Lifestylism

[Jazzratt]

A simple question really: what the hell is it? I've heard a few people mention it but i don't really have a clue what it is.

[elmo sez]

Lifestyle anarchism is a term derived from anarchist author Murray Bookchin's polemical essay "Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm." He used it to criticise anarchists who he believed advocated individualism at the expense of class struggle. The term is now in general use as a description of positions that concentrate on changes to personal behaviour rather than wholesale reorganisation or abolition of class and hierarchical society.

In general, those described as lifestyle anarchists deny that they reject social or class struggle, sometimes by rejecting the distinction between individual and class behaviour.

Alternately, "lifestylism" is a term commonly used by those within the anarchist movement to criticize others who, they allege, practice anarchism as a lifestyle or fashion statement. Typically the term is counterposed with 'social anarchism'.

its all on wikipedia

[apathy maybe]

Lifestylism is a bullshit term used by those who want to split the leftist movement. It is used by those who claim that workers are the only people who can actaully make a revolution and they think that class war is the only way to make it.

Often the people who use the word (and related words) lifestylist as a political insult claim to be anarchist, but the rarely acknowledge other people as anarchists unless they share almost exactly the same ideas.


I think of lifestylism as living your life in tune with your political/philosophical beliefs. Contributing as little as possible to the capitalist system and not cooperating with authority.

Every body should live their personal life in line with their beliefs, else they are being hypocritcal. However, the people mentioned above see that this (my version of lifestylism) is not compatible with activism and with a revolutionary consinous. They are wrong. You can dumpster dive, shoplift, wear sweat shop free clothing (or second hand clothing) etc. and still be politically active.

Or you can just go to work every day and try and organise your fellow workers to strike for better pay, and buy your McDonalds.

Lifestylism says a big fuck you to people who are hypocritical in their political beliefs.

Live your life as you think you should, but don't forget the stuggle for a better world.

(Sorry for spelling and grammer mistakes if any.)

[Clarksist]

I have to go with apathy maybe on this one.

Lifestylism as it is used nowadays is a completely bullshit term. Its pejoratively used against anarchist who actually live with their belief system. Now I don't think its bad to have a job and support your family or anything, but it doesn't mean you can't have both.

[Morpheus]

Calling something "lifestylist" is just another way of calling something "bullshit."

[STI]

Lifestylism is a bullshit term used by those who want to split the leftist movement. It is used by those who claim that workers are the only people who can actaully make a revolution and they think that class war is the only way to make it.

They are and it is. Eating out of dumpsters and "guerrilla gardening" won't bring down class society.


Often the people who use the word (and related words) lifestylist as a political insult claim to be anarchist, but the rarely acknowledge other people as anarchists unless they share almost exactly the same ideas.

Hah. Nice try.

Straw Man.


Every body should live their personal life in line with their beliefs, else they are being hypocritcal

One need not boycott anything, much less everything to "live their beliefs", so long as they are serious anarchists.


You can dumpster dive, shoplift, wear sweat shop free clothing (or second hand clothing) etc. and still be politically active.

Sure, you *can*... problem is that all too often, that stuff is considered effective in and of itself in fighting against both capitalist domination and capitalist hegemony. It's neither. It's a way of saving money on your grocery bill and eating half-rotten garbage so you can be up on your ol' moral self.


Or you can just go to work every day and try and organise your fellow workers to strike for better pay, and buy your McDonalds.

Well, McyD's isn't great, but it does taste better than some guy's cold thrown-out spaghetti.


Lifestylism says a big fuck you to people who are hypocritical in their political beliefs.

No, because there's nothing hypocritical about consuming in a capitalist society if you want to overthrow it.

The issue we (class warriors) have against capitalism isn't that things exist to consume or that they are consumed, but that we don't have enough access to that consumption!.



(Sorry for spelling and grammer mistakes if any.)

I didn't find any. Errors in reasoning on the other hand...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by STI+--> (STI)They are and it is. Eating out of dumpsters and "guerrilla gardening" won't bring down class society.[/b]Your opinion. I do agree with the second sentence.


Originally posted by STI+--> (STI)
Hah. Nice try.

Straw Man.
[/b]Do you think I am an anarchist?


Originally posted by STI
One need not boycott anything, much less everything to "live their beliefs", so long as they are serious anarchists.But to be a serious anarchist one should not do certain things. These include taking positions of great power (e.g. politician, CEO) or even minor power (e.g. overseer). Another thing one shouldn't do is exploit others, after all that is what we are fighting against isn't it? Sure in this system it is very hard to eat "pure" food or buy "pure" goods, but you should try.


