One of the better things about Amazon is looking at the reviews and having a laugh at the nutters who "review" books on subjects or by people they dislike. They give them one star and include a little rant about the book, usually showing that they have not read the book in question. This can be seen from Chomsky’s books, "reviews" of Marx’s Capital and books by leading American liberals (such as Paul Krugman). They are almost always by right-wingers, needless to say.
One of the better things about Amazon is looking at the reviews and having a laugh at the nutters who "review" books on subjects or by people they dislike. They give them one star and include a little rant about the book, usually showing that they have not read the book in question. This can be seen from Chomsky’s books, "reviews" of Marx’s Capital and books by leading American liberals (such as Paul Krugman). They are almost always by right-wingers, needless to say.
I mention this because AFAQ has its very own "one star" review of this type. It is not by a right-wing "libertarian" (I thought that would be the most likely source of such a rant) but by what appears to be a "post-left" anarchist (some thoughts on this are in this blog post). Suffice to say, the "review" leaves a lot to be desired…
Before reviewing a particularly bad review of AFAQ on Amazon, I should go over the new material I’ve posted. First off, a short review of Proudhon’s classic General Idea of the Revolution. This was done to drum up interest in my Proudhon anthology and to help Freedom bookshop in London sell a few copies of the book! It is a classic, although the 1851 specific material can be distracting from his important arguments against the state and capitalism. Hopefully my edited version in the anthology will help show why its important. Then there are even shorter reviews of Nicholas Walter’s excellent The Anarchist Past and Other Essays and the Anarchist Federation’s Basic Bakunin. Then there are some letters, two exchanges on Marxism (to Weekly Worker and the other (unpublished) to the RCG). Both discuss the Russian Revolution, with the RCG one concentrating on refuting their lies about the Makhnovists. Last is two letters to Freedom on class analysis and why it is essential for anarchists.
Now, onto the "review" of AFAQ…
After two 5 out of 5 star reviews (An impressively thorough and ‘reader friendly’ body of work and A monumental work of anarchist scholarship!,) we get to this "review" by a certain J. Taylor. It would be useful to review the review, as I think it shows what is wrong with certain elements of the anarchist movement (particularly in the USA).
He (and I’m almost certain the reviewer is a he) starts as follows:
"First of all, it’s free on the internet at infoshop.org — so there is no reason to buy it and waste the paper and your money."
Nice start! Yes, it is free at the infoshop and elsewhere. AFAQ aims to be a resource for the movement and, as such, is under copy-left and freely available to all.
"Second, this is not a FAQ about "anarchism" in general."
As AFAQ makes clear from its title onwards, it is An Anarchist FAQ, not The Anarchist FAQ (although many comrades do call it that). Any book on anarchism will reflect their author’s position, but we have tried to be as inclusive and fair as possible. As such, AFAQ discusses many different kinds of anarchism (pacifist, religious, individualist, platformist, etc.) which I personally do not agree with. We have tried to be fair to all of them, and hopefully have succeeded.
However, AFAQ discusses anarchism from a perspective of the dominant form of anarchism, namely revolutionary social anarchism (as associated with Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, and so on which grew out of the mutualism of Proudhon). Historically, this was the predominant trend and, I would say, it still is. Internationally, the movement remains communist anarchist in the main (viewing anarcho-syndicalism as a form of libertarian communism). So AFAQ is about anarchism "in general", assuming you have a firm grasp of anarchism as a historical and current movement.
"McCay [who? never heard of him…] only pays lip-service to the vast majority of anarchist thought, pushing across his view of factory working, union forming anarchists as the only "reasonable" form of anarchism."
Factory working? Really? No. Union forming? Well, in part, but AFAQ explains why many anarchists are not pure anarcho-syndicalists and recognise that unions are not enough in themselves. And looking at the history of anarchism, the "vast majority of anarchist thought" was in favour of forming unions (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, etc.) all argued in favour of unionisation and for anarchists to organise workers and support them in struggle. So, unless you are a clueless Leninist seeking to distort anarchism, an objective evaluation of anarchist thought shows that it was (and is) in favour of forming unions.
So it is hard to see how AFAQ "pays lip-service to the vast majority of anarchist thought" by, well, presenting the vast majority of anarchist thought and history on the matter! Still, I guess being accurate is the least of our reviewers concerns as can be seen from his next statement…
"He dramatically misrepresents and oversimplifies numerous currents of anarchist thought, such as primitivism or insurecctionary anarchism, making simplistic ‘arguments’ against them, which any primitivist or insurrectionary anarchist would easily be able to rebut."
Yes, there is a section on "primitivism" in AFAQ (5 pages out 555!) but there is no discussion of "insurrectionary" (or even "insurecctionary") anarchism. So I’m not sure how we make "simplistic ‘arguments’" against it when there is no discussion of it at all! I guess reading the book you are reviewing would be too much like hard work…
As for the other "numerous currents", I wonder what these would be? Does AFAQ "misrepresent" religious anarchism? Anarcha-feminism? Pacifist anarchism? I fail to see how, but as our review only specifies two "currents" (one of which AFAQ does not actually discuss), it is hard to know what to make of his assertion.
"I don’t personally agree with either of these theories, but would at least have been fair in saying what they actually believe."
