Lifestylism

[L.A.P.]

What would be the best answer to someone who says you're a hypocrite because you buy a shirt that you know was made in a factory of oppressed workers? My mother also said "If you're going to be part of the system, then don't preach against it." The unbelievable amount of stupidity in that statement baffled me and I don't even know where to start on that. Apparently us Communists want to go back to the Stone Ages. But I just want a good rebuttal against the notion of lifestylism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Don't engage, she's your mom.

In other situations, point out that "reform" doesn't do anything but sugar coat oppression.

[Tommy4ever]

Until socialism exists you have to live in a capitalist world. You must be a part of that world if you want to change it.

[bricolage]

how would it be possible to not be a part of the system?

[Dunk]

The answer is to stop arguing with your mother so much.

[Imposter Marxist]

Start walking around ass naked. All the time. Dig up the back yard and start planting fruit and veggies and then buy a chicken. Stop brushing your teeth or showering. When she rages about it just say you're taking her advice. :laugh:

[Ele'ill]

Isn't the reason we fight because there are no other options?

[Wubbaz]

What would be the best answer to someone who says you're a hypocrite because you buy a shirt that you know was made in a factory of oppressed workers? My mother also said "If you're going to be part of the system, then don't preach against it." The unbelievable amount of stupidity in that statement baffled me and I don't even know where to start on that. Apparently us Communists want to go back to the Stone Ages. But I just want a good rebuttal against the notion of lifestylism.

Whether we like it or not, we are all a part of Capitalism. You cannot escape the system in any way, besides through a revolution which it is our job as left-wingers to create.

[Minima]

It is a part of the ideological nature of bourgeois capitalism that causes it to try to be it's own counter-agent. As it cannot or is unwilling to see an alternative outside of the system in which it exists.

On a larger level, multinational corporations shill out money for this cultural institution, or that charity, etc. This de-politicization of problems allows people to avoid seeing the problem from a systemic context, instead treating the problem as an a-political problem which simply needs to be dealt with effectively ie. poverty, ecology, human rights etc.

This ideology at a personal level, allows people to pay off the problem, often bundled into the cost of the cause itself. Ie. starbucks coffee, a multinational corporation with bad labour practices that sells "fair trade" coffee as part of the bargain of buying coffee, and placates the consumer with a small fee designated for charity, which allows the consumer to buy themselves out of their guilt, through the very thing/activity that causes the problem itself.

(edit) On a similar note; though well-intentioned, activists of a "DIY" "punk", or "countercultural" vintage, through their frustration and desire to "do something" only end up being wholly subsumed by capitalism itself, becoming a stronger, more "authentic" expression of capitalism. creating a market for raw fabrics for t-shirts, instruments, and domestic garden equipment.

"The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they [didn’t] agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’" - Resistance is surrender, Slavoj Zizek

[Leftsolidarity]

Though well-intentioned, activists of a "DIY" "punk", or "countercultural" vintage, through their frustration and desire to "do something" only end up being wholly subsumed by capitalism itself, becoming a stronger, more "authentic" expression of capitalism.


What are you talking about? As someone in the DIY punk scene and a communist I would argue that you are completely wrong.

[thesadmafioso]

I usually bring up some early biographical information about Lenin, to show that living within the capitalist system does not constrict ones ability to work against it. Of course, this formula can be used with most any famous revolutionary, but generally the more well known the individual is the more resonate your point will be.

[Minima]

Science as a general category is not inherently bourgeois. To completely reject institutional education, flawed as it may be, and the scientific institutions that exist, and to take up DIY education is not going to get you anywhere. You are not going to make breakthroughs in medicine, in industrial science, in theoretical physics with a DIY education with your arms tied behind your back. There is revolutionary power in discursive power. What was any social revolution compared to the electricity or locomotion? for average standards of living?

Short from the complete overhaul of the capitalist system which should be central and integral to your ideal, It's only with hard hard work in any discursive field, with those ideals at heart, that is going to make things happen. Instead of lifestyle anarchism and wishful thinking.