Originally posted by STI
Sure, you *can*... problem is that all too often, that stuff is considered effective in and of itself in fighting against both capitalist domination and capitalist hegemony. It's neither. It's a way of saving money on your grocery bill and eating half-rotten garbage so you can be up on your ol' moral self.
I don't know anyone who considers it effective in and of itself in fighting capitalism. Just like not voting is not effective against fighting the state. I still don't vote.

It is ethics however, that we are talking about, (not morals) not a way of smashing the system we live in. I don't see how a person can claim to be an anarchist and not try and not exploit others (they shouldn't directly, and should try not to indirectly).



Originally posted by STI
Well, McyD's isn't great, but it does taste better than some guy's cold thrown-out spaghetti.Sure, but dumpstered spaghetti (or rice, I got about 5kg last time) tastes better then both. Lifesylism is living out of a rubbish bin, what it should be is living as outside the capitalist/state system as possible.


[email protected]
No, because there's nothing hypocritical about consuming in a capitalist society if you want to overthrow it.You don't think? I do think. That's like using the state to fight the bourgeois, no thanks.


STI
The issue we (class warriors) have against capitalism isn't that things exist to consume or that they are consumed, but that we don't have enough access to that consumption!.
Well, I don't know if you speak for all class warriors, but I'm sure some would agree with me. The issue (main one) that I have against capitalism, isn't that things exist to consume, or that they are consumed. But that the method of production is exploitative and the power imbalances are too great. The issue of having enough access to that consumption comes further down the scale.



The point is that it is a lifestyle. Yes it is a lifestyle, it is an ethical one. The problem comes when the lifestyle becomes an end in and of itself. When people forget why they are living how they are living. Or when non-anarchists start living the lifestyle so as to be considered "cool" or something. This is what Bookchin was talking about, he didn't condem people for dumpster diving or whatever, but rather forgetting the politics behind the act. The lifestyle comes from the politics, and the politics should also lead to other activities (including class war maybe).

(fixed quote)

[which doctor]

Eating out of dumpsters and "guerrilla gardening" won't bring down class society.
and working will?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 16 2006, 11:46 AM
and working will?
If you don't work, you're actively avoiding becoming a part of the class that has the power to change this society. Revolution is about taking over production. If you don't play a role in production, you can't do that.

[Clarksist]

If you don't work, you're actively avoiding becoming a part of the class that has the power to change this society. Revolution is about taking over production. If you don't play a role in production, you can't do that.

Fighting in a revolution has nothing to do with if you worked or not.

The main thing it has to do with is if you own a business or are in a seat of political power or not.

I don't see why lifestylists can't fight capitalism. I want reasoning.

[Guest1]

Because lifestylism is the rejection of class action. Simple as that. You're a part of the revolution only if you help organize the working class. If you reject work, you cut yourself out of the working class.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16 2006, 08:23 PM
If you have the ability to survive without having to work, that means you're not a prole.
Urm, so in countries with a welfare state, there is no working class?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16 2006, 08:23 PM
Once again the petit-bourgeois "leftists" of the board display their complete lack of knowledge when it comes class issues and materialism generally.

Proles work because we have to, it's not a choice for us, we are wage slaves. That's our position in society. We don't control any means of production. If we don't work for a wage, we die. That's a big part of what makes us the revolutionary class.

Lifestylists are a joke, people on the fringes of society, "rebellious middle class youths," etc. al. If you have the ability to survive without having to work, that means you're not a prole.
Er...

if you do not have a family to support, you live in the first world, and you do have contacts (you know, like being active in the underground punk scene) you can pretty much survive without working. You know, you could always live in a squat and dumpsterdive.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16 2006, 03:23 PM
Lifestylists are a joke, people on the fringes of society, "rebellious middle class youths," etc. al. If you have the ability to survive without having to work, that means you're not a prole.
Do you even know any real lifestylists?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13 2006, 12:38 PM
Lifestylism is a bullshit term used by those who want to split the leftist movement. It is used by those who claim that workers are the only people who can actaully make a revolution and they think that class war is the only way to make it.
Oh come on now. You know as well as anyone else that hardly any leftists actually want to split the leftist movement.

Class war certainly is not the only aspect of the revolution we want to create, but it is a crucial part if not the most crucial part. If we actually want to get anywhere with this revolution of ours, we have to take the means of production into our own hands and run them in a democratic manner. Without the material support by which victory can be achieved, the revolution is doomed to failure.

