> But I'm also arguing that
> post-Leftism can be used to describe the situation that anarchists and
> others find themselves after the fall of the Soviet Union.
You mean the situation of *still* thinking the USSR was a horribly oppressive state, just as they did when Goldman returned from it, or when Makhno fought against it, or when Voline wrote about it from his first hand accounts? If someone needed to rethink their views, or reassess them, after the USSR fell, then what on earth were they thinking before it fell? That it was still a shining beacon to workers the world over? That, my friend, would be "leftism."
> Thank you! Now we are getting somewhere!
Well, your welcome. I'll criticize your beliefs any time you like!
> Right. I'll discuss this with you as long as you don't go back to this
> crap about post-Leftists being synonmous with primitivists.
I've never equated the two, but I will often use the phrase "post-Leftists and primitvists" when I'm addressing the both of them together. I'm aware that post-leftism and primitiism can actually be even hostile with one another. If I've ever said that post-leftism and primitivism were the same, I'd like to see where it was.
> I'm not sure if this IS an attempt to spin a new idea out of the anarchist
> ether. I think its pretty obvious that the current historical situation is
> much different than 20 and 50 years ago.
Of course - the end of World War 2 heralded a vastly different geopolitical terrain and saw the birth of institutions such as the Bretton-Woods institutions, etc. No one is disputing this. No one would dispute that it is different than it was 10 years ago. That is different than saying that now we are in a "post-Leftist" era. But wait, it's not an era. It's a discussion. And one that is unwarranted.
> I've only read parts of Empire, but that is an academic work, so it is
> going to be vacuous and pompous. It reflects the state of the academic
> Left, which is very out of touch with social movements and day-to-day
> activism.
I'm no fan of Empire and I've only read it selectively (or, alternately, read about it in other essays), but to be fair, one of the authors is in jail exactly for his "day to day activism." Also, you said "it is an academic work, so it is going to be vacuous and pompous." That's quite a non-sequitir. It's this kind of strident anti-intellectualism, this immediate and uncritical disavowal of anything that is associated with "academia," that ensures that the kind of anarchism you practice will consist merely of street thugs with "strong feelings" and little ability to understand why they are acting, or upon what, making them quite a danger to others.
Brian