>Dear Steve,
>Thanks for getting in touch. What I'm going to do is to send you a handful
>of questions - of which I hope you will answer as many or as few as you
>like, and as fully or tersely as you like.

In reply to your e mail,

>General Qs:

>a)Has there been a resurgence of interest in anarchism in recent years and
>if so why?

Our impression is that anarchism is in a resurgence.
The reasons are varied, here is one analysis:

1) The collapse of Marxist-Leninism and Orthodox Marxism in general has led to an ideological vacuum amongst the Revolutionary Left, which many have increasingly sought to fill with the anarchistic theories of the early Marx (of a kind successful during the Paris events of May '68) and sometimes full anarchism (which also saw a revival in Paris, and else where, at this pivotal time).
This is also now true in the former Soviet Union where both State Communism and Capitalism appear to have failed.

2)The militant environmentalist movement faced with the futility of single issue politics has moved towards a global critique of the Capitalist system and its ideology as the source of ecological damage. Their alternative ideology, a kind of naturalistic libertarianism has many features in common with anarchism and has increasingly merged with it.

3)The degeneration of Social Democracy (as the Labour Party becomes a form of moderate conservatism) has led to an exodus of many grassroots radicals to other movements. Some of whom have migrated to moderate wings of the above and assumed anarchistic stances.

4)The dissillusionment many feel with Capitalism, and Post Industrial society in general(particularly its effect on the environment and its inability to lead to a satisfying full life for most) has led many to criticise it and some to seek alternative ways of life.
Even arch Capitalists such as George Soros have now questioned the wisdom of Global Capitalism.
The more radical of these critics and counter culturalists are drifting into anarchism.

5)In post modern intellectual spheres the collapse of epistemic certainty, and conceptual hierarchy, has moved many left academics and writers towards a libertarian, anti-ideological, neo-relativism, that dove tails well with anarchism.
Anarchistic revolutionary groups such as the Zapatistas have been very much influenced by this and have developed diverse and pragmatic radical coalitions under the influence of these ideas.
An extreme development of these ideas is also found in an anti-ideological, anarchist-nihilism that is growing again within the traditional anarchist movement.

6)The traditional anarchist movement itself following its hosting of a successful inter-left conference in May last year has become more united. Previous factionalisations being resolved in pragmatic alliances and a pluralistic stance (influenced by both the above intellectual developments and practical necessity). A common solidarity has also been forged with the above parallel movements. A radical melting pot of ideas has emerged within this alliance.

All of the above has been emerging for many years. The close of the century appears to be witnessing a final coming together of these strands into a diverse libertarian movement united around anarchist ideas (both nationally and internationally). Often with traditional anarchists as the core activists.
The testimony of this ranges from the J18 events, to recent articles in the New Statesman urging a reassessment of anarchist ideas.
 

>b)Although, as you say, the true anarchist is not going to have a party line
>or dogma, what are the things that anarchists do have in common?

A minimal common denominator for traditional anarchists would be the belief that society can function efficiently (perhaps more efficiently) without a State (or government of anykind), and that asocially competitive, insular individualism, and its corresponding manifestation as materialistic capitalism, is destructive of free community and the positive human relations that would replace the State, as well as make our lives fuller and more rewarding.
Class Struggle anarchists also object to Capitalist, "liberal democracy" on the basis that it represents the hegemony of the interests of the bourgeois classes (and their institutions) over the working class.
 
The majority of anarchists also hold the belief that a form of egalitarian, voluntary communism - merely "from each according to (voluntary) ability, to each according to need" - is the only economic form compatible with a State-less society. Though this is often combined with a pragmatic acceptance of a pluralistic, federal society of diverse alternative communities and economies. Ultimately we believe in responsible experimentation and praxis.
These egalitarian economic concerns are also increasingly being matched with ecological concerns about the deadly effects of rampant consumerism, and other Capitalist practises, on the environment.

The egalitarian strand is traditionally combined with a promotion of the maximum liberty of the individual, as far as this is compatible with our other aims. A central motivation for many anarchists is personal liberation and the complete fulfillment and development of the (social) individual.
We believe individual freedom and social equality are compatible in their near absolute forms, and that authoritarianism and fixed hierarchies are destructive of both.

Our differences turn on the definitions of these ideas and what they entail.
Despite an overall solidarity in diversity, family resemblances often lead to organised anarchists associating in affinity groupings of seven basic orientations: anarcho-communists (emphasising class struggle, and today much influenced by the libertarian Marx); eco-anarchists (sharing a concern with enviromental issues and counter cultural ideologies); anarchist individualists (emphasing individual freedom and alternative lifestyles); anarcho-syndicalists; anarcho-pacifists (influenced by Tolstoy and Ghandi); liberal anarchists (sharing an avoidance of  'extremism'); and an emerging anarchist nihilism (claiming an origin from bohemian and russian nihilists, such as Herzen and the young Bakunin, but revitalised by post modern ideas). The majority of anarchists probably do not fit easily into such categories however and even the above orientations overlap in various associations.
 
Naturally due to the ambitious nature of our political objectives the anarchist is typically either a dedicated revolutionary or a very patient, radical reformer.
 

