Posted on

#Anarchism is movement: Tomás Ibáñez (4)

The fourth chapter of Tomás Ibáñez’s essay, Anarchism is movement directly engages the debate over the significance of “postanarchism”.  Neither tempted by a blind adherence to this current of thought, nor categorically dismissive, Ibáñez attempts to navigate between these extremes, always attentive to the complex relations between theory and practice that have always animated anarchism.

Originally published by Autonomies.

Read Anarchism is movement by Tomás Ibáñez  chapter 1 with the preamble here, chapter 2 here and chapter 3 here.

4. Postanarchism

Strongly criticised by some, praised by others, postanarchism currently enjoys a presence in the international anarchist movement significant enough that it can no longer be ignored by anyone.

The term postanarchism probably appeared for the first time in March of 1987, when Hakim Bey – pseudonym for Peter Lamborn Wilson, an anarchist residing in the United States – published a very short text with the title Post-Anarchism Anarchy.  It would however be a big mistake if we thought to locate in this manifesto the point of departure for postanarchism, as it has subsequently developed.  Hakim Bey’s text is a plea against the paralysing effects caused by the fossilisation of anarchist organisations and against the sclerosis of anarchism converted into, according to him, a mere ideology.  It is a call to overtake anarchism in the name of anarchy, where the conceptual lines of what would subsequently constitute postanarchism appear nowhere.  In fact, Hakim Bey’s influence will be noticed, above all, among certain sectors of neoanarchism more than in postanarchism, with the notions of the “TAZ” and “PAZ” – “Temporary Autonomous Zones” and “Permanently Autonomous Zones”, respectively – which he developed in the 1990s and which influenced segments of libertarian okupations and of insurrectionalism.


4.1. Where does postanarchism come from and in what does it consist

Paradoxically, it is in a work that did not mention the term postanarchism anywhere where the origin of this current of thought is to be located.  In effect, Todd May, a US anarchist and academic, published in 1994 a book whose title, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism already clearly announced what would constitute one of the essential dimensions of postanarchism, namely, the inclusion within anarchism of important conceptual elements taken from poststructuralism.  Todd May had already initiated this reflection in 1989 in an article entitled “Is Post-Structuralist Political Theory Anarchist?”.  However, in being published in a philosophy journal of limited circulation, it went largely unnoticed.  And the same happened with an article entitled “Poststructuralism and the Epistemological Bases of Anarchism”, that another university professor, Andrew Koch, published in 1993, again in a philosophy journal with modest circulation.

A few years later and while the echos of the great demonstration of 1999 in Seattle still resonated with force, offering testimony to the resurgence of anarchism, another book, in which the term postanarchism is also not used, took up in part Todd May’s theoretical argument.  This book published in 2001 by the Australian anarchist professor Saul Newman, whose title is From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, ends with a chapter textually calling for “a postanarchist politics”, employing the instruments of poststructuralism.

In the following year, 2002, another Californian professor, Lewis Call, published a work along the same lines, Postmodern Anarchism,  which reinforced a current for which there now competed three possible denominations: first, “poststructuralist anarchism”, then “postmodern anarchism”, and as a third option, “postanarchism”.  It was this last denomination, despite being the least precise, the most ambiguous and the most problematic, that finally imposed itself.  The first of the denominations mentioned would have been undoubtedly the most appropriate and the most precise, for carrying with it a direct reference to poststructuralism, but it was too much tied to university culture.  The final result was also probably influenced by the discredit that undermined the term “postmodern”, due to its vague content, its changing definitions and the sometimes contradictory character of its political implications.

It is possible that the creation, in Februrary of 2003, by Jason Adams – who had participated in the organisation of the Seattle demonstration -, of a website called “Post Anarchism”, which served as a platform for numerous exchanges and debates, contributed to spreading and consolidating the use of this term.  In any case, the publications and the references to postanarchism have not in fact ceased to multiply since then and in 2011, a mere ten years after the publication of Saul Newman’s book, there was already a first Post-Anarchism Reader.

When the texts that develop or discuss the postanarchist approach are reviewed, what appears with the greatest force is perhaps the idea of a hybridisation of anarchism and poststructuralism, or the inclusion of poststructuralist concepts within anarchism.  It is the grafting, some would say, of poststructuralism onto anarchism that will make way for a new variety of libertarian formulations which will give form to postanarchism.

Jason Adams states, for example, that postanarchism is not so much a coherent political program, but rather a anti-authoritarian problematic that emerges from anarchist  poststructuralist approach or, even, from a poststructuralist anarchist approach.

Benjamin Franks, for his part, writes that postanarchism is to be understood as a new hybrid of anarchism and poststructuralism.  And Saul Newman presents it as the construction of an intersection between anarchism and poststructuralist discourse.  The same Benjamin Franks adds that the term postanarchism, that is used more often than not with a certain hesitation, refers to an ensemble of efforts to reinvent anarchism in light of the principal developments that have marked contemporary radical theory and that began, in many cases, with the events of May 68 in Paris.

In the initial page of introduction to the website created by Jason Adams, below the heading “What is postanarchism?”, one can read:

In order to understand what the emerging phenomena of postanarchism “is” in the contemporary moment, first of all one should consider what it is not; it is not an “ism” like any other — it is not another set of ideologies, doctrines and beliefs that can be laid out positively as a bounded totality to which one might conform and then agitate amongst the “masses” to get others to rally around and conform to as well, like some odd ideological flag. Instead, this profoundly negationary term refers to a broad and heterogeneous array of anarchist theories and practices that have been rendered “homeless” by the rhetoric and practice of most of the more closed and ideological anarchisms such as anarchist-syndicalism, anarchist-communism, and anarchist-platformism as well as their contemporary descendants, all of which tend to reproduce some form of class-reductionism, state-reductionism or liberal democracy in a slightly more “anarchistic” form, thus ignoring the many lessons brought to us in the wake of the recent past.

Postanarchism is today found not only in abstract radical theory but also in the living practice of such groups as the No Border movements, People’s Global Action, the Zapatistas, the Autonomen and other such groups that while clearly “antiauthoritarian” in orientation, do not explicitly identify with anarchism as an ideological tradition so much as they identify with its general spirit in their own unique and varying contexts, which are typically informed by a wide array of both contemporary and classical radical thinkers.

[In] Saul Newman[‘s] … book “From Bakunin to Lacan: Antiauthoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power” … the term refers to a theoretical move beyond classical anarchism, into a hybrid theory consisting of an synthesis with particular concepts and ideas from poststructuralist theory such as post-humanism and anti-essentialism.

(Jason Adams, Postanarchism in a Nutshell)

We conclude this brief review taking up what Saul Newman says, undoubtedly the principal theorist of post anarchism:

This does not, in any sense, refer to a superseding or moving beyond of anarchism – it does not mean that the anarchist theoretical and political project should be left behind. … The prefix ‘post-’ does not mean ‘after’ or ‘beyond’, but rather a working at the conceptual limits of anarchism with the aim of revising, renewing and even radicalizing its implications.

(Saul Newman, Post Anarchist and Radical Politics Today)*

Given the poststructuralist and postmodern filiation of postanarchism, one could expect that this latter would take up the offensive launched by these two currents of thought against the legitimising ideology of modernity, but now directing this criticism against the modern presuppositions that would eventually dwell in anarchist thought.  And, indeed, postanarchists endeavour to show that anarchism is very far from having escaped from the ideological influences of modernity.

It seems to me that we cannot but agree with them on this point on the condition, of course, that we refuse to conceive of anarchism as something which sprung up from a preexisting foundational essence and that we think of it instead as having constituted itself through an ensemble of social and cultural practices deeply rooted in history.  These practices were not in fact those of a few isolated individuals, but were developed by thousands of people who were fundamentally – and how the devil could it be otherwise? – modern subjects, given that it is in the Modern Epoch when anarchism constituted itself as a significant social movement.

Logically, anarchism cannot but be profoundly marked by the social conditions and the fundamental ideas of modernity.  Of course, anarchism is not a faithful copy, a mimetic reproduction, a clone of the principles of modernity, as some postanarchists sometimes insinuate.  And it is not for various reasons, such as, for example, that modernity, as with all other historical epochs, is a heterogeneous time that incorporates more influences than those which have a dominant character; and, in this precise case, in addition to those that come from Enlightenment ideology, those that emanate from Romanticism, for example, also manifest themselves.

