Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

theblackcat wrote

We should concentrate on ideas rather than labels. For instance, 'mutual aid' and 'direct democracy' say a lot more about what we stand for than 'anarchism', which to most provokes fear of dissaray.

2

mockingjanthony OP wrote

i think we can do both. labels are important because historical-strategic-analysis and "tradition" for lack of a better word, are what inform our mutual aid and direct democracy. without analysis mutual aid and direct democracy can just as well be part of a reactionary movement as a progressive, liberal or revolutionary one. fascists do mutual aid too, and im sure some of them practice direct democracy sometimes. corporate board rooms do as well. without analysis defining what mutual aid and direct democracy in a broader revolutionary movement building, and historical context, its meaningless and can even be counter productive. there is a time and place for expressing and defending ideology, in the course of doing more practical work, every day when issues around how that work will be done, and who needs to be engaged in doing it, etc, ideology is always present, whether or not we engage it directly. for integrity i think its good to be up front about what we stand for and why. folks who judge us prematurely show their own weak solidarity, they are not the folks we should be working with anyway, they are likely themselves closet ideocentrics who were seeking to oppertunistically exploit our work anyway.

0