What is Anarchism: An Introduction

WHAT IS ANARCHISM: AN INTRODUCTION
     By Donald Rooum, Freedom Press, London 1993 ISBN 0 900384 66 2

     It has been many years since I have read a non-historical introduction to anarchism. There are a great number of them, and to my mind they should live up to certain criteria. One is that they should be neither too short, "leafletly", nor so long and encyclopedic that they risk boring the casual reader. They should also present a wide enough vision of the many facets of the ideology without becoming bogs down in trivia. They should have a number of "hooks" to catch the interest of a varied audience.

     They should, of course, be well written and attractively laid out, not bowing to the gods of illiteracy and mess that periodically become popular amongst a minority who claim the anarchist label. Coherence is a must, a task made easier by excluding some of the more exotic blooms that nestle under the anarchist umbrella. Any introduction should be just historical enough, and attempt to place the basic ideas within a chronological narrative.

     They should both answer time-honoured objections to anarchism and present a vision of a future society that could be attractive to a reasonable person. A good introduction should be free of both trendy academic jargon and also of rhetorical overkill. Both faults repel people who are outside of closed social circles.

     How does this slim volume measure up ? First of all it should be mentioned that Rooum is more of a collator than an author. His contributions consist of an introduction and one essay on 'Selfishness and Benevolence'. He has chosen to fill the bulk of the book with excerpts from historical anarchists of note: Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, Alexander Berkman, Colin Ward and others. Despite this the book is definitely not an attempt to put anarchism in an historical context. In his fourfold division after the Introduction the author tries to select brief pieces that are, in his opinion, relative to the public presentation of the ideology. The four chapters are 'Anarchist Approaches to Anarchism', 'Anarchism and Violence', 'Arguments For Government Answered' and 'The Relevance of Anarchism'.

     This approach may or may not be useful. The selections "generally" are pertinent to the headings, and I'm sure that Rooum's long career as a publicist for anarchism has made him aware of some of the questions that repeatedly reoccur. What the author misses, however, by avoiding an historical approach is probably the greatest argument for the possibility of anarchism, an objection that definitely comes up again and again from many different quarters. This is that anarchist societies have existed, albeit briefly, in modern times in both Ukraine and Spain. Simply put, that which has or does exist is not "impossible".

     Unfortunately Rooum ignores what the vast bulk of what effective anarchism has been in practice - anarchosyndicalism. It is notable that the only essay by a syndicalist, 'Socialism and Freedom' by Rudolf Rocker, has little or nothing to do with syndicalism. It is a criticism of the Leninist conception of socialism rather than a presentation of an anarchist alternative. Flogging the corpse of the commies is something of a motherhood issue in our times. It is also significant that the only reference to the syndicalist side of anarchism is a short segment in the Introduction where Rooum is basically critical of the idea.

     The lack of a historical narrative detracts from both the utility and the coherence of the book/pamphlet. As mentioned the excerpts vary in how relevant they are to the purposes of the author/editor. How does the book measure up as simply a presentation of ideas and ideology ? Generally not so bad. Anarchism is such a diverse trend that it is naturally hard to find ways of fitting it into a popular presentation. The author, however, makes a good go of it in elucidating the "bare bones" of the tradition on which pretty well all anarchists agree. Neither too short nor too long. He tries to dispel some of the more common popular misconceptions about the movement. He is generally successful in this, and his language is refreshingly free of jargon and purple prose. He avoids the all-too-common lefty fault of "argument by insult". The presentation is properly modest and reasonable. In general the items quoted are well written and add to the points that Rooum wishes to make.

     A caveat- Rooum is obviously of the "permanent protest" school of anarchism. He does, however, at least give rather catholic mention to other trends in anarchism that are more "optimistic". He is quite realistic and honest about the strength, or lack thereof, of anarchism in his own place and time. His situation in late 20th century Britain may both explain and excuse his slighting of the more effective forms that anarchism has taken elsewhere and "elsewhen".

