Anarchist historiography has always been in a particularly tense
situation. Whether to write a history of anarchism as a historian in themodern academic mode - a mode characterised by attempts at dryabstraction from ideology, doomed to fail - or in an openly ideologicalfashion? Means and Ends, the new text by Zoe Baker, suggests a puissantapproach: write the history according to the facts, and allow them tojustify themselves ideologically, acknowledging one's own positionbeforehand. ---- Baker, perhaps known better to users of the internet byher long-time YouTube nom de plume 'anarchopac', has taken her firststeps into mainstream publication with Means and Ends, an adaptation ofa doctoral thesis on the history of anarchism as it evolved andpresented itself within what might very loosely be called the West, fromthe 19th century onwards. Baker's stated aim for the text is to outlinein relatively detailed strokes the origins of formal anarchism in theseregions and then trace from the ideological and material positions thestrategic beliefs that anarchisms did - and in many cases continue to -hold.Great care has clearly been taken by both Baker and editors to revisethe doctoral content into an accessible work; the title of this reviewis a testament to that success. Beginning with a strongly structuredintroductory chapter, the clarity and precision of the prose throughoutthe book is standout. Much as the balance between ideology and academycan introduce tensions in histories of this sort, so too can the balancebetween specialist terminology and the desire for the wider audience;Baker has found this balance excellently. Terminology specific toradical positions and thinkers is introduced only when necessary andexplained well, allowing even readers who are fairly inexperienced indealing with the infamously sinuous prose of radicals to parse it easily.The attempted historic distance also works in favour of the text. Whileit reveals the formal academic origins of the project - a project forwhich Baker tells the reader that debating whether or not anarchisttheory is 'correct' is not the goal - it nevertheless allows theconcepts and internal logic of the positions historical anarchistthinkers held to be presented on their own merits; merits which, to thesurprise of very few reading Organise!, are often convincing without theneed for polemical window dressing.Another area in which the academic origin of the text is clear is therigour of the scholarship; while I have no way of knowing this strictly,I would expect that Baker's doctoral thesis was an extremely successfulsubmission, as the quality of the argumentation and citation given inthe published version of the text is undeniable. The breadth of citationpresented and the command over the utilised sources is enviable for anyscholar, and despite this Means and Ends largely evades the tendency ofheavily sourced work to become entangled in the minutiae ofargumentation and dates, in favour of the aforementioned clarity thatBaker's writing clearly possesses. Perhaps impossible to know, I wouldspeculate that years producing digital content for the oft-uncharitableYouTube audience has honed Zoe Baker's sense of precision to an obsidianedge.This precision and honesty leads to both the previously mentionedscholarship and clarity, but also to some moments of fairly impressiveunderstatement; within the introduction, Baker references her ownlinguistic limitations as something that will prevent her from giving athorough presentation of anarchist theory from all places, at all times;surely an admirable thing to mention, so avoid presenting a falseimpression to readers. This does not, however, prevent Baker fromdemonstrating a familiarity with a vast array of sources - within thefirst thirty pages alone, we have mentions and references to classicEuropean stalwarts such as Kropotkin and Proudhon, as well as names thatare frankly altogether unheard of to most anglophone readers; KuboYuzuru, Li Yaotang, and Anselme Bellegarrigue to name but a few. Theirony of seeing these names alongside an apology for the limitations ofthe author's referencing is one of several moments of levity throughoutthe text.Thus far, this review has been limited in its scope to an overview ofthe qualities of Means and Ends as a text being read; how is itpresented, how grounded are its claims, what is the style, et cetera;until this point, nothing has been said in detail about the quality ofthe contents. The reason for this is simple; from the perspective of theanarchist reader, very little Baker says is shocking - it is, to quotefrom everyone's favourite not-actually-an-anarchist Noam Chomsky,'uncontroversial' in nature. This is to be expected from a text thatseeks to outline the roots of ideas in their material history for thewider public; many well read anarchists will already have a grasp onsome of this