those slivy black clad anarchists!

  • Posted on: 26 March 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="">Seam & Story</a>

I recently decided to design a few pieces for an anarchist fashion show coming up in Boston in April (it&#8217;s a fundraiser for the Anarchist Black Cross). A perfect opportunity to combine two of my passions (textile craft and anarchism), I went to the metaphorical drawing-board at once! I looked up anarchist symbolism, read about why anarchists wear black and even trolled Etsy for anarchism related products. In the course of this, I turned up some pretty interesting information. </em></p>
<p><em>Over the next few weeks, I&#8217;m going to be blogging a little bit about anarcho symbolism and fashion. Before you get your (black, utility-pocket clad) knickers in a knot, remember that anarchists have long had an interest in wearing their ideals. From the Paris Commune to punk shows, anarchists have chosen specific colors and symbols to represent themselves to the capitalist, statist world around them. </em></p></td><td><img title="I wish we were dapper with suits and shit." src=""></td></tr></t...

<p><strong>OK, let&#8217;s start with that most central of questions: Why do anarchists wear black?!</strong></p>
<p><a href="" onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','']);">Some sources state</a> that anarchists began wearing black to mourn the Paris Commune. I haven&#8217;t been able to find more than a sentence here or there, but I know that the black flag also has roots in the Commune, when Louise Michel flew it in the name of anarchism during a demonstration of the unemployed.</p>
<p><em><a href=" ><img title="main_medics_480" src=" alt="" width="480" height="330" /></a></em></p>
<p>The use of mourning clothing in Continental Europe dates back to the Roman Empire. Most often, the tradition involved wearing unadorned black clothing for a set period of time to mark the passing of a relative or loved one. Mourning clothing in Victorian Europe was far more complicated, bound by a set of social mores and involved accessories like jewelry made of jet and locks of the deceased ones hair. This makes anarcho-goths, with a style influenced in part by Victorian mourning garb, a sort of missing link in the history of anarchist fashion.</p>
<p><span id="more-1145"></span></p>
<p>The idea of anarchists-in-black also being anarchists-in-mourning (for the fallen, the oppressed, for the rise of capitalism and the state) is an incredibly beautiful concept. I think of the black bloc and black-clad medics, who wear the color while engaged in acts of protest against the state. In these cases, to mourn is not to grieve passively, but to turn that grievance in to acts of resistance. I think of labor organizer Mother Jones&#8217; famous quote, &#8220;Pray for the dead, fight like hell for the living.&#8221;</p>
<p>As an embroiderer, my first impulse was to embroider mourning clothing with words and phrases from the history of anarchism. But which ones? I considered lists of the dead, but those don&#8217;t account for the millions of unknown. I considered symbols like black roses. I looked up the last words of executed anarchists, with a specific eye to Boston&#8217;s own Sacco and Vanzetti (since the fundraiser is in Boston). That&#8217;s where I came across this choice phrase, from the wreath that was laid across Sacco and Vanzetti&#8217;s caskets:</p>
<p><em>Aspettando l&#8217;ora della vendetta </em></p>
<p>In English, it reads &#8216;Awaiting the hour of vengeance.&#8217; Perfect, time to get stitching.</p>


so good, so good, we got the BLACK

Oh, this reminds me of the glory days of the Boulevardier... I miss anarchist fashion analysis!

Your article unintentionally illustrates why there is not a real anarchist movement in Boston. The home of Sacco and Vanzetti has become the domain of the privileged youth with fully-paid tuitions. Even in Harvard Square, the self-proclaimed anarchist crusties and travelers and liberal-fundamentalist/extremist can not articulate a philosophically coherent point of view. They just export ooglism to the rest of the nation. Unlike those who claim they lived in Harvard square, I actually did for a full summer.......and that summer was occupied by neo-libs, fake-clubhouses, and those who distrusted people who were outsiders me. I'm sorry I didn't fly signs. I was too busy being homeless and sleeping in dry lib wants to sleep in a wet or dry bed. Go fuck yourselves.
I'm an educated ex-homeless man in Boston and I'm an anarchist. Fuck students and their privilege! There are no anarchists in Boston this century----or at least none willing to act.

