                   An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 1

   As many anarchists have noted, our ideal must be one of the most
   misunderstood and misrepresented political theories on the planet. "An
   Anarchist FAQ" (AFAQ) aims to change this by presenting the basics of
   anarchist theory and history, refuting the most common distortions and
   nonsense about it and providing anarchists with a resource they can use
   to aid their arguments and struggles for freedom. This is important, as
   much of the ground covered in AFAQ was provoked by having to critique
   other theories and refute attacks on anarchism.

   Anarchism has changed over the years and will continue to evolve and
   change as circumstances do likewise and new struggles are fought and
   (hopefully) won. It is not some fixed ideology, but rather a means of
   understanding an evolving world and to change it in libertarian
   directions. As such, AFAQ seeks to place specific aspects of anarchism
   into their historical context. For example, certain aspects of
   Proudhons ideas can only be understood by remembering that he lived at
   a time when the vast majority of working people were peasants and
   artisans. Many commentators (particularly Marxist ones) seem to forget
   this (and that he supported co-operatives for large-scale industry).
   Much the same can be said of Bakunin, Tucker and so on. I hope AFAQ
   will help anarchism continue to develop to meet new circumstances by
   summarising what has gone before so that we can build on it.

   We also seek to draw out what anarchists have in common while not
   denying their differences. After all, individualist-anarchist Benjamin
   Tucker would have agreed with communist-anarchist Peter Kropotkin when
   he stated that anarchism was the "no government form of socialism."
   While some anarchists seem to take more time in critiquing and
   attacking their comrades over (ultimately) usually minor differences
   than fighting oppression, I personally think that this activity while,
   at times, essential is hardly the most fruitful use of our limited
   resources -- particularly when it is about possible future developments
   (whether it is on the economic nature of a free society or our attitude
   to a currently non-existing syndicalist union!). So we have discussed
   the differences between anarchist schools of thought as well as within
   them, but we have tried to build bridges by stressing where they agree
   rather than create walls.

   Needless to say, not all anarchists will agree with what is in AFAQ (it
   is, after all, as we have always stressed "An Anarchist FAQ", not "The
   Anarchist FAQ" as some comrades flatteringly call it). From my
   experience, most anarchists agree with most of it even if they have
   quibbles about certain aspects of it. I know that comrades do point
   others to it (I once saw a Marxist complain that anarchists always
   suggested he read AFAQ, so I explained to him that this was what having
   a "Frequency Asked Questions" was all about). So AFAQ is only a guide,
   you need to discover anarchism for yourself and develop and apply it in
   your own way. Hopefully AFAQ will help that process by presenting an
   overview of anarchism and indicating what it is, what it is not and
   where to find out more.

   Some may object to the length of many of the answers and that is a
   valid point. However, some questions and issues cannot be dealt with
   quickly and be considered as remotely convincing. For example, simply
   stating that anarchists think that capitalism is exploitative and that
   claims otherwise are wrong may be both correct and short but it hardly
   a convincing reply to someone aware of the various defences of profit,
   interest and rent invented by capitalist economists. Similarly, stating
   that Marxist ideology helped destroy the Russian Revolution is, again,
   both correct and short but it would never convince a Leninist who
   stresses the impact of civil war on Bolshevik practice. Then there is
   the issue of sources. We have tried to let anarchists speak for
   themselves on most issues and that can take space. Some of the evidence
   we use is from books and articles the general reader may not have easy
   access so we have tried to present full quotes to show that our use is
   correct (the number of times Ive tracked down references only to
   discover they did not say what was suggested is, sadly, quite
   numerous).

   Moreover, refuting distortions and inventions about anarchism can be
   lengthy simply because of the necessity of providing supporting
   evidence. Time and again, the same mistakes and straw man arguments are
   regurgitated by those unwilling or unable to look at the source
   material (Marxists are particularly bad at this, simply repeating ad
   nauseum the assertions of Marx and Engels as if they were accurate).
   Assumptions are piled onto assumptions, assertions repeated as if they
   were factual. AFAQ seeks to address these and present evidence to
   refute them once and for all. Simply saying that some statement is
   false may be correct, but hardly convincing unless you already know a
   lot about the subject. So I hope that readers will understand and find
   even the longest answers interesting and informative (one of the
   advantages of a FAQ format is that people can simply go to the sections
   they are interested in and skip others).

   This volume covers what anarchism is, where it comes from, what it has
   done, what it is against (and why) as well as what anarchism is not
   (i.e., showing why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism).

