Comments on: 21st Century Anarchism…Part 2 http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/ - 2 eyes open - Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:36:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: steve http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3504 steve Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:13:18 +0000 http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3504 Wow. I was really shocked to see you put yourself in the reluctant anarchism position Jeremy. Let me say for myself that I consider myself a loud and proud anarchist. I embrace the historical tradition, the symbols, the word, the label, but i also feel like my intersectional analysis is very solid while always improving. I would say the same thing about my immediate group of friends who openly identify as anarchist but do not judge me or others for the way they dress, have crusty class-war politics that they got from white dudes writing in the 1880s, or talk down about others because they don't identify as anarchist. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the critique of loud and prouds and i don't like those characteristics either. Living with a certain "Manarchist" drove me off the cliff of my tolerance. But as i build my loud and proud anarchist community, i incorporate the most radical elements of all the communities i know and this becomes proof to me that anarchism does not have to look a certain way. Just in the same way that i won't let the media tell me that an anarchist is a bomb-thrower, i won't let supposed anarchists (who i do not know or have any reason to trust) tell me that i am not an anarchist for any reason. I think i also disagree when you say that it doesn't matter whether we use the term anarchism. Anarchism is the word for my ideology. One thing i've noticed among all the radical people who don't identify as anarchist is that they have no name for their ideology. Perhaps they refer to themselves as radical but that means getting down to the "root." In that case, what is the root of the problem? Anarchism says that the root is all forms of oppression and hierarchy in general in our means and our ends. I am not saying that other radicals are not getting down to the root of the problem or even doing a better or worse job of it, but we need to have a name for it. I don't see other radicals naming the problem or naming themselves. I am not trying to disparage those who are not anarchist but simply explaining why it works for me. I actually should be having this conversation with some non-anarchist radicals, but maybe also with "reluctant anarchists" as well - the .0000001% of the population who was anarchist but has since inched away. I would love for all of you to come back: we don't have to be afraid of calling ourselves what we are. Infact naming ourselves is the first step towards revolution. Wow. I was really shocked to see you put yourself in the reluctant anarchism position Jeremy. Let me say for myself that I consider myself a loud and proud anarchist. I embrace the historical tradition, the symbols, the word, the label, but i also feel like my intersectional analysis is very solid while always improving. I would say the same thing about my immediate group of friends who openly identify as anarchist but do not judge me or others for the way they dress, have crusty class-war politics that they got from white dudes writing in the 1880s, or talk down about others because they don’t identify as anarchist.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the critique of loud and prouds and i don’t like those characteristics either. Living with a certain “Manarchist” drove me off the cliff of my tolerance. But as i build my loud and proud anarchist community, i incorporate the most radical elements of all the communities i know and this becomes proof to me that anarchism does not have to look a certain way. Just in the same way that i won’t let the media tell me that an anarchist is a bomb-thrower, i won’t let supposed anarchists (who i do not know or have any reason to trust) tell me that i am not an anarchist for any reason.

I think i also disagree when you say that it doesn’t matter whether we use the term anarchism. Anarchism is the word for my ideology. One thing i’ve noticed among all the radical people who don’t identify as anarchist is that they have no name for their ideology. Perhaps they refer to themselves as radical but that means getting down to the “root.” In that case, what is the root of the problem? Anarchism says that the root is all forms of oppression and hierarchy in general in our means and our ends. I am not saying that other radicals are not getting down to the root of the problem or even doing a better or worse job of it, but we need to have a name for it. I don’t see other radicals naming the problem or naming themselves.

I am not trying to disparage those who are not anarchist but simply explaining why it works for me. I actually should be having this conversation with some non-anarchist radicals, but maybe also with “reluctant anarchists” as well - the .0000001% of the population who was anarchist but has since inched away. I would love for all of you to come back: we don’t have to be afraid of calling ourselves what we are. Infact naming ourselves is the first step towards revolution.

]]> By: andrew http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3503 andrew Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:51:38 +0000 http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3503 ok, here's some geekness for you.... I propose you call this "Reluctant Anarchism vs. Loud and Proud Anarchism: A Bridgeable Chasm." ok, here’s some geekness for you…. I propose you call this “Reluctant Anarchism vs. Loud and Proud Anarchism: A Bridgeable Chasm.”

]]> By: bruin http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3490 bruin Fri, 30 May 2008 02:41:40 +0000 http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3490 hmmm. this feels really similar to some of the conversations we've had about how many folks who know have moved away from direct action or more militant action as tactics and how we need our entire tool chests to make change. and i think while this is certainly true in seattle, i would argue that its a regional analysis, in large part due to the isolation and primary focus on life-style politiks of those anarchists in the PNW. hmmm. this feels really similar to some of the conversations we’ve had about how many folks who know have moved away from direct action or more militant action as tactics and how we need our entire tool chests to make change.

and i think while this is certainly true in seattle, i would argue that its a regional analysis, in large part due to the isolation and primary focus on life-style politiks of those anarchists in the PNW.

]]> By: Christopher Greene http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3488 Christopher Greene Wed, 28 May 2008 19:02:14 +0000 http://2eyesopen.com/2008/05/28/21st-century-anarchismpart-2/#comment-3488 "Mindfulness must be engaged. Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise what is the use of seeing.? " and "The most noble task is to build community" by Thich Nhat Han www.cooperative-community.info “Mindfulness must be engaged. Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise what is the use of seeing.? ” and “The most noble task is to build community”
by Thich Nhat Han

http://www.cooperative-community.info

]]>