Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:32:06 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism


hello all

Chuck0 wrote:
> >>And post-leftism isn't attacking these tendencies as being leftist. A
> >>few people in these tendencies think that their brand of anarchism is
> >>being attacked, but post-leftism is not about identifying certain
> >>varieties of anarchism as being leftism.
> >
> > You could have fooled me! Honestly, that is *not* the impression I
> > got.
> 
> You probably aren't getting that impression because a few American
> anarchists have been very vocal about their conspiracy theory that this
> is all about merging egoism and primitivism into anarchism.

No, I'm not getting that impression because I've been reading the
post-left stuff. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and if
I get the wrong impression, obviously others are too. And I also
continually fail to see the point of the whole "Post-left" thing
as well. What it says, when it says anything useful, is basic
anarchist principles. So I kinda say, "so what?" The rest just
comes across as jargon a lot of the time.

<snip>

> > except that it draws on classical anarchist ideas. Does that mean
> > "post-leftist" simply means "anarchist"?
> 
> Yes and no. Post-leftism is, in part, about anarchist fundamentals, but
> it also about the position of anarchism at this point in time, and about
> the future of anarchy.

Surely all anarchism is about that? 
 
> >>One of the basic aspects of post-leftism has been about reminding
> >>so-called anarchists about anarchist ideas. A lot of people have joined
> >>the movement of late and some of them have some wrong ideas about anarchism.
> 
> > I know. Those bloody anti-organisationalist people!!!! :)
> 
> Hey! I'm an anti-organizationalist who runs an anarchist non-profit.!

I know :) I'm just pointing out that one person's "wrong ideas" is 
anothers "valid form of anarchism"!
 
> >>OK. So Bob Black is a provocative writer. Why is he relevant here?
> >
> > because he has this habit of labelling people. As I said, I'm sure
> > he called me a leftist (and definitely a workerist). He is a
> > "post-left" anarchism and there he was calling me a leftist...
> 
> So what? Bob Black is a provocative writer. He's written stuff that
> pissed me off.

well, he is a leading "post-leftist" writer. and if he calls me names,
what does that suggest about the tone of the debate? And what counts
as "left-anarchism"?

Iain