Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+2 votes
Also what place if any, do you think violence has in anarchism? Why (not)?
What's wrong with having a "cause" like animal rights, feminism, ecological movement, etc. Attached to your personal ideology of anarchism? How is it considered un anarchistic to champion causes other than plain anti authority?
I definitely plan on answering this question as soon as I have the time.
Your question is confusing. The issue of violence is not specific to post-left discourse. Most post-left anarchists avoid moral terminology like right and wrong, so I for one would not declare you to be "wrong" for espousing a particular cause. But I might advise you to stick with it for as long as it amused you, and to avoid notions of sacrifice and superiority.
Yosemite:  i think you answered the question the poster was trying to ask, even if it wasn't clear to them (hell, we've all been there.)
Copy-paste it so i can upvote it.  Please.

3 Answers

+4 votes
I haven't come across any convincing criticisms of post-leftism, so I'll leave that to someone else.  Most criticisms I've encountered are similar to those expressed in the question details, and originate in mischaracterizations of post-leftism (unintentional or otherwise).

There's nothing wrong with individuals focusing their attention, energy or criticisms on specific struggles, and against specific examples of hierarchal authority, in fact it's an important part of living as you - everybody cares about different things because of their individual experiences and desires.  I don't know anyone who considers it 'un-anarchistic' to focus on the things they want to focus on.  Many post-leftists (ugh, I really dislike using that as an identifier) however are suspicious or cautious of 'causes', partly because demanding self-sacrifice or some shade of martyrdom is a common pattern of behaviour for activists who 'champion causes', or at least because self-sacrifice is at the core of the culture of movements and causes, it's part of their basic vocabulary - "for the cause!".  Reified causes, anything that proclaims 'for the sake of (something abstract)!', are spooks.

Post-leftists don't have a problem with anarchists engaging in specific struggles 'other than plain anti-authority', it would be silly if they did have a problem with that - hierarchy and authority exist as a network of interpolated systems of power, not some giant monolithic swirling ball of shit, and practically the individual can't attack that network everywhere at once.

It seems that you're alluding to the reputation that post-leftists have for holding controversial views on 'identity politics'. What I'll say about that is this: 'causes' have a tendency of creating essentialist mythologies that are used to silence criticism (eg. you're a victim blamer if you criticise the essentialism inherent in casting men in the role of abusers and women in the role of victims), which is something that makes me think less of anarchists who participate in it - in my view being less critical of this kind of behavior when it's being practised by someone who's 'on our side' makes you a shitty anarchist.  Consistent anarchists don't pick and chose which hierarchies or moral authorities they object to.

With regards to violence, that question has already been discussed a fair bit on this site.  Personally, I think the use of violence is a decision for the individual, and in light of the circumstances they are in.

Further edit:
One other thing about movements and causes that post-leftists often take issue with is that they usually appeal to 'rights' (like the example you gave - animal rights), and many post-leftists hold frameworks and ideologies of 'rights' in low regard.

Turned into an answer for clodbuster ;)
by (6.3k points)
For a long time I wasn't even aware of the post-left strain of anarchism. Most contact with other anarchists or readings of it pretty much turned me off precisely due to leftism and leftists; the fetishizing, the system-building, joylessness.

Anyway, thanks for answering.
From what I can tell, this is probably the best of the lot. It still suffers from caricature and evasion...

made into a comment (since it is just a link)
–8 votes
Ok, so people have been bugging me to answer this, cuz I said I would, but I'm really strapped for time, so I'll give the most basic answer I can.

I've been thinking about this post for a while, and tried outlining a response several times, but I finally realized that it was all for nothing, and there's no reason to take this critique nearly so seriously because:

There is almost nothing to criticise about post-leftism, because in trying not to be an ideology (and failing) it just becomes a very weak ideology. Most of post-leftism is just a superficial response to a straw man idea of leftism which hasn't even been relevant in any serious way since like the 60's, making post-leftism an empty critique of an outdated concept that never even really existed. A more accurate title would be "Incorrect Solution to Invented Problem Anarchy".

The only ideological foundation that post-leftism really has is egoism, which includes the rejection of ideology, rights, identity, and all that other stuff that has been so useful in politics, though post-leftists claim it hasn't been, because apparently you either smash the state or you don't, they have no idea of process, goal, or structure. Oh, and everyone ELSE are the ones who are guilty of binary thinking, apparently.

