Anarchist historian Spencer Beswick looks back on the intersection of queerness and anarchism within the past 40 years. Anarchists grappled with the intersection of queerness and anarchism as part of a broader transformation of the US anarchist movement in the 1980s-1990s. Against gay assimilationis...
Anarchist historian Spencer Beswick looks back on the intersection of queerness and anarchism within the past 40 years.
Skinheads were not originally associated with racism, it was a working-class counterculture movement. In fact it was quite diverse in its influences. I would argue it still is.
Only later did a far-right subset emerge and unfortunately that is what people associate with the term "skinheads" because they caused the most trouble.
It's a shame that is what ended up sticking then, and that the terminology couldn't have been associated with something better. In my mind, it's impossible to think of them in any other context. That is the default definition that I have.
It's has practically become that by definition because the far right successfully appropriated the skinhead aesthetics. Or almost. Look into the SHARP.
A skinhead or skin is a member of a subculture that originated among working-class youths in London, England, in the 1960s. It soon spread to other parts of the United Kingdom, with a second working-class skinhead movement emerging worldwide in the late 1970s. Motivated by social alienation and working-class solidarity, skinheads are defined by their close-cropped or shaven heads and working-class clothing such as Dr. Martens and steel toe work boots, braces, high rise and varying length straight-leg jeans, and button-down collar shirts, usually slim fitting in check or plain. The movement reached a peak at the end of the 1960s, experienced a revival in the 1980s, and, since then, has endured in multiple contexts worldwide.
This is basically saying you're pro-Cartel or whatever gross group will seize power through violence, whether they realize it or not. It's as misguided as libertarianism.
Huh? I dont really understand what you mean and dont really see the connection with the text.
In case you want to debate anarchist ideas or have questions about anarchism, please make that more clear.
Edit: Maybe I get what you mean and I dont agree. When a popular movement manages to abolish the state / goverment, why would pro Cartel gangs be able to just take over? Its not like the popular movement that was able to defeat the state just stops existing.