Professions

[Sarah Palin]

What professions would you recommend to someone who is interested in defending civil liberties, defending/ advocating human rights, getting active on the left?
I can't really see myself going to work in a cubicle and would much prefer to make a living through the aforementioned fields.

[griffjam]

None.

How can we change this society without deserting the ranks of those who maintain it?

[Invincible Summer]

There are organizations that "defend civil liberties" and advocate for "human rights," but they're usually full of yuppie-ass liberals and hippies that want nothing to do with Communists and would much rather prefer reform to capitalism than actually destroy it.

[Nils T.]

Well... I was about to write that the left (and generally the poor) always needs sympathizing judges and attorneys, but, as it has been said, in the end every existing profession strengthen the social control. Entryism is always a sacrifice, and we have already too much people ready for it. Every conscious individual is more useful out there.

[Killfacer]

None.

How can we change this society without deserting the ranks of those who maintain it?

I assume that's a poor joke. I've always liked eating food and living under a roof.

[Invincible Summer]

I assume that's a poor joke. I've always liked eating food and living under a roof.


What does that have to do with reformism

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What does that have to do with reformism

It seemed like he was advocating not having a job and deserting the ranks of the proletariat. Perhaps he thinks we should all start hippie communes or eat out of the trash.

[Pogue]

Human rights lawyer, social worker, some job in sociological research, sociologoy generally, some teaching job, etc.

Any job where you get involved in union organising. Do a job which suits you that isn't harmful to workers and your OK, get involve din left wing politics through union work and out of work campaiging too.

Just do a job that isn't anti-working class (like a banker or policeman) and you're cool. Stay proletarian and do political campaigning outside of the job. Very few jobs are 'socialist' or whatever unless your write for a left wing paper or party or so. Theres just socially beneficial jobs like social worker and nurse, and trade union work. And theres obviously reacitonary/ right wing jobs, as I said, copper and banker, etc.

Do what you want, preferably something less soul destroying and more beneficial for society, basically.

[Nils T.]

Perhaps he thinks we should all start hippie communes or eat out of the trash.Don't know about him, but as for me, and considering the last 80 years, I think that this approach is (in the US) significantly more beneficial, at the individual level as at a social one, than just waiting for the people to turn marxist while working 50 years for the profits of the capitalists.

[Pogue]

Don't know about him, but as for me, and considering the last 80 years, I think that this approach is (in the US) significantly more beneficial, at the individual level as at a social one, than just waiting for the people to turn marxist while working 50 years for the profits of the capitalists.

How excactly will sitting in communes, eating oout of trashcans, and generally disengaging with capitalism and the working class, help us organise the working class against it? Surely you recognise you can't replace capitalism by creating a communism within it, you have to actually physically destroy it. Also, why would any working class person want to live in an hippie style commune and eat trash? Thats disgusting and doesn't acheive fuck all.

We aim to destory capitalism and replace it with communism by mobilising the oppressed of capitalism against it and completely abolishing it because we realise this is the only way to get rid of it, because its all pervading. You can't simply drop out of it and try to set up 'communism' on a personal level within it. Its not appealing and doesn't acheive the aims of communists.

[MikeSC]

Journalism could be useful- counter-hegemony and all that. Are there any careers you've thought about?

[brigadista]

What professions would you recommend to someone who is interested in defending civil liberties, defending/ advocating human rights, getting active on the left?
I can't really see myself going to work in a cubicle and would much prefer to make a living through the aforementioned fields.

depends where you are and how old you are - I did an internship in the US with HR lawyers working on DP appeals - i learnt a lot - i think those programs are still running..

[Invincible Summer]

Human rights lawyer, social worker, some job in sociological research, sociologoy generally, some teaching job, etc.



Problem w/ sociology is that if you get stuck in doing academic research (which is what the most likely case is, IMO) then you're most likely just gonna write papers that only other academics will read - nothing that will really invigorate the non-sociological savvy person.

[Pogue]

Problem w/ sociology is that if you get stuck in doing academic research (which is what the most likely case is, IMO) then you're most likely just gonna write papers that only other academics will read - nothing that will really invigorate the non-sociological savvy person.

True, which is why I see it leading more into something like social work.

[Nils T.]

It will help us by granting us more time to think, write, talk and act than we get when we work from nine to five or more, by granting us a less exhausting way of surviving and then more energy when it comes to actually living and fighting, by granting us a more joyous and free environment that will prevent premature renunciation... It also makes authoritarian and bureaucratic derives less likely.
It depends of how you plan to organize the working class initially. But whatever the method, I don't see why more free time would be a disadvantage. Personally, I refuse to "organize the working class", as i'm refusing to be part of it, and as i think the organization of the proletariat have to be the task of the proletariat itself. I'm willing to talk and act to raise the consciousness of anyone, but I won't try to build a party for the proletariat. Young maoists tried it in europe in the 70's : they left their faculties to go working in factories and organizing the working class in their own parties, but as a part of it. It failed. Why would any revolutionnary join a movement that present the daily exploitation of the workers as beneficial ? We fight exploitation, so we should do what it takes to avoid it when we can. Exploitation is not something to be proud of, it's an alienating, incapaciting process. Indulging in it when we have a choice is hypocrisy or fetichism.

