What constitutes a Lifestylist?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I hear lifestylist banded about a lot concerning the Anarchist movement. Now what I understand by the term is someone who lives a certain way and dresses a certain way which they think is important because this is the way they feel is directly in agreement with their beliefs. But I hear people talk a lot about punks in this vein, wo what is it?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It is used inaccurately quite a lot. But strictly it should mean someone who believes it is possible to live "off the grid" of capitalist relationships (via squat, commune, alternative lifestyle, own food production etc.). Dress and music taste now seem less relevant given how much of the "drop out" culture from the late 60's and 70's had been co-opted anyway. I imagine the insularity of the punk scene would probably account for accusations of "lifestylism".

[apathy maybe]

Luckily this question has been raised before and I can just quote previous answers instead of having to think up new ones.
Two such examples come from 2006 (all quotes are from me)
You have two possible meanings, and I give both in this first thread.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lifestylism-t47572/index.html?t=47572&highlight=lifestylism

Lifestylism is a bullshit term used by those who want to split the leftist movement. It is used by those who claim that workers are the only people who can actaully make a revolution and they think that class war is the only way to make it.

I think of lifestylism as living your life in tune with your political/philosophical beliefs. Contributing as little as possible to the capitalist system and not cooperating with authority.

Lifestylism says a big fuck you to people who are hypocritical in their political beliefs.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lifestylism-t45561/index.html?t=45561&highlight=lifestylism

There is nothing wrong with living a lifestyle that minimises the support of capitalism.

Not matter what people say, it is still better to be a leftist and not believe in revolution then to not be a leftist and not believe in revolution.

However, the two concepts (not supporting capitalism in ones daily life and believing that a revolution is necessary to remove capitalism and bring about equality) are not the same. You can easily have one without the other.

Lifesylism is not about no organization either. Food not Bombs is a 'lifesylist' organization. IndyMedia could be classified as one too.

Individualist anarchism is also not the same as lifesylism. Individualist anarchism is a separate distinct anarchism, proponents of which generally promote the idea of building alternative structures to capitalism and the state rather then revolution.

Yes many individualists are 'lifesylists', but so are many class-war anarchists. You an also find communist anarchists who are not class-war anarchists.

Generalisations are bad people.

Some other threads, that may or maynot be relevant:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lifestyle-anarchism-t95044/index.html?t=95044&highlight=lifestyle
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lifestyle-anarchism-t38998/index.html?t=38998&highlight=lifestyle
http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-anarchism-lifestyle-t36074/index.html?t=36074&highlight=lifestyle

Want some of the things that lifestylists do?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/freeganism-t36306/index.html?t=36306&highlight=freeganism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/freeganism-discussion-split-t103192/index.html?t=103192&highlight=freeganism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55173&highlight=tablediving
(Also do a search for shoplifting.)

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, generally, it's just a silly slur. I mean, I suppose that it could be applied to people who claim that you're not a true revolutionary unless, for example, leave your job, or that there is a 'true revolutionary lifestyle'. However, most (pretty much all, actually) that I've seen revealed it through attacking people for being 'lifestylists', and asserting that the 'true revolutionary lifestyle' is that of a worker, and I suppose that the people claiming that you should stay in school to ADVANCE THE REVOLUTION!!!!! would fit in here too (To quote Nora, "I have another duty which is equally sacred [...] My duty towards myself.") They also tend to parrot lines paraphrasing Torvald's, "Oh, you think and talk like a stupid child." I mean, seriously, how people can think CrimethInc bad for calling stuff 'boring as fuck' after that kind of crap is somewhat strange. CI (who are too cool for existence) are not 'bad', per se. Boring as fuck, yes, but I don't have too much of an issue with people's lifestyle choices until it involves eating babies and such, and their aforementioned politics that are boring as fuck is made up for at least somewhat by being libertarians.
Still, as far as I'm concerned, no socialists 'support capitalism in their daily life', which is why they're socialists, and if we're using it in terms of 'holding up capitalism', I wouldn't say that there was any lifestyle choice that undermined capitalism. Shoplifting may cut into some profits (well, technically, businesses raise prices to account for shoplifting, IIRC, so it doesn't really make too much of a difference in that, either), but it does not undermine capitalism, and neither does charity, working, joining the AFL-CIO, having a good time, having a bad time, stinting yourself, consuming loads (which I have no issue with), getting free food, etc. Though free shit is nice, so I have no problems with it when it doesn't lower wages and get people fired and such. Still, with the concept of 'undermining capitalism through a certain lifestyle' being pretty much impossible, so would be 'supporting capitalism through a certain lifestyle'. And after all, living in a certain lifestyle is only being consistent with your beliefs if it was a part of your beliefs in the first place.

[Sasha]

over here (since almost everbody in the anarchist/autonomist movement here IS a part of the squat, punk etc scene) its used as an slur against people who indentify as anarchist/leftwing not because they realy are but because its part of the package/its trendy/their freinds are/etc. I.e. people who's political believes dont go deeper than an circeld A on their jacket.

someone desribed it as "fastfood anarchists & hot topic punks"

[apathy maybe]

over here (since almost everbody in the anarchist/autonomist movement here IS a part of the squat, punk etc scene) its used as an slur against people who indentify as anarchist/leftwing not because they realy are but because its part of the package/its trendy/their freinds are/etc. I.e. people who's political believes dont go deeper than an circeld A on their jacket.

someone desribed it as "fastfood anarchists & hot topic punks"

The trouble is that people (especially "class struggle" anarchists, at least from what I read on RevLeft) confuse the people who's politics "don't go deeper than a circled A on their jacket" with real anarchists.

There is a difference of cause, but they can't see it.

[Bilan]

In response AM's quotes, no, there is nothing wrong with 'being a lifestylist', but you're bullshitting to yourself (as no one else believes it) if you think it's revolutionary, doing any harm, or having any real impact on capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

In response AM's quotes, no, there is nothing wrong with 'being a lifestylist', but you're bullshitting to yourself (as no one else believes it) if you think it's revolutionary, doing any harm, or having any real impact on capitalism.

