>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.
But, my point is that "the left" is at a very particular moment of history. This moment may not be entirely unique, but it is specific. And the current usage of the term "post-leftism", however ridden with fallacy it may be, is a result of that history. "Post-leftism" did not emerge as a word uttered by God in heaven-- it has real origins here on earth, that need to be explained and accounted for.
Otherwise I think I'm agreeing with everything you're saying.
-- David