Lifestyle of a communist

[Greek Warrior]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.

[Sinister Intents]

A communist or anarchist should live however they want. Socialism shouldn't be be a lifestyle at all... If someone wants to live in a large home and do whatever they want is their choice to make for themselves, so yeah they can smoke, drink, have whatever vehicle they want.

[Comrade Chernov]

Are video games considered to be bourgeois?

[Taters]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.

Of course. A true communist lives like an ascetic monk. Think Diogenes.


Are video games considered to be bourgeois?
Naturally. Any use of electronics is decadent.
Coincidentally, posting on this forum is bourgeois.

[Petrol Bomb]

As a comrade once said on here, Communism is not asceticism, our goal is not to live austere lives. And, I don't see how abstaining from pleasures like the ones you mentioned would help the proletarian cause, so why in the world should we adhere to a certain "lifestyle", thinking it will do anything?

[Sinister Intents]

Are video games considered to be bourgeois?
I wouldn't consider videogames bourgeois, I guess it depends on the game perhaps... they're a commodity, so partaking in them is consumerist? so decadent perhaps?
What defines bourgeois and decadent?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Lifestylism based on communism is an absurd idea. The whole notion of this, and this thread, is absurd. As long as you're not exploiting any workers (meaning that you're not a part of the bourgeoisie), I don't really care how you live. That's all one should really care about.

[Remus Bleys]

Lifestylism is so shitty. I don't care what you do, hell you can even be bbourgeois.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Lifestylism is so shitty. I don't care what you do, hell you can even be bbourgeois.

Why wouldn't you care if someone is a part of the bourgeoisie?

[Remus Bleys]

Why wouldn't you care if someone is a part of the bourgeoisie?

Hey engels. The communist party will most likely be dominated by proletarians but to exclude someone on account of them being bourgeois is just silly. They will of course be viewed with some suspicion and they will have to work harder to prove their worth, but I honestly see no reason to exclude someone who is actually a communist. (Of course they couldn't be part of the workers state but that's a different question)

[argeiphontes]

Smoke


Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.

[The Jay]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.

The problem is commodity production and not the use of goods. You shouldn't feel badly about using things, you should feel bad about using people. If that makes you want to buy only local, ethically produced goods then that's your choice and I commend you for it; however, you should not think that those that eat at McDonalds and buy cheap clothing from Vietnam as bad people.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hey engels. The communist party will most likely be dominated by proletarians but to exclude someone on account of them being bourgeois is just silly. They will of course be viewed with some suspicion and they will have to work harder to prove their worth, but I honestly see no reason to exclude someone who is actually a communist. (Of course they couldn't be part of the workers state but that's a different question)

As far as I'm aware, it was his father's factory, not his.

[Remus Bleys]

As far as I'm aware, it was his father's factory, not his.

yes and? If anything that makes him of a bourgeois background, and my example is simply bad, but I'm sure there are instants of this happening.
If the proletariat has been shown to fight the proletariat on the side of the bourgeois, why can't the opposite happen?

[Sinister Intents]

Wasn't there something in the Communist Manifesto that stated portions of the bourgeoisie would support the proletariat? Lifestylism would just be horribly alienating to people.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

a communist should be a worker, in the marxian sense. so their existence should require them to sell their labour in order to survive. So in that respect, I find it hypocritical to find people who live off the fat of the land, or investments, or someone else's money (in the sense of inheritances, not in the sense of petty cash or benefits) or whatever preaching 'communism', cos the likelihood is you couldn't trust them when push comes to shove.

Above having a material interest in seeing the destruction of capitalist society, there are only imposed restrictions on the lifestyle of a communist: probably some level of persecution should be expected at some point in our lives, be it being heckled, receiving abuse or death threats, or more serious, state-sponsored loss of liberty which, I think, is something that is likely to be a real situation for any active communist at some point in their lives.

It's just the way things are. The state is a tool of violence and repression, we should not expect otherwise.

[human strike]

A communist is someone who communises; that is how a communist lives and what a communist does. Communism is a kind of asceticism, but it an asceticism (askésis) that is a return to enjoyment and not its denial; an insurrectionary asceticism, if you will. To suggest that communism doesn't mean changing ourselves is ludicrous. Communism is the abolition of our present condition, as workers and all other identities. Communism is lifestylist or it's bullshit.

It's important to know the difference between that and workerism though. It's got nothing to do with "bourgeois decadence".

"...this new kind of parrhesiastic game – where the problem is to confront the truth about yourself – requires what the Greeks called "askesis". Although our word "asceticism" derives from the Greek word "askesis" (since the meaning of the word changes as it becomes associated with various Christian practices), for the Greeks the word does not mean "ascetic", but has a very broad sense denoting any kind of practical training or exercise. For example, it was a commonplace to say that any kind of art or technique had to be learned by mathesis and askesis – by theoretical knowledge and practical training. And, for instance, when Musonius Rufus says that the art of living, techne tou biou, is like the other arts, i.e., an art which one could not learn only through theoretical teachings, he is repeating a traditional doctrine. This techne tou biou, this art of living, demands practice and training: askesis. But the Greek conception of askesis differs from Christian ascetic practices in at least two ways: (1) Christian asceticism has its ultimate aim or target the renunciation of the self, whereas the moral askesis of the Greco-Roman philosophies has as its goal the establishment of a specific relationship to oneself – a relationship of self possession and self-sovereignty; (2) Christian asceticism takes as its principle theme detachment from the world, whereas the ascetic practices of the Greco-Roman philosophies are generally concerned with endowing the individual with the preparation and the moral equipment that will permit him to fully confront the world in an ethical and rational manner. " Foucault in 1983 at Berkeley University

[human strike]

Communism is the refusal of work and identity. It doesn't mean simply accepting that capitalism is bad or confessing your privilege, it means doing something about it and doing something about yourself so that you no longer reproduce capitalism, hetero-patriarchy and white supremacy, but rather you communise. I can't stand this politics that says all you have to do is sign up to a programme and not own the means of production and you're dandy and we'll have our revolution someday and we'll all live happily ever after.

[Remus Bleys]

a communist should be a worker, in the marxian sense. so their existence should require them to sell their labour in order to survive. So in that respect, I find it hypocritical to find people who live off the fat of the land, or investments, or someone else's money (in the sense of inheritances, not in the sense of petty cash or benefits) or whatever preaching 'communism', cos the likelihood is you couldn't trust them when push comes to shove.

Above having a material interest in seeing the destruction of capitalist society, there are only imposed restrictions on the lifestyle of a communist: probably some level of persecution should be expected at some point in our lives, be it being heckled, receiving abuse or death threats, or more serious, state-sponsored loss of liberty which, I think, is something that is likely to be a real situation for any active communist at some point in their lives.

It's just the way things are. The state is a tool of violence and repression, we should not expect otherwise.
That's as absurd as saying that first-worlders can't be anti-imperialists because they have a material interest in imperialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's as absurd as saying that first-worlders can't be anti-imperialists because they have a material interest in imperialism.

Most first world workers do not have an interest in maintaining imperialism (with exception to the small labor aristocracy). Whatever small benefits it may provide, they are severely outweighed by the rest of the capitalist system for those workers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's as absurd as saying that first-worlders can't be anti-imperialists because they have a material interest in imperialism.

perhaps first world workers aren't ever going to be as strong in their views or actions on anti-imperialism, because we aren't generally on the receiving end of imperialism (although of course that hasn't always been the case - Marshall Aid represented a huge dollar imperialism for workers in europe during the 20th century, for example).

The point is - deeds not words. Would you really trust someone who owns a business, or has a cushy life under capitalism, to put their life on the line for you and your comrades if push came to shove? I wouldn't put my life in their hands, I think that'd be naive. Would you put your life on the line to get rid of a system that you've done well out of? I wouldn't.

There are more than enough workers in the world; too many in fact. Why bother with members of the bourgeoisie professing communism?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Go to [...] bars
[...]
Smoke
Drink

Honestly, it seems to me communists do nothing but this.

[Bala Perdida]

Personally after becoming an Anarchist/Communist I lost interest in expensive cars and big houses. As for smoking it never interested me much. Drinking I do on occasions. I've never felt comfortable in expensive restaurants but other than that I like a lot of places, can't go to long without some tacos! I don't see anything wrong with clubs or bars. I like buying sports jersey's and electronics, but I try not to over do it. I guess all I can say is live how you want, but don't abuse people and helping the poor won't hurt if you can.

[Remus Bleys]

perhaps first world workers aren't ever going to be as strong in their views or actions on anti-imperialism, because we aren't generally on the receiving end of imperialism (although of course that hasn't always been the case - Marshall Aid represented a huge dollar imperialism for workers in europe during the 20th century, for example).

The point is - deeds not words. Would you really trust someone who owns a business, or has a cushy life under capitalism, to put their life on the line for you and your comrades if push came to shove? I wouldn't put my life in their hands, I think that'd be naive. Would you put your life on the line to get rid of a system that you've done well out of? I wouldn't.

There are more than enough workers in the world; too many in fact. Why bother with members of the bourgeoisie professing communism?Thats not what I am arguing. If there are actual class-traitor bourgeois, why would you go "oh no you are immediately excluded" instead of simply giving them a more rigorous check out than the average worker?

Or are workers always communist?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Thats not what I am arguing. If there are actual class-traitor bourgeois, why would you go "oh no you are immediately excluded" instead of simply giving them a more rigorous check out than the average worker?

Or are workers always communist?

If they became communist, then they should immediately end all partaking in their role as a member of the bourgeoisie.

[Remus Bleys]

If they became communist, then they should immediately end all partaking in their role as a member of the bourgeoisie.
much like Engels - oh wait

[Fourth Internationalist]

much like Engels - oh wait

Who, again, didn't own a factory. His father did.

For the sake of argument, say he did own it and he operated it like a member of the bourgeoisie, exploiting workers for profit. If that was the case, then Engels was arguably one of the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen. Even worse, he'd know he was in the wrong, whereas your typical member of the bourgeoisie looks down at the proletariat and thinks they're doing what nature intends.

[Art Vandelay]

a communist should be a worker, in the marxian sense. so their existence should require them to sell their labour in order to survive. So in that respect, I find it hypocritical to find people who live off the fat of the land, or investments, or someone else's money (in the sense of inheritances, not in the sense of petty cash or benefits) or whatever preaching 'communism', cos the likelihood is you couldn't trust them when push comes to shove.

I have to disagree with monolithic conclusions like this, to be quite honest. Ultimately yes, you have a point; proletarian movements should be primarily comprised of proletarians. However we shouldn't be dismissive of class traitors either. The class background of Engels is quite clear and I think the class background of Marx is more blurry than most Marxists would care to admit, given his financial dependence on Engels. What it really comes down to, is that Engels socio-economic position in society was better used in service of the proletariat, by taking advantage of it and using the resources which stemmed from it to publish/support Marx, than it would of been for him to take some silly 'principled' stance against capitalism, by refusing to take advantage of the socio-economic situation he was born into. In that sense, I certainly don't care if communists happen to be members of the bourgeoisie.


