Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


–2 votes
Please don't turn this into a semantics debate. Just answer the question.
by (310 points)
Could you narrow your question? "Thoughts on" is far too broad for me to respond.
they are both "nationalist" movements, in the sense described by fredy perlman in "the continuing appeal of nationalism". and maybe even in the way intended by trump's alt-right advisor when he said "i am not a white nationalist, i am an economic nationalist".

fuck nationalism in every form it could possibly take. except funky nationalism, of course.
haha when I looked at this question, i swore someone asked about it, but i completely forgot I was the one that asked.

1 Answer

–4 votes
They're both more left leaning anarchistic movements than their predecessors, but that's just the economic swing of the pendulum causing politics to inspire strange bedfellows. My enemy's enemy is my best friend and people will adopt whatever rationalization is required to make it happen. Until they embrace the economic factors driving the need for their existence we'll just see more of the same in the future as they change ideology to suit their needs at the time.

For example, blacks are notoriously conservative about sex and often more homophobic than other groups, yet BLM has embraced them all. You work with whatever you have to work with and these movements are not so much about promoting social change as they are about making political statements and attempting to get anyone interested involved. Executing cops in broad daylight is something others might do on their own, but not exactly what you might call a political movement so much as a revolutionary one.

For feminists to turn that radical they would require some sort of actual chance of gaining some concessions which is a stretch to say the least at this point. Blacks have already begun to riot and execute cops and that trend doesn't look likely to stop and having a peaceful protest organization like BLM means they have somewhere to connect with one another. As happened with Occupy Wall Street I expect the FBI is already attempting to infiltrate them, while the feminists they couldn't care less about.

Same old same old with the people with more guns telling everyone what their money and labor is worth, while others fight back hoping to win a few meager concessions. The difference this time is that the Pentagon has been working on nonlethal weapons and robotics, congress has already given them the legal authority to round people up like cattle, our constitutional rights have been indefinitely suspended, and the billionaire mayor of NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day with only a slap on the wrist.

You may as well spit in the wind as attempt any peaceful movement that doesn't have overwhelming support. Hence, the reason people are rioting and executing cops instead.
From personal experience, I don't consider blacks to be more conservative about sex...It just depends on the person, not the bio-political characteristic.
Its not a question of personal experience, but of surveys and empirical evidence. In general, the poor and working class tend to be conservative about such things and that includes most blacks. I suggest visiting a Southern Baptist church or the Holy Rollers if you want to find out their opinions on such things.
so wuli....when you talk to a black person who doesn't have conservative values (meaning?) about sex, you say, "but the survey says"?.

i mean, come on...of course personal experience matters, the particular person matters (at least to me). the way you talk about people in terms of identities and generalities sounds very much like a hierarchical organization.
Unless you like talking to yourself its helpful to actually share the same language with someone else. For that to happen you must first agree upon words actually mean and when I say statistics I mean statistics and not your personal experience. When talking about large groups of people, roughly three hundred or more according to sociologists, abstractions like statistics are unavoidable and bringing up personal experience in the context of statistics can quickly become counterproductive.

No different really than bringing up statistics when someone is attempting to discuss something extremely personal.
statistics from where? hierarchical organizations? religious orgs? state organizations? businesses? you know, all the statistics coming from the places most anarchists detest?

and you didn't quote any stats, anyway. you said to walk into a baptist church in the south...what statistic did that come from? what if you had said to visit an NBA locker room, or a suburban neighborhood in los angeles?

and fwiw, i never bring up statistics when talking about something personal...i prefer to keep a personal situation, personal.
If you want personal confirmation of what I'm saying and don't trust statistics, I suggest checking out a predominantly black church anywhere in the US. If you don't trust statistics, then I'm afraid you are out of luck because even the language we are using is based upon the most popularly used definitions of words. Without people actually being able to organize in large groups, including sharing the same definitions for words, the internet itself would be impossible and you have to ask why are you using it?
why did you bring church into it?

i could suggest to you to talk to people i know, or many places or gatherings other than church.

and for someone who keeps referring to "statistics" as "the truth", i haven't seen you provide any. what survey says "blacks are notoriously conservative about sex"?

I've never heard the claim that blacks are sex conservatives and more homophobic than everyone else. That's more of an individual basis type of thing rather than this generalization you decided for a group of people. I don't understand how those claims are remotely relevant to the question? Seriously, wtf? I just read the comments and your proof of this is telling baa and nihilist to go to church lol.  

"For feminists to turn that radical they would require some sort of actual chance of gaining some concessions."

That doesn't make any sense to me. If I understand you correctly, to turn "radical," so and so needs to gain some sort of concession from someone or something. So, having a desire to change something at the root requires concessions from someone or something before they can truly be "that radical?" I was under the impression that radical simply meant having a desire to change something at the root. Wait, I think that's semantics and anarchodarwinist isn't going to be very happy with me. :( 

Third wave feminism encompasses many different ideas and it would be misleading, imo, to portray these variety of ideas as "anarchistic movements." 

Here is another thought on the subject, since I don't just dismiss this answer as being "just stupid":

The sex conservativism, homophobia, and christian ethics that some black people practice aren't an inherent part of "being black" (or african culture, if you will) they were things they picked up from white christianity. This is not to say that all african cultures were free-love free-thinking hippies, but the fact that christianity is a thing of european white cultures means it would be wise not to attribute any particular attribute of any group of people and say "well this group of people does ____." I would also so say that the sex conservatism of christian black people has almost nothing to do with the question being asked.
w: "Its not a question of personal experience, but of surveys and empirical evidence"

lol! yeah, discount personal experience, because that has nothing whatsoever to do with life. surveys are the answer!

just fyi, here is the first definition of "empirical" from merriam-webster:

"originating in or based on observation or experience"