Talk:Post-left anarchy

Comment
Sorry for the formatting, this is my first time doing this stuff. The link to Jason McQuinns quotes open a website with links for erotic massages. What's up with that? 181.132.138.171 (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Drunchis

articles
As influential as he may be, there is more to post-left than Bob Black. We need to expand the section with more than just a reference to "Anarchy after Leftism" to include some of the now popular articles. Chuck should be up for this job, I just don't have the time right now. ~duanarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.227.229 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should work on this, when I have some time. Infoshop does have a page on this topic. Chuck0 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all Anarcho communists are against post-left anarchy Bob Black for instance is a libertarian socialist and an Anarcho communist himself.--Fang 23 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the so-called critics of post-leftism is that they really don't understand the concept and project their dislike of certain anarchists onto the tendency. I consider myself to be a post-leftist anarchist AND a social anarchist. I have strong affinities for anarcho-communism, although I prefer to identify as an anarchist without adjectives. The critics of post-leftism want to dismiss it by inaccurately linking it to primitivism. This is why they've failed to engage post-leftism critically. Attacking a strawman all the time ends up giving you straw to build your arguments with. Chuck0 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

discussion of the article
This page is still a huge mess. There is more on this page about stuff that isn't post-leftism than there is about post-leftism. If this entry was submitted to a teacher as a report on post-leftism, you'd not only get an "F" but would be kicked out of school. Come on people, at least do some reading and don't engage in "original" research like the paragraph on Crimethinc. 24.94.181.211 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This page has lots of problems. I tried several weeks ago to remove a poorly written and false set of sentences, but one of the Wikipedia zealots restored the false information. First of all, Bookchin is not an anarchist, so that sentence needs to be changed. Secondly, post-leftism developed as a tendency AFTER Bookchin wrote his book SALA. SALA is NOT a response to post-leftism. And that book is commonly misunderstood to be an attack on some group of anarchists when it really is a rant directed at anybody who had ever criticized Bookchin. Chuck0 20:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgeable of the pros and cons about post-left anarchy, but perhaps someone should go in depth about the critiques post-left anarchists have against leftist anarchists and so forth. --Jazz Remington 01:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A couple of comments.

1. After having read Bookchin's SALA I did not have the impression that it was first and foremost a polemic against his critics as it was about him, rightly or wrongly, deploring various individualist anarchist (Stirnerite), deep ecologist, quietist (taoist), etc tendencies that were leading the anarchism astray from the social anarchist spirit that had historically characterized it. Post-left anarchism may not have emerged as a label by then, however it does seem relevant to mention it as an important precursor to disputes between social anarchists and the post-leftists since much of the social anarchist position had been fairly well articulated there.

2. When I read Debord's "Society of the Spectacle" it struck me as a left-Marxist critique; it was heavily and centrally laced with Marxist ideas applied to the cultural (media/art/consumption) sphere. I noticed that both this post-left anarchist article and the Situationists article both tend to downplay the Marxist current in Situationist thought. regards- BernardL 14 Aug 2005 19:15

Right Wing Currents?
The following sentence was recently added to this article:
 * However, these views have been criticised as a revival of right wing currents of anarchism such as Stirnerite individualism.

Since when was Max Stirner a right-winger? Who has made this criticism and can anyone cite a source? If there is no source, we should remove the claim. If there is a source, we should clarify the criticism. - Nihila 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As no source has emerged, I've removed the claim in question. If anyone finds a reliable source, feel free to reinsert it w/ citation. - N1h1l 02:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This Needs Lots of Work
I guess I should put some work into improving this page, since it isn't much better than when I complained a year ago. Here is a list of improvements and a list of misconceptions about post-leftism. Chuck0 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvements


 * This entry doesn't really explain what post-leftism is and what principal post-leftists actually argue. There are no quotes here from Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Lawrence Jarach, or even myself. Crimethinc really isn't a post-leftist project, so I don't understand the mention here of Crimethinc.
 * This entry needs to untangle itself from Murray Bookchin, whose book that is cited here really wasn't about post-leftism. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism was mainly a response by Bookchin to his critics and his former comrades. It also continued his criticism of the radical ecology and deep ecology movements. Black's book in response to Bookchin was a response to Bookchin's career of trying to maintain ties between leftism and anarchism.
 * This entry should explain that post-leftism is a 'critique of leftism, not a movement. Post-leftists are not trying to get people to join a new movement or a new form of anarchism.

Misconceptions


 * This entry repeats sectarian nonsense about post-leftism being in bed with primitivism. Primitivism and post-leftism are two different things. Most post-leftists are on record as NOT being primitivists. I consider myself a post-leftist and I'm an IWW member. Does that tie together the IWW and post-leftism? No, of course not. This entry should represent what post-leftism is as articulated by its proponents. The disinformation about links to primitivism have no place in this entry.


