One of the many stereotypes about anarchists is that they are a bunch of dirty, stinky neo-hippies who promote unpopular and unappealing things like poorly crafted "zines", weird diets like raw food, and amateurish folky music. For as superficial as such stereotypes can be, they circulate because they simplify something about anarchists that is deeply at odds with dominant cultural values. The hangups that this stereotype are based on come from consumer society's admiration of bourgeois norms and tastes. We are made to feel that everyone should be seeking refinement in all things: their homes, their clothes, their food, their modes of transportation. The more that everyone chases after such refinements, the more elevated are those with the wealth to acquire them. So, when anarchists do things that challenge this, the defenders of all things good and normal are quick to point it out and reinforce the equation. For these normies, this is all just doing one's part to protect the bounds of the civilized world from corruption and decadence.

While anarchists have often rejected the above norms and defended the raw, crude, base, mean, or otherwise unrefined, the stereotype is nevertheless a generalization. There are many anarchists who do not respond to such norms around refinement by affirming the goodness of their opposite. Some anarchists have even considered these bourgeois tastes to be a fake form of refinement. Instead of looking for refinement in products from luxury brands, these anarchists tell us that true refinement comes from developing ones own abilities and they promote forms of education that would be conducive to such goals.

For this TOTW, lets consider the different ways that anarchists interpret "refinement" and respond to it. What do you think about the stereotypes? What do you think about the social norms? What do you think about the concept of refinement itself?

Comments

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 09:17

no, let us continue to do things half-assed, or a least the bare essential to get by. that seems to be an anarchist principle. why do things better? why enjoy life?
because a bunch of superficial snots thinks that is middle class?
fuck that. life is to enjoy.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 12:52

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yes, but as a description of a certain situation, " the bourgeoisie" is particularly dated and not very useful, except, again, for commies.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 14:15

In reply to by anon (not verified)

what is to elaborate on? it is a dead concept only revived by tiring marxists. at least yuppie and middle-class, as limited as they are, are more understandable to the modern context. words like bourgeoisie, lumpen, ruling-class are useless for the most part, they oversimplify a complex set of relationships. don't get me wrong, economics is a huge factor, but not one to define ourselves or others by. it is an old game.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 17:29

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The affluent, socio-economically privileged middle-class people in urban (or looked-after rural suburban towns nowadays), a.k.a. the more archaic term "gentry", are very much alive and well today. People with medical and dental plans all covered and access to family doctors; owning at least one house and two cars; sending their kids to posh schools; paying their taxes, being good citizens voting for a liberal reformist party; living in tight milieus of fancy, more or less bohemian consumerism and appeal; antique shop addicts; daring to always smile like lobotomized sociopaths and talk super loud and clear like all the contradictions of society were overcome 200 years ago or something and all is well...

Yes, those. They are still a bourgeoisie or at best petty bourgeoisie according to the classical notion.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 22:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

One of the things Marx fucked up hard is thinking that the petty bourgeoisie would proletarianize. Didn't really work, and now we also have corporate bureaucrats too.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 06:56

In reply to by anon (not verified)

A lotta them keep trying to proletarianize. That's when they take the tiny pieces of capital away from the lower proles for upward social mobility. Example: when petty bourgies get into housing coops, or cheap apartments in gnarly lumpen neighborhood. So many cases! They love bureaucratic jobs too, which could be seen as a sign of them being hostiles.

That's why I'm convinced you can't be having real anarchy without a level of horizontal hostility and even insurgency. The proletariat is *not* a united whole and even less a revolutionary subject (lol). Ancoms get fucking real.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 11:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

My personal understanding of class is non-essentialist, I can hate a person regardless of their class background unlike vulgar Marxists and Randians. I still like class analysis but my views are similar to Victor Surge or George Palante, I get extremely irritated with normies. Can't help it, people annoy me sometimes. It really makes me wonder if it's worth liberating these assholes at all. Yeah, I get it, spooks/false consciousness/bourgeois hegemony/the Spectacle but URGHHHHHHH!! Fucken wagecucks, man. They can be such close-minded jerks, I can't deal with them anymore. I'm starting to understand Narodniks.

I'm not an ancom though, I'm a postie.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 08:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

wow, you mix a lot in there with a lot of the typical politicized assumptions about most of them, so yes, you are the perfect person to use antiquated terms like bourgeoisie.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 22:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I mean, just because there are CEOs doesn't mean that the other classes suddenly became meaningless. I mean, who employs the CEOs exactly? Who serves them? And many different people mean different things under "middle class." It can be wealth or it can be a fancy way to describe the petit bourgeoisie. I don't like using terms like that.

In conclusion, Victoria 3 has the best class system, change my mind.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 10:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Bourgeoisie are capitalists, the owners of capital, the ruling class of the present social order (even in the few countries where they present themselves as bureaucrats of a “people’s” state). If you think that is an outdated or useless concept you must not think it’s useful to understand capitalism or the criticism against it.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 10:22

In reply to by anon (not verified)

no. i do not that specific term is needed to understand or critique capitalism. i can use lots of words, i do not need to fall back on antiquated ones that typically hint at one's marxist analysis. sorry bub.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 11:31

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The concept ain't outdated; this definition is. We ain't in the 19th century two-class system, and not even the 3-class system of the later 20th century. The working class have become capitalists and the ruling class is managerial bureaucracies that you can find all over the place, while usually *not* being the billionaires. The exploitation and oppression has gone way horizontal, and that's the biggest reason why "the proles" no longer works as a revolutionary subject.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 12:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I can understand the 3-class system but what in the quickity-quack am I reading? Oppression is more horizontal? What? The proles are capitalists now? How? The proles were more revolutionary before? Really? First we had consumerism. Then we had neoliberalism. Then we had freelancing. It's all just more aggressive attempts to atomize the workers, it's nothing new. If consumerism doesn't work then union busting will. If union busting doesn't work then moving factories to China will do. If it can't be done then hire some immigrants. If the immigrants start complaining just hire contract workers. Easy-peasy. It's a win-win situation.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 19:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I can think of a dozen people off the top of my head who're proles yet regularly and by-design are taking part in the oppression of others. Some are low-level managers, others are social and nonprofit workers (the types that, btw, have scored the highest at the Milgram experiments), others are daycare workers. And that's not taking account all the cops, municipal blue collars, medical workers, prison staff, who're part of the proletariat no matter how you hate that fact. Like today I seen a couple of blue collars removing a political poster off public infrastructure because "the laaaaauuu". Yes, these are proles, and yes, they are working against the interests and well-being of other proles.

But then there's fractional finance capital and ETFs... like our infamous cryptocurrencies and the real estate scams, and more easygoing stock market trading, made more accessible by the internet and apps. You thought the proles aren't into investing? Where the fuck have you been!? 19th century LARPing in Chicago or something?

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 20:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Forgot to specify that the poster these stupid municipal swine scratched off was a legit, despite citizenist, invitation for people to pressure a bunch of city councillors against a new anti-bike policy. Which brought another level of horizontal oppression: motor vehicle proles vs the rest. Society keeps developping myriads of ways to bring proles one against the other.

anon (not verified) Thu, 10/24/2024 - 01:31

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I mean that's why anarchism focuses on hierarchies more. A class hierarchy is just one of the possible hierarchies, in reality the structure of our society is Confucian: bougies abuse managers who then abuse proles who then abuse other proles who then abuse lumpens and their family members. It's all just a domino of abuse. Guess why Marx hated the lumpens so much. 'Cause they're even more at the bottom of the food chain then the workers are. It's not a binary oppression, it's a fractal.

anon (not verified) Thu, 10/24/2024 - 08:25

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Funny how we've seen, right here on this site, the *exact* same class condescending coming from upper middle-class marxoids toward the filthy lumpens, lately. They want their mass-managerial agenda to work? Well have fun doing it on your own... "we" the poors aren't your ideological slaves. Or help us make our lives less miserable, then maybe maybe. Or else feck off, puritanarchists.

Nothing comes for free in this society, except those delicious dumpster poutines.

anon (not verified) Thu, 10/24/2024 - 09:29

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Marxoids just cope by blaming lumpens and petty bougies for all the reactionarism, even though proles can be the most reactionary motherfuckers out there. Everyone has a petty bouj consciousness nowadays and only we on this site are conscious egoists, transcending the ideological prism of the current capitalist system... Well, I hope. I hope people here are indeed not stupid.

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 10/26/2024 - 16:07

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Never a time period where there were only two classes."

Good thing Marx never said that there were only two classes under capitalism or any other society.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 10:19

I like my anarchy like I like my mammary gland based chicken wing restaurant chains "Delightfully Tacky, Yet Unrefined."

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 10:28

I don't remember that stereotype. Last time I listened to rightoids and Bookchinites the actual stereotype was a latte-drinkin', vegetable-eatin', hair-dyin', social media-browsin', greenwashin', seminar-visitin', virtue-signalin', guilt-trippin', Democrat-votin', university-educated libcuck.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 11:38

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i mean, that is relevant too, right?

conflicting stereotypes means that someone always has a way to demonize [blank] (in this case anarchists).

how much are we taking seriously those who talk shit about us, and how much do we benefit from (ESPECIALLY incorrect) stereotypes?

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 11:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

It IS relevant, but the "anarcho-punk" stereotype is an outdated (but cool) stereotype. Now we're stuck with whatever the fuck the Starbucks anarchists are. Just a bunch of lame urban pseudo-intellectuals. The perception of anarchists has changed with time.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 12:11

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Bro, it sounds to me like you live in a fucking fantasy-land with your distorted perception of what and who you think anarchists are. Perhaps quit worrying to much about what the "hipster" "yuppie" "Starbucks" "urban" (beep, just say "black," brah) "pseudo-intellectual" "prole" "kids" are doing and find something that brings YOU joy and anarchy. Things change. Being radical is to not be stuck in the past.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 13:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

How about y'all fucks stop gatekeeping where the kids get their coffee, fashion accessories, and hold their anarchy conversations? Mkay?

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 16:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"starbucks anarchist" is funny in a snarky way but it does kind of seem like anon was using that phrase as if there's supposed to be a useful critique there? same old lazy bullshit as "trust fund anarchist", you all know you didn't see the bank records of those kids, you just thought they were annoying lol

if everyone's been getting squeezed out of the middle classes for the last 3+ decades, then at least 2 generations of new anarchist kids would likely be made up of those downwardly mobile types. the precariart tend to disguise themselves with fake affluence because they're under a lot of pressure to do so

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 13:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

who is stuck with what?

there are plenty of anarchists who are not what your'e complaining about, so maybe you're not hanging out in the circles you want to be? or maybe you're just into complaining online?

my friends an cohorts are mostly anarchists, and none of them are what you're talking about. so, like, why are you believing/promoting this stereotype that you don't like? maybe you need to get out more?

and why is complaining the most interesting thing to do with this prompt? weird.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 21:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

The point is that this is a modern stereotype used by conservatives. What I wanted to say is that the old stereotype pretty much got replaced by this, I'm not really seeing anyone (in America) think of anarchists as what the article described.

I don't really care about stereotypes, those are spooks anyway.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 07:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

assuming you're the anon who wrote this "Now we're stuck with whatever the fuck the Starbucks anarchists are. Just a bunch of lame urban pseudo-intellectuals. "...

that's not complaining about a stereotype, that's complaining about what a certain kind of anarchist supposedly *is* (and so agreeing to the stereotype, whether you care about stereotypes or not).

but we have overstayed the relevance of this tangent.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 14:35

we do not need to "chase after refinements". using our own metrics and aesthetics we can refine our skills, our immediate environments, our relationships, our ways of being over and over endlessly as we create our lives.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 16:07

"With his new-found wealth, Bonnot's friends began to refer to him wryly as Le Bourgeois. He was always well-dressed and had a concern for his appearance that he had kept from his army days. He would never travel without a little leather bag containing his toiletries, spare collars and cuffs and two small hand towels."

