Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

_caspar_ wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in What is Anarchy? by zoom_zip

that claim seems like an unfair assumption to me.

I mean, most anarchists Ive read with thoughtful insights on anarchy seemed fine with the anarchism to describe their practice and anarchist to describe themselves as practitioners (and Im not talking about exclusively collectivist, socialist, or workerist anarchists I find over-appreciated and not all that interesting). I have no reason to assume they were doing so out of some intellectual or academic elitism, or especially seeking validation from authorities.

not that there arent alot of folks out there doing such a thing, and I can sympathize with the goal of creating a more present overview of anarchist practice that sheds alot of 19th-20th century baggage, but it just seems like an odd stance to take given the term is so widely acknowledged, throughout this site as well.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

anarchy is anarchy

anarchism is anarchy with ism tacked on to look more serious

making a distinction in any way would only feed into the pretentiousness of people who try to claim they're two different things and anarchy is bad but anarchism is good

even explaining why the word anarchy is preferable over the word anarchism in the faq would enable their bullshit

the only reason f/anarchism wasn't named f/anarchy was for S E O reasons

both words ought to be used interchangeably with no distinction but the word anarchy is more appropriate because isms are so tied to ideology and governmental systems

2

_caspar_ wrote

"anarchism is anarchy with ism tacked on to look more serious"

I disagree, or at least I think its an unnecessary layer tacked on. again, not that there arent folks out there wanting the -ism to do what you say, but I could care less what they want.

"making a distinction in any way would only feed into the pretentiousness of people who try to claim they're two different things and anarchy is bad but anarchism is good....even explaining why the word anarchy is preferable over the word anarchism in the faq would enable their bullshit"

if an either/or (anarchy bad, anarchism good) approach is the wrong one (I agree), then why double down on the either/or in reverse (anarchy good, anarchism bad), and not instead go for a both/and approach?

"both words ought to be used interchangeably with no distinction"

if this is what you actually believe, then why not do so? it seems like your understanding is being shaped entirely around what you are against over what you are for.

this all might come across as a useless linguistic exercise, but since it seems to have real implications for you, I think using -ism and -ist is fine and even helpful. plus its helping me think through other things as well.... so fuck it, here it goes:

-ism is a suffix in english used to describe a practice or process, -ist the practitioner. so in that case they are just descriptors. we could say anarchic practice or anarchic lifeways instead, but anarchism is shorter and fills that role. we could also say those living anarchically or practitioners of anarchy, but like the previous example, it gets clunky and tiresome after awhile, so anarchists serve that purpose.

anarchy informs practice (anarchism). in doing so, those practicing (anarchists) then inform anarchy. I kinda like this because it shows that anarchist practice is not caught in a linear progression, but a generative and evolving feedback loop. I think this is important to keep in mind with so many calls for anarchy/ism to be rooted in either past or future orientations.

2

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

but really if all youre getting at is the problem with capital A Anarchism™ and how to avoid it, then sure, its annoying but I dont think its avoidable in this world. but in spite of it, I think theres still room for local context-based practices (anarchisms) outside of Anarchism™.

2