Occupy Boston was pathetic, and just because you have a venue named after Lucy parsons doesn't mean that there is a coherent or effective anarchist community that is present or effective in this back-wash, second-rate northeast metropolis.

Hilarious. Yrmex wants coherent anarchist Occupy groups

More black flags in Boston than most sites actually

:( awww. you couldn't get laid in boston.

To be honest with you, I knocked up my Boston gf......that's why I live in Boston now: to help raise my daughter with a quality of parenting that I never had.. Boston claims that it is the "Athens of the New World", however, it is populated by clannish morons with a collective penis-envy towards the NYC metro-area. My problem is that I did get laid in Boston.

This is why I live in Minneapolis. Be careful who you fuck and where, kids!

Why would I be happier in Minneapolis?

You wouldn't; my point is that I ended up here the same way you ended up there.

Call me.

Call me!

we both missed two very separate points

But Minneapolis is better off for having you there. And I like visiting the city so much.


I like kids, that is the reason we are here, fuckhead! Replicate like bacteria! Or die like socialized hominids.


i thought that was a joke, but the more i think about it the more i think the author of this comment was serious.

It's extra funny because of who they were replying to.

i lol'd because it was serious

yeah, thats why i lol'd again afterwards

"My problem is that I did get laid in Boston."

Well, try not to think of your kid as a problem.


Kids are edible.

did you ever consider staying the fuck away from harvard??? as an anarchist and general hater of the rich, when i lived in boston, i avoided it. and i wasn't the only one. yes, boston is terrible, and all the colleges are a part of that. but that only gets worse if you are hanging out at a college... idiot.

You sound like a Marxist tool

I'm pretty sure all of us anarchists wear black, because it makes us look thinner.

funny. you know I only read @news for the jokes.

Read riot joke for that. Way better jokes

Nah, anarchists wear black because it hides the stains....!


-Chris Hedges

Get y'all black tees on
All black everything
Black cards, black cars
All black everything

This is awesome!

Don't forget about the Makhnovists with their special long haircuts, the original grunge scene.

XD oh noooo!!!

hey guys anarchists wear clothes

black flags were the color of strikes

Be sure to post photos when you're done.

Re: the black flag/banner
Red represents blood. The red flag came to mean revoltuion because people would fly it to represent the blood that would be spilled of the ruling class. The black suposedly was a red banner covered in dried blood....

Could you please offer some insight into why so many anarchist chicks don't fucking shave? It's fucking disgusting ... definitely don't want to work a hairy pussy or cuddle w/hairy pits or feel man legs on me.

Also, what's with the stank ass selves? Showers? Soap? ... have you heard of these cool modern inventions?

I think these basic issues need to be resolved before we start discussing clothes ... I mean, shit, what good is the fashion? b/c when you approach a fashionable anarchist chick & notice she stinks like a worthless hippie and has guinea pigs under her arms what's the point?

it's unfortunate that every once and awhile there's actually a misogynist comment on anarchist news, feeding the anti-oppression trolls. thus the cycle of trolling continues. We should try to get more troll owned businesses, that'd probably help.

yeah because having different aesthetic/libidinal preferences than those deemed correct by the anarchist mainstream is misogynist. i think the above comment was made in an obviously trolly manner, but i think it speaks of a real divide between the subcultural standards held as the lifestyle-gospel of a few, and people in general who often can't relate...

im pretty mainstream and i could relate...

Yep ... anarchism isn't sexy or attractive AT ALL.

The reason: stank ass people, w/crappy "fashion," chicks that don't shave, and guys that look like bums.

You're not appealing or worth listening to ... your ideas appear as debased you.

Good luck perennial losers.

how is your threesome with your favorite blowup dolls coming along? Have you fished yet?

how did you know i call your partner a blow up doll?

