Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

sacrifice a capitalist and pour a vial of his blood in their bath water. the blood of the capitalist will evaporate in the hot water. they'll inhale it and be converted. you can then take their property and redistribute it with their blessing

11

bittertransslut wrote (edited )

I think this is the wrong question. We should instead ask how our ideas can be spread further.

If we shift the emphasis from "everyone must be an anarchist" to "we should spread our ideas to more people and if they chose to join our communities that's a nice plus." So moving the goal from adding members to spreading ideas and allowing those to grow or be disposed of . Perhaps labeling ourselves or our ideas as anarchist or "anarchist inspired". Individuals would be able to disagree or wholly dispose of our ideas if they so wanted to. So long as they wrestle with our ideas rather than not even knowing they exist. This would also lead to normalization of anarchism more broadly.

Also, it neatly sidesteps the colonialist mindset imo.

obv i haven't thought much about this and i could be overlooking many things or misunderstanding the colonialist mindset.

8

celebratedrecluse wrote

Make an anarchist TV show

In all seriousness, a lot of anarchists and our fellow travellers, when faced with the neoliberal hegemony from the 80s onward, went into media because they didn't know what else to do. So nowadays you see, even in very popular media, a lot of sublimated anarchist content, symbology, and dialogue.

Everyone else has already dunked on u real hard for treating anarchism like a religion, which is true-- you shouldn't do that, it's very ironic. but I figured I'd give a different answer, because I think I know what you were getting at with your question even if I disagree with the way you framed it.

8

shanc wrote

I don't think they would've been dunked on so hard if they didn't have a shitty post history, inc. the infamous 'so what do we all think of muslims not v anarchist how they circumcise their kids amirite hey i'm just asking questions totes not islamophobic or anything.' I'm paraphrasing. It was actually worse than that.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

Certainly, it's bizzare to see english-language criticism of muslims circumcising children, without any mention to the other two monotheistic religions which also do this to millions of children in english speaking countries, under protection of the law. Oh, but it's only muslim countries which have theocratic governments, right?

Most english speakers & writers have much more contact with those other two religions, than those people have with islam or muslim people. So the focus on islam is...telling, to the say the least.

It's very frustrating to see islam turned into a punching bag for ethnocentric white people. There is no analysis of the legacy of colonialism, which only really turned into neocolonialism after 1945, and in the case of Israel & Palestine has essentially not stopped at all. The US, for example, support dictators throughout Sunni-ruled territories, who have stoked the most violent tendencies within Islam. US missionaries also stoke anti-queer sentiment worldwide, there is a lot of documentation of this happening in Africa & South America. Where's the discourse of that? Certainly nowhere in the western, white ethnocentric lexicon.

6

LostYonder wrote

Convert??? Yikes! How very liberal of you!

Back in the 70s/80s, in the height of the cold war and the strategic interests of the western imperialist powers to create spheres of influence in the rest of the world (the so-called 'Third World') it was said that if you wanted to convert someone to capitalism, you send them to the Soviet Union for education, if you wanted to make them a communist you send them to the US...

3