Ultra leftists, individualism and lifestylism

[promethean]

To what extent can ultra leftism be explained by a pervasive influence of individualism and lifestylism over their politics?

[Apoi_Viitor]

To what extent can ultra authoritarianism be explained by a pervasive influence of a reactionist and petty-bourgeios influence over their politics?.

EDIT: To what extent can Marxist-Leninism be explained by a desire to rebel against one's parents and assert their masculinity through their politics?

[StoneFrog]

TBH i don't think the ultra leftists (which im presuming just the left communists and a like ) are much influenced by these things. Its more the Anarchists that have this line of influence, such as incorporating vegetarianism and other non-socialist tendencies into the movement.

[anticap]

If we're using "left" in its original connotation of standing against privilege and elitism then I consider it a matter of principle to have my nose pressed against the left wall and to be continuously looking for ways to scale that wall.

[Apoi_Viitor]

TBH i don't think the ultra leftists (which im presuming just the left communists and a like ) are much influenced by these things. Its more the Anarchists that have this line of influence, such as incorporating vegetarianism and other non-socialist tendencies into the movement.

This is true. In fact, the expulsion of the Anarchists from the First International, was largely due to Bakunin's critique of Marx, where he stated, "Fuck you, you're a collectivist nazi; if Communist Party ever came to power, the party would recreate itself as a new ruling class - and enslave the animal proletariat." To which Marx responded, "Hurr durr, screw off. Stop being a non-socialist, liberal pussy."

As you can see, the traditional sect between Anarchists and Communists, is largely due to Anarchism's acceptance of individualism and other non-socialist tendencies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To what extent can ultra leftism be explained by a pervasive influence of individualism and lifestylism over their politics?This is a strange way to put this question. It reminds me of this: have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?:lol:

Could you be more specific? Individualism and lifestylism are pervasive in liberalism so I don't think we can say this is a "ultra-left" or "anarchist" or whatever other group problem.

When it comes to broad anarchism, I think the induvidualist/lifestylist currets are symptoms of a larger thing going on which is the separation of class-based politics and perspective on the left in general. This happened not just with anarchists but with Marxists too - "post-Marxism" and "3rd worldism" are just two examples of many non-working class-based splinters from marxism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Actually, I'm going to give a serious response, in spite of this being a blatant troll thread...

So, if you've ever read Murray Bookchin's work Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, he describes a clear contrast between traditional anarchism (social anarchism), and the pseudo-liberal form of lifestyle anarchism. That said, I still find Bookchin's work semi-life-stylist, because in all honesty, I couldn't give two shits about Bookchin's 'social ecology' or preserving 'nature'...

But here's a link to the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Anarchism_or_Lifestyle_Anarchism:_An_Unbrid geable_Chasm

Bob Black posted a critique of it, which I'll eventually read, because, well, Bob Black is a pretty cool guy.

[Widerstand]

To what extent can ultra leftism be explained by a pervasive influence of individualism and lifestylism over their politics?

What exactly do you mean by Ultra Leftist?


TBH i don't think the ultra leftists (which im presuming just the left communists and a like ) are much influenced by these things. Its more the Anarchists that have this line of influence, such as incorporating vegetarianism and other non-socialist tendencies into the movement.

Anarchism and animal rights are two independent movements. There is no "vegetarian" tendency "incorporated" into Anarchism.

[Patchd]

^ Yes, our criticism of Leninism extends only to its anti-lifestylist and individualist nature???? What? I can't be arsed dealing with vast generalisations, maybe if you make it a bit more specific, and expand on what you're trying to say then it might be easier to answer your question, unless of course, you don't actually know what our arguments are in which case you should ask before you assert.

For example, where is this influence of 'lifestylism' and what is your criticism of individualism? Surely we are all individualists to an extent, afterall, we usually try to seek what is best for ourselves no?

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, lifestylism is, to simplify a bit, the view that a change in individual lifestyle is in itself revolutionary to some degree, or that there is a 'revolutionary lifestyle'. In other words, the advocacy of things such as dropping out of work individually, buying fair trade and so on as a political act, or a matter of principle.

'Individualism' is just plain nebulous as used by leftists. Still, I'd be intrigued to know how Bordigists are 'individualist'.

So you'd have to give further details as to why everybody who's not a Trotskyist or ML is a lifestylist and individualist, and indeed as to what is meant by these terms.

[Apoi_Viitor]

By ultraleft, I mean all those who are not Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists. Even among working class ultralefts, most are against Leninism as they perceive Leninism to be against individualism and their lifestyle. I want to know how do ultralefts justify this influence of individualism and lifestylism on their politics?

I know a lot of working class ultra-leftists (myself included) are against Leninism, because we don't want to give up certain elements of our capitalist lifestyles - for example, as much as I hate living under capitalism, it's still better than living in a Gulag. Also, I kind of enjoy having a lifestyle of any kind - I think it would kind of suck to be executed by Lenin or Trotsky for being a 'petite-bourgeios reactionary. As for my individualism, that can be explained away by my interpretation of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Honestly (I could be mistaken), I understand that term as meaning a dictatorship of the people, a regime where I would have say in the policies enacted. It wouldn't simply be a 'Revolutionary Vanguard Party' determining all of my individual actions, with me having no input.

[mossy noonmann]

To what extent can ultra leftism be explained by a pervasive influence of individualism and lifestylism over their politics?

sorry, but what the fuck does that mean?

wtf is lifestylism?

and ultra leftism.... maybe i'm new but i don't understand!

surely if someone is ultra left that is political, so how can it be 'over their politics'?

i'll stop there otherwise i could go on and an

[bricolage]

most are against Leninism as they perceive Leninism to be against individualism and their lifestyle.
I think it is more so that 'ultra-leftists' perceive leninism to be against the working class y'know.

[Revolution starts with U]

There is no socialism foisted upon the people by a higher power. It comes only from the ground up, and the ground is littered with individuals of vastly different values.
It's a chomskyist "socialism is the true extension of classical liberalism" kind of thing :thumbup1:

[bcbm]

do buzzwords buzzword buzzword because otheir politics are buzzword buzzword?

[Os Cangaceiros]

How about blaming the Leninist parties and states for stifling dissent

"I believe that the formation of the Chekas was one of the gravest and most impermissible errors that the Bolshevik leaders committed in 1918 when plots, blockades, and interventions made them lose their heads. All evidence indicates that revolutionary tribunals, functioning in the light of day and admitting the right of defence, would have attained the same efficiency with far less abuse and depravity. Was it necessary to revert to the procedures of the Inquisition?"

-Victor Serge, Bolshevik and individualist right-winger.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In any case, it's pretty obvious to me that one can approach Leninism without having to come from some kind of sinister "individualist right-wing" mindset. It's clear that Leninists have made some mistakes, and one can criticize those mistakes from any number of different viewpoints.

[ContrarianLemming]

Why is a commitment to "socialism from below" and working class power over that of a party considered "individualism"?

the insult (yes that's what it is) "Individualistic" has little merit is serves no better purpose then calling social anarchists liberals or idealists, those claims are generally backed up by anarchism's constant commitment to democracy without compromise.

ergo, what a load of bollocks.

[Magón]

What some people have said on this thread is just priceless.

[Apoi_Viitor]

How about blaming the Leninist parties and states for stifling dissent and not allowing any freedoms? This is based on a individualist right-wing view than a materialist view.

Why the fuck would I support a revolution that wants to "not allow me any freedom"? I thought the whole point of the revolution, was to put power in the hands of the workers, not eradicate all freedom and then stifle dissent...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To what extent can ultra leftism be explained by a pervasive influence of individualism and lifestylism over their politics?

I'd say that individualism and lifestylism are the defining points of all Politics.
What is significant about "ultra-leftism" (a misnomer, imho) and anarchist practices is their emphasis on subjectivities and forms of life. This doesn't explain them so much as problematize their explanation, which, really, is better.

[anticap]

Um, lifestylism is, to simplify a bit, the view that a change in individual lifestyle is in itself revolutionary to some degree, or that there is a 'revolutionary lifestyle'. In other words, the advocacy of things such as dropping out of work individually, buying fair trade and so on as a political act, or a matter of principle.

Bookchin would add that a "lifestylist" anarchist is one who, in addition to your description, reflexively identifies the social sphere with statecraft. There are none of those here, to my knowledge.

[Widerstand]

Bookchin would add that a "lifestylist" anarchist is one who, in addition to your description, reflexively identifies the social sphere with statecraft. There are none of those here, to my knowledge.

What?

[Thirsty Crow]

By ultraleft, I mean all those who are not Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists. Even among working class ultralefts, most are against Leninism as they perceive Leninism to be against individualism and their lifestyle. I want to know how do ultralefts justify this influence of individualism and lifestylism on their politics?
Why the hell should "ultralefts" justify the influence of individualism?
You are implying here that "individualism", in all its variants, is an ideological product of capitalism. But it is not so, clearly. If it were so, we would be forced to conclude that Marx himself was in contradiction with his own self-understanding (as a communist) when he wrote that the communist revolution will replace the old order of privilege with an association of producers in which an individual's free development is the condition for the free development of all (Communist Manifesto).
EDIT: here you go, the quote:

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

So, is Marx a liberal in disguise? Or is he a confused liberal who is delusional in his belief that he is in fact a communist?

[anticap]

What?

How am I to respond to this? You'll have to elaborate. Do you not understand what Bookchin meant, or do you disagree with him, or do you disagree that he said any such thing, or do you disagree that there are no such anarchists here at RevLeft, or are you confused about something else?

[Nolan]

It should be called RAAND

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

lol did Marx really kick Bakunin out of the international because he was heroically exposing his evil collectivism, or was it more to do with Bakunin blantantly violated the international's rules.

Anyway this thread is lol.

[Widerstand]

How am I to respond to this? You'll have to elaborate. Do you not understand what Bookchin meant, or do you disagree with him, or do you disagree that he said any such thing, or do you disagree that there are no such anarchists here at RevLeft, or are you confused about something else?

Yeah my bad.

What exactly is this supposed to mean:

" reflexively identifies the social sphere with statecraft."

[Thirsty Crow]

lol did Marx really kick Bakunin out of the international because he was heroically exposing his evil collectivism, or was it more to do with Bakunin blantantly violated the international's rules.

Anyway this thread is lol.
Why is it laughable?
After all, there are plenty of self-proclaimed communists who chastize "individualists" and completely denounce "individualism", favouring instead "collectivism", which is a part of the grand dichotomy "individualism (capitalism) - collectivism (socialism)" (a good examle of a false dillemma).
How is it laughable, when it is clearly alarming. This phenomenon should be taken seriously and it should be fought against.

[NecroCommie]

To what extent can ultra authoritarianism be explained by a pervasive influence of a reactionist and petty-bourgeios influence over their politics?.

EDIT: To what extent can Marxist-Leninism be explained by a desire to rebel against one's parents and assert their masculinity through their politics?
Yes, because I sacrifice all my time in my political organizations simply to look cool. In addition I do this while completely aware how my attempts to look cool are completely backfiring with me being hated due to my communist policies. So yes, when someone is a leninist it simply has to be teenage rebellion.

[anticap]

Yeah my bad.

What exactly is this supposed to mean:

" reflexively identifies the social sphere with statecraft."

In his Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, which I haven't read in ages so I can't recall with precision, Bookchin says something to the effect of what I wrote. You'll see this attitude with great regularity among individualist anarchists, but not among real (social) anarchists, and especially not among those who would label themselves revolutionary leftists.

A timely example would be the way some individualist anarchists on YouTube have given the anarcho-syndicalist "mr1001nights" the nickname "mr1001bolsheviks" simply due to his concern for social issues, which they seem to have an aesthetic distaste for. As Bookchin says, for this type of anarchist anything to do with the social sphere is immediately suspected of containing a hidden "statist" agenda. He includes this outlook as part of lifestylism.

In short, Bookchin seems to be saying that lifestylism and individualism go hand-in-hand, and that one implies the other, at least among anarchists.

[Widerstand]

In his Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, which I haven't read in ages so I can't recall with precision, Bookchin says something to the effect of what I wrote. You'll see this attitude with great regularity among individualist anarchists, but not among real (social) anarchists, and especially not among those who would label themselves revolutionary leftists.

A timely example would be the way some individualist anarchists on YouTube have given the anarcho-syndicalist "mr1001nights" the nickname "mr1001bolsheviks" simply due to his concern for social issues, which they seem to have an aesthetic distaste for. As Bookchin says, for this type of anarchist anything to do with the social sphere is immediately suspected of containing a hidden "statist" agenda. He includes this outlook as part of lifestylism.

In short, Bookchin seems to be saying that lifestylism and individualism go hand-in-hand, and that one implies the other, at least among anarchists.

So...if this is a supposed part of 'lifestylism', CrimethInc., the collective most often labelled 'lifestylist', would in fact not fit that definition, because they don't outright reject the social sphere and social issues.

So...can you show me show me some 'lifestylists' that fit that description? :/

Or am I misunderstanding it?

[anticap]

So...if this is a supposed part of 'lifestylism', CrimethInc., the collective most often labelled 'lifestylist', would in fact not fit that definition, because they don't outright reject the social sphere and social issues.

So...can you show me show me some 'lifestylists' that fit that description? :/

Or am I misunderstanding it?

It isn't my argument, so I feel no need to defend it. I raised it as yet another understanding of "lifestylism" that would not apply to those who might be accused of it here at this forum. In other words, I was heaping more evidence onto the pile against those who like to throw around such slurs.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, is Marx a liberal in disguise? Or is he a confused liberal who is delusional in his belief that he is in fact a communist?

BAM! Take that baggage of liberal revolutions and ideology of progress!

[Devrim]

Ultra left is just an insult used by people to criticise those who have more left-wing politics than them. In the UK the Labour Party used to call the Militant ultra left, who called the SWP ultra left, who called left communists ultra left.

If it has any historical meaning it refers to those criticised in Lenin's infamous pamphlet, 'left wing communism...'

Basically he refers to two groups, the Italian left now often referred to as Bordigists, and the German left*.

Neither of these currents or their descendants are in anyway 'individualist' or 'lifestylist'. The Bordigists are actually much more 'Leninist' than most people who call themselves Leninists. Indeed many people define Bordigism as a form of 'ultra-Leninism'.

Devrim

*This is not a geographical description, the 'German' left is so-called because its stronest force was in Germany, but they were also reasonably strong in countries such as Holland, England, and Bulgaria, and existed as far away as Mexico, and the US.

[Jimmie Higgins]

By ultraleft, I mean all those who are not Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists. Even among working class ultralefts, most are against Leninism as they perceive Leninism to be against individualism and their lifestyle. I want to know how do ultralefts justify this influence of individualism and lifestylism on their politics?

Again I think the "induvidualism" and lifestylism of some anarchists is more the result of a larger trend impacting the broader anarchist circles. Frankly many Americans who identify with a sort of loose idea of anarchism are mearly radical liberals. So if the question is why have some liberal ideas made inroads into anarchism more than in other revolutionary traditions, I think maybe there is a discussion to be had around that. My short answer would be two interrelated things 1) IMO the general shift in the left away from a working class focus after WWII (this can be equally said of Marxist traditions at this time that said the western working class was tied to western imperialism or looked to peasant struggles or national liberation struggles or students and so on) 2) the looseness of anarchist organizing after WWII - because the working class was not leading and engaged in militant struggle many radicalizing people who identified with radical goals sought ways to fight that did not involve organizing among working class: spectacle, insurrectionaryism, adventurism, and unorganized spontaneity.


How about blaming the Leninist parties and states for stifling dissent and not allowing any freedoms? This is based on a individualist right-wing view than a materialist view.I think some of the ways that some radicals try to locate some ideological "original sin" that doomed the Russian Revolution to an internal counter-revolution are not materialist and can be a-historical... as if the conditions of Russia and the state of the Russian working class at that time were less important to the outcome of the Revolution than what Lenin wrote one time in 1905 or something. But I think criticizing these countries is totally valid and can be done from a materialist view: there's a difference between criticizing restrictions of "freedom" in the abstract and someone arguing that freedom was restricted for ends that were not beneficial for the working class. If someone sees the actions of X ruling party as being representative of the working class interests (as many people argue about Cuba, for example) then restrictions that they do will probably be seen as in the interest of the working class and ok by them. IMO rights were restricted and real working class collective decision making was off-the-table because there were actually different interests involved: these regimes IMO wanted to build up their national economy and the nation (which they argued would be in the interests of the working class) and that is a different goal than socialism which is IMO worker's power and collective rule of society.

Considering that socialism was not achieved in these countries; considering it has allowed the capitalists to propagandize against socialism (to this day) and win many workers away from any hope of a revolution actually bringing about something better than capitalism; considering that strikes and other independent movements of workers were put down and denounced as "imperialist plots" no matter what the circumstances are... I think on this issue it's up to Leninists to explain to people why a worker's revolution ended up with something that looked a lot more like Bismarkian Capitalism than the world that Lenin, the rest of the Bolsheviks, and many workers and soldiers fought for in the Revolution.

Anarchists have other esplainin' to do on other issues http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif but on this I think it's understandable that there would be suspicion of regimes that claimed to be in the interests of the working class but opposed any working-class self-activity and built economies on the backs of workers in order to compete alongside the western capitalist countries.

[Thirsty Crow]

BAM! Take that baggage of liberal revolutions and ideology of progress!
I'm sorry, it seems that I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?

[Thirsty Crow]

Again I think the "induvidualism" and lifestylism of some anarchists is mor

Considering that socialism was not achieved in these countries; considering it has allowed the capitalists to propagandize against socialism (to this day) and win many workers away from any hope of a revolution actually bringing about something better than capitalism; considering that strikes and other independent movements of workers were put down and denounced as "imperialist plots" no matter what the circumstances are... I think on this issue it's up to Leninists to explain to people why a worker's revolution ended up with something that looked a lot more like Bismarkian Capitalism than the world that Lenin, the rest of the Bolsheviks, and many workers and soldiers fought for in the Revolution.

Do I see another term for the socioeconomic formation that was the USSR?
An it is an interesting term, indeed.
Btw., I don't think it is solely up to Leninists to explain why the workers' revolution degenerated (or ended up in "Bismarckian capitalism" or whatever), it's a task that should be collectively undertaken by the whole of the revolutionary left.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do I see another term for the socioeconomic formation that was the USSR?
An it is an interesting term, indeed. I'm throwing this comparison around very loosely: it's "more like" that (using the state to "catch-up" in economic and industrial power) than it was to the Paris Commune. Personally I agree with the view of these countries as "State-Capitalist" but I was trying not to say anything that would cause too many thread derailments or tendency arguments and keep it to this one tendency argumenthttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif at a time :D

Btw., I don't think it is solely up to Leninists to explain why the workers' revolution degenerated (or ended up in "Bismarckian capitalism" or whatever), it's a task that should be collectively undertaken by the whole of the revolutionary left.You're right, and people do have their various explanations.