Review of Anarchist Studies Issues 2(2) Autumn 1994 and 3(1) Spring 1995 Published by White Horse Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Steve Millett

 

For those of us concerned with the articulation of a  non-statist, non-capitalist alternative at an intellectual  level, there is a lamentably small amount of anarchist material  available. 

The Marxists, with their affinity to the academic establishment,  have always been well represented in the literature of the  radical left, but in recent years the banner of anti-statism has  been taken up by the pro-market New Right. Their literature is  frequently referred to as itself 'radical' and their vision,  where it can be called that, is offered as the only alternative  to an increasingly omnipresent and stultifying state  bureaucracy. The rapidly expanding Green literature has gone  some way to offsetting the shift to the Right, but although  often anarchist in inspiration the concerns of environmentalism  seem to increasingly mirror the agendas of the existing  political spectrum. So a journal which is openly and  self-consciously anarchist is welcome - perhaps vital in a time  of growing political disenchantment in the face of the very  visible failures of the statist Left.

Although Anarchist Studies is now in its third year of  publication, these are the first two issues I have seen. My aim  in reviewing it is less to look at the individual articles in  detail than to examine the journal as a whole. I hope in doing  so I can do justice to Anarchist Studies, although I apologize  if my 'snap shot' does not reflect reality of Anarchist Studies  over its lifespan.

The problem any intellectual anarchist journal has to contend  with is not becoming immersed in the past - as Nicholas Walter  has pointed out.  The anarchist literature of the past weighs heavily on the  present and makes it hard for us to produce new literature for  the future.

It can justifiably be suggested that if the wisdom of (among  others) Ancient Greeks, Florentine patriots and German  expatriates is still considered worth studying by scores of  academics, why not the anarchists? Surely their insights are  equally pertinent? More importantly for anarchists, are they not  valuable because they are part of our 'shared past', and are  therefore 'the basis of our consciousness', as Brian Morris has  contended?  To an extent, all the above is true. Equally, historical  research can often reveal aspects of the past that are not only  inspiring and challenging, but pertinent to the struggles of the  present.

Nevertheless, all the above have to be qualified - we are living  in different times, with different struggles, and different  enemies (or perhaps the same enemies in different guise). We  need to confront and challenge the prevailing wisdom of the  moment - even if some of it may appear transitory and spurious  (which is, perhaps, a good reason to challenge it). And we need  to guard against insularity, though at the same time being  careful not to disown our heritage and the many insights that  the authoritarian tradition has seen fit to ignore or belittle.

There is an inevitably limited potential in looking to the  struggles of the past to illuminate the present - what happened  one hundred years ago can only offer so many pointers today.  Attempts to draw parallels and inspiration, then, though worthy,  are not always legitimate.  Is it really possible to argue, as Jon Bekken does in issue  3(1), that the 'separation between the [anarchist] movement and  its media is by no means inevitable' by looking at the history  of the anarchist daily Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeitung. Times change  - Rupert Murdoch, internet, global TV. If this excellent article  serves as inspiration to those attempted to (re)form an  anarchist press, then all well and good. But this is by no means  inevitable or even possible.

So while these pieces are certainly (in their context) valuable,  it is noticable that they represent a significant portion of the  journal's copy. In each issue there are three 'leading' articles  - that is, not review pieces (which I will look a later). In the  issues I have three of these are concerned with some aspect of  the classical anarchist movement - two with theorists (Kroptokin  and Malatesta), one with the first anarchist daily newspaper.  Although these are all well-written and stimulating pieces,  their preponderance generates the kind of historical feel that I  would suggest anarchist journals may be prone to and should  (unless that is their specific remit) avoid. Consequently, the  other articles dealing with sustainable development, a  fascinating account of grassroots anarchists views on violence  and social change, as well as an extended review by John Clark  of Peter Marshall's Nature Web, are unable to offer a sufficient  counter-weight to offset this 'feel'. Unfortunately, the  inclusion of John Clark's review upsets the balance of the  journals even more.

As well as the leading articles Anarchist Studies has a copious  selection of book-reviews of one form or another - both review  articles, dealing with several books under a common theme, as  well as more straightforward, and shorter, reviews of individual  books. Again, these tend to be informative and well-written, and  in many respects the book review section is the best part of  journal. The problem is, again, balance. In all thirty eight  books are reviewed in one form or another in the two copies I  have, and this far outweighs anything else the journal carries.  It almost seems as if it could function as an 'Anarchist Review'.

I presume the problem is copy; if articles of sufficient quality  were being written, they would presumably be included. The  editorial mentions a need for material on anarchism and  sexuality, post-modernity, green issues and the Third World  among others, subjects that would be thought to inspire the  wide-ranging interests of anarchists. It is unfortunate that  there appear to be too few people willing or able to write on  these issues.

The problems of lack of copy and the preponderance of book  reviews lead to another. The journal appears to be aimed at  academic institutions, and is printed and bound accordingly.  However, this means it is expensive - currently £6 ($9) an  issue. This is a lot of money for an individual to spend,  particularly for only three articles an issue, even with the  excellent book review section. A corresponding more mainstream  (not anarchist) journal is more likely to have at least twice  this number, for the same price.

I find myself drawing the harsh conclusion that Anarchist  Studies is expensive and lacking in content in some respects.  This should not detract from the excellent work that appears in  it, nor the evident commitment and dedication of the editors; it  is hardly their fault if people do not respond to the challenge  and produce sufficient copy. If the book review section appears  to dominate that in part reflect what the editors have to work  with and also, it has to be said, indicates the success of the  book-review editor's work. Ultimately, if Anarchist Studies is  to succeed it needs anarchists to write articles and subscribe  to the journal (neither of which, I have to admit, I have done  at present). It may be that the anarchist movement is unable or  unwilling to take up the challenge of having its own  intellectual journal, and if so it may have to close. This would  be unfortunate because journals such as Anarchist Studies are  sorely needed.