ANews Podcast 347 – 1.12.24

From ANews Podcast

Welcome to this week’s podcast. This podcast is on anarchist activity, ideas, and comments from the previous week on anarchistnews.org

What’s New
w/ chisel & celebrity guest Borat!

Event Calendar Check-In
script by Meetspace

TOTW: POST-LEFT

w/ special guest John Zerzan, Petra & Vail!

Music & Samples:
風のララバイ · Kumi Miyasato from the Megazone 23 Original Soundtrack
FILMMAKER – IRREGULAR BASIS
Molchat Doma - Я Не Коммунист
allmut3d – t.A.T.u. - All The Things She Said (hyperpop remix)

There are 52 Comments

Tried to post the thumbs-up emoji, but the censors over at anews don't like emojis I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good stuff

This is incorrect. Drupal has had full support for full UTF-8 (emojis, Asian symbols, mathematical symbols) since 7.50. DO NOT BLAME WE DRUPAL FOR YOUR UNSKILLED LAZINESS. BLAME THE FORDIST CAPITALIST AUTHORITY RUNNING YOUR COLLECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR BASED DRUPAL SOFTWARE.

ok talk. not bad, not great. at least jz engaged some. the problem is that Petra & Vail's seem to think almost everyone is post-left now. that is just absurd. sure, on some dated understanding of leftism, maybe.....a big maybe, but how can anyone really say leftism isn't at the heart of how most anarchists interact with identity politics, social struggle, technology, and what they react to??? leftism is more than the just an orientation of anarchists, it is its main motivations, sadly and pathetically.

a lot of anarchists who have leftist friends or find leftist authors interesting and stimulating like to have this “we’re already over this” coping mechanism because they get irritated when the things and people that they like are constantly attacked

they are not lying when they say that they have understood and engaged with the criticisms, as have leftists, but there is still an undying appeal to leftism that keeps it relevant to them. they have their pantheon of leftists under “problematic fav” or “ideological promiscuity” or “my eclectic self-studies”. leftism as a guilty pleasure they like to flirt with and then the whole conversation becomes saying “it’s no big deal, guys. really. no need to make a big fuss”. there’s just sooo much utility and relevance in authors like Camatte, or some obscure autonomist or leftcom, or some jargony academic that’s in vogue, that you know, it’d be a tragedy if one were just a big meany pants towards leftists. so yeah, get over it guys, we’re all post leftists and nihilists now. we can all just chill and think of positive projects and coming up with new ways of life that are not alienated and commoditized and labor value and original accumulation, Capital, Empire, guys.

i run into way too many "anarchists" who aren't even familiar with post left, green, or anti civ critiques, and who are under the spell of identity politics, chasing liberal approval, capitalist realism, etc... in places where i'm familiar the set of assumptions people carry about what decolonization entails, about the use of dichotomous thinking, moralism, paternalism, even anything beyond the barest superficial thoughts about decommodifying the material requirements of life--all these concepts are not up to the equilibrium attainable by visiting tha anarchist library. these people call themselves anarchists, or they vaguely gesture themselves amongst the anarchists, but at risk of repeating the tired trope i would call them "not anarchists." are these the anarcho-chompskyists we've been warned about? are these the lifestylists or is that what i am? are these the folx behind the neutering of latter-phase stop cop shop? what is mutual aid? what is symbolic action? what constitutes a direct attack that threatens tenure of the control society?

i want to give friends like these a healthy dose of Aragorn! and other greens, anti civs, daoists, native anarchists. but alas many of them also don't read much...

I hate the way my well-read leftist friends react when I mention gender-nihilism and they reach for my scrotum and scream "WTF ARE THESE THEN YOU NIHILIST SCUM!!??"

cut the offending fingers off as you scream ABSENCE OF GENDER IS NOT ABSENCE OF ANATOMY! and then smash the remaining fingers with you hammer so they can't dial 911

this process has worked for me to filter my "friends"

I do not think that every anarchist is a post leftist. I believe Vail said something hyperbolic to that effect referring to the disappearance of previously popular trends in our anarchist spaces, specifically syndicalism. I refer specifically to to the label of anarchist as a popular shorthand among liberals for a kind of militant progressivism but I didn't see a useful opportunity to expand upon this much. We are attempting to keep the conversations somewhat trim as me and Vail are prone to rambling. <3

no, that's true. i think it was Vail who mostly ascribed to that position. but it was NOT convincing since, as mentioned above, most anarchists are NOT post- or anti-left in any meaningful ways.

actually enjoyed listening to JZ glad he's not completely retarded i also wonder how to keep my thoughts from crystallizing into ideologies like he does.

glad to hear him say that, now let's see if he can actually change his ways and do that.