>Are there
>any anarchist organisations that you strongly disagree with?

I would only oppose anarchist groups whose methods were not in accord with our goals (ie crazed terrorists etc, as no true anarchist believes the ends justify the means) or who attempted to impose their dogmatic intepretation of anarchism on the movement.
Long ago this kind of desperate fanaticism was a problem for anarchism, today it is fortunately very rare.
On an individual level I can passionately disagree(or agree) with any other anarchist about anything, that is what being a free individual means! But politically solidarity is our rule.
 
 

>c)What sorts of people become anarchists; what draws people to anarchism?

Anarchists are varied individuals, common denominators might be an angry disastisfaction with society, a love of freedom and a passionate hatred of injustice and inequality. Many have suffered and identify with the suffering of others, some are extremely angry. Most of us are not unworldly, moralistic idealists however. We are motivated in the above by our own desires for personal and social liberation and authenticity.
Others are outsiders alienated and excluded from what they see as a 'sick society' and seek to belong to something better.
But there are no reliable stereotypes, most anarchists tend to be genuinely unique individuals (as potentially we all are).

I think people are drawn to anarchism by a sense of belonging to an alternative 'community' of like minded people, excitement and the feeling of social empowerment, that we are not helpless victims of the system, and can make a difference.
 

>d)There is a perception - grounded in the terrorism at the turn of the last
>century, and perhaps confirmed for some by the J18 demonstration in London -
>that anarchism is violent and revolutionary. Any comments on this?

Well not all of those at J18 were anarchists, including many of the 'rioters'. But I take your point.

Many anarchists are pacifistic, reformers. Many others believe the destruction of the existing system is necessary to achieve radical change, though today most would prefer a peaceful 'controlled' dissolution to a violent revolution which is often counter productive for libertarians (as past revolutions have demonstrated). Most probably lie between these two poles. However, like the system we oppose, we are generally prepared to use violence to preserve our concept of freedom (and some may prepare themselves or pre-emptively organize in this direction when they have reason to believe it is necessary). Also desperate situations (such as existed in the last century) sometimes require extreme measures.
We are also political realists and are aware that kind words alone rarely effect vested interests, no matter how unjust those interests may be percieved to be.

Incidently an analysis of terrorist acts of the last century reveals that (as today) much of it was the work of liberational nationalists and fanatatical authoritarian revolutionaries, rather than anarchists. At the time 'anarchist' and 'nihilist' were still used as pejorative general terms for such activists. Of course the greatest 'terrorism' was performed by the governments of the period.

>e)To what extent is anarchism a lifestyle as much as a political ideology?

The two are inseperable for any serious political position!
As was said in the 6o's "the personal is the political".
'Ideology' that is not lived is nothing but hypocracy and ungrounded, intellectual masterbation. Alternative lifestyles without realistic political commitment are impotent, escapist fantasy. Pseudo-anarchists have sometimes adopted such approaches but they are not part of the serious anarchist movement.
Alternative lifestyles are varied within anarchism, they are a matter of individual taste. Some choose to drop out completely, others accomodate to the existing society and work from within it.
 
 
>f)How much common ground is there with other movements like the green
>movement?

There is a great deal of common ground between anarchism and the radical, libertarian wing of the green movement.

>g)How hopeful are you that an anarchist society could replace the current
>liberal democracy? What are the aims of anarchists?

I think liberal democracy is finished, it will not last far into the next century. Global Capitalism, its foundation, is heading for an inevitable catastrophic collapse. Some of us are working hard to ensure what replaces it is better. I am optismistic of our eventual success. History has shown nothing else will work.
Given a choice between anarchism or facism I believe most sane people would choose the former or something close to it (even if the social products of capitalism are not conducive to sanity).

I have stated what I percieve as our aims earlier. But I would add that events like the J18 demo are seen by many of us as ways of imaginatively protesting against, and peacefully subverting, the existing system, and most importantly demonstrating the poverty of bourgeois life compared to the carnivalesque alternatives of a more human and libertarian alternative. The police demonstrated the establishments fear of this by attempting to suppress events and thus triggering a riot.
Riots have their attractions (for both rioters and police), and no doubt a small minority would have perpetrated mindless, counter productive acts, while others would have staged forceful occupations, without this provocation. But I doubt if events would have turned as explosive and destructive as they did without it, as witnessed by similar relatively peaceful demos in other European cities. Most people wanted a carnival not a riot.
These events will doubtlessly occur again, I hope next time they are more peaceful and constructive, but recent history, the media's biased handling of J18, and innevitable reaction from both sides does not make me optimistic on this in the near future, though I hope I am wrong and that common sense prevails.
 

>Personal Qs:
>a) If you haven't already explained it in answering the above, I would be
>interested to know something about your theoretical and methodological
>research.

I suggest you examine our website on www.angelfire.com/id/ASP/top.html , it is still under construction and sparse in content, but contains details of the ASP agenda and methodology, as well as an alternative account of the J18 events from the anarchist press.
 

I shall be downloading a copy of my reply on the correspondence section of this site. If your article is published and appears on the web I shall include a link so the two can be compared.