Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

what words are indicators that you disagree with the speaker?

+2 votes
related -- what words are (aggravating) jargon for you that others might not recognize as jargon?

related -- what terms can have benign meanings, but usually don't?
asked Feb 6 by dot (57,690 points)
Radical and revolutionary. Those two among others listed below and many others annoy me when people use them and they seem to take on different meanings dependent on who is using them. I cringe when people use them when speaking with me lol.

2 Answers

0 votes
The phrase identity politics, as I so often hear it alongside implications that capitalism and the state are the real pillars of oppression, and the patriarchy, the gender binary, white supremacy, etc. are secondary issues at best, and fighting against such things is less revolutionary than fighting the state.
answered Feb 6 by Denver332 (480 points)
+1 vote
- proles, proletariat, workers, etc

- the people, the masses

- most labels that indicate a strong identity politics

- the word "rape" used as loosely and confusingly as so many so-called feminists seem to these days.

- anarcho-capitalist, "free" market, etc

- fair, just, moral

- rights, privileges

- objectively

- democracy, democratic


it feels like i could go on and on... but maybe i have interpreted the question a bit too broadly?
answered Feb 7 by funkyanarchy (12,210 points)
The aversion to the people or the masses, but workers is a descriptive term for a role/class in society. What's your issue with it?

"workers is a descriptive term for a role/class in society. What's your issue with it?"

class and society (at least mass society, which is the only kind i have any experience with). i'm allergic. class is a group identity, i don't like em. you apparently do, from what i've seen you write. we disagree.

If I had to guess, I'd say egoist aspects of anarchy and what it can do for the individual is more important to you, and the communist side and what it can do for people as a group is more important to me. I'd wager I have more Marxist sensibilities in general. But I don't know you very well.
i do not identify as an egoist (and i have issues with some of what self-proclaimed ones espouse). i do have strong tendencies towards individual sovereignty and autonomy, but not at the exclusion of others that i care about or choose to align with in a given situation. i just don't buy into the static groups (based on identities such as class, race, gender, etc) that have been predetermined to fill a particular role in society, as you put it.

i would agree you have more marxist sensibilities, again just from what i've read here.
I'd like to clarify, I appreciate labels insofar as they are useful social tools, and I don't see how to dismantle patriarchal, gender binary, and classist systems without identifying, not that I think they are particularly accurate. And to be honest, I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as I generally don't apply labels to myself. When people say, for example, "You sleep with women and men, sometimes? So you're bisexual?" My response is usually some variation. "Sure, if you want. Why the fuck not?" Because I couldn't give less of a shit.
it's a hugely broad question (at least as i intended it, maybe someone else will have a better interpretation than i do). and my list would be longer than the one you wrote, F@...

i want to add, D332, that i don't think "workers" is a useful label. almost everyone in a capitalist society works. the associations that you're taking for granted are what i have a problem with (i won't speak for F@, of course). even workers of an extremely specific type (workers on an assembly line in a specific factory, for example), will frequently have mutually exclusive ideas about what would make society better, what would make their lives better, etc. so talking about "workers" hides the disagreements, creates a false unity, and is a way to falsely represent a group of people based on an arbitrary criterion (unless you agree with marx that work is the only criterion that indicates someone's agency in a revolution).
my .02 :)
Hmm, that makes sense. I suppose I use worker as a more accessible term  than proletariat, and less dehumanizing than the masses or the public, to mean someone who doesn't have significant investments or land ownership  outside of, perhaps, their own home and possibly small business. That does assume a lot, and carries more baggage than I've ever considered. Hmm.

I don't really agree with Marx on that point, no. This is a safe and easy opinion, but I think he's excellent at diagnosing problems, hit and miss with solutions and revolutionary strategy
marx covers a huge territory himself, from philosophy to economics to prophecy.

he is fundamental to how most politically-minded people consider topics like social change and social structure (at least in the u.s.), even if they've never heard his name. i look forward to a broader swath of anarchists having a more holistic foundation. :)

edit: the words 'proletariat," "the masses", and "the public", are all problems for the exact same reasons that "workers" are. fwtw.
Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate Marx. I'd recommend his 1844 Manuscripts to anyone interested in politics, (they've probably already heard of the manifesto.) Like anything, it evolves, though, and other thinkers do a better job addressing other oppression constructions in society, (like patriarchal or race based ones,) and I don't buy into several of Marx's conclusions even when I follow the arguments that lead up to them. Some people treat it like gospel. No anarchists I've met, though.
dot: your comment above re: the use of "workers" is spot the fuck on from top to bottom, imo. worth at least 10c.
woo hoo! 8 more cents! :D
...