Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism, and Radical History

by Staughton Lynd, Andrej Grubačić

Wobblies and Zapatistas offers the reader an encounter between two generations and two traditions. Andrej Grubacic is an anarchist from the Balkans. Staughton Lynd is a lifelong pacifist, influenced by Marxism. They meet in dialogue in an effort to bring together the anarchist and Marxist traditions, to discuss the writing of history by those who make it, and to remind us of the idea that "my country is the world." Encompassing a Left libertarian perspective and an emphatically activist standpoint, these conversations are meant to be read in the clubs and affinity groups of the new Movement.




The authors accompany us on a journey through modern revolutions, direct actions, anti-globalist counter summits, Freedom Schools, Zapatista cooperatives, Haymarket and Petrograd, Hanoi and Belgrade, "intentional" communities, wildcat strikes, early Protestant communities, Native American democratic practices, the Workers' Solidarity Club of Youngstown, occupied factories, self-organized councils and soviets, the lives of forgotten revolutionaries, Quaker meetings, antiwar movements, and prison rebellions. Neglected and forgotten moments of interracial self-activity are brought to light. The book invites the attention of readers who believe that a better world, on the other side of capitalism and state bureaucracy, may indeed be possible.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Labor, Activism, Theory

289 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2008

About the author

The son of renowned sociologists Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Lynd, Staughton Lynd grew up in New York City. He earned a BA from Harvard, an MA and PhD in history from Columbia. He taught at Spelman College in Georgia (where he was acquainted with Howard Zinn) and Yale University. In 1964, Lynd served as director of Freedom Schools in the Mississippi Summer Project. An opponent of the Vietnam War, Lynd chaired the first march against the war in Washington DC in 1965 and, along with Tom Hayden and Herbert Aptheker, went on a controversial trip to Hanoi in December 1965 that cost him his position at Yale.

In the late 1960s Lynd moved to Chicago, where he was involved in community organizing. An oral history project of the working class undertaken with his wife inspired Lynd to earn a JD from the University of Chicago in 1976. After graduating the Lynds moved to Ohio, where Staughton worked as an attorney and activist.

Reviews

[Ernesto Aguilar · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the moment Marxists and anarchists parted ways in 1872, the peculiar and occasionally rancorous tension between the divergent schools of socialism has been the subject of many a debate, study group and protest. For anarchists, as Mikhail Bakunin articulated, Marxism's ascension would virtually necessitate it would become as oppressive as the capitalist state. For Marxists, anarchism's impulse to support no one having power meant the well-connected in-crowd, mostly well-heeled and white, would exert their power in other ways and with the tacit support of the core of the people. From these early conflicts came years of characterizations - as often fair as misguided - of a host of Anarchism's motivations and political aspirations, and about organizing and the lack thereof.

Still, it would be a sin of omission to avoid saying there was not at least a hint of admiration at times on the part of Marxists for anarchism's flair for harnessing the creative energies of youth, or by anarchists, who secretly desired to have the credibility to organize broadly, with clarity and among communities of color. The admiration is spotty though. Marxism and anarchism have historically had a love-hate relationship as impassioned and tragic as anything Euripides ever penned.

Anti-globalization currents, and both tendencies' struggles to turn early protests into a massive anti-capitalist mobilization, have rekindled discussions of the kind found in Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History. Granted, few of these dialogues have involved luminaries of Staughton Lynd's stature, yet they represent a starting place - not only about differences, but also about commonalities, shared values, and hopes for a better world.

Wobblies and Zapatistas puts Lynd at the table with Andrej Grubacic, a Northern California anarchist by way of the Balkans, for extensive exchanges about history, political theory and practical reality. Removed from these talks are some of the stranger hues of Marxism and anarchism - extreme sectarianism and "post left" posturing among them - nor is this book intended to blast one idea or the other. Instead, Lynd and Grubacic are aiming squarely for those looking to build bridges between the two camps.

Their conversation about the Zapatistas' militancy emerges an intriguing discourse, flowing throughout the book, about how politics over the last generation has fundamentally changed. For this reason, how activists and radical partisans in the struggle see themselves and their orientations must also change, with an eye to rejecting old labels. This is not a new revelation. The New Left has postulated such ideas for some time, and the aforementioned anti-globalization clashes and demonstrations have often eschewed ideological tags. In Lynd and Grubacic's estimation, internationalism is as much of the heart as it is about politics. One could derisively call this misty idealism, although one cannot discount the earnestness of such beliefs.

Both are correct in seeing the importance of "big-picture" ideas when it comes to putting forward a political vision. For example, proclaiming that Joe Hill would have seen himself as a Palestinian conjures up effective imagery, and a fertile discussion arises from this point. Lynd seems to acknowledge the amount of work that remains to be done when he argues that the movements of today face difficulties concerning strategy. Compare this with the South's fight over African American disenfranchisement and the North's battle against the war in Vietnam in the 1960s-70s, which galvanized disparate forces. Yet, the bulk of the book suggests a bigger problem is the reliance on old ways of doing thins. What gets a little downplayed here is an assessment of the amount of work involved in moving towards these "big-picture" moments.

Lynd's remark that anarchism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but Hegelian moments split by personality clashes with the First International, seem simplistic, and comments in the book too often dismissively reduce significant and substantive splits to mere sleights of hand. At the same time, engaging critiques, such as seeing anti-imperialism not as a rejection of everything American but as embracing the best in American radical traditions, abound. Reexaminations of the Haymarket affair and the Industrial Workers of the World ("the Zapatistas of yesteryear," as Lynd calls them) are sure to make one look upon these memorable revolutionary surges in a new light. Chalk that up to Lynd's take on history, which is richly textured and buoyed by the weight of experience.

