4

the primary importance of propaganda to consistently distinguish the revolutionary left from the center right liberals

Submitted by mockingjanthony in Media (edited )

we need our own language and symbolism, and we need to respond to appropriation either by bashing it back, reclaiming/expropriating what the liberals seek to exploit and/or co-opt from our movements, or by changing and abandoning that which is lost to us.

are the words, radical, anarchist, revolutionary, socialist, even meaningful anymore? i think they are, but i think we also need to save them from revisionist oppertunism, the mainstream trying to rebrand itself as its foundation crumbles in hopes we build it a new one.

what words, what symbols can we use. what kind of language. what tone. what framework, what lense should we be showing the world that communicates anarchist principles, inspires anarchist action, and sympathy and support for anarchist courageous acts of direct action?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

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.

1

mockingjanthony 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.