Let's be clear, the hippie movement was not a revolutionnary movement. Hippie communes were often plagued with a reactionnary, primitivist, even religious ideology. Their indulgence for their isolation, in particular, should never be reproduced.
But it was still a large, spontaneous and radical movement of refusal of the capitalist society. More than anything the marxists and syndicalists achieved in the US since 1929. I don't really want another hippie wave, but a revolutionnary wave that is able to talk about revolution and class struggle while referring explicitly to everyday life, and understanding what is subversive in love and positive in the refusal of all constraints.

What is disgusting in organizing our lives in order to escape as much as possible the sadness and suffering against which we expect workers to revolt ? Pragmatically, there's more joy and pleasures in any hippie's life than in the work in a factory. If pride and dignity and bourgeois conventions (seems cliché, but that's what it is) prevent one to enjoy it, then this one would anyway not be able to take part in a progressive revolution in an advanced capitalist country.


Surely you recognise you can't replace capitalism by creating a communism within it, you have to actually physically destroy it.Of course. That's one reason why i'm no hippie. But insurrections, communes, TAZ or whatever you call it won't keep me from trying to destroy capitalism. A mortgaged house and car or 8 hours of work a day might, on the contrary.


You can't simply drop out of it and try to set up 'communism' on a personal level within it. Its not appealing and doesn't acheive the aims of communists.Communism is not appealing ? Frankly, it is to me, and i'm surprised that that is not the case for you too.
And we agree that the personnal level is not enough. That's obvious. One can't be free alone. But I never said that droping out was the end of it.

__________________________
"I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

[griffjam]

It seemed like he was advocating not having a job and deserting the ranks of the proletariat. Perhaps he thinks we should all start hippie communes or eat out of the trash.


It is impossible to lead the lives we wish to lead while others are oppressed and the world is ruled by greed and violence. Dropping out is first and foremost a strategy for revolutionary struggle against all the structures of domination; it is the most effective starting place I see for myself and others like me to take on the powers that be. In refusing to participate in the system, we’re trying to overthrow the government, abolish all hierarchies, and topple Western civilization.


I assume that's a poor joke. I've always liked eating food and living under a roof.

You can hold a job and a lease and still be engaged in the project of dropping out—it’s a question of where you invest the bulk of your energy and which social currents you contribute to. No one is arguing that if you want to be a revolutionary you can’t earn money, buy groceries, or pay rent. This is a general strategy to be applied to whatever extent it proves useful, not a standard of judgment.



How excactly will sitting in communes, eating oout of trashcans, and generally disengaging with capitalism and the working class, help us organise the working class against it? Surely you recognise you can't replace capitalism by creating a communism within it, you have to actually physically destroy it. Also, why would any working class person want to live in an hippie style commune and eat trash? Thats disgusting and doesn't acheive fuck all.

We aim to destory capitalism and replace it with communism by mobilising the oppressed of capitalism against it and completely abolishing it because we realise this is the only way to get rid of it, because its all pervading. You can't simply drop out of it and try to set up 'communism' on a personal level within it. Its not appealing and doesn't acheive the aims of communists.

Poor attempt at a strawman.


Under global capitalism, everything is a compromise. Employment means trading one’s time and energy to a destructive, oppressive economy, but unemployment means going without resources that could be used to undermine that economy and being separated from workers with whom one could join forces. Paying rent means supporting the system of private property and the landlords who benefit from it, but in this country (the U.S.) squatting rarely offers the stability necessary for a collective living space or community center (and even when radical spaces are created the alternative they offer is usually contained to those spaces). Using the internet promotes an alienating medium that replaces face-to-face human interaction, but refusing to do so means passing up the chance to be accessible to many.


If everything is a compromise, then the only question is which compromises are most effective for achieving your goals. If the social change you desire is essentially institutional, then you’d better get a degree and do your best to advance in the institutions; if the hierarchy of privilege and power essential to those institutions doesn’t sit well with you, you might be better off working outside them. If your ideal world features factories and paychecks, it’s sensible enough to work towards it from the shop floor; if you hope to build a society without exchange economics or industrial pollution, the first step is probably to limit the ways you participate in those.


