Some Anarchists Want to be Losers

It is interesting how Thad Russell’s latest anarchist educational project is being attacked in this thread. Instead of being happy that a somewhat influential thinker with a large audience is trying to educate others about anarchist thought and history……these folks are about nothing but negativity. I have for many years noticed that many anarchists WANT to be losers. They want their “movement” to be permanently marginalized and powerless because they think that makes it edgier or increases its outsider status. They attack anarchist organizational activities that demonstrate any level of quality, aesthetic character, or palatability to anyone outside their subculture of antisocial personalities.

Much of the “art,” social media, online presence, and other creative efforts of anarchists are often shabby, poorly done, and frequently hideous. The implicit message is that mediocrity, incompetence, and ugliness ought to be praised. That’s fine if you’re interested in having nothing but a subculture of losers but if you want to win the war against states, ruling classes, and empires it’s not exactly a good plan. The negative reaction of so many anarchists to the comparative success of HBO’s “The Anarchists” or Michael Malice’s anarchist anthology (which includes many classical anarchists) many anarchists have responded with nitpicking about every imperfection.  Instead of being happy that anarchist ideas are finding their way into the mainstream, many anarchists instead want to desperately cling to their loser status.

Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State

1 reply »

  1. If it wasn’t anarchism it would be some other ideology or fringe interest.

    If I were in some sort of anarchist movement I would say “no one with piercings, weird hair, or drug problems.”

    But then you wouldn’t have anyone at the anarchist bookstore. Abstract ideology is a white thing and organizing along ideological lines is exactly the same thing as religious fanaticism.

    Instead of an Anarchist Movement, why not something like Stirner might endorse, “me and my family first” without any ideological abstractions to distract from the direct interest of your own ego?

    Then you would no longer be an ideologue, but instead Right.

Leave a Reply