     Is this a useful introduction to anarchism ? In many ways yes. It certainly helps to clear up many of the myths that have accumulated in both the public and the academic mind. It does this in an admirably popular, clear manner. Rooum is a good example of what Orwell thought that political writing should be like. Because of its limited scope, however, it could not be used as "The Introduction". All that being said one should congratulate the author for a tightly argued and accessible presentation of at least one of the aspects of modern anarchism. The book, however, is not the Holy Grail of an accessible intro to the total neophyte. BUT is a good supplement to other efforts and well worth reading.

HISTORY:

NINETEEN YEARS AGO TODAY- THE ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE MASSACRE:

On December 6, 1989 the largest mass murder in Canadian history was committed by one Marc Lepine at the École Polytechnique in Montréal. The final toll was 14 dead, all of them women, and 14 others wounded. For full details of the event and the controversies that surround it see the wikipedia article on what happened. In sum Lepine was the son of a French Canadian woman and an immigrant who later deserted his family, but not before laying a full set of beatings on young Marc. As he grew up and experienced failure after failure Lepine searched for someone or something to lay the blame on for his personal failings. He settled on "feminism" and "feminists".

To say this was off the wall is a great understatement. He had been rejected in an application to join the Canadian Army in the winter of 1980-81 because he was "anti-social". His sex had little to do with it. This sort of preemptive "psycho-discharge" meant that he could not even be trusted to kill the people that someone else told him to kill and was highly likely to turn his gun on his own side. His academic career was undistinguished, to say the least, but in his mind he was able to blame feminism for his failure. The idea that he was also considerably less able than most males simply couldn't be entertained in his mind.

Like most events of this nature everybody ended up having a dog in the fight. The events were fodder for calls for further gun control, for banning violence in the media, for liberals and social democrats decrying poverty, for conservatives decrying the breakdown of traditional morality, for advocates of social work saying that it pointed to the need for more head shrinking, for feminists saying it was the inevitable outcome of a culture of violence against women. The latter probably had the most validity, but in a way that its advocates hardly ever stated directly. Quite simply Lepine was your average accident waiting to happen. He was definitely not an elected representative of all men carrying out an attack on women, even if he thought he was in his twisted mind. Lepine was actually an orthodox follower of the idea of "collective guilt" that all too many feminists held, and hold today. This idea is hardly restricted to feminism. It is pervasive amongst the "left" and even the right. It has been described elsewhere as "the culture of resentment". If you want you can take left wing screeds, change the words denoting the villains and voila!! you have a resentful screed from the sort of neo-conservatives who publish in outfits such as Sun Media. You can work in the opposite direction as well.

Where does this go wrong ? Few outside of the steadily decreasing strongholds of religious fundamentalism doubt today that the general goals of feminism are laudable and necessary. The problem comes with abstract thinking. It is all too easy to take abstract categories and do a mental calculus with them that is totally divorced from the real world. Far too many feminist have done this in the past. No...all men are not rapists. No...all men are not violent to women. The problem comes when you surrender to the temptation to make an ideology out of practical problems rather than finding solutions to said problems.

The problem of violence against women is a real problem that calls for real solutions. Eugene Plawiuk over at the La Revue Gauche has laid out a list of what this problem means in his post on the significance of this day. The day has also become the occasion for an annual 'National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women' in Canada. There is still much to do on this matter. What should be avoided, however, is turning this necessary struggle into the occasion for ideological rhetoric and cult building. To do this is to imitate the murderer, to build a monument to Marc Lepine and his sick way of thinking, not to the victims of his crime.

NINE ELEVEN HAS COME AND GONE:

The sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 has come and gone. The necessary memorials have been held. the subject will soon fade into the memory hole. Last year Molly blogged on this subject under the general heading of "missed opportunities" (see the September, 2006 archives of this blog). I see little reason to modify my opinion at this time from what I said at that time. More than one political force lost an opportunity that was presented by these attacks. The American government lost an opportunity because it was dominated by totally unrealistic radical ideologues who proceeded to lose the almost universal sympathy that the attacks had generated by using them as a justification for an imperial war in Iraq that obviously had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, a war for control of oil supplies and little else. The American people lost by allowing these radicals to launch an unwinable and immoral war in their name. The left, Muslim people, the rest of the world lost as well. Anarchists lost because they held back from condemning in no uncertain terms the Moaoid rhetoric that has infiltrated their ranks. No... the people who died in the attacks of 9/11 were not "Little Eichmanns". They were innocent victims. From the Philipina cleaning staff on up. No... the so called "opponents of USD imperialism" who were their allies a few years ago and may yet be their allies again in a future contest against other powers have no moral justification for what they did.

Molly is very much "anti-American", but she is hardly "anti-Americans". As I have expressed repeatedly on this blog the USA is a great country that has many good points. I may not want to visit the USA in the near future as I believe that many other countries are better, but still... I may mock the US government and even US culture repeatedly, but I would never sink to the level of hating the US population, a level that, unfortunately too much of the US left itself has sunk to. And that includes too much of the American anarchist movement that, like the Bourbons, has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The self destruction of the US left as it went the way of childish Maoism should have been instructive, but some hope for nothing more but to repeat such mistakes. An American anarchism, just like an American left in general, has to start from a simple liking of its own people. If it doesn't have this everything it produces will be a gross lie.

So...if us "damned foreigners" don't try and educate our comrades in the USA to not just realize that the attacks by the Islamo-fascists of Al Queda were morally wrong but, more importantly, that we should denounce any sympathy for them in our own ranks in no uncertain terms then we will have failed our duty. One of the great failings of American culture is its trend to conformity. This is mitigated by the fact that it is a pluralistic society, but within the little subgroups of American society they have far less freedom to dissent than we do outside of the USA. It's a failing of the American character. Their left needs the support of those of us outside of the country to find its proper way or it rapidly descends into cultism and "circling the wagons". Conformity in radical politics ala "political correctness" is one of the industrial wastes that the USA exports to the rest of us. Our American comrades suffer much more from this repressive mindset than the rest of us do. But we still suffer from it. If the centre of the Empire farts, the rest of us hold our noses...or claim that we smell roses.

NO...innocent victims of fascist attacks are no more "little Eichmanns" than innocent victims of Israeli bombs aimed at Hamas are "terrorists". It's incumbent on us to purge ourselves of those who wish to justify murder by ideology. If we don't do it the most likely result will be permanent irrelevancy. If a miracle occurs and such a left gains power...then welcome to the death camps.

FALSE CLAIMS ON NUTRICEUTICAL LABELS:

Molly has sold certain nutriceuticals, especially for her canine patients, for some time now. Aside from the omega-3 fatty acids the main item is a combination product containing glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate called 'Cosequin'. One of Molly's own cats is receiving daily supplements of same. It's not a big market for Molly as she often recommends that owners of large dogs purchase their supplements from a human pharmacy and "work down" on the dose given the weight of their dog. Now, Molly is not a devotee of the religion that could be described as "naturophilia" ie the superstitious belief that there is something "magical" about so-called "natural compounds" that makes them mysteriously better than totally synthetic compounds. Being half-Irish she cannot see the difference between "Protestant chemicals" and "Catholic chemicals" despite her ethnic background, and this is an exact metaphor for the belief that there is something magical about "natural". As with any religion there are also an incredible amount of predators who take advantage of such beliefs to empty the wallets of the believers. The best research in the human field has concluded that there is no benefit to sufferers of osteoarthritis, like Molly herself, from taking glucosamine alone, and the research in the veterinary field is ambiguous enough to draw the same conclusion vis-a-vis dogs. The jury is still out, however, regarding the benefit of glucosamine/chondroitin combinations, and so Molly still either sells or recommends them.

This is despite her knowledge of a much deeper level of dishonesty in the nutriceutical market which she hopes to bypass by her usual recommendation that owners never purchase such drugs from an health food store (they are the ultimate epitomy of crookedness in our society falling way below used car salesmen for shear dishonesty) but only from a pharmacy. This is because Molly is fully aware that health food quackery not only makes false claims for efficacy of certain chemicals but is connected to dishonest manufacturers who routinely misrepresent the actual levels of chemicals in the drugs that they sell, to the extent that there may be none of the chemical claimed on the label in the little funny capsules sold at inflated prices in such drug dens. About the only thing that Molly says is "safe" to buy at a health food store are yeast tablets. Yeast is industrial waste and is ultra-cheap and so there is little incentive to lie about it. Simply weigh it, put it in a capsule and charge a markup of 1000% for the marks.

