[네그리] 서평:디오니소스의 노동

제목 [네그리] 서평:디오니소스의 노동 번호 3 분류   조회/추천 247  /  14 글쓴이 양새슬     작성일 1997년 12월 24일 08시 13분 10초 {디오니소스의 노동: 국가형태 비판} 서평 아이언 프레이저 아우토노미아의 현대 마르크스주의와의 연관성을 조금이라도 의심하 고 있는 사람이 있다면 이 책을 구성하는 일곱 편의 논문모음을 읽어야 만 한다. 네그리와 하트는 산 노동을, 국가형태를 통한 통제와 착취에 기초한 반복적 활동으로 환원시키려는 자본의 시도 안에서 그것에 반대 하는 '살아 있는, 형식부여적 불'의 권능에 초점을 맞춘다. 이 투쟁의 모 순들을 분석하기 위해 그들은 '사물들의 현존 상태를 폐지하는 현실적 운동'이라는 {독일 이데올로기}에 제시된 코뮤니즘에 대한 마르크스의 정의에 의거한다. [이 책에서] '현실적 운동'은 산 노동의 적대적이고 파 괴적인 권능을 지칭하며 '사물의 현존 상태'는 자본 자체를 설명하고 정 당화하려 시도하는, 그러므로 지속적인 비판을 당해야 할 저 이론들을 지칭한다. 이 주요 관심사는 일곱 편의 논문 전체를 관통하는데 그 중 네 편은 네그리 혼자 쓴 것이다. 이 네 편의 논문들에는 케인즈에 관한 그의 종 자적 논문이 포함되는데 그것은 {만회된 혁명}에서 영어로 출간되었다. 또 이와 더불어 여기에는 이전에는 이용할 수 없었던 국가형태에 관한 논문으로 1964년에 처음 쓰여진 [헌법 속의 노동], 1974년에 쓰여진 [ 코뮤니즘적 국가이론], 그리고 1975년에 쓰여진 [국가와 공공지출] 등 이 포함된다. 이 논문들의 페이지들 곳곳에서 네그리는 노동의 고동치 는 현존과 그것을 길들이려는 자본의 시도를 설명한다. 그는 외관상 단 순한 헌법의 원리들과 그것의 사법적 이론가들의 텍스트들을 비판적으 로 전도시킴으로써 노동자계급의 권능을 드러낸다. 노동은 자본으로 하 여금 '권리국가'로부터 '사회적 국가'로, 자본의 경제적 자기규제를 위한 조건을 단순히 보증하는 것으로부터 노동자계급의 국가 내부에로의 실 질적 통합으로 이동하도록 강제하고 있는 것으로 서술된다. 그리하여 노동의 파열적 잠재력은 '사회적 국가' 속에서, 공공지출의 위기라는 형 태 속에서 출현한다. 그렇지만 노동의 권능의 이 궤적은 이제 새로운 전환점을 맞이하고 있다. 네그리와 하트는 자신들이 공동 연구한 장들에서 현금의 상황을 분석하면서, 이 부단한 투쟁의 발전을 "'대중 노동자'로부터 '사회적 노 동자'로의 이행으로, 포드주의 사회에서 컴퓨터화되고 자동화된 사회로 의 이행으로, 규제된 노동에서 자율적이고 협력적인 노동, 비물질적이고 창조적인 노동으로의 이행"으로 파악한다. 그러한 발전은 '새로운 주체 성들을 낳았고, 새로운 문화적 정치적 관계들을 결정했으며, 마침내는 역사 과정에서의 하나의 이행을 정의했다.' 이 저자들이 보기에, 사회 의 자본 아래로의 형식적 포섭이 이제 실질적인 포섭으로 되었다는 의 미에서, 우리는 분명 '탈근대적 자본주의'의 시대 속에 살고 있다. 모든 생산과정은 사회 전체를 실로 전지구적인 규모에서 '공장-사회'로 뒤바 꾸는 자본의 착취적 관계 내부에서 발생하고 있는 것으로 보인다. '탈근대적 자본주의'의 현금의 상태를 이해하기 위해, 그리고 그 내부 에서 노동의 적대적 현존을 이해하기 위해, 네그리와 하트는 존 롤스, 리차드 로티, 찰스 테일러 등과 같은 현대의 가장 저명한 정치이론가들 의 저작들을 검토한다. 예컨대 롤스와 관련하여 그들은 그의 정의의 이 론이 사회 내의 적대들과 투쟁들에 사회로부터 그것들을 단순히 추상해 버리는 방식으로 대처하고 있다는 것을 발견한다. 롤스의 논의에 대한 로티의 해석은 갈등을 정치의 공적 영역으로부터 분리된 사적 영역으로 단순히 환원하는 방식으로 이 발걸음을 더 멀리 옮겨 놓는다. 