Should anarchists re-label themselves, too?

[Die Neue Zeit]

RevLeft anarchists, if level-headed, may be interested in the material provided by this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/because-commy-a-strong-word-14072008

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."

Consider "social acracy" and especially "social abolitionism" (a more linguistically clear form of "socialism," like "social welfarism" and "social chauvinism," but one that evokes the long-past abolition of chattel slavery), for instance. Thoughts?

[Bakunist]

JR: "(To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary.")"

I think the first example is a very modern manifestation of middle class cowardice, and cannot be used to define the various anarchist movements that have existed throughout history as a whole. Propaganda of the deed can be a very valid form of dissent, though historically you are correct in equating the negative actions of what may very well have been misled individuals with the concept, and certainly some of these actions were intended to breed and instill terror into men's hearts. Most people probably do not even know of this concept though when they hear the word 'Anarchist'. far too many incompatible associations need to be cleared up , and I'll respond in more depth after I give the link a look, but from your post my assumption is that you have read perhaps a bit much of the communist take on anarchism. ;)

[Violet]

"To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary.""

propaganda by deed is often important to an anarchist and sometimes it means being violent or destructive, depending on the individual's disposition.

Perhaps instead of calling myself an anarchist i'll say i'm 'sovereign'.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

JR your terms are confusing. What the hell is "social proletocracy"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social Proletocracy: The Revolutionary Merger of Marxism and the Workers' Movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html)

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think we should seek a new definition. If we are as smart and committed as we claim to be, then we can damn well teach others the real meaning of "communism" and "anarchism."

- August

[RebelDog]

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."

Well thats your problem not ours. If someone such as yourself cannot see through the negative mist created by opponents of anarchism and see it with some sense of objectivity then what good will re-labeling do?

[The Feral Underclass]

Malatesta suggested that we call ourselves Associationists, but I don't accept that. If people view anarchists and anarchism as hooligans and chaos then that's because they don't know what anarchism is. We should encourage people to know rather than change our name.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Malatesta suggested that we call ourselves Associationists, but I don't accept that. If people view anarchists and anarchism as hooligans and chaos then that's because they don't know what anarchism is. We should encourage people to know rather than change our name.
Only a petitebourgeois at least professional upper-strata wealth proletarian would become an anarchist, the Utopianism and idealism is merely surplus money which the individual has. You won't find any true hard working person who buy any of that ivory-tower dreamy crap, spend years on the minimum wage getting by week-to-week and you soon disregard any utopian nonsense and become cynical and pragmatic.

Being working class tends to specify your complaints and the solutions are pretty clear, and they don't involve the complicated theories and endless drivel of the anarchists. The utopianism of anarchism only ever flourishes in those who can 'afford' to have such dreams, the rest of us know what is practically possible and how to make socialism a reality.

What the working class wants is pretty specific, and it doesn't need 2 pages of convoluted writing to explain it, full of strange phrases, and it can be summed up in a simple phrase: the working class must rule.

[Decolonize The Left]

Only a petitebourgeois at least professional upper-strata wealth proletarian would become an anarchist, the Utopianism and idealism is merely surplus money which the individual has. You won't find any true hard working person who buy any of that ivory-tower dreamy crap, spend years on the minimum wage getting by week-to-week and you soon disregard any utopian nonsense and become cynical and pragmatic.

I would caution you against assuming you know who we are, and what we do. It is not becoming, and it only makes any possible arguments you may have less enticing.


Being working class tends to specify your complaints and the solutions are pretty clear, and they don't involve the complicated theories and endless drivel of the anarchists. The utopianism of anarchism only ever flourishes in those who can 'afford' to have such dreams, the rest of us know what is practically possible and how to make socialism a reality.

What dreams, exactly, can't the working class afford to have? Seems like you're belittling 'your' people...?


What the working class wants is pretty specific, and it doesn't need 2 pages of convoluted writing to explain it, full of strange phrases, and it can be summed up in a simple phrase: the working class must rule.

Fine. But how does the working class intend to rule? And what does "rule" mean and entail, exactly? These are not "complicated theories," merely simple questions that ought to be answered if you want to be taken seriously.

- August

[Module]

RevLeft anarchists, if level-headed, may be interested in the material provided by this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/because-commy-a-strong-word-14072008

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."