Anarchism in fact sees itself influenced by modernity twice over.  First, because it develops historically within modernity and absorbs therefore some of its characteristics.  And, secondly, because it gained body in certain practices of struggle against certain aspects of modernity.  Anarchism situates itself consequently, in modernity and against modernity, to take up the expression of Nico Berti when he speaks of anarchism as something that is in history but against history.

Consequently, anarchism constructs itself at the same time by antinomy and opposition to, and rejection of, certain aspects of modernity.  And equally, by assimilation and absorption of, and accommodation to, this same modernity.  With some frequency, it happens that with and againstare not incompatible and, in any case, it is what occurs here, given that, on the one hand, anarchist practices articulate themselves against particular mechanisms of domination of modernity; but, on the other hand, they construct themselves necessarily with materials and with tools specific to its time.  They are therefore simultaneously modern and anti-modern practices.

The idea in fact that anarchism finds itself inevitably marked by the spirit and the social conditions of its time follows logically from a conception of anarchism that understands its theoretical corpus on the basis of certain practices of struggle and, above all, practices of struggle against domination.  The idea that anarchism could move through modernity without being influenced by it could only be sustained by an essentialist conception of anarchism, or on the basis of a mysterious capacity that anarchism would have to be able to transcend the conditions that constitute it.

Allowing then that the postanarchist thesis, according to which anarchism has incorporated certain influences originating in modernity, is reasonable, we can now ask ourselves about the conditions of possibility that have allowed postanarchists to formulate this thesis and even to arrive at constituting themselves as a current of thought within anarchism.  It is of course in the social, economic, cultural and political changes of the second half of the 20th century where these conditions of possibility are to be found; that is, finally, in the same phenomena that cause the resurgence of anarchism.

These changes effectively mark the beginning of a transition in our societies towards forms and conditions of existence which only today do we experience their very first effects, but which increasingly differentiate themselves from those that characterised the extensive period of modernity; a period that begins to gain shape during the 16th century, that creates its legitimising ideology during the century of the Enlightenment and that continues to be for the most part ours today, even though it has ceased to be hegemonic.  (For a more elaborate development of the question of modernity and postmodernity, see the Addenda.)

In parallel to the technological, political and economic changes that have given origin to a recomposition of the apparatuses and modalities of domination and, therefore, of struggles, the second half of the 20th century has seen the development of a strongly critical movement of modernity’s legitimising ideology.  This critique has antecedents in the very times of the Enlightenment – in Romanticism, for example – and, later, in thinkers situated in opposition to it, such as Max Stirner or Friedrich Nietzsche; a critical movement that from the 1980s on, came to be called postmodern thought or poststructuralist theory.

The conditions then for the possibility of postanarchism lie in the development of poststructuralist/postmodern criticism, which for its part is made possible by the first steps towards a change of epoch.

This inclusion of postanarchism in the critical movement that raises itself up against certain aspects of modern ideology bestows a certain credibility on the reproach that all of this concerns an approach that originates not with concrete struggles and which is finally nothing more than an intellectual movement, not to say, something strictly academic.  If we observe with greater attention, however, it can be noticed that its formulation and its development maintain a relation, even though indirect, with current struggles against domination.  On the one hand, May 68 and, more generally, the struggles that erupted in the world at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s are not foreign to the elaboration of poststructuralist and postmodernist theses, upon which postanarchism finds fundamental support.  On the other hand, postanarchism would not have found any echo and, perhaps, would not even have been formulated without the eruption of practices and forms of intervention that are specific to radical politics, as these have configured themselves from the end of the 1990s until the present.

It is true that postanarchism invents absolutely nothing, that it takes its tools from the theoretical spaces from which is developed the criticism of modernity, namely poststructuralism and postmodernism.  It is enough to see the importance that it gives to the anarchist criticism of representation, or the anarchist exaltation of diversity and singularity, to be convinced of the origin of its tools.  Nevertheless, it is also true that postanarchism contributes to making this criticism known in anarchist milieus and this is a great merit, even if this is finally its only merit.