The term "lifestylism", as I use it, refers to those who marginalize or ignore entirely the importance of this aspect of the revolution. Lifestylists are convinced that small changes in individual behavior will bring about the revolution and win it. Certainly there is nothing wrong with living a lifestyle in accordance with one's rejection of capitalism and authority. That is a very respectable thing to do, and someone who does that in addition to supporting the organization of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie I would not term a lifestylist.

Make no mistake about it; there are people who call themselves anarchists who think class war is an outdated or irrelevant idea. If revolutionaries just stop supporting authoritarian institutions and start questioning authority, they reason, authority will somehow just shrivel up and die. This belief is dangerous to the success of the revolution and it needs to be fought against. We should advocate people living, as much as possible under the current conditions, in an anti-authoritarian manner, so as to not be hypocritical and to teach others by example. But that's not the whole picture, and any revolutionary theory worth anything needs to realize that lifestyle changes alone cannot bring down the system. They can augment, but never replace, the worker's movement to take control of the means of production. Questioning authority is only half of the equation; class war is the means by which we actually do something about it.

[STI]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Your opinion. I do agree with the second sentence.

Of course it's my opinion. I thought that was implied by the fact that *I posted it*.

All by myself, if you can believe it.

The issue, though, is whether or not "my opinion" is in keeping with reality... I thought that was the whole purpose of a debate... to determine whose "opinion" is most valid!


Do you think I am an anarchist?

Yes... and the fact that you qualify as an anarchist is proof toward the point that one of the problems with anarchism is that almost anybody, no matter how bad their ideas are, can be reasonably called an anarchist.


But to be a serious anarchist one should not do certain things. These include taking positions of great power (e.g. politician, CEO) or even minor power (e.g. overseer). Another thing one shouldn't do is exploit others, after all that is what we are fighting against isn't it?

It's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't"... but if they "do", don't expect them to be anarchists for much longer!



I don't know anyone who considers it effective in and of itself in fighting capitalism. Just like not voting is not effective against fighting the state. I still don't vote.

Refusing to vote consumes nowhere near the time nor effort of living off the crap of society.



It is ethics however, that we are talking about, (not morals) not a way of smashing the system we live in.

"Ethics" don't exist in any useful, universal sense. Only as constructions that we impose upon ourselves and which restrict us unnecessarily.


You don't think? I do think. That's like using the state to fight the bourgeois, no thanks.


Then you "do think" incorrectly. The two are not at all related, and I'm actually having a good deal of trouble figuring out at which point you would have connected the two.


But that the method of production is exploitative and the power imbalances are too great.

And why is that an issue?

Because you can be and are deprived of material enjoyments.


Yes it is a lifestyle, it is an ethical one.

It is no more "ethical" nor "unethical" as any other lifestyle because, simply put, there are no universal criteria by which to measure what makes a lifestyle "more ethical" than another

[which doctor]

If someone is single and has no family to raise, desires few material possessions, doesn't mind digging through dumpsters, than what good is it for them to work much?

[STI]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 18 2006, 01:36 AM
If someone is single and has no family to raise, desires few material possessions, doesn't mind digging through dumpsters, than what good is it for them to work much?
Security. I'd rather not live by the whims of a trashcan... too many hungry nights.

[Marion]

Originally posted by STI+Jul 17 2006, 10:10 AM--> (STI @ Jul 17 2006, 10:10 AM)
Apathy Maybe
But that the method of production is exploitative and the power imbalances are too great.

And why is that an issue?

Because you can be and are deprived of material enjoyments.
[/b]

If exploitative methods of production are an issue only because you are deprived of material enjoyments, are you not saying you would be perfectly happy keeping exploitative methods of production as long as you get more stuff at the end?

[Ultra-Violence]

Lifestylism is Bulshit HOW IS LIVING OUSIDE OF CAPITILISM GOANNA CHANGE THE STATUS QUO?hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I have a bunch of anarchist freinds and i argue with them all the time they go to their collectives and their little meetings and there shows or what ever TALKING about "ya man Fuck Capitilism" and shit and they dont do anything to change or awaken class concuisnes they dont realize that the world is goanna keep going with out them and just leave em behind! and they alienate themselves from the working class when they could be doing so much more cuase their really bright kids!

uhhhhhhhhhhhh

[STI]

Originally posted by Marion+Jul 21 2006, 07:43 AM--> (Marion @ Jul 21 2006, 07:43 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:10 AM

Apathy Maybe
But that the method of production is exploitative and the power imbalances are too great.