One cannot address the ideas presented here without appreciating Lynd's remarkable life. From his expulsion from the military to his directorship of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's Freedom Schools, to his engagement in the Youngstown steel mill struggle in the 1970s and beyond, Lynd has been a critical figure on the left. He has also been a vibrant socialist, albeit one who has embraced socialism's diversity over dogmatism. His genuine love for humanity shines through, and it is doubtful such a that this dialogue could be so arresting without his compassion.

Noted German statesman Otto von Bismarck was famously quoted as saying after the First International split that "crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the black and red unite." In the pages of Wobblies and Zapatistas, such a possibility seems not so far away.

[* · Rating 3 out of 5]

No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...

I wanted to like this book so much, but things were damned from the very first page: there is a paragraph-long blurb by one of the most pretentious brats I have ever had the displeasure of sharing organizing space with. I seethed when I saw it and I wrinkled my nose when I read it. Anyone who has this book and knows me in an organizing context will know which asshole I am talking about...

There were several things that I appreciated about the book. For one, opening my eyes to Liberation Theology and Oscar Romero. His theory of accompaniment is one that I had, without knowing, started down the road of adopting in my current studies to be a nurse. I could have come across this by merely reading Oscar Romero's letters themselves, and I plan on it. But before reading this book, I never knew to. Which brings me to another plus:

Staughton Lynd rattles off books that I am interested in reading. It's great! The book is almost an annotated reading list, many of which sound utterly fascinating, including Staughton Lynd's books. But can I really justify recommending this book? Or should I just be recommending the books that this book recommends?

In addition, Lynd's dismisses some ideas without engaging them in a serious way. His understanding of the abolition of whiteness is based on a vulgar definition, one that isn't actually linked to moving white people away from the benefits given to them by white supremacy, and instead is based on crass dismissal of white people. He then burns up the straw man by pointing to scant historical anecdotes (which are quite inspirational) of the white working class working with the black working class together, when it suited their mutual interest. Unfortunately, he doesn't engage how often white working class movements refuse to engage with the black working class because their interests are meted out differently by a capitalist system that wishes to divide and conquer them. White abolition exists to undermine the difference between the working class' divergent interests based on race, not to dismiss white people offhand.

Staughton Lynd also extols too hard the virtues of himself working a professional class job as a lawyer that helps the working class navigate through the capitalist system as a basis for accompaniment. Lawyers and laws may be needed as a temporary fix to stave off the worst excesses of capitalism, but as a hero of mine once said, "The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house." Or, as another hero more forebodingly said, "Tyrants die from stab wounds, not articles of the legal code." Sure, you can buy your time with these temporary fixes, but the law exists to serve capital, and these temporary fixes will be rolled back at the whim of the class of people who control the means of production. Staughton dismisses Critical Legal Theory for being too cynical, but he doesn't address the criticism of the theory: that people use law and higher concepts only as positioning for their client to win their case.

The stories of the two movements mentioned in the title (the Industrial Workers of the World and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation) are stories I've already heard before, and more thoroughly elsewhere. Though I came away with some excitement about books I've never heard of before, I cannot think of a reason to go back to the book, now that I've finished it. I won't be quoting it, I won't be searching through the pages to reread favorite passages. I can't even say that I'd recommend it to many people, except as a sort of broad stroke survey of independent left movements in the US: all the right groups and people are mentioned, but none of this is gone into with any sort of satisfactory depth.

Available:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/44454...

[Andy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrible. This book can be described as a series of drunken email exchanges that wander from topic to topic, with no real goal or direction in sight. The title is incredibly misleading; it has nothing to do with either group.

Staughton Lynd is a washed up hippy who likes to rant about the good ole' days of SNCC, and Andrej Grubacic asks incredibly open-ended questions, allowing Lynd to wander off topic into the abyss.

I highly recommend nobody bother reading this book. I think almost all of its knowledge can be gained by participating in anarchist and Marxist organizations for only a year.

[Natalie Lerner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting narrative history of the American left , a little slow at times but great food for thought

[Taru Luojola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kirjalla on hämmentävä nimi, ja tähän ryhtyessäni ajattelin, että tässä keskityttäisiin kertomaan zapatisteista. No, oikeasti zapatistit ovat vain yksi toistuvasti sivuttava aihe kahden henkilön keskustelussa. Kirja siis on ”anarkistin” ja ”kommunistin” vuoropuhelua erilaisista vallankumouksellisista teemoista ja pikakelaus etenkin amerikkalaisesta (sekä yhdysvaltalaisesta että väliamerikkalaisesta) vasemmistoradikalismista. Sikäli siis hyvin valistava, joskin sellaisenaan vähän irrallinen rykäys, ellei ole sattunut seuraamaan viimeisen parinkymmenen vuoden vasemmistolaista keskustelua kovin tarkasti (en voi väittää olleeni kovin tarkka seuraaja itse).

Erityisenä sitaattina haluan nostaa esiin kirjan lopetuksen: ”Minun hartain toivomukseni uudelle liikkeelle on, että yksilöt pystyisivät aina vain paremmin sovittamaan erimielisyytensä, löytämään yhteistä maaperää ja ennalta toteuttamaan toisenlaista maailmaa siinä, miten he ovat toistensa kanssa. Tämä prosessi on olennainen osa väkivallattomuutta. Tärkeintä on tahto ja etsiminen.”

