Add new comment

historical anarchist struggles, but there is some seriously bogus stuff here:

"From my point of view there are only two anarchisms: the contemplative and the combative."

Wrong! How could anyone so eagerly frame everything that anarchists do into two categories?

"The disputes, if they don’t fester and become stagnant, are positive. The theoretical debate is healthy; what is unhealthy is when the debate replaces militancy. Some anarchists confine their militancy only to anarchist spaces. Whether to protect its essence or bring it up to date, the dispute is still framed wrongly, as it was in the 19th century."

Here is another attempt to put a lot of things into binaries. Anarchists, at least in my opinion, have reason to question sacred "militancy", like all things in life, there is a place for it...but is this all really just a matter of when to think and when to fight? If there is a right way to frame things, i would suggest trying to draw up that framework. Could be fun.

It sounds like the person who wrote this is just begging for a little sexy militancy...