We need a new name

This has been brought up before. It doesn’t matter what name you use because:

a) People aren’t stupid, and rebranding will not work when they cotton on and accuse us of indulging in front tactics.
b) The politics themselves unfortunately mean idiots will still attempt to identify with the rebranding
c) Vilification of what we are is not predicated on a name, it is predicated on the theory and actions behind the name. As such, rebranding will simply end up with a different word being slagged off even if a+b don’t happen because our theories inherently challenge people who don’t like being challenged.

Yup I agree. Anything a mass, militant working class movement took as its name would soon have attempts at discrediting it - if the movement was successful it wouldn't matter, and if it wasn't the name would become sullied. Might as well stick with the ones we have, and try to get them associated with good things in the minds of some.

My problem with using anarchism/socialism/communism isn't that the state/media tries to villify/discredit it, it's that there's so many non-state/media wankers who discredit it for them (like our "anarchist anti-dolie micro-entrepeneur screen printer" or Hakim Bey).

I think in some situations you can get all the ideas across perfectly well without having to slap a name on it - nothing pisses me off more than seeing "anarchists think" in an article for example, especially when I 100% disagree with what th author claims "anarchists think".

Agree that trying to come up with new names isn't really worth it either - better to emphasise principles/common terminology like internationalism, self-organisation, class etc. and forget the branding than try to make up new words.

The name won't mean a damn if we act well.

"In other news, government scientific advisors continue to work day and night investigating exactly how the whole planet came to be shot back in time thirty years..."

Hi

I think that's fair enough. One of the sub-missions that CW took on was to label it's politics with the name of the group. When asked what our politics were, I think it's fair to say we generally agreed "Class War" was the best way of answering the question.

Similarly, I reckon the need to find a name is less important than the need to be in the public mainstream as a named force. Under query one could then quote said name with pride. I suppose the AWL might have been on to something there.

Besides, no one with any common sense goes anywhere near 'isms nowadays, but they’re comfortable saying they’re a fan of this-or-that team, firm or whatever.

Love

LR

Check it out:

http://libcom.org/forums/northampton-socialist-forum/new-to-it

I agree with above posters that our action and organization is more important than names.

The IWW and CNT were historically vilified by the state and media, and they didn't even have the words anarchist, communist, socialist etc. in their names. Even if we were to become the "fuzzy kittens", that name too would be vilified based on our challenge to existing power structures.

Having said that, I sometimes describe my politics as "libertarian socialist" to the "uninitiated" as a way of discussing anarchist ideas without scaring people away. This works particularly well in places where people still value broadly socialist ideas and/or don't associate socialism with Stalinism.

I like it, but I think some poststructuralists might have something to say about it - I mean to identify oneself as a rebel implicitly consolidates the thing that you rebel against, doesn't it?

Couldn't it just be Autonomists Alliance?

don't know - largely because I don't know what a g33k is.

but I'm heartened to see your optimism about the "legions" you plan to attract.

And, anyway, my one sounds too much like the car club and the self-help group.

let's stick with ARA and watch the g33ks flock in.

Words acquire meaning from the way the great mass of users deploy those words. Here in the USA "Communism" has come to refer to the "Communist" countries and Leninist politics more generally. To call oneself "communist" is to invite confusion, if you're Left libertarian. The fact that some insist on "anarchist-communist" or "libertarian communist" has, to me, a somewhat in-groupie or cult-like feeling.

I think it's best to just say concretely what you're for. For a label i sometimes use "self-management," saying I'm for economic self-management, for people controlling their own struggles and organizations, etc.

When we formed Workers Solidarity Alliance we wanted a name that would avoid ideological buzzwords like "anarchist", "socialist", "communist" and none of them appear in our political statement also. I think that's probably a strength. Also, it makes it easier for an organization because individuals differ in how comfortable they feel with one "identity" versus another, some preferring "anarchist", others preferring "libertarian socialist," others "anarcho-syndicalist." In that case better not to use such labels in the organizaton's name.

t.

i hope they're not packin'

newyawka, this isn't America, mental incomepetants aren't allowed to buy guns