Much of the criticism leveled at those who believe dropping out can be part of a revolutionary strategy seems to proceed from unconscious assumptions about revolution itself. It may be that critics of this approach are still under the spell of the Marxist model of revolution. According to this model, a single idea was to take hold of the working masses, who would organize themselves along class lines to seize the infrastructure and institutions of their society. For this model to work, radicals had to be integrated into those masses, living and thinking and speaking like them so as to wield influence, and people couldn’t desert the factories and offices—otherwise, how would those run once The People had taken power? Even in its day, this strategy was hardly a recipe for the liberation most of us long for. It prized numbers above individuality, and unity above diversity; it engaged with people according to the roles they played in existing society, rather than the dreams and desires that beckoned them beyond it. Those who wished to apply this strategy had to compete with one another for a monopoly on revolutionary thought and organization the same way corporations compete to dominate the market. And ironically, though it was intended to build the ultimate inclusive mass movement, this approach often left individuals feeling marginalized: their unique perspectives and experiences seemed extraneous, their needs eclipsed by the imperatives of The Struggle, their lives dwarfed by the grand narrative of History. The masses of Marx’s theory live on today as the mainstream of modern society, an even murkier abstraction. Conventional wisdom dictates that those who would foment social change must appeal to this mainstream, and that this is only possible from within its ranks. Following this logic, it would seem that the first duty of the revolutionary is to seem as much like everyone else as possible. By dropping out of society, radicals relinquish the possibility of influencing others, selfishly choosing their own freedom over noble stewardship of The Revolution. But let us hypothesize that there is another way to work towards revolution: rather than starting in the purported center of society, revolutionaries begin at the so-called fringes, openly refusing to participate and popularizing entirely different ways of life. In demonstrating the advantages of these ways of life, they draw more and more participants, thus becoming more and more visible and capable of challenging the dominant order. These different ways of living need not be uniform, like the thinking of Marxist revolutionaries; on the contrary, they can be endlessly diverse—the more widely varied the options are, the more likely it is that additional participants will be able to find something that resonates with them. The only essential thing is that they offer ways of solving the problems of existence that are fundamentally different from those of the old order—let’s say anticapitalist and nonhierarchical, as a minimum definition—and that they are easily accessible to others. This latter strategy can still culminate in the revolutionary seizure of the means of production and the abolition of class, privilege, and state power; however, these won’t be carried out by a homogeneous mass under ideological leadership, but rather by autonomous groups acting according to their own desires and cooperating where possible. Better yet, there won’t be a big mess when the revolution begins and everyone suddenly has to adapt to brand new ways of living and relating— that revolution will have been going on for quite some time already.

[Pogue]

It will help us by granting us more time to think, write, talk and act than we get when we work from nine to five or more, by granting us a less exhausting way of surviving and then more energy when it comes to actually living and fighting, by granting us a more joyous and free environment that will prevent premature renunciation... It also makes authoritarian and bureaucratic derives less likely.
It depends of how you plan to organize the working class initially. But whatever the method, I don't see why more free time would be a disadvantage. Personally, I refuse to "organize the working class", as i'm refusing to be part of it, and as i think the organization of the proletariat have to be the task of the proletariat itself. I'm willing to talk and act to raise the consciousness of anyone, but I won't try to build a party for the proletariat. Young maoists tried it in europe in the 70's : they left their faculties to go working in factories and organizing the working class in their own parties, but as a part of it. It failed. Why would any revolutionnary join a movement that present the daily exploitation of the workers as beneficial ? We fight exploitation, so we should do what it takes to avoid it when we can. Exploitation is not something to be proud of, it's an alienating, incapaciting process. Indulging in it when we have a choice is hypocrisy or fetichism.

Let's be clear, the hippie movement was not a revolutionnary movement. Hippie communes were often plagued with a reactionnary, primitivist, even religious ideology. Their indulgence for their isolation, in particular, should never be reproduced.
But it was still a large, spontaneous and radical movement of refusal of the capitalist society. More than anything the marxists and syndicalists achieved in the US since 1929. I don't really want another hippie wave, but a revolutionnary wave that is able to talk about revolution and class struggle while referring explicitly to everyday life, and understanding what is subversive in love and positive in the refusal of all constraints.

What is disgusting in organizing our lives in order to escape as much as possible the sadness and suffering against which we expect workers to revolt ? Pragmatically, there's more joy and pleasures in any hippie's life than in the work in a factory. If pride and dignity and bourgeois conventions (seems cliché, but that's what it is) prevent one to enjoy it, then this one would anyway not be able to take part in a progressive revolution in an advanced capitalist country.

Of course. That's one reason why i'm no hippie. But insurrections, communes, TAZ or whatever you call it won't keep me from trying to destroy capitalism. A mortgaged house and car or 8 hours of work a day might, on the contrary.

Communism is not appealing ? Frankly, it is to me, and i'm surprised that that is not the case for you too.
And we agree that the personnal level is not enough. That's obvious. One can't be free alone. But I never said that droping out was the end of it.

__________________________
"I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

No, communes are not appealing. That is why we don't all live in communes. Becuase its pretty shit. Its also why no one eats out of a trashcan - why would anyone want to do that? Its disgusting and alot of effort.

How will it give us more time to work and talk? What good will that do anyway? I don't think my problem is that I don't have time to talk, I think its the fact I get paid minimum wage or have to watch people like me overseas getting shot by the armies of imperialist capitalist states. Thats why I want to organise people against capitalism.

Communes are not communism, hence my inverted commas. The same way 'communism', if it means Gulags and secret police, is not appealing. Thats why I'm a real communist, or a libertarian class strugglist socialist.

Why would you refuse to be working class? Most people in the world are working class. We want to abolish the working class. I'm not naive or selfish enough to do that by simply refusing to work, because life without work is shit. You get less money, you have nothing to do. I just want to enjoy the benefits of my labour in a nice workplace which I have a real part in running. By the way, did you grab your computer and internet serrvice out of a dumpster?

I don't know of any revolutionaries who see our exploitation as beneficial, so I'd suggest your talking out of your arse here. Nor am I a Maoist or even a believer in political parties. Although I'd like it if they could, I don't think they work, thats why I don't bother with them.

You want us to avoid exploitation and oppresion? So do we! Thats why we seek to abolish capitalism and the state. As I said, you can't do that by refusing to participate. Becuase then you're unemployed and thats shit, and its impossible for most people. Nothing would work, nothing'd be get done, and the state would ultimately attack you. We want to run the factories ourselves, and organise the working class for this aim. That doesn't get done by a few people doing the oh so fun and revolutionary thing of dropping out of work a la Crimethinc and doing loads of wacky zany post-left shit!