I don't think it is revolutionary. I suggest that most people who do it don't think it is either. (At least, not for a definition of revolution that involves quick, sharp actions, and possible violence.)

I also don't think that you have any evidence that "class struggle" activities are "doing any harm, or having any real impact on capitalism".

I don't like to see people who "have their hearts in the right places" being attacked when what they do does no harm to "revolutionary" activities. If they actively campaigned for people to vote, or to buy stocks in "good" companies or similar absurd activities, it would be different. They don't.

[StalinFanboy]

It's a term usually thrown about by arm chair revolutionaries. The kind of people who just sit around and talk theory all day and not take any action.

I still sorta consider myself a lifestylist. Not because I think it's revolutionary, but because it's appealing to me. Does this mean I'm not a revolutionary? Hell no. I still very much believe in a revolution, and I want it sooner rather than later.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well there's a lot of things I won't buy because of where they came from and I know this is doing nothing for the revolutionary movement but it just appeases me.

[Black Sheep]

I also don't think that you have any evidence that "class struggle" activities are "doing any harm, or having any real impact on capitalism".Oh and how about strikes, militant syndicates, raises on wages, 8-hour 5-day labor, prevention on raising the age of pension,gains on working environment safety and precautions, prevention of layoffs?

And these are just some of the short term gains.

A ultra basic understanding of capitalism will show you that the above do harm it.

[Jack]

Crimethinc.ers, punks, middle class summer squatters. Basically anyone who tries to live off the grid of capitalism, and satisfy their own wants over the needs of their class

This should help: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3664

[StalinFanboy]

Crimethinc.ers, punks, middle class summer squatters. Basically anyone who tries to live off the grid of capitalism, and satisfy their own wants over the needs of their class

This should help: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3664
Are you aware of how ignorant and condescending you sound in this thread, and in the OI thread?

You don't know why people choose to dumpster dive or squat (What's this nonsense of squatting being useless?). Can you please explain to how me eating food I find out of a dumpster is of any relevance to you? Or how you can justify making it your business what I, or anyone else for that matter, does with their free time?

I love to find free food in the dumpster, there's something wonderful about not buying food. And what isn't revolutionary about squatting? You don't think it would change the dynamics of this society if entire neighborhoods and towns were being squatted? You can talk all you want about how poor working families can't squat, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that. In the last several months there have been one or two instances of entire families squatting their homes, families that had nothing to do with the crew I work with.

I don't see why lifestylist is a negative term. One would think that attempting to live your life in harmony with your beliefs would be encouraged.

[20acresandadonkey]

OK I'm trying to get this, but we don't exactly have many "lifestylists" here in the land of cows and corn.

I don't personally like to eat out of a dumpster, but right on brother. I eat weeds. I harvest from any land I'm not chased off so long as it appears everything would otherwise go to waste.

Surprising how far one can get with other's cast-offs, be they half-eaten burgers or dandelions and chicory.

I hear both sides on the lifestylist issue. I think some of the problem with anti-lifestylists is that they presume the lifestylists are not contributing to the movement. But to me, an anarchist "movement" is a non-starter. I don't follow anyone, and I certainly don't lead. So where the hell would the movement wind up? Full on weeds and tossed-out burritos, sitting on duct-taped furniture, playing five-stringed guitars.

[ZeroNowhere]

8-hour 5-day labor
That kind of thing was put in place to increase labour intensity and productivity, it doesn't harm capitalism (hell, it helps keep it alive).


prevention on raising the age of pension
Doesn't harm capitalism.


gains on working environment safety and precautions
Doesn't harm capitalism, and quite often is granted to freeze a movement that had the potential to strengthen the working class.


prevention of layoffs?
Doesn't harm capitalism.


And these are just some of the short term gains.
That don't harm capitalism.


A ultra basic understanding of capitalism will show you that the above do harm it.
Yes, it would.

[apathy maybe]

Oh and how about strikes, militant syndicates, raises on wages, 8-hour 5-day labor, prevention on raising the age of pension,gains on working environment safety and precautions, prevention of layoffs?

And these are just some of the short term gains.

A ultra basic understanding of capitalism will show you that the above do harm it.
The thing is though, none of these things are bring about the end of capitalism, they are merely changing it.

If a person is a proper freegan (does not contribute to demand for products at all, including housing etc.), they are having basically the same effect on capitalism as a "go-slow" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-slow) by one person.
One person reducing what is produced is reducing production, reducing profit.

One person not contributing to demand (shop-lifting contributes to demand by the way, which is why I'm not using the term purchasing) is also reducing profit.

Corporations would earn more, if only those pesky freegans didn't dumpster dive!

ZeroNowhere, address the individual points you made, and I think I basically agree with those responses.

[ComradeOm]

Corporations would earn more, if only those pesky freegans didn't dumpster dive!Whereas the eight hour day, minimum wage, mandatory pension schemes, etc, don't reduce the capitalist's rate of profit? :ohmy:

This belittling of the labour movement and its struggles/victories pretty much sums up the worst aspects of this 'lifestylism' and is the basis of most criticism directed at it. It takes a special kind of mind to consider their own 'dumpster diving' to be of more importance than the historic mass struggle for the eight hour working day

[ZeroNowhere]

Whereas the eight hour day, minimum wage, mandatory pension schemes, etc, don't reduce the capitalist's rate of profit? :ohmy:

This belittling of the labour movement and its struggles/victories pretty much sums up the worst aspects of this 'lifestylism' and is the basis of most criticism directed at it. It takes a special kind of mind to consider their own 'dumpster diving' to be of more importance than the historic mass struggle for the eight hour working day
Again, the end of working people to death increased the rate of exploitation. Also, again, none of these harm capitalism, and AM wasn't claiming that dumpster diving harmed it either. He said that it reduces profits, meaning that measures that simply reduce the amount of profit only 'harm' capitalism as much as freeganism. He wasn't claiming that it was more important than anything else, merely that it reduced profits (and, to be honest, I can't really blame him for that statement. It seemed to be targeted against the many people, including people here, who tend to go around insulting freegans for being such).
And quite honestly, I would have a lot more issue with belittling the struggles of the labour movement than its 'victories', as struggle is its victory, and easily eclipses reforms gained or lost (or gained and lost, as is often the case). Only focusing on reforms granted serves to belittle the struggles of the labour movement. Saying that they somehow harm capitalism is just rubbish.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Whereas the eight hour day, minimum wage, mandatory pension schemes, etc, don't reduce the capitalist's rate of profit? :ohmy:

This belittling of the labour movement and its struggles/victories pretty much sums up the worst aspects of this 'lifestylism' and is the basis of most criticism directed at it. It takes a special kind of mind to consider their own 'dumpster diving' to be of more importance than the historic mass struggle for the eight hour working day

I don't think that dumpster diving is revolutionary at all, but I also can see where ZeroNowhere is coming from. For example, there's a lot of evidence that points to the fact that this


That kind of thing was put in place to increase labour intensity and productivity, it doesn't harm capitalism (hell, it helps keep it alive).


is essentially correct. Business couldn't grind through workers forever; eventually the level of work had to stabilize for the general good of sustainable profits. But they were also caught in a kind of prisoner's dilemma, because if one enterprise decided to break the norm it could garner more profits than the others. So they had the state step in and institute "reforms" in the form of standardized work days.

I'm not trying to belittle the gains people have made in the past, but I do understand where people are coming from. (Although maybe ZN was referring to something totally different, I don't know.)

[apathy maybe]

Whereas the eight hour day, minimum wage, mandatory pension schemes, etc, don't reduce the capitalist's rate of profit? :ohmy:

This belittling of the labour movement and its struggles/victories pretty much sums up the worst aspects of this 'lifestylism' and is the basis of most criticism directed at it. It takes a special kind of mind to consider their own 'dumpster diving' to be of more importance than the historic mass struggle for the eight hour working day

Please... Where did I belittle the labour movement?

I believe that the labour movement is more likely to bring about a "revolution" than "lifestylism", however, I am also quite certain that there is little evidence to suggest either is better than the other in this regard.

Some "lifestylists" may "belittle" the labour movement, but I certainly don't, and haven't in this thread. And neither has anyone else. Get a grip.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that dumpster diving is revolutionary at all, but I also can see where ZeroNowhere is coming from.
The 'but' there implies that I do, though I don't, though I'm not entirely sure what 'dumpster diving is revolutionary' means anyways. Also, my view is pretty much:
"Given that any animal force's capacity for action is inversely proportionate to the time during which it is active, at certain limits one gains in efficiency what one loses in duration (...) The enormous impulse that the shortening of the working day gives to the development of mechanical systems and to cost-cutting obliges the worker also, by making more of an effort, to provide greater activity over the same period and thus to condense the work to a degree that he would never have been able to reach without this shortening.

"There is no doubt that the tendency of capital to save itself by the systematic intensification of labour and to transform every perfectioning of the mechanical system into a new means of exploitation must lead to the point where a further reduction in working hours becomes inevitable." (Capital)

The drop in the work week can be largely credited to increases in productivity, "The technical and social conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode of production must be revolutionised, before the productiveness of labour can be increased. By that means only can the value of labour power be made to sink, and the portion of working day necessary for the reproduction of that value be shortened."

However, it's also been used for more sinister purposes. For example, in France, reforms made after February 1848 "enforced the same limit to the working day on all workshops and factories, without distinction, (...) declaring as a principle what had been gained in England in the name of women, children and miners only." (Capital). However, they were soon followed by the bloody crushing of the June insurrection in Paris. Far from being a victory for the labour movement, it was an attempt to focus workers' struggles on simply gaining reforms from the state.

Just a few months after the legislation for the decrease of the working week to 29 hours was passed the 'Socialist' government of France established what is known as 'pecuniary compensation', which was basically a direct attack on wages. New 'solidarity taxes' were leeched from civil servants and "solidarity" contracts drawn up between unions and bosses. The government made generalised wage-cuts obligatory. Of course, this kind of thing isn't new, in fact, using reforms to disguise attacks is a pretty good tactic. In the same way it became necessary for social reproduction to adapt the workers to their continuously transforming tools and new living conditions. This is why the State passed laws limiting women's labour time and banning child labour, yet at the same time introducing obligatory schooling and a family code (that is, the obligation of domestic work).

[Bilan]

I don't think it is revolutionary. I suggest that most people who do it don't think it is either. (At least, not for a definition of revolution that involves quick, sharp actions, and possible violence.)

It's not only that, but it is of no use whatsoever to any movement - anarchist, communist or otherwise. It's fun, but pointless for anyone who wishes to get involved in bringing the struggle forward. That's not to say those who do are squatters or whatever don't do anything, but that these acts in themselves don't.



I also don't think that you have any evidence that "class struggle" activities are "doing any harm, or having any real impact on capitalism".

That's utterly ridiculous. Are you being serious? Class struggle does nothing to capitalism? Please. :rolleyes:



I don't like to see people who "have their hearts in the right places" being attacked when what they do does no harm to "revolutionary" activities.

I'm not attacking you, or anyone else, just stating what it is. If you take it as negative, that's a choice.


If they actively campaigned for people to vote, or to buy stocks in "good" companies or similar absurd activities, it would be different. They don't.

So? Not doing one thing doesn't make the other thing positive or revolutionary. If we're talking about revolutionary politics, and active engagement in revolutionary politics, this stuff is worthless. If we're talking about personal lifestyle choices - go wild.

[Dimentio]

I hear lifestylist banded about a lot concerning the Anarchist movement. Now what I understand by the term is someone who lives a certain way and dresses a certain way which they think is important because this is the way they feel is directly in agreement with their beliefs. But I hear people talk a lot about punks in this vein, wo what is it?


http://empireiii.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=148

This is a prime example of a lifestylist.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's fun, but pointless for anyone who wishes to get involved in bringing the struggle forward.
You just contradicted yourself. It's fun... That's the point.
Well, other than free shit, though that helps too.
It doesn't contribute towards revolution, yes, but mosts things we do don't do so either, and our duty to ourselves is every bit as holy as our duty to anything else.