Oh, and egoism is just stupid. It's essentially the idea that everyone is his own god, and if everyone just does whatever, everything will work out in the end. This is hardly even worth addressing because it's just so impractical that the only people who could even begin to take this seriously as total extremists. But overall, egoism is capitalism of the personality, and eventually it leads to capitalism of the society, and capitalism of the economy.

The rejection of ideology makes no practical sense. Again, it's just an incorrect solution to an invented problem. Without ideology, it's impossible to think productively about anything. Post-leftists will argue that if you accept their ridiculously narrow definition of ideology, then they are right, but that's just using their own ideas to verify their own ideas. They might as well be inventing words and inventing defintions for those words, and then arguing with everyone else using those words.

If you disagree with this critique, clearly you don't understand the concept of guhflump, which states that it is epistemologically impossible to disagree with me and be right, because there is no truth except the truth I've created for myself, which is more valid than your truth because I know that I've created it for myself (there's a short intro to Nietzsche for you, on the house).

Stay tuned for downvotes. I'm guessing I'll break my record of -5. By my calculations, I always get 2 or 3 downvotes no matter what I post, because some people just don't like me, then I usually get another 1 or 2 downvotes if I mention post-leftism or Stirner in any way that suggests they aren't absolute truth, and then I usually get another 1 or 2 depending on the actual context and content of the post.
by (-10 points)
often, simple observation. sometimes, interactive discussion. i think i often get the most out of such interactions when we are able to present each other with specific scenarios, and describe how we would each think/behave/respond in such situations.

because i have always been around people that seem very different from myself (and often from each other), i guess i see everyone as different. until such time as i can clearly identify the areas we have in common. shit, my oldest and dearest friend is now a reagan republican. i learned from him what it means to be a closed-minded ideologue.  ;-)
Quick response: Thank you ingrate, for saying exactly the same thing I already said, but as a criticism. As I said, post-leftism doesn't have any substance, it's just a bad critique slapped onto worse ideals.

Metalist, it's not a false reading, it's just a reading you don't agree with. None of those quotes you gave addressed the inherently capitalistic selfish nature of egoism. Sure, you can tell everyone that they don't own property for a while, but when your entire system is based on them doing what they want, sooner or later the ownership of property is going to be enforced again. That's how it got started in the first place. Stirner can give all sorts of opinions about that stuff, but his philosophy is bad, and so his opinions mean nothing. Oh, yeah, and his saying, "But... guys... we'll all be happier if we don't compete" means nothing, because as I said, why take that seriously when his philosophy doesn't. I'm not the one being close-minded here, in the rest of the thinking world Stirner has been relegated to the closet where all the other mediocre philosophers belong, post-leftists are just clinging desperately to his philosophy because it allows them to believe that their selfish ideas of anarchism are legitimate.

Dot, your responses are usually the most thoughtful, so I'll give you a little more response in return. I have never gotten more than one upvote, no matter how uncontroversial or obvious my answer is, the voting system on this website is entirely based on reputation and groupthink (which you wouldn't expect, given this site's so obviously infallible individualistic tendencies, but surprise surprise), and I really don't give a damn about it.

Finally, I realize that egoism and post-leftism are not synonymous, but if I left egoism out, there would literally be nothing to critique. Egoism, the rejection of ideology, and the rejection of identity are the only real ideological components to post-leftism, the rest is just criticism of the left, which doesn't have any real substance to be criticized in itself.

For example, post-leftists say "leftists tend to organize, and we don't like that kind of organization". Ok, that's fine, lots of leftists don't either, but organization is not a core theoretical tenant of leftist thought, it's superficial politics. There is no real substance here. Essentially, without any of those ideological components, egoism, etc, post-leftists would just be non-organizational leftists.

Finally, as for your comment about your own values being subsumed and coopted, I can understand that, I have that same issue sometimes. For example, a lot of leftists, especially the non-anarchist Communists, focus so heavily on Marxist materialism that they have absolutely no tolerance for any other kind of social theory.