What is with this refusal of love and contraints shit? Its such poetic nonsense. Its meaningless. What does that even mean? Plenty of people love, and they stilll get fucked over by capitalism. Plenty of people love and get stoned to death for it, because they love someone of the same sex as them. You know whats at the source of this shit? The state and capitalism, and the abuse of power by a select few ****s. Oncemore, we're not going to beat them by having love ins and eating out of the tin cans round the back of Tescos.

Whats wrong with organising our live soutside of capitalism? In order to destory capitalism we have to organise workers and ultimately take over the factories, workplaces, the army. How can we do this if we're off in a commune doing some wacky shite somewhere? We can't. We fight for ordinary issues which affect people - we try to solve the fact they're about to get sacked, or evicted. We struggle with them in work. Ultmately we hope to occupy and start running the factory with them democratically. I don't want to tell the proletarians to stop working and degrade themselves to living in some shitty post-left commune somewhere where we eat the shit someone else threw out, because that is not a nice lifestyle.

I don't understand your last sentences. I never said I don't find communism appealing. If that was the case I'd probably be off doing business studies somewhere. I don't think living in a commune is appealing, or communism, because your just sharing with a few likeminded people within capitalism. Your limited to your commune if you want to enjoy 'communism'. Communism is about more than sharing, and in communism we don't share bathwater and hold hands and whatever else it is you do in a commune. We live our lives however we want in a society that is collectively owned without a state or classes in which we participate directly in the issues that affect us. We run the factories, we vote on all policies. Thats appealing.

[Pogue]

It is impossible to lead the lives we wish to lead while others are oppressed and the world is ruled by greed and violence. Dropping out is first and foremost a strategy for revolutionary struggle against all the structures of domination; it is the most effective starting place I see for myself and others like me to take on the powers that be. In refusing to participate in the system, we’re trying to overthrow the government, abolish all hierarchies, and topple Western civilization.



You can hold a job and a lease and still be engaged in the project of dropping out—it’s a question of where you invest the bulk of your energy and which social currents you contribute to. No one is arguing that if you want to be a revolutionary you can’t earn money, buy groceries, or pay rent. This is a general strategy to be applied to whatever extent it proves useful, not a standard of judgment.



Poor attempt at a strawman.



Under global capitalism, everything is a compromise. Employment means trading one’s time and energy to a destructive, oppressive economy, but unemployment means going without resources that could be used to undermine that economy and being separated from workers with whom one could join forces. Paying rent means supporting the system of private property and the landlords who benefit from it, but in this country (the U.S.) squatting rarely offers the stability necessary for a collective living space or community center (and even when radical spaces are created the alternative they offer is usually contained to those spaces). Using the internet promotes an alienating medium that replaces face-to-face human interaction, but refusing to do so means passing up the chance to be accessible to many.


If everything is a compromise, then the only question is which compromises are most effective for achieving your goals. If the social change you desire is essentially institutional, then you’d better get a degree and do your best to advance in the institutions; if the hierarchy of privilege and power essential to those institutions doesn’t sit well with you, you might be better off working outside them. If your ideal world features factories and paychecks, it’s sensible enough to work towards it from the shop floor; if you hope to build a society without exchange economics or industrial pollution, the first step is probably to limit the ways you participate in those.



Much of the criticism leveled at those who believe dropping out can be part of a revolutionary strategy seems to proceed from unconscious assumptions about revolution itself. It may be that critics of this approach are still under the spell of the Marxist model of revolution. According to this model, a single idea was to take hold of the working masses, who would organize themselves along class lines to seize the infrastructure and institutions of their society. For this model to work, radicals had to be integrated into those masses, living and thinking and speaking like them so as to wield influence, and people couldn’t desert the factories and offices—otherwise, how would those run once The People had taken power? Even in its day, this strategy was hardly a recipe for the liberation most of us long for. It prized numbers above individuality, and unity above diversity; it engaged with people according to the roles they played in existing society, rather than the dreams and desires that beckoned them beyond it. Those who wished to apply this strategy had to compete with one another for a monopoly on revolutionary thought and organization the same way corporations compete to dominate the market. And ironically, though it was intended to build the ultimate inclusive mass movement, this approach often left individuals feeling marginalized: their unique perspectives and experiences seemed extraneous, their needs eclipsed by the imperatives of The Struggle, their lives dwarfed by the grand narrative of History. The masses of Marx’s theory live on today as the mainstream of modern society, an even murkier abstraction. Conventional wisdom dictates that those who would foment social change must appeal to this mainstream, and that this is only possible from within its ranks. Following this logic, it would seem that the first duty of the revolutionary is to seem as much like everyone else as possible. By dropping out of society, radicals relinquish the possibility of influencing others, selfishly choosing their own freedom over noble stewardship of The Revolution. But let us hypothesize that there is another way to work towards revolution: rather than starting in the purported center of society, revolutionaries begin at the so-called fringes, openly refusing to participate and popularizing entirely different ways of life. In demonstrating the advantages of these ways of life, they draw more and more participants, thus becoming more and more visible and capable of challenging the dominant order. These different ways of living need not be uniform, like the thinking of Marxist revolutionaries; on the contrary, they can be endlessly diverse—the more widely varied the options are, the more likely it is that additional participants will be able to find something that resonates with them. The only essential thing is that they offer ways of solving the problems of existence that are fundamentally different from those of the old order—let’s say anticapitalist and nonhierarchical, as a minimum definition—and that they are easily accessible to others. This latter strategy can still culminate in the revolutionary seizure of the means of production and the abolition of class, privilege, and state power; however, these won’t be carried out by a homogeneous mass under ideological leadership, but rather by autonomous groups acting according to their own desires and cooperating where possible. Better yet, there won’t be a big mess when the revolution begins and everyone suddenly has to adapt to brand new ways of living and relating— that revolution will have been going on for quite some time already.



