Alt Text
Show parent replies
one more thought before i go, i know he discusses like The Left having wacky ideas and stuff, but this is distanced from anarchists. like look at the passage below:
"Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the anarchist mainstream remained committed to frameworks deeply at odds with... antirealist legitimizers. One prominent anarchist journal at the time even titled itself Reality Now!"
"pretty much all the leading figures of the anarchist movement openly despised postmodernism, and those involved in daily projects or struggles simply ignored it. But its influence grew so vast in U.S. subcultural scenes as to become an unavoidable part of the Left."
like come on dude we're just no-true-scottsman-ing forever, the anarchist mainstream can do no wrong
this is why you get accused of humanism, and why you would better off not neglecting adorno when he sneers at the proletariat
idk lowkey maybe i can see the "anarchist mainstream" being immune to the occultism critique or whatever else if we would nail down what we're talking about. like IWW style guys or just adherents to classical anarchist writers then yea alright ig, but we're being pretty unclear
i'm not trying to do the thing where i'm committed to the view that "nuh uh you did the exact same thing", because my point is that even if you carve out a lineage that doesn't fall prey to one type of error, it doesn't mean they didn't have issues either, and potentially even some issues that
those associated with the quacks were hinting in the right direction on. idk we still haven't really covered much ground yet, still setting the stage, so i'm still witholding full judgement. i just dont like the direction we're headed and the implied positions / rhetorical moves thus far