I don't currently have a partner, so you better get along to your little sex toy and just go at it like wild.

Oh I beg to differ.... all those smelly, hairy punk boys/girls drive me nuts. ;) Though that might be because I'm a hairy, smelly kid myself. Have you ever heard of pheromones, lad?

One point might be that it immediately repels people like you.

That's fine ... you're all fugly anyway. I'll stick w/my hot girlfriend and our threesomes. It's far more liberating than any uptight bullshit nonsense you anarchist chicks incessantly cluck about.

yeah yeah, I'm very sure you have "threesomes" with your "hot girlfriend". you are probably some 45 year old creep who is alone in his room and having a threesome with two blowup dolls, one of which is your "hot girlfriend" that you brag to people on the internet about.

Ageist. Creeps come in all ages, like punk shows.

I didn't claim otherwise.

"45 year old creep who is alone in his room and having a threesome with two blowup dolls"

Not only is that ageist, it's capitalist as fuck. Seriously? Anyone ever wonder why people anarchists are douches?

"har har, i bet you are so ugly that you have to have sex with objects!"

can you imagine if people went around making fun of women who used dildos or vibrators?

"can you imagine if people went around making fun of women who used dildos or vibrators?"

Except that most folks know that dildos and vibrators are used by women because most men who are interested in women can't be bothered to learn how to satisfy them sexually. Women who use these toys are liberating and retaking their sexuality from a patriarchal social order that seeks to control them.

Men who use blow up dolls and other toys do so because they can't attract (m)any sexual partners. Obvious patriarchs are obvious.

"Except that most folks know that dildos and vibrators are used by women because most men who are interested in women can't be bothered to learn how to satisfy them sexually."

Not only is that a myth, but it's a sexist myth. It's not any man's responsibility to pleasure a woman anymore than it's a woman's responsibility to pleasure a man.

"Women who use these toys are liberating and retaking their sexuality from a patriarchal social order that seeks to control them. "

Yes, because buying things to please yourself is cool or something and only liberating if you are woman.

"Men who use blow up dolls and other toys do so because they can't attract (m)any sexual partners."

Right, people who aren't popular are patriarchs.

Please tell me you're joking.

That's not true object-oriented erotic ontology. Only making fuck to bananas is TRUE object-oriented erotic ontology!

one can argue that it is ageist, but i fail how to see how it is "capitalist as fuck"?

Because anarchist women dress for themselves, not for your pleasure. Go fuck yourself, because I highly doubt anyone else will.


You mean, they try to meat a particular look or trend that they deem righteous and thus will be considered cute, pretty and sexy or as you note: "Go fuck yourself, because I highly doubt anyone else will." Which means it gets you fucking laid with the right people.

If dude up above wants to get laid, he should meet your aesthetic expectations or suffer a life alone. Totally, harsh.

Damn. That explains why so many anarchist women date frat boys and rich trust fundies. They're already on the same wave-length, anyway.

"If dude up above wants to get laid, he should meet your aesthetic expectations or suffer a life alone. Totally, harsh."

Really? isn't that what dude above was doing? so its totally harsh for a women to say it, but not some dude?

Actually, I think I just pointed out that you and the "some dude" are of the same ilk. Get off your high horse of specialized exotic beauty.

If meeting certain criteria is dressing for themselves, then so is meeting some dudes criteria.

Don't forget, you asked why a lady would ever dress in a way YOU personally felt was unattractive.

Nono. It's more than that. And it wasn't me, I just hopped on because I find anarchists are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to looks/sex.

He was pointing out that it wasn't normal. The response was generalizing putting all anarchist women in this hirsute fashion and calling it "dressing for themselves."

Nah, he did more than that, he said it was gross and that he would never sleep with such a woman that did those things... so it was said "anarchist women dress for themselves" which had nothing to do with the content of the fashion, or whether shaved women are not dressing for themselves, or whatever other little spin off points were mentioned in this thread.