[Leftsolidarity]

Science as a general category is not inherently bourgeois. To completely reject institutional education, flawed as it may be, and the scientific institutions that exist, and to take up DIY education is not going to get you anywhere. You are not going to make breakthroughs in medicine, in industrial science, in theoretical physics with a DIY education with your arms tied behind your back. There is revolutionary power in discursive power. What was any social revolution compared to the electricity or locomotion? for average standards of living?

Short from the complete overhaul of the capitalist system which should be central and integral to your ideal, It's only with hard hard work in any discursive field, with those ideals at heart, that is going to make things happen. Instead of lifestyle anarchism and wishful thinking.

You obviously have no idea what DIY punk even is so don't talk out your ass about it. First of all, DIY punk has no real ideology other than anti-capitalism and as it is called do-it-yourself ethic. Whether one who embraces DIY ethics is against institutional educational or not it is not really part of the "ideology". Our punk scene is completely DIY we set up everything ourselves, we make our own shirts/patch/etc., we manage a community garden at the local punk house, we share equipment, etc. All of that is what DIY punk is. What you are talking about is just primivist bullshit.

[Minima]

playground gardens, t-shirts, patches and bad music, I fail to see how any of this is anything but exactly that.

[Leftsolidarity]

playground gardens, t-shirts, patches and bad music, I fail to see how any of this is anything but exactly that.

What else did I say it was? It is all set up completely DIY and that's what DIY punk is.

But I notice that once I call you out on talking out your ass on something you know nothing about your point suddenly disappears. It went from you trying to say DIY punk is about opposing science and institutional education to making fun of our taste in music and actually doing something? You're rather pathetic if you are going to talk down on us for setting up stuff in our own community and bringing the community together around music and through that have managed to bring many into communist or anarchist causes. What side are you on again?

[Ocean Seal]

What would be the best answer to someone who says you're a hypocrite because you buy a shirt that you know was made in a factory of oppressed workers? My mother also said "If you're going to be part of the system, then don't preach against it." The unbelievable amount of stupidity in that statement baffled me and I don't even know where to start on that. Apparently us Communists want to go back to the Stone Ages. But I just want a good rebuttal against the notion of lifestylism.
Explain to them that you are not an idealist liberal.
We are socialists and we are materialists.
We don't believe that clothes are weapons of oppression.
We aren't going to smash our computers and televisions because not everyone has them.
We don't "preach" an end to material possessions. Therefore, we are not against material possessions.
We are against the private ownership of the means of production.
Let me ask you this: Do you own the means of production? A factory or a corporate farm that oppresses hundreds of workers? If you answered: no, then you aren't a hypocrite.

[Summerspeaker]

To completely reject institutional education, flawed as it may be, and the scientific institutions that exist, and to take up DIY education is not going to get you anywhere.

DIY education can produce impressive results. Consider Alvaro Luna Hernandez (http://freealvaronow.blogspot.com/2010/08/writing-we-will-rise-again.html), for example.


What was any social revolution compared to the electricity or locomotion? for average standards of living?

It's unclear whether even the recent dramatic improvement in material standards of living have made us happier than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Without social struggle, advancing technoscience ain't gonna liberate anybody. Indeed, the opposite could happen.


Short from the complete overhaul of the capitalist system which should be central and integral to your ideal, It's only with hard hard work in any discursive field, with those ideals at heart, that is going to make things happen. Instead of lifestyle anarchism and wishful thinking.

If I had to choose, I'd definitely opt for DIY punks over hard hard work. Just saying. :lol:

[Minima]

DIY punk misses the point. DIY punk is as much an expression of capitalism as is DIY home renovating. I would rather live in a contradiction then a fantasy. DIY has an allergy to specialized labour, institutional science, and personal hygiene, and in return, society at large has an allergy towards DIY punk. Tell me what else I don't know about DIY besides the fact that it doesn't do anything for real systemic social change.

[Summerspeaker]

Tell me what else I don't know about DIY besides the fact that it doesn't do anything for real systemic social change.