You're posting on an ideological news website. Take that into consideration and start from there.

Anarchy isn't an ideology, you dingus. Even though thecollective are non-anarchist seething ressentimentismos you should learn what words mean lest you be caught expressing your own nonsensical seething ressentiments! OooOooh nOooo!

Petra bringing up the fact that, in many social spaces (online and off), "anarchist" becoming a signifier for "extreme concern for social issues" is spot on. It's a strange misunderstanding of anarchism, perhaps primarily informed by images which have largely been generated by anarchists themselves. "Anarchism" comes to mean, not only being the most good, but also being the most loud about being the most good, advocating incessantly for what are effectively impossible reforms. Difficult to even shrug that off as being "Leftism", as most Leftists/Marxists I see are in fact a bit smarter than that.

Speaking of Leftism -- here's the thing, it doesn't mean anything. Everyone's a leftist and no one's a leftist. Ask someone who applies the label to themselves what it means, but don't expect a straight answer. And this is part of the thing. I call myself an anarchist in distinction from the Left, because, to me, anarchism, whatever else you can say about it, still means something. The Left is not a fighting force anymore. Perhaps this is why everyone calls themselves a leftist, it's totally safe because it's totally meaningless. Alex's comment on the TOTW is pretty spot-on (as per usual, *muah*). Post-Left arrived on time. Decades later, it's superfluous.

As to the whole Post-Left TOTW... I use the term very sparingly. I assume if I say Post-Left, it will generally invite misunderstanding. If I feel it will help understanding, then I'll use it, but generally a simple "anarchist" works for me. I can elaborate on what that means to me if someone asks, in which case I'll often explain that I am not a leftist.

A nice surprise to see John appear on the podcast, even if he seems unhappy about it, making little swipes at the people he's talking to. Wish the other hosts would've responded a bit more aggressively, honestly. But hey, everyone's got their own style. ;) But regardless, and sincerely, I am glad to see him engage with the hosts, period.

"Wish the other hosts would've responded a bit more aggressively, honestly."

Seems they were both too busy listening to themselves talk and trying to use as many words as possible to. How they, respectively, didn't know how to pronounce "Zerzan" or "milieu", their ignorance of anarchy outside a Midwestern nothingville or a library book, their 'meaningful nihilism', and their assumptions regarding 'most anarchists' being post-left just highlighted that they weren't necessarily the right interviewers for John or this topic. I am guessing they were both not around when the post-left critique was occurring. Shame on the Anews Podcast for not sending in at least one OG with a background in this topic and the anarchist "my-lou".

"sending in" lol

while i agree that vail and petra didn't push back as much as i would've, it's also true that most old timers aren't interested in talking to jz any more, due to his bad faith, sniping, and misunderstandings that he refuses to let go of (all in full effect in this podcast).

i think they did a great job of having a conversation with (vs preaching at or kowtowing to) someone who most people will either just agree with or ignore.

edit: oh yeah, and it wasn't an interview.

Come on. John was engaging in good faith. It was a good conversation. Vail and Petra did brush off his few jabs just fine too and kept it cool.

i find it hard to see jz as acting i good faith when he was around and part of the forming of "post-left". it's fine that he changed his mind to think anti-left is a better term, but to claim all these years that he has no idea what is meant by post-left when he was part of the group that published Anarchy after Leftism in the first place, that's just textbook bad faith.

I don't think John was claiming he has no idea what post-left means. I think he was prompting people to ask themselves what does it mean, if anything. I think this is a case of you, perhaps, having baggage regarding all things JZ and you're engaging with his provocation in bad faith.