The point is - deeds not words. Would you really trust someone who owns a business, or has a cushy life under capitalism, to put their life on the line for you and your comrades if push came to shove?

Engels did more than once in his life time and thats ultimately what it comes down to, what side of the barricades will you be on?

If they became communist, then they should immediately end all partaking in their role as a member of the bourgeoisie.

Engels didn't and I, as well as every Marxists, should be grateful for that. It would have been symbolic of nothing other than absolute useless moralism/lifestylism.


Honestly, it seems to me communists do nothing but this.

True that, its cause too many of us are bitter and depressed.


Communism is the refusal of work and identity. It doesn't mean simply accepting that capitalism is bad or confessing your privilege, it means doing something about it and doing something about yourself so that you no longer reproduce capitalism, hetero-patriarchy and white supremacy, but rather you communise. I can't stand this politics that says all you have to do is sign up to a programme and not own the means of production and you're dandy and we'll have our revolution someday and we'll all live happily ever after.

I wish I could like only a portion of your post, cause you make alot of good points here, but I can't stand the idea that communism is the abolition/refusal of work. If you mean its the abolition of work in the modern sense, then certainly; but there will always be work to be done and there isn't anything bad about that. Work can indeed be fun, if its something you love. Communism isn't the abolition of work, but of generalized commodity production.

[Fourth Internationalist]

9mm, you make a good point about Engels using his class background for such reasons. :)

And sorry, Remus, for arguing against you.

[Ocean Seal]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.
A communist should only smoke and drink if he does so err day, and he should go to restaurants and bars steal expensive cars and hopefully one day when the revolution comes live in a nice big comfortable house.

[human strike]

I wish I could like only a portion of your post, cause you make alot of good points here, but I can't stand the idea that communism is the abolition/refusal of work. If you mean its the abolition of work in the modern sense, then certainly; but there will always be work to be done and there isn't anything bad about that. Work can indeed be fun, if its something you love. Communism isn't the abolition of work, but of generalized commodity production.

Communism abolishes work as a separate sphere of human activity since everything that is done is considered useful. The alternative is to say that communism totalises work, but that makes even less(/no) sense.

[Remus Bleys]

Who, again, didn't own a factory. His father did.

For the sake of argument, say he did own it and he operated it like a member of the bourgeoisie, exploiting workers for profit. If that was the case, then Engels was arguably one of the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen. Even worse, he'd know he was in the wrong, whereas your typical member of the bourgeoisie looks down at the proletariat and thinks they're doing what nature intends.
I mean this argument basically comes down to what a revolutionary has to be. Communism is the negation of all existing society, it is the destruction of this capitalist world which births a new society. The proletariat is only useful so far as it is its own destruction. The communist revolution is the revolution which destroys not only the bourgeoisie but the proletariat as well.
Of course the only class which can bring this about is proletariat - but what exactly is the proletariat. The proletariat is the class which is the negation of work, which brings about communism as its own interest is to destroy this. All arguments on whether to allow the bourgeois or not to join have to therefore say who exactly is allowed to destroy. Can students join? Can state bureaucrats join? Can accountants join? Can children join? Can housewives join? Can lumpen-proletarians join?
This revolution will certainly be the masses of the working class - "the liberation of the working class can only come about from the working class" - but to say it is exclusively the working class is banal to me. The definition of proletariat is more fluid than wage laborer, most "marxist" definitions of working class amounts to metaphysical categories that don't make any sense. If only the proletariat can be part of the revolution, then will the revolution be solely the work what? Factory workers? Blue Collar workers? What about intellectuals? What about mothers, nurses, doctors, etc?
It is thoroughly obvious that only the proletarian as a class, and not the bourgeois as a class, will abolish capitalism. But as obvious as that is, is it not as naive to think that all the workers will join the struggle to liberate the proletariat and themselves? Of course it is - time and time has shown us the proletariat can betray its own class to the Bourgeois. But if a proletariat can be class traitors for capitalism, cannot a Bourgeois be a class traitor for socialism?

And fuck "oh no hes a hypocrite" communism isn't hippie bullshit lifestylism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I mean this argument basically comes down to what a revolutionary has to be. Communism is the negation of all existing society, it is the destruction of this capitalist world which births a new society. The proletariat is only useful so far as it is its own destruction. The communist revolution is the revolution which destroys not only the bourgeoisie but the proletariat as well.
Of course the only class which can bring this about is proletariat - but what exactly is the proletariat. The proletariat is the class which is the negation of work, which brings about communism as its own interest is to destroy this. All arguments on whether to allow the bourgeois or not to join have to therefore say who exactly is allowed to destroy. Can students join? Can state bureaucrats join? Can accountants join? Can children join? Can housewives join? Can lumpen-proletarians join?
This revolution will certainly be the masses of the working class - "the liberation of the working class can only come about from the working class" - but to say it is exclusively the working class is banal to me. The definition of proletariat is more fluid than wage laborer, most "marxist" definitions of working class amounts to metaphysical categories that don't make any sense. If only the proletariat can be part of the revolution, then will the revolution be solely the work what? Factory workers? Blue Collar workers? What about intellectuals? What about mothers, nurses, doctors, etc?
It is thoroughly obvious that only the proletarian as a class, and not the bourgeois as a class, will abolish capitalism. But as obvious as that is, is it not as naive to think that all the workers will join the struggle to liberate the proletariat and themselves? Of course it is - time and time has shown us the proletariat can betray its own class to the Bourgeois. But if a proletariat can be class traitors for capitalism, cannot a Bourgeois be a class traitor for socialism?