 * As soon as we get some sources for this we can start including it, but Wikipedians personal opinions on what post-left anarchy is are irrelevant (except, in your case, if you publish them somewhere). That's how things work around here, and you're really not going to see much of an improvement a year from now until someone comes up with sources. Regards, Skomorokh  02:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Anarchylogo.jpg
The image File:Anarchylogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with anarcho-primitivism
Hi, can somebody please edit the section to mention the dustup in summer of 2013 between Derrick Jensen, one of the leading primitivists, and most of the post-left anarchist movement? It started over trans-exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.36.144 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests: removal of red-linked image & protected page template
Would you please delete the following red-linked image and the associated caption: File:Bey hakim.jpg. The file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons on 15 December 2012. Alternatively, the red-linked image could be replaced with File:Hakim Bey, painted portrait DDC 3021.jpg. It would also be good to place a protected page template at the top of this page. Thanks! -   t  u coxn \ talk 17:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I replaced the image rather than removing it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope
I went to clean up this article's overreliance on primary sources and behold, there wasn't anything left. WP has very strict circumstances for citing primary sources, mainly to prevent the type of original analysis/interpretation that fills this article (and is noted above on this talk page). What then is written about post-left anarchism in secondary sources? Not much, really. It's covered in some surveys of anarchism as an idea but not as something independently notable from other strands in contemporary anarchism. So that's how I've covered it: I've expanded the bullet point in contemporary anarchism from Marshall's Demanding the Impossible. There was another passage in Kinna's Bloomsbury/Continuum Companion (p. 260) but the more I read, the more it sounded like citogenesis from this very WP article. Given that nothing would be left if we pared down the primary sources, I think the best solution is to redirect to the extant, aforementioned section of contemporary anarchism and expand there in summary style, but open to discussion. czar 03:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You can't just unilaterally redirect an article like this without establishing any sort of consensus; that isn't how this wiki is supposed to work. There have been various discussions about post-left and individualist strains of anarchism outside of the primary sources of people advocating for it, and furthermore, your citation of the very strict circumstances, while correct inasmuch as it applies to original research, does not blanket apply to any use of primary sources, as per Wikipedia policy, primary sources are not always bad. If a paragraph or statment smacks of original research then this is an entirely different matter, and editorializing content can be pared down or edited as needed. In light of this I will be reverting the redirect until an actual consensus is established as to what should be done with this article. 80.195.184.144 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirection is a fine substitute for a deletion discussion. If you disagree, revert, as you did. But if you think this needs additional discussion/consensus, what reliable, secondary sources are you offering as showing "post-left anarchy" as an independently notable idea? I've already explained my research above. An article topic's dependence on primary sources to explain its basic info is an indicator of coat racking. If enough unaffiliated sources were writing about the concept, the primary sources would only be needed for sparse, fill-in detail, not its crux. czar  23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, asking one more time if you or anyone else has reliable, secondary sources are you offering as showing "post-left anarchy" as an independently notable idea. Otherwise contemporary anarchism already exists as sourced coverage of this topic. czar  20:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is Feral Faun? on anarcho-syndicalism
Why is Feral Faun, aka Wolfi Landstreicher, considered an authority on Post-left Anarchy's relationship [|relationship to Anarcho-syndicalism]? His quotation in this article is taken from a collection of otherwise obscure and unreferenced zine essays from the 1980s. This author never cites a source himself in any of his work. To illustrate his irrelevance: Feral Faun also wrote "Child Molestation vs. Child Love".

This section of the Post-left anarchy article was intended for a short description of Post-Left's relationship to Anarchy-syndicalism. Instead, we are supplied a factless strawman argument authored by a pedophilia apologist. Authoring a wiki entry for Wolfi Landstreicher could help objectively illustrate the nature of his bibliography, but he may not be historically or culturally significant enough to justify an article entry in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

To replace Feral Faun's quote entirely will offer the potential for something more illustrative and educational. The current strawman does not actually address any tenets of Anarcho-Syndacalism other than the existence of factories, nor does it provide much benefit or consideration for the Post-Left in comparison. I don't care if its a stance of opposition against syndicalism, but I do not think this random anonymous zine author from the 1980s should be cited on a wiki pedestal. Does he have a larger following that I know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonewater (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He is as I understand one of the theorists of post-left critique. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mess. Deletion? Redirection?
This article is a huge mess and i don't even know where to start. Is this article covering things not already covered in other articles? W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)