>But "authoritarian" has a very different functional definition among some US
>leftists (I have rarely seen it used in the sense I'm about to describe by a
>leftist from outside the US). It's basically some leftists' equivalent of
>saying "anti-American." They know that "anti-American" is not an appropriate
>term of derision -- since the right uses it to attack leftists in general,
>including putative "anti-authoritarians" -- but they use it in the same way
>to attack other leftists.
Isn't it used to signify something that's either wholly in the grip of - or merely tained by - "Leninism," or "Stalinism"? Which, from what I've heard, can mean anything from decmoratic centralist parties to having a formal organization and procedures to having any aspiration for taking state power. Picket lines in these senses can be taken to be authoritarian becuase they suggest - with a hint of menacing force in some cases - that people should not cross them. It has special resonance in the US because it fits nicely with the dominant individualist/libertarian ethos.
Rejecting it must have something to do with the term "post-left," which I've seen Chuck apply to himself (and others) on the aut-op-sy list. What does post-left mean? Is it anything like post-Marxist or post-feminist?
Doug