And fuck "oh no hes a hypocrite" communism isn't hippie bullshit lifestylism.

Sorry. I was wrong.

[Art Vandelay]

Communism abolishes work as a separate sphere of human activity since everything that is done is considered useful.

Okay we're in total agreement then. I guess its just hard to tell exactly what someone means when they say 'abolish work,' since sometimes its kind of a cover for this idealistic notion of what communism would entail.

[Remus Bleys]

Sorry. I was wrong.
Nah its good. Forced me to design an argument.

[Sea]

Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.Au contraire, mon ami. Habafropzipulops has been shown to greatly increase the risk of not dying. Since I started smoking it daily I have felt a great decrease in my lack of health.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How many Engels' are there in history/are there going to be, though?

The guy happened to be an associate and a financial supporter of one of the great philosophical minds the world has ever seen. That is not the basis for a theory of relations between class and worldview, it is a tiny, tiny exception.

In addition, it is very easy, 150 years on, to talk of Engels the liberating, heroic communist. If the 'new Engels' came to your organisation and professed financial support tomorrow, you might rightly be inclined to be somewhat sceptical of them and their motivations.

[G4b3n]

In my opinion, the only thing you should concern your personal life with as far as your socialist convictions go, is making sure that the real and existing human relationships that you engage in are non-exploitative.

[BlackFlag]

I think Lifestylism is an overall bad idea, people still need entertainment.

[Revenant]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Critically :)

[consuming negativity]

We live in the society that we do. Generally speaking, changing your entire lifestyle to suit whatever moral goal you have is something only available to those with a considerable amount of wealth. The surest sign of a bourgeois piece of shit is someone who doesn't want to appear bourgeois.

[Decolonize The Left]

A communist is someone who communises; that is how a communist lives and what a communist does. Communism is a kind of asceticism, but it an asceticism (askésis) that is a return to enjoyment and not its denial; an insurrectionary asceticism, if you will. To suggest that communism doesn't mean changing ourselves is ludicrous. Communism is the abolition of our present condition, as workers and all other identities. Communism is lifestylist or it's bullshit.

It's important to know the difference between that and workerism though. It's got nothing to do with "bourgeois decadence".

I have read that discourse by Foucault (which I left out of my quote as it was large) and would appreciate it if you'd expand a bit on what you were saying here. What is the difference between your asceticism and workerism? I would venture to say that the asceticism above doesn't conflict with things like having a bank account or saving for your kid's college expenses. The point is how things are done and how we relate to the things we do. So, for me, I think that the question of lifestylism, asceticism, etc... all comes down to a how, not a what (being a boss/cop aside). Does this jive with what you were saying?

[Yuppie Grinder]

One day when I'm a famous hat designer I'm gonna own a helicopter and lots of rare jungle animals.

[The Jay]

One day when I'm a famous hat designer I'm gonna own a helicopter and lots of rare jungle animals.

When that goes south you can live with me in the forest, living the true FULL COMMUNISM NOW lifestyle.

[Aleister Granger]

I wanna live like a transhuman, all hooked up and shit. Is that boog or prole?

[WilliamGreen]

They should do something haha

If you believe in an ideology other than the current norm you try and replace it.

Simple as that.

[Prometeo liberado]

I like to play Monopoly but I must be sure and flagellate myself afterwards. :laugh:

[Ritzy Cat]

I was bashed at a friend a few weeks ago because I had won $1,000 in a contest, but since I'm a communist I'm obviously obligated to give it to charity or something. Being bashed at for not doing anything, "talking the talk but not walking the walk".

To be honest though I can't do much as a 16 year old in one of America's historically conservative states and half of the residents don't even know what communism is.

[Brutus]

We should all be like Rakhmetov and read for 82 hours straight.

[Sinister Intents]

I saw a person at the Millcreek mall in Erie the other day dressed as fucking Hitler. He wore a similar suit, had a little box mustache, and had the same hair style. His wife and children were with him. If their is to be a lifestyle of a communist it should be to avoid looking like a fucking fascist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?


By consuming as much nutella and Starbucks as humanely possible.

[Sinister Intents]

By consuming as much nutella and Starbucks as humanely possible.

What would be a more serious response Vox?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What would be a more serious response Vox?

I was being serious, it's what I do.

How should a Communist live in a capitalist society? Me? I like nice things, I like Versace, Gucci, Louis, Prada, etc. (of varying authenticities), 25 hours of my day are concerned with making money (by any means), etc. if that tells you anything. Capitalism is about survival baby and I want to survive in style; all those fat spotty old fogies use treachery, deceit and mayhem to get by, why can't I? I also think lifetsylism is a by-product of petty bourgeois idealism. As purposely slumming it for some psycho-sexual release or to square some pre-conceived moral debt for having the privilege to do so, must be nice. These threads are pretty hilarious to me tbh, lol, what I am saying in a nutshell is this, I'm not going to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, hustling, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. I can barely focus on my own life, why should I focus my attention on the lives and associated styles of others?

[Thirsty Crow]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.
These are all quite banal and pretty much irrelevant questions since they presuppose that there ought to be a prescribed way of life for a person claiming communist politics based on some extrapolated moral virtues. Which is nonsense.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Live to build the party, and build the party to live.

I think what that actually looks like varies, and is pretty specific to different situations. How you dress, talk, cook, etc. to build nuclei of workers' power here and there aren't even necessarily mutually comprehensible on a surface level, unless you're turned on to the underlying projectuality.
Case in point, I've been told I'm a chameleon, and had people who have known me for years fail to recognize me out of context. I dress for the occasion, speak the language of the people I'm taking with, etc. Hell, to be honest, I'm even flexible with my veganism from time to time, because, in certain situations, building links is going to do more for ending industrial animal slaughter than not eating the wild rabbit some poor guy trapped.
That's not to say that everyone can or should be so "flexible" - only that, even in my own case - how a communist should live doesn't appear the same all of the time. To think, then, that any sort of concrete conclusion could be drawn about communist lifestyle generally, is absurd.

That said, I think if a communist is asked, "Why are you doing x?" they should generally have an answer of some kind. It's not so much about lifestyle, but what its purpose is, its orientation vis-a-vis realizing communism.

[Kamrat]

"How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?".
In Sweden we (the left) have a word called "livsstilist" ("lifestyle-ist"), it's often used as a smear word for someone that makes life choices and lifestyles to politics or the other way around.

E.g.
-A real communist don't shave.
-A real communist don't drink.
-A real communist hate pop music.

Rather than seeing that being a socialist/communist as having an specific view on class and economy it becomes a subculture. You can't build a movement if you try to make the ideology and movement to a subculture...

I personally can't really see the point in including some universal communist views on e.g. animal rights, drinking or athletics (three things have been associated with the left in Europe). Even if these things are important to many people, even so can a communist like or dislike all three - and that is the way it should be. And even if your viewpoint is made from your communist belief, it doesn't make you more or less a communist.

I personally see it as a big theoretical mistake of the swedish socialist Axel Danielsson when he tried to describe soccer as a "bourgeoisie phenomenon" that was bad for the proletariat. Because our meaning with our movement isn't to discipline the working class to "the right values" - or in other words - "make an earthly movement to a rightous", but.. to create a movement built on class interests!

If you've burning passion for things like moderation, soberness, sports etcetera. is there other forums and movements that you also can join. Because the problem with including universal views on some phenomenon like e.g. eating meat is that you will exclude
every communist that does or doesn't eat meat. And that, my comrades, is how you become leftist cult.

A communist is someone that believes in communism. A good communist is someone that try to organize workers and spread class consciousness. A bad communist is someone that focus on living like a "true" communist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I was being serious, it's what I do.

How should a Communist live in a capitalist society? Me? I like nice things, I like Versace, Gucci, Louis, Prada, etc. (of varying authenticities), 25 hours of my day are concerned with making money (by any means), etc. if that tells you anything. Capitalism is about survival baby and I want to survive in style; all those fat spotty old fogies use treachery, deceit and mayhem to get by, why can't I? I also think lifetsylism is a by-product of petty bourgeois idealism. As purposely slumming it for some psycho-sexual release or to square some pre-conceived moral debt for having the privilege to do so, must be nice. These threads are pretty hilarious to me tbh, lol, what I am saying in a nutshell is this, I'm not going to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, hustling, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. I can barely focus on my own life, why should I focus my attention on the lives and associated styles of others?

i prefer fake gucci and it's the only gucci i wear
real gucci is way too damn expensive and doesn't have loud enough branding

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

"How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?".
In Sweden we (the left) have a word called "livsstilist" ("lifestyle-ist"), it's often used as a smear word for someone that makes life choices and lifestyles to politics or the other way around.

E.g.
-A real communist don't shave.
-A real communist don't drink.
-A real communist hate pop music.

Rather than seeing that being a socialist/communist as having an specific view on class and economy it becomes a subculture. You can't build a movement if you try to make the ideology and movement to a subculture...

I personally can't really see the point in including some universal communist views on e.g. animal rights, drinking or athletics (three things have been associated with the left in Europe). Even if these things are important to many people, even so can a communist like or dislike all three - and that is the way it should be. And even if your viewpoint is made from your communist belief, it doesn't make you more or less a communist.

I personally see it as a big theoretical mistake of the swedish socialist Axel Danielsson when he tried to describe soccer as a "bourgeoisie phenomenon" that was bad for the proletariat. Because our meaning with our movement isn't to discipline the working class to "the right values" - or in other words - "make an earthly movement to a rightous", but.. to create a movement built on class interests!

If you've burning passion for things like moderation, soberness, sports etcetera. is there other forums and movements that you also can join. Because the problem with including universal views on some phenomenon like e.g. eating meat is that you will exclude
every communist that does or doesn't eat meat. And that, my comrades, is how you become leftist cult.

A communist is someone that believes in communism. A good communist is someone that try to organize workers and spread class consciousness. A bad communist is someone that focus on living like a "true" communist.
Agreed, but if you want to hurt animals for pleasure I automatically hate you.

[Kamrat]

Agreed, but if you want to hurt animals for pleasure I automatically hate you.

I guess that "you" in this sentence isn't directly meant for me, but yes, you're free to hate anyone who don't have your values.. or are, literally, disgusting people that hurt animals for fun. But you can't criticize in capacity of that he/she is a socialist/communist.

Btw, happy new year.

[laoch na phoblacht]

i don't see why a communist couldn't do any of the things in the op I do believe in a degree of lifestylism such as rejecting consumerism but that doesn't mean become a full blown primitavist. to be able to freely chose how you live you must have a degree of privilege and if you do not recognise your privilege then you are not much of a leftist

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Look, I think there is no way in hell that any of you would not take the chance to be wealthy. If you say you wouldn't, you are kidding yourself. I would sleep so well at night living in a mansion and doing a job that required very little physical labor. Then coming home, grabbing some cocktails at a bar, and smoking a cigar while watching the sunset over the ocean. Don't you lie to me and tell me you wouldn't unless you are some kind of Siddhartha Guatama, Jesus, Gandhi person.

