having read a pirated version from the nineties to which were added a few things about the anti wto protests in Genua, the Zapatistas and questions surrounding the possibilities of the internet; anarchy a graphic guide is to be treated as a ideological propaganda book and it is quite open about that. The author himself points out he was not setting out for strict objectivity and calls on the spirit of Dada as to what drove him, meaning it is meant to get people in action. However does it succeed on that front?
with an overview of what, according to Harper, constitutes the highlights of anarchist events, we start off with the preface of the free spirit, meaning religiously inspired peasant movements in England from the 13th century onward culminating with the famous digger movement during the English civil war, going forward to the French revolution where peculiarly Baboeuf and his society of equals is not mentioned, and on to the big four of anarchist thinking; max Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon. Afterwards we go through the history of Europe, north america and bits of Latin America where either individuals or movements make the anarchist mark and or cultural events, such as Dada, and comments on the big historical events such as WW1.
One can immediately e notice something; apparently nothing of note ever happened in Africa, the middle east or Asia. Off course timing is everything so event the reprint would not have the Rojava experiment and YPG movement or the wider commentary on the PKK and Ocalan rebranding from marxism to ideas of Murray Bookchin but still it is quite telling how eurocentric this book is and obsessed with individuals doing lone acts of terrorism.
A second thing to notice is that a lot of it is focused on failure or acts of individuals that seem to have had little impact beyond the immediate deed of a bomb thrown or a president shot. Now one could argue that including it is fair and honest and not pretend that it wasn't a thing in the 19th and early 20th century but I do think a missed chance was here to openly ask what those shootings accomplished. Harpers wants to focus on how the individual rose to the occasion and braved the system but one could argue and he himself notes it a few times, that it more often then not resulted in even stronger oppression or persecution. Likewise the social, labor, education and cultural movements dicussed in the book could have been a chance to talk about what impact it had because surely people attending these free schools must have had a different outlook then right? But we won't know from this book; so perhaps it is an open invite to question, investigate and study it at best.
Lastly, man the Harper really hates communists. I get it though, Lenin and Trotsky screwed over the anarchist in Russia and Ukraine; the Spanish communists turned against the Catalan anarchist movement underming their own side at a critical time in the Spanish civil war. Heck even in the Mexican revolution, although not going into that detail in this book, the small mexican labor units formed to fight against what they saw as rural bandits and ruffians led by Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Or how the French communist and socialist parties retreated into siding with the state during may 1968 and so on. I totally get the frustration and distrust however it does lead to a few peculiar ideas such as claiming che guevara because Castro and him could not get along on exporting the revolution? Furthermore the whole Cuban revolution is weirdly presented making it seem as if Batista and Castro did not face each other in a revolution.
Thing I did genuinely like, the art, that is simply amazing and given the title it should be. Secondly it it is well written accessible and I do think a good starting point for reading on and doing further research. However I can't shake the fact that the man is a puritan and only total end revolution and decentralized autonomous communities of strong individuals will satisfy him. I found it particularly glaring to dismiss the zapatista movement in the Mexican revolution as having failed whilst ignoring that the core reason of the movement had been achieved, namely the recognition of the communities traditional rights, no ownership of land by foreign investors and in Morelos the death of the Hacienda. Sure not the whole of Mexico had been transformed into a decentralized federalist anarcho syndicalist entity but to take from that and conclude; failure, is a gross disregard of what Emeliano Zapata fought for and won.
So does it succeed in motivating people in becoming anarchists? I don't think it would and would rather recommend either books on the zapatista movement both in the Mexican revolution as today or studies on what all those art and educational movements and or cooperatives have achieved despite the difficulties rather then keep on lamenting on failure to achieve a total transformation of the globe. I think political projects such as Rojava are noteworthy and proof that an anarchist project for autonomous communities can work given the backing of a strong cultural, social and educational network and solidarity that preceded it in response to state failure. I think in context of like north west Europe Anarchism is either a life style for artists, philosophers and a safe environment for people who can't cope with our post industrial consumer society and as a more radical set of ideas to confront state inaction in the face of environmental neglect.
I think it is worthwhile to read for anyone interesting in ideological books but don't expect an objective account.