So? Not doing one thing doesn't make the other thing positive or revolutionary. If we're talking about revolutionary politics, and active engagement in revolutionary politics, this stuff is worthless. If we're talking about personal lifestyle choices - go wild.
As far as I know, he wasn't saying in the bit you quoted that it was revolutionary, whatever that means in the first place. Hell, he actually said, "I don't think it is revolutionary."


That's utterly ridiculous. Are you being serious? Class struggle does nothing to capitalism? Please.
Other than define it, it can serve to strengthen and unite the working class against the capitalist class. Does this necessarily 'harm' it, though? It has managed to cope through reformism, etc, or simply through oppressive measures. After all, while class struggle is, as Engels said, "a means, a very necessary and effective means, but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether", that doesn't mean that it necessarily harms capitalism so much as produce the noose which is to hang it. "More than this, there are plenty of symptoms that the working class of this country is awakening to the consciousness that it has for some time been moving in the wrong groove; that the present movements for higher wages and shorter hours exclusively, keep it in a vicious circle out of which there is no issue; that it is not the lowness of wages which forms the fundamental evil, but the wages system itself." The movement for higher wages and shorter hours is only anti-capitalist in the sense that it breeds an army which may harm capitalism, the working class being basically its Achilles' Heel, as reformism can't even harm capitalism, and to harm it is to kill it. However, by itself, it doesn't really 'harm it'. At least, I was taking that kind of thing as what was meant by 'having any real impact' on capitalism, rather than an overly literal interpretation, which would mean that freeganism does have a 'real impact' on capitalism. Though really, strikes and such do not necessarily have any harmful impact on capitalism. And I don't know how much raising class consciousness would count as having 'a real impact' upon the social system of capitalism, as opposed to the results of it.

Edit: Though, to be fair, 'lifestylism' in the sense of shoplifting or dumpster diving to give to the poor has probably had some, though a miniscule, impact on class consciousness.

[ComradeOm]

Again, the end of working people to death increased the rate of exploitationWhich would be true if capitalists ever did "work people to death". All that is required for continued production is that wages remain sufficient to provide subsistence to the workforce. Your assertion would only hold true if a marginal increase in wages led to a far greater increase in productivity

Why exactly do you think that the introduction of the eight hour day, and similar reforms, was so bitterly opposed by the bourgeoisie? Why do you think capitalists today remain so determined to reduce labour costs by union-busting or outsourcing? High labour costs are not conductive to high profits


Business couldn't grind through workers forever; eventually the level of work had to stabilize for the general good of sustainable profits. But they were also caught in a kind of prisoner's dilemma, because if one enterprise decided to break the norm it could garner more profits than the others. So they had the state step in and institute "reforms" in the form of standardized work daysThis implies two things. The first is that the rising wages is a natural phenomena in capitalism and an inevitable product of economic growth (although I'd like to see some try and explain the stagnation of US real wages since the '70s). Frankly I have little time for this illusion, so fervently held by liberal economists, that waves away the reality of global imperialism. The US economy does not exist in isolation and any analysis of rising wages that ignores the economic impact of imperialism - whether involving management of raw materials, cheap labour, or capital flow - is deeply flawed

The second, although more obvious, implication is that the eight hour day, and similar reforms, were introduced by a benign state rather than being foisted on an unwilling capitalist class by a determined proletariat after decades of struggle. I can only call this bullshit. I know of no government that enacted such legislation without intense pressure from unions and workers' groups. That such accomplishments are now simply written off - or, even worse, ascribed to capitalists having "the state step in" - is a disgrace. Global imperialism permitted the leeway necessary to enact reforms to capitalism but it took massive struggle on the behalf of the workers and their organisations to force the capitalists' hands. Why? Because lower wages equals higher profits


Please... Where did I belittle the labour movement? How about the part where you insist that "there is little evidence to suggest [the labour movement] is better than [lifestylism] in this regard"? Or the bit where you claim that class struggle does not have "any real impact on capitalism"?

Just the fact that people are even comparing the organised labour movement to this 'freeganism' is incredible. Not to mention the blasé way in which the real achievements of the working class are simply dismissed out of hand. Are you so comfortable in your life that you can dismiss the countless workers who fought and died for the eight hour day or minimum wage or pension rights, ie real tangible changes for the working class

But then I am 'old left'. What do I know? :rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How about the part where you insist that "there is little evidence to suggest [the labour movement] is better than [lifestylism] in this regard"? Or the bit where you claim that class struggle does not have "any real impact on capitalism"?

Just the fact that people are even comparing the organised labour movement to this 'freeganism' is incredible. Not to mention the blasé way in which the real achievements of the working class are simply dismissed out of hand. Are you so comfortable in your life that you can dismiss the countless workers who fought and died for the eight hour day or minimum wage or pension rights, ie real tangible changes for the working class

But then I am 'old left'. What do I know? :rolleyes:

He didn't explicitly say the labour movement Om, he said I cannot see how class struggle activities are more harmful to Capitalism than Lifestylism. He does have a point. You have mentioned several reforms, but these don't harm capitalism, they just serve to give the worker a better level of exploitation which in the long run will help to minimise class consciousness.

[ComradeOm]

He didn't explicitly say the labour movement Om, he said I cannot see how class struggle activities are more harmful to Capitalism than Lifestylism. He does have a point. You have mentioned several reforms, but these don't harm capitalism, they just serve to give the worker a better level of exploitation which in the long run will help to minimise class consciousness.As a general rule, what is good for workers is bad for employers

A revolution is not a sudden event that appears from out of the blue, it is the culmination of a series of encounters in which the working class presses its claims/interests with increasing urgency. Revolution occurs when the ruling class can no longer accommodate these demands. That we have not yet arrived at this final point in no way diminishes those concessions that we have thus far torn from the capitalists. But I can understand how 'lifestylists', or anyone who purposefully removes themselves from the relations of production, have a hard time understanding the importance of such minor triumphs

I should stress that I have absolutely no problem with someone advocating this 'freeganism' as a lifestyle choice. I merely object to the suggestion that it is an alternative to the organised labour movement (or class struggle :rolleyes:) or that it is in any way progressive or revolutionary

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As a general rule, what is good for workers is bad for employers

A revolution is not a sudden event that appears from out of the blue, it is the culmination of a series of encounters in which the working class presses its claims/interests with increasing urgency. Revolution occurs when the ruling class can no longer accommodate these demands. That we have not yet arrived at this final point in no way diminishes those concessions that we have thus far torn from the capitalists. But I can understand how 'lifestylists', or anyone who purposefully removes themselves from the relations of production, have a hard time understanding the importance of such minor triumphs

I should stress that I have absolutely no problem with someone advocating this 'freeganism' as a lifestyle choice. I merely object to the suggestion that it is an alternative to the organised labour movement (or class struggle :rolleyes:) or that it is in any way progressive or revolutionary

I agree completely with you on that notion Om. Of course It does not hurt your credentials as a leftist to be involved in both. I personally avoid certain things made by companies like Coca Cola. Of course I do this out of moral choice but I know that this in no way affects the company Coca Cola.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Corrected.:)

Yes sorry :blushing:

[Jack]

Are you aware of how ignorant and condescending you sound in this thread, and in the OI thread?

You don't know why people choose to dumpster dive or squat (What's this nonsense of squatting being useless?). Can you please explain to how me eating food I find out of a dumpster is of any relevance to you? Or how you can justify making it your business what I, or anyone else for that matter, does with their free time?

I love to find free food in the dumpster, there's something wonderful about not buying food. And what isn't revolutionary about squatting? You don't think it would change the dynamics of this society if entire neighborhoods and towns were being squatted? You can talk all you want about how poor working families can't squat, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that. In the last several months there have been one or two instances of entire families squatting their homes, families that had nothing to do with the crew I work with.

I don't see why lifestylist is a negative term. One would think that attempting to live your life in harmony with your beliefs would be encouraged.

How revolutionary, dig in the trash and break into abandoned houses. Up the system bro! Up the punxxx!

How has you being a lifestylist improved the world or helped the movement?

[Incendiarism]

We argue theory on revleft. We most definitely get our part in.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I feel that lifetylists are people who are ashamed that they had money growing up so they pretend to be poor for a while. They look like shit on purpose and eat shitty food. If people think of this as anarchists or communists they will be turned off before anything can be said about the politics.

Now if you are actually homeless then I have no problem with squatting or dumpster diving. If you are on the internet you are a poser and you need to stop taking the food out of the dumpster that a real homeless person could be eating.

I feel the same way about "punks". They look like shit on purpose.

[Black Sheep]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk sheep http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1424133#post1424133)
Oh and how about strikes, militant syndicates, raises on wages, 8-hour 5-day labor, prevention on raising the age of pension,gains on working environment safety and precautions, prevention of layoffs?

And these are just some of the short term gains.A ultra basic understanding of capitalism will show you that the above do harm it.
The thing is though, none of these things are bring about the end of capitalism, they are merely changing it.

If a person is a proper freegan (does not contribute to demand for products at all, including housing etc.), they are having basically the same effect on capitalism as a "go-slow" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-slow) by one person.
One person reducing what is produced is reducing production, reducing profit.

One person not contributing to demand (shop-lifting contributes to demand by the way, which is why I'm not using the term purchasing) is also reducing profit.

Corporations would earn more, if only those pesky freegans didn't dumpster dive!

ZeroNowhere, address the individual points you made, and I think I basically agree with those responses. Yeah because i did say that these are the short term gains,which are changes that have an effect on capitalism & the working class, raising the standards of the latter, lowering the profits of the former, and building up the movement to bring about the collapse of the exploitative system in general.

And since people have material needs, they have to understand what communism stands for and a pinch of material gain will help them understand the long term cause, even if they have not read Marx.


prevention on raising the age of pension ||
Doesn't harm capitalism.Having people not working and getting paid doesnt harm capitalism? (or to be more precise, a capitalisst society)


gains on working environment safety and precautions ||
Doesn't harm capitalism, and quite often is granted to freeze a movement that had the potential to strengthen the working class.An employer spending plus XXX dollars is better off? The pursue of the right to safe labor is something that cappies dont give a fuck about?
Any demand that is fullfilled by the employer after workers' struggle has the potential to calm down the 'revolutionary spirit'.Apply that to the big picture and you have a terrible argument.Using the same pattern we should make life miserable to the workers in order for them to revolt.


prevention of layoffs?||
Doesn't harm capitalism.When the most profitable thing for an employer to do is to kick staff out, preventing that doesnt harm him/her? (plus, the right to permanent jobs)


And these are just some of the short term gains.||
That don't harm capitalism.They may not fullfil one's expectations for the 'death blow to capitalism', but they improve the workers' lives, and with the right aim (communism), they show them the potential of material gain for all for which to fight for.

[StalinFanboy]

How revolutionary, dig in the trash and break into abandoned houses. Up the system bro! Up the punxxx!

How has you being a lifestylist improved the world or helped the movement?
Wow. Apparently you can't read. I never said that dumpster diving is revolutionary. And I never said anyone being a lifestylist is revolutionary. Fuck man, do you not read shit on purpose? I like to get free food. It's fun and I don't have a lot of money. Most of the money I do have goes towards gas and bills. But anyway, thanks for proving my point about being a condescending asshole.

You still haven't explained to me how taking over space isn't revolutionary.

[Jack]

You still haven't explained to me how taking over space isn't revolutionary.

Can you defend it and use it as a tool for revolution? There's nothing revolutionary about a TAZ and the like, because it's only temporary.

[StalinFanboy]

Can you defend it and use it as a tool for revolution? Uh, yes.


There's nothing revolutionary about a TAZ and the like, because it's only temporary.
I'm not talking about temporary.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This implies two things. The first is that the rising wages is a natural phenomena in capitalism and an inevitable product of economic growth (although I'd like to see some try and explain the stagnation of US real wages since the '70s). Frankly I have little time for this illusion, so fervently held by liberal economists, that waves away the reality of global imperialism. The US economy does not exist in isolation

No, but I am referring to the reformist measures taken in the United States...imperialism is another topic entirely, although definitely related.


The second, although more obvious, implication is that the eight hour day, and similar reforms, were introduced by a benign state rather than being foisted on an unwilling capitalist class by a determined proletariat after decades of struggle.

If that's what you truly believe than you have completely missed my point. Of course the state is not "benign", and of course no one wanted to enact reforms out of the goodness of their hearts. But the fact remains that the state and business work in tandem more often than not, especially in the 20th century with the rise of Frederick Taylor's "scientific management" and the cult of professionalism, and the traditional liberal analysis of the state and private business as being opposing forces is completely and verifiably false. Take probably one of the more famous cases of government regulation, the Meat Inspection Act, now famous because of Upton Sinclair and The Jungle. Normally this gets mentioned as an example of regulation getting "foisted" upon business by the state, presumably because consumers demanded that action be taken...however, this is not the case. In fact, that particular act was sponsored by the meat packing industry to destroy their competetors (smaller meat packing firms), and consolidate their holds on the domestic market. The American "New Deal" is another example of wholesale cartelization of industry occuring under the guise of "reform".

To be sure, there were responses to the working class groundswell, but they were just as likely to be negative ones in the long term as they were to be positive ones, such as Taft-Hartley and the Wagner Act. Add to that the fact that the U.S. labor movement, while very militant, was also often disorganized, and the ruling class rarely got a sense of immediate danger from it (with a couple notable exceptions, such as in 1877 and the Pullman Strike).


I know of no government that enacted such legislation without intense pressure from unions and workers' groups.

I think that what you may fail to recognize here is the ruling class ideology in making certain decisions. The United States never had a "laissez-faire" state; the state was always involved in some sector of the economy in some way or another. But increasingly a new ideology developed, driven along by industrialization and mechanization, which gave rise to increasing "interferance" by the state into the matters of business, which took the form of imperialism abroad and increasingly scientific, professional management at home (which can be seen by increasing ties between corporations and the state). That domestic policy also played a part in driving along reforms during the Progressive era, which were seen as social expenditures.


That such accomplishments are now simply written off - or, even worse, ascribed to capitalists having "the state step in" - is a disgrace.

I'm not trying to write off anyone's accomplishments. I'm simply pointing out that to ascribe every progressive victory, from the eight hour workday to healthcare for everyone as all being the fruits of epic proletarian struggles is a bit misguided, in my opinion. But I can only speak for how things occured in the United States...perhaps they were different in Europe.


Global imperialism permitted the leeway necessary to enact reforms to capitalism

You're absolutely right. (That's another discussion entirely, though.)


Because lower wages equals higher profits

That's true, but there are more ways than one to cut costs rather than simply slashing wages, which could cause unrest. Inflation is one such measure, as J.M. Keynes pointed out.

[ComradeOm]

I'm not trying to write off anyone's accomplishments. I'm simply pointing out that to ascribe every progressive victory, from the eight hour workday to healthcare for everyone as all being the fruits of epic proletarian struggles is a bit misguided, in my opinion. But I can only speak for how things occured in the United States...perhaps they were different in EuropeGermany passed eight hour day legalisation during the midst of its November Revolution in 1918. Ditto with Austria. In France the 1934 Matignon Accords (declaring a 40 hour work week) was arrived at following mass strikes and factory occupations. Italy gained its eight hour day in a maelstrom of strikes from 1918 to 1922. It took mass strikes in 1919 to force both the Spanish and Portuguese states to concede the same. The Russian bourgeoisie of course refused to even consider such a motion and it was not until the ascension of the Bolsheviks that it was introduced

But yet things were not all that different in America. The above triumphs were all the result of decades, almost a century in some cases, of struggle and agitation. From the 1870s onwards the eight-hour day became the central demand of most unions on either continent. You gloss over the role of the AFL and other US unions (which called out over 350,000 workers in support for the eight hour day in 1886) and their success in forcing individual companies and states to enact the practices from the early years of the 20th C

The other similarity is of course the role of the state. Neither the state nor the capitalist classes that give it its form desired to enact such legislation (or any measures that might reduce profits). Rather they were forced to by a combination of working class determination and a sharp deterioration in their own positions. Its no coincidence that the end of WWI, which plunged global capitalism into its deepest crisis in history, saw these unprecedented concessions by capitalists. (The US avoided this particular crisis but could not escape the Great Depression). In these circumstances the bourgeoisie had no choice but to bargain and enact reforms that cut into their profits and undermined their position of power in the workplace

Indeed, far from welcoming these reforms, the captains of industry uniformly opposed them and in virtually every case, including Taft–Hartley Act, acted strongly to roll back the concessions once the immediate crisis had passed. In some cases, such as Germany and the US, this took years while in others, France springs to mind, mere months. Obviously they were unable to abolish collective bargaining structures entirely but this nonetheless undermines any suggestion that such reforms were desired, even subconsciously, by the bourgeoisie or the state

The reality is that behind every single beneficial labour reform or workplace legislation there lies over a century of union agitation and class struggle

[¡ya basta!]

How revolutionary, dig in the trash and break into abandoned houses. Up the system bro! Up the punxxx!

How has you being a lifestylist improved the world or helped the movement?

why just wait for a revolution if you can live one everyday? now, before one jumps to any conclusions, let me say; i believe in revolution. and i will do what i see necessary to contribute. and when the dust has settled, i will happily share my dumpster-ed sandwiches with all present.

in the meantime, i will live and die by my principles as an anarchist. i don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalism, therefore i will contribute as little as possible to it. as far as my principles as an anarchist, i would not be a revolutionary if i did not strive for a little revolution in every day of my life. if this means that i eat out of dumpsters, then i'll eat out of dumpsters! and as for being counter-revolutionary....how is living by your principles as an anarchist counter-revolutionary? anarchy is not some ivory tower ideology that we should refer to as something that we'll have 'after the revolution' it is something that MUST be lived every day, and anarchists in dumpsters is certainly better than anarchists in supermarkets!

