I just don't want shit like this:
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.
Results 21 to 40 of 44
I just don't want shit like this:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"
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.
Last edited by gorillafuck; 23rd July 2009 at 04:45.
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?Originally Posted by Jack
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further.... And one fine morning----
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.82
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.88
HOLY FUCKING SHITI just don't want shit like this:
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.
WHITE PEOPLE WITH BAGGY HOMEMADE EARTH-TONE CLOTHING, LONG HAIR, AND ACOUSTIC GUITARS
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
Last edited by Agrippa; 23rd July 2009 at 07:30.
Proudhon abandoned anarchism (however empty that term was to him) in his later years. He was also an anti-semite and a sexist.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?
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!
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?).
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.)
Last edited by Durruti's Ghost; 24th July 2009 at 00:35. Reason: Formatting failure.
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further.... And one fine morning----
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.82
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.88
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
I'll just go ahead and say that I've been guilty of this too.
Last edited by RedCommieBear; 24th July 2009 at 03:08. Reason: admitted that I'm a total hypocrite
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.
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
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.
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.
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.
