Acceptance of cultures in regards to "lifestylism"

[Bitter Ashes]

I dunno if I fall into the category of a lifestylist or not. I've certainly got an interest in DIY ethic and wouldn't be seen as mainstream in the UK. I also love a lot of Crimthinc's stuff. That said, I do what I can for folks whoever they are through whatever political tools I have at my disposal.

The thing that's confusing me a bit is that lifestylism, by the looks of things, seems to actually be a seperate culture to mainstream, western, white culture, yet there is a fair bit of intollerance towards it. Now, I can recognise that creates problems in trying to relate to people who do fall into that bracket, or for that matter, any other culture that exists in the world and that makes it less effective in bringing change for everyone, but I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.

There are numerous communities and cultures that exist outside of the mainstream in Western societies, usually based on ethnicity, or religion and usually they're created in a response to a threat from the mainstream's lack of acceptance. Why's lifestylist culture viewed differently?

People who drop out of society and try to live outside of capitalism are hardly a threat to anyone, so why all the hate? I can accept that some might feel that these people shirking their responsibilities to "the revolution", but equally, does it not help the cause to be able to point to real life examples such as the Zapatistas, or Free Catalonia, to prove that non-capitalist organising and economies can work?

I guess I'm asking all this atm because I'm going to be in court in a couple of weeks and I'm having to keep my nose clean and trying to find ways to support my comrades who are still fighting the beast that is capitalism. That's kind of been taking the form of trying to make sure everyone has access to everything they need to survive and keep on fighting.

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me that we're happy to say, "You can live your individual cultures, except lifestylism", which kinda puts us in the same bracket as fascists and capitalists, which is a very alarming attitude!

[Thirsty Crow]

People who drop out of society and try to live outside of capitalism are hardly a threat to anyone, so why all the hate? I can accept that some might feel that these people shirking their responsibilities to "the revolution", but equally, does it not help the cause to be able to point to real life examples such as the Zapatistas, or Free Catalonia, to prove that non-capitalist organising and economies can work?
I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that sometimes this phenomeon called lifestylism is presented as a radical alternative to capitalist social relations, in the sense of revolutionary practice. In fact, this is how I understand lifestylism: not as a specific way of life, but as politics based on this,and most often radical politics, in its rhetoric at least. This is a dead end, and I don't think I should provide detailed arguments as to why it is so.
I don't think there's anything wrong with different ways of life, i.e. participation in sub-cultures. But people shouldn't base their politics solely on this.

On the other hand, another common argument is that sub-cultural groups (those with radical politics, at least) tend to alienate themselves, by the sole virtue of them being sub-cultures, from the broad working class. I don't know whether this holds, but I'd say that I suspect that this argument often comes from prejudiced positions, mostly related to cultural aspects of peoples' lives.


I guess I'm asking all this atm because I'm going to be in court in a couple of weeks and I'm having to keep my nose clean and trying to find ways to support my comrades who are still fighting the beast that is capitalism. That's kind of been taking the form of trying to make sure everyone has access to everything they need to survive and keep on fighting.I'm sorry to hear that. Hope that everything turns out OK for comrades and yourself.


Just seems a bit hypocritical to me that we're happy to say, "You can live your individual cultures, except lifestylism", which kinda puts us in the same bracket as fascists and capitalists, which is a very alarming attitude!I don't think that anybody is saying that. Again, lifestylism refers to politics, not the way of life in itself.

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem arises when people substitute their subjective decision to withdraw from capitalism for an engaged politics. "Dropping out" arguably complements "replacing" capitalism, but as the sole tool of dissent against capitalism it has both severe theoretical limitations and in practice has not proven viable.

[RHIZOMES]

I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that sometimes this phenomeon called lifestylism is presented as a radical alternative to capitalist social relations, in the sense of revolutionary practice. In fact, this is how I understand lifestylism: not as a specific way of life, but as politics based on this,and most often radical politics, in its rhetoric at least. This is a dead end, and I don't think I should provide detailed arguments as to why it is so.
I don't think there's anything wrong with different ways of life, i.e. participation in sub-cultures. But people shouldn't base their politics solely on this.

Exactly this. If I can build on this a little, I think that the worst lifestylists (i.e. the types that people think of when using 'lifestylist' as a pejorative term) have a tendency to see themselves as somehow seperate from wider social relations, that they can merely 'cut themselves off' from a social sphere they have deemed as being emblematic of their particular conception of what connotates 'capitalism' or 'injustice' or whatever - i.e. not consuming particular type of products, subscribing to a non-hegemonic worldview of some sort (pagan spirituality for example).

The problem is this line of thinking is inherently rooted in capitalist social relations - possessing the very self-perception that you are an autonomous individual against a monolithic capitalist system usually entails you have the economic privileges to act as one, and not having to be overly reliant on various sources of sustenance that can be gained from positioning yourself in a more mainstream section of society (support networks/kin relations/job prospects/etc). I think this is why so many people I would personally describe as ultra-left lifestylists come from incredibly middle-class backgrounds.

Of course like most things in life, the issue is not completely clear-cut. Authoritarian socialists often overextend this valid critique of a certain social facet of subcultures in general, turning it into a blanket condemnation of anyone who falls outside of hegemonic social norms.

[Red And Black Sabot]

I don't think there's anything wrong with lifestyleism. It's healthy that your lifestyle choices mash up with your political views and ethics and etc. The problem is when these individual lifestyle choices are presented as somehow being revolutionary or even having a social impact. It's like Animal Rights "activists" who haven't done anything other than change their diet or anti-capitalists who dumpster dive and shoplift but fool them selves into thinking they're already doing what it takes or worse... convincing others that all they have to do is make these simple lifestyle changes and everything will be fixed wich just creates at best a distraction at worst a subcultural ghetto. There's nothing wrong with dumpster diving, shoplifting, or going vegan. In fact it could be a great addition to what we're already doing but they aren't a solution by themselves if even at all.