I'm an Anarchist, not a Marxist.

But anyway,

Why would people drop out of life and refuse to engage in everything they know?

How would single parents with 5 children do it?

How would people survive?

What would be appealing about doing it?

How do you abolish the state if all you do is function as an 'autonomous group' doing whatever you want?

How could people abolish the state if they don't have any ideas about how or why to do so?

[Invincible Summer]

The main problem I see with the "dropping out" idea is that while one is busy trying to live independent of the larger society and sustain the counter-culture lifestyle they desire in the middle of freakin' nowhere, it is easy to fall into the "we've got all we need here" mentality and forget about the rest of humanity... especially since it would most likely have to be in the ass-end of the country.

[Nils T.]

How would single parents with 5 children do it?They can't. I think I heard that some squats have been offering day-nursery services. But I don't think dropping out can be anything else than a marginal practice.

What would be appealing about doing it?More or less the opposite of what's repeling in work.

How do you abolish the state if all you do is function as an 'autonomous group' doing whatever you want?Trough the increase of the size of the groups dropping out and of the zone taked back from capitalist rules, and trough the participation in every struggle against the state.

How could people abolish the state if they don't have any ideas about how or why to do so?People don't drop out if they have no reason for it.


it is easy to fall into the "we've got all we need here" mentality and forget about the rest of humanity... especially since it would most likely have to be in the ass-end of the country. If you choose to "eat trash" as HLVS says, you have to stay in big cities. I think that the "back to the country" idea of the sixties is not as successful today.

[Pogue]

They can't. I think I heard that some squats have been offering day-nursery services. But I don't think dropping out can be anything else than a marginal practice.
More or less the opposite of what's repeling in work.
Trough the increase of the size of the groups dropping out and of the zone taked back from capitalist rules, and trough the participation in every struggle against the state.
People don't drop out if they have no reason for it.

If you choose to "eat trash" as HLVS says, you have to stay in big cities. I think that the "back to the country" idea of the sixties is not as successful today.

So not everyone can do it. It divides and alienates.

Work is repelling. But you cant abolish it by telling everyone to drop out. You can take control of it and make it more enjoyable through revolution.

[Nils T.]

We want to run the factories ourselves, and organise the working class for this aim. That doesn't get done by a few people doing the oh so fun and revolutionary thing of dropping out of work a la Crimethinc and doing loads of wacky zany post-left shit!That doesn't get done by you either... But the wacky zany post left shit include helping the small parts of the working class that effectively have this aim (and trying to diffuse it among the working class).

Less time spent at work = more time to do other things. That's how.

I refuse to work, as long as I can, for the same reasons why I want to abolish the class-based society. Life without work is better, because money is not so useful, and there's enough to do apart from that, like holding hands and fighting against the state.
(Since you're interested, my computer and internet service are paid by my parents. Before that i've been in a squat, using an old computer and the neighbour's wifi the rare times I needed internet, but now I've nowhere else to go than my parent's home, so be it, i'll leave asap.)

Sure, a commune is not enough. That's just a start. The poetic nonsense is the best formulation of what there is to do (i'm not the original author). Love often get one attacked by the power of the state and of capitalism. It's because love is subversive. So we'll fight the state and make a revolution for love, among other things. That's what this nonsense means.

Of course, that means also that we have to be there helping workers and evryone when they get sacked or evicted, or when they're simply hungry (no, food not bombs don't make disgusting food) or when they struggle against the current order of things.

[Pogue]

That doesn't get done by you either... But the wacky zany post left shit include helping the small parts of the working class that effectively have this aim.

Less time spent at work = more time to do other things. That's how.

I refuse to work, as long as I can, for the same reasons why I want to abolish the class-based society. Life without work is better, because money is not so useful, and there's enough to do apart from that, like holding hands and fighting against the state.
(Since you're interested, my computer and internet service are paid by my parents. Before that i've been in a squat, using an old computer and the neighbour's wifi the rare times I needed internet, but now I've nowhere else to go than my parent's home, so be it, i'll leave asap.)

Sure, a commune is not enough. That's just a start. The poetic nonsense is the best formulation of what there is to do (i'm not the original author). Love often get one attacked by the power of the state and of capitalism. It's because love is subversive. So we'll fight the state and make a revolution for love, among other things. That's what this nonsense means.

Of course, that means also that we have to be there helping workers and evryone when they get sacked or evicted, or when they're simply hungry (no, food not bombs don't make disgusting food) or when they struggle against the current order of things.

So you live at home. Are you studying, do you have a job? Do you have palns to drop out? Are you involved in any political work?

[Nils T.]

