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
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?
by (53.1k 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.
Can you clarify what you mean by disagree? Do you mean tune them out disagree? Or disagree with the use of terms themselves? or how they are used in that given situation? Or do you have some other idea in mind when you say disagree?

I Ask because I was going to reply but realized I was making assumptions in my reply. My main assumption was the tune-out disagree but that, by my observation, is incongruent with most of your responses here at @101.

There are words I find irritating (comrades) but people I respect use them.

"Ordinary people" is a phrase I detest. I disagree w its use but if I disagreed w everyone who uses it, I would have few people to converse w. Except people here, seemingly.

 I know of few, if any, terms that can't be parsed out to have many meanings and undertones.
you are encouraged to, and have, defined it for yourself. the question is quite broad, for sure.
For "states' rights"

Accept welfare queens as a rule rather than the exception.

  Trickle down is a good economic system

REagan was a good president

Rich people deserve tax breaks

"you just need to..." put down the bottle/get a job/fix it/...

Mostly phrases but I usually don't find that I can tell if I disagree just based on single words. Might not like their choice of words but not something I will turn against until get into specific discussion where precise definition is needed.

"comrade" is annoying but again not so much I would disagree w a person using it.

"ordinary" esp when used about people.

perhaps i didn't understand your initial questions. at any rate, your first examples are opinions. not words. the fact that they're full sentences makes them not a thing about jargon or semantics (see tags). but "ordinary" and "comrade" and "you just need to" fit well within the purview of the question i intended to ask.

maybe it will clarify the question if i bring up the example of our conversation on another question: if you tend to have a positive or neutral response to the words rape culture, and i feel like it's jargon (ie it's short hand for a whole raft of assumptions that i'm not sure i agree with, and may strongly disagree with, depending on the person), then i could add rape culture as a phrase that makes me suspicious of the person saying it (although to be positive, as you say, i would need to hear more than just that phrase). 

I am glad you used rape culture as your example. We clearly are coming at it from different places. Also I do not parse out the meanings of words and phrases to the extent that you do.

I Am trying to get clear in my head about the reluctance here to use that phrase or what Denver332 mentions below--patriarchy etc.

Is Denver332's statement that they are secondary to state oppression why others avoid the terms? Or is it more about the terms being misused and abused. Or is it...?

I Don't think they are 2dary to state oppression. I think they are all part of the same package. Thus all necessary to be addressed.

3 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.
by (370 points)
+2 votes
- 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?
by (13.4k 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 falsely represents 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
0 votes
All of them...
by (0 points)
yes. in particular "obviously" and other such absolutes get my hackles up.