Koska kirja on aihepiiriltään niin moneen suuntaan haarova, lukiessa syntyi ajatuksiakin jos jonkinlaisista aiheista. Identiteettipolitiikasta tuli ajateltua seuraavasti. Tarkemmin sanottuna siitä, miksi identiteettipolitiikka on nykyään keskiössä etenkin angloamerikkalaisessa ja sitä apinoivissa kulttuureissa.

Monissa radikaaleissa ruohonjuuritason liikkeissä (joita tässäkin kirjassa esitellään useita) on ollut käytössä sellainen edustusmalli, että valitaan alueellisia edustajia, esim. kyläyhteisöstä. Eikä käytäntö rajoitu edes radikaaleihin liikkeisiin. Esimerkiksi yhdysvalloissa ja britanniassa koko vaalijärjestelmä toimii näin. Se on tietenkin yksinkertaista organisoida myös alkeellisissa oloissa, siksi se ehkä onkin suht spontaani toimintamalli. Ja se on myös enemmistön helppo hyväksyä, koska enemmistö saa edustajansa läpi.

Mutta vähemmistöjä se syrjii kovasti. ja koska se on sidottu paikallisuuteen, vähemmistöt eivät voi edes yhdistää voimiaan laajemmalta alueelta, vaan jokaisen kylän vähemmistö on vähemmistössä yksin. Nykyviestintä on kuitenkin luonteeltaan täysin erilaista kuin entisinä aikoina. Nykyään vähemmistöt voivat yhdistää voimansa vaikka maailmanlaajuisesti. Mutta eihän se auta, jos kaikki edustus- ja päätösrakenteet, puoluejärjestöjä myöten, rakentuvat edelleen paikallisen kyläyhteisön mallin ympärille.

Siksi identiteettiryhmät ovat nettiaikakaudella niin äänekkäitä. Niiltä puuttuvat muodolliset keinot saada omia paikallisedustajia läpi, ja siksi omia ajatuksia pitää ahkerasti lobata niin, että myös enemmistöläiset kannattaisivat niitä, sillä vain enemmistöläiset pääsevät muodolliseen valtaan. Eli jos nyt vaikka vasemmisto haluaisi ratkaista ”liialliseksi ryöstäytyneen” identiteettipolitikoinnin, niin ensiksi pitäisi ratkaista tämä edustaja-asia, muuttaa päätöksentekorakenteet sellaisiksi, että alueellisesti pienillä vähemmistöillä olisi mahdollisuus olla mukana muodollisessa päätöksenteossa.

Elikkäs lue kirja, jos haluat saada polttoainetta ajatustoiminnalle.

[Stuart · Rating 3 out of 5]

More useful as a primer on 20th century American leftism than any sort of template for future organizing, though I enjoyed learning about Staughton Lynd. The most useful idea out of all of this is that of accompaniment--develop a skill useful to the poor, show up, and don't be a weirdo. Very solid advice for any young activist!

[book reading master 630 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ll rub my ball across your accompaniment

[Julian · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, pretty mixed feelings about this one. On the whole, I think it's a pretty well-done summary of the various progressive and revolutionary movements especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. Furthermore, I deeply admire one of the central goals of the book which is repeatedly emphasized throughout, this being the attempt to find various commonalities between the histories of anarchist and Marxist traditions through a critical yet open-minded lens.
However, this is where the positives of the book sort of end for me. It's not that is was a total drag to read, but I found the structure of the book fundamentally disproportionate. I thought it would more be like an actual dialogue between Grubacic (the anarchist) and Lynd (the Marxist), while instead it's more like Grubacic *interviewing* Lynd, the latter of which comprises perhaps more than 80% of the book's substance. And furthermore, I found this aspect particularly disappointing because for what little Grubacic had to say, I personally found him the more compelling interlocutor. I moreover found rather boring the at-length and frankly too-detailed histories Lynd recounted of his own labor organizing experiences.
In any case, I don't regret reading this book in the slightest. I think it represents a fascinating and admirable attempt to analyze critically the histories of both anarchist and Marxist traditions--which both (but especially the latter) have had problems with not being able to be self-critical about past movements and experiments, preferring to cling to certain mythologies surrounding them. I also deeply appreciate the attempt to create a sort of "Left Unity" and mutual understanding between the two traditions, which all too often ends up in total catastrophe. The main caveat is that the book just falls short in its proposed solutions and lacks compelling alternatives, levelled (again in my opinion) a little too disproportionately by Lynd.
In short, I would definitely recommend this book to someone totally oblivious to various revolutionary/progressive movements and experiments, however to the reader already seasoned in this type of material, I would say it amounts more to a curiosity than to a substantial theoretical or historical investigation.

[Stevphen Shukaitis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a lovely book that does an excellent job weaving together many threads of social movement histories and struggles without constantly hitting you over the head about it being movement history. The discussion format does a great job of teasing out the resonances between the Staughton and Andrej's experiences. This book is also quite well timed in that Staughton's amazing and inspiring life has seemingly been somewhat forgotten today, and this book really draws out the connections between the struggles he was involved in during the 1960s with those of the IWW, the Zapatistas, and the movement he continues to be involved with (which overlap and converge greatly with where Andre is coming from, even if not in a physical sense of location necessarily). While there are of course things I'd quibble with here and there (the idea that Marxism and anarchism are Hegelian moments in need of a higher form of synthesis, or the quite silly critique of 'whiteness theory' that attributes to it a kind of unchanging and ahistorical essentializing that is exactly what is it aimed at critiquing), nevertheless this is exactly the kind of movement histories and creative approaches to telling those stories and experiences that is really valuable to the continually necessary task of assessing the current political situation and context of movement building while learning from what has come before and necessarily underlies the state of things we find ourselves in.

