Log in

View Full Version : Lifestyle Anarchists/Communists



MKS
17th November 2006, 23:06
I have read throughout this forum several critiques of "lifestyle anarchists/communists". After much thought and examination I have come to think that Lifestyle Leftists do touch on a subject that is rarely explored by serious Progressive thought. That subject is of course the practicality of the ideals we disseminate, and to a greater extent our willingness to sacrifice for those ideals. I personally have little patience with the ivory tower intelligentsia of this movement, and I do somewhat distrust the bourgeoisie student class because to me their commitment is often fleeting and easily quelled with age and maturity. But the Lifestyle Leftists at least attempt to live by our codes and principles i.e. community, cooperation, respect for and acceptance difference (equality), little to no regard for property or at least the Capitalists definitions etc. So why does there seem to be so much ill will towards these members? I think we all should try to incorporate our socio-economic principles into our daily lives. I for one do not dine at restaurants, I do not obey the police (I have the scars and med bills to prove it), I don’t vote, in regards to property I am a minimalist. I try to live against the state, against the Capitalist machine etc. And though my actions probably have no impact on the system, someone could easily recognize my non-conformity and from this recognition there could be a dialogue and dialogue is a necessity to initiate social change. Open and honest dialogue is fundamental to our cause and a cornerstone of any great socio-economic construction. Lifestyle Leftists in my opinion are a billboard of the movement and from this advertisement perhaps the greater mass will begin to ask more questions about the society in which they live.

I know I have been rambling on a bit and I apologize.

D_Bokk
18th November 2006, 05:01
Mainly because we despise individualism. Plus, lifestylists are sometimes called so because they're Anarchist as a "fashion statement." In other words to be "different," I really loath the people who just do something so they can convince themselves they're "original."

chimx
18th November 2006, 05:14
my biggest criticism is that they form an alienating subculture. if lifestylists don't mind that i don't wanna dumpster bagels, than i'm fine with them eating them.

GSTPP
18th November 2006, 05:19
Your life way can not change the structure. Even if so many peoples do it. It need a powerful force in the party to change the structure, then life way of all change from result, you know?

bcbm
18th November 2006, 05:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 11:01 pm
Mainly because we despise individualism.
"We" who?

On to the main post...


Lifestyle Leftists do touch on a subject that is rarely explored by serious Progressive thought. That subject is of course the practicality of the ideals we disseminate

Being able to live "outside the system" or whatever in a capitalist society has absolutely nothing to do with the practicality of anything we advocate, nor is that subject "rarely explored:" most serious revolutionists examine the practicality of their ideas.


to a greater extent our willingness to sacrifice for those ideals.

Why should we sacrifice? We're the ones getting fucked and we should be making the bourgeois sacrifice! This isn't Christianity, it isn't about who suffers the most.


So why does there seem to be so much ill will towards these members?

Because those who "live ethically" while doing nothing to advance under-class insurrection and revolution ultimately accomplish nothing. It isn't living at odds in any way with capitalism.

Keyser
18th November 2006, 05:26
Mainly because we despise individualism.

There is a world of difference from the idea of individualism as a concept in capitalist ideologies and that of anarcho-communist/libertarian socialist ideologies.

Of course, the mainstream definition of individualism is a happy, unquestioning consumer, who has little time for friends, family, fun, life etc... because his/her time is spent on making money (work) so that is can be spent (shopping etc...).

But as advertising and the coporate culture that blossom under capitalism have the above concept as the 'ideal' for everyone, it's not genuine individualism but just mindless conformity.

Real individualism requires a free mind that can question the status quo, judge things according to your own beliefs and not hold the branded sense of right and wrong/morality/justice as upheld by advertising, the state and other agencies of the capitalist system.

So I would think it better to say that instead of opposing all forms of individuality in people (real communism does not aim for a society of robots, unless your a stalinist or some other authoritarian vanguardist), we should make it clear why we oppose capitalist 'individuality' (which is in actual fact a fraud) and work for the genuine alternative individuality.