That being said, I would like everyone to experience something like this. That's why I dig socialism.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Look, I think there is no way in hell that any of you would not take the chance to be wealthy. If you say you wouldn't, you are kidding yourself. I would sleep so well at night living in a mansion and doing a job that required very little physical labor. Then coming home, grabbing some cocktails at a bar, and smoking a cigar while watching the sunset over the ocean. Don't you lie to me and tell me you wouldn't unless you are some kind of Siddhartha Guatama, Jesus, Gandhi person.

That being said, I would like everyone to experience something like this. That's why I dig socialism.

Oh, I have no illusions about it. If I could get my hands on a good chunk of cash, you better believe I would grab it and run. Yeah, I also want a big house, a nice car, a personal arcade, a state-of-the-art computer and entertainment home theater, a gigantic personal library, a chance to be resting beside the pool with curvy and scantily clad women (and men).

But even then, Marxism will not let me forget the nature of the capitalist system. This (hypothetical) wealth came about purely out of luck, as it often does in capitalism. I could lose it just as quickly as I got it, and others already have to go without.

[Ritzy Cat]

I guess that "you" in this sentence isn't directly meant for me, but yes, you're free to hate anyone who don't have your values.. or are, literally, disgusting people that hurt animals for fun. But you can't criticize in capacity of that he/she is a socialist/communist.

Btw, happy new year.

That's completely untrue. Anything a communist does is automatically taboo and disgusting.

[machine457]

Communism is a social,political and economic theory. I don't think it's acceptance requires any particular life style. It is not necessary to be a proletarian to be a communist, however; to be of the proletariat does require a particular relationship with production and the means of production. Namely, a lack of ownership of the same under capitalism and the need to sell ones labour in exchange for the means to access commodities.
I think these questions of life style are best left to the individual. Personally, I would have difficulty owning rental property or a major factory and calling myself a Communist, though having such ownership wouldn't exclude anyone from party membership.
I also think these "prollyer than thou " life style type discussions do nothing but left split and erode solidarity amongst people who would otherwise be in ideological agreement. Having experienced living on an anarco communist camp and experiencing ostracization for being a white working class male because this was seen as being 'privlaged' and being told my building a fire in the evening was 'decadent', I find lifestyle discussions abhorrent and the criticisms laughable.
Is that bourgeoise of me? ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[bill]

Richard Burton had no problem with living the high life--and he played Tito in a Yugoslav propaganda picture! Sutjeska. As good as any Lee Marvin movie.

[Regicollis]

A communist is someone who holds communist beliefs. Period. That is true whether he is a landless Indian peasant or the heir to a large fortune. A good communist is someone who does what he can to spread class consciousness and communism.

Unless you are directly abusing the people around you I have no right to judge your personal life style. However I don't think the more ascetic life styles are doing much to further mass class consciousness. A true communist revolution has to be made by the masses and like it or not the masses don't want to live in some sort of vegan monastery. They like their iphones and their steaks and their beer. Insisting that some sort of fringe life style is necessary to be a true communist will only alienate the vast majority of people and convince them of the bourgeois claim that communism is a sort of impossible idealism.

Furthermore communism is not about having everyone live in poverty. Quite to the contrary a communist society is an advanced industrialised one in which the pleasures of consumption are available to all.

The life style choices that has a positive effect on the spread of class consciousness has nothing to do with consumption but rather on how you treat people and engage in your community. Be a nice person, someone others go to for help and advice. Be an active part of your community and take part in the struggles that go on there. That is ultimately going to be far more beneficial to the cause of communism than what you buy and what you don't buy.

[Futility Personified]

It's impossible to live outside of capitalism when everyone else lives in it. Trying to utilize your power as a consumer as opposed to that of a worker is a liberal idea: having hope in the will of the market. I think educating, agitating and organising are probably the best things we can do, aside from participating in mass actions when they arise.

[Illegalitarian]

Meh, I don't look down upon lifestylists. I can easily understand how the capitalist mode of production and all of its symptoms would be too much for someone to bare to the point where they start trying to live outside of it through attempts at self-sustainability, illegalism (kind of a useful and interesting tactic wrt insurrectionist direct action imo), etc, but I don't believe one needs to live like this to be a "true" communist/anarchist.

That's just playing into the shitty libertopian criticism of "look at these communists typing to us from their new laptops lol"


Just hate freedom, worship Pol Pot and drink your lamb's blood from a baby skull like all good communists and you'll be fine.

[machine457]

Lol! Yawn.

[Jambo]

(I start with an apology because I don't know how to use the quote function so I have copied and pasted the other comrades comments into my post and highlighted them in bold and italics.)



“Communism is the refusal of work and identity. It doesn't mean simply accepting that capitalism is bad or confessing your privilege, it means doing something about it and doing something about yourself so that you no longer reproduce capitalism, hetero-patriarchy and white supremacy, but rather you communise. I can't stand this politics that says all you have to do is sign up to a programme and not own the means of production and you're dandy and we'll have our revolution someday and we'll all live happily ever after.

I wish I could like only a portion of your post, cause you make alot of good points here, but I can't stand the idea that communism is the abolition/refusal of work. If you mean its the abolition of work in the modern sense, then certainly; but there will always be work to be done and there isn't anything bad about that. Work can indeed be fun, if its something you love. Communism isn't the abolition of work, but of generalized commodity production.”

I agree with the above sentiments. I think deciding to be a Communist and hold certain views demands certain actions or changes in behaviour.

“A communist is someone who holds communist beliefs. Period. That is true whether he is a landless Indian peasant or the heir to a large fortune. A good communist is someone who does what he can to spread class consciousness and communism.”