And why is that an issue?

Because you can be and are deprived of material enjoyments.


If exploitative methods of production are an issue only because you are deprived of material enjoyments, are you not saying you would be perfectly happy keeping exploitative methods of production as long as you get more stuff at the end? [/b]
The only way for me to do that would be if I were part of the ruling class.

Reality is, capitalism is set up so that doesn't happen, and this is increasingly becoming the case as capital becomes more and more concentrated.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by STI+Jul 21 2006, 01:17 AM--> (STI @ Jul 21 2006, 01:17 AM)
Fist of [email protected] 18 2006, 01:36 AM
If someone is single and has no family to raise, desires few material possessions, doesn't mind digging through dumpsters, than what good is it for them to work much?
Security. I'd rather not live by the whims of a trashcan... too many hungry nights. [/b]
And if other people want to live that way, who gives a shit?

[Guest1]

No one, that's the point! It's meaningless as a political tool, because most people like a nice meal.

[STI]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 22 2006, 09:27 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 22 2006, 09:27 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:17 AM

Fist of [email protected] 18 2006, 01:36 AM
If someone is single and has no family to raise, desires few material possessions, doesn't mind digging through dumpsters, than what good is it for them to work much?
Security. I'd rather not live by the whims of a trashcan... too many hungry nights.
And if other people want to live that way, who gives a shit? [/b]
If other people want to live that way, fine. Go ahead. Makes balls difference to me.

My issue is when "living by the whims of a trashcan" is considered politically significant and progressive toward the overthrow of capitalism.

[rebelworker]

The point for me is that alot of people need to live off food from the trashcan, but not most of the people who are "lifestyle" "anarchsist".

The whole crimethinc position on the matter summs it up for me "if your homeless and eating out of the garbage but your not having a good time your doing it wrong".

This is such a bullshit middle class dropout exuse for politics, and its downrigth insulting to people who actually have to eat garbage to survive.

If crimethinc ever spent time with anarchists in Brazil they would be killed by angry garbage picker union activists.


The left is full of middel class dropouts, some eat garbage, others become "professional revolutionaries" and organise all day making grand statements labout what the workers should be doing. I actually am more offeneded by the latter.

Lifstylists may be usless politically, but "prfessional revolutionaries" are downright harmful.

[apathy maybe]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but there was some niggling problems I had ...

First is Che y Marijuana's theory that you have to be a worker to participate in the revolution. But that has been discussed before, I'll just note I disagree.

Second is STI's saying that lifestylism means living out of a trash can.

Originally posted by STI+--> (STI) Security. I'd rather not live by the whims of a trashcan... too many hungry nights.[/b]
No lifestylist lives out of a trashcan. They might dumpster dive, but the food is generally still packaged when dumpster dived. This association is bullshit. The people who live out of trashcans often don't have a roof or know about dumpster diving. Lifestylists generally have both.



Originally posted by STI+--> (STI) My issue is when "living by the whims of a trashcan" is considered politically significant and progressive toward the overthrow of capitalism.[/b] How many "lifestylists" do you know (in real life or on RevLeft)? How many think that living a lifestyle is contributing to the over throw of capitalism?


[email protected]
This is such a bullshit middle class dropout exuse for politics, and its downrigth insulting to people who actually have to eat garbage to survive.What does middle class mean to you? Is it someone who's parents have a mortgage?


rebelworker
The left is full of middel class dropouts, some eat garbage, others become "professional revolutionaries" and organise all day making grand statements labout what the workers should be doing. I actually am more offeneded by the latter.

Lifstylists may be usless politically, but "prfessional revolutionaries" are downright harmful.
What is the obsession with middle class ness?
How is someone who works all day for the revolution harmful? How is working for a corporation at a shitty job helping bring about the revolution? Working at shitty jobs do not bring about revolutions, raising class-consciousness does. What is wrong with some one who tries to do that all day everyday? Assuming they are only printing theory or things they have first hand experience with, such as working at a shitty job for shitty pay.

[STI]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Second is STI's saying that lifestylism means living out of a trash can.

... Did somebody forget to take their mild-hyperbole-identification pills this morning?


How many "lifestylists" do you know (in real life or on RevLeft)? How many think that living a lifestyle is contributing to the over throw of capitalism?


Every single one, and too many non-lifestylists as well.

A troubling example of how bad ideas can mess up the thought processes of otherwise-reasonable people.