-The Bonnot Gang by Richard Parry

ArtxmisGrahamThoreau Mon, 10/21/2024 - 18:17

Some personal ramblings first, that I found brought forth by the questions above and the reference to Jules Bonnot ( I practice modesty, which I consider an aspect of refinement or maybe a related concept. I have a large personality and I've come to realize I think my physical modesty is a counter-balance to that ability to take up space. I don't impose a modesty standard on others, nor do I see it in any way related to my anarchy. I think some anarchists, especially of the nihilist and egoist persuasions confront refinement in any form as radiating from spooks or other internal self-policing. We should confront those, of course, especially when they're forced out onto others, but we should also acknowledge some people just have preferences. I haven't had any issues with my dress from anarchists before, but I do notice I tend to dress differently from others, such as at bookfairs. I can somewhat relate to Jules in the description. I enjoy dressing up, "refined" and "modest" [to some people, maybe not others, I guess, in hindsight] and have been described as a bit bourgeoise in appearance by close friends. As an aside, I find it interesting even the most iconoclastic anarchists still dressed to the standard or even above of their culture, I think of the French assassins often wore suits of decent quality, or Stirner seemingly doing so too. Yes, suits were a norm, but they matched it. Anarchists today often dress more casually, even at public events. Again, this isn't bad, but something I find interesting when I see old anarchist photos. I know there are some of those anarchists who are hyper-interested in a respectability politic and this does frustrate them, which is mad goofy.. )

More relevant section... How this issue relates to the anarchist project (or rather, there lackof) I think can be summed as that we can put effort into our projects doesn't necessarily equal "refinement" in the sense of "socially respectable."? For example, a well designed and visually appealing anarchist journal could be called refined, but it still confronts social tastes and values. So, is it refined? I guess it depends on our terms. I am interested. Does OP equate or think society equates refinement to wealth / ownership / possession? In some ways, that is true. But I think minimalism can be seen as refined, and this can cross class positions, though it does hold some sway in the upper-middle class..

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 20:25

In reply to by ArtxmisGrahamThoreau

"still confronts social tastes"
does identifying with a particular ethic, in opposition to other ethics, "confront" those other ethics? does the speaking of words confront the objects addressed? this is a basic mistake intuitive ppl make all the time. confrontation comes from actions, they are concrete. oftentimes the format is the message. a zine is a fundamentally civilized format (it's written, it's symbolic/abstract, it will be read through the reader's bias). if the format is co-opted the content is irrelevant. hence the futility of internet forums and publications.

anon (not verified) Mon, 10/21/2024 - 23:51

In reply to by ArtxmisGrahamThoreau

Not much to add but your post made me think of this: There was a sort of rejection of the punk aesthetic going around in the late 00's & 10's in the US insurrectionary anarchist space. I'm thinking of the people who were behind Politics is not a Banana & some of the other groups that pushed Tiqqun really hard. I remember a push away from dirty or patchy clothes & an emphasis on current hipster fashion. People around me at that time started dressing like an American Apparel magazine & sort of gave up on the DIY aspects of fashion, music & diet. There were a lot of electro & flat brimmed hats. When I look at anarchist spaces now, much of that has reverted back to dyed hair & patches.

I know that punk has shaped anarchism & vice versa for the past almost 50 years, but I think the jump away from punks aesthetic made sense in a way I've never been able to put into words (and still can't)

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 06:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The only true punk nowadays is the street meth-head dudes in their '40s with a nice criminal record that might include sexual violence depending on which specific crowd you're referring to.

Ok there's a tiny few punks living in a dog house somewhere in town, but I so rarely even meet them in the dumpsters and when they hang out at the park it's for assemblies with awful cheap beer (not even PBR) and dog-hugging, 'til some of their edgy buddies reveal themselves to be really just yuppie hipsters, coz tattoo shop business or something,

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 08:39

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yo I was... *check notes* Individualist nihilo-anarch punk when it was still underground. Now I'm into the bike camping business with kiddie trailer for all the dumpster delicacies. That'll be the hipster fashion next year but by this time I'll be a full normie entryist with low-tier government jobs, which'll be the new punk...

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 09:46

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i was [the last true scotsman] back before [scotland] was even [scotland] but then the [poser scotsmen.. i guess?] who don't even [scot] but anyway, get off my [lawn] you [damned kids who don't even] but [i do] because [reasons]!!!

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 13:04

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

I feel like nostalgia is when people genuinely find something that was better in the past but then draw completely whack conclusions because they don't know what it was or why it was better. Like, high-budget games and movies WERE better in the past. It's just that they're a little bit... too high-budget today... A bit too safe and for-profit.

But hey, that's neoliberalism for you: replacing actual quality with sign values. After all, consuming an idea of the past is just like consuming the past... in a way! Just don't savor the taste too much.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 15:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The limits of nostalgia
Is realizing
There's no going back!
Moving forward, and over
Is the ultimate way to win
The test of Time,
Our greatest enemy.
Only eacape is ATTACK!