material and the presentation is truly what makes this textstand out.However, it would be remiss of a reviewer to simply leave the contentsto themselves entirely; therefore, there are two major elements ofBaker's text worth discussion from the perspective of an anarchist beingread by other (probable) anarchists; firstly, her definition ofanarchism in general.Undoubtedly, anarchism as a political movement has several ideasattached to it in the general consciousness that aren't unique to anyspecific strain, but tendencies exist in vast numbers and thedifferences, while sometimes obscure, are often significant; Baker optsfor a definition that is rooted very broadly in the common soil ofleftist struggle - an anti-state form of revolutionary socialism,arising in Europe in the mid-19th Century in concert with the FirstInternational. Baker, therefore, has no time for proto-anarchists suchas William Godwin, maybe-anarchists such as Proudhon, or theindividualist anarchists which rise to prominence in the later 19thCentury. Baker is careful to note that this is a practical decision,rather than being a 'claim to establish the one true version ofanarchism' (44), and it is very true that care is taken throughout thetext to avoid prescriptivism, but it is nevertheless one area in whichMeans and Ends is limited in scope. Of course, limitations in scopeexist in all historical works as any truly universal text would bebeyond the work of a lifetime, but given the current resurgence inpopularity of individualist and insurrectionary anarchisms there is amild conflict between the topic covered and Baker's stated intent toprovide a means through which contemporary anarchists can 'learnvaluable lessons and develop new ideas' (1).Secondly, continuing from the mention of insurrectionary anarchism,Means and Ends does in fact contain discussion of this very tendency:Chapter Six is dedicated to it, in fact. It is somewhat disappointing,then, to see the ultimate conclusion of the chapter seemingly socontrary to the generally neutral approach taken elsewhere in the text;the final paragraph opening with the claim that 'it is fair to say thatinsurrectionist anarchism was unsuccessful' insofar as the stated aimsof its proponents, and imploring the reader to 'understandinsurrectionist anarchists on their own terms' (210). While inarguablethat insurrectionary means did not lead to an anarchist world, it issomewhat surprising to see a text committed to providing opportunitiesfor lessons so utterly direct in its conclusion on a particular strand;not least when a later chapter devoted to syndicalism - a strain ofthought that many, including figures such as Bonanno, believe to beultimately inimical to the fundamental goals of the anti-state movement.After all, Bonanno tells us, 'it is impossible for anarchist comrades tojoin the government; but it happens'i - it is odd, then, to compare theblunt dismissal of insurrectionists with the altogether more measuredevaluated of the many failures of the syndicalist movements, which spansthree paragraphs and contains quotations from those unions themselvesexplaining their reactions to failure, and a brief summary of moments inwhich syndicalism might be said to have been successful in some measureafter all.Ultimately, though these critiques may seem extreme, I do not beliefthey are so consequential; there are concerns with this text, but theseconcerns may come from myself just as much as they do Baker - I am, Imust confess, extremely sceptical of the syndicalist tradition myselfand fond of the insurrectionary. It is altogether probably that if Iwere to write a history of the two, another could levy the same critiqueat me in reverse. It is, however, worth noting given the number ofanarchists today who take influence from the insurrectionary elementsand the relative contemporary weakness of the syndicalist movement,given Baker's express intent to provide the opportunity for lessons inthe modern moment.These minor critiques aside, the content of Means and Ends is as robustas its research and the argumentation is as clear as the general prosestyling. While a book tackling such a tendentious topic at such lengthwill always provide the opportunity for one group or another to takeumbrage, the quality of Zoe Baker's debut work is fundamentallyinescapable, and there is very little doubt that Means and Ends willjoin my shortlist of must-read histories of anarchism and the anarchistmovement, taking pride of place alongside such well regarded classics asPeter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible. For any individual interestedin the roots of the movement and how the material circumstances of thoseroots impacted the development of ideas and strategy, this text willmore than satisfy.https://organisemagazine.org.uk/2023/10/04/means-and-ends-review/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten