A Nice Idea: "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" is a nice idea and could have been an excellent book. In it Ulrike Heider attempts a brief survey of three major strands of Anarchism in the United States:

(1) Anarcho-syndicalism (Left Anarchism)
(2) Libertarianism (Right Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism)
(3) Eco-anarchism (Green Anarchism)

In each of these three sections, Heider discusses the writings of important contemporary figures (such as Sam Dolgoff, Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin) as well as interviews that she conducted with many of them in the late 1980s. She also provides a bit of historical and theoretical background in each section. In the introduction, Heider stresses that criticism, especially self-criticism, is necessary in order for any philosophy to adapt and evolve. She therefore adopts a critical approach to her subjects - an approach which I can appreciate in the abstract.

Although this is a nice idea, however, "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" falls flat. There are many things that I didn't like about it, and I will try to hit on the most important ones. First of all, the book was crippled by its shocking brevity. At ~150 pages, Heider is obviously not going into very much detail at all, considering the vast and interesting topics she is addressing. Most of her biographies of historical figures such as Bakunin and Kropotkin are only a few pages long. Noam Chomsky gets about 10 pages, Sam Dolgoff about 15, Murray Bookchin has about 40, far less than is needed for a thorough introduction to their respective philosophies and writings.

This brevity has even worse effects on her critical approach, however. Heider, a German Anarcho-syndicalist, seems determined to criticize everything the Right and Green sections of the book - she does criticize the Left Anarchists, but to a lesser degree. However, her criticisms are usually superficial, and occasionally degenerate into nothing more than snide remarks and name-calling. At several points, she subtly denounces her targets as Fascists by (for instance) noting that their words sound "frighteningly familiar" when translated into German. Constructive criticism is all well and good, but there is very little serious analysis or discussion in the book that that can be put to any useful purpose.

Murray Bookchin was so outraged by Heider's treatment of him that he wrote a response, "A Meditation on Anarchist Ethics" (available online at the Anarchy Archives), defending himself. In it, he accused Heider of selectively quoting his work out of context, misrepresenting his statements and writings, slandering and caricaturing him, and even flat-out lying. This was the first thing I had ever read by Bookchin (being syndicalist myself), and I'm relieved I stumbled across it. It prompted me to increase my suspicions of Heider's criticisms and conclusions and not be so quick to adopt her caricatures of various figures.

In addition, several authors have criticized Heider's scholarship, claiming that her footnotes and citations are often incorrect and she occasionally misspells important names that she should know perfectly if she has done any research whatsoever. I have not checked her citations myself, but have little reason to doubt these accusations.

I have other, less important criticisms, but will end at this point, in the interest of space and time. I'll conclude by suggesting that "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green" be read at a library (if possible), if at all. In its place, I suggest Guerin's "Anarchism" and "No Gods, No Masters," which I have not yet read, but have heard good things about. Rocker's "Anarcho-syndicalism" (which I have read) is also useful, although dated. ( )