social anarchism & lifestyle anarchism

[Organic Revolution]

i believe that anarchism is the absoulte freedom, so why should we label our comrades? if you want to get on my back for mixing the two feel free.

discussion please, no flaming.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Are you a lifestyle anarchist?

[Organic Revolution]

no. im an anarchist. i believe in living your own life free, but fighting the state, and i believe in class war.

[RASH chris]

Absolute freedom? Even for the capitalist? I mean, wouldn't you (as a lifestyle anarchist) allow capitalists to exploit, as long as people were willing to be exploited by them?

And by the way, crimethinc is the stupidist organisation ever. Allow me to quote the pamphlet "Fighting for our Lives":


There is no Anarchism-hut there is anarchy, or rather, anarchies

So, what, everybody is free to define what anarchy means to them?

[Organic Revolution]

crimethinc is the stupidist organisation ever.

yup.. stupidist.


Absolute freedom? Even for the capitalist?

no. if you read my second post i said i believe in class war.


you (as a lifestyle anarchist)

are you fucking rediculus. read... and read it again. i didnt say i was a lifestyle anarchist.


allow capitalists to exploit, as long as people were willing to be exploited by them?
again, your not paying attention to my point of view.. you trying to tell me what my point of view is. a part of anarchist thought is that no body should have control over another.


So, what, everybody is free to define what anarchy means to them?

i like crimethinc, but im not a slave to crimethinc ideals, so dont try and insult me by insulting an organization i like.

[workersunity]

many anarchists are good communist comrades, although they are a pretty idealistic

[RASH chris]

yup.. stupidist.

Allright, hahaha, you got me there. :P

I assumed you were a lifestyle anarchist fro myour other posts. Especially those in the revolution thread. Where you encourage the living of a certain lifestyle as being revolutionary and a viable way to destroy the system (i.e. a revolution).

Do you consider this only a plausible tactic when combined with a traditional "revolution" i.e. in the manner of class struggle anarchists?

If so then I suppose I might agree with you. Withdrawing from society can set positive examples of demonstrating how to live outside capitalism, but living a lifestyle alone will not bring the downfall of capitalism and the state.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:08 AM

yup.. stupidist.

Allright, hahaha, you got me there. :P

I assumed you were a lifestyle anarchist fro myour other posts. Especially those in the revolution thread. Where you encourage the living of a certain lifestyle as being revolutionary and a viable way to destroy the system (i.e. a revolution).

Do you consider this only a plausible tactic when combined with a traditional "revolution" i.e. in the manner of class struggle anarchists?

If so then I suppose I might agree with you. Withdrawing from society can set positive examples of demonstrating how to live outside capitalism, but living a lifestyle alone will not bring the downfall of capitalism and the state.
no, i dont think that people should just abandon everyone.

[STI]

I don't think it's really a matter of "labelling" in any negative sense of the word. It's no different than saying "That person is a Marxist-Leninist" or "This person is a DeLeonist". Lifestyle anarchism is, I think, seperate from social anarchism, so it's silly not to refer to them as seperate. Doing so is just a good way of confusing people.

[RASH chris]

no, i dont think that people should just abandon everyone.

Ok well, lifestyle anarchism, as I have experienced, has always been "just start living a revolution and that will be the revolution". So it would seem reactionary if that was what you believe, because you're not trying to advance forward in human development, you're just side-stepping.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:58 AM

no, i dont think that people should just abandon everyone.

Ok well, lifestyle anarchism, as I have experienced, has always been "just start living a revolution and that will be the revolution". So it would seem reactionary if that was what you believe, because you're not trying to advance forward in human development, you're just side-stepping.
i try to live revolution in my everyday life, because what can you do, sit around and talk about how bad capitalism is and then help it survive?

[Black Dagger]

I believe that anarchism is the absoulte freedom, so why should we label our comrades?

Well it is not always 'us' labelling 'them' lifestyle anarchists, some people identify as such (or as individualist anarchists). Regardless, a distinction should be made between what i would called anarchists (social/class war anarchists) and individualists. A lifestyle anarchist is not my comrade, nor is an individualist, nor is an 'anarcho'-capitalist.
These groups are not focused on the class war aspect of anarchist philosophy, making social emancipation, smashing the bourgeois state, and destroying class and capital. As such, i think they hurt the anarchist movement as a whole, providing ammunition for Marxists to ply their sectarian shite, and continue the fracture amongst working class people/communists.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 08:58 AM

I believe that anarchism is the absoulte freedom, so why should we label our comrades?

