i'll try to make this perfectly clear. (avantguardian) wrote,
i'll try to make this perfectly clear.

community, not labels

so i went to this meeting today for "anarchists" who are burned out by the connotation of that word. I went to the meeting because i am burned out by having my ideals sloshed into a label, therefore making them static and obsolete. there were many great ideas discussed, and plans for a really really free market - where booths or anything are set up in a public place for the sole purpose of giving things away. so based on this, i feel that is a great expression of one part of anarchy (the idea) in that it demonstrates a money free "economy" where the needs of a community and the waste of the community come together in a harmonious way. and i think this is great. but the problem i have is when it is defined as "anarchist" which is definite and therefore exclusive, marketable, labeled, discredited, manipulated by the media based on the perceived reality of the definition.
if the goal is to unify rather than to divide, i believe that words should follow actions. better yet, let the actions speak for themselves. without labels.

for now, sayonara
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic