Quote:
They're freaks and I don't want to associate with them, much less have them be associated with the anarchist movement.
They can't believe in libertarian socialism because they're freaks?
I just don't want shit like this:
http://offbeatbride.com/wp-content/u...7/saranade.jpg
associated with anarchism. Pagans/witches are just goddamn hippies, and the more middle class hippies proclaiming themselves anarchists means further alienation of anarchism from the working class as a whole.
Quote:
I just don't want shit like this:
*picture*
associated with anarchism.
Well it's not your choice who adheres to your ideology, is it?
Can someone who believes that eating popcorn can heal broken bones be an anarchist? It's just as whacky as a lot of what a lot of witches/pagans think, too. But it's hardly contradictory to anarchism.
Quote:
Well it's not your choice who adheres to your ideology, is it?
Can someone who believes that eating popcorn can heal broken bones be an anarchist? It's just as whacky as a lot of what a lot of witches/pagans think, too. But it's hardly contradictory to anarchism.
You could argue the same for the other groups I mentioned too, it doesn't stop them from being freaks who should be shunned by the anarchist movement for discrediting it, not embraced by the wolly liberals that seem to have hijacked the (at least North American) movement.
Quote:
You could argue the same for the other groups I mentioned too, it doesn't stop them from being freaks who should be shunned by the anarchist movement for discrediting it, not embraced by the wolly liberals that seem to have hijacked the (at least North American) movement.
No, obviously liberals, individualists, etc. can't be because they hold beliefs that are contradictory to anarchism (well, if by individualist you mean capitalist). Pagan beliefs are not contradictory to anarchism.
And do you actually think pagans will actually gain enough numbers in the anarchist movement to discredit it unless they are shunned?
Quote:
No, obviously liberals, individualists, etc. can't be because they hold beliefs that are contradictory to anarchism (well, if by individualist you mean capitalist).
And do you think pagans will actually gain enough numbers in the anarchist movement to discredit it unless they are shunned?
No, but they can be active and present enough to do so. If it's witches and pagans you see out on the street, people are going to think anarchists are a bunch of individualist nuts.
And no, I don't consider individualists/mutualists to be anarchists because they deny the class struggle, the only anarchism is communist.
Quote:
No, but they can be active and present enough to do so. If it's witches and pagans you see out on the street, people are going to think anarchists are a bunch of individualist nuts.
How are pagans going to make you look like individualist nuts? Obviously if witches and pagans were at some rally with you they wouldn't be dressed in black robes and witch hats with signs saying "witches for anarchy"
Quote:
And no, I don't consider individualists/mutualists to be anarchists because they deny the class struggle, the only anarchism is communist.
I know that mutualists like proudhon considered themselves anti-capitalist. I never heard they denied class struggle?
What about collectivist anarchism? Are they not anarchists? They're not communists.
Edit: Come to think of it, if the only argument you have against pagans being anarchists is "I don't like them" I don't see why I'm even bothering to respond.
Quote:
I don't consider individualists/mutualists to be anarchists because they deny the class struggle, the only anarchism is communist.
So Proudhon was not an anarchist? He was the founder of mutualism, after all. What about Bakunin? He was no communist. What about Rudolf Rocker? Buenaventura Durruti? Were these syndicalists not anarchists, either?
Your definition of "anarchism" excludes a large portion of the historical anarchist movement. Anarcho-communism may be a major trend within anarchism, but it is not its only variety, regardless of what you may think.
And BTW, mutualists do not deny the class struggle. You're thinking of "anarcho"-capitalists. These are two very, very different ideologies.
EDIT: Damn. Hammer and Pickle beat me to half my points. Oh well. Here's another point, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Pagans/witches are just goddamn hippies, and the more middle class hippies proclaiming themselves anarchists means further alienation of anarchism from the working class as a whole.
Should we also ban homosexuals from the anarchist movement? After all, many members of the working class are hostile to homosexuality. We wouldn't want them to think we're all a bunch of queers, would we? :rolleyes:
Quote:
I just don't want shit like this:
http://offbeatbride.com/wp-content/u...7/saranade.jpg
associated with anarchism. Pagans/witches are just goddamn hippies, and the more middle class hippies proclaiming themselves anarchists means further alienation of anarchism from the working class as a whole.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
WHITE PEOPLE WITH BAGGY HOMEMADE EARTH-TONE CLOTHING, LONG HAIR, AND ACOUSTIC GUITARS :cursing::cursing::cursing:
THIS DOESN'T CONFORM TO MY PETIT-BOURGEOIS, SUBJECTIVIST/IDEALIST DELUSIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A "WORKING-CLASS"
WE MUST FORCE THESE PEOPLE TO GET BUZZCUTS, LISTEN TO ENGLISH HARDCORE-PUNK, WEAR DENIM OVERALLS, AND DRINK SCHLITZ BEER SO THEY CAN CONFORM TO MY ANTI-MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF CLASS AS SOME SORT OF AESTHETIC CHOICE, SECTARIAN POLITICAL LINE, OR FORM OF CULTURAL IDENTITY POLITICS
Quote:
So Proudhon was not an anarchist? He was the founder of mutualism, after all. What about Bakunin? He was no communist. What about Rudolf Rocker? Buenaventura Durruti? Were these syndicalists not anarchists, either?
