o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf

chapter five
concluding remarks
Studies of anarchism typically conclude with brief and often gloomy
assessments about its prospects. Critics like David Miller and George
Crowder acknowledge the significant contribution anarchists have
made to political thought – particularly their critiques of Marxism –
but still emphasize anarchism’s theoretical flaws and practical
shortcomings. Many anarchists – particularly those who trace the
roots of the movement to Lao Tzu (Kropotkin) or Etienne de la
Boetie (Rothbard) – adopt a more optimistic view. Anarchism, they
argue, describes a natural impulse to rebel which is deeply embedded
in the human psyche and unlikely to disappear. The history of
anarchism is as old as time; it extends well beyond the appearance
and collapse of the European movement (1840–1939). It may have
endured long periods of quiescence, but its real history is punctuated
by moments of marvellous defiance: from the Anabaptist revolt
and the Leveller protests to, in modern times, the Spanish Civil War,
and the events of May 1968 in Paris. From this point of view, the
anti-capitalist movement is only the most recent manifestation of
this struggle. On the first view, anarchism describes a particular set
of concepts and ideas. On the second, it’s a more protean movement.
Taken by themselves, neither view seems to capture the essence of
anarchist ideology: the first is too rigid, the second too broad. Yet
they both point to two popular reactions to anarchism. The first is
that anarchism is a nice idea on paper, but impossible in the real
world. The second is that anarchism is about permanent opposition
and essentially frivolous.
The first reaction seems rather odd in the sense that it’s difficult
to think of any ideology that has been realized in perfect form – after
170