[Only Greece · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a bit of a frustrating read. Lynd has half a century of knowledge and experience as an organizer and a historian and that came through as he weaved together disparate historical movements, pulling lessons and inspiration from them. However, I felt that the book jumped around a lot leaving a lot of thoughts unfinished, complex ideas brushed over and, in the end, the purpose of book in question.

The stated purpose of this conversation was to synthesize the historically separated political ideas of Marxism and anarchism. However, I didn't come out of this book with any clearer of a picture of how I could unite Marxism and anarchism in either theory or practice than I did going in to it. Lynd's working definitions of Marxism and anarchism were vague and perhaps a little misleading and this really seemed to compromised the goals of the book.

This was labeled as a conversation, but it was functionally an interview. I think that's a shame. Grubacic, from what I've read of him, seems to have a wealth of knowledge and experience himself and I think that this book could have benefited from more of his input.

All that said, I finished this book with some ideas that I hadn't come across before, new energy for organizing and a fuller picture of historical movements. It wasn't bad, but I think it had the potential to be so much better.

[Meg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book incredibly engaging and provocative, but this was my first time learning much about Lynd and his work; those already familiar with him may find it less so.

I think the conversation between Grubacic and Lynd is very much the type that those involved in social movements need to be having - looking back at past social movements and finding their connections, learning from their tactics, learning from their failures. And I like the manner in which this reflection happens here; built out of personal experience woven with broader history, making self and collective introspection take place simultaneously.

Also, for a book focusing on anarchism and Marxism, I think it does a commendable job of crediting the influence that Christianity has had on inspiring social change, particularly in the Americas. This is due in no small part to Lynd's beliefs as a Quaker, but it's something often belittled or forgotten in other such texts.

Last, I felt the middle section - "Guerilla History" - provided me with a vision for what doing truly useful intellectual work for social change outside of the university system might look like. Definitely helpful, at least for me at the current moment.

[Viral · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really fascinating look into the life and political development of Staughton Lynd, a towering figure in the American Marxist historical tradition, discussing with Andrej Grubacic, a lifelong anarchist, about what anarchism and Marxism both have to bring to the table in modern political discourse. It refuses to shy away from conversations about failures from both camps in attempted projects, failures to stop the continued growth of capitalism, and the new avenues of change ahead. It didn't feel as much a conversation as it did an interview of Lynd by Grubacic. I still found it incredibly interesting and I plan to return to this text in the future, as it contains many good quotes and sections on the situation before the American left today.

[Aaron Mac gafraidh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many of the critiques I've read on this book have pointed out the disjointed 'call and response' format between the two authors. To me, it reads like a long and rich conversation, in which both men repeatedly visit the same question. That is, how can we bottle up the successes and learn from the mistakes of past anarchist and Marxist revolutionary actions? I feel my knowledge of radical socialist history has grown reading this book. As well I'm inspired by the experiences of these men as activists. In the end there is just the right combination of academics and real-world wisdom in this book.

[Jonna Higgins-Freese]

Cites Death in the Haymarket, Albert Parsons ran for office in Cook County on a platform of the 8 hour day, "abolition of vagrancy laws used to punish the unemployed and of conspiracy laws used to persecute trade unionists, as well as an end to the practice of leasing convicts to labor for private employers" (13).

1879 Socialistic Labor Party ran a candidate for mayor; "campaign culminated in a meeting to celebrate the eight anniversary of the Paris Commune attended by more than 40,000 perons. The platform called for city ownership of streetcars and utilities" (13).

Haymarket Martyrs executed as a result of conflict arising out of the general strike for the 8 hour day in May 1886

Weil "worked in a factory long enough to discern why factory work does not make revolutionaries, rather it makes hum beings desperate for the closing whistle and unable to think and feel beyond the next repetitive moment, unable to imagine a future" (22)

Things he (Lynd) learned from the working class: personal loyalty is valued more than intellectual consistency; growing up in working-class communities is about constantly being under the thumb of authority.

Myles Horton founded the Highlander Folk School; he grew up poor and was teaching Bible classes, tired of teaching about gospel when people were hungry and unclothed. Invited folks to a meeting on What is to be done? They showed up and he realized he didn't have answers, so they went around and asked "what ideas people have brought with them." (39). In Jim Crow south, assigned attendees to cabins in order they arrived, black and white together.

41 - SNCC in 64 was confronted with a "box" - desire for economic justice would mean ally with Walter Reuther and Democrats, who had just fought against seating the Democratic Freedom Party & were escalating the war in Vietnam. Then when factories in Midwest started closing, became clear that they were not in steel business but in business of making money. Lynd thought only answer was to expropriate the assets, as north did with $2B in "slave property" in south during civil war. Of course labor did not want to do that so "stumble[s] from defeat to defeat, still without an answer, confronting each new plant closing with the same tired old words" (42).

Jack Melancon, working class, said "sometimes all you can do for another person is to stand in the rain with him." (51). Tells how his father went to work in the Rockefeller oil field in Wyoming and worked and slept in the bunkhouse, then preached on Sunday nights (51).

Church of St. Mary of the Angels in Managua, where Jesus is depicted as a sunburned worker standing in line for his pay (53).