ANOTHER thing that struck me is that just how much disdain the hosts and John all had for the Anon Anews commenters, with Vail going so far as to plead, 'nobody should read the comments, but please keep commenting' in some desperate and embarrassing narcissistic loop. Perhaps something the mighty hosts and collective could work out amongst themselves. Turn off the comments ffs if you think their so bad or stop using them to validate your greatness.

people are different. what about that are you not getting?

it's too bad that vail and petra don't get much out of the comments here, but that is not a position held by thecollective.

and it's ok to have and attempt to express some ambivalence about something that is as tumultuous as the anews comment section. c'mon now.

for what it's worth, i agree that jz was trying to get other people to talk about something he's already made up his mind about, not that he was trying to get it defined for himself.

is my point about bad faith; he has already answered the question for himself. he has a definition. if he has some other point why not start from there?

this is his question – "What is post-Left? Various groups, projects, etc. including anarchistnews are referred to as 'post-Left." What does that actually mean, what does it signify or include? Others (e.g. JZ) feel that anti-Left is a required orientation. Is post-Left a substantive designation?"

all i'm saying is he already knows the discussions that have been ongoing around this since 1997 when AaL was published by him and CAL press. i mean, presumably he read the text before it was published???

my point is very narrow. i actually don't think left, post-left or anti-left are useful terms any longer, for what it's worth.

I for one would like to witness Chisel try to "push back" at JZ in a real-time not-interview conversation on post-left anarchy. Set up another call with JZ and show these two timid podcasters how it's done.. unless you're just blowin' smoke.

ooohhh noooo! you found my secret weakness! anon calling me a coward!

i'm calling up jz right now!

... oh wait. are you saying i'm a coward because i edit things? or because i note that i've edited something?

i'm so confused.

why would the hosts not talk? were you only listening to hear more from jz because you haven't heard him say the same thing a hundred times before? it wasn't an interview ffs (thank the gods).

Let's just say that my rocket couldn't achieve liftoff with all their yammering. Let John speak more next time PLEASE.

you have his podcast every fucking week. call in if you want to hear him talk til you get off.

The reason I asked is because I have heard John's name pronounced both ZERZan and zerZAN on various recordings and I figured it would be easy to ask while I had him on the line.

I'm so sorry anon. I will begin using fewer words immediately. I pray I can one day impress you—that I can move out of Midwest-nothingville, learn to pronounce the m-word, and leave all these library books behind. I know, when the time is right, you and the post-left clique will be awaiting me with open arms.

I found the conversation with intended goal of a conversation centering on the TOTW to be largely disappointing. I am disappointed in the fact I feel the core was more an icebreaker than the center of conversation. The definition (or non-definition, as Minona rightly points out above) is replaced by vague references to the past, such as Occupy, without any real contrast to differing tendencies, such as the early post/anti-left and Indigenous Autonomist ones. I wish there was a stronger direction towards the nature of the Left, the response and (to John's view) failure of post-left and the (again, for John) need for an anti-left identity. It seemed there was tension and difference that wasn't able or permitted to surface. Yes, JZ has issues actually engaging with difference. But he is able to. Perhaps it is a sense of solidarity / a tactical lesson, outdated, for sure, but it isn't an ego or cowardice issue, as some are inclined to believe. Can be critiqued, for sure. Love the old man, though.

That said, as a conversation between anarchists of various backgrounds and perspectives, I enjoyed it a lot. I don't often listen to the podcast, but John seemed to have a good time with it, I decided to listen. Obviously there were some sly remarks from JZ, of which I wasn't a big fan of, particularly because he seemed to be misunderstand Vali and Petra's responses. Just classic miscommunication.

I think the point of a ubiquitous post-left critique among anarchists is totally wrong. At best, the post-left critique has been assimilated only where it isn't threatening to leftist cosmology, like a growing (but weak) criticism of organization. An example, The death / decay of platformism, etc is NOT necessarily a sign of a growing post-left critique, but more likely a return to more orthodox anarchist perspectives on organizing. The general anarchist milieu is absolutely pro-progress, growth, technology/industry, identity politics. This is true with Petra's claim of anarchism-as-social-issue-militant. Post-leftism is ideally contrarian to that identity / movement. The two must be at odds. I do think anarchists are, by and large, radical liberals / advocates of the Enlightenment. Not much beyond that, even if their critique has gone beyond the identity with laborers and the labor movements. In fact, their hyper-socialized behavior towards activism is indicative of the strength of the enlightenment in their analysis. Typical "x-system doesn't live up to y-professed values"

My take on anti vs post leftism is similar to John's but maybe at odds, too. The typical Post-leftist sees anarchism as a political ideology was born from the enlightenment and Left, as Black knows and thus, a post-leftist sees anarchism as needing to erupt from the constraints and limits of its leftist heritage. I think, instead, anarchism is an energy or tendency of rebellion that existed for millennium (what others call "anarchy") and was brought into the modern age via anarchism/radical socialism. it needs to once again be separated from this politic, as anarchism should be understood as anti-political (ie, John Moore's ideas). wish I had more characters and time, but I guess that's the tl;dr of my understanding, which I call anti-left when needed, but like Minona and her view of post-leftism, it tends to bring misunderstanding. really, being an anarchist itself should be a mark against leftism and all politics.