Consider "social acracy" and especially "social abolitionism" (a more linguistically clear form of "socialism," like "social welfarism" and "social chauvinism," but one that evokes the long-past abolition of chattel slavery), for instance. Thoughts?
Anarchism, like all of the 'far left' will be slandered, misrepresented no matter what it's called.
Think about how many perfectly reasonable positions and ideologies have had negative stereotypes placed upon them by the bourgeois media - it happens every day and that's the problem, here, not a name for such an ideology becoming too 'battered and bruised'.

As AugustWest and TAT have said, it all comes down to educating people of what anarchism and communism actually are.
People might be initially turned off by a name, but once they're educated on the matter the name becomes completely irrelevant.

[The Feral Underclass]

Only a petitebourgeois at least professional upper-strata wealth proletarian would become an anarchist

I'm a minimum wage cinema worker...


What the working class wants is pretty specific, and it doesn't need 2 pages of convoluted writing to explain it, full of strange phrases, and it can be summed up in a simple phrase: the working class must rule.I wouldn't read any Karl Marx then. And what happens when the working class asks: "Why?"...

[nuisance]

Malatesta suggested that we call ourselves Associationists, but I don't accept that. If people view anarchists and anarchism as hooligans and chaos then that's because they don't know what anarchism is. We should encourage people to know rather than change our name.
That said, I kinda like the term associationist :cool:
However on awhole I I've also often wondered about using the term anarchist. That said though, if we have the belief that, we, the working class can succeed in revolution and establish communism ,then I think we can get over a term.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, it's not that simple. There has been a shift in the right-wing media. They generally separate "Marxism" from "Communism." I remember something in The National Post on "Communism" being BASED on "Marxism," and "Stalinism" being based on "Communism."

The general idea propagated here is that Lenin was the Big Bad "founder" of "Communism," even if Marx used that term. Why? You don't read the right-wing media call Marxist academics or libertarian commies "Communists," but "Marxists" and "anarchists," respectively. I would imagine that the right-wing media would also make that distinction: Social Proletocracy is "Marxism by any other name" but not "[Soviet] Communism by any other name."

Well, that is admitted in the link I gave above, although Social Proletocracy has two meanings: the organizational merger and the combined socioeconomic and political "ideology."

[Cult of Reason]

I like the word "Federalism", though only for a small minority of the "Anarchist" movement, the organisational Anarchist Communist part that is similar to the Platform or to Syndicalism. Here is why (modifed from something I have written before):

The "Anarchist" movement is a very vague thing, plagued by crazies and liberals and with little in the way of a coherent political program. Aside from Kropotkin's inclusion of individualists in his Enyclopaedia Brittanica article and the failure of the Platfomists' (who I identify with) attempt to define Anarchism, I would say that the main reason for this chaos is the name itself, especially for those like me who have had perhaps too much of a certain type of education.

Anarchism's (bare) unity is that against rulers, against coercive hierarchical authority (apart from AnCaps, of course, but the, *ahem*, "beauty" of Anarchism is that it can be interpreted/bastardised in any way you see fit) and most prominently the state is negative in that way just as its name ("no rulers") is negative. Negative categories (please excuse this abuse of language) tend to have little meaningful unity outside of themselves, tautologically. After all, Fascists are sometimes classified as anti-Capitalist as well as us.

So yes, in a way, the name Anarchism is partly responsible for its heterogenous mess and resultant lack of an easily accessable political programme. It seems that this focus on the negative even affects the otherwise sensible people who have reasonable Anarchist groups: they concentrate most of their time explaining how Capitalism is bad (as if that really has to be explained) and making vague references to "free association", "distribution according to need" and so on rather than providing positive programmes on what exactly the new society will look like (or at least not making them especially easy to find). I suspect that this is because it is rather difficult to get any significant agreement.

Association with animal rights nuts and primmies and other nutballs has made me consider whether I really want to use Anarchism as my preferred label and, in the last package I got from the UK's Anarchist Federation before I resigned (over yet another furore over the split over the Platform, to oversimplify things), I found a new one which I think would do much better.

This package contained Brian Morris' "Kropotkin and the History of Anarchism" (a thrilling title that must be very engaging to the average worker...), which claimed that, before adopting the name given to them by their opponents in the IWMA, the Anarchist referred to themselves as "anti-authoritarians" or "Federalists".

