXX"

   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).

   Iain McKay

   Notes

   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 can
   become consistent anarchism by simply applying its own principles in a
   logical manner.

   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:
   [4]http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html

   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.

   4. For a discussion of one early incident, mentioned in the Wikipedia
   entry on AFAQ, see my article ("An Anarchist FAQ, David Friedman and
   Medieval Iceland" 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).

   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.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/index.html
   2. http://www.infoshop.org/
   3. http://www.anarkismo.net/
   4. http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html
