Alexander Berkman (1870–1936)

Now and After by Alexander Berkman is a book that I've wanted to read for a long time. I really like books that I can give to people to help them learn about anarchism, mostly by disproving their ideas about what it actually is. While I don't think this book is exactly anarchy 101 (that's reserved for Gelderloos and Graeber) I think it's a good book for folks who are a little more educated about anarchism but still have questions. He talks more strategy than I would like in an introductory show more book, but I do like how it was written in an easy to understand way.
Context matters, so it's important to remember that this book was written in a different time. It was shortly after the Russian Revolution (of which, Berkman was a part) and World War I. Therefore, much of what he talks about is heavily influenced by the debates happening at the time. Another reason why one should have a little bit of knowledge about anarchism before reading this book.
There were a lot of so-called anarchist principles that still hold true today, mainly among them that there is no difference between means and ends. The saying “the means justifies the ends” is so prevalent that most people just take it for granted, but it isn't true. All one has to do is look at communist revolutions to see this. They committed some horrible crimes in order to reach their stated goals of utopianism. In the end, after achieving the goal of getting power, the horrible acts did not stop; hell, they didn't even slow. In other words, if you have a goal that is ethical, but you use unethical means to get there, that goal is almost never going to still be ethical.
Other things that are still true 100 years later are the ills of capitalism (the rich stealing from the poor with no consequences, judges and politicians being awfully corrupt, all anyone cares about is money and power, etc); the need for educating the workers towards a more collective stance (because those with power do not give up that power just because they're asked to); and, among other things, how easy it is for our movements to get co-opted (see Occupy for one present day example).
Berkman also talks about how we're doing strikes wrong—that instead of the workers walking out and picketing, they should stay in the factory/warehouse/whatever and kick the bosses out; this will allow them to more easily appropriate the tools they've been using. We still haven't learned that lesson, in fact I think we've gotten even further away from it.
Perhaps the only boring part of the book is how much detail he goes in to about the Russian Revolution. I get that he was there and that it was an important topic when he wrote this book, but to me it only served as a good way to bore regular people. Not boring, but super problematic, is how much credit he gives to things like the American Revolution and the Christian Crusades; I wish he would have spent an equal amount of time explaining these views as he did explaining the Russian Revolution.
Berkman rightly criticizes the so-called justice system, but while doing it he claims that fear does not work as a deterrent to crime. I can see how this is true in some situations (you're starving and steal bread or your life is in danger so you commit murder) but personally there have been a lot of crimes I didn't commit because of my fear of the consequences. He also comes off as naive when he says that under anarchy there wouldn't be wars. I believe that there will always be wars, and that maybe we have a chance of having less if the whole world went anarchist, but that's not going to happen.
One of the ways in which my thoughts link up with his is in our legitimate distaste for most communists (despite being proponents of anarcho-communism). First of all, fuck dogma; I've always found it weird that most communists choose to latch on to a certain historic person (Lenin, Marx, Mao, etc) and line up all their beliefs with their hero, while also corrupting and changing those beliefs when it's convenient. Marx said that communism is just a step towards the ultimate goal—anarchism; yet how many Marxists hate anarchy and would—if a successful revolution were to happen—kill anarchists? If you can predict the future based on the past, the answer is a lot, and it's because they think the ends justify the means. It's the same reasons communists governments have strong men, tons of rules, and lock up all their enemies...kinda sounds like capitalism to me.
Is Now and After still relevant? Yes and no. The need to organize the workers still holds, as does the need to educated people as to the ills of capitalism and the ways they can end it. Also, revolution's need to have the masses behind it still holds true. Unfortunately, I believe it has gotten less possible in today's divided world. Can anyone imagine trying to convince the arms of while supremacists in the US that we should all just stop worrying about money and things and take care of each other? I feel the same about a general strike: It is absolutely necessary, and I believe it would be exponentially harder than it would have been in Berkman's day. Still, anarchy is where it's at; everyone, deep down, wants freedom, happiness, and the ability to be themselves.
Reading books like this makes me wonder what the author would think if they were suddenly reanimated today? Would Berkman despair at today’s world, or would he find new strategies we’ve overlooked? Either way, this book remains worth handing to anyone questioning the system. show less

A good conceptual overview. Some of the points it the book, such as workers taking control of their factories, are no longer relevant, as there is not nearly the same level of industrial production in this country. That being said, certainly lots of good ideas to be found. A more modern look at these concepts would be welcome.

right on man

Finally, this AK Press edition is the complete 1929 book, as reprinted complete in 1937 by the original publisher, not another one of the many abridged editions.