I agree with this. I would not reject a person who was committed to fighting capitalism and imperialism and building a socialist, communist future simply because they were from a well to do background. Should we dismiss everything that Kropotkin or Bakunin had to say about class struggle because they were from privileged families?

“The life style choices that has a positive effect on the spread of class consciousness has nothing to do with consumption but rather on how you treat people and engage in your community. Be a nice person, someone others go to for help and advice. Be an active part of your community and take part in the struggles that go on there. That is ultimately going to be far more beneficial to the cause of communism than what you buy and what you don't buy.”

I agree with the idea of being nice and being supportive and helpful to others generally. I think this can work better than being angry and confrontational about things all the time as this can alienate people before they have a chance to be exposed to communist ideas and perspectives. Conversation and intelligent, friendly dialogue is important along with protesting/demonstrating. As well as this though I also feel that our lives and the way we live can be a powerful message. For me personally I do feel that a commitment to communism dictates a certain degree of asceticism and self –discipline. Inevitably we are part of consumption and have to buy things we need and I’m not saying we should live as cavemen but we need to question things and consider the social, cultural and media forces at work on us and our thinking.

Fashion, computer games, movies, tv and sports are all just ‘bread and circuses’ to keep us distracted from what the capitalist elites are doing. I’m not saying we should not have hobbies and enjoyments but that as Communists we should have a new perspective on things and see them for what they are and decide if we still want them.

Jambo

[CamusStyle]

For God's sake people, we come from the Epicurean school of thought! Life is meant to be lived. Ascetism was promoted by Stoics and other lifeless creatures who viewd life in a more Buddha-shit kind of way.
But...
As also Epicurus stated excessiveness doesn't cause happiness. Hedone can fade away if the means that give pleasure are overused. If, for example, you go to a dinner and eat some wonderful roast beef that would be a delight, but if you eat the whole veil your stomach will suffer.
Communists should embrace life in all its glory. They are-or should be-free humans and should do what pleases them if they respect their fellow man, nature and themselves. But there is a trap. Being too attached to material things would be what Marx and his contemporaries called "vulgar materialism". If you work all your life to buy a cool new car, if you spend thousands of housr in front of your laptop and if you drink yourself stupid everynight, then you lose precious moments to connect with your fellow man. Every man is free to choose how he spends his few hours on this planet, provided he doesn't hurt others by doing so. But being constantly worried and depended on meaningless hunks of metal,plastic and cement is a pretty stupid way to waste your life. And of course makes you less eager to live your comfy life behind when the glorious time of the revolution will come :lol:

[Future]

How should a communist live, in a capitalist society?
Is it acceptable for a communist to do any of these:
Live in a nice big comfortable house with a nice big garden
Go to restaurants and bars
Have an expensive car
Smoke
Drink
Is any of the above considered decadent and bourgeois?
This has always been a discussion topic between me and my friends.

Considering that I'm typing this on an HP computer using a Microsoft browser, watching Disney owned History Channel on a Sony TV...I surely hope so!

You're fine comrade.

:thumbup1:

[machine457]

Considering that I'm typing this on an HP computer using a Microsoft browser, watching Disney owned History Channel on a Sony TV...I surely hope so!

You're fine comrade.

:thumbup1:


Lol, I think all of the above are fine! The question about decadent behaviour becomes important when actual insurrection/ armed struggle becomes a feature of communist resistance. It's hard to justify caviar and champagne when we ration meals and count our shells.
In fairness, I'm reminded of that story of Che eating caviar with the Russians... AFTER THE REVOLUTION. The earth is ours to inherent and that means all of its fruits... Unless your a Maoist of course.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Hipster communism is the way to go....

[bropasaran]

Call me idealist or whatever, I don't care, but my opinion is that one must be both a lifestylist and a socially oriented, those shouldn't be viewed as exclusive. If people think that there's nothing wrong with an attitude "Yeah, I'm an anti-capitalist, but if I could become a capitalist tomorrow, I would and would abandon my view" then we're never going to have a revolution.

Revolutions don't happen by robots, they aren't mechanicist in nature, classes and revolutionary movements are made out of people who have to act, and they have to have conviction and dedication to go trough with something. If those people can simply be bought by some meningless luxury, then revolution simply is never going to happen.

I remember that in Living Utopia documentary about the Spanish revolution one old anarchist, who was alive in that time, said how you couldn't get into FAI if you smoked, drank or gambled, there's even a poster of CNT promoting such a lifestyle; in Russia the book that was one of the biggest inspiration for the Anarchists and Bolsheviks was the novel "What Is to Be Done?" (Lenin named his pamphlet as an homage to that) which is about a guy preparing for the revolution by working out and living a super-ascetical life.

I see a bunch of people talking about how peacuful, gradual revolution is impossible, there has to be a war between the people and the (highly technologically advanced and highly trained state army) I mean, how many of people who say that whine when they cut their finger. Having a dichotomy between the way you act and the ideals you hold isn't irrelevant, it's hypocritical and detrimental.

When you those things like Occupiers with signs "from each according to his ability, to each accordin to his needs" and with comments like "yeah I just need my iphone", I don't see why should anyone be ok with that, and even justify it, as I've seen somewhere. Yes, if your mouth's full of equality and solidarity, and you live better then a lot of people, and you don't forgo pointless luxuries out of solidarity for those worse-off, that is contradictory and hypocritical, you have to be blind not to see that.

