Book Review: Zoe Bakers ‘Means and Ends: The revolutionary practice of anarchism in Europe and the United States’

Zoe Bakers ‘Means and Ends: The revolutionary practice of anarchism in Europe and the United States’ is a new book published by AK Press. Means and Ends focuses on the theory and practice of anarchism in the period from 1868-1939. While limited by the periodic and geographical approach, Means and Ends is refreshing in its approach compared to previous histories of anarchism. Baker, like Felipe Correa and Robert Graham, grounds anarchism in its real history and practice. By not understanding anarchism as an abstract position of opposition to hierarchy and the state she overcomes the flaws of various liberal and Marxist historians who have also written on the topic. 

This approach also allows the nuance of debates within the anarchist movement to be explored, preventing the presentation of the usual strawmen. Anarchism thus is understood as a serious, coherent movement and ideology. To Baker anarchism is rooted in the early workers movement of the First International. She notes how anarchism emerged out of a break with mutualism and other socialist currents. In the process Joseph Dejacque’s critiques of Proudhon are brought out of obscurity, and particular definitive moments such as the Basel and St Imier congresses are singled out for their significance. After establishing the historical emergence of anarchism, Baker teases out differences between ‘mass’ and ‘insurrectionist’ anarchism before delving into specific strategies and organisational debates. 

Baker places special emphasis on the history and practice of the various iterations of syndicalism as a mass strategic focus of the anarchist movement. This approach is a particular highlight of the book, exploring differences in theory and strategy amongst anarchists and syndicalists and highlighting the practical, historical application of a mass-struggle, union based methodology. Much ink has been spilled over syndicalism in the past, usually in a manner that obscures as much as it clarifies. While Means and Ends is not as detailed as a work specifically devoted to the topic, Bakers approach to syndicalism and its relationship with anarchism is clear and concise and serves well to dispel confusion and common mythologies.

Expanding upon the debates around syndicalism, Baker also tackles the history of the ‘Specific Anarchist Organisation’. Moving from Bakunin to ‘synthesism’ and on to the Platform, Baker demonstrates that having a specifically political, revolutionary organisation as a compliment to mass organisation has been a consistent anarchist strategy throughout the history of the movement. Again, her approach to the topic is useful as it is rarely approached well by historians. Baker’s analysis of Bakunin’s ‘invisible dictatorship’ is particularly useful, and her engagement with the so-called Makhno-Malatesta debate around the Platform is clarifying.  

If there are flaws with the book they are these. The limitations of engaging with only Europe and the United States, which Baker herself openly acknowledges. There are references to anarchists in countries such as Mexico, Japan and China. Organisations across South and Central America, such as the Regional Workers Federation of Argentina (FORA) are touched upon, though with little expansion. One could quibble about the particular anarchists Baker chooses to focus, or rather not focus, upon. For example the Mexican revolutionary Ricardo Flores Magon lived in the US for a period, and during the Mexican revolution anarchists moved back and forth between the US and Mexico. Many of Magon’s works are available in English, making it an interesting omission. However I do not think these massively detract from the work. A more global history of this caliber would require not only volumes of writing but the ability to comprehend multiple languages and access to far more resources. This would be an unrealistic expectation for one individual. What Baker has achieved with the resources and means available to her is impressive.

Similarly to the geographic question, the periodisation precludes engaging with more contemporary anarchist theory, although there are references to modern anarchist theories in the conclusion that serve to point the reader in the right direction. The categorisations that Baker deploys, such as ‘mass’ and ‘insurrectionist anarchism’, or ‘syndicalism plus’ may also simplify things too much. Italian ‘insurrectionist’ anarchists in the USA for example often also joined mass syndicalist unions. Nonetheless, these are useful categories for making sense of history in a basic sense, and Baker defends her arguments well.

Baker’s writing is exceptionally clear. In fact, anyone familiar with her YouTube videos probably can’t help but hear her voice reading the text in their head. There may have been a chance for more rhetorical flourish in Means and Ends to make the reading more enjoyable. But given that Means and Ends is not a book that presents a linear ‘historical narrative’, the most important thing is the clarity with which the practice and ideas of anarchisms historical adherents are presented.

For someone familiar with much of the history presented, the book is perhaps not the most exciting work, but it is extremely satisfying in seeing the history of anarchism presented rationally and coherently. It is however an incredibly good introduction for those new to the history of anarchist theory and practice.

Means and Ends will no doubt become a standard historical text on anarchism, superior to previous efforts of authors like Woodcock and Marshall, or even van der Walt and Cappelletti.¹ Means and Ends joins a swathe of other more serious and scholarly works on anarchism in recent years, such as those by Danny Evans, Jim Yeoman, Constance Bantman, Agustin Guillamon and Troy Kokinis.

Means and Ends will be of interest to anyone who wants to earnestly understand the history and practice of anarchism. Baker’s work will undoubtedly become a definitive piece of literature for the anarchist movement.

Review by Tommy.

1.  By this I mean Woodcock and Marshall both take the ‘liberal’ analysis of anarchism where it is defined by a vague opposition to authority. Van der Walts book Black Flame is unfortunately marred by association with Michael Schmidt, but it also attempts to squash people like James Connoley into the category of syndicalist despite his clear state-socialist views. Cappelletti’s ‘Anarchism in Latin America’ by contrast suffers none of the above flaws, however it is exceedingly dry and basically a point by point chronology of anarchism in various Latin American nations. ↩︎