Add new comment

Sorry for the apparently condescending tone in the initial reply. Inflammatory comments seem to do the most on the Web. It's habit I need to break.

SE, Have you read Ruth Kinnas review of Saul Newmans book Postanarchism? In it she writes:

At the end of the book Newman argues that the radical force of postanarchist theory lies in the contention that freedom is 'the ontological basis of all power' (p.107) and in the insight that we are free to think and act differently, as if power no longer existed. The will to freedom softens the grip that power has on our imagination. We become fearless in our insurrection, capable of facing down armed police and occupying public space. Newman's presentation of this argument is persuasive and appealing. But this conclusion begs a question about his analysis of power and the extent to which the postanarchist attribution of a zero-sum concept of state power in anarchism creates a tension in his own work. Newman's postanarchist critique of contemporary politics appears to cast the state as a monopoliser of power, yet his idea of indifference to power downplays the significance of this concentration. The presence of the state haunts the book, not only as a spook but also as a sociological reality. It is felt in 'ubiquitous apparatuses and measures of security', the 'most terroristic – draconian anti-terroristic and border control measures and exceptional police powers' (p.24) and the seductions of direct democracy which Newman describes as 'a totalizing regime of power – a form of state – which subordinate the self-will of the individual to an alien will' (p.133). But the state is not theorised and Newman's elision of La Boétie's analysis of the illusory power of the tyrant with Foucault's rejection of 'Power with a capital P' (p.105) leaves him little space to do so. Newman appears to acknowledge this tension. He twice notes that the indifference to power allows us to see that power has no substance without ridding us of power's effects (pp.105, 137). Applied as a descriptor of contemporary activism, insurrection looks empowering. Elaborated in postanarchist theory, it appears to leave us in an impasse, neither able to contemplate how revolutionary social transformation may be imagined nor encouraged to adopt methods of resistance that compel the state to engage with radical politics.

What are your thoughts on this? How are those interested supposed to overcome this tension?