[Chicano Shamrock]

why just wait for a revolution if you can live one everyday? now, before one jumps to any conclusions, let me say; i believe in revolution. and i will do what i see necessary to contribute. and when the dust has settled, i will happily share my dumpster-ed sandwiches with all present.

in the meantime, i will live and die by my principles as an anarchist. i don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalism, therefore i will contribute as little as possible to it. as far as my principles as an anarchist, i would not be a revolutionary if i did not strive for a little revolution in every day of my life. if this means that i eat out of dumpsters, then i'll eat out of dumpsters! and as for being counter-revolutionary....how is living by your principles as an anarchist counter-revolutionary? anarchy is not some ivory tower ideology that we should refer to as something that we'll have 'after the revolution' it is something that MUST be lived every day, and anarchists in dumpsters is certainly better than anarchists in supermarkets!
What are you doing on the internet my ultra revolutionary anarchist? Don't you know you are helping the capitalist media machine by using this product?

You are not a revolutionary and you are not causing revolutions in every day life. You are a person who wants to feel ever more proletariat by pretending to be poor. You know what real poor people are doing? They are out working not dumpster diving and riding their bikes around town.

[ComradeOm]

...anarchists in dumpsters is certainly better than anarchists in supermarkets!Except that an anarchist working in supermarket is not completely isolated from the working class

Frankly I cringe when I read sentences like "strive for a little revolution in every day of my life". It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of just what 'revolution' is and reveals your own conception of it to be incredibly self-centric and egotistical

[¡ya basta!]

Michel Foucault argues that opportunities for resistance exist at sites of oppression. "There are no relations of power without resistances; the latter are all the more real and effective because they are formed right at the point where relations of power are exercised" (from Power/Knowledge)
Power, Foucault argues (and i agree) is not something that's given or taken, but exercised. As power is exercised over subjects, it can be oppressive. Resistance to that oppression should therefore be at the very level where power is exercised. Therefore, if capitalism exercising power through dictating how/what/where we eat, then resistance to that exercise power should take place in a very literal way. And it should not take place after the 'revolution' but everyday.

Now, as for having an understanding of 'revolution' well, revolution is essentially a radical change yes? 'Radical' in fact means root....therefore, a radical change is a change that gets to the very root of a problem. Therefore, any resistance which seeks to bring radical change, change at the very root of the problem is essentially revolution. so, if seeking to address 'root' problems of oppression and subjugation makes me 'self-centric' and 'egotistical' simply because I’d rather live in a new world today rather than tomorrow, well then, so be it. (Though how eating bagels out of a dumpster makes me self-centric, I’m not sure, I always share!) I just refuse to climb into an ivory tower and wait until after the 'revolution' to live by my principles.

As a side note, it's curious that there's been an assumption that just because I eat out of dumpsters means that I don't work. If you read what I wrote, it said that I contribute as little as possible to capitalism. This does not mean that I don't work. And I think that sometimes being poor means working 40 hours a week and barely being able to put food on your table. Being poor can mean choosing to heat your house or choosing to eat. It can also mean choosing to heat your house and eating out of dumpsters.....so while my choice to dumpster dive has much to do with my anarchist position on food being free, it's also been a matter of financial necessity from time to time in my life.

[apathy maybe]

It's not only that, but it is of no use whatsoever to any movement - anarchist, communist or otherwise. It's fun, but pointless for anyone who wishes to get involved in bringing the struggle forward. That's not to say those who do are squatters or whatever don't do anything, but that these acts in themselves don't.
I don't recall writing that squatting or dumpster diving moved "the struggle forward".


That's utterly ridiculous. Are you being serious? Class struggle does nothing to capitalism? Please. :rolleyes:
I said you don't have any evidence it is doing harm to capitalism. Please provide it if you have it.

Mind you, I think it is doing harm to capitalism, I just think that it is hard to meaningfully show. Om, in a post, discusses the 8 hour day, and how it was introduce after riots, etc. Great, that's positive evidence that class struggle does stuff! Mind you, capitalism is still going just as strong as it was 100 years ago, so maybe class struggle isn't harming capitalism as much as you might like?


How about the part where you insist that "there is little evidence to suggest [the labour movement] is better than [lifestylism] in this regard"? Or the bit where you claim that class struggle does not have "any real impact on capitalism"?
Please..., if you think that is belittling the labour movement, then you are too insecure.
However, if you think I am wrong about class struggle having a real impact on capitalism, significantly weakening it, and moving the movement for socialism forward, present your evidence.

Because, capitalism still exists, is still strong, and looks like it is going to survive for another hundred years at least!


Just the fact that people are even comparing the organised labour movement to this 'freeganism' is incredible. Not to mention the blasé way in which the real achievements of the working class are simply dismissed out of hand. Are you so comfortable in your life that you can dismiss the countless workers who fought and died for the eight hour day or minimum wage or pension rights, ie real tangible changes for the working class
Dude, "real tangible changes for the working class" wasn't what I was discussing. I'm not disagreeing that class struggle can lead to positive reforms.

However, I'm saying that there is no evidence (or little), that class struggle leads to revolutionary action, that brings about communism.

I'm not saying it doesn't, I can't see anything else really that would (at least at this stage), but, that doesn't mean there is evidence for it.


But then I am 'old left'. What do I know? :rolleyes:
No megaphones, no dogma, fuck the old left order.


As a general rule, what is good for workers is bad for employers
Great! Free food for workers, free shelter for workers, free anything, is good for workers. It is directly bad for the bosses, because by having free things, the workers aren't consuming, which leads to reduced profit etc.

I'm glad we agree, what is good for workers, is, generally, bad for bosses.


I should stress that I have absolutely no problem with someone advocating this 'freeganism' as a lifestyle choice. I merely object to the suggestion that it is an alternative to the organised labour movement (or class struggle :rolleyes:) or that it is in any way progressive or revolutionary
Good. Also, I ask, where have I, or anyone in this thread, said that freeganism, or any other "lifestylist" activity is an alternative to class struggle. Or revolutionary for that matter. (We'll just have to agree to disagree on "progressive" I guess, mind, we might have different definitions. Good for the worker is progressive isn't it?)

[ComradeOm]

However, if you think I am wrong about class struggle having a real impact on capitalism, significantly weakening it, and moving the movement for socialism forward, present your evidenceYou've read my above posts, no? To quote:

"A revolution is not a sudden event that appears from out of the blue, it is the culmination of a series of encounters in which the working class presses its claims/interests with increasing urgency. Revolution occurs when the ruling class can no longer accommodate these demands. That we have not yet arrived at this final point in no way diminishes those concessions that we have thus far torn from the capitalists. But I can understand how 'lifestylists', or anyone who purposefully removes themselves from the relations of production, have a hard time understanding the importance of such minor triumphs"


Because, capitalism still exists, is still strong, and looks like it is going to survive for another hundred years at least!I left my crystal ball in to the cleaners so I'll leave the predictions to yourself

But anyone who claims that capitalism is a strong today as it was a century ago is simply wrong. In 1909 a typical industrialist would have had to contend with few unions and little/no opposition from workers when deciding on worker practices. His word was effectively law within the factory walls. The position of the working class relative to the bourgeoisie has improved immeasurably, in fits and starts, over the past century. We've not yet arrived at a revolutionary period (at least not in my lifetime) but progress has unquestionably been made


Dude, "real tangible changes for the working class" wasn't what I was discussing. I'm not disagreeing that class struggle can lead to positive reformsFrankly I'm not entirely sure just what you're discussing. You accept that class struggle has led to "positive reforms" yet you also deny that it has had any "real impact on capitalism" but also concede that what's "good for workers, is, generally, bad for bosses"

Your entire argument seems to boil down to 'Capitalism still exists, ergo class struggle has failed or is pointless or is unproven'


However, I'm saying that there is no evidence (or little), that class struggle leads to revolutionary action, that brings about communismWhat exactly do you expect? That someday people will suddenly wake up and decide en masse that revolution is a good idea? I don't need my crystal ball to tell you that its going to take a lot longer than a 100 years for that to happen

Revolutions are not conjured out of nothing. The events in Spain/Russia (select as appropriate) were the result of decades of work by the CNT/Bolsheviks in agitating amongst the proletariat and pushing the agenda of organised labour. They didn't say 'Oh, I'm all for revolution but I don't want to campaign for workers' rights'. No, they got their hands dirty with campaigning and organising strikes; aware that reforms were not an end in themselves but still beneficial to the working class and a decided step in the right direction

As I said in a previous post, revolution is not an event its a process; its a long struggle that eventually culminates in the demise of the old order. Capitalism is not going to collapse until it is unable to meet the demands of the workers, effectively losing control of the economic sphere. When they are no longer able to give into our demands, when we've pushed them to and past the limits of what they can offer... well, that's when reforms give way to revolution. You can't advocate a better life for workers while refusing to fight for the likes of minimum wage or shorter days


No megaphones, no dogma, fuck the old left orderNo engagement, no theory, fuck the working class


Great! Free food for workers, free shelter for workers, free anything, is good for workers. It is directly bad for the bosses, because by having free things, the workers aren't consuming, which leads to reduced profit etc.You are comparing the losses to capitalism that can be gained from 'free food' to the historic struggles for workers' rights?


Good. Also, I ask, where have I, or anyone in this thread, said that freeganism, or any other "lifestylist" activity is an alternative to class struggle. Or revolutionary for that matterAre you joking? Aside from the whole shtick where you dismiss the actual achievements of the labour movement - considering mass strikes and the like to be no more revolutionary than eating out of rubbish bins - you said that:

"I believe that the labour movement is more likely to bring about a "revolution" than "lifestylism", however, I am also quite certain that there is little evidence to suggest either is better than the other in this regard."

What exactly is this if not a suggestion that lifestylism is an alternative (route to revolution) to the workers' movement? There's "no evidence to suggest that one is better than the other in this regard"? So lifestylism is to be considered a viable alternative?

[apathy maybe]

Before I respond to the quotes below, I just want to say, I admit defeat, I concede, I was, at least partly, wrong.

Working class action has got evidence behind it that it can adversely affect capitalism. Mass working class action is also more likely to bring down capitalism than most other things (dramatic environmental problems being also in the running).

Onto the specific points I still object to, or want to clarify.

No engagement, no theory, fuck the working class
You know I never said that don't you. Have a search through the CC if you don't believe me, I documented at one stage where the myth came from.


You are comparing the losses to capitalism that can be gained from 'free food' to the historic struggles for workers' rights?
I did directly compare "free food" (and shelter, and clothing etc.) to the effects of a "go slow" by a single worker. I stand by that claim. I never said that freeganism could have the same affect on capitalism as class struggle, just that it had about the same evidence backing it up (at least, I think that's what I was trying to say). I concede that I was wrong.


Are you joking? Aside from the whole shtick where you dismiss the actual achievements of the labour movement - considering mass strikes and the like to be no more revolutionary than eating out of rubbish bins - you said that:

"I believe that the labour movement is more likely to bring about a "revolution" than "lifestylism", however, I am also quite certain that there is little evidence to suggest either is better than the other in this regard."

What exactly is this if not a suggestion that lifestylism is an alternative (route to revolution) to the workers' movement? There's "no evidence to suggest that one is better than the other in this regard"? So lifestylism is to be considered a viable alternative?
I still never said it was an alternative... I also specifically said that I did not think that lifestylism was a route to revolution.
I simply said that the evidence support the two approaches as to the amount of damage they do to capitalism is about the same. Nearly zero. (I also admit I was wrong.) I could also say that jumping up and down every Sunday has about the same evidence to support it ending capitalism. That doesn't mean that I think it is an alternative to revolution.

Anyway, moving on...