Of course, the section on primitivism was on-line at least two years before AFAQ was published, giving our reviewer (or any primitivists with a computer) amble time to email us and explain why that section "misrepresents" primitivism. No such email was received. Strange. I did have a discussion with someone on the infoshop news just before it was published and changed that section to ensure that people did not misunderstand its argument (as seemed to be the case with at least this person). I can only assume that primivists and people like our reviewer prefer to wallow in feelings of victim-hood than bother to discuss issues with others — for if the AFAQ critique is so easy to refute, it would be very easy to do so in an email…
And I should note that that section was inspired by two debates I had with primitivists. One was in the pages of Freedom and was marked by the primitivists being unable to mention, never mind answer, basic questions of what happens to the 10 million people in London after "mass society" collapses. The other was in Anarchy and was equally unenlightening. So perhaps that no primitivist bothered to email AFAQ is unsurprising, as the ones I’ve come across refuse to discuss their ideas in any detail when asked.
Why? Well, I would say because then the logical contradiction at its heart comes to the fore. Basically, primitivists have two options. One, industrial society collapses overnight — with the resulting grim results as six billion people cannot survive as hunter-gatherers. Two, primitivist society will gradually evolve into being over time (many, many generations will be needed to reduce population levels to appropriate levels). That requires discussing how industry will be worked and slowly decommissioned, what social organisations are required, and such like. Yet, according to primitivist thought, industry and mass organisations are inherently authoritarian (and so "red" anarchists are not really anarchists for advocating them). Thus we have the awkward problem that once a transitional period is acknowledged then it will be marked by institutions which are, according to primitivists, inherently authoritarian…
Of course, the problem would be solved if the primitivists did not red-bait other anarchists and denounce their support for industry, self-management, federalism and other, basic, anarchist ideas as being "authoritarian"! But I have given up seeking such tolerance from "primitivists" and "post-left" anarchists (as can be seen from the review!). It would also help if leading primitivists did not proclaim that they "would prefer mass starvation to mass society", as did one of the editors of the British Green Anarchist back in the later 1990s (a statement they subsequently denied having said in our exchange in Anarchy but, unfortunately, I was at the meeting in question and heard it with my own ears).
"Basically, there is some good information in here, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it ‘An Anarchist FAQ’, because it unfairly represents a large body of anarchists."
So a book which has "some good information" in it gets one star because of 5 pages out 555? What can you say? As for "unfairly represents a large body of anarchists", well, sorry to say this not primitivists are not that big (nor anywhere near the "vast majority" in the movement, even if we add "post-leftist" anarchists to that grouping — which we really should not). Perhaps in a few areas of America they are in a majority, but if you reject the America-centric view so many "post-left" and "primitivist" anarchists seem to have, then it becomes clear that elsewhere on the "primitivism" is very much a tiny sub-sect of a small movement.
"I would maybe call it ‘A Dogmatic Pacifist, Mass Organizing, Industrialized Anarchist/Marxist/Leftist FAQ’."
Pacifist? No, as is clear from the discussion of anarcho-pacifism (another section our reviewer obviously has not read). Industrialised? What does that mean? As AFAQ makes clear, an anarchist society seeks to transform the industrial structure inherited from capitalism. But, obviously, that was another bit of AFAQ the reviwer did not bother to read. Marxist? Oh, please! It is as "Marxist" as Bakunin or Kropotkin was. There is much (too much!) discussion in AFAQ on the flaws of Marxism, something else (a whole section!) the reviewer failed to notice. Mass Organising? How else will an anarchist society come about, unless the masses organise themselves and overthrow their oppressors? Freedom, as anarchists have long argued, cannot be given by a few enlightened militants acting for people. Leftist? Ah, yes, that bogey man. A term so vague that it is meaningless… As for dogmatic, well, it is an anarchist FAQ written by anarchists who are seeking to explain anarchism as a socio-economic theory and movement. I guess "dogmatic" means reflecting the reality of anarchism rather than one person’s pet likes and dislikes…
So, altogether a "review" which shows that the person has not engaged with the book in any way. I should mention two experiences on infoshop news that seem relevant.
I had announced an update of AFAQ and one bright-spark denounced it as ignoring green issues and supporting (and perhaps even more?) industrialisation as it stands now. Somewhat ironically, this was in response to the update of section E which covers ecological issues! And that section had just been tripled in size as welll… Still, I guess having an unthinking rant is more important than, well, reading what was actually said…
The second experience was seeing another contributer to a thread proclaim that Bakunin was not a syndicalist, that he never supported the general strike and claims otherwise was part of a "leftist" plot to distort the true meaning of real anarchism! Sadly, of course, the awkward fact is that Bakunin wrote in support of both union organising and the general strike. While I’m used to Leninists making such inaccurate claims, I dispair when I see anarchists express such an ignorance of their own tradition!
The "review" reminded me of those two experiences and represents a real problem with some sections of the anarchist movement, namely a willingness to let petty dislikes cloud comments (not to mention a willingness not to let mere facts get in the way of making a statement). After all, what has J. Taylor achieved by his "review"? Not much, as anyone who compares his "review" to the previous ones or looks at the webpage/book itself will see that he wrote nonsense. Still, why bother with constructive criticism when you can have a nice little rant over 5 pages in a 555 page work?
So, while it is fun to see that AFAQ has its very own "nutter" review I do wish that people would read the books they are reviewing and not let their obvious dislikes inform their "reviews". Still, fun was had reviewing the "review"…