Dddddd0814 at aol.com:
> The point is that attempts to undermine the historical/material ideological
> basis of struggle, whether manifested in Anarchism, Stalinism, or Fascism,
> have opened the way to further collaboration with capitalism. All three of
> these streams are moralistic, nationalist, quasi-humanist approaches to
> liberation-- i.e., Stalin's manufactured notion of "socialism in one
> country". (Remember that the majority of even Bakunin's life work consisted
> of promotion of the objectives of pan-Slavic nationalism....) Liberation
> cannot be achieved independently of the global economic forces that enforce
> continual enslavement.
>
> The assumption still seems to be that "leftism" necessarily equates with
> Stalinism, i.e. state capitalism. The Soviet Union and China were
> economically underdeveloped countries, which were isolated due to the absence
> of a larger, international revolution in the developed countries. Due to the
> lack of economic development in Russia and China, capitalist practices were
> inevitable from the beginning. But, anyone who thinks that a revolution in
> the 21st century U.S. will even remotely resemble a revolution in early-20th
> century Russia-- or mid-century China-- is out of their minds. There are no
> "peasants" to speak of in the U.S., Germany, France, or England, and there is
> a high level of industrial and economic development.
>
> The collapse of the 2nd International politics (i.e. "social democracy") and
> then 3rd International politics (i.e. "Stalinism"), led to renewed interests
> in fascism and anarchism, respectively.
Let me assure you right away that there is at least one anarchist who is neither moralistic, nor nationalistic, nor a humanist around here (although I'm not sure exactly what humanist may mean in this context). As for the global economic forces, I wrote a long thing yesterday about the need of unions to engage Capital globally, but it was too boring, so I didn't post it.
I regard the consignment of the meaning of the Left to Stalinism or any other particular sect as a serious mistake. I believe the Left arose in antiquity in response and opposition to the invention of slavery and military organization and related political technologies -- the Right and its works. From then until now there has been a constant war against mankind by its would-be overlords, sometimes overt, sometimes frozen, embodied in the State, and a constant resistance. The rhetoric of "post-leftism" seems unaware of this history. The Left is the party of peace, freedom, and equality, and anarchism is its purest case, not an outlier. Hence, for me, the term "post-left anarchism" is a contradiction in terms and an obliviation of history. But of course people are free to say what they like.
Under certain conditions, there is no form of politics which may not be sucked into collaboration with capitalism. This is not a peculiar vulnerability of anarchism. The fact is, at certain levels of development, social and technological, capitalism is what is going to happen. The point is to move on from wherever you are with what you've got.
-- Gordon