Of sixties attempts to create parallel institutions, only Headstart and Legal Aid have survived (68).

Attending freedom schools where groups studied, reported, offered resolutions (with what information resources?) - then went back to segregated schools wearing "SNCC" or "One Man One Vote" badges, and got sent home, and sued, and that case, Burnside v. Byars, "was the precedent later cited by the SC when it upheld the right of a young white woman named Tinker in Des Moines, Iowa, to wear a black arm band to school to protest the Vietnam War" (71).

Story of workers fighting to protect their health and safety; union not too interested b/c didn't want plant to close. Workers tracked obits, brought data, made a "Lordstown Wall" like the Vietnam memorial, had a press conference, got a comparative study going with support of union (77).

Self-acting popular committees were part of all revolutions: American Rev, French, Russian (1905 and 1917), Chinese, England 1640s, Italy 1920s, Spain 1935-7, Hungary 1956, France 68, Poland 80-81, Chiapas 1994-present, etc.

"Marty Glaberman liked to say that in Hungary in 1956 there was not an economic depression, the trade unions were captives of the state, and there was no popular press, yet committees appeared all over Hungary in a matter of days, if not hours" (80)

when this was written, "almost all the free trade treaties planned since 1998 have failed; that the WTO declared the Doha round dead; that the IMF is approaching bankruptcy." (89)

Freedom Summer workers and Voting Rights Act got the vote and "ordinary black voter in the South did not want unity with African liberation movements or an end to United States imperialism, as did SNCC staff" (91).

Mother Jones statue in Mt. Olive, IL - 1932, "every IL local of the United Mine Workers demanded a substantial reduction in the length of the work week. The miners refused to work overtime when any union member was laid off" (102).

key to the success of the 60s was the simplicity of its demands: the vote, and we won't go to Vietnam. Zapatistas and global trade movement face same problem: "How do you stop corporations from shutting down their plants in teh United States and investing overseas? The organized labor movement has faced this problem since the late 1970s and has not found an answer." If there are workers in both high and low wage countries, how to bring the workers together for a strike in a common cause?

difficulty of local organizing AND large spectacle, "The atmosphere, the tempo, everything about a huge confrontation at a climactic historical moment, whether in Atlantic City or Seattle, is different from the patient, often discouraging, long-distance running required of a local organizer" (107).

Shout Youngstown in 1977 and 1979

[Keegan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wobblies and Zapatistas

In this book, there is a disappointing lack of discussion about both Wobblies and Zapatistas. The title seems to be drawn simply from two topics that come up once in a while throughout the “correspondence” between Lynd and Grubacic. While Lynd has an expansive memory, knowledge base, and ability to recall facts, details, events, people, he either lacks or does not articulate here any clear concrete ideas about the best trajectory for the contemporary revolutionary movement.
The premise of the book is to synthesize Marxist and anarchist ideas and actions, and while he points out the strengths and weaknesses of both, he tends to only point out how they are not compatible, or at least have not been in the past, and not point out how they can become compatible or work together.
Basically he thinks that anarchism is the superior framework because it does not try to assume state power. He considers Zapatistas exemplary of this because they live in a radical society without trying to gain state power. But he thinks that the majority of anarchist lack a coherent economic theory to oppose capitalism and to essentially continue an ongoing fight. He argues that anarchists move from action to action without a cohesive campaign because of this lack of economic theory, and believes they should adopt Marxist economic theory. But he completely rejects Marxism's obsession with taking over the state. “The revolution to which we aspire need not and should not seek state power. Rather, its project should be to nurture an horizontal network of self-governing institutions down below to which whoever holds state power will learn they have to be obedient and accountable” (50). He hates hierarchy in the movement whether it be socialists, unionized, etc.
Personally I think we should resist and fight on all fronts – attempt to take state power, to form alternative's to state power, anything and everything we can do to escape the capitalist system.
Lynd holds odd ideas about class and people's roll in the movement. He does not clearly define either the “lower class” who anarchists are supposed to be helping in the their struggles, nor the “upper class” who is oppressing everyone. These lines are blurring as capitalism grows more complex. He does identify a class of “footloose students and intellectuals” that are not “preoccupied with economic survival,” (47) to which I admit I am a part. Though I am not in academia or independently wealthy, I now I have enough personal capital that I can read this book and write this review and not worry that I will be able to make enough money to get by when I put my mind to it. Lynd argues that people like me should cultivate useful skills and put ourselves at the service of the lower classes. He, for example, became a lawyer. His ideas of “useful skills” seem a bit academic, however. In a real anarchist revolution that is not trying to take over the state, is a law degree or the ability to build houses more important?
His relationship to academia is also unclear. He does not think professors should be obsessed with being professors. He thinks highly educated people should be on the front lines, fighting for the lower classes, and that is where they will be (and where they have been) to write their best work. I agree with this, especially in terms of writing a Gorilla History. I, for one, do not want the next history of the world – one that will hopefully be about workers struggles to oppose the oppressive force of capitalism until they finally threw it off by adopting indigenous lifestyles and abandoning Western civilization, one that breaks down the meta-narratives of rich, white men progressing the world and doing good for everyone, but putting them in their place as slave holders, rapists, and land thiefs – to be written by an academic in an arm chair, or anyone who was not on the front lines confronting Capitalism. That would be a continuation of the division of labor. The new artists/writer/historian cannot be a passive observer. So I like most of his ideas about writing a gorilla history.
His biggest shortcoming in my mind, is not distinguishing, or not stating, the difference between revolutions that come from outside the capitalist system, and those that do not. He seems to think that coal miners, etc (working class within the capitalist system) need academics who can view their situation from the outside, and present it to the dominant culture with law degrees, history degrees, etc, but acknowledges that the Zapatistas did not need any of this. In my mind this is because the Zapatistas are an indigenous people, still in touch with their traditional culture, which is a complete, viable alternative to capitalism. They do not need Marxist philosophy from the educated classes, etc. They invited Marxists and anarchist to come join them to garner international attention and support, and it worked. This is a great example of how anti-capitalist work could move forward in America. Indigenous cultures have viable alternatives to the capitalists system, support them in their struggle to take back their land (1/3 of the land base of the continental United States under treaties that are still on the books), and establish societies to which all are invited.
The book ends with a discussion of why he is a pacifist. He condemns three of his categories of violence (toward the state, toward individuals, toward oneself) but then glorifies one man who burnt himself alive in front of the secretary of defense during the Vietnam war, and gives him more credit for ending the war than I have ever heard about. Gorilla history?
A couple other interesting points he made in passing:
“Violence was therapeutic for the oppressed” (37). I definitely see this in the working class within capitalists societies and indigenous cultures on reservations, in the form of fighting and domestic abuse. Physical violence is almost a necessary outlet for the disenfranchised. But I believe this violence against one another could be replaced, and would be far more healthy, if it were directed against the state, capitalism, corporations etc. And I do think, from my own experiences, that that trade-off works, that attending rallies and resisting the system replaces and extinguishes the urge to be violent with another frustrated, disenfranchised individual.
“An optimist is a person who brings his lunch to work” (38).
“Trade unions did not prefigure another world, but were institutions that ameliorated capitalist excesses and thus stabilized capitalism” (49). By ameliorate I think he literally means adopt, grow, expand – i.e. they indulged in the excesses of capitalism. And this is a point that all elements of the movement should take to heart. If any action, idea, or individual can be eschewed as only able to exist because of the capitalist system against which it is fighting, it loses all its radical capability. Activist who have the money and leisure time to fly all over the world attending rallies come to mind.
Page 209: I love the parable of a tortured radical, who when his revolutionaries gain power, captures the man who tortured him and says, “Now I will have my revenge. Now I will set you free.” I love parables.
“After passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, Nothern abolitionists began to advocate and use violence to protect fugitive slaves. Frederick Douglas...split with Garrison and declared that any means necessary to end slavery were justified” (235). This seems like a strong point for the violence Lynd denounces. The Fugitive Slave Act always seemed unconscionable to me. How could people who saw the evil of slavery allow slave owners to lay hands on slaves without fighting for them.