Assuming this is true, it is, for Platformists like me, convenient, since we are Federalists (as opposed to Confederalists and anti-organisationists) anyway, in the true meaning of the word, what with tactical unity and collective responsibility. Federalism, a form of organisation with groups that make decisions for themselves and with decisions that cover all of them being made at a centre group through delegates from the lower groups or through direct voting of all individuals or even lower layer groups, in a recursive manner.

Federalism, as the name of an ideology, has a number of advantages over Anarchism, and even Anarchist Communism (insurrectionists seem to be mostly Communists anyway, or so they say). Firstly it etymologically refers to a concept, foedus-->covenant, that is positive in nature: the joining together of people and groups to make binding decisions, as opposed to Anarchism's which is a negation of another concept.

Secondly, the misconceptions people have about the word Federalism are perhaps less difficult to deal with than Anarchism's. I would think it easier to explain how "federalism" as is currently operational in the world is a hugely diluted thing that only goes down the the level of "states" or regions and not down to the level of the individual that absolute, true, federalism does. It is a more extreme and democratic form of something that is already seen to exist to a very small extent and we can extend such control to the economy as well as everything else. On the other hand, for Anarchism explaining away the associations with chaos is difficult and tedious and invites, in the mind of the non-Anarchist, the tendency to conclude that what(ever it is that) Anarchism recommends is utopian and will result in chaos regardless.

Thirdly, since Federalism does not sound anywhere near as "cool" as Anarchism (Anarchy!!!) it will probably be less likely to attract stupid teenagers and punks and the resultant vegans, primmies and other idiots. The name would obviously discourage anti-organisationalists too. It is also more specific, so will hopefully do away with the "anyone can be one" effect that I so dislike.

Fourthly, even with the misconceptions, it is at least reasonably obvious what Federalism stands for (democracy among members of a group (in true federalism going down to individual level) and the commitment to binding decisions) with a little explanation to negate misconceptions. It is easy to visualise. Anarchism, on the other hand, means nothing, really. Slight exaggeration, maybe, but still...

Lastly, the name might induce less navel-gazing and questions of philosophy and more thinking of practical applications for Federalist organisation, since, again, Anarchism is all about how other things; Capitalism, the State; are bad. Perhaps, though, I am being both overly optimistic and overly cynical.

So, what do you think? Is it a good idea? Unworkable? To refer to ourselves as Federalists above all else and extend the principle to everything (which inevitably results in Communism), to have Federalist groups rather than Anarchist ones (at least not synthesist ones!) and actively advocate Federalist ideas in themselves? For all the GOOD groups, of course, it would be the same content, just a different (more presentable?) package.

Also, Federalist Action Group (FAG), would be the best name ever.


In a similar way we could use the term "Democracy" but that would be more difficult to (re-)appropriate.

The only bad side I have had told to me so far is that in the USA, in particular, it might be initially associated with the "Federalism" of John Adams and James Madison (but how many Americans really know/care about this?) or, more worryingly, with some "state's rights" Republicans, though the latter can be relaitvely easily explained away, I think, by, again, explaining that it is really a form of diluted Confederalism that the Republican "Federalists" are advocating.

[Forward Union]

Good atricle, cult! However,


is at least reasonably obvious what Federalism stands for

I am not sure thats true. As I understand it one of the reasons anarchists stopped calling themselves Federalists originally was because of new nation states like the US claiming toi be Federal, which it is, but with a state.

Furthermore many anarchist organisation which claim to be federations are actually confederations. And while I do include the AF in this, its not the worst offender. We really need to anylise why this phrasology exists, and why groups like the CGT, the Largest Anarchist organisation in the world, refer to themselves as Confederations, when they do infact operate more like federations.

I think arguing for classical federalism is appropriate. But my view on the matter is that as Anarchists we should seek to form an organisation that can promote its own ideas, and become so monolithic that anarchism cannot be talked about without direct practical reference to the organisation. In Spain for example, a much better understanding of Anarchism exists amongst the people.

Equally, one cannot talk about conservatism without direct reference to the current policies of the Conservative party. The party doesnt talk much about conservative philosophy, but direct conservatice policies, which people consider and then associate with the ideology behind it. Not the other way round.

Its not so much that Platformists should make anarchism somethign specific. The group itself should have specific politics.

