Lifestylism in the UK, US and Australia

[Module]

This is for a project I'm doing, please answer!!

How big is the lifestylist presence in the anarchist movements of the UK, the US and/or Australia from your personal experience?

Given I am under the strong impression that lifestylism has a small presence in the UK, whereas it has a large presence in the US and Australia, why do you think this might be the case?
(Australia becoming increasingly influenced by the United States? If so how.)
(Different notions of 'freedom' in the US and the UK? Freedom in the US means, for instance, freedom to 'do things' such as make money, better yourself, etc? Or freedom in the UK means, for instance, freedom 'from things' such as hunger etc.?)

Please give accounts of your own personal experience (if possible) as well as a response to the above, and if possible phrase in a way which is quotable, and understandable for objective non-RevLeft readers :p:p

Cheers.

PLEASE REPLY :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have had no encounters with anarchist groups whatsoever, and the only anarchist group that I know of is the IWA.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is for a project I'm doing, please answer!!

How big is the lifestylist presence in the anarchist movements of the UK, the US and/or Australia from your personal experience?

Given I am under the strong impression that lifestylism has a small presence in the UK, whereas it has a large presence in the US and Australia, why do you think this might be the case?
(Australia becoming increasingly influenced by the United States? If so how.)
(Different notions of 'freedom' in the US and the UK? Freedom in the US means, for instance, freedom to 'do things' such as make money, better yourself, etc? Or freedom in the UK means, for instance, freedom 'from things' such as hunger etc.?)

Please give accounts of your own personal experience (if possible) as well as a response to the above, and if possible phrase in a way which is quotable, and understandable for objective non-RevLeft readers :p:p

Cheers.

PLEASE REPLY :(

Des I'm sorry but I can't help you with actual experience... perhaps I'm too much of a lifestylist - ha.

But I can aid you in some terminology:
The "US freedom" you speak of can be termed as "positive liberty" - that is the freedom to do X or Y.
The "UK freedom" can be termed "negative liberty" - that is the freedom from X or Y.

If you are correct that there is a larger lifestylist presence in the US than the UK, one might be able to trace this historically. The US was founded by a revolutionary group, albeit a rather reactionary one by our standards, but revolutionary non-the-less at the time. Many political theorists and scientists describe this founding as leading to a 'revolutionary spirit' - not in the sense that we always want to overthrow our government (although I do), but that we are always 'rebelling' against the status-quo in some way. I don't know if this is empirically true or not, but it may help your thoughts.

- August

[Saorsa]

The anarchists here in New Zealand are overwhelmingly lifestylers (although there is a more activist bunch in Wellington, with a handful of similar types in Auckland). Here in my hometown of Dunedin the anarchist movement is largely indistinguishable from the animal rights movement!

[Pogue]

I haven't seen much lifestylism in the Anarchist movements here at all.

[Module]

I haven't seen much lifestylism in the Anarchist movements here at all.
Where are you?

[Red October]

I live in the southeast US, and lifestylism is overwhelming here. There is an anarchist collective in my town, but it's got very little involvement in anything related to class struggle. It mainly focuses on community projects like food not bombs (which I don't think is bad), fixing bikes, putting on shows, etc. There's a lot of crimethinc anarchists there and many with primitivist and anti-organizatinal leanings. There's also supposedly a few IWW members there who I don't know well but hopefully will be able to get to know. There's a little distro at the collective building that carries mostly crimethincy stuff, punk CDs/tapes, patches, and a few months-old copies of Industrial Worker last time I looked.

That said, it is a really nice community space for having meetings, shows, events, etc. I also found my first copy of the Organizational Platform of The Libertarian Communists on a rack of pamphlets in the corner of their basement :cool:

[Bilan]

The anarchists here in New Zealand are overwhelmingly lifestylers (although there is a more activist bunch in Wellington, with a handful of similar types in Auckland). Here in my hometown of Dunedin the anarchist movement is largely indistinguishable from the animal rights movement!

Funny, last I heard from anarchist comrades in NZ was about the proposed Anarchist Communist federation. :confused:
Also the essay, "What is to be done?".

Animal rights is also not synonymous with lifestylism.