"anarchist women dress for themselves"

Right, which is a fucked up thing to say.

whats fucked up about Women dressing for themselves?

Nothing. That's not what was said. There's a modifier missing.

okay, from someone who just joined this side-split of the thread, what's fucked up about "anarchist women dressing for themselves" then?

Coming from the premise of hirsute (which is a fetishization of a exotic body form as it is no longer the norm), anarchist women (supposedly the ones who participate in this exotic fetish) dress for themselves (meaning they are "free" individuals). On one hand, it lends credibility to the idea of what the correct or best example of feminine is, playing into the hands of patriarchy and gender binaries. On the other, it plays into the hand what a free woman is. Because the the use of "anarchist" describing the type of woman who would dress for themselves, it functions as a binary against those women who are: 1. not anarchist, 2. who are not hirsute, and thus, do not dress "for themselves." Two dirty hands. It creates a hierarchy against those who might agree or appeal to the original comment noting the difference between what is often seen as anarchist "groupthink" its aesthetic dominant values. Because sexual capital is something that is arranged per specific subculture/culture, the Othered would be those who are "normal" in mainstream society: that is, they shave, shower, and are relatively anonymous to everyone one else. Less tied to radical identity, they are Othered, because they stick out in "anarchist societies." Ultimately, not only does the Other not have as much access to shared sexual gratification, but because they are not as sexy as the exotic hirsute, they are not treated with the same respect as the radical women that serve as fairy/pixie/free women of alt culture. Or in simpler terms, it's wrong because you're still a hipster who thinks they are better than the rest of the world. It's even more evil because you base it on looks and eroticism. Hirsute pride is of the same logic of fat phobia, or she was basically being as obnoxious as he was, just in a way that is more PC with anarchists. Looksism is looksism. There's no anarcho-looksism anymore than there anarcho-capitalism.

I agree with all that, but I would have said it with out the moralistic judgements of "its wrong" and "its evil".

i think you have something seriously confuzzled here. when i say "anarchist women dressing for themselves" im acknowledging not a requirement of shaving, just that they should be able to not shave to meet some erotic standard for some bullshit misogynist system.

and dont dare compare me to a fucking anarcho-cap

I'm not confuzzled, if you wanted to address that, you would have, but you didn't you played into something, a very common something else. To be honest, anarchists aren't that different than regular people. Anarchists don't typically blindly sleep with people based sexual gratification over attractiveness. It's just a very taboo topic. People are more willing to talk about consent (exchange of sexual capital and contracts) rather than just how fucked up sexual capitalism is.

For Satan's sake, you're taking that muthafuckin sentence out of context completely.

What was originally said:

"Why do anarchist women not shave? I don't find that sexy!"

Note he specifically mentions anarchist women.


"Anarchist women dress for themselves."

Which means that an anarchist woman probably doesn't give two shits about conforming to dominant culture gender norms because she doesn't shave.

Does that mean non-anarchist women don't dress for themselves? Fuck no. Nothing was said about non-anarchist women. He asked for a reason why anarchists don't shave and a reason was given. However you twist that in your head is up to you I guess.

Otherwise, a person (whether they be anarchist or not) could not explain their positive motives for anything because they'd be disparaging those not like them by your logic. Come now. There's no need to be ridiculous.

To further clarify, you have to look at the original statement more closely.

"Why do anarchist women not shave? I don't find that sexy!"

Has a rather nasty undercurrent -

"Why would a women ever dress in a way I, a man, wouldn't find attractive?"

By giving that speech you ignored the latter part of the quote...

"not for your pleasure."

Judging by your comments, you obviously are intelligent enough to read minds... including my own! Thank you very much sir for telling me why I dress the way I do, for as a woman I'm too stupid to know otherwise. (by your logic). Let the record know that I'm asexual.

Aesthetic expectations? No. I'm just saying that you catch more bees with honey, sweetie. If I did have sex, I wouldn't fuck a misogynist prick like you and if other ladies have any ouch of sense they'd agree.