I know in my heart of hearts that purchase from a pharmacy is no guarantee of honesty in labelling, but I still believe that the pharmacies are a few orders of magnitude above the systemic dishonesty of health food stores because lies are not their total business. Yet something I have recently read gives me pause in that it reinforces the need for vigilance on the part of veterinarians, and by implication pharmacists as well. I am only happy that this paper says that what I have been doing to date in terms of my own sales is OK. Anyways...

The item is a comparative analysis of the amounts of glucosamine and chondroitin present in 7 different nutriceutical products manufactured for the veterinary community and their correlation with label claims. The authors are Bertrand Lussier and Maxim Moreau of the Companion Animal Research Group, Faculte de mediceine veterinaire, University de Montreal (the French speaking veterinary college here in Canada). The research was sponsored by the generic drug manufacturer Novo-Pharm in their expectation that their product 'Novo-Flex' would measure up to various brand name formulations marketed to veterinarians here in Canada. It did more than measure up ! There were six other brand name formulations tested: Kirkland, Equate, Ubavet, Cosequin, Osteo 3, and Con-Glu. The results for glucosamine, the cheaper chemical, were not extraordinary. Only Ubavet and Osteo-3 fell significantly below the label claims, by -28.9% and -15.2% respectively. For the more expensive chemical, chondroitin, however, the variation from label claims was astounding: -98.7% for Equate (practically none available in their pills), -83.7% for Uba-Vet, and -19.9% for Osteo 3. Only the Kirkland product, Cosequin and the generic formulation Novo-flex measured up, all of them exceeding the label claims (which are typically expressed as "minimums").

It's food for thought. It says to me that I should stick with Cosequin for my own sales until further research verifies the Novo-Pharm claims. It also, however, says to me that I should be a little more cautious is recommending pharmacy purchases and should perhaps recommend a "house brand" first over other items on the shelf. I think that i can presume that pharmacy house brands have quality control that is superior to those of the other items on their shelf. Something to look up.

Once more, there is no firm proof that a glucosamine/chondroitin mixture does any good for osteoarthritis sufferers, but like much in medicine this is provisional. The authors of the paper from the Universite de Montreal conclude that federal legislation to enforce compliance with minimal standards of honesty in nutriceutical labels would be desirable. As an anarchist I'd like to avoid this conclusion, but it seems like a reasonable reform in the absence of popular education, particularly as so many anarchists-and other leftists- buy into the obvious lies of health food quackery. Those who attempt to educate the public are small in number as compared to those who attempt to steal from the public, and too many of the supposed friends of the public buy into the popular crooked lies for various ideological reasons.

Molly

A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCIENCE:

Nature magazine has recently published an interesting essay under the 'Connections' column(Nature:445:Feb 2,2007, p489) The title is as above, and the essay describes how "network math" may help the social sciences in making predictions that can be tested in a scientific way. The author makes a case that internet communications can provide a field wherein the ambiguities of ordinary sociological analysis are reduced so that precise predictions can be made and tested. The author admits that the results derived from internet research are "limited" . The author also, unfortunately, calls for a loosening of the privacy protections on internet communications so that research can be conducted on these matters. NOW, Molly has little doubt that a "science of society" can be constructed that supersedes political ideologies such as Marxism, conservatism, liberalism(or crude anarchism with whatever neologisms it may devise). Time marches on after all. Part of the book that I am trying to review, "A Beautiful Math', refers to such system mathematics. But still...my first objection here is as an individual concerned about their own privacy, and whether the benefit is worth the cost. In a class society such research will be framed in terms of how it can benefit the managerial controllers of the society. I assume that such research can yield testable predictions which I don't assume for most leftoid rhetoric. What I will say plain and simply is that the doomed effort to put chains on scientific inquiry is much more applicable to this case than it is in any other case of simple inquiry. These results will come to view, and leftists are obliged to come to terms with them no matter how much they might like to hide behind rhetoric.

Molly personally is not a leftist in the sense of believing in the underlying ("lying" is an appropriate word) philosophical beliefs of leftism (which includes the so-called "post leftists"). But she is still a "leftist" in terms of believing that the ultimate goals of "the left" are both valuable and achievable. What "the left" has to do is face reality such as that presented in papers such as this and use it for their own purposes.

Molly