I’m working on a new hyper-transcription called “Zizek Versus Badiou: Is Lacan an Anti-Philosopher?” which I will publish tomorrow night on this blog.
For now, I want to spend a moment discussing a critique that I’ve received more than once in the last few years.
The critique claims that I merely want to replace something great (namely, traditional anarchism) with something new (namely, post-anarchism).
The following assumption is being made: post-anarchism adds something entirely new into traditional anarchism.
It is essentially a topological argument concerning the relationship between the inside and the outside.
It is as if I claim that post-anarchism rescues traditional anarchism through an imposition. Post-anarchism begins outside of traditional anarchism and then moves inside of traditional anarchism.
The most interesting response is perhaps to claim that the outside to traditional anarchism has always paradoxically been on the inside of traditional anarchism. There is something incomplete or lacking within our tradition – something I have elsewhere called its anarchy. The anarchy of anarchism is that ontological stratum of anarchism’s political project that my post-anarchism is most interested in exploring.
Thus, what I call post-anarchism does not only include the technique of the “meat-grinder” (i.e., pushing as many new thinkers into the anarchist tradition as possible). It also includes finding what is most strange within the anarchist tradition itself.