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 06:09

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I have refined my individualist nihilo anarch praxis and conscience! By minimalistic de-materialism, by frugal unprocessed dietary habits, by apolitical anti-religious mindfullness, and by falling in love and immersing myself in the empathic realm of interrelationships.

anon (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 09:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yeah i was around for the argument from Pol /= Banana boy, when his argument was that anarchists deserve good things... which, however self-serving and facile it turned out to be in his case, was at least a provocation to what some might call anarchist puritanism (for example of the Evasion variety).

but the other thing that was going on for some of those years (probably still) is people scamming and lifting nice clothes and wearing them as camouflage to do more scamming and lifting.

so the clothing question (different from the zine instance, and/or housing, and/or relationship instances) has some additional complexity.

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 10/22/2024 - 09:57

In reply to by anon (not verified)

ha! this is exactly my attitude, i mostly wear the dusty blacks because 90s forever but also, who cares? i look like a sketchbag and it's not great for getting away with petty shit but i always sucked at 5-finger discount

Anyway, my friends don't all dress alike (which is a bad sign by the way, quit joining cults!!!) and half the ones who dress like normies are doing it for camouflage reasons. if the whole room has a uniform aesthetic, that just means you're in the advanced stages of decay and siloing yourselves off from the rest of the damned world

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 11:36

What was the question again? Oh yeah, who can misread Stirner in the worst way possible. Seems like we have several winners.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 11:49

"One of the many stereotypes about anarchists is that they are a bunch of dirty, stinky neo-hippies who promote unpopular and unappealing things like poorly crafted "zines","

lol, a short while ago, there was a post here of Warzone's list of zines, one of which was about how being clean is bourgeois. so this checks out. i continue to be surprised more anarchists don't die of sepsis or gangrene tbh. i mean, speaking of fixed ideas, the move of just doing the opposite of what mainstream society does as anarchist practice is itself a very weird fixed idea a lot of you have. i don't know if refinement is what is needed but being less rigid in thinking sure is needed.

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 12:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yes, don't just do the opposite

here's why soap is a downer compared to other viable bathing methods: (do still use soap for wound care and every once in a while)

*singing*
when you are feeling a little blue ~~
there's just one thing that's left to you ~~
take a hop on into the tub ~~
a dash of oil and give you a rub ~~~

bc so much of subliminal messaging on trad masc is that if you touch your own cock instead of economically/physically coercing thots to do it for you, you're a cuck. oil not soap--just give you a grope. and when you realize that you yourself are the first best lover you can have had, the patriarchal fantasm can make no subliminal hold on your mind. the threat of "cuck", "beta", or "simp" holds nothing over you. keep in mind most extractive industries are powered by ex-boys who are running away from their fears of "actually" being described by one of these adjectives. it comes through in all sorts of terrible monog/spousal abusive/neglectful bhaviors. :D

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 13:03

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Chairman Mao never bathed and "wash[ed] his phallus in the fluids of his many lovers". Therefore, don't be gross unless your a stinky Maoist.

Kevin Tucker (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 17:57

In reply to by Kevin Tucker (… (not verified)

Your doing it wrong. COME ON!

If you like Revolution And/Or Insurrection and want to help with Tearing this Muthafucka Down, why not help out at:

Cashapp: blackandgreenpress
Vanma: blackandgreen
Paypal: blackandgreen

Thanks!

anon (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 23:36

I'm a carefree non-materialistic cheerful type of guy who lives day by day but everyone thinks I'm retarded cos I find their work/property obsessions or their ideologies boring and a waste of time. I'm an individualist who hates industrial society, have I REFINED my humanity, or am I a moron?

anon (not verified) Fri, 10/25/2024 - 19:07

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You are an anarcho-empath, a rare and unique being who cannot help but be engrossed by love and repelled by ignorant materialist brutes. You in turn are considered ignorant by them, because you are not interested in the pursuit of material wealth or to join the capitalist hegemony. You are a moron and a loser to them, whereas you consider Elon Musk to be a moron and loser, no?
You have refined the theory of anarcho-lifestyle, congratulations. Be careful out there, no one likes you, except me ;)

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
j
v
T
8
#
p
L
s
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.