Your definition of "anarchism" excludes a large portion of the historical anarchist movement. Anarcho-communism may be a major trend within anarchism, but it is not its only variety, regardless of what you may think.
And BTW, mutualists do not deny the class struggle. You're thinking of "anarcho"-capitalists. These are two very, very different ideologies.
EDIT: Damn. Hammer and Pickle beat me to half my points. Oh well. Here's another point, then.
Should we also ban homosexuals from the anarchist movement? After all, many members of the working class are hostile to homosexuality. We wouldn't want them to think we're all a bunch of queers, would we? :rolleyes:
Proudhon abandoned anarchism (however empty that term was to him) in his later years. He was also an anti-semite and a sexist.
Syndicalism is a tactic, communism is an end goal, the syndicalists you named are communists.
You could consider collectivists to be anarchists even though they wish to maintain the wage system, but they don't really exist anywhere outside Mexico as it is.
So I can be an anti-semetic anarchist? Smash the state, kill the Jews!
Quote:
He was also an anti-semite and a sexist.
True. Given that, I probably would not consider him a genuine anarchist. However, mutualism itself is not anti-semitic or sexist; Proudhon's personal failings do not make his economic theory un-anarchistic (archistic?).
Quote:
Syndicalism is a tactic, communism is an end goal, the syndicalists you named are communists.
Can any anarcho-syndicalists here confirm that anarcho-syndicalism does not exist independent of anarcho-communism or anarcho-collectivism? (Durruti actually seems to have been a self-proclaimed collectivist, not a communist. However, you've accepted collectivists as genuine anarchists, so it doesn't really matter.)
By the way, anarchism is heavily associated with punks. Do you think that punks give off an appearance that's more credible than someone who dresses new agey like those pagans?
Not anything against punk rock at all (I fucking love it), but if you answer "yes" then I really think that your anger at pagan/new age culture is solely because they don't fit the image of the constantly militant, brave, MACHO anarchist.
It's interesting cause there's a lot of trading one pretension for another. Sure a lot of the hippie stuff (trade in subculture of your choice when applicable) might come off as holier than thou, but so does the militant anti-hippie (or anti-emo, anti-hipster, etc.).
Anarcho-Scenism and How to Fight it
Quote:
2. "Anti-sceneism" can in itself become an exclusionary activity or construct. An anti-sceneist mentality must not be adopted in the same way that one can adopt a hairstyle or fashion, because to do so would be only to trade one form of pretension for another
I'll just go ahead and say that I've been guilty of this too.
Quote:
So I can be an anti-semetic anarchist? Smash the state, kill the Jews!
Whats the point on attacking his arguments by bringing up the fact he was an anti-semite and a sexist? What has that got to do with the arguments you were discussing? You are commiting a logical fallacy: ad hominem, which consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim.
You were attacking mutualists by claiming they deny class struggle, but when failing to bring evidence to that, you just spout empty sentences like "Proudhon abandoned anarchism" or further idiotic ad hom statements.
Quote:
So I can be an anti-semetic anarchist? Smash the state, kill the Jews!
Disclaimer: I am no mutualist. I am not even an anarchist. I have no vested interest in defending it.
Proudhon is not and was not mutualism. Mutualism is a particular political philosophy with a particular set of policies. Much of it was articulated by Proudhon originally (arguably rather better than it is today I might add) but that does not make it in any way tied to him personally. He held views apart from mutualism that were repulsive but those views were not part of his mutualist principles, indeed they were completely contradictory. However whatever his many failings may be, they are irrelevant to mutualism, a philosophy that is neither sexist nor anti-semitic regardless of what its founder might have been.
Quote:
By the way, anarchism is heavily associated with punks. Do you think that punks give off an appearance that's more credible than someone who dresses new agey like those pagans?
Not anything against punk rock at all (I fucking love it), but if you answer "yes" then I really think that your anger at pagan/new age culture is solely because they don't fit the image of the constantly militant, brave, MACHO anarchist.
The pagan thing was more for them having religion, but hippies still piss me off.
I don't care as long as punks don't wear their shit during an action or anything.
Quote:
The pagan thing was more for them having religion, but hippies still piss me off.
Having non-hierarchical religion isn't contradictory to anarchism.
All religion is contradictory to anarchism. But even then, most of them don't beleive the shit they spout, I can't imagine anyone who can read beyond a 5th grade level doing so.