Well it is not always 'us' labelling 'them' lifestyle anarchists, some people identify as such (or as individualist anarchists). Regardless, a distinction should be made between what i would called anarchists (social/class war anarchists) and individualists. A lifestyle anarchist is not my comrade, nor is an individualist, nor is an 'anarcho'-capitalist.
These groups are not focused on the class war aspect of anarchist philosophy, making social emancipation, smashing the bourgeois state, and destroying class and capital. As such, i think they hurt the anarchist movement as a whole, providing ammunition for Marxists to ply their sectarian shite, and continue the fracture amongst working class people/communists.
Quoted for truth.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:03 AM
And by the way, crimethinc is the stupidist organisation ever. Allow me to quote the pamphlet "Fighting for our Lives":


There is no Anarchism-hut there is anarchy, or rather, anarchies

So, what, everybody is free to define what anarchy means to them?
Crimethinc isn't that bad. Easy to bag out though...

But on the point on defining anarchism, what it really means is that anarchist thought is not like other political theories in that they are rigid. That is why "anarchism" per se doesn't really exist. It is thus a deliberately vague system.

Essentially all this is referring to the situationist influence on anarchism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i try to live revolution in my everyday life, because what can you do, sit around and talk about how bad capitalism is and then help it survive?

If you're a member of the working class you have no choice but to "help it survive." But don't forget that capitalism makes it's own gravediggers.

And do you really think things like boycotting McDonalds are somehow undercutting the system? Its a market system, it makes up for it.

I don't drink Coke, eat from McDonalds, etc. but it's not a part of some grand illusion that I'm some how contributing to capitalisms downfall [I do that by existing, as a worker], it's because I personally choose not to use these products.

If you boycott because you don't like what a certain company does, sells, or standsfor, that's fine. But don't think it's revolutionary.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Sep 10 2005, 01:50 PM--> (Cthenthar @ Sep 10 2005, 01:50 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 02:03 AM
And by the way, crimethinc is the stupidist organisation ever. Allow me to quote the pamphlet "Fighting for our Lives":


There is no Anarchism-hut there is anarchy, or rather, anarchies

So, what, everybody is free to define what anarchy means to them?
Crimethinc isn't that bad. Easy to bag out though...

But on the point on defining anarchism, what it really means is that anarchist thought is not like other political theories in that they are rigid. That is why "anarchism" per se doesn't really exist. It is thus a deliberately vague system.

Essentially all this is referring to the situationist influence on anarchism. [/b]
But anarchist thought and theory is defined. We have Bakunin and Prodhoun and Kropotkin and Goldman and Berkman. If you say that there is no anarchist theory then anybody is an anarchist so long as they are doing what they want. A fascist could call himself and anarchist.

[Black Dagger]

I think what Cthenthar is saying is that 'anarchism' is used a 'foundation' for a variety of philosophies, each with different goals and methodologies, but all each (supposedly) sharing a common root, the 'basic principles of anarchy/anarchism'.

Like Anarchism is a base-set, an open-source piece of software. It comes in a pre-set, 'basic' form, and then people take that, and add things to it, creating a new or at least different piece of 'anarchist' software. This is then released to the online community (ie. into society as idea, as people and as movements), where people who find it and like it, download it and start using it, manipulating it, or spreading it around, sharing it friends and so forth. Anarchism becomes a kind of philosophical open-source, open to any and all modification.

I don't like that, it just makes language more complex, more loaded. When a word can mean a myriad of things, then it becomes meaningless.

[RASH chris]

(crimethinc) Forget about the history of anarchism as an idea-forget the bearded guys. It's one thing to develop a language for describing a thing-it's another thing entirely to live it. This is not about theories or formulas, heroes or biographies-it's about your life. Anarchy is what matters, everywhere it appears, not armchair anarchism, the specialists' study of freedom!

*emphasis in original text

They are clearly stating that we need to reject anarchist theory in favor of just "living how we want". And furthermore, they accuse all class struggle anarchists of being "armchair anarchists". I detest such an accusation, members of the IWW are doing far more to further revolution than train-hopping crust punk crimethinc-ers.

[barret]

Could it be that some anarchists reject the idea of the Dialetical Method and others support it? I think the different sorts of anarchisim are based on their evaluation of how society works, rather than how they themselves work. Sort of like hows theirs hundreds of Christian chruches that belive in the same god, but understand him differently.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:01 PM
Could it be that some anarchists reject the idea of the Dialetical Method and others support it? I think the different sorts of anarchisim are based on their evaluation of how society works, rather than how they themselves work. Sort of like hows theirs hundreds of Christian chruches that belive in the same god, but understand him differently.
Dialectical analysis doesn't make you either lifestylist or class struggle anarchist. The difference between the two is that lifestyle anarchists believe in "living anarchy" that we should all do what makes us free, and that will destroy capitalism and the state. And class struggle anarchists believe in organizing worker power in order to physically sieze the means of production and to supplement state control with community decision making (in the form of direct democracy).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:17 AM
If you say that there is no anarchist theory then anybody is an anarchist so long as they are doing what they want. A fascist could call himself and anarchist.
That's pretty much the case.