So not everyone can do it. It divides and alienates.Huh ? You know, parents with 5 children are also less likely to go on strike, that does not mean that strike divides and alienate. The paris commune didn't divided and alienate parisians with the rest of the world.


Work is repelling. But you cant abolish it by telling everyone to drop out. You can take control of it and make it more enjoyable through revolution.I don't tell everyone to drop out. I tell it to everyone who can. Their lives will improve and the revolutionnary activities too.

[Nils T.]

So you live at home. Are you studying, do you have a job? Do you have palns to drop out? Are you involved in any political work?I stopped my studies some months ago, I do have plans to drop out, and I am not involved in any work.

[Pogue]

Huh ? You know, parents with 5 children are also less likely to go on strike, that does not mean that strike divides and alienate. The paris commune didn't divided and alienate parisians with the rest of the world.

I don't tell everyone to drop out. I tell it to everyone who can. Their lives will improve and the revolutionnary activities too.

No, because strikes have clear benefits and gains, and worker solidarity comes into play. Dropping out is, ironically, something only priviliged types can do, because they can afford to, and they want too, to 'rebel'.

[Pogue]

I stopped my studies some months ago, I do have plans to drop out, and I am not involved in any work.

So what do you do with your time? Your not dropping out, but you're not engaged in any education, work or political activity?

[griffjam]

The main problem I see with the "dropping out" idea is that while one is busy trying to live independent of the larger society and sustain the counter-culture lifestyle they desire in the middle of freakin' nowhere, it is easy to fall into the "we've got all we need here" mentality and forget about the rest of humanity... especially since it would most likely have to be in the ass-end of the country.

The capitalist system thrives precisely because it conspires to make any other way of life impossible, whether that be of indigenous peoples or independent farmers—but that’s what the black masks, legal support collectives, and international solidarity are for, you know. As for whether it’s possible, that’s one of those questions we have to answer by trying it—but orthodox class-struggle revolutionists who doubt it’s possible for small groups to transform their lives in any meaningful way can hardly argue that transforming our entire society at once is easier.



Why would people drop out of life and refuse to engage in everything they know?

As dropouts, we wager that we can do more with our time and ingenuity than we could with anything for which we could trade them on the market. This is an essentially anticapitalist value judgment, prioritizing freedom over property and status, unifying means and ends. We risk isolating ourselves from the rest of humanity, without whom we cannot lead the rich lives we
desire or make the revolutionary changes we aspire to; but this risk strikes us as no more dangerous than the risks we would run by remaining within the gears of the system, fighting to survive on its terms without being colonized by its values.



How would single parents with 5 children do it?
How else? With the help of other people. Dropping out and becoming a hermit are complete opposites. So take your assumptions and throw them away.
IF YOU DON’T STEAL FROM YOUR BOSS YOU’RE STEALING FROM YOUR FAMILY



How would people survive?
If you're questioning peoples' ability to live in world without capitalism, you're probably in the wrong place.

The essential problem with dropping out is that it immediately deprives you of one way of life without necessarily providing another. It cannot be emphasized enough that we’re not just talking about a few people giving notice at work, but the development of an entire network of dropout communities. This is analogous to the escalation of tactics in militant resistance: if you escalate your tactics alone, you can be isolated and defeated; if you escalate tactics as a community with the support of other communities, you can gain momentum and shift the balance of power. In dropping out individually, we have to find common cause with each other, or else risk starving to death alone with all our potential wasted. All too often, dropouts in North America sever the constraints of their former lives and go into a kind of free fall, drifting from one thing to the next without investing themselves anywhere. This is typical of our society in general: starting life without a firm foundation, people tend to hold off on commitment, waiting for the perfect opportunity to come along—when in fact it is commitment that makes things possible in the first place. Instead of wasting our whole lives wandering aimlessly in search of a prefabricated utopia, we’d better get started building the things we want right now—the whole idea behind dropping out is to use our time and creativity constructively, right? In the opposite extreme, dropouts can settle comfortably into a new way of life that seems to provide for all their needs without actually challenging the status quo. Setting out to live sustainably in an unsustainable civilization is quixotic at best; those who turn their backs on everyone else in going “back to the land” cheat themselves as well as the rest of us out of the world we could make together. Make no mistake about it, the polluters and developers are coming for every last acre sooner or later—until capitalism is smashed, no organic farm is safe, no matter how permacultural. When dropouts, individually and as communities, find themselves isolated, it is not usually because they have no opportunities to connect with others so much as it is that they are not taking advantage of the opportunities they do have. Between local and regional communities, family ties, and subcultural circles, everyone in this society participates in several different social continuums at once. Too often, dropouts assume that they should keep their crazy ideas and projects to their own kind; on the contrary, sharing these with people who are not part of your clique can provide surprising results. It’s not necessary to go door to door soliciting strangers to join The Movement; all we need to do is connect the people already in our lives to the radical projects in which we’re already involved—and vice versa. To this end, it is paramount that dropouts find ways of meeting their needs in which others can participate. Frameworks that put the resources available to us at the disposal of all, such as Food Not Bombs and the more recent Really Really Free Market model, have demonstrated the potential of this. At their best, they transcend the limits of individual subcultures, offering models of what life could be that are instantly comprehensible to all.



What would be appealing about doing it?