On the question of lifestylism, I do not have a problem with it if the lifestylist person also does that with other actions that work for revolutionary change and social progression in the class struggle. There is nothing wrong with combining the two or living according to your beliefs.

I'm a good example here, I am active in direct actions, demos, debates etc, yet I squat and work as little as possible, I take as much action as I can to bring the class struggle to the point we all want it to go in and I also aim to live by my ideals where I can, but I have no illusions that by squatting or whatever, I could bring social change by that alone, it won't.

However, there are some 'post-leftists' and lifestylists who claim that lifestylism in and of itself is enough, given that it is and of itself revolutionary. That is wrong and that is the form of lifestylism that I do oppose.

t_wolves_fan
20th November 2006, 20:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:01 am
Mainly because we despise individualism.
Seriously?

You trust society or the technate or whatever to determine your life for you?

Hell that kind of resembles religon doesn't it?

D_Bokk
25th November 2006, 00:21
Originally posted by black banner black gun+--> (black banner black gun)"We" who?[/b]
Those of us who are actually communists. But you wouldn't know anything about it.

Originally posted by Anarchism [email protected]
So I would think it better to say that instead of opposing all forms of individuality in people (real communism does not aim for a society of robots, unless your a stalinist or some other authoritarian vanguardist), we should make it clear why we oppose capitalist 'individuality' (which is in actual fact a fraud) and work for the genuine alternative individuality.
Individualism is when self is being put above society. When one feels they're "better" than others simply because of their appearance or intellect.

I wouldn't say that the communist individualist is someone with a "free mind" either... it just doesn't make very much sense. Many people will have "free minds" and there will be nothing special about having one...

t_wolves_fan
Seriously?

You trust society or the technate or whatever to determine your life for you?

Hell that kind of resembles religon doesn't it?
Who said that? Individualism is focusing on the self, not the community. Leeches on society wont exist (exceptions made for mentally disabled and children). I'm opposed to people only being out for themselves.

bcbm
25th November 2006, 14:26
Those of us who are actually communists. But you wouldn't know anything about it.

Is this supposed to be insulting in some way? I wouldn't be ashamed of not knowing what it is like to be a pimp for an ideology more adept at producing managers and bosses than under-class liberation. Either way, you missed the point: a lot of people on the left are not against individualism, although I suspect you have a questionable definition of the concept....


Individualism is when self is being put above society. When one feels they're "better" than others simply because of their appearance or intellect.

....as you go on to prove quite nicely. What you're referring to is egocentrism, as opposed to sociocentrism. Individualism has nothing to do with feeling "better," it has to do with being liberated.


I wouldn't say that the communist individualist is someone with a "free mind" either... it just doesn't make very much sense. Many people will have "free minds" and there will be nothing special about having one...

Being an individualist isn't about being "special." Indeed, it is nice to have people who aren't complete tools around. :rolleyes:

An archist
25th November 2006, 16:40
I'm not really sure what everyone means by 'lifestyleism', everyone probably has different ideas about it, but personally I fail to see what's so bad about it.
What's so bad about living your life as if the revolution had already happened?
What's so bad about not relying on capitalism and/or the state for your survival, but taking matters into your own hands?

D_Bokk
25th November 2006, 21:34
What's up with you people and changing the definition of words?

Honestly, has it ever worked...? Are you trying to confuse people into supporting your ideology?

Individualism is how it's defined now. Not what it means in the future.

bcbm
26th November 2006, 02:00
Individualism can be used and not mean egoism. We're operating off these two:

Individualism:

1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
2. the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individualism

anarchista feminista
27th November 2006, 01:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 03:01 pm
Mainly because we despise individualism. Plus, lifestylists are sometimes called so because they're Anarchist as a "fashion statement." In other words to be "different," I really loath the people who just do something so they can convince themselves they're "original."
I think that the only way to be truly original is to be yourself. But then again, it is pretty hard not to take on influences around you. Well, in any case it isn't wrong to. I might see someone with hair I like and think hmm I might do that myself one day. Or if someone can prove a good point to me, I obviously think of my own opinion first but it may get me to consider that more. If any of this makes sense :rolleyes:

apathy maybe
27th November 2006, 10:58
Shit it annoys me that people "on the left", specifically revolutionary leftists hate pacifists, lifesylists and those who oppose work. While pacifists and lifestylists who do not do other things do not directly contribute towards violent revolution, they also do not oppose it.

By attempting to live outside the system (or even on its dregs), lifestylists do not contribute to the continuation of the state/capitalist system. And that I think is a good thing. What MKS has described is a perfectly valid and just as legitimate (if not more so) way of living then the way that many on the left live. While Marxists might think that lumpen-proletariat have no revolutionary potential, I disagree. The revolution is about people, and lumpen-proletariat are people too. Being able to have masses of people on the streets blocking roadways etc. in a demonstration is just as essential to a revolution as "seizing the means of production". And for those who have jobs, sometimes their jobs are more important then actually getting out there on the streets (after all they have to live).

Simply being a lifestylist and living outside the system, but not opposing it otherwise is not a sustainable position, however, it is not wrong to do so.

The fact that many people I know do live out side the system to a large extent (squatting, dumpster diving, and so on), but are also active in political movements shows that living out side the system is not problematic.


Often it comes down to, would you rather be oppressed and have the ability to accumulate material goods, or would you rather be free (as much as is possible in this society, dependent on as few people within the system as possible) and perhaps not able to accumulate material goods.


Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)my biggest criticism is that they form an alienating subculture. if lifestylists don't mind that i don't wanna dumpster bagels, than i'm fine with them eating them.[/b]How do they form an alienating subculture anymore then, for example, punk? Besides, opposing the dominant capitalist culture is a good thing, and lifestylists are not proposing a worse culture.


Originally posted by GSTPP+--> (GSTPP) Your life way can not change the structure. Even if so many peoples do it. It need a powerful force in the party to change the structure, then life way of all change from result, you know?[/b]While the first part of this (partly incoherent) statement is true, it does not detract from the actual lifestyle. The second part sounds like vanguardist crap, but I am not sure.


Originally posted by black banner black gun
Because those who "live ethically" while doing nothing to advance under-class insurrection and revolution ultimately accomplish nothing. It isn't living at odds in any way with capitalism.They seem to have done as much as you. I.e. nothing. Having fun working your arse off supporting your boss? But yes I do agree that simply "living ethically" does not advance the cause of revolution. That is no reason to attack those that do though. They make their choice, and it is not in contradiction to yours, so what is the problem?


Anarchism [email protected]
However, there are some 'post-leftists' and lifestylists who claim that lifestylism in and of itself is enough, given that it is and of itself revolutionary. That is wrong and that is the form of lifestylism that I do oppose.Do you oppose it in the same way you oppose capitalism and the state? Or do you simply think that it is pointless and try to argue people into being "revolutionaries" as well? I agree with what you say about the necessity of doing more then lifestylism, but I don't think that simply living a life is in anyway opposed to our aims of revolution.


An archist
What's so bad about not relying on capitalism and/or the state for your survival, but taking matters into your own hands?Actually many forms of lifesylism do rely on capitalism to exist. Yes living in a commune on land that is owned by the commune and so on is not relying on capitalism. But squatting and dumpster diving rely on the inherent wastefulness of capitalism. In a more efficient system, such activities would not be possible.


I think I started rambling somewhere above, I apologise.

The Feral Underclass
27th November 2006, 12:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 12:06 am
I have read throughout this forum several critiques of "lifestyle anarchists/communists". After much thought and examination I have come to think that Lifestyle Leftists do touch on a subject that is rarely explored by serious Progressive thought.
Why do you think that? Murray Bookchin for example wrote a very strong polemic against lifestyle anarchism, as have many other anarchists in various different ways including Malatesta.


That subject is of course the practicality of the ideals we disseminate, and to a greater extent our willingness to sacrifice for those ideals.

Having read through your post there seems to be no logical basis to what "the practicality of the ideals we disseminate" means?

I want to understand what you think society is? What is it you want to change and why? And how then do you suggest we change it?

You use the word sacrifice, but you don't elaborate on what that means? What are we to sacrifice?


I personally have little patience with the ivory tower intelligentsia of this movement...

What intelligentsia? Are you talking about theoreticians who conceptualise their ideas in order to understand them or something else; because the former is totally necessary.

If we don't think about what we believe in, then how can we possibly be able to understand why we should think it? If we don't know why we think what we think, how are we to "disseminate" these ideas?


...and I do somewhat distrust the bourgeoisie student class because to me their commitment is often fleeting and easily quelled with age and maturity.

What "bourgeoisie students". You mean students who come from middle class families? You don't trust them because of the family they were born into?


But the Lifestyle Leftists at least attempt to live by our codes and principles i.e. community, cooperation, respect for and acceptance difference (equality), little to no regard for property or at least the Capitalists definitions etc. So why does there seem to be so much ill will towards these members?

Because it won't achieve the destruction of capitalism and the state and won't create a communist society!

If we look at the lifestyle milieu and what the practicalities of this "community, co-operation, respect etcetc" actually is we can see that it is something that isn't necessarily what everyone wants.

For example, living in a squat; eating out of food bins; being vegetarian etc. These things are lifestyles, not political tools to destroy capitalism and they are also things that the vast majority of people - working class people - have no interest in being apart of.

That's not to say that people shouldn't live like this if they choose to. I have lived in squats before and I am likely to do it again - but to propagate that lifestyle as a vehicle for societal change is based in no rationale or logic other than 'idealist anticipation.'


I think we all should try to incorporate our socio-economic principles into our daily lives.

That's rarely possible when you have a full time job or dependents. It is only possible for young people who make a conscious decision to opt out of capitalist society and usually, in my experience, have a safety net in their education or parents.

Capitalism can only be destroyed when those who work within it cease to do so, take control of the means of production and defend those gains by violence if necessary.

There is no other way to destroy capitalism other than by those it directly exploits. Students, punks, activists have the power to help the workers defend their gains and fight the state - but without the workers refusing to work, thus refusing to make capitalism function - we will never see it end.

If you believe that a group of activists living out their utopia within capitalism can bring capitalism down then I want to see a comprehensive explanation how that is possible?


I for one do not dine at restaurants

Why? Eating at restaurants is fun! If you are to take this route, then you'll never be able to get on a train or a bus - You won't be able to do anything. We live in a capitalist society and there is no way to avoid it until it's destroyed.


And though my actions probably have no impact on the system, someone could easily recognize my non-conformity and from this recognition there could be a dialogue and dialogue is a necessity to initiate social change.

And then what...? Just creating one conversation will not initiate social change. You have to maintain those conversations and at times people stop listening. In order to challenge capitalism and the state and ensure those "dialogues" lead to people actively fighting you need to build mass movements.


Lifestyle Leftists in my opinion are a billboard of the movement and from this advertisement perhaps the greater mass will begin to ask more questions about the society in which they live.

That, as praxis, has consistently failed. Lifestyle anarchy has existed for decades, and has done little to nothing in "advertising to the greater mass".

bcbm
27th November 2006, 16:30
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2006 04:58 am
Shit it annoys me that people "on the left", specifically revolutionary leftists hate pacifists, lifesylists and those who oppose work. While pacifists and lifestylists who do not do other things do not directly contribute towards violent revolution, they also do not oppose it.
Of course they hate pacifists- pacifists are worthless sacks of shit who ultimately help the state. As for lifestylists who "don't do other things," they are also worthless sacks of shit who ultimately help the state. What's the saying, you can't be neutral on a moving train? While their sentiment may be with those of us who have no option but to put our bodies on the line, we're still the ones getting the bruises. If you want to "live the life" and nothing else, don't bother calling yourself a revolutionary.


By attempting to live outside the system (or even on its dregs), lifestylists do not contribute to the continuation of the state/capitalist system. And that I think is a good thing.

