In a message dated 8/16/2 12:43:12 AM, you wrote:
>For anarchists, post-Leftism has different implications. First, the Soviet
>Union is becoming a distant memory and M-L-M groups and parties have
>dwindled into insignificance. The anarchist movement in North America has
>grown exponentially in the past 5 years, partly due to the historical
>situation, but mostly because of the hard work of anarchists themselves.
>Post-leftism is also about asking questions about where anarchism should
>go and who on the Left we should work with. For example, you won't find
>many anarchists who are going to tail-end "united front" efforts by the
>sectarian parties.
>
>This is one of the reasons why groups like the IAC are being rejected in
>activist circles. They represent the old M-L-M way of doing things. They
>are trying to fit their square peg into a vast net.
Once again, the "square peg" is that Chuck thinks that the "old way of doing things" is pretty much covered by the term "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist". This is a revisionist form of history, and an effront to those on the left-- including socialists-- who were (and are) truly revolutionary.
Criticizing political tendencies by referring to them as "isms": this is one of the prime ideological vehicles for sectarian thought. Refer to the tendency you don't like as an "ism", and criticize it to make it seem like anything *you* represent can't possibly be classified that way, and stands as the "genuine" or "real" "movement." Thus the emergence of a separate clique of people who fancy themselves operating outside of-- and apart from-- history.
Best, David