From: "Kevin Carson" <kevin_carson-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:18:59 +0000


It seems to me that calling a movement "post-" anything indicates a certain 
amount of preoccupation with the thing allegedly surpassed or left behind.  
And some attention to (or "preoccupation" with) the actual definition of the 
thing surpassed is necessary for assessing any kind of post-x critique.

I've got a pretty good idea of what post-leftists mean by "the left"  (but 
not necessarily "what 'the left' is"), just from their allusions to 
qualities like authoritarianism, statism, "workerism," etc.  The question, 
though, is whether they're imposing an arbitrary definition on a very broad 
phenomenon, and whether the historical left will fit in such a procrustean 
bed.  Taking all the things you dislike about certain currents of the left, 
making them the defining characteristics of the left as a whole, and then 
excluding things you like from the category by definition, does not seem 
valid to me.

If anarchism has a long history with the left, how did the definition of 
"the left" differ back when anarchists were a part of it, from what the 
definition is today?  And when (and by whom) was the decision made to 
redefine "the left" and remove anarchism from that general category?  I 
didn't get either memo.

I don't think raising such questions is any more  "knee-jerk" than the 
original repudiation of "the left" was in the first place.


>From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-mutualaid.org>
>To: Kevin Carson <kevin_carson-AT-hotmail.com>
>CC: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:50:59 -0600
>
>Kevin Carson wrote:
>>This illustrates a common tendency in the "post-leftism" commentary I've 
>>read:  the "left" is defined in such a way that the argument is a 
>>tautology.
>
>Post-leftists have been pretty clear in their writing about what "the left" 
>is. It doesn't surprise me that people who knee jerk to post-leftism are 
>preoccupied with the definition of the word, as well as anarchism's long 
>relationship with the left. As Jason McQuinn has pointed out, post-leftists 
>acknowledge the long historical relationshi between anarchists and leftism. 
>That's why the terms is called "post-LEFT" and not something like 
>"post-Green Party" or "post-fascism."
>
>This preoccupation with the defintion of the word "left" and with the 
>history of anarchism really misses the point of post-leftism, which is 
>about anarchism NOW and which direction we want to go in the FUTURE.
>
>Chuck0
>

_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 
   http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1