The state and capital couldn't give less of a fuck about a bunch of crusties living outside of it because that doesn't affect it at all. The system can chug along fine without a few hundred, or even thousand, or more, people living in its clutches, and I've yet to meet anyone who was entirely "pure" anyway. Lifestylism doesn't move anything forward and does not represent a challenge in any way to the system. Its just the middle ground for people who are too afraid to go all the way and live completely at dagger's drawn with society.


What MKS has described is a perfectly valid and just as legitimate (if not more so) way of living then the way that many on the left live.

Before it was acceptable because they didn't "oppose revolution," now it is better? To be sure, most on the left are just as big of scumfucks as the lifestylists they hate, but I wouldn't call their way of life (or the lifestylists, for that matter) illegitimate, merely ineffective and counter to the aims of the under-class.


While Marxists might think that lumpen-proletariat have no revolutionary potential, I disagree. The revolution is about people, and lumpen-proletariat are people too.

So are the bourgeoisie, but they aren't a part of any revolution I'd like to see. In any case, I agree that the lumpen-proles can and will be participants in the struggle against capital (I find the phrasing that they "have potential" as seeming somewhat paternalistic).


Being able to have masses of people on the streets blocking roadways etc. in a demonstration is just as essential to a revolution as "seizing the means of production". And for those who have jobs, sometimes their jobs are more important then actually getting out there on the streets (after all they have to live).

For someone talking so much shit on Marxists and the left, it is curious that you still cling to the idea of mass.


Simply being a lifestylist and living outside the system, but not opposing it otherwise is not a sustainable position, however, it is not wrong to do so.

Nobody is saying it is "wrong," just that it is worthless from a revolutionary or insurrectionary perspective. If you aren't going to play the game, then don't, but don't pretend you do.


The fact that many people I know do live out side the system to a large extent (squatting, dumpster diving, and so on), but are also active in political movements shows that living out side the system is not problematic.

False correlation.



Often it comes down to, would you rather be oppressed and have the ability to accumulate material goods, or would you rather be free (as much as is possible in this society, dependent on as few people within the system as possible) and perhaps not able to accumulate material goods.

I like shit and I don't buy the bullshit ascetic-like arguments many "outside the system" put forth. Of course, I see no reason to not try and have both, but...


They seem to have done as much as you. I.e. nothing. Having fun working your arse off supporting your boss?

Actually, my employment is entirely a drag on the state and does nothing to make life easier for any boss. I also don't work my arse off.


But yes I do agree that simply "living ethically" does not advance the cause of revolution. That is no reason to attack those that do though. They make their choice, and it is not in contradiction to yours, so what is the problem?

There is no problem- if that is what they want to do, fine. I am just stating that they are not challenging the system in any way merely by living a certain way.

Nusocialist
6th December 2006, 11:14
Mainly because we despise individualism.
What the hell? Socialism increases true individualism.

The Feral Underclass
6th December 2006, 11:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:14 pm

Mainly because we despise individualism.
What the hell? Socialism increases true individualism.
An individual in the context of the community, not just as an individual.

MKS
6th December 2006, 22:39
Some examples of how I try to live the way I think we all should, or that reflect my socio-economic ideals;

-I dont eat at restaurants
-I dont go to sporting events or any other baltantly commercial enterprise (concerts, plays, etc.)
-I dont vote
-I dont give to charity (Charity to me is just an affect of burgoise guilt and a way for the stablishment to perpetuate class divisions.)
-I try to consume as little as possible, i.e. buying luxury goods. I dont own a CD player, TV, Ipod, etc.
-I oppose the Police whenever possible.
-I write opinion letters and essays to my local papers against some of the established systems or ethos.

I try to live as a citizen not of America, because I hate this government and everything it stands for, but as a citizen of the human community that inhabits this land mass. Does that sound hippyish? I know it does but I cant think of a better way to put it. Also notice I put the word 'try' in bold, becasue thats all I or anyone can really do is try our best, dont expect the world to change, 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst'.