[nuisance]

Thirdly, since Federalism does not sound anywhere near as "cool" as Anarchism (Anarchy!!!) it will probably be less likely to attract stupid teenagers and punks and the resultant vegans, primmies and other idiots. The name would obviously discourage anti-organisationalists too. It is also more specific, so will hopefully do away with the "anyone can be one" effect that I so dislike.

So because I'm a vegan I'm less of an anarchist-communist?
Insulting dietary habits is a pretty closed minded and stupid thing to do. What are you going to do next? Insult 'queer anarchism'? Of course you wouldn't, because that's discriminatory!

[Forward Union]

So because I'm a vegan I'm less of an anarchist-communist?
Insulting dietary habits is a pretty closed minded and stupid thing to do. What are you going to do next? Insult 'queer anarchism'? Of course you wouldn't, because that's discriminatory!

Queer anarchism, much like anarcho feminism, is a self indulgent identity politic. Every Anarchist supports queer rights and womens liberation by definition. The only need to add these extensions is because you feel it represents something about your particular personality.

As for Veganism, its not contrary to anarchism of course but its certainly nothing to do with it. I think cult was refering to the sort of people that go to the Anarchist bookfair with leaflets saying 'If you eat meat youre not an anarchist' and not you in particular.

[F9]

Malatesta suggested that we call ourselves Associationists, but I don't accept that. If people view anarchists and anarchism as hooligans and chaos then that's because they don't know what anarchism is. We should encourage people to know rather than change our name.

agreed completely,
no we dont change our "label",we dont rename our ideology,we change what people thing about we are,let them know what we really represent and not those shit that are spread around chaos etc.

Fuserg9:star:

[nuisance]

As for Veganism, its not contrary to anarchism of course but its certainly nothing to do with it. I think cult was refering to the sort of people that go to the Anarchist bookfair with leaflets saying 'If you eat meat youre not an anarchist'
If this was the desired meaning within the article then fair enough. That said, it really wasn't made clear and read like a horribly dismissive generalisation of vegans.

[Forward Union]

Being working class tends to specify your complaints and the solutions are pretty clear, and they don't involve the complicated theories and endless drivel of the anarchists. The utopianism of anarchism only ever flourishes in those who can 'afford' to have such dreams, the rest of us know what is practically possible and how to make socialism a reality.

Though you are an idiot, this is fairly true. Anarchists tend to look at issues facing themselves and their working class associates and philosophical issues that require philosophical, often academic and abstract answers. Though not always, the CGT and CNT in spain, along with Syndicalism in General has managed to do much to appeal to the everyday bread and butter issues of the working class. But its still a problem that we need to combat.


What the working class wants is pretty specific, and it doesn't need 2 pages of convoluted writing to explain it

So why are there 3 volumes of capital¿

[RaiseYourVoice]

What do you mean by re-label themselves "too". You are the only person i know who is trying to re-label anything. Actually people on this forum could call themselves any way they want, it changes as much about the current weakness of the left in much of Europe and the US as a sack of rice falling in China.

If you want to change anything about the opinion of people the best way is to work with them, talk to them, struggle together. I have turned many peoples view of communism to the better at various workplaces, managed to convince workers, i mean like real life workers of the moral justification of "individual terrorism".


Only a petitebourgeois at least professional upper-strata wealth proletarian would become an anarchist
You have no grasp of anarchism or for that matter marxism. so i guess i won't bother replying to that garbage.


To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."
Nice stereotyping. Just one question, have you ever been at a demonstration where the "anarchists" used peaceful protesters as human shields? Or have you just heard of them or seen them on tv?

[The Feral Underclass]

Furthermore many anarchist organisation which claim to be federations are actually confederations. And while I do include the AF in this, its not the worst offender.

I think the differences between a federation and a confederation are very subtle and they are both at times the same.

A federation is a union comprising of independently governed entities that are responsible to a body that determines overall policy (in this instance the national conference), which is exactly what the AF is.

[Lamanov]

Oh boy. :rolleyes:

We're libertarian communists.

[Trystan]

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan"

Yes, and when people hear "Communist" or "Marxist" they equate it with mass murder and Orwellian police states. Education, people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh boy. :rolleyes:

We're libertarian communists.

Libertarian communism could still include certain practices and ideas that would not be considered anarchist. Anarchism rejects hierarchy and authority and positions certain ethical ideas whereas libertarian communism doesn't necessarily have to. Just being opposed to a state doesn't make you an anarchist.

