/dead/ - Post-Left

I don't think marxism has a coherent body either, just a bunch of different schools that position themselves as THE true marxist theory.
Most accept Marx, Engels and Lenin, but everything afterwards seems quite subjective. You've got splits between trotzkyites and stalinists (or ml's), maoists and dengists, luxemburgists who incompass only part of leninism, different left-communist tendencies and so on.

because the whole point of anarchism is plurality

>>2820
But they have a common theoretical base to start with.

>>2822
I would argue that most anarchists start between Kropotkin, Proudhon and Goldman too. It's just less obvious because ppl dont call themselves Kropotkinists or Proudhonist-Goldmanist.
Either way, as >>2821 pointed out another huge factor is that anarchism is more critical of coercion and grouping than marxism is, so anarchists tend to be less engaged in formulating a "coherent body". Especially post-left anarchists would argue that such a thing isn't even very helpful.

blah blah blah blah
proudhon, bakunin, kropotkin and malatesta are right there

Read Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism.

>>2846
>Read Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism.
No.

>>2846
Why? Does it answer the question?

>>2850
What is it implying?

>>2882
probly that marxists have a coherent body of theory, which they dont see >>2820

>>2823
>most anarchists start between Kropotkin, Proudhon and Goldman too
Yikes! You'd think they'd start with Bakunin or Stirner instead of those idiots.

>>3301
most anarchists are social anarchists tho

>>3302
That's a real shame.

>>3302
So just like Bakunin?

>>3302
wtf is a "social anarchist"? have you ever interacted with an anarchist beyond internet memes?

Because anarchist tendencies are based in idealism over material analysis, while marxism is not.

>>2823
It sounds like you are saying anarchism is more individualistic, which I would agree with. All the moreso for postsies. It often seems to me like post-left politics are based around the aesthetics of contrarianism and pessimistic nihilism. Perhaps some negative affect directed towards "leftists" in general.

>>3306
social anarchists are anarchists whose ultimate goal is a social revolution. the term was coined in the aftermath of Bookchin releasing "Social Anarchism vs. Lifesytle Anarchism - An unbridgeable chasm" in 1995, where he contrasted the theories of the 20th century anarchists like Malatesta and Proudhon against those of contemporaries like Hakim Bey. Although many responses to his book pointed out that he was constructing a false dichotomy between the two, many anarchists did start describing themselves as insurrectionary or individualist anarchists afterwards to show their distance to theories of social revolution and workerism. This was the ultimate birth of post-left anarchism, which is the outlook the board you are posting on was meant to represent.
Many active militant groups, like the FAI, describe themselves as insurrectionary or indiviualist.
Im sorry that you are so unaware of developments in the anarchist milieu since the 90's. I hope this clears stuff up.

>>3309
you dont know what youre talking about. hope this clears stuff ip

>>2819
Marxist theory gravitate around Marx's work as core reference, on which later theory was build,
whereas Anarchist theory is split amongst several figures who do not build upon on each other but go on their own more or less parrallel ways.

>>3311
>doesn't know about individualist/social anarchism
>yOu DoNt kNoW wHaT yOu aRe TaLkInG aBoUt
Well where was I wrong? Bookchin's text was discussed by several relevant authors and at least since Bob Black's "anarchy after leftism" this distinction is fundamental to post-lefts identity.
Kys fam

>>3313
individualist anarchism predates the 90s by a long time and would have been uncomfortably close to "social anarchism" (meaningless snarl word) for people like you. see armand and serge and perlman
your dumb urban tribe rivalry has nothing to do with the actual course of history of anarchism

most anarchists i know are anarcho communists that read marx idk where this rejection of marx stuff comes from he was at least like 90% correct

>>3315
>idk where this rejection of marx stuff comes from
terminally online contrarianism from people who think they're geniuses for happening to be smarter than leftypol tankies

>>3315
>where this rejection of marx stuff comes from
the last 50 years of the social sciences

>>3315
Some will say you "reject" Marx if you don't think he was 100% correct. Maybe that's where it comes from.

>>3314
>individualist anarchism predates the 90s by a long time and would have been uncomfortably close to "social anarchism"
well, as you said yourself, perlmans ans serges anarchism wasn't that different from social anarchism, they were very close to it. even though they wrote with a individualist character, the real devide between social and individualist anarchism only happened in the scenario I described - in the 90's. its really retarded how you bring them up while ate the same time conceding that they did NOT develop beyond the scope of social anarchism. I mean sure, you definetly win 100 internetz argument points by showing that, akshually, there already were indiviualist anarchists before. buuuut, as you said yourself, they still moved within the paradigm of traditional, social anarchism. the actual break from those dead, 19th century theories, burdened by their systemic hegelian nature, only took place afterwards. so your point is really asinine - to your own admition btw.

>your dumb urban tribe rivalry has nothing to do with the actual course of history of anarchism
ohh yeah, the ACTUAL course of anarchism. by actual you, of course, you mean to describe the course which you determin to be the essential feature of change unlike it's sinful, not ACTUAL ones. or with other words, you are the sepertaing its essential features from its concrete existence. I dont care about your spooked concept btw. social anarchism parted from individualist tendencies in the 90's, because all that existed before were social anarchists with individual tendiencies, as you yourself pointed out (uncomfortably close to "social anarchism"). just because you try to wave away this devide doesnt make it any less substantial.

>>3323
phew, that's a lot of psychoanalysis and rationalization

i am not coherent

>>3325
bitch where?