[Andrew Wehrheim · Rating 3 out of 5]

The cover of "Wobblies & Zapatistas" states that it is written by both Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic and consists of a "conversation" between the two. In reality, the book consists of short reflections and questions from Grubacic and more in-depth responses from Lynd. In the end, most of the content comes from Lynd. There is very little interchange, let alone debate, on the differences between Marxism and Anarchism, and the content ends up being a summary of the different organizing groups and campaigns Lynd has participated in through the years and the lessons he has gained from that experience. In which case, the book contains a lot of interesting and important radical history and lessons. But I'm not sure it quite lives up to its title or what it claims to be.

There are a few overarching themes that Lynd drives home as he critiques what he fears is a modern anarchist practice of simply going from one large capitalist summit to another to protest without any guiding theory or local organizing. These themes include the importance of grassroots, horizontal, democratic organizations that major on the use of direct action, in particular, non-violent direct action, in building power and winning demands. The book also rejects the notion of "taking state power" and instead advocates the horizontal confederation of grassroots, democratic organizations who can build power and put pressure on the state to obey the will of the people. Lynd believes this is simply the practice of "mandar obediciendo" practiced and advocated by the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico.

In the end Lynd is far from a traditional Marxist and the reader doesn't hear much from Grubacic throughout the text. Nevertheless, its a good book and is worth reading. It's just not what it appears to be. I guess this is a practical example of how one should not "judge a book by its cover".

[Left_coast_reads · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is described as a conversation between historians Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic which will attempt to find common ground between Marxist and anarchist perspectives. I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a sort of interview in which Grubacic asks Lynd about his political positions and experiences.

Lynd is a fascinating person. He was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He was a professor at the historically black women's university, Spellman College along with Howard Zinn. He also taught at Yale, but was denied tenure. After this he decided to go to law school and became a labor lawyer helping workers in Youngstown, OH retain their pensions when the steel mills closed. He used his legal expertise to advocate for the rights of people incarcerated in a supermax prison near his hometown. Throughout his life, he spent time traveling all over the world, especially Central America where he lived alongside the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and visited with the Zapatistas in Mexico.

All of these are discussed at length with wonderful insight and anecdotes. Special attention is paid to the role of intellectuals in social struggle, methods of non-hierarchical decision-making, and non-violence as a political strategy.

This book isn't exactly what I was expecting. It sort of meanders through different topics. It feels like sitting next to Lynd and letting him share stories, but I'm ok with that.

He passed away last year and this book provides a glimpse into a life fully dedicated to helping others. Lynd was lovingly radical. RIP.