[The Feral Underclass]

UK's Anarchist Federation before I resigned (over yet another furore over the split over the Platform, to oversimplify things)

Many AF members identify as platformists and the AF's own tradition endorses it to a certain degree. Furthermore, measures were being taken to incorporate more organisational principles put forward by some of the members that left - which has now happened. It makes no sense to claim that there was a "furore" over the platform because in the context of the whole organisation that's just not true.

It seems to me that you have taken the personal arguments on the internet as indicative of an entire organisation that you never really understood in the first place. Your resignation letter (which I've just re-read) clearly demonstrates that. Ultimately you did nothing to help develop the AF in any meaningful way accept to put your name to a document you didn't even write. Instead you went on to attack other anarchist communists for misconceived and perceived issues that we're already being addressed.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this and that's all I'm going to say, but I think it's unfair for former members to put out false statements on public forums about why they left the AF. It's very dishonest. The reason you left was because you claimed wrongly that the AF has no theoretically & tactically unity and is badly organised beyond repair. This platformist/non-platformist conflict was totally overblown and on reflection barely existent. Being criticised does not constitute persecution.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Social Proletocracy: The Revolutionary Merger of Marxism and the Workers' Movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html)

Reading that only served to confuse me more comrade. Please just summarize it in a paragraph?

[Dros]

JR, no they shouldn't. And Communists shouldn't rename themselves either.

That's why the world has a grand total of ONE social proletocrat right now. I'm eagerly awaiting the second person to join the social-proletocratic movement. But with a name like "social prolectocracy" you will never be able to develop any kind of significant support.;)

[Dros]

Reading that only served to confuse me more comrade. Please just summarize it in a paragraph?

"Social Proletocracy" is what JR's calls his new version of Communism which he is trying to fuse with the labor movement.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Though you are an idiot, this is fairly true. Anarchists tend to look at issues facing themselves and their working class associates and philosophical issues that require philosophical, often academic and abstract answers. Though not always, the CGT and CNT in spain, along with Syndicalism in General has managed to do much to appeal to the everyday bread and butter issues of the working class. But its still a problem that we need to combat.


I would disagree to some extent comrade. As much as we should fight for bread and butter, we should never forget we're also fighting for bread and roses. Part of building a vibrant and strong workers movement, is the promotion of popular investigation into theoretical issues. The CNT organized readings of pamphlets and treatises for illiterate workers and peasants, started modern schools etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Joe, you've got a PM. :)

[Forward Union]

and the AF's own tradition endorses it to a certain degree.

Yes by it´s own admittion. But thats a complete U-turn on what you were arguing at a previous time. You yourself stated that the AF was infact part of an anti-platformist tradition. So I wonder where this confusion came from?

Furthermore, measures were being taken to incorporate more organisational principles put forward by some of the members that left - which has now happened. It makes no sense to claim that there was a "furore" over the platform because in the context of the whole organisation that's just not true.

[chimx]

I think it should be remembered that when Proudhon coined the phrase, it had been commonly used in the 19th century to mean political chaos. Proudhon delighted in this word-play ambiguity.


Though you are an idiot

C'mon, it doesn't look good when admin's on this site start flaming. You should feel free to disagree and argue with him, but don't regress to flaming. It's against the rules here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Social Proletocracy" is what JR's calls his new version of Communism which he is trying to fuse with the labor movement.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch02.htm


First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people

Using that word "merge," Lenin CLEARLY recalls that most important chapter section in Chapter 5 of Kautsky's Erfurt Programme, and especially the paragraph starting that section. :)

[Dros]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch02.htm



Using that word "merge," Lenin CLEARLY recalls that most important chapter section in Chapter 5 of Kautsky's Erfurt Programme, and especially the paragraph starting that section. :)

Firstly Jacob, I wasn't criticizing your position; I was trying to explain it.

Secondly, your position is not similar to Lenin's. There's a difference between having a proletarian party and merging the party with the labour movement, something Lenin didn't do.

[Module]

I just noticed this: "cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields" Out of curiosity, when has that ever happened ... ? Using peaceful protesters as 'human shields'?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Some punks decide to hide out amongst the peaceful protesters and cause trouble. While the cops respond, they sneak away.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes by it´s own admittion. But thats a complete U-turn on what you were arguing at a previous time.

Not really. I can hardly ignore the fact that we have at least three prominent platformist members and that structurally and theoretically the organisation has sympathies towards it. That's clearly demonstrated to me. You should read RoRo and Nick Heaths forward to the OPLC.