그리하여 불가피하게도, 탈근대적 자유주의 국가는 '지배의 기계적 해골'로 나타 나며 그것은 '허구적인 사회적 평형과 조화의 디즈니랜드'를 제공한다. '약한 국가'를 '질서의 중립적 수호자'로 제시하려는 이론적 욕구는 1980년대의 신자유주의에 의해 실행된다. '사회적 국가' 내부에 병합되 고 그 속에서 승인되었던 노동은 이제 탈근대적 자유주의 국가 안에서 는 말소되어 버린다. 그렇지만 역설적이게도, 네그리와 하트가 올바르게 지적하듯이, 이것은 사회에 대한 국가의 전에 못지않은 더 큰 개입으로 귀착되었다. 계급 적대로부터 추상되어진, 자유주의적 이론에서의 '약한 국가'의 꿈은 실제로는 증대된 공공지출과 과도한 경찰력을 통해 그러 한 갈등을 통제하려 하는 강한 국가였다. 테일러와 같은 저자들에 의해 제기된 커뮤니테어리언적 대안은, 무엇이 공동체 내부에서의 공동선을 구성하는가에 대한 관념을 사람들에게 제공하려 하는, 국가에 대한 '강 한' 개념규정을 제공한다. 이것의 실천적 결과는 '가족, 이웃, 종교, 그리 고 애국심'으로 표현되는 레이건과 부시의 도덕적 훈계들 속에 분명히 나타난다. 결론적으로 말해, 공동체에 관한 매우 문제성 있는 관념은 사 회적 주체들을 국가의 법률적·윤리적 규범들에 종속시키는 국민적 형 태를 취한다. 네그리와 하트에게 있어서 이 이론들의 중요한 함의는, 그것들이 사 회의 국가 내로의 실질적 포섭을 욕망하는 전략을 공유한다는 것이다. 시민사회는 더 이상 존재하지 않는 것으로 보인다. 왜냐하면 국가가 그 것을 자신 내부로 포섭하기 때문이다. 네그리와 하트는, 이것이 현실로 되고 있다고 암시한다. 국가와 시민사회 사이의 매개의 제도적 형식들 은 폐물이 되어가고 있다. 예컨대 노동자들에게 '사회적 국가'에 대한 영향의 채널을 제공한 한편에서 또한 노동 인력을 통제하고 훈육하는 역할을 담당했던 노동조합들은 그들의 매개적 역할을 상실했다. 그 대 신, 시민사회의 갈등들과 적대들은 이제 바이러스처럼 사회 전체에 퍼 져있는 '통제의 네트웍들'에 포섭된다. 이것은 국가에 대한 낡은 매개들 을 통한 저항이 더 이상 가능하지 않다는 것을 의미한다. 그러면 저항의 새로운 형식들은 어디에 존재하는가? 이 탈근대적 시 대에 계급투쟁의 새로운 배열은 무엇인가? 하트와 네그리에게 있어서 새로운 생산양식의 기술적·과학적 성격은, 사회적 노동자가 이제 '일종 의 사이보그, 물질적 노동과 비물질적 노동 사이의 경계들을 지속적으 로 가로지르는 기계와 유기체의 혼성물'임을 의미한다. 사이보그는 자 본에 의해 창조적인 것으로 승인되는 동시에 바로 그 창조성과 권능 속 에서 통제당한다. 그러나 그 사이보그가 생산 내부에서 가지는 제헌적 권능은 국가의 구성된 권력에 대해 하나의 위협을 제기한다. 이것이 바 로 계급투쟁이 전개되어 나갈 새로운 지형이다. 네그리와 하트는 자본 내부에서, 그것에 반대하며, 심지어 그것을 넘 어서는 노동의 파열적 잠재력이라는 '현실적 전제'에 기초를 둔 오늘날 의 계급상황 위에서 하나의 급진적인 대안을 제공하고 있다. 어떤 사람 들에게는 그들의 분석이 과도하게 낙관적인 것으로 보일지 모른다. 실 제로 그들은 때때로 자본주의의 이 새로운 국면의 발단적인 경향들을 마치 그것들이 보편적으로 확립된 것처럼 취급함으로써 그것들을 과장 하기도 한다. 그렇지만 그들은, 아우토노미아의 최상의 전통들 속에서, '노동의 긍정이 렁렁렁 삶 그 자체의 긍정'인 사회를 향한 길을 가리키 려 하는, 노동자계급 권능에 대한 분석을 제공한다. 기술적·과학적 노 동 속에 깊이 잠겨있는 사이보그인 '사회적 노동자'는 그러한 욕구를 지 속적 현실로 만들려고 하는 새로운 사회적 주체이다. 당신은 지배계급 들이 떨고 있는 것을 들을 수 있는가? 나는 곧 무너질 것들만 그리워했다 http://go.jinbo.net/commune/view.php?board=marx-7&id=3&page=2&SESSIONID=ec27c3f3eeb5e960ee8c2ce2d0ac40fe

Post-anarchism

Post-anarchism or postanarchism is an anarchist philosophy that employspost-structuralist and postmodernist approaches (the term post-structuralist anarchism is used as well, so as not to suggest having moved beyond anarchism). Post-anarchism is not a single coherent theory, but rather refers to the combined works of any number of post-structuralists such as Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan; postmodern feminists such as Judith Butler; and post-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Rancière; with those of the classical anarchists, with particular concentration onEmma Goldman, Max Stirner, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus, the terminology can vary widely in both approach and outcome.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Background
• 2 Approaches
• 3 Post-anarchism and space
• 4 After post-anarchism
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading
• 8 External links

Background[edit]

See also: Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche

Common concepts within post-anarchism include:The prefix post- is not used to denote a philosophy "after anarchism", but instead refers to the challenging and disruption of typically accepted assumptions within frameworks that emerged during the Enlightenment era. This means a basic rejection of the epistemological foundations of classical anarchist theories, due to their tendency towards essentialist or reductionist notions—^{[citation needed]}although post-anarchists are generally quick to point out the many outstanding exceptions, such as those noted above. This approach is considered to be important insofar as it widens the conception of what it means to have or to be produced, rather than only repressed, by power, thus encouraging those who act against power in the form of domination to become aware of how their resistance often becomes overdetermined by power-effects as well. It argues against earlier approaches that capitalism and the state are not the only sources of domination in the moment in which we live, and that new approaches need to be developed to combat the network-centric structures of domination that characterize late modernity. Although thinkers such as Foucault, Deleuze,Derrida, Butler, Lacan, and Lyotard are not explicitly self-described anarchists, their ideas nevertheless serve of great importance, given the anti-authoritarian nature of their thought. Some of them also showed interest, to varying degrees, in the events of May 1968 in France^{[citation needed]}.

