Add new comment

All of this work is a response to my own deep misgivings about the viability of anarchism as a project, nurtured by decades of experience of anarchist dysfunction and historical research suggesting that the problems are as integral to actually existing anarchism as any of the other elements we could point to. But all of that is balanced against my sense that, if the last 140 years haven't amounted to a particularly good start for an anarchism that could really reward all of us who would like to see considerably more anarchy in our lives, that historical development has also contained a lot of useful indications—often as a kind of countercurrent within better known anarchist movements—about how things might work out differently without huge shifts in our understanding of anarchy and the ways it might manifest itself in the world.

I'm happiest telling stories about anarchist weirdos for anarchist weirdos, focusing on "the beautiful idea" and not worrying too much about those for whom a strong concept of anarchy really has very little appeal. But my work on the margins has been successful enough that I've been offered opportunities to also present more "mainstream" anarchist figures from my somewhat idiosyncratic perspective. Easier said than done, of course, particularly with the Chomskyarchists and anarcho-democrats emerging as a more active force in anarchist circles. So it has seemed to make sense, in the relative solitude imposed by the pandemic, to see if I can at least articulate some bridges between my various interests. If nothing else, it will make it easier to get some book introductions written.

And if the little toolkit that I feel like I'll be able to offer isn't interesting to other anarchists, perhaps because they would like to believe that it isn't necessary, I still get the benefit of a direct confrontation with my individual concerns—and I get clarity about how much more of this kind of public engagement it makes sense to bother with.