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.


0 votes
"For some reason there is a very strong tendency in the USA for the emergence of ideologies which use the label anarchist but which are in reality at odds with anarchism. There have been at least three such streams in the last two decades, `anarcho'-capitalism, post-leftism and ‘anarcho’-primitivism. All three have used a similar methodology of trying to re-label anarchism as `left anarchism' (or sometimes `red anarchism'). All three have shared the same ideological anti-communist `rugged individualism' by which all forms of collective mass organisation can only be authoritarian."  --Andrew Flood
by (1.7k points)

2 Answers

+5 votes
Best answer
Just reading the passage you quoted, I have several initial thoughts. One is his complaint that post-Left anarchy (of the three listed tendencies, the only one I consider myself to be a part of is post-Left anarchy so that is the only one which I am going to discuss) is at odds with anarchism. Obviously this depends on the definition of anarchism; if the definition is simply a philosophy which states that anarchy is both desirable and possible, than obviously it is at odds with HIS anarchism not anarchism in general. He seems to be foolish enough to believe that there is some correct anarchist orthodoxy, if he denies this he should explain what about post-Left anarchy is at odds with anarchism in general and not just his, apparently only, interpretation of such (I dont see him being able to do so). But in any case, I agree with the saying that is apparently common in Greece "We fight for anarchy, not anarchism".

Next, is his utterly dishonest assertion that post-Left anarchy is anti-communist. Zerzan may qualify, but to imply post-Left anarchy in general does is to claim guilt by association and fail at the construction of an actual argument. If Andrew Flood had read post-Left anarchist ideas he would know that all post-Left anarchists are anti-capitalist and writings from the tendency include things like "We embrace what is best in individualism; we embrace what is best in communism", "Individualism and Communism: Aims of Anarchist Revolution". Flood would not be able to find any post-Left anarchist quotes which are pro capitalist. Period.

I don't know if there is a "formal response" to Flood's sad and pathetic lack of an argument, but I do know that producing texts like this thoroughly demonstrates Flood is doing a fantastic job discrediting himself.
by (2.4k points)
When Flood was saying that the Post-left is anti-communist, he was not saying that it was because they are pro-capitalist, but because they think all mass organization is authoritarian.
What about communism is synonymous with or requires mass organization? I still don't see that assertion having any credibility.
0 votes
The essay scrutinizes anarchist-primitivism. So... what exactly does this have to do with the first-wave of the post-left? I really am scratching my head. I'm an anarchist-communist and I'm far more interested in the post-left than anything Flood has to say. There's strike one, I suppose.

It would have been appropriate — and made more sense — for you to have provided essays that specifically covered post-left anarchy and the reaction to it.

Like these:

If you wanted to have people answer your questions about the primmos then you probably should have asked a question about primmos, right?
by (2.8k points)
On second thought, I may have been too dense with that response (i.e., you were directing attention more towards the quote rather than the link). But I'm sure you'll forgive me for ignoring a claim that can be proved false by anyone with even rudimentary literacy.