> To be fair here, I think that the anarchist embrace of the term post-Leftism
> emerges out of very sincere-- and real-- concerns.
The "anarchist embrace" of the term and meaning is limited to a certain part of what passes for an "anarchist movement" in the US - it's not universally shared. I think it's a ridiculous idea that, as someone else mentioned, seems to equate "the left" only with authoritarian schemes that have a leftist dressing.
> The concerns are that so
> much of "the Left" has embraced either Social Democracy, Stalinism,
> mainstream Green politics, or Liberalism, that there is no room for
> revolution.
And the left has also included a lot of radical thinking that has helped undermine privilege and unjust authority - anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist thinking of all manner. If this hasn't been the province of the left, has it been the province of the middle, or of the right? Of course not. Nor can one naively say it was a part of none of these. There were groups committed to anti-capitalist struggle along decentralized and non-heirarchical lines long ago - syndicalists, anarchists, libertarian-ish communists like Luxembourg, etc. And these ideas had broader appeal than even many mainstream, market-oriented left ideas of today.
> The
> concerns raised by "post-Leftism" are very real-- ones that leftists of all
> ilk need to come to terms with.
I don't doubt that where the analysis is actually coherent and consistent, that the concerns are real. I'm just saying that they are not new. They are not "post-" anything. This is what happens when radicals don't study their radical history.
Brian