[Minäpäminä · Rating 2 out of 5]

Todella pitkästyttävä kirja, jonka markkinointi oli täysin valheellista. Ei tässä ollut kyse "keskusteluista marxismista ja anarkismista" vaan kirjanmittaisesta Staughton Lyndin haastattelusta, joka +200 sivun aikana ehti kertoa mm. kuinka hänen vaimonsa vanhemmat tapasivat. Spoiler: se ei liittynyt mitenkään zapatisteihin tai anarkosyndikalisteihin. Kuvaavasti vasta kirjan viimeisillä riveillä paljastettiin Lyndin vaimon kursineen kirjan kasaan sekalaisesta kirjeenvaihdosta Lyndin ja Grubacicin välillä. En ollenkaan ymmärrä, miksi kukaan on halunnut suomentaa tällaisen kirjan tai miksi kustantaja on ajatellut sen kiinnostavan kotimaista lukijaa.

Tekisi mieli antaa 1 tähti, mutta siellä täällä oli kieltämättä teräviä huomioita väkivallattomasta vastarinnasta, historian mutkikkuuksista ja, kyllä, myös marxilaisuudesta ja anarkismista.

[Joe Santone · Rating 5 out of 5]

You want Wobblies and Zapatistas?

How about Sandinistas and Quakers?

Marxists, Anarchists, liberation theologians, Oscar Romero, Vatican II?

Pacifists and Franz Fanon?

Direct action, accompaniment, dual power, participatory economics-- the "Haymarket synthesis"?

Anabaptist revolutionaries and consensus decision-making?

Luxemburg and Lenin?
Howard Zinn?
Vietnam War resistance and conscientious objection?

The Workers' Solidarity Club of my own Youngstown, steel mill co-ops and fights for pensions?

The Civil Rights movement, the American Civil War, and the connection between Matthew 25 and Leftism?

Would you like it all with a side of realistic hope, spoken from decades of wins and losses?

Well, have at it.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Less of a conversation and more of a short question and long answer format. A super easy read not bogged down in theory but rooted in Lynd's personal experience.
The book does not offer any in depth analysis of any specific issue which can get annoying at times but by the end i felt that was done purposefully. This book is not a field guide for activism but more an overview of the personal experiences of 1 man as a lifelong activist.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book that not only explores zapatismo and Marxism and where they differ/relate but goes into depth on organizing working class people and the academic analysis that sometimes get in the way. This book reminded me of a Make the Road by Walking style interview with a modern analysis to include modern anti-statist organizing and other forms of anarchist-Marxist fusion.

[Pierre-Olivier · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is pretty much an exchange of question from one person to another , listening to the personal experience of one telling the other his perspective on a lot a different subject based on the history of his involment during his activist era. Not my type , get bored in the middle of the book.

[Kevin Sooley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Staughton loses me a little bit with his views on Christianity but the main theme of the book kind of requires me to look past that through to what we agree on and it is good

[Abigail Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Changed my perspective on a lot of political stuff. Non-violence and accompaniment all the way

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some parts I loved and some parts I not so loved

[Weston Scheck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Throughout the pages, the discussion between Lynd and Grubacic tends to produce some very fascinating characters and topics, but that is about the extent of the timely use of this book. I would argue the book does not age very well in a post-Trump America, but the points made about neo-colonies being the new face of revolution and change have provided fascinating revelations. Lynd's frequent focus on and admiration of Latin America also lends more credence to his ideas, and the extensive personal experiences of both authors provide a solid educational foundation. The book is also extremely conversational, often bringing back the same introductions to the same stories in different contexts. As you become familiar with Lynd's life and experience, his viewpoints and perspective start becoming clearer and more continuous.

Edit: after a bit away from the book, I have decided to lower my ranking to 3 stars. Very little has stuck with me through this book, and the things that stick out to me were historical events or people that I could've discovered without the use of the book. In that sense, it is more of a reference book than a substantial read. This book was marketed to me as a must-read in terms of modern leftist theory and working in the labor movement in its current era, but I feel as though the repetition prevalent throughout brings the book down. Accompaniment, for example, is an invaluable tool for merging leftist academics and working communities, but Lynd does not go all that far beyond just espousing its virtues. Having the sense to listen in an unbiased way sounds quite common to me, but the idea is still important. I think that's what gives me the most issues about this text. It is inarguable that these are important points, but I did not find Lynd's personal experience persuasive enough to depend on him as a source.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a pretty good book. Its basically an extended conversation or series of letters between two people. One an american historian and IWW lawyer (Staughton Lynd), and the other a Yugoslav activist/writer (Andrej Grubačić). It had some things which were kind of bothersome. For example a fairly ahistorical view of the civil war which places centrality upon abolitionism and an ahistorical view of the great depression along standard economically fallacious lines (ie the theory that government spending helped). There is a lot of bad economics in this thing actually. Like they blame the destruction of the Mexican agricultural industry the influx of Iowa corn while ignoring the role of state subsidies to said corn. Aka, classic cases of blaming the market rather than the government because market actors are the actors most proximate to the bad consequences and therefore more visible.

But it also had a lot of good. Its always interesting to see how opposing schools of thought interpret world affairs, history, and what sort of internal disputes they have. This book gives you a peek into the far left anarchist/marxist movement. I say opposing schools of thought even though I consider myself an anarchist because this brand of anarchism is alien to me. This anarchism is extremely extremely influenced by marxism to the point where they are kind of indistinguishable, as the authors point out themselves. These guys are like Chomsky anarchists who want to hugely expand the power of the state in the present within certain areas because the state is a counterbalance to private hierarchies or whatever. Far leftists of this stripe are common both in the industrial west and in the third world, and this book does a great job of showing both perspectives. They also talk about the relationships between radical leftists of different classes and racial/social backgrounds which was really interesting to me, particularly in the context of prisons.