• the misalignment of the subject in relation to discourse
• the denaturalization of the body and sexuality^{[citation needed]}
• the rejection of the repressive hypothesis
• Foucault's genealogy
• the deconstruction of the binary oppositions of Western thought
• the deconstruction of gender roles through feminist post-structuralism^[1]

Approaches[edit]

The "Lacanian anarchism" proposed by Saul Newman utilizes the works ofJacques Lacan and Max Stirner more prominently. Newman criticizes classical anarchists, such as Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, for assuming an objective "human nature" and a natural order; he argues that from this approach, humans progress and are well-off by nature, with only the Establishment as a limitation that forces behavior otherwise. For Newman, this is a Manichaenworldview, which depicts the reversal of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, in which the "good" state is subjugated by the "evil" people.The term "post-anarchism" was coined by philosopher of post-left anarchy Hakim Bey in his 1987 essay "Post-Anarchism Anarchy".^[2][3] Bey argued that anarchism had become insular and sectarian, confusing the various anarchist schools of thought for the real experience of lived anarchy.^[3] In 1994, academic philosopher Todd May initiated what he called "poststructuralist anarchism",^[4]arguing for a theory grounded in the post-structuralist understanding of power, particularly through the work of Michel Foucault and Emma Goldman, while taking the anarchist approach to Ethics.

Lewis Call has attempted to develop post-anarchist theory through the work ofFriedrich Nietzsche, rejecting the Cartesian concept of the "subject." From here, a radical form of anarchism is made possible: the anarchism of becoming. This anarchism does not have an eventual goal, nor does it flow into "being"; it is not a final state of development, nor a static form of society, but rather becomes permanent, as a means without end. Italian autonomist Giorgio Agamben has also written about this idea. In this respect it is similar to the "complex systems" view of emerging society known as panarchy. Call critiques liberal notions of language, consciousness, and rationality from an anarchist perspective, arguing that they are inherent in economic and political power within the capitalist state organization.^[5]

Recently the French hedonist philosopher Michel Onfray has embraced the termpost-anarchism to describe his approach to politics and ethics.^[6] He advocates for an anarchism in line with such intellectuals as "Orwell, la philosophe Simone Weil, Jean Grenier, la French Theory avecFoucault, Deleuze, Bourdieu, Guattari, Lyotard, le Derrida de Politiques de l'amitié et du Droit à la philosophie, mais aussi Mai 68" which for him was "a Nietzschean revolt in order to put an end to the 'One' truth, revealed, and to put in evidence the diversity of truths, in order to make disappear ascetic Christian ideas and to help arise new possibilities of existence." ^[7]

Another anarchist and French intellectual with a dedication to post-structuralism is Daniel Colson^{[citation needed]} who published Petit lexique philosophique de l'anarchisme de Proudhon à Deleuze in 2001.

Post-anarchism and space[edit]

Postanarchist theory has many implications for social and political space and, seeing as space is always political, seriously considers the question of space for radical politics and movements today. Much postanarchist theory is centered around an extensive critique of hegemony and the neoliberal societies of control. The logic of hegemony contains all conceptions of freedom and justice narrowly within the confines of the state, creating a “political climate in which radical notions of justice are seen as a threat to the very existence of” society, perpetuating the liberal ideological myth that “unity requires homogeneity”.^[8] Postanarchism “conceives of a political space which is indeterminate, contingent and heterogeneous – a space whose lines and contours are undecidable and therefore contestable”.^[9] Saul Newman defines this postanarchist conception of political space as “a space of becoming”.^[9] If we see current conceptions and arrangements of space as frameworks for “dominant political and economic interests,” postanarchist theory explores the “ways in which this hegemonic space is challenged, contested and reconfigured, as well as the fantasies and desires invested in political spaces ^[9] and looks to the occupation of space as a means to “prefigure and create autonomous alternatives”.^[10]

Newman sees postanarchist political space as “based around the project of autonomy”.^[9] In keeping with a postanarchist affinity with contingency, Newman theorizes autonomy as “an ongoing project of political spatialization, rather than a fully achieved form of social organization”.^[9] These autonomous political spaces can be considered insurrectional as they “defy the idea of a plan imposed upon society by institutions”,^[9] engendering forms of organization that emerge “spontaneously, and which people determine freely for themselves”.^[9] These insurrectional spaces work to foster alternative ways of being while continually undermining the logic of hegemony as they work non- rather than counter-hegemonically, exposing the cracks within the “dominant social, political, and economic order”.^[9] A distinctly postanarchist conception of politics can be “understood in terms of an ongoing project of autonomy and a pluralization of insurrectional spaces and desires”,^[9]exemplifying “prefigurative practices, which seek to realize alternatives to capitalism and statism within the current order”.^[9]Newman sees this “re-situation of the political dimension away from the hegemony of the state [...] as central to postanarchism”.^[9]