Johnny Anarcho
7th December 2006, 15:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:01 am
Mainly because we despise individualism. Plus, lifestylists are sometimes called so because they're Anarchist as a "fashion statement." In other words to be "different," I really loath the people who just do something so they can convince themselves they're "original."
Individualim to some extent has to exist, otherwise freedom is suppressed. Maybe "Life-style Anarchists" are a fad but we shoul try to exploit it and use the oppurtunity to get them into the movement.

Intellectual47
7th December 2006, 20:45
I'm just going to jump in and say that Communism is always able to take hold of collectivist cultures as opposed to idividualis cultures. Probably because the collectivists are much better at accepting the motivation of "It will benefit the community". Individualists hate being told what to do, so wouldn't communism be the crystilization of that idea?

apathy maybe
20th January 2007, 18:36
Originally posted by black coffee black metal+November 28, 2006 03:30 am--> (black coffee black metal @ November 28, 2006 03:30 am) Of course they hate pacifists- pacifists are worthless sacks of shit who ultimately help the state. As for lifestylists who "don't do other things," they are also worthless sacks of shit who ultimately help the state. What's the saying, you can't be neutral on a moving train? While their sentiment may be with those of us who have no option but to put our bodies on the line, we're still the ones getting the bruises. If you want to "live the life" and nothing else, don't bother calling yourself a revolutionary. [/b]
This is the attitude that i think is so stupid. How do pacifists help the state? Perhaps the go and stand in front of revolutionaries and block their path? Wait they don't? Shit maybe they lie in front of the police and block their path? Doesn't seem like they help the state there... Similarly, lifestylists also don't help the state. In fact it is my contention that neither actually help the state, even if they don't help revolutionaries. And if they do nothing else, I guess they don't call themselves revolutionaries.

I call myself a revolutionary, but I am not a pacifist or a lifestylist in the sense you are attacking.

(What the fuck do you mean by "can't be neutral on a moving train"?)


The state and capital couldn't give less of a fuck about a bunch of crusties living outside of it because that doesn't affect it at all. The system can chug along fine without a few hundred, or even thousand, or more, people living in its clutches, and I've yet to meet anyone who was entirely "pure" anyway. Lifestylism doesn't move anything forward and does not represent a challenge in any way to the system. Its just the middle ground for people who are too afraid to go all the way and live completely at dagger's drawn with society.Which is my point, it doesn't change anything, so why the hatred?


Before it was acceptable because they didn't "oppose revolution," now it is better? To be sure, most on the left are just as big of scumfucks as the lifestylists they hate, but I wouldn't call their way of life (or the lifestylists, for that matter) illegitimate, merely ineffective and counter to the aims of the under-class.What I mean by better is that it doesn't contribute to oppression. Like not buying from South Africa during apartheid. While it might be ineffective, I have yet to see any evidence that it is counter to the aims of anyone (except maybe the capitalists, but as you correctly point out, the'll survive).


So are the bourgeoisie, but they aren't a part of any revolution I'd like to see. In any case, I agree that the lumpen-proles can and will be participants in the struggle against capital (I find the phrasing that they "have potential" as seeming somewhat paternalistic).Bah. The revolution will be a shit load of disaffected people on the streets complaining about things. That may include some bourgeoisie, and if they want the same thing I want (end to state and capitalism), I'll accept them as comrades. Fuck your "you have to be working class to be revolutionary, and if you are not working class you are automatically an anti-revolutionary" (and apologies if you don't actually believe that, but some people on this site do).


For someone talking so much shit on Marxists and the left, it is curious that you still cling to the idea of mass. OK I apologies in advance for this, fuck you. I am on the left, I have always (since I started identifying as a revolutionary anyway) believed that a revolution is made by the people. I do not differentiate between people if they are on my side (wanting to bring about class-less state-less society), so long as they are not working against my aims. I talk "shit on" dogma ridden ideologies and individuals, those who can't accept that people may want the same thing but may have different ideas to get there. I talk "shit on" Leninists 'cause they tried and they failed, and I can't see how they can succeed. But I support Marxists who aren't Leninists (though I might well disagree with their analysis).



