Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Left Aimee
Post Lef

It would be much easier if they actually read post left work or internal critiques of anti imperialism by anti imperialists, they could save themselves a lot of time. The recognition of the structural equivalence of imperialism & anti imperialism is an old idea.

Also the idea that if one applies Lenin’s definition of imperialism, then today basically every country is imperialist, and so imperialism has become just another word for the normal conduct of states, capital & globalization.

Regardless of whether one believes the above two claims (and I think they each have a fair share of truth to them, but it would take a longer time to explain it), they’re better & more sophisticated critiques than ‘anti imperialism implies imperialism’ lol

Here’s what she was really trying to say, but couldn’t because it also threatens her whole enterprise: “If imperialism didn’t exist, anti-imperialists would have to invent it”

That’d be too spicy a take even for her or me for that matter

It would not be too spicy for moishe postone, however, lol https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/postonemoishe_historyhelplessness.pdf

No that’s not actually his argument, but his argument *IS* that campism substitutes for real analysis & ‘the anti imperialism of fools’ serves to stultify & defang the left, emptying radical critique & struggle of substantive content

To interpolate Postone’s argument with other ones (Memmi, various leftcom critiques of Antifa, anarchist anti campist arguments, various histories of left anti imperialism/anti colonialism, etc)

Basically with the demise of grand historical Left projects from left to right, it creates a sense of impotence, helplessness, & historical futility.

At the same time, the left’s transition from anti capitalism & anti fascism to anti imperialism meant that the internal content of states & societies started to matter less than with whom they were aligned—hence campism.

Because both the US & USSR supported nationalist & anti colonial movements (liberal or right wing, & leftist or corporatist , respectively ), campism emerged as the left position where both dueling hegemons claimed the mantle of national independence

But with the demise of state socialism & large scale anarchist projects etc, and with the convergence of states all over the globe to similar forms of capitalism, now differentiating states/economy/movements based on internal structure was no longer possible

Thus, whereas disregard for the internal content of states was an ideological but not analytic necessity in the campist affiliation with dueling hegemons, with the demise of grand left states, projects & camps it became an analytic necessity but not an ideological one.

And so anti imperialism became the reflexive idiom of the left at precisely the historical moment when it lost its tractability & urgency as a concept (hence the current focus on Neo imperialism, Neo colonialism, militarism, Neoliberalism, globalization, multipolarity)

Nationalists movements more or less won the globe over, with several key exceptions—but nationalist born states or multi national federated co governed empires now dominate the globe—& when nationalists win, as @Itmechr3 argues, they become the bad guys.

Anti colonialism, on the other hand, regains relevance, compared to anti imperialism, like contemporary anti fascism, Once it *does* start focusing on the internal structures of states & economies again (think of the Anglo American settler colonies).

But, ironically, despite contemporary leftist affiliation with anti imperialism, anti colonialism & anti fascism as de rigeur positions, they can actually work against each other.

The historical tension between anti fascism & anti imperialism is well known. Those without historical knowledge of the left may not know that the two were considered uneasy pals during WWII & often actively opposed after.

The anti Deutsch movement or the tension between leftist human rights interventionist & neo isolationist movements, or between anarchists, on one hand, and those they call Red Brown alliances, on the other are all examples of this.

What’s less known is that anti imperialism & anti colonialism can *also* be in tension, as the example of Third World movements that leveraged imperialist powers for colonial independence (just about every state in North Africa, Middle East, SE Asia & much of S Americas).

Conversely, there are many anti imperialist & anti capitalist movements that take place within settler colonies—the left of S Africa, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, etc are only some examples.

And, even more to the point, especially in MENA or Central & Latin America, (& to a lesser extent the Caribbean), many of the nationalist anti imperialist movements seeking to throw off the yoke of the US did so in ways that meant to affirm the legitimacy of the settler colony.

So we can see how historically & presently anti imperialism can be in conflict with anti fascism & anti colonialism (this sounds controversial, but really people internal to the movements have been writing about this stuff for a century).

What about anti colonialism & anti fascism? Well, during WWII they were often opposed, because many anti colonial & nationalist movements sought the support of the Axis powers while the USSR & international left would support colonial powers against the fascists.

This isnt negated by the fact that the fascists were also imperialists, colonialists, & settler colonialists bc there were various fascist, colonialists, imperialists, settler states, capitalists, socialists, anti imperialist, anti colonialists in different opposed alliances

After WWII anti colonialism & anti fascism could still be in tension—the old European Left was very suspicious of the New Left & various anti colonial movements.

As examples in Germany, Japan, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, India, Yugoslavia, Turkey, the former USSR & elsewhere show, many anti colonial movements had no issue allying with former fascists, Neo fascists & those influenced by fascism

Nor, for that matter, did the US & Western Powers, Which shows that imperialism & anti imperialism, colonialism & anti colonialism, nationalism & anti nationalism, fascism & anti fascism, were all tools of the various competing hegemons in all ‘three worlds’.

This doesn’t negate the urgency of the anti- position, but it does highlight the futility of campism in a world where the state, capitalism, militarism, reign supreme & bureaucracy, nationalism, imperialism, colonialism, fascism are features of a wide variety of states.

Refocussing ones attention to the internal content of states & movements (& thus their relation to capitalism, imperialism, fascism, colonialism, militarism ) is necessary but it confronts, as I said, the commonality or even universality of several of those positions.

And consistently applied, I think this forces us inexorably into one of several positions based on if one sees the state &/or capitalism &/or nationalism as fait accomplis at least over the short run.

If one sees none of these as inevitable, or desirable, they become an anarchist. If they see all of them as inevitable but not necessarily desirable they become a liberal nationalist social democrat.

If one sees them as both undesirable & inevitable in the short term, but not the long, they become a kind of MLM or third worldist. If you see markets as inevitable but not the state or nationalism, you become a mutualist.

If you see the state & nationalism as inevitable (& usually desirable) but not capitalism, you become a right wing anti capitalist type, like a National Bolshevist or the Iraqi brand of Baathism.

There are obviously more positions—in theory based on just my typology of inevitable/not, short/long term, desirable/undesirable gives us 2^3, and we have three poles (nationalism, capitalism, the state), so that’s 2^9 possible but yeah

Anyway, admitting any, let alone all , of this, would be anathema to Aimee, and for that matter, much of the left, including myself a year or two ago, before I began my current investigation into the deep history of all these things.

My analysis draws primarily on the histories & critiques written from within anti fascism, anti imperialism, anti colonialism, anti capitalism, Marxism, settler colonial studies, etc

But I also draw on heavily, as I said, Postone, & Memmi, but also the greatest hits (Fanon, Sartre, the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Deleuze), & very liberally from anarchist, post left, Insurrectionary, Afropessimist, autonomist, leftcom, & even a little humanist & Trot thot

Although I will emphasize that these schools of thots are often bitterly opposed, and in the case of many Trots, for example, somewhat stalwartly committed to lying lol.

But also seeing where ultra left, post left, anarchist & related schools hate each other, not in spite of, but especially, agreeing with each other on various issues is quite Illuminating about the terms of the debate.

TLDR:
1. Aimee and her ilk are charmingly stupid & clearly lack a basis in understanding what they critique
2. Where they accidentally point to an insight but then totally miss it, it’s not only because they lack this background, but the critique applies to them as well

3. The real history & present of imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, nationalism & the ‘anti-‘ movements are far more messy than we acknowledge
4. Campism has a real material historical origin but is nonetheless stultifying to thought

5. Focusing on the external relations rather than internal content of states & movements was previously a result of the forces that caused Campism, now it is often necessitated by the dissolution of those very bases for campism

6. Reorienting ourselves back to the internalist viewpoint—or rather coupling it to the externalist one—is disorienting & causes feelings of helplessness, futility & impotence, but is necessary

7. Undertaking such a reorientation more or less consistently forces us into several camps of thought, at least if we are going to be consistent & symmetrical
8. These schools of thought are unappealing to many for various reasons

9. Thus people do not undertake this reorientation & fall back into vulgar campism &
10. In this context, cynical, half thought, self refuting arguments like Aimee’s thrive

Or an even more succinct TLDR:
Aimee is stupid. History is complex. Emancipatory theory forces us into uncomfortable conclusions & self critique. Consistent application of this leads us to several possible consistent frameworks, which foreclose vulgar analyses like Aimee’s.