Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+3 votes
What's your opinion on "An Anarchist FAQ"?

It's one of the most famous texts on anarchism from this generation, so I'm guessing most of you have read some of it. (Though I doubt anyone's read all of it, it's thousands of pages.)

Do you, for the most part, agree with the way it depicts anarchism?
Or do you for the most part disagree?
Or in between?

edited to add tag
by (110 points)
edited by
what makes you say it's one of the most famous texts?
i would argue there aren't really any famous anarchist texts from this generation.

1 Answer

+5 votes
It's a great resource for anarcho-socialist/communist specificities, but it should be called "A Left Anarchist FAQ" to avoid confusion. Its writers often disparage other kinds of anarchism or bastardize them in order to sync them up with their own beliefs. This might be intentional, it might not. But it is an insidious way of narrowing the definitions and goals of anarchism and that makes it a dangerous thing to put into the hands of an anarcho-newbie. It's like showing them one piece of a puzzle and claiming there are no more pieces, or that the other pieces are malformed.

I read a lot of it when I first came to anarchism--and it was very informative--but I quickly grew tired of the "this is proper anarchism, this is not" tripe.
by (1.6k points)
edited by
thanks for answering! :)

looking forward to hearing more perspectives.
MTB pretty much said everything I would've. I remember reading early iterations on the dial-up connection back in the day (my knees ache!) and feeling like there was something missing, or maybe like the authors were trying to con me (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!). Where it's factual, it is fine (and that is all - fine), but the problem is it blends fact with editorial opinion.