Originally posted by apathy [email protected]
Simply being a lifestylist and living outside the system, but not opposing it otherwise is not a sustainable position, however, it is not wrong to do so.

Nobody is saying it is "wrong," just that it is worthless from a revolutionary or insurrectionary perspective. If you aren't going to play the game, then don't, but don't pretend you do.You are saying that it is wrong. You talk about how people hate pacifists and lifestylists. I agree that it is worthless from a revolutionary or insurrectionist perspective. I also think that from their perspective (and one most differentiate between lifestylists and pacifists) it is obviously not worthless, otherwise why would they do it? I have meet pacifists who are quite vocal and participate in building working class movements and protests, but they oppose violence. What wrong are they doing?



apathy maybe
The fact that many people I know do live out side the system to a large extent (squatting, dumpster diving, and so on), but are also active in political movements shows that living out side the system is not problematic.

False correlation.What? Why? I get the impression that you (and others) hate lifestylists simply because they are lifestylists. Yet I show that you can live outside the system and still try and bring it down.



I like shit and I don't buy the bullshit ascetic-like arguments many "outside the system" put forth. Of course, I see no reason to not try and have both, but...Good for you.


Actually, my employment is entirely a drag on the state and does nothing to make life easier for any boss. I also don't work my arse off.Good on you. I'm a lazy student getting paid by the state.


There is no problem- if that is what they want to do, fine. I am just stating that they are not challenging the system in any way merely by living a certain way.And I agree. I am glad that we can agree. It is just that you seem to hate those people ...


(I don't apologies for bring this thread back to life.)

Hiero
20th January 2007, 19:10
Fuck your "you have to be working class to be revolutionary, and if you are not working class you are automatically an anti-revolutionary" (and apologies if you don't actually believe that, but some people on this site do).

Well the forum is called revolutionaryleft, that implies some form of class war ideology.

Oh and there is no such thing as "outside the system".

apathy maybe
20th January 2007, 19:34
Do you think that you have to be "working class" to be a revolutionary? Is it possible to be a lumpen-proletariat and a revolutionary?

I am for removing power from those currently in power. I think that this will probably require violence. Is that class war? I would say so. Yet I am not "working class", I am a student, my parents are both "lumpen-proletariat".

YSR
20th January 2007, 20:20
Originally posted by AM+--> (AM)How do pacifists help the state? Perhaps the go and stand in front of revolutionaries and block their path? Wait they don't? Shit maybe they lie in front of the police and block their path? [/b]

There's a strong difference between pacifists and militant pacifists. For instance, at the Seattle WTO in 1999, some "pacifists" were standing in front of revolutionaries and stopping anarchists from breaking corporate windows. Yes, I would call that "reactionary."

Pacifists who want to run up and block the cops are just fine with me. Likely to get their heads bashed in, but kosher as far as I'm concerned.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Fuck your "you have to be working class to be revolutionary, and if you are not working class you are automatically an anti-revolutionary"

I think that's a little bit of "vulgar Marxism" right there. Students, criminals, and the unemployed are not necessarily members of the "working class," but they certainly could be revolutionaries.


AM
Is it possible to be a lumpen-proletariat and a revolutionary?

see: the Black Panther Party

Yeah, I think there's plenty of revolutionary energy in the lumpen-proletariat. They've got problems, and they're related to capitalism. Put 'em on board.

As for lifestylism, yeah, I really think it's your own choice. But you're no more "revolutionary" because you're a punk drop-out. CrimethInc.'s beautiful romantic literature is nice and has its place, but that place is not in theory. I'd like to invert the starter of this thread's phrase and say that lifestylism has almost no theory behind it. Not that you shouldn't do it if it makes you happy, but I don't see it as any different from being a worker, or a student, or a prisoner, or a homemaker, or...

