A glimpse of perfection

Granny Made Me An Anarchist 
by Stuart Christie 

An enthralling book on many levels, not least telling a great yarn at a decent pace. The book opens with an 18 year old anarchist on trial in Franco's Spain for his part in a plot to murder Franco,  with the possibility of execution by macabre methods. It closes (more or less) with an account of his later trial in the UK on the trumped up charge of being a leader of the Angry Brigade, a label for violent anarchists responsible for attacks on property in the early Seventies.

In describing the author's participation in the politics of left wing protest during the Sixties and early Seventies, the book exposes the extent and nature of state sponsored violence against British citizens in defence of the establishment, including a discussion of conspiracies against the elected Labour government of Harold Wilson which have since been fully proven, but also of the role of the same government in undermining democratic protest and betraying the interests of the working class movement of the time.  Christie's book is actually very measured in the claims it makes, providing full supporting evidence. He dwells also on the bizarre reality that for more than three decades after the end of World War II, Franco's brutal fascist regime was actively supported by the USA, the police and security services in countries like Italy and France  remained in the hands of unreconstructed fascists and racists, while Nazi SS officers remained in gainful employment providing military and subversive services to the  western democracies in a continuing war against democratic left wing movements in Europe, Latin America and the African colonies.

In its explanation of anarchism (there is a clear definition and explanation, notably on page 89, which I will not type out here) the book makes significant references to Max Stirner, a philosopher whose book "The Ego and His Own" made a big impression on me in my early twenties. It is the first time I have seen Stirner employed in any context to support an argument.  I have often contrasted his brilliant arguments to the pale and insipid "egoism" of the idiot Ayn Rand and I would have liked a discussion of the important distinctions between Anarchism - which is very firmly a socialist and left wing philosophy - and the right wing "libertarianism" so popular in the USA.

Some quotes:

"The libertarian view of democracy, however, depended on the individual participation of each and every citizen in the decision making process. The greatest obstacle to be overcome in all social and political relationships... was not the corrupting or abitrary nature of power but the human proclivity to obedience and deference. Each of us needed to be an activist, constantly, in every decision we took. The tension was not between anarchism and democracy, or even capitalism or communism, but between anarchism and complacency." [p84]

"...anarchism was a way  of life rather than an abstract view of a remote future. It was not a theory, a philosophy, a 'programme for life', nor yet a description of how individuals and society should one day be, but a whole new way of looking at the world we were in - a way of assessing and acting upon values, principles, moralities, belief systems, ideologies and social relationships. It was a glimpse of perfection, something against which I could measure myself and my actions right now." [p84]

"The central justification of violence is self defence and righting great wrongs which have no other redress. It is always a last resort and has no part in promoting Anarchism. Ideas can only be advanced through argument, debate and persuasion. In fact, one of the main planks of Anarchism is the removal of coercion and violence from all human relations. How you get change is by pushing at the boundaries with whatever methods are available to ameliorate things - writing to your MP, demonstrations, petitions, pickets, civil disobedience and occupations. Violence can only come into the equation when people reach the imits beyond which the powers-that-be will permit no more reform. It is then up to each individual whether or not they should turn back or go beyond those limits. But, to paraphrase Mrs Beaton and Noam Chomsky, you  first have to reach those limits." [p108]

In prison, both in Spain and the UK, Christie spent time with characters responsible for some vile crimes, some of whom he describes in his book.  He concluded: "Before I went to prison my world view was black and white, a moral chessboard on which everyone was either a goody or a baddy. But the ambiguities in people I came across in prison made me uneasy and I began to question my assumptions about the nature of good and evil. I came to recognise that apparently kind people sometimes had a duplicitous side, while those with a reputation for cruelty sometimes showed themselves capable of great selflessness and generosity of spirit. ... I was brought face to face with what Hannah Arendt termed 'the banality of evil'. As far as I could tell, there was no psychological or sociological equation between intelligence and bravery, conviction and courage, ideology and humanity or class and generosity of spirit. ..  The fact I met very few people who could honestly be called 'evil' made me more inclined to look for the reason they had committed evil acts.  I became less judgemental of individuals and more committed to oppose a form of society that inclined individuals to commit crimes against each other." [pp201,202]

This book is a great read and a fine piece of social history, documenting an important strand of our social history that remains relevant and in need of explanation today. It is not necessary to agree with its point of view but it is necessary to acknowledge the evidence that our western democracies are violent and dangerous places, in which the alternative to being active citizens is to be complicit in our own oppression. I do not know that anarchism is the only alternative to complacency but I do agree that we each have a duty to ourselves to find an active alternative.