You yourself stated that the AF was infact part of an anti-platformist tradition. So I wonder where this confusion came from?The constitution of the AF now embodies principles like autonomy and free association which come from an anti-platformist tradition. That doesn't mean that the AF doesn't endorse aspects of it. If you read the constitution it talks about theoretical unity, tactical unity and even collective responsibility as well as free association etc.


Furthermore, measures were being taken to incorporate more organisational principles put forward by some of the members that left - which has now happened. It makes no sense to claim that there was a "furore" over the platform because in the context of the whole organisation that's just not true.That's what I said...:)

[The Feral Underclass]

C'mon, it doesn't look good when admin's on this site start flaming. You should feel free to disagree and argue with him, but don't regress to flaming. It's against the rules here.

Shut the fuck up. The guys an idiot and should be told so.

[apathy maybe]

I think it should be remembered that when Proudhon coined the phrase, it had been commonly used in the 19th century to mean political chaos. Proudhon delighted in this word-play ambiguity.

Funny thing, democracy used to be used by the ruling classes to mean chaos as well.

And no, to the OP, I don't think that anarchists need to come up with a better word. Different strands are welcome to come up with something different, but as an anarchist, I call myself that because it has a very clear meaning. I am anarchist, I am against hierarchy, oppression and so on, I am for freedom.

What's so hard to understand?

[Decolonize The Left]

Funny thing, democracy used to be used by the ruling classes to mean chaos as well.

And no, to the OP, I don't think that anarchists need to come up with a better word. Different strands are welcome to come up with something different, but as an anarchist, I call myself that because it has a very clear meaning. I am anarchist, I am against hierarchy, oppression and so on, I am for freedom.

What's so hard to understand?

I don't think it's hard to understand. If I understand correctly, I believe the question was being raised in regards to the associations many (if not most) individuals make with anarchism.

As I have previously argued, if these associations are negative it is up to us as self-proclaimed anarchists to support the real meaning of anarchism. This can be done in any number of ways.

- August

[Lost In Translation]

RevLeft anarchists, if level-headed, may be interested in the material provided by this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/because-commy-a-strong-word-14072008

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."

Consider "social acracy" and especially "social abolitionism" (a more linguistically clear form of "socialism," like "social welfarism" and "social chauvinism," but one that evokes the long-past abolition of chattel slavery), for instance. Thoughts?
I don't see the point in having to relabel anarchists as something else. Anarchists may be portrayed as something other than what they are, but so are the left in general. Whenver people hear the word 'communism' or the like, they associate that with dictatorship, stalin, mass murder, and whatever those capitalists think of these days. It shouldn't be just the anarchists who should make it clear to people who they are, the entire left should do so as well.

However, we shouldn't change the terms we use so as to suit the bourgeois. They want us to change our names and hide our identities. We have to make it clear that we will not give in, that we are proud to be anarchists/communists/etc. etc... and will not be anything different. It is up to us to change how society looks at us, and to correct the content the bourgeois has continually brainwashed the workers with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, we shouldn't change the terms we use so as to suit the bourgeois. They want us to change our names and hide our identities. We have to make it clear that we will not give in, that we are proud to be anarchists/communists/etc. etc... and will not be anything different.

Yeah, cuz Kautsky and Lenin were such cowards in suggesting the "communist" label (yes, Kautsky, too (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/05.htm)) when "social democracy" was spoiled.

BTW, immature teenagers like the "anarchist" label so that they can indulge in their hooliganism.

If you really want, why not try to link up with others fighting to reclaim the "social-democratic" label, in a similar fashion as the American Hoxhaists and the word "labour" ("American Party of Labor")?

[BTW, I'd only "fight to reclaim" the SD label insomuch as I'd like an expanded vocabulary for HISTORICAL questions only.]

[Bilan]

RevLeft anarchists, if level-headed, may be interested in the material provided by this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/because-commy-a-strong-word-14072008

To me, whenever I hear the word "anarchist," I still equate that with "hooligan" (cowardly throwing stones or Molotov cocktails while using the peaceful protesters around as human shields), "propagandist of the deed" (individual terrorism), and "petit-bourgeois revolutionary."

Consider "social acracy" and especially "social abolitionism" (a more linguistically clear form of "socialism," like "social welfarism" and "social chauvinism," but one that evokes the long-past abolition of chattel slavery), for instance. Thoughts?

