Add new comment

The term is still controversial as it's coming from academics with little "skin in the game" outside than for occasional entries in their "radical" career resumes. In the world outside, "post-anarchism" has a more obvious, less convoluted potential meaning that might equate to someone who abandoned anarchism for going back to mainstream authoritarian politics (democratic, socialist or other.

As yes, to me anarchism is a kind of politics, that is anti-politics. Or political nihilism. But one that is applied (in what has been called "maximalism" or "liquid anarchy") to every aspect of life in/out of society... or else, well, it may fall into being another form of liberalism. It is the few people subverting mainstream politics through intrigue... or just bluntly opposing them when they can't afford all the intrigues. The former being more exposed to capitalist dyamics, where the latter, while socially-deprecated, is a safer bet.

To treat it as this always blurry philosophy or worse, ideology, is an absurd effort that never went anywhere. There ARE philosophy theories that are inherently anarchistic (Epicurus, Diogenes the Cynic, Lao Tse, Stirner obvs, etc) and they deserve to be held as inspiration, To the anarcho-lefties it's another label for their own brand of socialist ideals, that they could just call libertarian socialism, and quit fooling around with black flags and perfectly symmetric @ signs.