[KurtFF8]

I live in the southeast US, and lifestylism is overwhelming here. There is an anarchist collective in my town, but it's got very little involvement in anything related to class struggle. It mainly focuses on community projects like food not bombs (which I don't think is bad), fixing bikes, putting on shows, etc. There's a lot of crimethinc anarchists there and many with primitivist and anti-organizatinal leanings. There's also supposedly a few IWW members there who I don't know well but hopefully will be able to get to know. There's a little distro at the collective building that carries mostly crimethincy stuff, punk CDs/tapes, patches, and a few months-old copies of Industrial Worker last time I looked.

That said, it is a really nice community space for having meetings, shows, events, etc. I also found my first copy of the Organizational Platform of The Libertarian Communists on a rack of pamphlets in the corner of their basement :cool:

Sounds like where I live. It seems that many anarchists today (At least in my experience) replace things like riding bikes (a major part of their direct support for environmentalism) and veganism with actually important social/class issues which they basically completely ignore. There are also a lot of primitivists who hold many inconsistent beliefs.

[Incendiarism]

Indeed...the thing is, some of my friends understand the worker's struggle, but they don't place any real emphasis on it, instead seeing it as some abstract idea. I've worked with people who did Food Not Bombs and the experience didn't end entirely well, and they were the types who carried around ELZN pins and were vegans and what not...

It really did turn me off from anarchism and organizing for a while.

[OI OI OI]

Well the annual anarchist bookfair in cities in Canada is full of life stylers.
I mean people who think that they are revolutionary , but by dressing very peculiar, having a huge blue mohawk or something like that and also to be honest stinking like skunks( it is the objective truth I am not exaggerating and I don't want to offend anyone) , those people alienate themselves from society, the workers movement and anything like that. That being said the most serious anarchists like in NEFAC are not like that at all. Maybe one or two individuals but in general they look like normal people.

Maybe all this has to do with their notion of anarchism. Seeing that most anarchist communists which are the minority are dressed like everyday people, it is a kind of anartchism that makes people dress, cut their hair and smell like that.
Maybe they have this theory of alienating themselves from the workers movement because they don't want to be involved in it(they believe in spontaenity) and therefore being elitists . Maybe they have such a low theorerical level that they think that punk is revolutionary (or any other trend) . I really dont know but these are my possible explanations. I tried to talk to one of them and he was asking me what is revolution......

[nuisance]

That being said the most serious anarchists like in NEFAC are not like that at all
Well some of the members of A//Poltical, a anarcho-punk band, were at the founding meeting of the NEFAC, or so I have read.

Maybe all this has to do with their notion of anarchism.
Or maybe it's simply a dress preference?


I really dont know but these are my possible explanations. I tried to talk to one of them and he was asking me what is revolution......
Were you just talking to a regular punk or a self-proclaimed anarchist? Because that point is really pivitol to your point.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by Red October http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1198231#post1198231)
I live in the southeast US, and lifestylism is overwhelming here. There is an anarchist collective in my town, but it's got very little involvement in anything related to class struggle. It mainly focuses on community projects like food not bombs (which I don't think is bad), fixing bikes, putting on shows, etc. There's a lot of crimethinc anarchists there and many with primitivist and anti-organizatinal leanings. There's also supposedly a few IWW members there who I don't know well but hopefully will be able to get to know. There's a little distro at the collective building that carries mostly crimethincy stuff, punk CDs/tapes, patches, and a few months-old copies of Industrial Worker last time I looked.

That said, it is a really nice community space for having meetings, shows, events, etc. I also found my first copy of the Organizational Platform of The Libertarian Communists on a rack of pamphlets in the corner of their basement :cool:
Sounds like where I live. It seems that many anarchists today (At least in my experience) replace things like riding bikes (a major part of their direct support for environmentalism) and veganism with actually important social/class issues which they basically completely ignore. There are also a lot of primitivists who hold many inconsistent beliefs.

I spent a lot of time in the states and this is my impression as well. The social/class stuff are definitely de-emphasized.

My impression was that this had more to do with frustration at the prevailing order and one's inability to change these big picture stuff like class. "Class consciousness" is equated with debating "Capital", selling newspapers, and sprouting impressive rhetoric. Many people see such behavior, quite reasonably, as less productive than "life-stylism".