In his book,Gramsci is Dead, Richard Day examines many such insurrectional spaces and non-hegemonic movements and practices. The TAZ concept is one such example and the utilization of such a tactic is seen regularly throughout contemporary society. Critical of the fleeting and potentially over-individualistic nature of the TAZ, Day posits the Semi-Permanent Autonomous Zone, the SPAZ, as a potential mode of organization that is “neither utterly fleeting nor totally enslaving”,^[10] “breaking out of the temporary/permanent dichotomy”.^[10] Day theorizes the SPAZ as “a form that allows the construction of non-hegemonic alternatives to the neoliberal order here and now, with an eye to surviving the dangers of capture, exploitation and division inevitably arising from within and being imposed from without”.^[10] The SPAZ embraces a postanarchist spirit of contingency and indeterminancy, fostering relationships and links of solidarity based on voluntary association without falling into the trap of hegemony by refusing the aspiration of total permanence.

Gustav Landauer’s concept of Structural Renewal features prominently in much postanarchist theory and practice, influencing concepts such as Day’s idea of the SPAZ, as well as the deeply ethical aspects of postanarchist theory and practice. Structural Renewal advocates for the creation of new institutions “alongside, rather than inside, existing modes of social organization,” involving “a complementary pairing of disengagement and reconstruction”.^[10] Structural Renewal aims to reduce the efficacy and reach of hegemonic institutions “by withdrawing energy from them and rendering them redundant,” appearing “simultaneously as a negative force working against the colonization of everyday life by the state and corporations, and as a positive force acting to reverse this process via mutual aid”.^[10]

Most important for contemporary postanarchism is Landauer’s analysis of the state as a “certain relation between people: a mode of behaviour and interaction”.^[11] Following this logic, the state can be “transcended only through a certain spiritual transformation of relationships,” without such a transformation “the state will be simply reinvented in a different form during the revolution”.^[11] Postanarchism consistently takes up this notion, seeing the political as intimately tied up with the social and guided by a deeply ethical framework geared towards transforming social space. According to Landauer’s analysis, although it is possible to “rid ourselves of particular states, we can never rid ourselves of the state form [as] it is always already with us, and so must be consistently and carefully warded off”.^[10] Postanarchism recognizes that “states require subjects who desire not only to repress others, but also desire their own repression,” and that, consequently, “warding off the state [...] means primarily enabling and empowering individuals and communities”.^[10] Postanarchism takes up the problem of voluntary servitude in order to figure out “how to get more people in more places to overcome not only their desire to dominate others, but their own desire to be dominated as well”.^[10] This involves an “unbinding of the self from his or her own attachment to power”^[9] and the creation of spaces and subjectivities “which rely upon an amoral, postmodern ethics of shared commitments based on affinities rather than duties based on hegemonic imperatives”.^[10]

Day identifies the “interlocking ethico-political commitments of groundless solidarity and infinite responsibility” as central to postanarchist ethics. He defines groundless solidarity as “seeing one’s own privilege and oppression in the context of other privileges and oppressions, as so interlinked that no particular form of inequality [...] can be postulated as the central axis of struggle,” while infinite responsibility “means always being open to the challenge of another Other, always being ready to hear a voice that points out how one is not adequately in solidarity, despite one’s best efforts”.^[10] He identifies these commitments as central in guiding affinity-based relationships, rejecting a hegemonic conception of community in order to embrace “the coming communities, in the plural”.^[10] Postanarchism conceives of ethics as “open to a certain spontaneous and free self-determination by individuals, rather than imposed upon them from above through abstract moral codes and strictures”,^[11] conceiving of freedom as an “ongoing ethical practice, in which one’s relationship with oneself and others is subject to a continual ethical interrogation”.^[11] The intensely ethical dimension of postanarchism allows for the conception of a “system of networks and popular bases, organized along rhizomatic lines [...] and populated by subjects who neither ask for gifts from the state [...] nor seek state power for themselves,” conceiving of movements that “take up ethico-political positions while refusing to try to coercively generalize these positions by making foundational claims”,^[10] empowering subjects that are capable of thriving outside of existing paradigms and contributing to real and lasting social and political change.