This is like the communism thing.

First, I want to say, that alot of anarchists, or people who have anarchist politics, don't identify specifically as anarchists. Labels such as, Libertarian Socialist, Libertarian Communist, Libertarian Marxist (Generally, with the "Libertarian" replacement for anarchism, though, other varieties would occur).

It's not uncommon to identify that which people don't understand by constructions created by the bourgeois press - anarchism as "hooligans", communism as "totalitarianism", etc.
It more or less comes back to the point of, "Ruling class, ruling ideology".
Essentially, whatever we identify as, "anarchist", "communist", "Marxists", "Social Prolecrat", "Libertarian communist" is irrelevant because conceptions in the press are in the hands of the bourgeoisie, not us, and we will be slandered, and new misconceptions will be created to demonize us.

The approach to this is wrong.
What we call ourselves matters little; what we do, and our attempts to undermine the misconceptions and untruths created by the bourgeois press and our enemies will change the course, not playing hop-scotch with labels.

If we concern ourselves less with this hop-scotch, and more with simply explaining our ideas - abandoning unnecessary rhetoric and explaining our ideas in simple, practical terms - then we will succeed.

The evidence of that is all around you in the growing communist movements world wide (obviously its not in the stagnant ones).

Those who are growing are those who propagating and organizing; who are thinking practically and theoretically.

So, as far as name changing goes, I say, no. Concern yourself with struggle, not names.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It more or less comes back to the point of, "Ruling class, ruling ideology".
Essentially, whatever we identify as, "anarchist", "communist", "Marxists", "Social Proletocrat", "Libertarian communist" is irrelevant because conceptions in the press are in the hands of the bourgeoisie, not us, and we will be slandered, and new misconceptions will be created to demonize us.

Like I said above, I am VERY well aware of this bourgeois slander:


Actually, it's not that simple. There has been a shift in the right-wing media. They generally separate "Marxism" from "Communism." I remember something in The National Post on "Communism" being BASED on "Marxism," and "Stalinism" being based on "Communism."

The general idea propagated here is that Lenin was the Big Bad "founder" of "Communism," even if Marx used that term. Why? You don't read the right-wing media call Marxist academics or libertarian commies "Communists," but "Marxists" and "anarchists," respectively. I would imagine that the right-wing media would also make that distinction: Social Proletocracy is "Marxism by any other name" but not "[Soviet] Communism by any other name."

I'm more concerned with assholes "on the left" wanting to associate with certain labels in order to do their BS. For "libertarian communists," they come in the form of the folks that I mentioned in the original post. For "communists," they come in the form of hard authoritarians, "Che" consumers, and "orange" reformists.

Heck, classical social democracy was once slandered by the bourgeoisie, but the biggest danger came not from them, but from yellow "reformist" scum like ever_closer_union and LSD.



Besides, for "non-Leninist" Marxists (as well as spinoff-ists and revolutionary Marxists like myself), why organize around the overly broad "socialist" label (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-betrayals-dumping-t77143/index.html)?

[INDK]

If you're that afraid of a social misconception, and believe that the Anarchist movement really can't get over stereotypes, fine, call yourself a Libertarian Socialist or something, in the end the Capitalists will know what you came for.

[Bilan]

I'm more concerned with assholes "on the left" wanting to associate with certain labels in order to do their BS. For "libertarian communists," they come in the form of the folks that I mentioned in the original post. For "communists," they come in the form of hard authoritarians, "Che" consumers, and "orange" reformists.

Strange, but yet, thats common. What passes for socialism and socialists here is actually absurd (And by here, I mean Australia, not RL).

So I sympathise on that note.

That, however, can be over come and ousted.



Heck, classical social democracy was once slandered by the bourgeoisie, but the biggest danger came not from them, but from yellow "reformist" scum like ever_closer_union and LSD.


Probably just as bad if you ask me.



Besides, for "non-Leninist" Marxists (as well as spinoff-ists and revolutionary Marxists like myself), why organize around the overly broad "socialist" label (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-betrayals-dumping-t77143/index.html)?

Because labels don't, in the end, really mean shit.
I could call my self a Worker-Self-Managerist, or WSMer for short (actually, thats gold! haha), but when push comes to shove, its what I'm, or we're, advocating, and how we're bringing it forward that counts.