yeah, i agree with most of this, especially the last paragraph. thanks for the words, artx.

thanks, dad!
curious what differences you have, if at all!

here's a couple of things...
i don't see the point of saying anti-left at all. either it's a: a fairly meaningless and bound to be short term change in jargon because people are cranky about how "post left" is getting used these days, or b: an anti-left/right thing that only focuses on one side of the standard paradigm and so is confusing more than it's clarifying.
or, you know, both.

and the anarchists i like and want in my corner/to be in the corner of are not liberals or a response to The Enlightenment, in fact the opposite. so while i won't argue with you about their numbers, it's also not entertaining to focus on them...
the best thing about anarchism/anarchists being such a vague label is that we get to argue for it to be what we want it to be. that's a problem too, of course. fun!

Chisel is daddy. JZ is mommy. Vail and Petri are best brows. We a happy family. UwU

would you mind giving a brief description of platformism vs "orthodox" (present day non-post-left?) tendencies or a source for research?

and second, do you believe these devastating discrepancies are the result of "anarchists" traveling in a wide range of disparate subjectivities or simply an equilibrium has not been reached? i would argue that all the evidence necessary to form a thorough critique of industry, organization, and settler-approved identities is available around every one of us, but 99/100 liberals beg to differ...
it's almost like leaving formal organizing and freely dissociating from the colonized-thought clients has let our siblings steep and keep their weird (my opinion) thoughts intact and unquestioned.

while we're at it it seems like we don't even have a broadly internalized consensus that positive conflict is positive

Anon (14:11) asks, "would you mind giving a brief description of platformism vs "orthodox" (present day non-post-left?) tendencies or a source for research?"

I don't know of anyone or any grouping which literally advocates the original "Draft Platform" of Makhno, Arshinov, etc. But there are various anarchists who have been influenced by it, sometimes calling themselves "neo-platformists" or other terms (organizationalists, social anarchists, dual-organizationalists, especifistas, etc.). What makes this tendency (to which I adhere) distinct is, I would say, (1) advocacy of those anarchists who generally agree with each other to form an organization which is internally democratic (or, we might say, self-managed) and federated (decentralized as much as practical, with only as much centralization as might be absolutely necessary for a given task or project) with autonomous sections and individuals.

(2) advocates the ultimate goal of a revolution, the overturning of the state and capitalist class and all institutions of oppression; this is as opposed to those who propose gradual and mostly peaceful transformation of society into anarchy (reformist anarchists).

(3) regards the working class (those who work for wages or salaries, "by hand or brain" and those dependent on them) as at least one of the possible central and necessary agents of a revolution (without denying the importance of other, overlapping, oppressions and possible revolutionary agents (women, oppressed races and nationalities, etc.) Class issues interact with almost all other vital issues, such as war and the ecological catastrophes created by industrial capitalism.

I cannot speak for ' "orthodox" (present day non-post-left)' [or for anyone besides myself really, although I think I am on the general wave length of many]. I would not want to be an "orthodox" anything actually. But I suspect the neo-non-anti-post-left-post-anarchists do not agree with these three points.

Good luck with your research!

It sounds like you value intention and the productivity that can come from a bit of planning and maybe a meeting or two with others with compatible worldviews. It strikes me as a decent idea, although i myself have never had success with meetings or semi formalized group decision making. If you're interested in more engagement i have a few follow up questions for you; i assume you'll ignore if not interested :)

self-governance, internal democratic proceedings: by this do you refer roughly to a framing of issues at hand followed by discussion/debate and literally voting process/consensus process where the body loosely (or strictly) determines/measures/assesses members' desired courses of action and the members voluntarily enact these courses of action according to their aptitudes/inclinations? I'm assuming there are no enforcement mechanisms compelling/coercing follow-through. As contrasted by a group discussion that lays options out on the table but doesn't make decisions, and just leaves individuals and tiny groups to voluntary-associate on their courses of action with appropriate communication to the others. if you have participated in processes such as this, are yourself/the participants concerned/critical of the notion of decision making as providing venues for power accumulation? is it viewed as a civilized process that will be used tentatively at present but should ideally be abolished before humans might live in balance as members of the community of living things? or is it viewed as wholly nonproblematic?