I've been learning. What I've learned:

1. Ugly men are patriarchs.
2. Sex toys for men=patriarchy; for women=anarchy and liberation
3. Old people are ugly (see 1 and 2)
4. The only people who dress for themselves are anarchist women, (everyone else is not cool enough to do so)

#4 That's NOT what I said. that's your spin on what I said. Learn the difference.

It is what you said. Your words played on a binary. You didn't say: "it's not an anarchist phenomenon." You didn't say, "not all anarchist women dress the same, just a bunch." You didn't say anything except some weird, moralistic, hierarchical statement about how "anarchist women dress for themselves."

Nobody dresses for themselves. The cloth is the material manifestation of the guilt/debt we feel because our glory that is owed to god is shamefully contained by flesh. We attempt conceal this fact with langauge & the cloth is an extension of this falseness that is our essence.

Only the proletariat will abolish all our properties & reveal that we are beings with out organs, only light.

There you go, that's your perspective but that's a very odd way of interpreting that sentence. You could say it assumes hierarchy but then again ANYTHING can mean ANYTHING if you put it in your odd context.

So... let's break down the quotes again.

"Why do anarchist women not shave? I don't find that sexy."
-"Why do anarchist dress in a way I don't find sexy? (women should always be sexually appealing to mainstream)"

"Anarchist women dress for themselves, not for your pleasure."
"They don't dress in a way you find sexually appealing because they don't care what you think."

I think you're reading my comment in your head with an emphasis on "anarchist" and "they", which would imply only anarchists dress for themselves, but I'm not reading it with that emphasis at all. I used anarchist to directly address the group mentioned in the first comment....

x does

This article in combination with the accompanying commentary is perhaps,the whitest thing i have ever read. Thank you and keep up the good work!

I'm pretty sure both the article and the comments were printed in black letters. But who knows... maybe I'm just colorblind.

Don't worry. That wasn't a racist comment or anything.

Don't all of our clothes come from Muthafuckin Crass anyway?

mine doesn't.

apparently not even if u are wearing Crass shirts, and thats why their singer is pissed about them not making enough money. cant just be happy that people are still listening to their shit.

Of course not. Anarchist music is all about the dollar, baby.

not all of it, but it's sad to see anarcho-punk be tainted by Crass, Against Me!, Chumbawumba, ect. with anarcho-punk being about defashionizing punk, but still producing willing dollar slaves such as the above-mentioned.

anarcho-punk has always been tainted by the bands that are under that label. While looking for some post-punk bands that I've never heard before, I came across a UK post-punk/goth rock band called exit-stance, well they were forced to change their name by the anarcho-punk band exit-stance who threatened to sue them if they didn't change their name.

I've already added the phrases "te amo" and "capitalismo es egoiso" to the bricks.

I think that the bigger question here is: what does 'slivy' mean?

A long black chiffon scarf that wraps around my body would really turn me on, especially if flecked with capitalist blood :)

...and then there were (are?) the anarchist nudists who put out a fair amount of literature a while back.


"men using sex toys because they can't find partners" - WHAT? Or they're a bit kinky... or maybe they're not using the sex toys MEN are supposed to use. Or maybe they have a relationship with themselves that needs a bit more excitement in the masturbatory bedroom (which is why I read @news).

"women with * dress for themselves" - why? I quite literally only get dressed 'for others'.

"armpit hair = bad" - I don't know the history of armpit shaving but I can feel a bit confident saying it isn't the dominant trend in human history

"sexual aesthetic tastes" - this is where individualism is just flat out fucking bullshit. not even worth an elaborate explanation.

"to repel people like you" - total win.

It's about equality shaving is painful, takes up hours of our time (legs are long) and we don't enjoy it. I'm not going to do something I don't enjoy because some dude who doesn't shave at all sits there and criticizes me. As for getting laid, it's easy that's why there are 7 billion people on the planet there is someone for everyone. Let's face it of you have such a problem with it don't get with that person. Idiots, idiots everywhere

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.