Moreover, serious union organizing is a full-time job. Organizaton is hard enough for mainstream unions with lawyers and research staff, much less a puny union like the iww. If they work jobs, depending on where they live, most fellow workers see their job as supremely temporary or are scared into compliance due to complications like immigration status or criminal convictions. Either that or they work a cushy job where co-workers are also scared by the prospect of layoffs or bought off. Few people can be expected to really organize on a regular basis and frankly we can't condemn them for not doing so in the U$.

Where they can, people try to do less explicitly class based action like fnb, infoshop and zine distros, that kind of stuff that is consistent with left-liberalism. I find people are aware of the deeper issues, but since they are not Leninists who form political parties, they are at a real loss for the concrete form the class-struggle should take. I take a rather dim view of traditional Leninist tactics in North America as well, and question whether the myriad of parties, newspapers and protests does much except serve as an outlet. Unfortunately, at this juncture in the anglo-saxon countries, such life-stylism is one of the few forms of protests that sincerely help others open to individuals.

[Module]

Thank you, everybody, for replying.
What glorious responses these are :thumbup1: you've really helped me out.


Indeed...the thing is, some of my friends understand the worker's struggle, but they don't place any real emphasis on it, instead seeing it as some abstract idea. I've worked with people who did Food Not Bombs and the experience didn't end entirely well, and they were the types who carried around ELZN pins and were vegans and what not...

It really did turn me off from anarchism and organizing for a while.
Yeah!

For the record, everyone, my project is on "Does the Australian anarchist movement offer a realistic economic alternative to capitalism?"

and (since it's for my Society and Culture course) I'll be looking at the culture of the movement, which I also see as encompassing, as you said EZLN symbols, veganism etc. etc. how that reflects those who make up the movement and also how it alienates 'regular' working class people.


Or maybe it's simply a dress preference?
Ouch let's pick out possible example users in this thread :D
NWA avatar ... unexplained defensiveness about criticism of lifestylists ... Hmm ... Are there some dreadlocks behind that computer screen, Fen_Boy? :D
(I'm jus' kiddin' yer scruffy munchkin)

[Module]

I find people are aware of the deeper issues, but since they are not Leninists who form political parties, they are at a real loss for the concrete form the class-struggle should take.
That's quite a controversial statement to make, MarxSchmarx. ;)

[KurtFF8]

I also want to add that it seems that lifestylism is often seen as an "escape" or alternative to capitalism. But this approach is flawed in my opinion as those who decide to try simply to "leave" the market and organize in communities that participate in it as little as possible are just "escaping". This is problematic because it doesn't do much in the way of actually defeating capitalism itself, nor does it help to stop oppression. It may help those in it for a period but not everyone has the opportunity to "drop out" of capitalism.

[gla22]

Many lifestylists could only subsist if capitalism existed. They are lazy and live off the labor of others, they are often lumpenproletariat and alienate the common person from our movement. Their belief is not based in theory but use their ideology as a "fashion statement".

[Organic Revolution]

In Portland there is a hefty amount of lifestylism, propagated by the punk houses-turned-distro places.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There is some lifestylism where I live in the US. I don't find it a major problem though. Lifestylism has been part and parcel of anarchism since its inception. The problem is that outside of a few small organizations, American anarchism didn't exist in any organized form from 1975-2001. Organized anarchism is just now taking a real offensive. Thus, while class struggle anarchism waned, lifestylism remained at the same constant pace. Without a real movement to overshadow it, the dumbasses became the representatives of the “movement.”

What I think is worse and far more prevalent is the widespread practice of "Lifestylism Lite." Lifstylism lite is the tendency for anarchists to engage in politics, but shitty, totally useless politics. They organize flashy protest actions, dabble heavily in lifestyle choices, and spent inordinate amounts of time on animal rights. They also tend to have a bad habit of viewing class struggle with disdain, and have a bad third worldism to them. This is the real danger; it pulls in good anarchists and fills em with shitty ideas, and bad grooming habits. It even poisons good groups like SDS with a lot of silly liberal/lifestylist nonsense.

[GPDP]

They also tend to have a bad habit of viewing class struggle with disdain, and have a bad third worldism to them.