   The latter may come as a surprise to most. Few anarchists, never mind
   the general population, have heard of that specific ideology (it is US
   based, in the main) and those who have heard of it may wonder why we
   bothered given its obvious non-anarchist nature. Sadly, we need to
   cover this ground simply because some academics insist in listing it
   alongside genuine forms of anarchism and that needs to be exposed for
   the nonsense it is. Few serious thinkers would list fascism along side
   socialism, regardless of whether its supporters call their ideology
   "National Socialism" or "National Syndicalism" (unsurprisingly,
   right-"libertarians" do precisely that). No one took the Soviet bloc
   states seriously when they described themselves as "peoples'
   democracies" nor considered their governments democratic. Anarchism
   seems to be excluded from such common-sense and so we find academics
   discussing "anarcho"-capitalists along side anarchism simply, I
   suspect, because they call themselves "anarchists." That almost all
   anarchists reject their claims to being anarchists does not seem to be
   a sufficient warning about taking such statements at face value! For
   obvious reasons, we have not wasted space in explaining why another US
   based ideology, "National Anarchism", is not anarchism. While some
   individual anarchists were racist, the notion that anarchism has
   anything in common with those who aim for racially pure nationalist
   communities is ridiculous. Even academics have not fallen for that,
   although for almost all genuine anarchists "anarcho"-capitalism makes
   as little sense as "anarcho"-nationalism.

   Then there is the history of AFAQ. As indicated in the original
   introduction, AFAQ was prompted by battles with "anarcho"-capitalists
   on-line in the early 1990s. However, while AFAQ may have started as a
   reply to the "anarcho"-capitalists it is no longer that. It would be a
   mistake to think that they are more significant than they actually are
   or that many anarchists bother with them (most, I am sure, have never
   heard of it). I did consider whether it was wiser to simply exclude
   section F from the book but, in the end, I decided it should remain.
   Partly, for the reasons above and partly because it does serve another,
   more useful, purpose. Neo-liberalism is based, in many ways, on
   right-"libertarian" dogmas so critiquing those helps our struggle
   against "actually existing" capitalism and the current attacks by the
   ruling class.

   I do not wish anarchism to go the same way that "libertarian" has gone
   in the US (and, to a lesser extent, in the UK). Between the 1890s and
   1970s, libertarian was simply a pseudonym for anarchist or similar
   socialist theories. However, the American free-market right
   appropriated the label in the 1970s and now it means supporters of
   minimal state (or private-state) capitalism. Such is the power having
   ideas that bolster the wealthy! The change in "libertarian" is such
   that some people talk about "libertarian anarchism" -- as if you can
   have an "authoritarian anarchism"! That these people include
   "anarcho"-capitalists simply shows how ignorant of anarchism they
   actually are and how alien the ideology is to our movement (I've seen
   quite a few of them proclaim anarchism is simply a "new" form of
   Marxism, which shows their grasp of the subject). Equally bizarrely,
   these self-proclaimed "libertarian anarchists" are also those who most
   fervently defend the authoritarian social relationships inherent within
   capitalism! In other words, if "authoritarian anarchists" could exist
   then the "libertarian anarchists" would be them!

   As AFAQ explains, being opposed to the state is a necessary, but not
   sufficient, condition for being an anarchist. Not only is this clear
   from the works of anarchist thinkers and anarchism as a social
   movement, but also from the nature of the idea itself. To be an
   anarchist you must also be a socialist (i.e. opposed to capitalist
   property and the exploitation of labour). It is no coincidence that
   Godwin and Proudhon independently analysed private property from a
   libertarian perspective and drew similar conclusions or that Kropotkin
   and Tucker considered themselves socialists. To deny this critique is
   to deny anarchism as a movement and as a socio-political theory never
   mind its history and the aims of anarchists across the years.

   Furthermore, as AFAQ stresses, to be a consistent anarchist you must
   recognise that freedom is more than simply the ability to change
   masters. Anarchism means "no authority" (an-archy) and to support
   social relationships marked by authority (hier-archy) produces a
   self-contradictory mess (such as supporting forms of domination, such
   as wage labour, which are essentially identical to those produced by
   the state and, sometimes, admitted as such!). Anarchism is,
   fundamentally, a theory of organisation based on individuals
   associating together without restricting, and so denying and limiting,
   their freedom and individuality. This means that a consistent anarchism
   is rooted in free association within a context of self-management,
   decentralisation and "bottom-up" decision-making (i.e., it is rooted in
   political, economic and social equality). While it is possible to be an
   anarchist while opposing exploitation but not all forms of hierarchical
   social relationships, it is hardly logical nor a convincing position.