At this moment, an employee in a grocery store is setting out genetically engineered produce rather than tending the garden in her own yard; A dishwasher is sweating over a steaming sink while dishes stack up unwashed in his kitchen at home; A line cook is taking orders from strangers instead of cooking for a neighborhood barbecue; An advertising executive is composing jingles for laundry detergent rather than making up bedtime stories for his nieces; A poor woman is watching rich people’s children at a daycare program rather than spending time with her own; A child is being dropped off there to be cared for by strangers rather than those who know and love him; A sociology student is doing an ethnographic study of squatters rather than actually participating in the activities that interest her; An activist, tired from a hard day’s work, is putting on a Hollywood movie for entertainment; A demonstrator who has unique perspectives and reasons to protest is carrying a prefabricated sign issued by a bureaucratic
organization.

The system runs on the blood and sweat of our hijacked lives. The more we invest ourselves in surviving according to its terms, the more difficult it is to do otherwise. Seizing back our time and energy from its jaws is the essence of and the precondition for any real resistance. The paralyzing commonsense notion that everyone, even the most radical of the radical, plays a role in the status quo hides the subversive possibility that all of us—even radicals—can refuse our roles. Dropping out means refusing to play our parts, removing ourselves from the circuitry and reclaiming our lives.

Doesn't that sound more appealing than this http://www.revleft.com/vb/study-group-texts-t100024/index.html ?



How do you abolish the state if all you do is function as an 'autonomous group' doing whatever you want?

How could people abolish the state if they don't have any ideas about how or why to do so?

I thought you said you were an anarchist?

I do not believe that to achieve anarchy we must wait till everyone becomes an anarchist. On the contrary, I believe— and this is why I'm a revolutionary— that under present conditions only a small minority, favored by special circumstances, can manage to conceive what anarchy is. It would be wishful thinking to hope for a general conversion before a change actually took place in the kind of environment in which authoritarianism and privilege now flourish. It is precisely for this reason that I believe in the need to organize for the bringing about of anarchy, or at any rate that degree of anarchy which could become gradually feasible, as soon as a sufficient amount of freedom has been won and a nucleus of anarchists somewhere exists that is both numerically strong enough and able to be self-sufficient to spread its influence locally. I repeat, we need to organize ourselves to apply anarchy, or that degree of anarchy which becomes gradually possible.
Since we cannot convert everybody all at once and the necessities of life and the interests of propaganda do not allow us to remain in isolation from the rest of society, ways need to be found to put as much anarchy as possible into practice among people who are not anarchist or who are only sympathetic.
The "how", therefore, is to seek the quickest and sincerest way that leads to the realization of our ideals.

[Nils T.]

It is a fact that middle class kids are the most interested in these practices. But I've seen many people that were involved in this with absolutely no parents home and no qualifications and diplomas to go back to.

Dropping out have always clear benefits and gains, which is not the case of all strikes, and again, solidarity is part of it, sometimes more than in strikes movements. Especially in america where the benefits of the strike sometimes profits only to the employees who are on the lists of the union.

[Nils T.]

So what do you do with your time? Your not dropping out, but you're not engaged in any education, work or political activity?Oh, i'm engaged in political activities. But I try to avoid placing myself in the position of a worker or a teacher.

[Pogue]

Oh, i'm engaged in political activities. But I try to avoid placing myself in the position of a worker or a teacher.

Basically you don't want to work. Nothing new there.

[Pogue]

It is a fact that middle class kids are the most interested in these practices. But I've seen many people that were involved in this with absolutely no parents home and no qualifications and diplomas to go back to.

Dropping out have always clear benefits and gains, which is not the case of all strikes, and again, solidarity is part of it, sometimes more than in strikes movements. Especially in america where the benefits of the strike sometimes profits only to the employees who are on the lists of the union.

It really doesn't have any clear benefits and gains and I don't think your one to be telling the rest of the world how great it'd be to stop working and eta from bins when you don't seem to have much life experience yourself, when, to put it lightly, you seem to be a bit of a bum at the moment. Unless of course you don't work because you lost your job and can't find a new one, but I don't think thats the case.

[griffjam]

None of this is to argue that only dropouts can be revolutionaries. Suffice it to say that dropouts, like others, can engage in revolutionary struggle, and that this struggle will likely have a different character than the struggles of those in other sectors of society. Ideally, our efforts should complement the efforts of those who fight the system from within—as their efforts should complement ours.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The people who bring up the same old tired points against "lifestylism" are such broken records.

For the record, I don't feel that so-called "lifestylism" is revolutionary. The idea of trying to escape from or subvert capitalism by simply dropping out of the system is not new; it's been around since the very beginnings of capitalism and the market revolution. It's not "post-Left"...it actually predates what we now know as the modern Left. This could be seen in the many Utopian societies and communities that were set up in the United States during the first half of the 19th century. Movements such as this (and the already mentioned hippie movement) can't subvert capitalism, though, but capitalism can certainly subvert them.

On the other hand, I'm not about to judge people for how they choose to live out their lives, including if that means "dropping out". The lifestylists are correct when they say that anarchism isn't just a political philosophy, but also a philosophy on life in general.

[Idealism]

On dropping out:
dont do it.
you can go live independently and happily while the world is under oppression.
it's not some "revolutionary strategy," you do nothing to further any cause, you dont help anybody but yourselves. Its IMO, just a way of ignoring the enormity of the task of helping to inspire or participate in revolution.

[Nils T.]