What do you mean by this?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

What do you mean by this?

Class struggle isn't very important to their politics, and they obsess over the poor suffering third world. Basically first worlders have it too easy to complain about class in their eyes.

[KurtFF8]

It even poisons good groups like SDS with a lot of silly liberal/lifestylist nonsense.

While my SDS chapter isn't this way (because it's just really getting off the ground) I'm quite afraid that the organization as a whole will be full of "lifestylism replacing radicalism".

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

While my SDS chapter isn't this way (because it's just really getting off the ground) I'm quite afraid that the organization as a whole will be full of "lifestylism replacing radicalism".

Heh I had a similar situ. Pm me if you want to talk in depth about it.

[Zurdito]

well I don´t have a clear idea of what lifestylism is, but I can kind of imagine. counter culture etc.

the UK has ahistory of organised labour and social democracy. I don´t knowabout Australia, but the US has historically never had a class based political project. IMO lifestyle politics, nationalism, conspiracy theories, religion, etc., grow in such a vaccuum, as the systems contradictions still need to be expressed somehow.

it´s no coincedence IMO that the US scores so "high" for lifestyle politics, race politics, religion, and conspiracy theories. as trotsky said, it´s a society with strong objective contradictions, but low consciousness.

[OI OI OI]

Well some of the members of A//Poltical, a anarcho-punk band, were at the founding meeting of the NEFAC, or so I have read.

ya I guess you did not read my whole post


Originaly posted by me:
That being said the most serious anarchists like in NEFAC are not like that at all. Maybe one or two individuals but in general they look like normal people.


Or maybe it's simply a dress preference?

Come on. Most of the anarchist or self-proclaimed anarchists have the same dress preferences? It is not a coincidence!
They think that being anarchist and being revolutionary means dressing,behaving, smelling, cutting their hair etc in a certain anti-"normal" way.


Were you just talking to a regular punk or a self-proclaimed anarchist? Because that point is really pivitol to your point.

It was a guy at the anarchist bookfair dressed like all the others with :blackA: tatoos and pins. So I guess it was another self-proclaimed anarchist.

[nuisance]

Ouch let's pick out possible example users in this thread :D
NWA avatar ... unexplained defensiveness about criticism of lifestylists ... Hmm ... Are there some dreadlocks behind that computer screen, Fen_Boy? :D
(I'm jus' kiddin' yer scruffy munchkin)
Des, I'm shocked and appalled at you! :p
Now I shall let your secret out.....this is Des everyone

news
.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
europe/7513571.stm

I broke up the link so it could be posted.

[nuisance]

Come on. Most of the anarchist or self-proclaimed anarchists have the same dress preferences? It is not a coincidence!
They think that being anarchist and being revolutionary means dressing,behaving, smelling, cutting their hair etc in a certain anti-"normal" way.
Well there's alot of political punk bands. Maybe they got into punk and then got political through it, I know that to have happened to loadsa people, even myself. That said I don't smell and do wash, infact I barely dress all out 'punk' these days.




It was a guy at the anarchist bookfair dressed like all the others with :blackA: tatoos and pins. So I guess it was another self-proclaimed anarchist.
Fucking LOL!

[Black Dagger]

I don´t knowabout Australia, but the US has historically never had a class based political project.

Er... what? That is so ahistorical.

Des, what do you mean by 'lifestyle-ism'?

[Module]

Des, what do you mean by 'lifestyle-ism'?
I mean 'lifestylism' generally in the sense that Murray Bookchin used it - the practice of 'personal freedom', applying 'anarchism' to one's everyday life, focusing on changes to personal behaviour rather than focusing on class struggle, the capitalist system etc. 'collective freedom'.


Now I shall let your secret out.....this is Des everyone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7513571.stm
What can I say? Beneath my robes beats a heart of metal. :cool:

[Zurdito]

Er... what? That is so ahistorical.



I meant, never had a mass class based political party.

[GPDP]

The Socialist party got kind of close... didn't Debs get about a million votes once?

[Black Dagger]

I meant, never had a mass class based political party.

Okay, but not all working class peoples regard the building of a 'political party' as a significant or worthwhile project; so to assert that as an objective measure of the level of 'class struggle' action, politics or consciousness in a country is fallacious.


the practice of 'personal freedom', applying 'anarchism' to one's everyday life, focusing on changes to personal behaviour rather than focusing on class struggle, the capitalist system etc. 'collective freedom'.

If that is taken as the definition then anarchism itself is lifestylist. As anarchism is a philosophy of social revolution, grounded in a broad and diverse critique that encompasses much more than 'capitalism'.

Anarchists emphasis the complete demolition of hierarchy, domination and oppression in every sphere of life not just the economic or political sphere; indeed unless there is a revolution in everyday life there cannot be a meaningful anarchist society. The struggle for a real liberation for everyone, not just white male workers, is predicated on the complete transformation of social life; wherein all traces of domination are extinguished. This includes but is not limited to the workplace, and the day-to-day organisation of society.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

BD I think you're missing the thrust of the point. Anarchism is sometimes about changing the way you live. Lifestylism is the belief that lifestyle changes are the main concern of any revolutionary, even if these lifestyle changes don't help bring about collective liberation and alienate the person from other oppressed people. Take for example crust punks, they don't shower, they don't work, and often they can look so unorthodox that they can't approach people on the street. This is fine, we shouldn't enforce a cult of normality. But we should realize that sometimes an extreme subcultural look can restrict our ability to organize.

[gla22]

BD I think you're missing the thrust of the point. Anarchism is sometimes about changing the way you live. Lifestylism is the belief that lifestyle changes are the main concern of any revolutionary, even if these lifestyle changes don't help bring about collective liberation and alienate the person from other oppressed people. Take for example crust punks, they don't shower, they don't work, and often they can look so unorthodox that they can't approach people on the street. This is fine, we shouldn't enforce a cult of normality. But we should realize that sometimes an extreme subcultural look can restrict our ability to organize.
exactly. If you serious about large scale change you will not act in a way that alienates people to us. The problem is alot of sub-cultures use our labels without comprehension.

[Black Dagger]

BD I think you're missing the thrust of the point. Anarchism is sometimes about changing the way you live. Lifestylism is the belief that lifestyle changes are the main concern of any revolutionary, even if these lifestyle changes don't help bring about collective liberation and alienate the person from other oppressed people. Take for example crust punks, they don't shower, they don't work, and often they can look so unorthodox that they can't approach people on the street. This is fine, we shouldn't enforce a cult of normality. But we should realize that sometimes an extreme subcultural look can restrict our ability to organize.

Of course i agree with you, that sort of 'lifestylism' is certainly worthy of critique for all the reasons you stated - but i think there is a also a general danger here for anarchists that would adopt a more marxian approach to social change. To me this seemed to be in the background of this debate though i think i might have been reading too much into Des' definition.

That is, one in which the critique is essentially limited to the real or imagined economic and political demands of 'the working class' (termed 'class struggle' in Des' definition); as opposed to one that includes but also transcends these interests encompassing change in a every facet of life - not just relations between people at work - between boss and worker - but also in the home - between partners - and between men and women generally. This focus on social rather than strictly economic revolution is at the crux of anarchist philosophy.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Of course i agree with you, that sort of 'lifestylism' is certainly worthy of critique for all the reasons you stated - but i think there is a also a general danger here for anarchists that would adopt a more marxian approach to social change. To me this seemed to be in the background of this debate though i think i might have been reading too much into Des' definition.

That is, one in which the critique is essentially limited to the real or imagined economic and political demands of 'the working class' (termed 'class struggle' in Des' definition); as opposed to one that includes but also transcends these interests encompassing change in a every facet of life - not just relations between people at work - between boss and worker - but also in the home - between partners - and between men and women generally. This focus on social rather than strictly economic revolution is at the crux of anarchist philosophy.

I would agree that there's a danger of class struggle anarchists swerving a bit too much into strict economically reductionist politics. In the US the converse happens as well, where good anarchists become paralyzed in really unhealthy guilt ridden identity politics. I think the key is moving towards a conception of class struggle as a struggle to abolish all oppression, with class a thread that can tie a lot of it together. Abortion clinic defense may not seem like a class struggle issue, but I think its a big class struggle issue.

Its a fine line. The balance between social oppression and class oppression is a fine one to walk, but its something we have to do.

[Black Dagger]

Have you read this (http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/what_is_class_struggle_anok_wp.pdf) piece? In terms of the relationship between class struggle anarchism and non-class oppressions i thought it was pretty well done.

[Devrim]

Have you read this (http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/what_is_class_struggle_anok_wp.pdf) piece? In terms of the relationship between class struggle anarchism and non-class oppressions i thought it was pretty well done.

I think it is awful. It is a rejection of a class analysis for an analysis of class.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Could you please explain what you mean? Otherwise i can't really engage with your criticism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Could you please explain what you mean? Otherwise i can't really engage with your criticism.

Its a long story, but as Dev shadowed of the anarchist movement he has developed an intense dislike for Wayne Price.

[Devrim]

I think that it doesn't have a class analysis. I think that what it actually does is lumps class in with all of the other things as another form of oppression. Maybe, it even suggests that it is a more important one, but that is all.

When I say that it analyses class, I mean that they make an analysis of class, as well as making an analysis of race, sex, etc.

It doesn't mean that they are analysing these things from a class perspective, which would be a class analysis.

It is just left wing liberalism.


I am not discussing the morality of oppression, let alone whether one form of oppression is worse than another (such as anti-Semitism vs. discrimination against the Deaf). All oppression is evil and should be opposed.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Its a long story, but as Dev shadowed of the anarchist movement he has developed an intense dislike for Wayne Price.

I wrote against what Wayne wrote on national liberation. I think his politics are deeply anti-working class and the politics of NEFAC in the US are anti-working class.

I have never met Wayne Price, nor do I have any sort of personal dislike for him.

As for 'shadowed of the anarchist movement' please explain what you mean because I have no idea.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Fair enough, perhaps you could link me to a text that offers a better explanation of the relationship between the working class and non-class oppressions?

[Devrim]

Do you want an economic text, or something about how to politically approach these things?
Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think that it doesn't have a class analysis. I think that what it actually does is lumps class in with all of the other things as another form of oppression. Maybe, it even suggests that it is a more important one, but that is all.

When I say that it analyses class, I mean that they make an analysis of class, as well as making an analysis of race, sex, etc.

It doesn't mean that they are analysing these things from a class perspective, which would be a class analysis.

It is just left wing liberalism.

The essay is clear that class oppression is different and apart from social oppressions. While most whites and men can choose to help eliminate racism and patriarchy, the capitalist class will never do so. This is becuase Whites and males aren't the ruling class. Price argues that while class is morally no worse or better than other social oppression, it is strategically the most important becuase it ties everyone together and defines the ruling class. Thus class struggle is necessary to bring about revolutionary change.

Seems like a class analysis to me. Are we trod the path of economic reductionism, claiming everything is a matter of class? Yeah that'll get you laughed off the street of any American, working class neighborhood.



I wrote against what Wayne wrote on national liberation. I think his politics are deeply anti-working class and the politics of NEFAC in the US are anti-working class.

I have never met Wayne Price, nor do I have any sort of personal dislike for him.

As for 'shadowed of the anarchist movement' please explain what you mean because I have no idea.

Devrim

Dev,you have intense fixation on the anarchist movement, following it around on the net to add your 2 cents. You seem to read the anarchist group religiously, even posting topics from it. EKS has its own forum on libcom, where you spent most of your time attacking platformists. If you have so many damn issues with anarchism, then stop bothering us. Its as if you have a vendetta against various sections of the anarchist movement.

[Devrim]

Dev,you have intense fixation on the anarchist movement, following it around on the net to add your 2 cents. You seem to read the anarchist group religiously, even posting topics from it. EKS has its own forum on libcom, where you spent most of your time attacking platformists. If you have so many damn issues with anarchism, then stop bothering us. Its as if you have a vendetta against various sections of the anarchist movement.

I don't have an 'intense fixation on the anarchist movement'. I am not sure what you are really on about. I read the comments in the anarchist group, and also in the Trotskyist group, and things from other groups in lots of places. We comment on issues that people are discussing. EKS does have its own forum on Libcom (it isn't anarchocom), and we along with other anarchists have criticised platformism.

I don't have any issues with anarchism. I think that there are very positive forces in anarchism. I have said before that I think platformism is a very negative one. I don't have a 'vendetta'. I just bring up political points.