However, the left is an EXTREMELY broad group, with a myriad of groups that don't always agree with each other (another reason why the post-left criticism falls flat). I wouldn't say that the solution is just to go "screw it, you're all dumb, and I'm gonna go sit in a corner by myself somewhere and live my own lifestyle", I think the solution is to find other people who have the same ideas, which you will always be able to do. And of course, it's important to discuss your ideas with people who don't agree as well, otherwise your ideas aren't going to go anywhere. We are all products of our own histories, but that doesn't mean that we all can't agree and disagree with each other and still belong to the same overall group (i.e., anarchism, communism, whatever).

And besides, I would hardly consider a school that is based on the rejection of pretty much all other schools of anarchist thought (and not really much of anything else) to be the pinnacle of tolerance.
I had copied and pasted Lantz's rambling non sequiturs and mischaracterizations in the foolish hope that this actual response might be worth tackling point by tedious and distracting point. Sadly, even when Lantz has more of his precious time to write something drawn out and possibly on topic, it seems he just can't help himself. Insults like "trash," "stupid," and "unproductive" litter his prose throughout. In order for insults to be effective, there needs to be something true and accurate about them. Lantz's intention to insult is reduced by the paucity of his prose, and all that's left are dismissals devoid of any relevance. They are the the equivalent of ad hominems, only tossed at ideas rather than persons. Red (and I do mean red) herrings.

So here's my latest challenge to you Lantz: please read these short intros and find the parts that make the unsubstantial house of cards of post-left @ fall to pieces. Please try to stick to actual ideas rather than making up quotes that nobody but your imaginary playmates use.

The final challenge is to explain to all of us stupid egoist nihilist individualist crypto-capitalists:
what benefits accrue to anarchists by remaining inside, tolerating, and continuing to prop up the wholesale chicanery of the Left (that gruel of social democracy, Stalinism, identity police, liberalism, vulgar Marxism, and anti-imperialism -- among other facets)?
i'm not sure why you think another go round will get us anywhere new.
I thought that another round of misrepresentations and empty caricature was worth another round of corrective texts...
But you're right: there's no point.
+3 votes
Not to distract from everyone ganging up on Lantz, but, here are a couple (w/ the caveat that I'm for the most part pretty interested in post-left ideas, more than other types of anarchist thought anyway -- so I'm obviously not inclined to be so harsh) ...

-post-left writers tend to be possibly too interested in critiquing leftism. this might be unnecessary or even a misguided project especially in the us, since there just isn't much in the way of leftist movements. it sometimes also happens that this type of discourse can be slightly imprecise and anachronistic in its critiques.

-there is a tendency to assimilate post-structuralist ideas in a way that can be a lil superficial

-often post-left thought can lapse into a kinda vulgar genre of 'political theory' that mostly entails strategic lore

-the idea of there being a specific identifiable strain of "post-left anarchism" might contribute to making it into a brand but it's a weird category since it can include ideas transposed from a few different contexts that may even be hard to reconcile
by (8.0k points)
edited by
i am particularly addressing your first bullet. i think you have a definite point in there, though i'm not sure i'd put it quite the same way.

when i first was exposed more seriously to a post-left critique maybe 13-14 years ago, i found there was much that resonated with me. but i also found that most of the folks that expressed their critique seemed borderline obsessed with dissing the left and leftists. perhaps a milder version of bob black's obsession with dissing murray bookchin. while most - if not all - of the critique was solid in my mind, it seemed to go beyond that in a way that i found periodically annoying.  it also seemed like a waste of time and energy to me. but also more often than not i found it funny, so it just became a bit of a joke to me.

i myself have plenty of experience (in a previous life) in leftist activism, and my frustrations with what i was seeing (authoritarian/hierarchical thinking, hyper organization and control, cult of personality, strictly statist/legalist tactics, etc... and then came ANSWER!) - combined with what little history i have a grasp of - are part of what ultimately led me to my current worldview.
asker, can you say more about your final point, specifically about the different contexts that might be hard to reconcile?
seems there's more to be said for most of your points, actually :)
I don't really know what post-structuralism is, and wikipedia didn't help. Can you talk more about that?
flip, do not look at the links metalist posted. just watch this instead....

dot, I feel interested in this still, so I think I will try and re-write as a more elaborate/polemical answer later on, when I am not swamped with other stuff