   AFAQ also seeks to go into subjects anarchists have, traditionally,
   been weak on, such as economics (which is ironic, as Proudhon made his
   name by his economic critiques). In this sense, it is a resource for
   anarchists both in terms of our own history and ideas but also on
   subjects which we inevitably come across in our struggles (hopefully,
   the critiques we provide of capitalism, neo-liberalism and so forth
   will also be useful to other radicals). We have tried to indicate the
   quoted source is an anarchist or libertarian. If in doubt, please look
   at the bibliography on the webpage. This breaks references down into
   libertarian (anarchist and non-anarchist) thinkers (or sympathetic
   accounts of anarchism) and non-libertarians (which, needless to say,
   includes right-"libertarians"). It should go without saying that
   quoting an expert on one subject does not mean anarchists subscribe to
   their opinions on other matters. Thus if we quote, say, a Keynesian or
   post-Keynesian economist on how capitalism works it does not imply we
   support their specific political recommendations.

   Some have criticised AFAQ for not including some of the more recent
   developments within anarchism, which is fair enough. I have asked on
   numerous occasions for such critics to contribute a section on these
   and, of course, for referenced corrections for any mistakes others
   think we have done. Nothing has been forthcoming and we have usually
   discovered mistakes ourselves and corrected them (although a steady
   flow of emails pointing out typos has come our way). We have always
   been a small collective and we cannot do everything. This also explains
   why important social events like, say, the turn of the century
   Argentinean revolt against neo-liberalism is not discussed in
   [1]section A.5 (this is a wonderful example of anarchist ideas being
   spontaneously applied in practice during a mass revolt). Suffice to
   say, anarchistic tendencies, ideas and practices develop all the time
   and anarchism is growing in influence but if we continually added to
   AFAQ to reflect this then it would never have become ready for
   publication! As it is, we have excluded most of the appendices from the
   book version (these remain available on the website along with a
   lengthy links page).

   I would like to thank everybody who has helped and contributed
   (directly and indirectly, knowingly and unknowingly) to AFAQ. As for
   authorship, AFAQ started as a collective effort and remained so for
   many years. I have been the only person involved from the start and
   have done the bulk of the work on it. Moreover, the task of getting it
   ready and revised for publication has fallen to me. I have enjoyed it,
   in the main. This explains why the book has my name on it rather than a
   collective. I feel I have earned that right. As such, I claim
   responsibility for any typos and examples of bad grammar that remain. I
   have substantially revised AFAQ for publication and while I have tried
   to find them all, I am sure I have failed (particularly in sections
   that were effectively rewritten). I hope these do not detract from the
   book too much.

   Finally, on a personal note I would like to dedicate this book to my
   partner and two lovely children. They are a constant source of
   inspiration, love, support and hope (not to mention patience!). If this
   work makes the world we live in better for them then it has been more
   than worthwhile. For, when it comes down to it, anarchism is simply
   about making the world a freer and better place. If we forget that,
   then we forget what makes us anarchists in the first place.

   Iain McKay

   [2]An Anarchist FAQ

                                  A Summation

   "No question, the word anarchy freaks people. Yet anarchy -- rule by no
   one -- has always struck me as the same as democracy carried to its
   logical and reasonable conclusions. Of course those who rule -- bosses
   and politicians, capital and the state -- cannot imagine that people
   could rule themselves, for to admit that people can live without
   authority and rulers pulls out the whole underpinnings of their
   ideology. Once you admit that people can -- and do, today, in many
   spheres of their lives -- run things easier, better and more fairly
   than the corporation and the government can, there's no justification
   for the boss and the premier. I think most of us realise and understand
   that, in our guts, but schools, culture, the police, all the
   authoritarian apparatuses, tell us we need bosses, we need to be
   controlled 'for our own good.' It's not for our own good it's for the
   good of the boss, plain and simple."

   "Anarchism is a demand for real freedom and real autonomy"

   "But I also remain convinced that something like an anarchist future, a
   world of no bosses or politicians, one in which people, all people, can
   live full and meaningful lives, is possible and desirable. We see
   glimpses of it all around us in our day-to-day lives, as people
   organise much of their lives without depending on someone to tell them
   what to do. We see it in that spirit of revolt -- a spirit that is
   often twisted by anger and despair, but nonetheless shows us that
   people have not given up. We see it in the political activism, the
   social lives, the demands for decency and respect and autonomy people
   put forward, the desire to be individuals while still being part of a
   community.

   "No, I don't think bowling leagues are the anarchist utopia, but they,
   like much of our lives outside of the workplace, are organised without
   hierarchy and oppression; the most meaningful, truly human parts of our
   lives already work best when organised on anarchist principles. Yet I
   also believe that in its function as critique and as a vision of the
   future -- perhaps the only one that doesn't end in our extinction as a
   species, or, as Orwell put it, as a jackboot smashing a human face,
   forever -- anarchism is not only desirable but possible and necessary."

   Mark Leier: The Case for Anarchy

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html
   2. http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