The approach of the platformists seems to be generally different. It seems to involve casting personal aspirations at people. This post is a good example.

Just to give a bit of personal background though, I was an anarchist militant involved in publishing workplace newspapers, and on strike committees at my work probably before you were born. Also when we formed EKS some of the original militants came from Platformism. It is not really unnatural that we comment on these things.

Devrim

[bcbm]

I think the obsession with lifestylism is fairly problematic. I've travelled around the US and seen a bit of the UK, as well as talked with some Australian comrades and in my experience there are very few people who would meet the criteria of "lifestylists" entirely. I'm sure many here would consider them as such, but most I've met have been involved in a wide variety of projects and generally have pretty solid politics. I also think it creates a problematic idea for anarchists, the idea that our politics don't need to affect our everyday existence. Certainly we shouldn't let that mean a slide into liberalism (which is a very real problem), but I don't see much of a point in railing against people who actually try to live in accordance with their ideas.

[Sendo]

I think the obsession with lifestylism is fairly problematic. I've travelled around the US and seen a bit of the UK, as well as talked with some Australian comrades and in my experience there are very few people who would meet the criteria of "lifestylists" entirely. I'm sure many here would consider them as such, but most I've met have been involved in a wide variety of projects and generally have pretty solid politics. I also think it creates a problematic idea for anarchists, the idea that our politics don't need to affect our everyday existence. Certainly we shouldn't let that mean a slide into liberalism (which is a very real problem), but I don't see much of a point in railing against people who actually try to live in accordance with their ideas.


Some good points.

I support certain types of lifestylism strongly, especially if it is a model that can be exported. No, I don't mean buying the Chiquita line of "Cruelty-free certified" bananas. I refer to some of the "communes" (but the wrong since they're not religious retreats or isolated camps, but places that want people to come and visit, unfortunately since they're penniless this means no PR or much advertising) that practice sustainable permaculture. I think it is important to retain a knowledge base of sustainable living. This has been realized by many indigenous communities in Latin America, too. I'm not advocating self-sufficiency for the sake of isolation, and I advocate networking of all farms in certain ways, but I'm saying it's important to show that another way is possible: we don't need sprawling, oil drenched farm compounds all trying to outproduce each other in order to survive.

It's also a good anti-statist approach to socialism: anyone can learn. We don't need bureaucrats or elitists managing us.

[Black Dagger]

Do you want an economic text, or something about how to politically approach these things?
Devrim

Both if possible, as long as they address this issue: An explanation of the relationship between the working class and non-class oppressions.

[Leo]

Dev,you have intense fixation on the anarchist movement, following it around on the net to add your 2 cents. You seem to read the anarchist group religiously, even posting topics from it. EKS has its own forum on libcom, where you spent most of your time attacking platformists. If you have so many damn issues with anarchism, then stop bothering us. Its as if you have a vendetta against various sections of the anarchist movement.This is a really shocking way of responding to criticism.

[ckaihatsu]

An explanation of the relationship between the working class and non-class oppressions.


How about this: Class oppression is the main *strategy* of capital, while the various social oppressions are various *tactics* towards that strategy.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps lifestylism is the practice of ethics that are compatible with revolutionary politics, at the ground level -- it goes along with one's own personal revolution into class consciousness.

The actual practice of class struggle -- at more macro / collective levels -- is much trickier, as people have mentioned....

[bcbm]

How about this: Class oppression is the main *strategy* of capital, while the various social oppressions are various *tactics* towards that strategy.


I think this suggests something of an overarching, coherent plan on the part of the bosses, which is at odds with the reality of the situation. The different tensions are exploited and handled differently and have their own histories, which I think takes them out of any larger plan on the part of the bosses.

[ckaihatsu]

I think this suggests something of an overarching, coherent plan on the part of the bosses, which is at odds with the reality of the situation. The different tensions are exploited and handled differently and have their own histories, which I think takes them out of any larger plan on the part of the bosses.


Yes, your point is well-taken. I guess I was using my formulation as a kind of shorthand, not necessarily to imply a larger, overarching organization at work. (That's a misconception that many libertarians / nationalists fall into.)