It would however be erroneous to reduce postanarchism to the simple role of disseminator of concepts and theses, because postanarchism also presents itself as an effort at self-criticism that realises anarchism by freeing it from the debts that it contracted in the past with the legitimising ideology of modernity.  Of course, if the usefulness of the Enlightenment in undermining the conceptions, institutions and practices of subjugation that existed at that time leaves no room for doubt, nor then can it be ignored that the social changes that have occurred over the course of modernity and the labour carried out by critical thought, have made ever more visible the subtle effects of subjugation that the ideas of the Enlightenment also bore, and these can no longer be simply assumed, without further ado, by antagonistic movements.

4.2. The criticism of classical anarchism

Among the many criticisms that postanarchism directs at anarchism, two of the most important point to, on the one hand, the essentialist presuppositions that it assumed and, on the other hand, its overly vetust conception of the phenomenon of power.  The later fails to take into consideration, among other things, the productive nature and the immanence that characterise this phenomenon.  Even though I have moved to the adenda a more detailed exposition of the problematic of power and essentialism, I would like to briefly address the theme of essentialism, considering it exclusively in its relation to the question of the subject, which will inevitably touch on some aspects of the problematic of power.

It is in fact obvious that anarchism shares, in good measure, the modern belief in the existence of an autonomous subject, and that it would be sufficient to pluck it from the claws of power for it to be able to finally realise itself, to be free and to act for itself.  It was thus about working for the emancipation of individuals.  That is, to act to remove them from tutelage, from servitude or, at least, from an ensemble of restrictions that repress them, so as to be able finally to become the owners of themselves.  However, poststructuralism teaches us that beneath the paving stones there is no beach, that there is not a desire that we can liberate or a subject that we can emancipate, because once emancipated, what would be seen would not be an autonomous being, but a being already moulded and constituted by relations of power.  To oppose the effect of the apparatuses of domination will never make appear a constitutively autonomous subject that, liberated from what repressed it, would find its authentic self, for the reason thqt this later does not exist.  All that we can hope for, and it is not a little, is that the subject find the instruments to modify itself by itself and to constitute itself differently, neither closer nor further from what would be its fundamental nature, for this last is to be found nowhere, given that it simply does not exist.

I take from Saul Newman the idea according to which one of the most perverse effects of the ideology of the Enlightenment, and of its humanist presuppositions, is to have been able to construct subjectivities that perceived themselves as endowed with an essence which would find itself repressed by the action of certain external circumstances.  This perception effectively guides the struggle against power in a direction that paradoxically reinforces it, given that the struggle to liberate our essence from what represses it seeks to liberate something which in fact is already constituted by power.  Instead of scrutinising the marks left behind by its interventions, we assume them as alien to power and as something which preexists its action.  This leads ultimately to opening the door to the normalising effects that produce the belief in a human nature which would be – with apologies for redundancy – purely “natural”.  Certainly, if a human nature exists and if we wish to be recognised and recognise ourselves as “human subjects”, we should try to mould ourselves as faithfully as possible to the characteristics that define it and the norms that configure it, without anyone even asking this of us, simply allowing certain normalising effects to act.

With the crisis of the autonomy of the subject, it is of course the ideologies of emancipation that are also seen as invalid, in many respects.  In addition to what presented itself as the subject that needed to be emancipated – the autonomous subject -, the subject charged with carrying out the emancipation – the proletariat – also became problematic, while doubts began to grow with regards to the objectives assigned to the final outcome of emancipatory struggle; that is, the creation of a pacified and reconciled society, in the purest eschatological tradition.

These critical developments have led us to the necessity of redefining radical politics, not to disarm them, as is feared by the defenders of ideologies anchored in the 19th century, but to rearm them with the aim of increasing their effectiveness in a society that, to say the least, is far from being that of the past.  For example, there is no doubt that it continues to be necessary to fight against the State, as long as this continues to be the principal apparatus of repression and control.  It is however necessary to abandon, among other things, the ingenuousness of believing that the State only exercises power from above, on subjects whose only tie to it would be rooted in the fact that they are trapped by its nets and suffer its dominion.  In reality, these bonds are far more dense than those that can be inferred from a mere relation of subordination, given that the State receives some of its features, from below, in this case, as a consequence of the effects of power produced by subjects themselves in the context of their relations.  In receiving them from their subjects, it is natural that it share them, without demanding any coercion.  Therefore, to struggle against the State also consists in changing things “below”, in local, diverse and situated practices, there where power acquires part of its attributes.