And then's the bullshit, yeah but lifestylist makes people not join the social struggle, because they get self-righteous and they think they're doing enough by their lifestyle so they're not going to get involved in the revolution- comming from someone who would sell the revolution in a minute if offered a certain amount of money, fuck you.

I feel that there needs to be a rejection of the capitalist and capitalist-imposed attitudes and habits, and that people who are are not lifestylists but only socially oriented are in a contradiction that's just going to make it harder to get to and through a revolution, and I think that people who don't see the contradiction there are simply delusional. You can't be an organizer if you're not a lifestylist, if you're not willing to suffer various material losses that will inevitably happen. If you're not a lifestylist to a some degree, you can't go through a strike or a demonstration, let alone the revolution.

[Ele'ill]

I agree with that last bit of the above post. What is the task of communists and how is a lifestyle not what you do with yourself

[Rafiq]

Call me idealist or whatever, I don't care, but my opinion is that one must be both a lifestylist and a socially oriented, those shouldn't be viewed as exclusive. If people think that there's nothing wrong with an attitude "Yeah, I'm an anti-capitalist, but if I could become a capitalist tomorrow, I would and would abandon my view" then we're never going to have a revolution.


Even if every revolutionary possessed such an attitude, it would not hinder our cause. As a matter of fact, Marx's understanding of Communism as a movement pre-supposed this very fact, the point is that so long as capitalists exist, as will proletarians. Lifestylism presumes the following: That the social (or even more ridiculous, cultural) foundations for communism can be built within the capitalist mode of production and that we posses the ability to minimalize aspects which are undesirable that are inherent to our social relations by changing our lifestyles. Lifestylists are thus no different from any postmodern bourgeois liberal.

Communism becomes an integral component of our lives when there exists a mass movement, or proletarian consciousness. In the event that this does exist, Communism as we know it will have changed into something entirely different from how we conceive it, as capitalist relations or the nature of capitalist accumulation has changed since the collapse of Communism. For now, what we can do productively is learn, those of us with access to education, information and so forth should have absolutely no excuse not to. Furthermore, Communism is not a 'choice' or an alternative lifestyle, way of life, and so on. If everyone can become capitalists, if everyone could live their lives in wealth and 'decadence' then proletarian consciousness would be impossible, and there would be no reason to oppose capitalism. I must add, though, and I speak directly to the OP: From what basis do you presume we (Marxists or Anarchists) are social conservatives? Assuming we did prescribe a lifestyle for those in our ranks to follow, why on Earth would drinking and smoking be forbidden? The Left brought the west the sexual revolution, after all.

[bropasaran]

Nothing to with that. E.g. masturbation is not socially conservative, and there's nothing non-lifestylist with it, cause it's free x) As is much of other sexual activity. Smoking and drinking, too, if you're moderate, you don't care about it enough that it could interfere with your life and activism, you'll get no objection from me, even though I don't do it.

You mention consciousness, well, who's going to raise people's consciousness, that it, provoke and help them in raising it themeselves. I mentioned organizers, there I also mean agitators, educators, people who, like we here, know stuff about (libertarian) socialism, and can explain that stuff to other people. I guess I'm saying that you by necessity have to have some lifestyle. If you live in the first world and are not on the bottom of the wealth ladder, you're probably living a capitalist lifestyle and you should change that. When you see agitators in the third worlds risking their life by talking about working people liberation, it's pretty shitty to get attached to stuff that we can easily lose when we start agitating. I've been agitating for years, firstly as a social-democrat/ cooperativist, and now as a libertarian socialist/ democratic socialist, and I've been fired multiple times for it, and a few times from good, well-paid jobs. I've had to sell my flat and move into a smaller one, and I had to sell my car and use the public transport, and there's other stuff I had to accept that I can't have. I'm living a fair amount worse as a direct consequence of just talking about socialism to fellow workers. Imagine a situation in which I would participate in organizing strikes, etc. The point is I could and I still can choose between having a capitalist lifestyle of a socialist lifestyle, and if I would have chosen the capitalist lifestyle, I would have stopped agitating long ago, and I wouldn't be using this meager money I have to fund solidarity actions and production of socialist propaganda material. I believe that this choice to be in a certain degree a socialist lifestylist is a necessity for any serious leftist if he wants to be a participant in the movement and not just an observer. Simply, if one's tied up in consumerism in the sense of cars, expensive entertainment, clothes and pointless things like that, he can't be an active leftist in todays situation, at least not for long, let alone in a place and time of hightened class conflict. It's simple reality that if you want to really get involved in activism and stuggle against capitalism, you're going to suffer personal consequences, luckily, for us in the more developed and freer countries it's just things not limbs and life, and IMO it's totally un-leftist of us not to accept that and dive into it consciously.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I agree with comrades Rafiq and impossible simultaneously. It makes sense that at a personal level communists must be willing to merge words with practice and be prepared to lose personal privilege if it conflicts with an egalitarian social order.

But as Marxists and crucially as political workers, we have to acknowledge that the masses of laboring people who we aim to link to the ranks of the proletariat, may possess privilege to one degree or another. The maids who get to ride in the bourgeoisie's limos occasionally, the gardeners who have affairs with the bourgeois' lonely wives or the professional worker who reminds colleagues he/she 'doesn't really need to work' because daddy has three houses and helps out with the burdening bills are your typical examples of the petty-bourgeoisie. These privileged like that make up a great number of our population still, are naturally frightened, alienated by any life stylist/egalitarian social experiments. Hence, for those of us who care about actual politics and want the middle classes to fall into the hand of the proletariat and not the bourgeoisie, life-style should be treated as a strictly personal matter. That's not to say that various egalitarian movements can't find a place of debate in or even support from members in the party.