Postanarchism is intensely critical of current forms of representative democracy, “favouring people’s self-organization”^[11]and seeking to “open the political space to alternative and more democratic modes of democracy”,^[11] understanding democracy not “primarily as a mechanism for expressing a unified popular will, but rather as a way of pluralizing this will – opening up within it different and even dissenting spaces and perspectives”.^[11] This notion of democracy beyond the state is in keeping with postanarchist ethics and commitments, “imposing a certain ethical responsibility upon people themselves to resolve, through ongoing practices of negotiation, tensions that may arise”.^[11] Saul Newman emphasizes democracy’s own “perfectibility,” the fact that democracy “always points to a horizon beyond, to the future,” that it is “always ‘to come’”.^[11]He states that, “we should never be satisfied with existing forms taken by democracy and should always be working towards a greater democratization in the her and now; towards an ongoing articulation of democracy’s im/possible promise of perfect liberty with perfect equality".^[11] This is a “politics of anti-politics [...] outside, and ultimately transcendent of, the state and all hierarchical structures of power and authority,” requiring the continual “development of alternative libertarian and egalitarian structures and practices, coupled with a constant awareness of the authoritarian potential that lies in any structure".^[11]

After post-anarchism[edit]

Duane Rousselle has claimed post-anarchism is beginning to move away from the epistemological characterization and toward an ontological characterization.^[12] He has written numerous articles and books on the topic.^[13]

His book After Post-Anarchism is described by Repartee Press as follows:

Post-anarchists have hitherto relied on post-structuralist critiques of ontological essentialism in order to situate their discourse in relation to the traditional anarchist discourse. Post-anarchism requires the elaboration of another important line of critique against epistemological foundationalism – to accomplish this task, this book takes post-anarchism to its limit through a reading of the philosophy of Georges Bataille. Georges Bataille’s philosophy allows for new ways of conceiving anarchist ethics that are not predicated upon essentialist categories, foundationalist truth-claims, or the agency of the subject in the political context. After Post-Anarchism, we challenge the hegemony that epistemology has enjoyed for several centuries of political and philosophical thought.^[14]

In "What Comes After Post-Anarchism," an article for Continent Journal, Rousselle has claimed that:

By dismissing all ontologies as suspiciously representative and as incessantly harbouring a dangerous form of essentialism, post-anarchists have overlooked the privilege that they have placed on the human subject, language, and discourse, at the expense of the democracy that the human subject shares with other animals, objects, and beings in the world. This epistemological characterization of post-anarchism has held sway for far too long. It is not by chance that post-anarchism, as a concept, was first formulated by Hakim Bey as an “ontological anarchism,” and subsequently repressed by the canon of post-anarchist authors. ... I want to challenge this reluctance and revive the roots of post-anarchism.

See also[edit]