I am convinced that it would be extremely interesting for anarchism to appropriate and integrate into its own critical baggage the poststructuralist-postmodern critique, above all in its Foucauldian variant.  Among other things, this later teaches us about the a priori of our possible experience; that is, about what constitutes us today and what, because of the very fact that it constitutes us, escapes our perception.  This can help us to understand what sustains our interpretations of, and the nature of what orients, without our knowledge, our thought, our practices, our subjectivity and our libertarian sensibility; and contribute, in this way, to better focus our struggles against domination.

To limit oneself to protecting the modern elements of anarchism is as useless as the effort to place value on the differences that separate it from modernity.  What is truly important is to give to anarchism expressions that are in consonance with the present.  That is, with an epoch that is still massively modern, certainly, but where the advances of postmodernity are more visible with each passing day.

Nevertheless, it is in no way the debate over postanarchism that will be decisive for reaching this goal, but the changes experienced by the struggles against domination.  In effect, to the extent that anarchism, as I do not stop repeating, constructs itself on the bases and in the midst of these practices of struggle, it follows that it necessarily changes when these vary.  It is, consequently, because it indissolubly joins idea and action, because it establishes a symbiosis between theory and practice, that anarchism engenders new ideas when it engages with new practices, thereby renewing itself on both planes at the same time; that is, on that of ideas, on the one hand, and on that of practices, on the other.

Ultimately, it is in the first place because it remains totally faithful to its determination to combat domination in all of its forms; in the second place, because domination modifies its own features with the advance of postmodernity, and in the third place, because anarchism does not separate its theoretical formulations from its practices of struggle; it is for these three reasons, taken together, that anarchism is becoming surreptitiously postmodern, whether we want it or not, whether we are conscious of it or not.  And it does so as a consequence of its adaptation to the characteristics of the present.  Needless to say that this is eminently positive, as much to assure the political future of anarchism, as to maintain in all of their intensity the struggles against domination.

4.3. The criticism of postanarchism

These quite favourable considerations with regards to postanarchism should not make us lose sight of the fact that it has been the object of strong criticisms from the anarchist movement, and that some of these criticisms are not without foundation.  There are, roughly, two types of critical considerations.

The first, formulated by numerous anarchists, among them Jesse Cohn and Wilburg Shawn, believe that classical anarchism and postanarchism in fact differ fairly little and maintain that to justify the existence of postanarchism, its defenders insist on deforming and making a caricature of classical anarchism, of which they certainly have a more than insufficient knowledge of the whole.  Thus, postanarchists would trace a biased image of anarchism with the aim of demonstrating the importance of reforming it in the light of poststructuralism and for this they resort to selected fragments of chosen authors who are far from representing the breadth and diversity of an anarchist thought that assumes perhaps some presuppositions originating with Enlightenment ideology, but which also sets aside critically other aspects of this same ideology.

In her book on contemporary anarchism, Vivien García reproaches postanarchists not only for important lacunae that burden their knowledge of anarchism, but also of misinterpreting its nature, succumbing to the professional deformation produced by their academic activity, something that impedes them from seeing that the texts of anarchism, indissociable from their involvement in political action, cannot be dealt with as if they formed a theoretical corpus of a principally philosophical kind.

Others seek to deactivate the charge against the modern presuppositions of anarchism claiming, as Nathan Jun does, that classical anarchism was already postmodern and that it had anticipated notions emphasised only much later by poststructuralists.  Jun’s thesis is that the ideas of Prouhon, Bakunin and other anarchist thinkers, among which he highlights of course Max Stirner, are in the end quite close to those of Friedrich Nietzsche, and that it is the ideas of Nietzsche that will influence Foucault or Deleuze.

The second type of criticism, originating above all with platformists (supporters, to varying degrees, of the proposals gathered together in Archinov’s Platform (1926) to structure in a more cohesive way organised anarchism) and also with certain libertarian communist currents, believes that postanarchism is an approach that unconsciously plays the game of neoliberalism and that turns anarchism away from the struggles rooted in the world of labour.  This criticism, formulated principally by Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt in their book Black Flame is already found in embryo in Murray Bookchin and in John Zerzan.  As Newman notes, Bookchin and Zerzan attack poststructuralism on various grounds and with different objectives, but their central thesis is that poststructuralism – because it puts into question the autonomy of the subject and the liberatory potential of Enlightenment rationality – implies a kind of nihilist irrationalism which, according to them, renders it impossible to be ethically and politically committed and leads it finally to have conservative implications.

