We Anarchists have a problem.. [Archive]

View Full Version : We Anarchists have a problem..

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:13

We anarchists, ladies and gents, have a problem
The problems is not gays or Jews, its not fascists (for now) nor is it our analytical cousins the marxists, it is something far more sinister

at least in the US, (Anarchists) need to begin to put a bigger focus on distinguishing themselves from some of the degenerate trends that claim the banner of anarchism because it's a pretty big problem. - Apikros (I think I miss spelled that but I don't wanna go back and check) he said this in my anti anarchist propaganda thread, and we began talking about a major problem we have, and I think its the biggest

There called lifestylists, and they are more common then we admit, especially in America, we must never forget that if most people online are American, then most anarchists APOLITICAL PEOPLE meet will be lifestylist, this also works in the real world if your American.

Lets have an analogy for a moment so that we can understand how bad this really is..If you were an anti soviet Marxist and you find that most people assume your a red fascist and authoritarian, who shall you blame? Maybe the media, sure, who else?? The soviet union of course, lifestylists are anarchism's soviets, they are setting the worst possable image, they are scaring away apolitical people and making them believe we're actually like this?

what IS a lifestylist?
those who are committed to changing the ways of the current system individualistically without actually trying to get rid of capitalism or the state, they "work around it", they figure buying fairtrade is going to make it all better, they are the kind who walk in black blocs and think its going to actually help, what do these guys think black blocks do except scare possable future anarchists?
Imagine walking down a street from the shops and be confronted by a mass block of people wearing balaclavas
who thinks that's going to help?

Guys, we anarchists need an "image change" (I hate using that term, I sound like a PR guy) we need to take STEPS to disassociate ourselves from this mindless rabble, I have witnessed first hand what they are like, these are just some of things things they say to me
"anarchism is the opposite to politics"
"who's bakunin?"
"anarchism is about life and freedom! not boring councils!"
"fuck the system!!!"

2 out of those 4 were teens, these people are the reason anarchists are stereotyped as rich teens acting out, and BTW, I realize some of us are teens but are genuine anarchist, I "converted" one myself.

what steps can we take to disassociate ourselves from these people? first all gibe out the short list which I practice, then I shall explain its results, and compare them to things I used to do.

1. Stop using the circle A
I know, hard, we use it so much, think its in my avatar ( I forget, lol), but sadly it has become mucked up by anarcho punk bands and teens scraping it into desks! it has been stolen from us by the individualists and ancaps in the same way the Nazis stole the swastika from the Indians (the swasika was the originally a symbol for immortality)
in a new video game im considering one of the factions in it are sort of a biker gang who want chaos and are crazy, there symbol? a circle A, we must give up this symbol, its just unhelpful now...

2. no more blocs
i explained above why

3. change terminology (applies somewhat to marxists)
when I enter a chatroom and the conversation goes into politics I don't call myself an anarchist straight away, its a sad state of things to do and you can call me out on that one but in my experience its a bad idea, you all know what's it like, you spend the next 15 minutes trying to get it into there heads your not a teen 4 chaos, nor are your rich, or stupid
I call myself a revolutionary socialist .I avoid the other term that tries to do what I'm doing "libertarian socialist" it doesn't work on Americans, they think libertarianism is the opposite of socialism, blame there Libertarian party, if an American says there libertarian, there right wing, unlike Euro libertarians
when I call myself a revolutionary socialist I often explain im for decentralized confederation and common ownership, what happens then? im often asked what I mean, its begs questions, people have pre conceived notions of what anarchism is, not what "common ownership" or "confederacy's" is, which is great, it leave them OPEN, they listen, and we start REAL debate
Eventually near the end I veer more towards the words "Anarcho" which a lot of them don't know, its eventually explained im an anarchist, bu by this point they already know a lot about anarchism without even realizing at the start
so I explain im for direct action, socialism and freedom, then I drop the bombshell, I an anarchist! Ha

so heed these words comrades, we need to change, we need to fight these lifestylists, they need to go.
please read "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm" for more info, i cant post a link but its available at libcom, look it up

Robocommie

7th January 2010, 01:16

The biggest problem facing your tendency is people who don't even fucking matter in the long run, who have no power for good or ill?

The Vegan Marxist

7th January 2010, 01:26

We anarchists, ladies and gents, have a problem
The problems is not gays or Jews, its not fascists (for now) nor is it our analytical cousins the marxists, it is something far more sinister

- Apikros (I think I miss spelled that but I don't wanna go back and check) he said this in my anti anarchist propaganda thread, and we began talking about a major problem we have, and I think its the biggest

There called lifestylists, and they are more common then we admit, especially in America, we must never forget that if most people online are American, then most anarchists APOLITICAL PEOPLE meet will be lifestylist, this also works in the real world if your American.

Lets have an analogy for a moment so that we can understand how bad this really is..If you were an anti soviet Marxist and you find that most people assume your a red fascist and authoritarian, who shall you blame? Maybe the media, sure, who else?? The soviet union of course, lifestylists are anarchism's soviets, they are setting the worst possable image, they are scaring away apolitical people and making them believe we're actually like this?

what IS a lifestylist?
those who are committed to changing the ways of the current system individualistically without actually trying to get rid of capitalism or the state, they "work around it", they figure buying fairtrade is going to make it all better, they are the kind who walk in black blocs and think its going to actually help, what do these guys think black blocks do except scare possable future anarchists?
Imagine walking down a street from the shops and be confronted by a mass block of people wearing balaclavas
who thinks that's going to help?

Guys, we anarchists need an "image change" (I hate using that term, I sound like a PR guy) we need to take STEPS to disassociate ourselves from this mindless rabble, I have witnessed first hand what they are like, these are just some of things things they say to me
"anarchism is the opposite to politics"
"who's bakunin?"
"anarchism is about life and freedom! not boring councils!"
"fuck the system!!!"

2 out of those 4 were teens, these people are the reason anarchists are stereotyped as rich teens acting out, and BTW, I realize some of us are teens but are genuine anarchist, I "converted" one myself.

what steps can we take to disassociate ourselves from these people? first all gibe out the short list which I practice, then I shall explain its results, and compare them to things I used to do.

1. Stop using the circle A
I know, hard, we use it so much, think its in my avatar ( I forget, lol), but sadly it has become mucked up by anarcho punk bands and teens scraping it into desks! it has been stolen from us by the individualists and ancaps in the same way the Nazis stole the swastika from the Indians (the swasika was the originally a symbol for immortality)
in a new video game im considering one of the factions in it are sort of a biker gang who want chaos and are crazy, there symbol? a circle A, we must give up this symbol, its just unhelpful now...

2. no more blocs
i explained above why

3. change terminology (applies somewhat to marxists)
when I enter a chatroom and the conversation goes into politics I don't call myself an anarchist straight away, its a sad state of things to do and you can call me out on that one but in my experience its a bad idea, you all know what's it like, you spend the next 15 minutes trying to get it into there heads your not a teen 4 chaos, nor are your rich, or stupid
I call myself a revolutionary socialist .I avoid the other term that tries to do what I'm doing "libertarian socialist" it doesn't work on Americans, they think libertarianism is the opposite of socialism, blame there Libertarian party, if an American says there libertarian, there right wing, unlike Euro libertarians
when I call myself a revolutionary socialist I often explain im for decentralized confederation and common ownership, what happens then? im often asked what I mean, its begs questions, people have pre conceived notions of what anarchism is, not what "common ownership" or "confederacy's" is, which is great, it leave them OPEN, they listen, and we start REAL debate
Eventually near the end I veer more towards the words "Anarcho" which a lot of them don't know, its eventually explained im an anarchist, bu by this point they already know a lot about anarchism without even realizing at the start
so I explain im for direct action, socialism and freedom, then I drop the bombshell, I an anarchist! Ha

so heed these words comrades, we need to change, we need to fight these lifestylists, they need to go.
please read "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm" for more info, i cant post a link but its available at libcom, look it up

I understand where you're getting with this, & I understand what you've gone through. I don't even call myself an anarchist really, but rather an anarcho-communist, & I just start explaining from there. But really, I still tend to use the anarchist symbol because it's the symbol of defiance against those that are your enemy & word by our honor of saying, & meaning, that we don't give a fuck what people think about us. But I do try not to use just the circle A (anarchy is order) symbol, in itself, but rather how my true belief goes by, & that is through the circled A conjoined with the hammer & sickle. But you're still right, we need to start changing how we go about things these days & really advance ourselves towards a higher way of thinking. We need to make people aware of why communism & anarchism are of one & the same & what our ideals are based upon & how we see to implement them.