Capital is hegemonic, therefore any challenge to it can be considered a valid challenge. A refusal anywhere is a refusal everywhere. But the machinery of society still fundamentally remains in the hands of the workers. The students can occupy their campuses (and should!), the unemployed can take to the streets (and are! Piqueteros, what!), but the key to a revolutionary change is with the workers. As much as you may not like that, there's really no way to escape it.

ichneumon
20th January 2007, 20:47
see, there's this phrase "lifestylism is worse than useless". i hear that all the time.

i live my beliefs. apparently this makes me some kind of counterrevolutionary. worse yet, i'm a productive member of society. EEEEGAD! i recycle, i don't eat meat, i walk to work. i try to stay out of the way of The Man as much as possible.

once upon a time i fought hardcore. all it got me was jail. nothing changed. what difference did it make? you think lifestylism is useless?

so i decided to BUILD instead of DESTROY. it takes much more strength and vision to build something new than it does to tear down something rotten. mind you, i long for the day when i can do the happy-snoopy-dance on the ashes of western civilization. i despise consumerism. but 4,000 people die from malaria every day. i can't stop that in prison. i can't help them if i don't have a place to live. no amount of anti-capitalist rhetoric will create a vaccine for malaria.

so, is this lifestylism?

"In my head there is a mirror
When I've been bad, I've been wrong
Food for the saints that are quick to judge me
Hope for a badman
This is the badman's song

Guilt in the frame of the looking-glass
Puts a shine on the mind where reflections pass
Where the jigsaw pieces of a broken man
Try and fit themselves together again
Lies in disguise in the name of trust
Put your head in the sand it will turn to dust !
What's your problem ? what's your curse ?
Won't it make the matter worse ?"

colorlessman
20th January 2007, 21:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:47 pm

i live my beliefs.
Exactly, everyone have to live the change they would like to see, so they can be an example to others.

Hiero
21st January 2007, 05:33
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21, 2007 06:34 am
Do you think that you have to be "working class" to be a revolutionary? Is it possible to be a lumpen-proletariat and a revolutionary?

I am for removing power from those currently in power. I think that this will probably require violence. Is that class war? I would say so. Yet I am not "working class", I am a student, my parents are both "lumpen-proletariat".
Well revolutionaries can be from any class. However the revolution is a conflict between two classes, the working class is the only revolutionary class. Class war or revolution is not forced by the good intententions of variours individuals, the revolution will not occur because people want a better world. That is why most revolutionaries are from the working class.

And Marxist have come along way since Marx's era. The lumpen proleteriat has shown a progressive role in alot of cases, the Marxist BPP is an example of this and espically in the colonised people. However lifestylist are not lumpen proleteriat, the lumpen proleterait wish for better improvements in their life and happily accept government assitance when it benefits them.

Hate Is Art
22nd January 2007, 02:58
-I dont eat at restaurants

Why?


-I dont go to sporting events or any other baltantly commercial enterprise (concerts, plays, etc.)

Everything is a commercial enterprise.


-I dont give to charity (Charity to me is just an affect of burgoise guilt and a way for the stablishment to perpetuate class divisions.)

Effect you mean. and Establishment.


-I try to consume as little as possible, i.e. buying luxury goods. I dont own a CD player, TV, Ipod, etc.

Why not? TV


-I write opinion letters and essays to my local papers against some of the established systems or ethos.

The revolution commeth.

Cryotank Screams
22nd January 2007, 03:23
Good read on lifestylism;

Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by Murray Bookchin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/soclife.html)

apathy maybe
22nd January 2007, 22:44
This book is about people who call themselves anarchists but don't know what it means and are using it as a fashion.

What I got from the book (and I own a copy), is the M. Bookchin isn't against lifestylism as [i]I[i] define it (which is living a lifestyle outside the system as much as possible, minimizing ones direct reliance on capitalism and similar, none of which precludes active involvement in either activist or revolutionary activity). But rather ve is against anarchy as fashion. Against the co-option of the "ideas" of anarchy by the middle and upper classes. Against the expensive restaurant called "Anarchy" that only served rich folk. Against people who called themselves anarchists, but know nothing of the history or ideas. This is what M. Bookchin is against.

Not the lifestylism that I find nothing wrong with.