If one in fact follows the writings of Saul Newman over the course of these last years, one can see that the first type of criticism, formulated when postanarchism first appeared, has had a certain effect on the theses developed by him.  It has softened, so to speak, his criticism of classical anarchism, attenuating the recriminations against its modern elements, and has had him pay greater attention to the continuities rather than the oppositions between both types of anarchism.  It is somewhat as if postanarchism recognised that it had the tendency to overestimate the impact of Enlightenment ideology on anarchism and to exaggerate the reach of its acritical absorption of the essentialism that accompanies this ideology.

We see then that postanarchism has not turned a deaf ear to the criticisms that it has received , showing its openness to react positively to some of these.  Furthermore, it has demonstrated its vitality by continuing to feed a critical debate within anarchism and by endeavouring to reach out to the various contemporary expressions of practices of struggle and to the theoretical elaborations of radical politics, as this are developed within, but also outside, the anarchist tradition.  In this sense, queer theory, postmarxism, the work of Judith Butler, Jacques Rancière, Toni Negri or the Tiqqun current, to cite only a few examples, are taken into account, so as to approach them critically and, also, to collect elements capable of enriching postanarchism and of converting it into a space of anarchist intellectual creativity.

To conclude this chapter, it appeared useful to me to complete it with a list of the principal publications, organised chronologically, related to postanarchism.  Some set out and develop postanarchist theses, others comment or analyse them critically and, finally, some, though part of anarchism in movement, would be closer to what I have called neoanarchism than postanarchism.

*Translators Note: The website that Ibáñez mentions, created by Jason Adams in 2003, no longer seems to exist.  Instead of therefore translating Ibáñez’s own translation of Adams’ text, I have quoted from a piece by Adams entitled Postanarchism in a Nutshell (available at the online Anarchist Library), which seems to repeat the passage quoted by Ibáñez.  The passage quoted by Saul Newman appears in the book without any direct reference.  I have then assumed that it is quoted from Newman’s essay Post Anarchist and Radical Politics Today, which is available online here.

4.4. Chronological bibliography of and about postanarchism**

1987. Bey, Hakim: “Post-Anarchism Anarchy”. In Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2011.

1987. Bey, Hakim: “Ontological Anarchy in a Nutshell”. In Bey, Hakim: Immediatism. Essays by Hakim Bey. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1994.

1989. Todd, May: “Is Post-Structuralist Political Theory Anarchist?”. Philosophy and Sociial Criticism, 15(2), 167-182. In Nathan, Jun and Wahl, Shane (Eds.): New Perspectives on Anarchism.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010.  Partially included in Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (Eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2011.

1990. Bey, Hakim: TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. New York: Autonomedia, 2003.

1993. Koch, Andrew M.: “Poststructuralism and the Epistemological Basis of Anarchism”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 23(3), 327-351. In Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (Eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press, 2011. Available at:

1994. Todd, May: The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

1997. Black, Bob: Anarchy After Leftism. The Anarchist Library. Available at:

1997. Purkis, Jon and Bowen, James (Eds.). Twenty-First Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas for a New Millennium. London: Cassell.

1997. Moore, John: “Anarchism and Poststructuralism”. Anarchist Studies, 5(2), 157-161.

2001. Newman, Saul: From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power. Lanham: Lexington Books.

2002. Graeber, David: “The New Anarchists”. New Left Review, 13, 61-73. Available at:

2002. Call, Lewis: Postmodern Anarchism. Lanham: Lexington Books.

2003. Gee, Teoman: “New Anarchism: Some Thoughts”. Alpine Anarchist Productions, 19. Available at:

2003. Mueller, Tadzio: “Empowering Anarchy: Power, Hegemony and Anarchist Strategy”. Anarchist Studies, 11(2), 26-53. Available at:

2003. Cohn, Jesse and Wilbur, Shawn: “What’s Wrong with Post-anarchism?”. The Anarchist Library.

2003. Adams, Jason: “Postanarchism in a Nutshell”. Also published with the title “Postanarchism in a Bombshell”. Aporia Journal, 2. Available at:

2003. Grubacic, Andrej: “Toward Another Anarchism”. In Sen, Jai; Anand, Anita; Escobar, Arturo and Waterman, Peter (Eds.): World Social Forum: challenging empires. New Dehli: Viveka Foundation.