Like I said, plenty of valuable insights here even if you arent a lefty anarchist. For example, they discuss how the ‪Zapatista‬s try to defend local communal land ownership norms, among other norms. It also discusses the actual real life stories of multiple strikers, prisoners, and other oppressed groups in their struggles. Again, a lot of this is packed with economic dumbness, but a lot of it is also both really good from an ethically minded anarchist perspective, and from a disinterested historical observer perspective. They also discuss their own personal experiences within the movements, some intra-movement disputes about the role of violence, the role of the state, and anarchism vs marxism. I always like reading about contentious points such as these because it quickly fleshes out what the main values of the opposing ideologies are. This book covers a lot of ground in terms of historical eras and subjects. Revolutionary China, WW1, WW2, American Revolution, Zapatistas, Old school Wobblies, 1960s counterculture, modern Wobblies, WTO strikers, black bloc starbucks torchers, etc etc etc.

This was an awfully written and disjointed review, but the book is kind of disjointed so whatever maybe you can eat a worm blah blah blah end.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a down-to-earth conversation between Staughton Lynd and Adrej Grubacic that should be enjoyable and useful to non-sectarian leftists. The two ground themselves in anarchist and Marxist theory, writing, and history. They reflect on their own personal experiences in the context of broader struggles and social movements. Lynd frequently speaks from a liberation theology and Quaker perspective. Major themes are repeated throughout: direct action, accompaniment, nonviolent civil disobedience, and internationalism.


The title comes from the authors’ wish to weave anarchism and Marxism together. They see what they call the “Haymarket Synthesis” in the early IWW in Chicago and in contemporary Zapatismo, whereby Marxism helps us better understand structures of society and anarchism helps us understand our practices as a prefiguration of a more just society. Like Graeber and Critchley, for Lynd, the value of anarchism lies largely in its ethics for political practice. Generally, he warns against tendencies towards mere activism, and instead advocates working closely with the working class. Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero’s principle of “accompaniment” guides Lynd’s understanding of how one is to walk side-by-side with the oppressed. He laments the “summit-hopping of some activists, whereby anarchists convene at dramatic confrontations with police at transnational gatherings of capital, but do not know how to organize locally when they return home. Interestingly, Lynd argues for a “professional” accompaniment, whereby middle class folks can make services useful to the poor. I liked his simple formula for organizing: the first step is listening, and the second step is to “recognize that it is the person with whom you are talking who will be the organizer that your role is to support and to accompany.” His own experiences in the capacity of a labor attorney assisting workers in struggle makes the point persuasive. Accompaniment is attractive because it locates the agency not in the ally, but the person affected by the issue at hand, and also because it emphasizes that there should be no false deference for the oppressed by exempting them from criticism. In fact, Lynd’s outlook can be summarized as common-sense principles and disciplined humanism. At one point, he states that “organizations of the poor must not become mere front groups for the programs of the left.” This discussion of accompaniment demonstrates what is meant by an anarchist, or ethical political practice.

[Matthew Antosh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I remember liking this book more when I first purchased it then I do now. Part of it was the fact that I had just met one of the converstationalists (Andrej Grubacic) and he is a very nice person. The other part is that I've changed when it comes to where I am within life. When I first bought this book, I was a university student, filled with idealistic thoughts that I was some bohemianian intellectual. In that context, the idea that my proper role was 'accompaniment' with workers, the poor and oppressed. I am no longer in university; despite getting a B.A. I am a worker, working 46 hours a week. My social reality has changed. With that, it felt like the ideas of this book where not presented for me, rather it was for the middle class 'professional'. It didn't talk to me the way it should.

There are also some flaws - the conversation style does not hold a narrative, and often Lynd goes far off track of original line of questioning. There are some editing mistakes (understandable for PM Press was only recent at the time.

More importantly, I feel like Lynd and Grubacic see anarchism only as an organizational and moral philosophy, and as such needs the 'hard theory' of marxism to give it weight. This view of anarchism as organizational/moral totally ignores the history of anarchist theorists who tackled the hard theory to explain anarchism (Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc). The failure to discuss this in greater detail is a real drag on the book.

this book is a very good collection of anecdotes from a long time member of American social movements. The 'suggested readings' at the back makes it worth it's price, but I don't think that this book is the one that will produce a new, radical and militant left politics is North America.

[Seamus Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging and interesting attempt to find common ground between Anarchism and Marxism -- or, more truthfully, between the current motley, anti-globalization Left and the traditional, all-too-often doctrinaire American Left. Though, in truth, Lynd has more in common with the original Old LeftStaughton Lynd is a worthy figure to bridge the gap an lend credibility to Marxist ideas that many younger activists are too quick to dismiss (or ignore). A lifelong Civil Rights/Anti-War activist and Worker/Prisoner rights lawyer, Lynd is a pragmatist who is willing to abandon ideas/tactics that don't work.

The tone of the book is conversational with Grubacic primarily in the role of questioner. Lynd addresses a number of topics, ranging from the big picture to the small picture: is it better for the left to try seize state control or to create parallel institutions?; what is the role of intellectuals in working-class movements?; how should the Left approach the writing and study of History?; is there a place for violence in the movement? Etc. Lynd has strong convictions but he is open-minded and, at the very least, quick to explain the origins of and reasons for his views.

The movement is (and always will be) a work in progress and as we grapple to better our battered world, this book is a great way to continue the conversation without reinventing the wheel.