Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind

Shane99X · May 28, 2006

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/articleview/43/1/1

Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind
Author: Jason McQuinn

Prologue to Post-Left Anarchy

It is now nearly a decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is seven years since Bob Black first sent me the manuscript for his book, Anarchy after Leftism, published in 1997. It's over four years since I asked Anarchy magazine Contributing Editors to participate in a discussion of “post-left anarchy” which ultimately appeared in the Fall/Winter 1999-2000 issue of the magazine (#48). And it's also one year since I first wrote and published “Post-Left Anarchy: Rejecting the Reification of Revolt,” which appeared in the Fall/Winter 2002-2003 issue (#54) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed.

Aside from creating a hot new topic for debate in anarchist and leftist periodicals, web sites and e-mail lists, one can legitimately ask what has been accomplished by introducing the term and the debate to the anarchist, and more generally radical, milieu? In response I'd say that the reaction continues to grow, and the promise of post-left anarchy primarily lies in what appears to be a continually brightening future.

One of the most troubling problems of the contemporary anarchist milieu has been the frequent fixation on attempts to recreate the struggles of the past as though nothing significant has changed since 1919, 1936, or at best 1968. Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theorists—like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta—come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse and catch the imaginations of the majority of contemporary anarchists in a similar manner to Bakunin's or Kropotkin's formulations in the nineteenth century.

Since the 1960s the originally minuscule—but since that time, ever-growing—anarchist milieu has been influenced (at least in passing) by the Civil Rights Movement, Paul Goodman, SDS, the Yippies, the anti-Vietnam War movement, Fred Woodworth, the Marxist New Left, the Situationist International, Sam Dolgoff and Murray Bookchin, the single-issue movements (anti-racist, feminist, anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist, environmental/ecological, animal rights, etc.), Noam Chomsky, Freddie Perlman, George Bradford/David Watson, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Earth First! and Deep Ecology, neo-Paganism and New Ageism, the anti-globalization movement, and many others. Yet these various influences over the last forty years, both non-anarchist and anarchist alike, have failed to bring to the fore any inspiring new synthesis of critical and practical theory. A few anarchists, most notably Murray Bookchin and the Love & Rage project, have tried and failed miserably in attempting to meld the extremely diverse and idiosyncratic anarchist milieu into a genuinely new movement with a commonly-held theory. I would argue that in our current situation this is a project guaranteed to fail no matter who attempts it.

The alternative argued for by the post-left anarchist synthesis is still being created. It cannot be claimed by any single theorist or activist because it's a project that was in the air long before it started becoming a concrete set of proposals, texts and interventions. Those seeking to promote the synthesis have been primarily influenced by both the classical anarchist movement up to the Spanish Revolution on the one hand, and several of the most promising critiques and modes of intervention developed since the 60s. The most important critiques involved include those of everyday life and the spectacle, of ideology and morality, of industrial technology, of work and of civilization. Modes of intervention focus on the concrete deployment of direct action in all facets of life. Rather than aiming at the construction of institutional or bureaucratic structures, these interventions aim at maximal critical effectiveness with minimal compromise in constantly changing networks of action.

Clearly these new critiques and modes of intervention are largely incompatible with both the old left of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and most of the New Left of the 60s and 70s. And just as clearly they are engaging a growing number of anarchists who gravitate to them because they seem to be much more congruent with the global situation we find ourselves in today than the old theories and tactics of leftism. If anarchism doesn't change to address the lived realities of the twenty-first century—by leaving the outmoded politics and organizational fetishism of leftism behind—its relevance will dissipate and the opportunities for radical contestation now so apparent will slowly vanish. Post-left anarchy is most simply a rubric through which many thoughtful contemporary anarchists would like to see the most vital of the new critiques and modes of intervention coalesce in an increasingly coherent and effective movement, which genuinely promotes unity in diversity, the complete autonomy of individuals and local groups in struggle, and the organic growth of levels of organization which don't hold back our collective energies, spontaneity and creativity....
Click to expand...

Well?
Thoughts?