Neither does criticizing folks for not conforming to the standards of capitalist industrial civilization. :)

[black magick hustla]

Neither does criticizing folks for not conforming to the standards of capitalist industrial civilization. :)

diy is a market niche of capitalist civilization

[Leftsolidarity]

DIY punk misses the point. DIY punk is as much an expression of capitalism as is DIY home renovating. I would rather live in a contradiction then a fantasy. DIY has an allergy to specialized labour, institutional science, and personal hygiene, and in return, society at large has an allergy towards DIY punk. Tell me what else I don't know about DIY besides the fact that it doesn't do anything for real systemic social change.

You have yet to prove how it is capitalistic. It is true that the majority of society doesn't belong to DIY punk but does that make it capitalist? Get your head out of your ass and let others have their own culture. Nobody said it will bring about some big revolution in the first place.

[Tim Finnegan]

DIY punk misses the point. DIY punk is as much an expression of capitalism as is DIY home renovating.
Of course anti-capitalism is an expression of capitalism, that is to say, of life within a capitalist society. What else could it be? :confused:

[black magick hustla]

You have yet to prove how it is capitalistic. It is true that the majority of society doesn't belong to DIY punk but does that make it capitalist? Get your head out of your ass and let others have their own culture. Nobody said it will bring about some big revolution in the first place.

nobody is saying you cant do your own shit. we are just implying that you are not better than the others who buy shit at wal mart

[Leftsolidarity]

nobody is saying you cant do your own shit. we are just implying that you are not better than the others who buy shit at wal mart

I would beg to differ. How are we the same? DIY= Do-It-Yourself, we don't needlessly spend money, we hardly ever charge for anything, we are active in our communities whether through party activism or labor. I'm not trying to suck my own dick here or anything I'm just not getting where you could say that DIY ethics are just as capitalist as shopping at Wal-Mart.

[Summerspeaker]

we are just implying that you are not better than the others who buy shit at wal mart

That's not the impression I got. I tend to agree with that sentiment, though it depends on the particulars.


I'm not trying to suck my own dick here or anything

That would be a fairly awesome example of DIY in action.

[Leftsolidarity]

That would be a fairly awesome example of DIY in action.

haha only the most hardcore kids can pull it off

[Leftsolidarity]

While I'm not trying to hate on summerspeaker at all. Aren't Primivists not allowed in anything but Opposing Ideologies?

[Summerspeaker]

We'll try to liberate the working class from shit. While you would attempt to seduce them back into a steaming pile of it, because it's authentic and aesthetically pleasing.

You misunderstand me. I've no desire to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but I do find the primitivist critique of industrial civilization convincing. Conveniences such as toilets and sewage systems - which some folks still don't have consistent access to even in the United States - don't necessarily outweigh the social and psychological horrors of capitalist discipline and hierarchy. Our distant ancestors shat in the woods, yes, but the evidence suggests they also lived without masters. I've been controlled since the day I was born, thanks to the modern nuclear family. I have negligible decision-making power over the material circumstances of my daily life. Doing almost anything forces me to bow before some superior and squeeze painfully into an established box. Psychic conditioning for obedience and repression in myself and other makes meaningful human relationships effectively impossible. In sum, I experience existence in this supposed pinnacle of progress that is the twenty-first century as a nightmare. Living free and dying young doesn't seem so bad in comparison. Any revolutionary program that emphasizes the advantages of contemporary society without acknowledging the associated suffering worries me. We can do much better than either the far past or immediate present, but technoscience triumphalism won't get us there.

[Tim Finnegan]

That would be a fairly awesome example of DIY in action.
Thank you, now I have to wipe tea off my keyboard. :laugh:

[Minima]

Even if we allowed that DIY can exist independently outside of capitalism, everything in your life which is not DIY is still part of capitalism, the problem with DIY is that it is so ineffective that it cannot even make up for this small part. The logical end of DIY in our current economy is either bourgeois hobbyism or primitivism. What is a community garden compared to a worker controlled hydroponics plant, to specialized collective industry, to collective scientific research? Today's current industry and technological world demand highly educated and specialized labour.

Now there are things that I do not need to defend, as you have to cover your ass first. You cannot reject my claims without degenerating into primitivism, or bourgeois sentimentalism (fetish for dirty labour)

[Tim Finnegan]

The logical end of DIY in our current economy is either bourgeois hobbyism or primitivism.
I don't see how this follows. The logical conclusion of DIY, as I understand it, is a retreat from generalised commodity production back into a form of simple commodity production, perhaps with some degree of communalism (á la Freetown Christiana?), rather than either of the options presented above. I don't believe that most of those involved in the DIY scene argue for it as a revolutionary program, but simply as an approach to living in a capitalist world that they personally find more satisfying. It's possible to criticise this, I'm sure, but your twin options seem to me a caricature of the subculture rather than a substantial critique of it.

[Leftsolidarity]

You are still acting as if I am not a communist or as if I reject science. I never said anything along those lines. I fully support collectivized industry. DIY punk was never intended to be some way to produce anything and I don't know where you got any of these ideas. I never compared a community garden to any of those things. I was just using it as an example of what the DIY scenes do, I do not know many who believe that the world can or should be run by stuff like that. What I was trying to say was the DIY ethics are not capitalist and to not talk shit on a subject you know nothing about.

[Leftsolidarity]

[QUOTE=Tim Finnegan;2123807]I don't see how this follows. The logical conclusion of DIY, as I understand it, is a retreat from generalised commodity production back into a form of simple commodity production, perhaps with some degree of communalism (á la Freetown Christiana?), rather than either of the options presented above. I don't believe that most of those involved in the DIY scene argue for it as a revolutionary program, but simply as an approach to capitalism that they personally find more satisfying.QUOTE]

Pretty much nailed it on the head though it is not confined to just as an approach to capitalism.

[Minima]

Well "leftsolidarity" I will defend Finnegan's retort which i greatly sympathize with against your support of it.

"I don't see how this follows. The logical conclusion of DIY, as I understand it, is a retreat from generalised commodity production back into a form of simple commodity production,"

I think this is right, it is nothing more than the privilege that follows from living in a post-industrial society. And furthermore in economics, it only deals with commodities, and only the most superficial of these: "gardens, t-shirts, patches and bad music etc." and it fetishes this kind of labour as "down to earth" and "simple"

"perhaps with some degree of communalism (á la Freetown Christiana?), rather than either of the options presented above."

Precisely! I claim it is hippy communalism!

"I don't believe that most of those involved in the DIY scene argue for it as a revolutionary program,"

If that is right, I still do not this should be seen as a defence of DIY, although in most DIY'ers I know this is accompanied with general muddleheadedness as to every other aspect of radical thought. For sure, Leftsolidarity is not one of these, so I hope he is not too offended.

"but simply as an approach to living in a capitalist world that they personally find more satisfying. It's possible to criticise this, I'm sure, but your twin options seem to me a caricature of the subculture rather than a substantial critique of it."

I'll apologize for this, but the subculture rather seems to me a caricature of it's own ideals.

[Foreigner]

You misunderstand me. [ . . . ] Conveniences such as toilets and sewage systems - which some folks still don't have consistent access to even in the United States - don't necessarily outweigh the social and psychological horrors of capitalist discipline and hierarchy. Our distant ancestors shat in the woods, yes, but the evidence suggests they also lived without masters. [ . . . ] Any revolutionary program that emphasizes the advantages of contemporary society without acknowledging the associated suffering worries me. We can do much better than either the far past or immediate present, but technoscience triumphalism won't get us there.

This seems to me to be a really good point, and consistent with Marx's views on machines and technical advance in general in production. At least how I read him in Capital, ch. 14 or thereabouts, where he acknowledges how increased productivity (mostly in terms of machinery, specialization and de-skilling), which intuitively would reduce the workday and/or intensity of labor, has the counterintuitive and inverse effect of increasing it, and thus detrimentally decreasing human well-being for the majority of those pulled into its system. Wholly expectable given capital's all-consuming drive for valorization.

Of course, I am not reading what you're saying as a rejection of technology in itself, but a rejection of the idea of technological advance as [later correction for clarity; before I had here "somehow progressive"] inherently conducive to increasing general well-being and/or the humane development of mankind in a socialist direction in itself, the thing that will enable genuine revolution. Change the fundamental drive from one for valorization to one for the satisfaction of human needs, and all these technologies change their relevance for mankind entirely. But until then, they are capitalist technology, organized and employed as such.

So, insofar as you are saying this, it seems pretty clear what a lot of anthropologists say -- that increasing productivity, starting from the agricultural revolution on, were fairly negative developments in terms of quality of life for all but a small, privileged minority of the population.

As much as I find his smug, self-satisfied bourgeois anticommunist tendency revolting, I do find merit in Bertrand Russell's argument that the (only?) redeeming quality of these simultaneously-liberating and -enslaving (with the balance more on the latter) developments was that they enabled leisure, which in turn enabled social and intellectual developments that would be the preconditions for theoretic frameworks that could allow the escape from the cycle via true, nonexploitative large-scale cooperation.

To be clear, though, I totally agree that Ludditism and primitivism are essentially knee-jerk reactions that are predictably unproductive and doomed, though they are understandable. (Who can blame, say, a beleaguered 19th-century Manchester worker for wanting to destroy factory machinery?) It would seem to me that the path to communism pretty much lies through the jumble of machinery, in a conversion of it to communist technology (borrowing David Harvey's use of these terms), not in some retreat from or reversal of it. (Though some would obviously be re-evaluated on the new cost/benefit-to-humanity terms.)

But on the other hand, I find technocracy and the belief that, somehow, the next technological achievements will somehow be the great enabler of communist revolution to be wishful futuremusic. Technology, as I see it, is an arms race, that continually obsoletes old methods. Keep up with it, or fall into the trap of "fighting the last war."

[Leftsolidarity]

Minima, you are not in the culture and don't have much of a grasp on its ideals. You should just stop because I feel that if anyone else from a DIY scene would come along and read this you would look like a complete fool.

[miltonwasfried...man]

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” - Gandhi.


Obviously it is not realistic to abandon everything up to and including society but the same time you have to start somewhere. Avoiding Walmart, Nike and other corrupt corporations is that start.

[Foreigner]

I never did like that kind of thing (the Gandhi quote all the way on up to Michael Jackson songs -- just, ew, for even mentioning it, but I had to hear it in a store the other day). Smacks of individualist moral olympics.

[Summerspeaker]

Of course, I am not reading what you're saying as a rejection of technology in itself, but a rejection of the idea of technological advance as somehow progressive in itself, the thing that will enable genuine revolution.

Yes. Innovation could potentially facilitate revolution, but only in combination with social struggle. In the hands of the current power structure, advancing technoscience may well intensify alienation and exploitation.


So, insofar as you are saying this, it seems pretty clear what a lot of anthropologists say -- that increasing productivity, starting from the agricultural revolution on, were fairly negative developments in terms of quality of life for all but a small, privileged minority of the population.Exactly. Civilization wasn't positive for the majority of the population in terms of health until the nineteenth century or so. But that analysis neglects the psychological harm of extreme hierarchy and inequality.


It would seem to me that the path to communism pretty much lies through the jumble of machinery, in a conversion of it to communist technology (borrowing David Harvey's use of these terms), not in some retreat from or reversal of it. (Though some would obviously be re-evaluated on the new cost/benefit-to-humanity terms.)I feel the same way. You provide an eloquent articulation of this perspective. It's important to distinguish between technologies rather than always abstracting technology into a singular whole. The current system employs knowledge and resources in profoundly damaging and absurd projects (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/folks-fear-nuclear-technology-for-good-reason/).


But on the other hand, I find technocracy and the belief that, somehow, the next technological achievements will somehow be the great enabler of communist revolution to be wishful futuremusic.Technocracy in the sense of the Technocracy movement doesn't take this approach at all. Instead, it demands economic transformation right now, with existing methods. That's a major part of the appeal.

[Minima]

...But on the other hand, I find technocracy and the belief that, somehow, the next technological achievements will somehow be the great enabler of communist revolution to be wishful futuremusic. Technology, as I see it, is an arms race, that continually obsoletes old methods. Keep up with it, or fall into the trap of "fighting the last war."

It should be assumed that a leftist critique of lifestylism, primitivism, and DIY activism comes from precisely this perspective rather than a strawman naive technocracy, being exactly what a punk from the "scene" would assume.

I did work with bikes for a while but that was rather a hipster thing and there was hardly any radical substance to it. the most serious DIY'er i ever met knew was a guy who tried to grow his own shrooms, with quite some success.

[Leftsolidarity]

I just don't understand where a true critique of DIY ethics and activism could come from. It does not harm but increases left-wing awareness, mentality, and actions.

[Minima]

DIY bears alot of similarity with common sense and practical thinking like: it's broken, I can fix it myself, and for half the price, so why pay somebody else to do it? The excess in DIY is it's elevation of this idea into the category of "resistance" against capitalism, the problem comes when this causes adherents to opt for a DIY solution when an everyday market place solution would be more efficient with much less clumsy labour involved (cheaper). ie. Making your own clothing, growing your own vegetables, your own soap, furniture, etc... ...teaching yourself particle physics,

My friend has a passionate interest in programming and open source software. a DIY thing for sure, he is determined to pursue this field so much that he is even willing to go to school, to engage in scholarship on the subject, to go to classes, collaborate with peers and professors, and even get a degree in the subject.

Another friend is interested in pure math, also a marxist. he spends 7-9 (i have access to his google calendar so i know.) hours a day studying and more than 20 hours a week working (assistant to his professor) He is also crippled, speaks with a huge speech impediment, where is the potential for DIY for him? it takes him over 15 mins to dress every morning. The doctor who operated for his open heart surgery, was not a DIY practioneer, and neither is his father who works 3 jobs for their living.

DIY, in it's mild form leads to either bourgeois 'lifestylism' (not revolutionary and neither has the potential to reconstitute the economy by any significant means), or primitivism, in that a serious passion for a field (art, history, science, politics,) is not a DIY pursuit in that it always necessitates scholarship or serious institutional learning, if one truly intends to get anywhere, whether done by oneself or in an actual institution.

[Leftsolidarity]

You are taking DIY differently than what is intended. Nobody in the DIY scenes think they can do absolutely everything by themselves or even wants too. Like I already explained, it is not the rejection of institutional education or anything like that. Never once have I heard someone think of DIY in the way you are saying. It is a little funny though because it's just that you have almost no grasp at all of the lifestyle or just the DIY ethic. You really shouldn't talk about stuff like this if you don't really know about it. It is foolish and frankly kind of insulting that you are representing us this way because you are making us out to sort of be enemys.

[black magick hustla]

I would beg to differ. How are we the same? DIY= Do-It-Yourself, we don't needlessly spend money, we hardly ever charge for anything, we are active in our communities whether through party activism or labor. I'm not trying to suck my own dick here or anything I'm just not getting where you could say that DIY ethics are just as capitalist as shopping at Wal-Mart.

capitalism is not an ideology, it is a mode of production. diy music venues need to rent or buy a venue, need to use shirts that were already sold as commodities, even if diy folk are not selling them, the earth were you are growing vegetables needed to be purchased etc. there is no way to dropout of capitalism, and in the same sense wal mart does not challenge capital, diy doesnt either.

[ZeroNowhere]

This seems to me to be a really good point, and consistent with Marx's views on machines and technical advance in general in production. At least how I read him in Capital, ch. 14 or thereabouts, where he acknowledges how increased productivity (mostly in terms of machinery, specialization and de-skilling), which intuitively would reduce the workday and/or intensity of labor, has the counterintuitive and inverse effect of increasing it, and thus detrimentally decreasing human well-being for the majority of those pulled into its system. Wholly expectable given capital's all-consuming drive for valorization.

Of course, I am not reading what you're saying as a rejection of technology in itself, but a rejection of the idea of technological advance as somehow progressive in itself, the thing that will enable genuine revolution. Change the fundamental drive from one for valorization to one for the satisfaction of human needs, and all these technologies change their relevance for mankind entirely. But until then, they are capitalist technology, organized and employed as such.It seems that you may not have read the third volume. Technological advance is progressive in itself, as 'progressive' is not the same thing as 'nice'.


I would beg to differ. How are we the same? DIY= Do-It-Yourself, we don't needlessly spend money, we hardly ever charge for anything, we are active in our communities whether through party activism or labor.You're both the same because you are nothing.

[Minima]

comrade! before i continue, you and I probably agree on many things besides this one particular subject, and you are very patient regarding our disagreements. I'm going to disagree, but i hope we're cool otherwise.

~
I believe that whatever your idea of DIY is, that you are trying to articulate, is a noble idea worth further interest, however, the DIY ethics, and culture which I have in mind, exists, and furthermore exists roughly along the lines of these two definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_ethic (punk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_culture (bourgeois subculture)

and exemplified by groups such as crimethinc.

For a thorough rejection of the above, from an anarcho-collectivist perspective, is Murray Bookchin's "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm" my personal beef overlaps with his for sure, and his reasons are obviously far better than mine.

If these definitions are adequate, I would be happy to continue on my tirade, if not, then I have surely misjudged you and you must offer me your own idea of DIY punk culture, and DIY ethics.

[Foreigner]

It seems that you may not have read the third volume. Technological advance is progressive in itself, as 'progressive' is not the same thing as 'nice'.

You're right. I haven't gotten to vol. 3, yet, and I was using the term "progressive" in the sloppy, incorrect sense in which it tends to be used (which takes "progress" for "development in the right direction," which I should have known better than to do.) :blushing:



I feel the same way. You provide an eloquent articulation of this perspective. It's important to distinguish between technologies rather than always abstracting technology into a singular whole. The current system employs knowledge and resources in profoundly damaging and absurd projects (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/folks-fear-nuclear-technology-for-good-reason/).

Technocracy in the sense of the Technocracy movement doesn't take this approach at all. Instead, it demands economic transformation right now, with existing methods. That's a major part of the appeal.

In the same vein as above, I was using it more sloppily and generally, and do not in fact have much knowledge of the movement (except a memory of seeing some Frontline documentary segment about the Technocracy "movement" by scientists and bureaucrats within the U.S. order during the postwar period, which, it was asserted, argued for the apolitical rule of society in a scientific way, by scientists -- which sounded obviously suspect to me as an aspect of the general American ideology). I think it would be appropriate for me to look up exactly what the Technocracy movement as referred to now is, and what its relationship is to that.

One thing is for sure, though, is that it already has two strikes against it (in both the older case and whatever is the present one) for their fervent, damn-the-unfavorable-data support for those profoundly damaging and absurd projects.

[Leftsolidarity]

capitalism is not an ideology, it is a mode of production. diy music venues need to rent or buy a venue, need to use shirts that were already sold as commodities, even if diy folk are not selling them, the earth were you are growing vegetables needed to be purchased etc. there is no way to dropout of capitalism, and in the same sense wal mart does not challenge capital, diy doesnt either.

Umm... yes it is.

A lot (if not most) of DIY "venues" are at squat houses or something similar. Same with the garden, it was an abandoned lot that was taken over.

You're right about the shirts and I never said it was a way of dropping out of capitalism, I said it is not capitalist in it's nature. If you are going to critize it on having to deal with capitalism (just as everyone else does) but trying to minimize how much it affects our people and how much we contribute to capitalist society you would need to critize practically everything.

[Leftsolidarity]

@Minima

I agree, we probably do agree on most things. The wiki page on punk DIY is fairly accurate although that "Edupunk" thing is not in anything I've ever been involved with nor have I even heard of it before. I think it is probably something that somebody just put in there (since it is wikipedia) that is not actually very representative of DIY punk. Everything else seemed fairly good though such as the recording and venue stuff. That is how our scene does everything.

[black magick hustla]

Umm... yes it is.
how much we contribute to capitalist society you would need to critize practically everything.

that is the point

[Zanthorus]

The problem withe lifestyleism is it assumes that our critique of capitalism is a critique based on a transhistorical morality. As such it makes sense to say that direct participation in capitalist society is wrong, insofar as it violates eternal principles. However, the Marxian critique of capitalism is historically specific, and understands that a truely human morality is only possible within a Communist society. Until then, this morality is mediated through proletarian class struggle and the ethical codes of conduct thereof.

[Leftsolidarity]

that is the point

When you cut my sentences in half and make them sound different you have no real point.

[Sixiang]

The preoblm withe lieftsyleism is it assumes that our critique of capitalism isa a moral cirtuqe but iets not it's thjsut that we cant be contained any more with an he bouneds imposed buy thes rottend worled.

Oh I think I get it.

[Hebrew Hammer]

What would be the best answer to someone who says you're a hypocrite because you buy a shirt that you know was made in a factory of oppressed workers? My mother also said "If you're going to be part of the system, then don't preach against it." The unbelievable amount of stupidity in that statement baffled me and I don't even know where to start on that. Apparently us Communists want to go back to the Stone Ages. But I just want a good rebuttal against the notion of lifestylism.

Speaking for myself, I don't really have the luxury of researching the makings of the clothes that I wear or buying clothing solely from online stores that offer red 'kosher' clothing or whatever. So what if I buy my clothes from the store, I take what I get and can afford. Considering she's your mum however I would just ignore her.

[MaximMK]

Whatever you do, wherever you go you must live in the system. The system makes you dependent on it.

[Decommissioner]

As someone who participates extensively in a local DIY scene (owned a small punk venue with friends for a while, volunteered at a diy grocery shop etc.) I still have to agree with the sentiment that DIY culture in and of itself does not have any real revolutionary substance. I often have to argue with the primmies over these sorts of things in our local scene. I support the DIY lifestyle but I attach no political significance to it.

To me, a revolutionary society should stray away from a DIY mindset. For society to be owned and run collectively by the working class, we should fully embrace the idea of taken the burdens of every day labor out of the individuals hands. For example, a lot of DIYers like to grow and make their own food. While that is fine and should always remain an option, this is not an end in itself, I would say the more revolutionary position would be to give the average person the choice NOT to grow and make their own food. Why should humankind be encumbered by such things when we can collectively own mass food kitchens?

Why fix the bike myself when I can take it to get fixed professionally for free under socialism? You can go on and on with such examples.

Again, I agree with DIY so far as living an alternative and often times fulfilling lifestyle within capitalism, but I have to admit it for what it is: an alternative lifestyle that works within capitalism, but does nothing to actually undermine it.

[Leftsolidarity]

As someone who participates extensively in a local DIY scene (owned a small punk venue with friends for a while, volunteered at a diy grocery shop etc.) I still have to agree with the sentiment that DIY culture in and of itself does not have any real revolutionary substance. I often have to argue with the primmies over these sorts of things in our local scene. I support the DIY lifestyle but I attach no political significance to it.

To me, a revolutionary society should stray away from a DIY mindset. For society to be owned and run collectively by the working class, we should fully embrace the idea of taken the burdens of every day labor out of the individuals hands. For example, a lot of DIYers like to grow and make their own food. While that is fine and should always remain an option, this is not an end in itself, I would say the more revolutionary position would be to give the average person the choice NOT to grow and make their own food. Why should humankind be encumbered by such things when we can collectively own mass food kitchens?

Why fix the bike myself when I can take it to get fixed professionally for free under socialism? You can go on and on with such examples.

Again, I agree with DIY so far as living an alternative and often times fulfilling lifestyle within capitalism, but I have to admit it for what it is: an alternative lifestyle that works within capitalism, but does nothing to actually undermine it.

That's how I feel as well.