2004. Purkis, Jonathan and Bowen, James (Eds.): Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

2004. Glavin, Michael: “Power, Subjectivity, Resistance: Three Works on Postmondern Anarchism”. New Formulations, 2(2).

2004. Goaman, Karen: “The Anarchist Travelling Circus: Reflections on contemporary anarchism, anti-capitalism and the international scene”. In Purkis, Jonathan and Bowen, James (Eds.): Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

2004. Morland, David: “Anti-capitalism and Poststructuralist Anarchism”. In Purkis, Jonathan and Bowen, James (Eds.): Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

2005. Day, Richard: Gramsci is Dead. Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements. London: Pluto Press.

2005. Gordon, Uri: Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary Problems. Oxford: University of Oxford. Available at:

2007. Franks, Benjamin: “Postanarchism: a critical assessment”. Journal of Political Ideologies, 12(2), 127-145.

2007. Torrance: “Post-Anarchism and Social War: Post-Structuralism, and the Revival of an Anarchist Subterranean”. Available at:

2007. García, Vivien: L’anarchisme aujourd’hui. Paris: L’Harmattan.

2008. Gordon, Uri: Anarchy Alive! Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. London: Pluto Press.

2009. Kuhn, Gabriel: “Anarchy, Postmodernity and Poststructuralism”. In Amster, Randall; Deleon, Abraham; Fernandez, Luis; Nocella, II, Anthony J. and Shannon, Deric (Eds.): Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchism in the Academy. Abingdon: Routledge.

2010. Newman, Saul: The Politics of Post-anarchism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

2010. Call, Lewis: “Editorial Post-anarchism Today”. Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies, 1. Available at:

2010. Heroux, Erick: “PostAnarchia Repertoire”. Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies, 1. Available at:

2010. Choat, Simon: “Postanarchism from a Marxist perspective”. Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies, 1. Available at:

2011. Jun, Nathan: “Reconsidering Poststructuralism and Anarchism”. In Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (Eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press.

2011. Newman, Saul: “Post-anarchism and Radical Politics Today”. In Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (Eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press.

2011. Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyya (Eds.): Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press. Available at:

2011. Vaccaro, Salvo (coord.): Pensare altrimenti, anarchismo e filosofia radicale del novecento. Milan: Elèuthera.

2012. Jun, Nathan J.: Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum.

2012. Sürreya, Turkeli: “What is Anarchism? A Reflection on the Canon and the Constructive Potential of Its Destruction”. Doctoral Thesis, Loughborough University.

2013. Newman, Saul: Fantasie rivoluzionarie e zone autonome, post-anarchismo e spazio. Milan: Elèuthera.

2013. Onfray, Michel: Il post-anarchismo spiegato a mia nonna. Milan: Elèuthera.

**Translators Note: I have largely left Ibáñez bibliography on postanarchism as it is found in the published essay, Anarquismo es movimiento.  I have however taken liberties with the links that Ibáñez provides, replacing those that seem to have vanished, when possible, or leaving them out altogether, when there no longer appears to be any trace of them.  No doubt this bibliography today could be updated, but we will leave that with the reader

Mutual aid: Support refugees in Bosnia

Two people of the Enough is Enough team joined the Cars of Hope collective in Bosnia to work together with refugees to provide mutual aid and to produce independent border monitoring reports from the Bosnian/Croatian border. Read our reports from Bosnia:  here.

We urgently need financial support to maintain the supplies for refugees and to be able to keep on building emergency shelters.

Please donate for food, tents and other things for everyday life.

The Cars of Hope bank account details:

Bank: Volksbank in Bergisches Land

Account holder: Hopetal e.V.

Description: Cars of Hope

IBAN: DE51 3406 0094 0002 9450 87


Mutual Aid: Support Refugees in Bosnia

Support the work with refugees in Bosnia.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.