Is it enough just to call yourself an anarchist?

Has anyone claimed that is enough? No, it's not "enough". It might be a start, though.

I think in terms of labelling ourselves the answer depends on the context - so in some situations I'd just use say 'anarchists' but if I was making a particular distinction between different kinds of anarchists I'd say "anarcho-communists", "anarchosyndicalists", "mutualists" etc.

The question indicates that the label does not differentiate between a variety of contradictory pespectives.

I am in favour of a classless stateless society.

I am a member of the ICT.

Am I an anarchist?

the word enough doesnt make much sense without reference to a purpose, so: enough for what?

Hah LOL, mutualists, LOL,,,,

claiming to be an anarchist simply and flatly, is to me, seemingly just as distinctive as declaring to be an anarcho-communist, it exhibits a fluid adherence to anarchism without devotion to one single method and philosophy of anarchism. or, it just means you don't understand the nuances yet and you might be dumb. Clearly a "black anarchist" would in philosophical and methodological disposition be open to multiple forms of association and social organization, wouldn't they? Anarcho-communism is nebulous a title too if you get to the roots of it because anarchist communism can manifest itself in a thousandfold different manners depending on the constitution of the commune practising it. If you have 30 anarcho-communists in a room drinking tea, they will I assure you not all be drinking the same colored tea; no, they'll be drinking different colors.

Q. Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?

A. Because proper tea is theft!

Would you not make some allowance for people who may have recognised that the state is, by it's nature, repressive to their class but haven't yet gone further in their analysis? Or do you think one minute people are bumbling along thinking everything will be fine when their party of choice gets in, then the next minute they've absorbed Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Marx, Chomsky, Goldman, engaged in workplace struggle, become class conscious and been rubber-stamped into the particular ideology which seems to suit them?

Grey areas are fine.

Maybe it'll take the actual occurrence of the revolution for some people to make up their minds about some stuff. I suppose that in itself precludes them from certain ideologies.

do you call yourself an anarchist? I suspect you don't..
**********
No, I don't but maybe I could.
It is not precise enough.
I think communist is my choice.
Perhaps left communist, but they all carry problems.

I don't have a problem with people seeing themselves as just anarchist. This is mainly because the people that do (mostly) are just genuinely not sure about the nuances and details so don't want to associate themselves with a school of anarchist thought without knowing what they are truly associating themselves with. I personally define myself as anarcho communist at the moment. I used to define myself as anarcho syndicalist, but that was mainly out of ignorance. I just read all the faq's on anarcho syndicalism.net and agreed with everything about the post revolution society, so thought that was anarcho syndicalism. I now know that while anarcho syndicalists do strive for these aims, defining yourself as a anarcho syndicalist is more to do with how to get to revolution rather than what to do after. I'm still finding my feet, so I have chosen to associate myself with the end result rather than how to get there. I think my profile still says syndicalist, I think I will go and change that now.

Theoretically, a country of people where government has been abolished and the bourgeois have all been beheaded, is a country that can be organized in a diverse many ways, where anarchism flourishes and becomes much more sophisticated, so, maybe some of these anarchists have this in mind, deep within their mindly minds.... or they're just dumb. Ha ha ha ha! And having this in mind, maybe, they realize that one can neither ascribe or prescribe any one mode of anarchism, because in a true country of anarchists, there will be many forms of anarchism that are experimented with, combined, and transformed...... or perhaps the Capitalists will destroy us all.

Anarchism cant, wont, and should not exist in one country

Not for ever, but it's going to have to start somewhere. How do you co-ordinate global revolution? Facebook? Clearly the domino-effect thing is possible but that fails when one domino doesn't topple.

I'm clueless on this and would welcome education/pointers.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, I will do some digging.

World revolution requires a catalyst which has a universal character, which I definitely believe is possible myself, but it's also possible I would say that this has a small likelihood! But who knows? The world is quite queer these days!! Quite queer!!!

Yes...quite queer, indeed....

Say if the working class in the UK took control of the state. After a short period of re-organization to make sure commodities would still be produced and reach the population we could abolish money. The global effects of one major country abolishing their currency would be devastating to capitalism. We've seen how connected the world markets are in the current recession by the effect of a few dodgy mortgages, now imagine every pound sterling held by other countries became worthless and the effects that would have on global capitalism.
We can also presume that if the working class in the UK were able to take state power then the working class at least in major countries in Europe would be in a similar position. The effect of a large nation abolishing currency would provide the opportunity as well as the impetus for the working class in those countries to follow suit.
Some countries may resist more than others and attempt to become isolationist and maintain capitalism on a national level. But eventually they would be overwhelmed not only at home but in their interests in the third world.

How exactly would it provide opportunity ? To my thinking, the state, seeing the example, would make doubly sure to repress any attempt and adopt an out right totalitarian regime temporarily until the threat had been neutralized, most likely by the the biggest super power at the same time just coming in and killing everyone.

Simply, my example is Spain. If the revolution is isolated to one area, with no other people from other areas engaged in their own struggle but coming over in solidarity and co coordinating their efforts, it becomes significantly easier for the state to restore the place to 'order'.

Look at it as if you were in a war strategist or whatever. If you have only lost one area, and the threat is small and isolated, its fuck easy to just go in there and take it back. If you have threats spreading fast, an attack from all angles, its near impossible, especially if they all have a common cause and are co coordinating their actions.

The chances of revolution are greatly increased during times of economic turmoil. The ruling class would be panicked the markets would go crazy loosening their control over the population. As I said other countries would have to be almost there and I don't think it's a stretch to think that if the UK was that most of Europe would be far behind. This would provide them ample opportunity to go one step further. As I also said there is a possibility that some countries would turn isolationist and attempt to maintain capitalism on a national level but I doubt they could hold out indefinitely, especially when the countries that have had a revolution have opened their borders to immigrants fleeing the brutal attempts to quell revolution in their own country.There would of course be attempts at counter revolution, I didn't mean to imply that it would be a walk in the park and yes there may also be attempted invasions from foreign powers, no one said it was going to be easy. But say if the knock on effect of the UK abolishing money caused the knock on effect of revolution in France, Germany and Italy within a short space of time, who also abolished money. That would absolutely cripple the economies of the world, just look how worried they are at Greece going bankrupt. It would be absolutely devastating to capitalism.
If you want more opportunity and impetus than that for the rest of the world, then I don't know what to say.

Good I'm glad we agree, but as the geezer said someone is going to have to go first. It's highly unlikely that they would all go at the same time so the other countries may need a little push.

producing commodities is producing value is producing money which is the measure of value.

Yes, that seems true. However also, defeated revolutions are embers underneath the Fire of History and they keep burning until they alight the people once again! Viva the Revolution!!! However small its breadth!!!! VIVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think what you're asking is it ok for someone to have digested revolutionary theory, accepted the historical heritage of the workers movement, accepted the need for a working-class revolution to abolish nation-states and capitalist relations worldwide; and not actively 'do something' even though they know all of these things and believe in them. Right?