Anarchists disagree with other anarchists, or course, but it's rare that anyone says "that's not anarchism."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is one of the biggest problems with anarchism. I've brought this up before.

[RASH chris]

Well that's the thing. I don't hesitate one bit to say that lifestyleism is not anarchism, and that crimethinc is reactionary. And I'm not alone in saying that, all the members of my affinity group feel the same way, and I know there are anarchists on this board who agree with me.

Redstar wrote about this once I believe. That if anarchists are going to become a serious revolutionary movement then they've got to get rid of the inhibition to say "no you're not an anarchist".

[Organic Revolution]

chris,
can you point me to an excerpt of were crimethinc tell you if you dont do this or that your not an anarchist?

[Black Dagger]

Anarchists disagree with other anarchists, or course, but it's rare that anyone says "that's not anarchism."

^----what marxists say to belittle anarchism, a load of marxist-propaganda/rubbish. It's not 'rare' that anarchists diagree, anarchists disagree as much as any vibrant movement that embraced critical thought, and neither is it 'rare' for anyone to say 'that's not anarchism'.

Do you know any social/class-war anarchists? Fuck that, there's enough here already. Myself and others have made many posts disputing 'anarcho'-capitalism, nihilist-'anarchism', individualist, and lifestyle-'anarchism'. Particularly in OI, but also in theory.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are anarchists and anarchist groups who maintain what anarchism is. Although it has now been co-opted by middle class trendies there are a great deal of anarchists who are attempting to dehippiefy the movement and focus it towards where it matters.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by organic [email protected] 13 2005, 04:10 AM
chris,
can you point me to an excerpt of were crimethinc tell you if you dont do this or that your not an anarchist?
You've misunderstood me. Crimethinc doesn't say "do this" or "do that". They just lay out what they believe. And I'm saying what they believe isn't anarchism. What they believe is just a lifestyle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sam Dolgoff's pamphlet is a very good read, and probably one of the best criticism's of what he calls "neo-bourgeois anarchism" I've read: The Relevance of Anarchism to Modern Society (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/misc/sp000191.txt)

[Quinlan Vos]

Yes, anarchists are far too "open" about who gets to call themselves anarchist, IMO. Certainly there are many class struggle anarchists who will loudly declare that anyone who rejects the class war is not an anarchist, but overall I don't think anarchists should let anyone who is pro-private property, pro-wage slavery, or who rejects revolution call themselves anarchist. It seems that many anarchists are willing to let anyone who rejects the state call themselves an anarchist, which is bullshit IMO.
With regards to lifestylism, I don't think that there's as large a divide as Bookchin says in his book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism? An Unbridgeable Chasm, however I do strongly reject the idea that altering one's lifestyle or "living anarchy" is revolutionary. Revolutionary anarchism should be about empowerment. Telling people that their power lies primarily with their witholding of money from the economic system is not empowering to me, in fact that's actually a reproduction of the capitalist mentality (that our power lies in our consumption of goods and services, you "vote" with your dollars and companies respond, so capitalism really is democratic). Although I have no problem with lifestyle choices like riding a bike instead of a car, dumpster-diving, being vegan, squatting, etc., indeed I engage in most of those myself, I don't think that there is any empowerment there, I don't confuse those choices with revolutionary activity. Empowerment would be forming organs of popular power which directly oppose capitalism in their operation, as we've seen in revolutions or near-revolutions in the past century or two.

[saint max]

but it's rare that anyone says "that's not anarchism."

But anarchy says: "thats not freedom...that's still not freedom" or rather "that's freedom, but there is more." The anarchist is a continual and total negation, there is nothing positivist about about seizing freedom in a world universalized in oppression and hierarchy. There is only the projectual life of freedom through the organized (and not) attack and insurgence.

as the italian anarchist told me: "no organizate very anarchico"

cheers,
-max

ps: Lifesyle VS social, come on! Think of all the lifestyle syndicalists (at least for this year of college) out there and social primmies living in wild. Does'nt this dichotomy, just seem a bit ridiculous. Let bob and murry and that fool from openly classist worry about this nonsense, we have a world to destroy (and create...if you're into that sort of thing.)