on the notion of forceful revolution or insurrection; it seems clear to me that while a thoroughly implemented dual power could in theory give many people the nonwaged time to pursue more love and projects and the anarchic venues to practice and explore decolonization and heal their minds, this process can only create further divergent subjectivities away from the colonized ones, and many many slaves will keep working for their masters as long as there's money to gain and things to spend it on--these slaves with no desire to embrace the uncertainty and lack of control of anarchy. recognizing the necessity of violence is one thing, but what practices are in process for developing that "gun in hand" feeling that frantz fanon expounds? does the large-group unity and shared experience of working, loving, and arguing together prepare folx to face the terrible repression that states mete out on people who are immune their nicer incentives? can anything prepare people for that in advance? and what is your answer to the accusation that that revolution is neither precipitatable through the intentional actions of a small group of thoughtful, understanding folx (a vanguard), nor is an anarchist (nor revolutionary) consensus approaching in the mainstream, nor will anarchy ever come to those who keep waiting for favorable conditions?

my question i most want to hear you answer, though, is: for you, what all falls into the category of decolonization, ie, what all patterns of thought and action must be abolished in the present as a prerequisite to both facilitate a hypothetical revolution or insurrection and to prevent it from replicating the aspects of civilization that guarantee hierarchy, domination, exclusion, control, and subjugation of matter to the human hand/simple human mind?

<3

Thank you for your thoughtful and serious questions (Anon 22:25). Unfortunately they would take a book to answer properly. (I have written three books and many articles; see my material in the Anarchist Library if you are interested in further "research".)

On your last, and main question, "what patterns of thought and action must be abolished," I would say the pattern of looking to leaders, bosses, men or women on white horses to tell us what to do. As Debs once said (quoting from memory) "I would not be your Moses to lead the working class into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you out of capitalism someone else could lead you back in." How then do the oppressed and exploited learn to rely on themselves? Only by the experience of fighting for freedom themselves. Revolutionary anarchists can advocate for freedom, but the people will have to struggle themselves, democratically and militantly. There is no "guarantee" that this would lead to anti-statist socialism, but there is no other hope, in my view.

The pre-recorded history of hominid occupation on planet Earth makes terms like " colonialism" obsolete. Recorded history in itself was written by the invaders who conquered the earlier invaders who inturn had displaced (invaded) the previous occupiers. "Decolonization" is a dual Statist construct which invites dueling (binary warfare). Let us leave this post-Neanderthalic seething behind and go forward as non-border anti-statist individuals with nous!

Sure, troll... tho colonialism was never only about hominids occupying spaces. Occupation is occupation, starting colonies of an empire by force is another thing.

Ok then, name a nation that is not colonized? I'm only asking this because if you cannot find one, then the term "colonize", because it is therefore a 100% universal practise on Earth, is therefore obsolete, or to be considerate, passé, as a point of argument, no?
C'mon, name me just one country that hasn't been colonized in its past?

polar bears sea nation is in the process, but it's not yet complete

polanarchy awaits

Umm, Pitcarn Island, or wait, it was a deserted island but some British mutineers and their indigenous Polenesian wifes and family discovered it, and then they all murdered themselves in a dispute about food and land borders because the Polenesians said they ruled the Pacific and the mutineers had colonized them! Colonization is actually just people behaving badly, so no, everywhere has been colonized, even deserted islands.

everyone is colonized, as you assert. and the patterns of thought and action they practice are the causes of the results of their thoughts and actions, ie the whole picture creates the whole picture. so one way to interpret the term "decolonize" instead of however you are interpreting it is simply "let's reject the whole picture that's creating the whole picture so that we might relearn a different picture that creates a different picture." call it what you will: nihilism, total abolition, decolonization, whatever anons do

thanks for the answer and the direction for my further inquiries, wayne. hope there's no problem with you doxxing yourself. yeah, it sure would be transformative to see a widespread mainstream recognition of autonomy and all its implications. otoh, maybe you're a wayne-sympathetic anon who also has these thoughts. may your words fall in the right order and enter the right ears :)

Has John Zerzan ever addressed how he came out of Marxism rather than anarchism, and the project he and Fifth Estate launched retains many structures of Marxist analysis that were largely foreign to anarchism? Adorno seems to be a huge influence as well.

Add new comment