• Existentialist anarchism

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ see generally Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge 1990.
2. Jump up^ Bey, Hakim (March 1987). "Post-Anarchism Anarchy".Deoxy.net. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b Adams, Jason. "Postanarchism in a Bombshell".Aporia (3).
4. Jump up^ Antliff, Allan (2007). "Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism". SubStance 36 (2): 56–66.doi:10.1353/sub.2007.0026.
5. Jump up^ Martin, Edward J. (June 2003). "Call, Lewis Postmodern Anarchism". Perspectives on Political Science.
6. Jump up^ Michel Onfray: le post anarchisme expliqué à ma grand-mère
7. Jump up^ "qu'il considère comme une révolte nietzschéenne pour avoir mis fin à la Vérité "Une", révélée, en mettant en évidence la diversité de vérités, pour avoir fait disparaître les idéaux ascétiques chrétiens et fait surgir de nouvelles possibilités d'existence."Michel Onfray: le post anarchisme expliqué à ma grand-mère
8. Jump up^ [Alfred, Taiaiake. Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. p. 112]
9. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l} [Newman, Saul. “Postanarchism and Space: Revolutionary fantasies and autonomous zones.” Planning Theory 10 (2011): 344- 365. p. 355]
10. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m} [Day, Richard. Gramsci is Dead: Anarchistic Currents in the Newest Social Movements. New York: Pluto Press, 2005. p. 42]
11. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k} [Newman, Saul. The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press, 2010. p.162]
12. Jump up^ Rousselle, Duane (November 2012). "Max Stirner's Post-Post-Anarchism". Journal for the Study of Radicalism. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
13. Jump up^ Rousselle, Duane. "Duane Rousselle's Academia Page". Retrieved November 14, 2012.
14. Jump up^ Rousselle, Duane (November 2012). "After Post-Anarchism". Repartee Books. Retrieved November 14, 2012.

Further reading[edit]

• Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyyya (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press. (2011)
• Call, Lewis (2002). Postmodern Anarchism. Lexington: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0522-1.
• Fabbri, Lorenzo. "From Inoperativeness to Action: On Giorgio Agamben’s Anarchism", "Radical Philosophy Review," Volume 4, Number 1, 2011.
• Ferguson, Kathy (1984). The Feminist Case against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-400-5.
• Franks, Benjamin (June 2007). "Postanarchism: A critical assessment". Journal of Political Ideologies (Routledge) 12 (2).ISSN 1356-9317.
• May, Todd (1994). The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.ISBN 0-271-01046-0.
• Mümken, Jürgen (2003). Freiheit, Individualität und Subjektivität. Staat und Subjekt in der Postmoderne aus anarchistischer Perspektive. Frankfurt am Main: Edition AV. ISBN 3-936049-12-2.
• Mümken (editor), Jürgen (2005). Anarchismus in der Postmoderne. Beiträge zur anarchistischen Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Edition AV, Verlag. ISBN 3-936049-37-8.
• Newman, Saul (2001). From Bakunin to Lacan. Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power. Lexington: Lexington Books.ISBN 0-7391-0240-0.
• Moore, John (2004). I Am Not a Man, I Am Dynamite!: Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition. Autonomedia. ISBN 1-57027-121-6.
• Michel Onfray La puissance d'exister, Paris, Grasset, (2006) ISBN 2-246-71691-8
• Michel Onfray Politique du rebelle: traité de résistance et d'insoumission (1997)
• Michel Onfray La philosophie féroce : exercices anarchistes. (2004)
• Colson, Daniel. "Anarchist Subjectivities and Modern Subjectivity".
• Colson, Daniel. "Deleuze et le renouveau de la pensée libertaire"
• Call, Lewis et al. "Post-anarchism today", Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies, volume 1, 2010.
• Springer, S. 2012. "Violent accumulation: a postanarchist critique of property, dispossession, and the state of exception in neoliberalizing Cambodia." Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

External links[edit]

• 
  Archive of Post anarchist articles and on post-anarchism in english at the Anarchist Library
• "Postanarchism in a Nutshell" by Jason Adams.
• "Post-Anarchism and Social War: Post-structuralism, and the Revival of an Anarchist Subterranean" by Torrance.
• "Toward a Post-Anarchist Critique of Anarchist Businesses" by Saint Schmidt.
• "Postanarchism is not what you think: The role of postanarchist theory after the backlash" By Saint Schmidt.
• Accursed Anarchism: Five Post-Anarchist Meditations on Bataille by Saint Schmidt.
• Derrida's Deconstruction Of Authority by Saul Newman.
• "Anarchism and the politics of ressentiment" by Saul Newman.
• "Anarchist Subjectivities and Modern Subjectivity" by Daniel Colson.
• What's Wrong With Postanarchism? by Jesse Cohn and Shawn Wilbur.
• Anarsi, postanarchist texts in Turkish and translated from other languages
  .