Yes. In fact, i'm Charles Fourier back from the dead. Utopian communists zombies ! We feed brains in trashcans to the children we grow in our isolated community greenhouses.

[Invincible Summer]

I can understand this whole "dropping out" viewpoint, but I think it's a bit romanticized. I think that if you're trying to convince people that they can live w/o capitalism by squatting and basically providing what appears to be a really shitty alternative (relative to the apparent decadences that capitalism offers), you won't be beating off takers with a stick.



It really doesn't have any clear benefits and gains and I don't think your one to be telling the rest of the world how great it'd be to stop working and eta from bins when you don't seem to have much life experience yourself, when, to put it lightly, you seem to be a bit of a bum at the moment. Unless of course you don't work because you lost your job and can't find a new one, but I don't think thats the case.

Look, HLVS, I don't totally disagree with your overall point in this thread, but I think calling people "bums" because they're not willing to work is productive. It sort of feeds off of the capitalist rhetoric that to be a "responsible citizen," one has to have a job.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It is impossible to lead the lives we wish to lead while others are oppressed and the world is ruled by greed and violence. Dropping out is first and foremost a strategy for revolutionary struggle against all the structures of domination; it is the most effective starting place I see for myself and others like me to take on the powers that be. In refusing to participate in the system, we’re trying to overthrow the government, abolish all hierarchies, and topple Western civilization.



You can hold a job and a lease and still be engaged in the project of dropping out—it’s a question of where you invest the bulk of your energy and which social currents you contribute to. No one is arguing that if you want to be a revolutionary you can’t earn money, buy groceries, or pay rent. This is a general strategy to be applied to whatever extent it proves useful, not a standard of judgment.




Poor attempt at a strawman.


Under global capitalism, everything is a compromise. Employment means trading one’s time and energy to a destructive, oppressive economy, but unemployment means going without resources that could be used to undermine that economy and being separated from workers with whom one could join forces. Paying rent means supporting the system of private property and the landlords who benefit from it, but in this country (the U.S.) squatting rarely offers the stability necessary for a collective living space or community center (and even when radical spaces are created the alternative they offer is usually contained to those spaces). Using the internet promotes an alienating medium that replaces face-to-face human interaction, but refusing to do so means passing up the chance to be accessible to many.


If everything is a compromise, then the only question is which compromises are most effective for achieving your goals. If the social change you desire is essentially institutional, then you’d better get a degree and do your best to advance in the institutions; if the hierarchy of privilege and power essential to those institutions doesn’t sit well with you, you might be better off working outside them. If your ideal world features factories and paychecks, it’s sensible enough to work towards it from the shop floor; if you hope to build a society without exchange economics or industrial pollution, the first step is probably to limit the ways you participate in those.


Much of the criticism leveled at those who believe dropping out can be part of a revolutionary strategy seems to proceed from unconscious assumptions about revolution itself. It may be that critics of this approach are still under the spell of the Marxist model of revolution. According to this model, a single idea was to take hold of the working masses, who would organize themselves along class lines to seize the infrastructure and institutions of their society. For this model to work, radicals had to be integrated into those masses, living and thinking and speaking like them so as to wield influence, and people couldn’t desert the factories and offices—otherwise, how would those run once The People had taken power? Even in its day, this strategy was hardly a recipe for the liberation most of us long for. It prized numbers above individuality, and unity above diversity; it engaged with people according to the roles they played in existing society, rather than the dreams and desires that beckoned them beyond it. Those who wished to apply this strategy had to compete with one another for a monopoly on revolutionary thought and organization the same way corporations compete to dominate the market. And ironically, though it was intended to build the ultimate inclusive mass movement, this approach often left individuals feeling marginalized: their unique perspectives and experiences seemed extraneous, their needs eclipsed by the imperatives of The Struggle, their lives dwarfed by the grand narrative of History. The masses of Marx’s theory live on today as the mainstream of modern society, an even murkier abstraction. Conventional wisdom dictates that those who would foment social change must appeal to this mainstream, and that this is only possible from within its ranks. Following this logic, it would seem that the first duty of the revolutionary is to seem as much like everyone else as possible. By dropping out of society, radicals relinquish the possibility of influencing others, selfishly choosing their own freedom over noble stewardship of The Revolution. But let us hypothesize that there is another way to work towards revolution: rather than starting in the purported center of society, revolutionaries begin at the so-called fringes, openly refusing to participate and popularizing entirely different ways of life. In demonstrating the advantages of these ways of life, they draw more and more participants, thus becoming more and more visible and capable of challenging the dominant order. These different ways of living need not be uniform, like the thinking of Marxist revolutionaries; on the contrary, they can be endlessly diverse—the more widely varied the options are, the more likely it is that additional participants will be able to find something that resonates with them. The only essential thing is that they offer ways of solving the problems of existence that are fundamentally different from those of the old order—let’s say anticapitalist and nonhierarchical, as a minimum definition—and that they are easily accessible to others. This latter strategy can still culminate in the revolutionary seizure of the means of production and the abolition of class, privilege, and state power; however, these won’t be carried out by a homogeneous mass under ideological leadership, but rather by autonomous groups acting according to their own desires and cooperating where possible. Better yet, there won’t be a big mess when the revolution begins and everyone suddenly has to adapt to brand new ways of living and relating— that revolution will have been going on for quite some time already.





Nice copypasta.