What about that Foucault?

Regardless of whether anarchists reference Foucault, his work has impacted the thinking of many, and his imprint on current anarchist analysis of power is clearly evident. I could see including him simply to encourage anarchists to read more primary sources and examine works that undergird their thinking, particularly those they are unaware of. If one can argue for the inclusion of Deleuze, I can’t fathom why Foucault should be excluded, and in some sense Marx. Both have a much larger impact on contemporary anarchist analysis and thought. Whether this is for good or ill is a whole other question, but feigning ignorance or avoiding direct engagement with their texts seems a poor response.

Do you know who else never used the A word? Max Stirner. Do you know who only ever used the A word negatively? Friedrich Nietzsche. Yet if you go to The Anarchist Library right now and check out the "popular texts" you'll find both in the top 100 if not the top 50. You'll also find me [at least last time I looked] but don't let that put you off.

In short, if the criteria for inclusion in an anarchist library come down to inclusion of certain words in their texts then we, as anarchists trying to build a body of useful knowledge, are cutting off our own noses in order to spite our own faces.

Was Nietzsche contentious as well? I mean, Twilight of the Idols is in there, and I’ve heard Nietzschean used as a pejorative in more than on @ space.

When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is “right,” “justice,” and “equal rights,” he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering — what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody’s fault that he is in a bad way.

Also, the “fine indignation” itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one’s own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one’s own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. “If I am canaille, you ought to be too” — on such logic are revolutions made.

I mean, you have ted k and shit as well. your defensiveness and weird political line are fucking offputting and are a reason why I don't recommend new anarchists actually check your site

> There's plenty of texts by authoritarians and some dogshit anarcho-adjacent Leftists, and even quasi-Far Rightists.

Who?

Critiquing Foucault with Frederick Douglass? Geez, so stern!

"Power concedes nothing without the demand" is the type of shit you hear on MSNBC. I laughed at your post.

Zerzan must be very confident in his readership’s lack of familiarity with the subject matter in question. The abundance of citations and names dropped is more of a liability in this essay than a strength. An attempt at legitimization that falls flat due to a lack of context and numerous misrepresentations. I’ll give him Derrida and Foucault, to a degree, but one can’t help but wonder if he’s actually ever read Lyotard or Lacan.

I don't even like Foucault and I'm baffled by this insistence on including his writing in The ANARCHIST Library (especially when his writing is already archived all over the internet) but, honestly, Judge Buttdarling's moralizing makes me wanna upload his entire oeuvre to the front page right now.

hello i have been waiting for 24 hours now and i have got no attention from people on this platform not one heart click or anything so from now on i am sticking to twitter where i can see the numbers going up and up ps more foucault pls

This is a library. Politely remind them this is a library. If this persist ask them to leave. This is a library.