bcbm

7th January 2010, 01:33

its nice to see this argument hasn't gotten any better with age. if you believe your biggest problem is that some hippies who like to ride bikes, circle their a's, eat vegan food and hang out in smelly cooperatives happen to call themselves anarchists, as opposed to something like the almost complete lack of anarchist organization and agitation in most parts of the country, then your priorities are pretty skewed. the critique of "lifestyle anarchism" is just a baseless attack from "class struggle" anarchists who desperately need something other than themselves to blame for their failures. anarchism isn't unpopular or unknown because of lifestyle anarchists, its unknown because anarchists* are largely not organizing their workplaces, organizing their communities or otherwise engaging in struggle. its a sure sign of isolation and weakness when you devote considerable energy to attacking "internal" enemies rather than, say, your boss. fight the real enemy, not comrades.

its also worth considering that everyone's favorite "lifestyle anarchist" group, crimethinc, has probably connected with more people and turned them on to anarchist politics than all of the anti-lifestylist groups combined.

oh, and the entire argument is a false dichotomy.

*actually anarchists probably have almost nothing to do with their isolation

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:37

bcbm

7th January 2010, 01:39

i've spent the better part of the decade involved in the anarchist movement in several countries. i think i have a hunch what i'm talking about.

what's baseless about the fact that groups with no real power tend to turn on themselves? look at most of the left if you need an example. during anarchism's heydeys in the early twentieth century, the "lifestylists" of the day were far more widespread and active, even going so far as to disrupt meetings and attack members of social anarchist groups. and yet those groups still managed to have a lot of success. why? probably material conditions, but perhaps also because they were actively involved in many struggles, as opposed to a few militants massed around legions of armchair critics.

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:42

i've spent the better part of the decade involved in the anarchist movement in several countries. i think i have a hunch what i'm talking about.

you don't come in here acting like an obnoxious ass ok? give respect and you shall have it

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:43

bcbm

7th January 2010, 01:45

i'm sorry if you think i'm coming off as obnoxious, but i think it needs to be said bluntly.

you seem ardently opposed to revolutionaries, it doesn't sound like your describing lifestylists, not if they were involved in worker struggle

what?

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:49

i'm sorry if you think i'm coming off as obnoxious, but i think it needs to be said bluntly.

thats alright, i believe the more important part of my post is the steps we should take to dissociate from them lifestylists are anti revolutionary, they would not take place in struggles.
you claims have been at least as baseless as mine

Robocommie

7th January 2010, 01:50

you don't come in here acting like an obnoxious ass ok? give respect and you shall have it

How is he being obnoxious?

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:51

from the book i mentioned
"The bourgeoisie has nothing whatever to fear from such lifestyle declamations. With its aversion for institutions, mass-based organizations, its largely subcultural orientation, its moral decadence, its celebration of transience, and its rejection of programs, this kind of narcissistic anarchism is socially innocuous, often merely a safety valve for discontent toward the prevailing social order."

bcbm

7th January 2010, 01:53

why are the following claims baseless?

anarchists are not generally organizers in their communities or workplaces.
anarchism's current lack of popularity is based more on the above than "lifestylists."
groups with little power tend to turn on themselves, finding easier targets there than in challenging real problems.

from the book i mentioned
"The bourgeoisie has nothing whatever to fear from such lifestyle declamations.

i don't recall saying they did.

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:57

why are the following claims baseless?

anarchists are not generally organizers in their communities or workplaces. - lack of popularity explained, shops run by ananrchists are obviously orginized throught anarchism

anarchism's current lack of popularity is based more on the above than "lifestylists." anarchisms lack of popularity is due to the right drift of western governments, increased globalization, increased neo liberalism, the UUSR's defeat (imo), the mass medias never been stronger and is very anti left, i do not consider lifestyle anarchists to blame for this, i think they are however the main problem in "recruitment" (bad term for it) and they definitly give the mass media all the ammo they need to lie about us

groups with little power tend to turn on themselves, finding easier targets there than in challenging real problems. how is that provable?

*italics obviously added by me*

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 01:58

i don't recall saying they did.

i posted that not in response to you ,but because it shaped lifestylism quite well

bcbm

7th January 2010, 02:09

lack of popularity explained, shops run by ananrchists are obviously orginized throught anarchism

what? i don't understand what you're saying here, or how it relates to what i was saying.

anarchisms lack of popularity is due to the right drift of western governments, increased globalization, increased neo liberalism, the UUSR's defeat (imo), the mass medias never been stronger and is very anti left, i do not consider lifestyle anarchists to blame for this, i think they are however the main problem in "recruitment" (bad term for it) and they definitly give the mass media all the ammo they need to lie about us

the mass media will always lie until its controlled by us. beyond that, if you don't blame lifestylists for the poor material conditions, how could they possibly be responsible for poor "recruitment" more than those conditions?

it also seems strange to be promoting bookchin's arguments when, in the decade that followed, anarchism reached a popularity unseen since at least the 60's and i don't think very little changed in terms of internal dynamics.

how is that provable?

like i said, just take a look at most of the far left. or the far right. any unpopular group of political tendencies will probably be busy trying to eat itself.

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 02:14

what? i don't understand what you're saying here, or how it relates to what i was saying.

alright sorry, you said anarchists were not orgnizing, i state that this is because its unpopular, but that where there are anarchists, there is anarchist orginization
good example is Exarcheia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia where theres a lot of anarchist orginization, or christiania, which is entirely anarchist

look your not going to get anarchist orginization unless theres a substantial number of anarchists in the area, which is where popularity comes in, there arn't enough of us

bcbm

7th January 2010, 02:18

i think its the other way around.

i also wouldn't describe christiania as "entirely anarchist," but even if it were, how do exarchia or christinia relate to class struggle?

ContrarianLemming

7th January 2010, 02:26

i think its the other way around.

i also wouldn't describe christiania as "entirely anarchist," but even if it were, how do exarchia or christinia relate to class struggle?

your first argument didn't mention class struggle, you state that anarchists don't orginize, my counter, as such, is that you need anarchists for that! there arn't enough of us, period

Tablo

7th January 2010, 04:19

I agree with the earlier comment made by bcbm that the lack of real organization by Anarchists is the main problem we face. Sure the life-stylists make us look bad, but if we were seriously organizing then they wouldn't be considered so much of an issue. I can safely say I am the ONLY Social Anarchist in my area and it is the largest city in my state. When I want to do anything to help the community I typically work with Food Not Bombs which in my experience is mainly Primitivists and Life-stylists.

What Would Durruti Do?

7th January 2010, 06:54

Tablo

7th January 2010, 07:52

I completely agree. Yeah, we do have conflicts with the life-stylists, 'anarcho'-capitalists, primitivists, and national 'anarchists', but if we were properly organizing in the communities and doing some decent base building I don't thing any of these idiotic fringe trends would even be wasted time talking about.

We need to maintain a strong connection with the working class and spread our ideology. Revolution won't make itself and it will only happen when we have mass understanding of our ideologies.

RedStarOverChina

7th January 2010, 08:07

h0m0revolutionary

7th January 2010, 09:30

Finally you guys get it...

Get what? That the worst challenge to our movement are the obstacles within?

I'm one of the users that sound like a broken record on this board, always talking about looking internally and challenging rouge elements (homophobia elements, pro-imperialist elements) but to say it's the biggest challenge we face, or that it's our main priority is crazy.

Our first priority should always be to build our movement; community and industrial struggles, educational and agitation, whatever form that building takes, we must always seek first to build a bigger movement. I mean what is the point of having an ideologically pure 10 person sect and a wider society completely bereft of any revolutionary political outlook?

Decommissioner

7th January 2010, 10:10

i've never even met one of these "lifestylists" although theres a saying in the capitalist world "any marketing is good marketing" :p

all the complaining about lifestylists in the anarchist community is more annoying than the actual lifestylists IMHO

Odd, it seems all I've ever met were lifestylists. There are a few marxists in my area, but zero serious revolutionary anarchists. There are a ton of lifestylists that think themselves as revolutionary, and whats worse is they are very good at promoting their politics (or more precisely laketherof) through zines and local small business (such as bike shops and coffee shops).

While I agree the existence of these lifestylists is more of a symptom of the lack of coordination and action on the revolutionary left, I still view them as an obstacle.

bcbm

7th January 2010, 10:15

your first argument didn't mention class struggle, you state that anarchists don't orginize, my counter, as such, is that you need anarchists for that! there arn't enough of us, period

well since we were talking about social (ie, class struggle) anarchists opposing lifestylists, i think it would be assumed class struggle would be a focus of anarchist organizing. and that's exactly what i am talking about- it isn't. anarchist organizing projects are almost completely divorced from any sort of class struggle.

The Ungovernable Farce

7th January 2010, 17:55

alright sorry, you said anarchists were not orgnizing, i state that this is because its unpopular, but that where there are anarchists, there is anarchist orginization
good example is Exarcheia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia where theres a lot of anarchist orginization, or christiania, which is entirely anarchist
There's also a lot of lifestylists in those areas, which hardly supports your theory.

I agree with the earlier comment made by bcbm that the lack of real organization by Anarchists is the main problem we face. Sure the life-stylists make us look bad, but if we were seriously organizing then they wouldn't be considered so much of an issue. I can safely say I am the ONLY Social Anarchist in my area and it is the largest city in my state. When I want to do anything to help the community I typically work with Food Not Bombs which in my experience is mainly Primitivists and Life-stylists.
Ouch. I genuinely feel for you.

Anyway, bcbm gets it entirely right. To blame the anarchist movement's weakness on lifestylists is pretty much voluntarism. As an anarcho-syndicalist, surely Aeon should recognise that revolutionary anarchism can only exist as a tendency in the workers' movement; at a time when the working class movement is smashed from thirty years of neoliberal assaults, there's no way we could exist as a powerful force. The current wave of struggles in response to the recession does show some signs of changing this, though, and if anarchists get stuck into supporting workplace struggles against the effects of the crisis, then I think the difference between us and the lifestylists will quickly become clear; if we don't do that, then it hardly seems fair to blame others for our failure.

Oh, and a minor point, but BTW Apikoros is a she, just for the record. Not that it makes any difference to the validity of her point, but you shouldn't automatically assume everyone's male until proven otherwise.

ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR

8th January 2010, 04:50

8th January 2010, 05:27

To add some context, my comment – which was quoted in the OP – was originally made here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1641247&postcount=19).
Also, for what it's worth, I am not an anarchist; I used to be (a revolutionary syndicalist, specifically), but I broke with anarchism entirely a while back, over a whole host of disagreements (DotP/the state as an instrument of class rule, the vanguard, the right to self-determination of oppressed nations - basically, the fact that I was unwittingly a Leninist;)). So all the anarchists here are free to take my comment with as many grains of salt as their hearts desire; I really have no personal investment in how this discussion unfolds, I just thought I should step in to clarify where I’m coming from so my original comment and any additional comments I might make on the topic can be treated accordingly.

To elaborate on the original comment, it was certainly not my intention to imply that lifestylists are the biggest problem facing social anarchists in the US; the fact that lifestylists are in a position to appropriate the banner of anarchism, uproot it from its history as a working class movement, and sterilize it of any (ostensibly) revolutionary content is not a reflection of the “dangers of lifestylists” (lol), but of the weakness of class consciousness in the US. I do think it is necessary, though, for class struggle anarchists to clearly distinguish themselves from lifestylists, liberals, and petit-bourgeois counterculture trends that claim to be anarchists, in the same way that I think it is necessary for revolutionary Marxists to clearly distinguish themselves from reformists and class traitors like the CPUSA that claim to be Marxists. That doesn’t mean it should be the primary issue or that it’s the most serious problem; it obviously isn’t. But I do think it is important to address nonetheless.

bcbm

8th January 2010, 05:33

I do think it is necessary, though, for class struggle anarchists to clearly distinguish themselves from lifestylists, liberals, and petit-bourgeois counterculture trends that claim to be anarchists, in the same way that I think it is necessary for revolutionary Marxists to clearly distinguish themselves from reformists and class traitors like the CPUSA that claim to be Marxists.

why?

革命者

8th January 2010, 05:41

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to oppose and label people, especially the so-called "lifestylists". And just maybe if there are other leftists around try to find common ground and organise yourselves.

The biggest problem is jumping too quickly in the defensive like people want to eat you... literally.

This thread is starting to be a case in point for what I think is the biggest problem of any person: intolerance and prejudice. And when I look at this board nowadays I start to see too many self-proclaimed anarchists being just that: intolerant, prejudiced and, frankly, sometimes bordering incessant paranoia.

It is a question of image, but let that image be shaped by the right contents.

Scotty

ZeroNowhere

8th January 2010, 07:08

Comrades, there's a certain point I quite don't understand in the anarchist theory. According to anarchism, the masses will direct the revolution and immediately after overthrowing the bourgeoisie, establish a classless, and stateless society. I find that impossible while imperialism exists. Could some comrade care to expound? Thank you.

Comrade Antonio
That's not the focus of this thread, so probably you should make a separate thread in the Learning board, unless you already have and I missed it. You should probably also expand on why you do not think it possible.

RedStarOverChina

8th January 2010, 07:52

Get what? That the worst challenge to our movement are the obstacles within?

I'm one of the users that sound like a broken record on this board, always talking about looking internally and challenging rouge elements (homophobia elements, pro-imperialist elements) but to say it's the biggest challenge we face, or that it's our main priority is crazy.

Our first priority should always be to build our movement; community and industrial struggles, educational and agitation, whatever form that building takes, we must always seek first to build a bigger movement. I mean what is the point of having an ideologically pure 10 person sect and a wider society completely bereft of any revolutionary political outlook?
Unless anarchism pulls itself together and tell the world what is and isn't anarchism, it hardly matters if there are 100 million self-proclaimed anarchists in the world. I get the feeling 90 million of them would be content with farming organic carrots and being vegan---and it doesn't do the revolution any good.

That's just my observation.

8th January 2010, 08:21

why?

Because one represents the road toward the emancipation of the working class and the only way forward for humanity, and the other co-opts the language of the former but represents the continuation of the status quo by building illusions in the ability to “reform” capitalism or “drop out of” capitalism or otherwise circumvent the negative consequences of capitalism through something other than working class revolution.

ContrarianLemming

8th January 2010, 08:42

apologies for assuming your male apikoros

i think its is extremely important to seerate ourselves from those others

lets think of it like this...

* the internet is controlled mainly by americans
* american anarchists are mainly lifestylist
* anyone that asks an anarchist online (keeping in mind thei nternet is now a primary way to learn new things) what anarchism is, more likely then not this person will be an american, and thusly, a lifestylist.
* the asker will be given a bullshit idea of what anarchism is
* we lose a potential anarchist, there spawn grows
* we must activly combat this if our numbers are to grow, if our numbers grow, class belief will grow, revolution will have a better chance

this all comes down to how many of us there are, lifestylists wont fight in a revolution, they force our numbers to dwindle as they grow, we can't watch and complain about it any longer

IrishWorker

8th January 2010, 09:17

bcbm

8th January 2010, 18:30

Unless anarchism pulls itself together and tell the world what is and isn't anarchism, it hardly matters if there are 100 million self-proclaimed anarchists in the world. I get the feeling 90 million of them would be content with farming organic carrots and being vegan---and it doesn't do the revolution any good.

Because one represents the road toward the emancipation of the working class and the only way forward for humanity, and the other co-opts the language of the former but represents the continuation of the status quo by building illusions in the ability to “reform” capitalism or “drop out of” capitalism or otherwise circumvent the negative consequences of capitalism through something other than working class revolution.groups on the left have always made a major point of "distinguishing" themselves as the true revolutionary party versus the rest who are all traitors, petit-bourgeois, counter-revolutionary, whatever. the end result of all this distinguishing has only been more and more isolation for all groups; most of our class has no idea all of these groups even exist, and certainly wouldn't care if they did. i think it comes back to what i was saying in the beginning of this thread- groups with little power endlessly attack each other because distinguishing themselves as "true revolutionaries" is easier than building class power.

if traditional leftist methods can still work, then the strength of our class will be built by militants actively engaging the class where it struggles and agitating for more power. it doesn't matter how distinguished we are from other leftists if our politics remain irrelevant to most people's lives. if we're able to make our politics relevant through struggling within our class, then distinguishing ourselves becomes irrelevant.

* the internet is controlled mainly by americans
* american anarchists are mainly lifestylist
* anyone that asks an anarchist online (keeping in mind thei nternet is now a primary way to learn new things) what anarchism is, more likely then not this person will be an american, and thusly, a lifestylist.
* the asker will be given a bullshit idea of what anarchism is
* we lose a potential anarchist, there spawn grows
* we must activly combat this if our numbers are to grow, if our numbers grow, class belief will grow, revolution will have a better chanceif you google "anarchism" pretty much everything on the first page will give someone a great idea of what anarchism is. but, really, although the internet is a valuable tool, it isn't where class struggle is going to be built, and a billion lifestylists pushing that as anarchism wouldn't be able to negate the effects of social anarchists putting their money where their mouth is and organizing.

this all comes down to how many of us there are, lifestylists wont fight in a revolutionlet's not put the cart before the horse.

and i disagree. i think most "lifestylists" would fight in a revolution (whatever that means). as i see the use of the word, there are two kinds of lifestylists- activists who do things like food not bombs and bike co-ops who are largely supportive of anarchist goals, but have poor political understanding or are so isolated they aren't sure what else to do and anarchists who used to be very active but got burned out after years of all the bullshit that occurs within the movement and live more "off the grid" (or not). in both cases, i think a genuine resurgence in revolutionary politics would bring them in.

RaÃºl Duke

9th January 2010, 15:22

TO the OP's 1st post,

Personally, I don't think the 1st 2 things you mentioned are specifically bad (Blocs are just a tactic and we should not take it off the table, I don't really think it matters if we use the circle A or not...in fact most social anarchists just use the red-black flag...at least my impression) although I do agree that we must tone down out "terminology" (I learned this through communications class...while we can all use this terminology in revleft and expect people to know what it means when it comes to addressing to the public we must be aware of our audience and consider if they know or do not know such terminology).

I was discussing with an M-L and we were thinking that perhaps one issue with left groups is that they've seem to be more like a bit of "protest culture" were it all revolves around going to a protest. Nothing wrong with that, but I think we need to branch out then just protests and news-paper selling. I was thinking that leftists should engage to some degree of community organizing. I'm not saying we don't already do this, I've seen examples of leftist community organizing, but I'm just saying that we should probably put some focus on this.

Although it's only my thoughts...I'm not very experienced in the realm of practice due to my location so perhaps I'm just wrong.

On lifestylists...I doubt they will cease to exist so it's probably worthless to think of them as a major problem.

which doctor

9th January 2010, 17:43

The funny (or maybe sad) thing about all this is that these same arguments have been repeating themselves since the dawn of modern anarchism around the early 19th century. Lifestylists aren't anything new, nor are they an exclusively American phenomenon, they've been around for at least since Tolstoy.

The problem is that anarchism is such a broadly defined word. It defines itself in opposition to something (government) instead of being for something (communism) or representing a specific method/theory (as in Marxism).

As a result, you're gonna attract people with a wide array of beliefs. You're never going to be able to purge all the lifestylists and primitivists, because believe it or not, they're anarchists too!

There's no solution for the "anarchist problem" because the problem's inherent in the ideology.

mosfeld

9th January 2010, 17:54

Iceland is infested with these so-called lifestylist anarchists. They do cool stuff though, like give you free vegan food on saturdays and squat empty buildings.

revolution inaction

9th January 2010, 22:43

The problem is that anarchism is such a broadly defined word. It defines itself in opposition to something (government) instead of being for something (communism) or representing a specific method/theory (as in Marxism).

anarchist are opposed to hierarchical organisation not just government, and this leads to certain forms of organisation, including communism.

As a result, you're gonna attract people with a wide array of beliefs. You're never going to be able to purge all the lifestylists and primitivists, because believe it or not, they're anarchists too!

i don't see how primativists are anarchists, primitive societies have all developed in to or been over thrown by, societies with hierarchical forms of organisation.
Life stylists may be anarchists but they not the same kind of anarchist us, are councils comunists and maoists the same? and there's at least as much diversity in anarchism as in marxism.

There's no solution for the "anarchist problem" because the problem's inherent in the ideology.

and marx leads to gulags* right?

*for lifestyles without a sense of humour, i'm not saying lifstylists are comparable to gulags, lifestyle is clearly far worse :)

rebelmouse

9th January 2010, 23:51

We anarchists, ladies and gents, have a problem....without to quote whole text, I think You have a problem. I don't have any problem with black bloc or insurrectionists. I don't think they make bad picture, and I think they gathered more young people than you will ever gather.
critics is always welcomed, I don't like everything at insurrectionists, but I am not against their methods of fight against ruling class. but your post is not critic than trying to isolate part of our movement. sorry, I think it is job of secret agency, to spread stories against militants, to turn people against militants, it means to isolate militants with aim to arrest them easier. without help from other, people finish fast in prison. anarchist and communist movement is spied many decades and during the time secret agency found cooperators who will do mentioned job for them.
who spoke against RAF? he is rat. who speak against anarchist guerrilla or militants who destroy property: he is rat.
that's my opinion, all other people are free to have their own opinion. but surely, person who started topic is bigger problem for our movement than black bloc. you do job which bring benefits to secret agency, you propose that we isolate insurrectionists, therefore I can say that your proposal is good for secret agency.
that's what secret agency did inm the time of RAF, in the time of Black Panthers, etc. their job is not just to spy people, their job is to spread negative picture about someone, and the most important: to isolate people with aim to be arrested easier.
if people understand how secret agency work, they will recognize rats. read "war on black america", and other things, and you will understand methods of work of secret agencies.

Delenda Carthago

10th January 2010, 00:03

there ain nothing wrong with "lifestyle" anarchism as long as it doesnt get into your way.You do you,they do them.And the struggle continues.Matter of fact, the style of life is a very important issue for a revolution,which they can contribute.But if you have,lets say,punks ruining a squat cause they keep it messy and dirty and they dont do their obligations and they have fights cause they drunk...thats when you step your foot and maybe put it in their asses.Get it?

RedStarOverChina

10th January 2010, 06:15

Iceland is infested with these so-called lifestylist anarchists. They do cool stuff though, like give you free vegan food on saturdays and squat empty buildings.
We all agree the stuff they do sometimes can be thought of as "cool". But not always. I've been to a building they were squatting at, and they made a huge mess of it, it became embarrassing.

Also back to the point, squatting and vegan food---as "nice" as they might be, still amounts to nothing from a revolutionary perspective.

I'm beginning to think which doctor is correct, though I certainly hope he isn't.

bcbm

10th January 2010, 11:29

which doctor is correct. i still don't see how this would have any real impact on the praxis of social anarchists?

The Ungovernable Farce

10th January 2010, 18:28

Nobody except anarchists themselves really gives a fuck about lifestylists etc so get a wash cut your hair and get on with the task of building the Irish working class conciseness.
Telling anarchists to get a wash and cut their hair is pretty much as stupid as telling you to piss off back to Russia. The fact that you'd say that to someone who was attacking lifestylism is just amazing.

who spoke against RAF? he is rat. who speak against anarchist guerrilla or militants who destroy property: he is rat.
Someone who'd inform on those groups is a rat; someone who points out that what they're doing is futile and counter-productive is just being honest.

IrishWorker

11th January 2010, 00:14

Telling anarchists to get a wash and cut their hair is pretty much as stupid as telling you to piss off back to Russia. The fact that you'd say that to someone who was attacking lifestylism is just amazing.

I honestly from the bottom of my heart think that the crisis within anarchism is not lifestylism.
Hence the wee joke…

which doctor

11th January 2010, 04:42

anarchist are opposed to hierarchical organisation not just government, and this leads to certain forms of organisation, including communism.
I'm sorry, but if you're opposed to all hierarchial organization than you'll never get anywhere. Organic and voluntary forms of hierarchies nearly always manifest themselves in social relationships between people, especially when those relationships involve accomplishing things. Anarchists, as far as I'm concerned, are opposed to forms of violent, coercive forms of hierarchy, which often take the form of the state. This is a point of confusion amongst many anarchists, who spend more time bickering amongst themselves as to how best to democratically organize themselves

i don't see how primativists are anarchists, primitive societies have all developed in to or been over thrown by, societies with hierarchical forms of organisation.
Life stylists may be anarchists but they not the same kind of anarchist us, are councils comunists and maoists the same? and there's at least as much diversity in anarchism as in marxism.
Primitivists are anarchists because they think the only way to escape from all of discourse, and the violence and authority that characterizes it, is to return to primitive modes of production.

The division in anarchism comes down to individualist anarchists and social anarchists. Individualist anarchism can trace its history way back, but the ideas of social anarchism came into vogue around the same time as Marx's did. Social anarchism takes the ethics of individualist anarchism and applies them with regards to the "social question" that accompanied the growth of the proletariat. Anarchists come from a huge tradition, much bigger than Marxism, and by calling yourself an anarchist you identify with this huge tradition of ethical philosophy.

ContrarianLemming

11th January 2010, 08:59

i'v created a monster...
i can't believe what Irish Worker said, well it's not surprising, hes a member of the irish republican socialist movement, it seemsl ike a rule of thumb in ireland that if your in a movement based on irish republicanism your going to be an authoritarian IRA apologist

and on primiticsts..there anarchists only to the extant lifestylists are, which they are, if they say they are, same for ancaps, whatever floats there boat

rebelmouse

11th January 2010, 09:33

Someone who'd inform on those groups is a rat; someone who points out that what they're doing is futile and counter-productive is just being honest.

anyone has right, or better say: autonomy, to has opinion, to be pacifist for example, and to point out something or to express his opinion. BUT his opinion is calling of other to isolate militant people, to exclude them from anarchist movement, etc. so I said: his opinion is very good for authorities and if he says everywhere and million times this what he said here: he is rat. that's my right to have my opinion.
simply, it is method of work of secret agency, they did it million times in the past and we must learn about enemy in order to win. as I said, their aim is to find cooperators in our groups who will spread negative picture about militants and who will try to isolate them. in that way authorities will arrest them easier plus they will prevent that other people become militant.
so, if someone is against militant actions, it is his right, but he should not try to isolate people, he should not fight against militants than he should fight against authorities, and my personal beliefs are: even pacifists should help to militants, not about actions but about food, hiding, or whatever peaceful help could include. such pacifists contribute how much they decided that they can. I don't see anywhere militants who speak against pacifists or against spreading of propaganda (printing of books, newspapers, agitating among workers, etc).

IrishWorker

11th January 2010, 09:47

i'v created a monster...
i can't believe what Irish Worker said, well it's not surprising, hes a member of the irish republican socialist movement, it seemsl ike a rule of thumb in ireland that if your in a movement based on irish republicanism your going to be an authoritarian IRA apologist

Dry your eyes boii. Republican Socialism is the most radical revolutionary current on this Island you would do yourself no harm to study it a bit instead of accepting the West Brit middle class analysis of the struggle.
Think for yourself lad and stop reading The Sunday World.

whore

11th January 2010, 10:08

1. Stop using the circle A
I know, hard, we use it so much, think its in my avatar ( I forget, lol), but sadly it has become mucked up by anarcho punk bands and teens scraping it into desks! it has been stolen from us by the individualists and ancaps in the same way the Nazis stole the swastika from the Indians (the swasika was the originally a symbol for immortality)
in a new video game im considering one of the factions in it are sort of a biker gang who want chaos and are crazy, there symbol? a circle A, we must give up this symbol, its just unhelpful now...
no.

2. no more blocs
i explained above why
no. do you even know what a black bloc is? what it is for? it is so that people can take direct action against oppressors, filth, symbols of capitalism, without as much individual danger, without it being as easy for the forces of authority to single out people.

blah about terminology
i tend to call myself a socialist, an anti-state socialist, until people are ready. sure, i could out and out say, "i am an anarchist", but education being what it is, it might not be so useful. but, rather than never saying 'i am an anarchist', i just wait until people are receptive. changing termonoligy isn't going to help anything though.

you can go around calling yourself a freaking pillow lover, and as soon as enough people do that, the media machine is going to start saying how violent and chaotic all those damn pillow lovers are!

it doesn't matter what words you use, or what symbolism you use, our enemies are going to demonise us, and try and link use to chaos etc.

so no, i am not going to abandon my political identify.

so heed these words comrades, we need to change, we need to fight these lifestylists, they need to go.
please read "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm" for more info, i cant post a link but its available at libcom, look it up
social anarchism or lifestyle anarchism. i think i read that one, i think i thought it was shit. it didn't really say anything meaningful.

whore

11th January 2010, 10:12

The problem is that anarchism is such a broadly defined word. It defines itself in opposition to something (government) instead of being for something (communism) or representing a specific method/theory (as in Marxism).
i object, anarchism is for something. it is for freedom. freedom to live your life, freedom to be an individual, freedom to reach your potential.

you can't be free under capitalism. you can't be free under some mutated state socialism. you can only be truly free under anarchism.

that's what anarchism is for. so, logically, it is also against government, hierarchy, capitalism, etc. but it doesn't start off that way (despite what the anarchocaps what you to believe).

As a result, you're gonna attract people with a wide array of beliefs. You're never going to be able to purge all the lifestylists and primitivists, because believe it or not, they're anarchists too!

There's no solution for the "anarchist problem" because the problem's inherent in the ideology.
there is no problem.
(and they are only really anarchists if they say, "i too believe in freedom".)

you are right, that's why you are never going to get rid of the individualists, the mutualists, and the pacifists. because they too all want freedom. they want freedom, and suggest different ways of getting their, but their desire is just as real as ours.

Incendiarism

21st January 2010, 04:28

I have a certain affinity for lifestylism due to the fact that people I know and have met were drifters and dedicated anarchists, and because I have taken to the trains myself. The problem here is that anarchists tend to regard such posturing with an actual, legitimate political persuasion. This isn't true.

The reasons why I and many others took to the streets were not for political reasons, but simply to escape the alienating effects of capitalism. I most certainly wasn't seeking any possible avenues for protest - and to some this may be the problem - I was trying to reclaim the life taken from me. Prior to traveling I had gone through a bitter breakup, my job demanded far too much for far too little, and other personal problems simply got to me.

The idea that some snotty elitist believes the best option would have been to keep my job, consequentially remaining in an ineffectual position, and to have simply towed the line is absolutely absurd. I'm a dedicated communist to this day, and seeing the country with my own eyes is an experience incomparable to anything else. My politics are outside of that.

Liberateeducate

21st January 2010, 05:01

Does this mean I cant listen to Anthrax, because they have a demo titled "CAPITALISM GIVES YOU OPPORTUNITIES IN LIFE, ANARCHY GIVES YOU LIFE."

and Anarcho punk is another form of lifestylism and therefore ruined anarchism?

21st January 2010, 05:29

I'm going to have to agree with Bcbm on this one, any form of "social" movement left to itself will begin to bicker over petty things. We pick the meat off these old bones because there is nothing better to do. Karl Marx spent his life arguing with a small group of people about things he thought were important, like trying to remove religious elements from the socialist movement. Just as now we argue on a message board about what we don't want in the movement or elements we find undesirable.

As the class struggle rises people will take the ideas they like and forget the ones they don't find useful. Revolutions are organic and passionate, they don't follow a plan, even if you'd like to think you have a particularly good one. It's also important to realize people will be attracted to the revolutionary option for various reasons. So maybe we'll have communes full of vegans and maybe industries will be organized into federatives. It depends on the situation.

Take the United States, England, France, Germany, and Japan. They all had Bourgeois Revolutions to be sure, but the details differed radically.

Patchd

21st January 2010, 05:56

* the internet is controlled mainly by americans
* american anarchists are mainly lifestylist
* anyone that asks an anarchist online (keeping in mind thei nternet is now a primary way to learn new things) what anarchism is, more likely then not this person will be an american, and thusly, a lifestylist.
* the asker will be given a bullshit idea of what anarchism is
* we lose a potential anarchist, there spawn grows
* we must activly combat this if our numbers are to grow, if our numbers grow, class belief will grow, revolution will have a better chance
Why are you thinking in terms of the internet only? Surely if people come to anarchism by reading a mutualist's argument online, and they actually start participating in activism in real life as a result, then they will be exposed to class struggle anarchism at some point.

Concentrate on the real world, most people probably wouldn't even give a second thought to lifestylism, as most people are workers whose interests don't lie in growing organic veg on a little commune. It is our task to explain to workers what actual anarchism is by showing them how effective class struggle anarchist organisation of the workplace and communities can be, people are persuaded more by results than they are by words.

Tiktaalik

21st January 2010, 06:00

Yo, to the OP: fuck off. What are you doing right now? You speak of Exarchia in Greece yet you know that the black bloc folks are what made that shit happen.

I don't see why so many anarchists have to hate on each other. I am an insurrectionary anarchist yet I also consider myself a class-war anarchist. I don't see why our tactics need to conflict, I have my criticisms of some tendencies but so what? They're comrades. Our movement is better than Leninism and petty bullshit.

I'm so sick of idiots that have their One Grand Idea that they thought up and have to push on people. In my experience, those who are pushing their grand theory of how they will fix the world generally don't have enough sense to solve their own personal issues, much less society's. I know how I want the world I want to live in but that's not EVER going to come about by being so ideologically rigid that you can never work with other people.

My idea of a lifestylist is someone who can't put their own theories into practice. Like someone who adheres to a rigid ideology and wants to dominate a conversation or meeting with it. Or anarchists that ***** about vegans, because yeah, we should totally mock our own comrades for beliefs that are pretty fucking consistent with the idea of ending domination. Or anarchists that could ride a bike but instead just drive a car because they don't want to be considered one of those "lifestylist" bike riders. Or an anarchist (or communist) can't say "fuck yeah" to someone stealing shit.

As to primmies, I understand their argument and I agree with some of their critique, but I definitely disagree with them more often than not. They're really not that prevalent right now and I still support what they do because they are still anarchists who are down with class war and are against capitalism.

The punk kids that I think the OP is talking about generally have a cursory understanding of anarchism, but they're not all bad. I'm down with squatting shit and openly defying private property and its domination on such a basic need as housing, I dunno about you. I'm pretty down with people that choose to persue a healthy form of transportation. I've def met a lot of annoying kids that didn't really get it or were just rich kids playing anarchist. But they're not worth my time when capitalism is the dominating force in my life that I want to destroy.

which doctor

21st January 2010, 06:13

i object, anarchism is for something. it is for freedom. freedom to live your life, freedom to be an individual, freedom to reach your potential.

The problem with that is 'freedom' is the emptiest word in the dictionary.

black magick hustla

21st January 2010, 06:37

i dont think lifestylists are the problem. i just think they are symptomatic. lifestylists are in general, more pronounced in the us because the working class in the us has always been more or less weaker than in other countries due to historical specificities (the biggest one i can think about is the race question).

bcbm said that crimethinc has done more to attract people to anarchism. the problem is that "being an anarchist" means nothing. its like saying "crimethinc has made more people attracted to freedom". what has crimethinc done is sell the aesthetic of anarchism. while the aesthetics themselves can make people start getting into more serious stuff (apparently a lot of the mexican left communists are ex punk kids and one of the biggest diffusion areas for the icc in mexico is a countercultural flea market) i think its silly to say that crimethinc is good because it has sold a very emtpy, and confused term. what crimethinc has done is create a sort of cultural ghetto where people of a very specific demographic flourish

21st January 2010, 06:55

I think there is some confusion over the term ‘lifestylist’; as I understand it, a lifestylist is someone who politicizes lifestyle choices – someone who believes the ills of capitalism can be remedied through making particular kinds of lifestyle choices (e.g. “dropping out” of the economy by growing your own food, “not supporting” the meat industry by going vegan, “not supporting” the auto industry by riding a bike, etc. etc.) rather than through proletarian revolution; basically, a liberal individualist. It certainly doesn’t mean that every bike-riding vegan is a lifestylist, or that ‘lifestylism’ is inherent in certain kinds of lifestyle choices; it isn’t. Whether someone is a lifestylist is not determined by what kind of lifestyle they have, but rather, by their politics and whether they view lifestyle choices as a means to an end politically.

whore

21st January 2010, 08:36

The problem with that is 'freedom' is the emptiest word in the dictionary.

i quite disagree. freedom means being free to do what one wishes without restriction. obviously anarchists are not for "total" freedom. we believe that an act which reduces the freedom of someone else is not permissible.

let me put it this way, anarchists are for freedom, the freedom to do as one wishes without restriction, so long as it does not conflict with another person's right to that same freedom.

i don't think that's very empty.

I think there is some confusion over the term ‘lifestylist’; as I understand it, a lifestylist is someone who politicizes lifestyle choices – someone who believes the ills of capitalism can be remedied through making particular kinds of lifestyle choices (e.g. “dropping out” of the economy by growing your own food, “not supporting” the meat industry by going vegan, “not supporting” the auto industry by riding a bike, etc. etc.) rather than through proletarian revolution; basically, a liberal individualist. It certainly doesn’t mean that every bike-riding vegan is a lifestylist, or that ‘lifestylism’ is inherent in certain kinds of lifestyle choices; it isn’t. Whether someone is a lifestylist is not determined by what kind of lifestyle they have, but rather, by their politics and whether they view lifestyle choices as a means to an end politically.
this is an interesting perspective. ok, taking your definition of "lifestylist", do those people actually harm the broader anarchist movement? if everyone did as these "lifestylists" did, would that not mean the end of capitalism?

bcbm

21st January 2010, 09:02

bcbm said that crimethinc has done more to attract people to anarchism. the problem is that "being an anarchist" means nothing. its like saying "crimethinc has made more people attracted to freedom". what has crimethinc done is sell the aesthetic of anarchism. while the aesthetics themselves can make people start getting into more serious stuff (apparently a lot of the mexican left communists are ex punk kids and one of the biggest diffusion areas for the icc in mexico is a countercultural flea market) i think its silly to say that crimethinc is good because it has sold a very emtpy, and confused term. what crimethinc has done is create a sort of cultural ghetto where people of a very specific demographic flourish

i'd have a pretty hard time naming any anarchist of any stripe i know who hasn't read crimethinc, and i think the number who, at some time or another, found a lot more than empty, confusing terms in their writing would be pretty substantial as well. whatever problems i have with their writing now, i recognize that for a lot of people crimethinc is a first grasp of something political outside of democrat/republican and i think that is important. i agree with you on the creation of a cultural ghetto, and crimethinc is unfortunately still very attached to defending that ghetto, but i think a lot of anarchists no longer are and have begun to re-evaluate how they orient their struggles, which seems like a much better position to be in then... well, who can say what the anarchist movement in the us would be like without crimethinc, but i think it is fair to say they've had a significant impact, mostly for the better.

I think there is some confusion over the term ‘lifestylist’; as I understand it, a lifestylist is someone who politicizes lifestyle choices – someone who believes the ills of capitalism can be remedied through making particular kinds of lifestyle choices

if this is the case, than the only lifestylists i know would be liberals, not anarchists. most of the people accused of lifestyle anarchism don't believe consumer choices can make a difference, as far as i can tell.

Patchd

21st January 2010, 09:37

The Ungovernable Farce

21st January 2010, 13:26

i quite disagree. freedom means being free to do what one wishes without restriction. obviously anarchists are not for "total" freedom. we believe that an act which reduces the freedom of someone else is not permissible.

let me put it this way, anarchists are for freedom, the freedom to do as one wishes without restriction, so long as it does not conflict with another person's right to that same freedom.

i don't think that's very empty.

It is pretty empty, to be fair. I like both freedom and anarchism a great deal, but the problem is that you'll pretty much never find anyone who says they're against freedom. Nick Griffin says that he supports freedom as well.

this is an interesting perspective. ok, taking your definition of "lifestylist", do those people actually harm the broader anarchist movement? if everyone did as these "lifestylists" did, would that not mean the end of capitalism?
No. If everyone tried to find land to grow their own food on, there wouldn't be enough, because industrialised large-scale agriculture is much more efficient in terms of land use. If everyone tried eating out of bins, they'd run out of bins, because capitalism's waste can support small subcultural populations but it can't feed everyone. Also shops would put more locks on their bins and pour bleach on their food before they threw it out. If everyone started shoplifting, it'd mean an increase in costs for capitalism as it invested in more and more anti-theft measures, but it'd survive. Capitalism's lasted through the Great Depression and any number of revolutionary upsurges, it's not about to be taken down by home-grown vegetables.

21st January 2010, 15:09

i'd have a pretty hard time naming any anarchist of any stripe i know who hasn't read crimethinc, and i think the number who, at some time or another, found a lot more than empty, confusing terms in their writing would be pretty substantial as well. whatever problems i have with their writing now, i recognize that for a lot of people crimethinc is a first grasp of something political outside of democrat/republican and i think that is important. i agree with you on the creation of a cultural ghetto, and crimethinc is unfortunately still very attached to defending that ghetto, but i think a lot of anarchists no longer are and have begun to re-evaluate how they orient their struggles, which seems like a much better position to be in then... well, who can say what the anarchist movement in the us would be like without crimethinc, but i think it is fair to say they've had a significant impact, mostly for the better.

I don't know if you've read this article, but it addresses a lot of the issues in this topic, especially in regards to cultural ghettos.

http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/rollingthunder/insurrection.php

bcbm

21st January 2010, 15:25

I don't know if you've read this article, but it addresses a lot of the issues in this topic, especially in regards to cultural ghettos.

http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/rollingthunder/insurrection.php

yeah, i think that article is shit.

21st January 2010, 15:31

I'm always hesitant when reading Crimthinc because I find they write some amazingly silly stuff (bake sales, dance parties ect), but some of the things in the article I like. What don't you like about it?

21st January 2010, 15:34

if this is the case, than the only lifestylists i know would be liberals, not anarchists. most of the people accused of lifestyle anarchism don't believe consumer choices can make a difference, as far as i can tell.

I know plenty of liberals who call themselves anarchists. What is the contradiction between someone calling themselves an "anarchist" and being a liberal - it seems to have been established in this thread that "anarchism" can refer to any number of ideologies, individualism and capitalism among them...
In any case, that someone is accused of something - particularly in the realm of politics - is obviously not enough to conclude that the accusation is true or merited; it is frequently neither.

bcbm

21st January 2010, 15:40

I'm always hesitant when reading Crimthinc because I find they write some amazingly silly stuff (bake sales, dance parties ect), but some of the things in the article I like.

what do you like?

What don't you like about it?one of the comments on another site pretty much summed it up for me:

"1. Correcting some misinformation -

  First, I think it is really important to address the allusion to a grand jury in Wisconsin. This rumor originated with off-hand speculation between two lawyers months ago. Since that point, the person who made the original speculation has been adamant that there is no evidence to indicate that there is any reason to believe a grand jury is happening or is imminent. There is absolutely no evidence to support claims of a grand jury happening in Wisconsin. Obviously, nobody can predict what the State has in store for us in the future, and everyone would do well to prepare for everything they can throw at us. But there is no grand jury happening now. In the case of a grand jury in Wisconsin, you will hear it from us first. To perpetuate such entirely unfounded rumors in one of the most widely read anarchist publications is really troubling. While we obviously believe our friends to be well-intentioned, the use of this misinformation for the purpose of critique seems in poor-taste at best. This should be removed from the online version of the text as well as from any future printings of Rolling Thunder.   Beyond that, it is strange to hear that our community is ‘starting to feel the toll’. Obviously two plea agreements in the course of the last year have been hard, but anyone who’d ask would know that people in our city are more connected to each other and have more confidence in eachother than at any point in the recent past. Things are hardly strained. I’d say things are looking-up. For the authors of this text, all of this could have been corrected with a phone call or an email. I’m not sure why this made its way into print.

2. Fatal Omissions -

   Toward the beginning of this article the authors tell us "Much of what we will discuss below is not so much a matter of what insurrectionists say but of what they do." Were this the case, I would be more excited to read this article. And while the authors make plenty of comments on what ‘insurrectionists’ say, what they read, how they speak and even what they wear (!!!)there is almost little discussion or analysis of what they actuallydo. While the text is saturated with references to window smashings (I’ve counted 15 such references!) there is NO mention of the vast majority of ‘insurrectional projects’ worked on in the states over the last year.

to name a few:
-Participation in the unrest following the murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland
-The seemingly countless school occupations on both coasts.
-Developing more sophisticated methods and networks for expropriation and communization (see: ‘the team’)
-Maintaining social centers in many cities throughout the country  - Looting and sharing of food and other necessities
- Organizing self-defense (especially among queerz and ladies)
- Urban or ‘guerilla’ gardening
- Squatting, staying in foreclosed homes and helping others to do so
- Sabotage of just about everything from parking meters to security cameras to front doors .
- Most of the cool stuff that came out of Bash Back! (In fairness, the online version of the text is linked to the BB! website)
- Efforts to undermine gentrification and the development of green capitalism in our cities.
- Not to mention the unreported and ineffable work of putting our lives in common and finding new ways to share ourselves with eachother.

I could understand missing one or two of these happenings. But to claim to advance a critique or insurrection, it would probably be necessary to mention even a handful of these things. Seriously, how can there be a critique of insurrectionists in the United States without any textual mention of school occupations, bash back!, looting or sabotage? These things are so common place that it is almost impossible to avoid conversations about occupations or pepperspray. I can only read these omissions as deliberate. This brings about the question: why?

3. Living and Fighting -

   “Unfortunately, the insurrectionist imagination is often limited by the most well-known models for attack. Imagine an insurrectionist who goes to work or school during the week but smashes bank windows on the weekends—hesitating to create a rupture in the fabric of her own daily life while willingly risking felonies to destroy things outside it.”
  With reference to the above list of omissions, it is completely absurd to make a statement like this. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that insurrectionists are hesitant to create rupture in their daily lives in a world where insurrectionists participate in occupations of their schools, refuse to leave their foreclosed homes, fight back against queerbashers, and expropriate just about everything they can. It seems that it isn’t the ‘insurrectionist imaginary’ that is limited, but rather the frail strawman constructed by the writers of Rolling Thunder. The project of insurrection has nothing to do with abstract militancy. If it is anything, its the constitution of a living-and-fighting warmachine for communism/anarchy that is oriented on the terrain of daily life.   (it is interesting to note that many of the projects missing from this portrayal of “what insurrectionists do” are later proposed by crimethinc as “what insurrectionists should be doing”. Again: why? What is the logic of deliberately ignoring what people do, and then suggesting that they do the very things ignored. Puzzling.)

4. Image / Militancy -

  Lacking any analysis of the vast majority of goings-on in the country, we are left with a critique of an image. While it may be easy to criticize the image of american-apparel-wearing, fancy-talking window-fetishists, this image (strawman) has little to nothing to do with reality. Constantly the authors of this article invoke the image of ever-escalating militancy and even armed struggle. This is obviously absurd. In a world where image is privileged and substance is obscured, this critique was fatally wounded from the start. While this seems to be the ONLY critique of insurrection that goes deeper than “omg, I can’t understand what the IEF says!! lol!! and why are those pants so tight?!?” it ends up being really disappointing. With crimethinc’s history of being on the receiving end of such critiques of image (bagel-eating crust punks or whatever) it seems bizarre to repeat such mistakes.

5. Safety -

  A common theme in the article is the seemingly inverse relationship between insurrection and ‘security’. The authors point out the case of the RNC8 as a shining example of how above-ground public organizing creates safety nets for those involved. What the article ignores is that without welcoming committee style organizing (espoused by crimethinc, critiqued by ‘insurrectionists’) there wouldn’t be an RNC8 to speak of. Those who faced jail time because of the RNC (including many who weren’t even in the welcoming committee) were trapped or convicted due in large part to this style of organizing (“Panda” after all, couldn’t have entrapped his victims were there not a formal organization for him to infiltrate. His testimony is crucial in the State’s cases against Matt DePalma, the Texas 2, and the only non-WC RNC8 defendant. To emphasize: the damage this scumbag did to our communities wouldn’t have been nearly so easy in a world w/o the welcoming committee. A large part of the cases against the Milwaukee 3 were based on evidence gathered against the three during raids on the houses of known WC members. Compare this to Pittsburgh, where friendship networks without names or members were able to pull off substantially more exciting street action with drastically fewer arrests. Considering the insane amount of time (nearly two years) that went into RNC organizing, and the horrible consequences, it seems crazy (from the perspective of someone living in the midwest) to applaud this strategy. If there truly is a strain on midwest cities, as the article claims, it is because of the RNC - not because of May Day.

In the article, the arrest of one person in connection with the events of May Day is used as evidence of the dangers of insurrectional organizing. This person was arrested and later released without any charges. When looked at together, the feats accomplished on May Day without a single charge filed offers a much more wonderful model than the nightmare that was (and continues to be) the RNC. Obviously things were gained because of the RNC - (networks, experience, affinities) but these benefits are not exclusive to above ground organizing. I’d counter that the insurrectional alternative offers these benefits without the devastating pricetag.

There is something to be said for legal campaigns. Obviously we need to have the funds and support when people are arrested, but campaigns do not need to model the RNC8’s defense to be successful. The defense campaign for Ariel Attack in Denver is particularly exciting; rather than portraying ourselves as liberal social justice activists, it shows that we can avoid jail time without watering-down our politics or our intentions. I’d offer this as a counter-example, that even those who break windows under cover of darkness can be supported and can win. This isn’t to say that what we have is enough, but people all over the country are experimenting with new ways of protecting ourselves and having the resources to defend ourselves in court, if necessary.

6. Anarchy without adjectives -

  ”If we have never called ourselves insurrectionists, it is not because we do not wish for insurrection, but because our own temperament predisposes us to an anarchism without adjectives. The important thing is to fight for freedom and against hierarchy; we imagine that this will demand different approaches in different situations, and that these approaches may need one another to succeed. We are anarcho-syndicalists on the shop floor, green anarchists in the woods, social anarchists in our communities, individualists when you catch us alone, anarcho-communists when there’s something to share, insurrectionists when we strike a blow.”

This sentiment creates a lot of interesting problems. First of which is that of naming. The authors of the crimethinc article claim to have never called themselves insurrectionists. Coincidentally, most of the people they’re critiquing probably haven’t either. Over the last year, “insurrectionist / insurrectionism” have become yet another choice in the marketplace of ideas that is ideology. While those responsible for these ideas are partly to blame, critiques such as this have played a major part in cementing a rigid (yet poorly defined) position on a false dichotomy that does not matter. The insurrection question and the entire debate that has ensued over the last year has been one of the most embarrassing things about 2009. Many of the arguments made against this critique will be dismissed by saying “the critique isn’t of all insurrectionists, only some.” But hasty generalizations cannot excuse the deployment of such silly strawman arguments or critiques-of-image.

That we desire insurrection doesn’t need to be an ideology or an identity. That I go to work or spend time by the river or with friends doesn’t make me a syndicalist, green or social anarchist. I want insurrection and it informs my living and my fighting - at work, by the river, during sex, on the streets, while sharing, while breaking, on solitary evenings. What’s key isn’t to define or defend these shifting and arbitrary positions, but to refuse these of separations."

I know plenty of liberals who call themselves anarchists.

well i suppose that makes sense, you live on the coast. ;)

21st January 2010, 16:32

The part where they talk about organizing resistance in creative ways, like the turn style hoppers union. I think they got the "riot porn" aspect down as well.

Compare this to Pittsburgh, where friendship networks without names or members were able to pull off substantially more exciting street action with drastically fewer arrests.

I don't know about that, the cops at Pitt seemed relatively subdued, there were many times when they could have moved in and stopped the "nonsense" but they didn't. It was'nt till the end of the street march and later at Pitt university that they decided to get physical and then that was against mostly students.

I also noticed the locals had a hostility to cops and Anarchists just like the article talks about, but that wasn't till the second day. The first day people were generally supportive and very generous in what they offered us. It was like two foreign armies came to do battle amongst an unwilling populace.

However, everything else the comment says makes sense to me. I would also like to add their style of rhapsodic babble is annoying. A lot of the time it's just them tearing apart elements within their own community, as you were saying before, or chastising people for not living revolution or usually something to that effect.

bcbm

21st January 2010, 17:07

what parts of that article did you think were relevant to the discussion going on here by the way? if you could provide relevant quotes that'd be cool... i don't wanna re-read that whole thing again. :blushing:

23rd January 2010, 11:58

It's alright, it's quite long winded, but that's a hazard with Crimthinc! :laugh:

In the US, where militant political conflict is rare, it’s tempting to assume that clashes with authority are inherently antiauthoritarian. Insurrectionist websites and magazines appropriate images from a wide variety of contexts; some (http://socialrupture.blogspot.com/) hail all sorts of antisocial crime as manifestations of social war, without knowing the motivations of the protagonists.

We must always remain critical of any direct action taken because otherwise we may end up defending some pretty shitty stuff. For instance, it wasn't uncommon for the European working classes to express their dissatisfaction by inciting bloody pogroms against the Jews.

The force of an insurrection is social, not military. The power of anarchist insurrection is determined not by military confrontations, but by how pervasive resistance is, how widely distributed tactics and resources are, how durable and extensive and genuinely liberating the relationships are that underpin the whole endeavor.

Like I was saying before, people are going to be attracted to the struggle for different reasons. While they'll all have a material base, people may not immediately identify with that. Not to say we should "trick" them or pick someone's favorite abstraction, but that we should argue the current social order is the cause of most of the problems we face today.

Social Skills for Social War:

decision-making structures and cultural conventions that encourage horizontal power dynamics
accountability processes to address internal domination
conflict resolution, both internally and with potential allies
the ability to provide for material, social, and emotional needs
the capability to reproduce the social forms of resistance faster than they are destroyed
the means to communicate beyond a single subculture
the flexibility to adjust according to context, rather than remaining caught in ritual

This is very important! I've noticed a tendency for political groups or any discussion for that matter to devolve into a power dynamic where a few white males who have read all the "right" books decide everything of substance. Even if everyone gets a vote, people may just agree out of fear of looking stupid or being called out.

Of course, some people are attracted to exclusive language—especially people who desire to see themselves as part of an elect in-group. A milieu that attracts a lot of this kind of energy is not likely to make a welcoming space for a broad range of participants; it also might not have a lot of staying power.

This is a problem I have noticed and often felt frustrated with myself. Have you ever had someone ask you "well, what exactly are your beliefs?!" and you find it's almost like it's too big to get out? I'm not advocating "going to the people" or some other PR politician shit, but I've notice we use a lot of language that keeps us in our cultural ghettos. Another problem is those aforementioned "few white males who have read all the right books" use language almost like a blunt weapon to batter down all opposition or to flex their intellectual muscle in front of others.

“Riot porn,” the depictions of anti-authoritarian violence that abound in insurrectionist media, is only a subset of the representations of sex and violence surrounding us in this society. Pornography doesn’t just cater to desire—it also shapes and directs it; in the case of riot porn, it glorifies the moment of physical conflict, while removing the social context that gives it meaning. Pornography can promote roles that have little to do with the actual needs of the participants; those who have been influenced by corporate pornography sometimes make disappointing sexual partners. Likewise, a cynical observer might caricature some current manifestations of insurrectionism as a misguided attempt to distill a strategy from the aesthetic of riot porn: no difficult negotiations with allies, no intermediate or long-term goals, only the moment of attack, isolated in a vacuum.

This is a critique of Anarchism almost every Leninist group uses. "They are violent and directionless, no plan, blah, blah, blah." Of course it isn't true of everyone, but it's true of some. Some people spend weeks and even months planning an action and organizing within their community, bringing people together and making logistics happen. Some people just want to break stuff or "freak people out." These people don't think "long term" they don't weigh actions according to effectiveness or risk. They think it's a game that they can "save and quit" at anytime.

You also have the idealist who believes they are with the "good guys" (anarchists, leftists) and they are fighting the "bad guys" (cops, the state, authority). Therefore, they conclude, they can do anything and come out of it alright because they were fighting for the forces of good.

The loud mouth braggart and the doe eyed idealist are the two biggest offenders in security culture. People won't always agree with our ideas, which is to be expected, but if we go popping off in the wrong place we may end up compromising ourselves to law enforcement, alienating potential allies, or taking a beating from others who don't approve of our politics.

Of course material conditions have to be taken into account. A lot of these problems may disappear in a revolutionary situation. Location is also key. A poor neighborhood would be a better place to look for allies against the police than a middle class neighborhood.

bcbm

23rd January 2010, 16:42

are you applying their arguments to anarchists in general, or specifically to the "insurrectionists" they're trying to criticize?