From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
Subject: Primitivism and anarchism discussion Part 3
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:44:10 -0000




Okay, since I have had some positive feedback about my attempt 
to summarise this discussion, and since apparently this is helpful
and not just for Spencer, I will carry on with this summary.

Although the subject heading was "Primitivism and anarchism",
in practice a lot of the discussion was about so-called
"post-leftism". 

Kevin Carson wrote that "The 'left' in the nineteenth century was 
an entire spectrum of people's and working class movements. The fact 
that the statist part of the spectrum (Fabians and Leninists) became 
dominant in the twentieth century does not make them coextensive 
with 'the left'." Kevin also wrote "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 "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." Careful, Kevin, you just confuse
the true believers in post-leftism when you use logic.

Chuck0 wrote "Anarchism around the world is in a unique historical 
position right now. The ultra-left...have been discredited through 
the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's move towards capitalism...
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the waning of the sectarian leftists 
have turned the tables. As anarchists, this is pretty important and 
should be addressed in our theory and practice. Instead of just 
providing a support role for politics conducted by leftists, how 
can we now better articulate and practice our anarchist ideas?"

I wrote "NOBODY in this discussion is defending the Stalinists, 
or the Trotskyists, or the Social Democrats, or any other
authoritarian leftists. That is  NOT  what the argument
is about.."

Chuck0 asked me "Did you bother reading any of the texts 
written by post-leftists?" to which I replied "I asked 
a question of you first! You answer my question, and then 
I'll answer yours. You wrote "there are anarchists walking 
around who don't see much change in how we would live".
and I asked you
>> Can you give me just  ONE  example of a named anarchist 
>> who thinks like this? The reason for asking for a name 
>> is so that we can apply a bit of scientific method here, 
>> by first of all checking with that individual to see whether 
>> this is in fact their view (and not just YOUR  version 
>> of their view), and then attempting some elementary
>> mathematics. It shouldn't be too difficult, 
>> you won't even need to use your fingers.
So, you first.
You answer  MY  question, then I'll answer yours."

After that, things got a bit heated, with Chuck0 calling
me a stubborn old fool and me calling him anti-working-class
and stuff like that. 

Shawn wrote (about 'post-leftists') "My primary objection 
is to the kind of triumphalist 'we're #1 - lose the losers' 
mentality that seems to be driving all of this".

Liz contributed "I'd always thought that "left" referred 
to collective economics (and therefore could encompass socialists, 
communists, and some anarchists), while "right" referred to 
laissez-faire capitalist economics (which could encompass some 
individualist anarchists)."

I responded to Liz "I read somewhere that in nuclear physics 
there is such a concept as "left-handed" electrons and "right-handed" 
electrons. How exactly you would define "handedness" in such a context, 
I have absolutely no idea. If even the simple concept of "handedness" 
turns out to be more difficult than it looks at first, then "left" 
and "right" in political terms are still more vague." I went on to 
re-state the historical origin of this political usage. Roger responded
"You are generally correct" and then went on to show I had got
it all wrong. It was Roger talking about the French Revolution
that prompted me to ask "Have you read 'Vive La Revolution' by 
Mark Steel? It's the best book about the French Revolution I've 
ever read. And the funniest." And you know what Iain had to say
about that, Spencer, because your request for a summary was attached
to a post about this. That's the story so far, or at least my version.

Dave C