[RASH chris]

But we are not just "all anarchists". I consider primitivists just as much an enemy as I would fascists. (though primitivists are far less likely to get what they want)

There are certain irreconcialable differences between certain kinds of anarchists. Though not necessarily between social and lifestyle anarchists. As they usually want close to the same thing, the social anarchists just don't want to use organization or theory to get there.

[Black Dagger]

Yes, anarchists are far too "open" about who gets to call themselves anarchist, IMO. Certainly there are many class struggle anarchists who will loudly declare that anyone who rejects the class war is not an anarchist, but overall I don't think anarchists should let anyone who is pro-private property, pro-wage slavery, or who rejects revolution call themselves anarchist. It seems that many anarchists are willing to let anyone who rejects the state call themselves an anarchist, which is bullshit IMO.

More rubbish, i'm sorry but how am i as a class-war anarchist meant to prevent other individuals or groups from appropiating my name? Take them to court? If free-market vampires want to call themselves 'anarcho'-capitalists there's really not much i can do about it. There are anarchist critiques of the phoney 'anarcho' ideologies, but there is no practical way of preventing appropiating from taking place.

To then say that anarchists are too 'free' with their movement and allow too many 'outsiders' in etc. is non-sensical. Because in reality, individual anarchists and more broadly, anarchist orgs. are just as particular as to what defines an anarchist as any individual marxist or marxist group.
To blame anarchists for something they have no control over, external linguistic appropiation, is unfair, and nearly always, unsubtle marxist sectarian shite, see: Severian's posts in this topic.

[Severian]

Well, since the accuracy of my observation is disputed, let me give you an example: the online Anarchy FAQ. It seems to be widely referred to, perhaps the most frequently referrred to piece of present-day anarchist literature online, and some anarchist posters on this board have linked to it as an explanation of their views.

On the "different types of anarchism", it criticizes primitivism: Unsurprisingly, the ideas of primitivism and other anarchists are hard to reconcile. Equally unsurprisingly, other anarchists question whether primitivism is practical in the short term or even desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism, other anarchists are less convinced.
link (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca39)

So there are the primitivists, and there are the "other anarchists".

Similarly, the CNT-FAI leaders who became government ministers during the Spanish Civil War are described as betraying anarchism....but still as anarchists. The main point of the relevant section is: "These examples will indicate that rather than signifying the failure of anarchism, the actions of the CNT during the Civil War indicate the failure of anarchists to apply anarchist theory and so signifies a betrayal of anarchism."link (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append32.html#app20)

The title of the section is "Failure of anarchism or failure of anarchists?"

It's interesting to note that the FAQ also feels it necessary to defend the actions of these CNT-FAI leaders during the pre-Civil War period at length.

[Black Dagger]

It seems to be widely referred to, perhaps the most frequently referrred to piece of present-day anarchist literature online, and some anarchist posters on this board have linked to it as an explanation of their

Yup, if someone uses that site as a source, whatever it says will always count as a strong and valid argument, regardless of the original context, or the new one given. I'm sorry, pouring over word choice from a source that i did not publish nor 'infinitely endorse', is not a sound argument.


Wow, good try with the semantics and spin, you nearly had him, kind of, sorta, partially convinced!



...If free-market vampires want to call themselves 'anarcho'-capitalists there's really not much i can do about it. There are anarchist critiques of the phoney 'anarcho' ideologies, but there is no practical way of preventing appropiating from taking place....

To blame anarchists for something they have no control over, external linguistic appropiation, is unfair, and nearly always, unsubtle marxist sectarian shite, see: Severian's posts in this topic.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:42 AM
Though not necessarily between social and lifestyle anarchists. As they usually want close to the same thing, the social anarchists just don't want to use organization or theory to get there.
dont you have that backwards?

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by nate+Sep 19 2005, 10:09 PM--> (nate @ Sep 19 2005, 10:09 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 11:42 AM
Though not necessarily between social and lifestyle anarchists. As they usually want close to the same thing, the social anarchists just don't want to use organization or theory to get there.
dont you have that backwards? [/b]
yeah, good catch bro.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 18 2005, 04:19 AM
Yup, if someone uses that site as a source, whatever it says will always count as a strong and valid argument, regardless of the original context, or the new one given. I'm sorry, pouring over word choice from a source that i did not publish nor 'infinitely endorse', is not a sound argument.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here: apparently that you don't agree with everything the Anarchy FAQ says or take it as a Bible.

I never claimed you did. In fact, I didn't say anything about your views at all. I made a generalization about what many anarchists say....and the Anarchy FAQ seems like a pretty representative example of present-day anarchist literature, in other words, of what many anarchists write.

Incidentally, do you know what "sectarian" means, or is it just a term of generalized abuse for you like a Stalinist hollering about "revisionism"?