Post-Left Anarchism

[non-vio-resist]

I was wondering if there are any of you well-versed on the subject of post-left anarchism. It seems to reject ideology, in-and-of-itself, though I do not have a great understanding of it. I, personally, think it is relevant and significant to view anarchist political philosophy as a "left" tradition, especially since anarchists are almost in definition socialist (not even worth mentioning here are the rightist pseudo-anarchists who call themselves, paradoxically, anarcho-capitalists that have no merit in the anarchy tradition and history). I personally don't believe it to be productive to reject leftist tradition and viewing anarchism within this framework. I was curious if anyone could explain post-left anarchism in an objective manner. It seems a bit like anathema but maybe someone could provide a good dissertation that will spark further research.

[chimx]

Years ago I was at a anarchist economics conference in San Francisco, and there was a panel discussion between anarchists and post-left anarchists. From what I remember, post-left anarchism (or post-anarchism, as I would prefer it to be called) is an attempt to break anarchism from the left and the left's historical praxis, which I find ironic, since the left has been broken from anarchism for quite some time.

Essentially they reject the political tactics that have historically been used by the left. They reject demonstrations, unions, and actually are often critical of class struggle at all.

Many post-left anarchists reject the idea of morality, and many also identify as anarcho-primitivists (though not exclussively).

They strike me as weak ideologically. They define themselves as a negation, and offer little in terms of how to build a movement and fight for the destruction of the state.