Dr Phibes · May 28, 2006

oh very elitist I'm sure but what has that to do with anticapitalism
other than it says a lot about the authors desire to be a book seller
trading on other peoples spilt guts
looks like a lot of pseudo marxist crap

Shane99X · May 28, 2006

Dr Phibes said:

oh very elitist I'm sure but what has that to do with anticapitalism
other than it says a lot about the authors desire to be a book seller
trading on other peoples spilt guts
looks like a lot of pseudo marxist crap
Click to expand...

Are you fucking serious?

What are you 12?

The whole article is about seperating ourselves off from the dying left to keep diseases like elitism and marxism out of the anarchist movement.

Try reading the whole article...

Dr Phibes · May 28, 2006

The whole article is about seperating ourselves off from the dying left to keep diseases like elitism and marxism out of the anarchist movement.

then why use the same dogmatic language to say it. If they dont like them - why use the same pompous overblown language

Shane99X · May 28, 2006

Dr Phibes said:

The whole article is about seperating ourselves off from the dying left to keep diseases like elitism and marxism out of the anarchist movement.

then why use the same dogmatic language to say it. If they dont like them - why use the same pompous overblown language
Click to expand...

what, you mean english?

Dr Phibes · May 28, 2006

One of the most troubling problems of the contemporary anarchist milieu has been the frequent fixation on attempts to recreate the struggles of the past as though nothing significant has changed since 1919, 1936, or at best 1968. Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theoristsâ€”like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatestaâ€”come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse and catch the imaginations of the majority of contemporary anarchists in a similar manner to Bakunin's or Kropotkin's formulations in the nineteenth century.
Click to expand...

Have you read this? or did you write it?
Its saying basically that the anti-intellectualism within anarchy comes from people who treat the anarchist literature as though inspirational - as though nothing had changed since 1919
I leave it to your imagination where I would take that line
but just to say - he rather agrees with me - You should find offence with that as much as you find it with me

One of the most troubling problems of the contemporary anarchist milieu has been the frequent fixation on attempts to recreate the struggles of the past as though nothing significant has changed since 1919, 1936, or at best 1968. Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theoristsâ€”like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatestaâ€”come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse and catch the imaginations of the majority of contemporary anarchists in a similar manner
Click to expand...

I mean do you understand or are you really THAT much of an intelect and I
do mean lightweight

Shane99X · May 28, 2006

Dr Phibes said:

Have you read this? or did you write it?
Its saying basically that the anti-intellectualism within anarchy comes from people who treat the anarchist literature as though inspirational - as though nothing had changed since 1919
I leave it to your imagination where I would take that line
but just to say - he rather agrees with me - You should find offence with that as much as you find it with me

I mean do you understand or are you really THAT much of an intelect and I
do mean lightweight
Click to expand...

I find offense with you because you're arrogant and assume you're the only "real anarchist".

And no that's not what he says.

He gives a couple main reasons why anarchism hasnt adjusted or adapted to changed world.

1.Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. ie you

2.Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. ie short term success of communism in russia and failure of anarchism in spain put the spotlight on communism as the de facto anticapitalism movement.

3.And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theoristsâ€”like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatestaâ€”come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. ie as great as those thinkers are, there has been a vacuum in the last century when it comes to anarchist theorists.

now did you get all that?

Dr Phibes · May 28, 2006

One of the most troubling problems of the contemporary anarchist milieu has been the frequent fixation on attempts to recreate the struggles of the past as though nothing significant has changed since 1919, 1936, or at best 1968. Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theoristsâ€”like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatestaâ€”come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse and catch the imaginations of the majority of contemporary anarchists in a similar manner
Click to expand...

I would like to see the moron that wrote that prove any of it - and I can tell you he cant since what he is talking about is something he calls "the anarchist milieu" A somewhat bourgeois concept of anarchists - dont you think? What Milieu - who is he talking about - or is this some abstract notion that as anarchists we suck up to the intellects that tell us anarchists what to think. Rather defeats what anarchism is about eh? Almost like he thinks we are the socialist party eh?

The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse
Click to expand...

So which of the planets in the star sytem "Bourgeois" is he from to opine on what modern anarchists are thinking if there is (BY HIS OWN FUCKIN ADMISSION) no prevalent consensus - almost like he made that up do you think?
If there is an impasse it implies contention does it not? since it takes two to tango

Log in or Sign up

Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

Dr Phibes Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches