Results 41 to 60 of 63
Seriously, as a "crustie" and someone who has hung out with a lot of radical smelly-type folk, I have never heard anybody claims that there is anything "revolutionary" (whatever that means) about rejecting consumer culture's idea of hygiene. Anti-capitalist, maybe but never revolutionary, in the sense that it brings about revolution.
apparently on the last day it got broken up by some kids busting into their building and being assholes. of course, crimethincers disbanded and did not call the cops.
this is what i heard from some girls who came into the bar i work at. when i asked them if either of them had a tampon, they said "no those are bad for you we use mooncups." then i overheard them talking as they chainsmoked about doing MDMA and being recklessly polyamorous.
i just wanted a tampon. but i had to laugh, really.
of what import are brief, nameless lives....to Galactus?
Which is exactly the problem. Crimethinc elevates such irrelevant choices as dumpster diving, public sex, not washing, and teetotalism into some form of virtuous lifestyle in which the individual's supposed disconnection from capitalism is somehow construed as revolutionary in itself. Its a stunningly egotistical, and often very stupid*, view of the world
All of which is borne out by the observation that this 'convergence' was in fact populated by "smelly hippies", to quote our eyewitness. We're not talking about a revolutionary movement here, or one that aspires to be revolutionary, but a group of disaffected individuals who think they can bring about change by not buying deodorant
*And yes, anyone who believes that there is a capitalist conspiracy to sell deodorant because otherwise people would "stop wearing pantyhose or eating meat" (the twin foundations of the capitalist mode of production) is stupid. There's no way to get around that
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
No, it isn't. This point was disproved in my previous post. Do you have any evidence for your assertions, other than articles that state that they do not believe these to be revolutionary principles, but instead individual lifestylist ones.
So, 'smelly hippies' cannot take part in revolutionary activity because of certain lifestyle choices that they don't not claim are revolutionary. You really need to get your head around this before you can take this discussion any further. That said, you're drifting from the point- which is Crimethinc does not believe not washing etc are revolutionary, not whether Crimethinc is or isn't revolutionary because I don't care enough about the group to have that talk.
That isn't up for contention and is irrelevant to the topic. I'm no real fan of Crimethinc, but you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Have you ever read any Crimethinc works? You should, they're very entertaining. Here's their conception of a revolutionary in a nutshell:
WANTED: Creative, independent men and women, tired of being exhausted by the trivial details of modern survival, fed up with being bored by modern entertainment, no longer confused by the distractions of the mass media... not content with limiting their freedom, their lives, to their "free time." People who prefer idealism to realism, and reality to ideology. To become full-time revolutionaries. NOT armchair revolutionaries, not lunch break revolutionaries, not leisure-time revolutionaries. And not "professional" revolutionaries: rather than making a business out of "revolution.," they must make revolution their business. Men and women who will not allow their efforts to win back their freedom to become just another job, who are ready to live according to their desires around the clock
Revolutionaries are those who "live according to their desires", that is the most succinct summary of Crimethinc's underlying philosophy. Their 'revolution' is nothing more than "an immediate revolution in our daily lives", achieved by "altering the contents of our own lives in a revolutionary manner, rather than direct our struggle towards world-historical changes". Its individualist bullshit and its a common theme throughout their work. Deodorant is sold by capitalists, ergo not using deodorant is an anti-capitalist position. Well done comrade, that's a revolutionary change in your life!
Don't wait for permission, for some far-off "world revolution," for later "when you have more time." Demand joy, danger, passion in your life today!
Yet its the crux of this entire discussion. That pamphlet expressly lists eight reasons why not using deodorant is anti-capitalist. It goes on to insist that cleanliness is a trademark of "hierarchical society" and that it reinforces "old Christian superstitions". Its dressing up not washing, in the same manner Crimethinc did with alcohol, as an anti-capitalist activity. Which is where it once again feeds into the individualist lifestylism and the pretence that this is a valid 'leftist' current
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Yes, I have read abit of Crimethincs stuff and have in my possession a few of the books they've produced etc, have you actually read any yourself?
Nice quote, but Question: where does it mention that lifestyle habits are in itself a revolutionary activity? Answer: It doesn't. What's clearing arguing is that we need to reject activism (part time revolutionary) and live it (full time revolutionary). This idea is prominent in insurrectionist circles, it does not involve portraying abstaining from washing and various other personal activities as being revolutionary- which is the topic of conversation.
Yes, Crimethinc are lifestylists that place emphasis on the individual- that hasn't be denied and is clearly quite evident. Again, however, I find your answer somewhat lacking in actual evidence in regard to the lack of personal hyigene being revolutionary- this has nothing to do with 'desires' as you claim. It is a concious boycott of a part of capitalist society they object to, and I think we can all agree that boycott in this fashion is not revolutionary- and Crimethincers would agree.
"altering the contents of our own lives in a revolutionary manner, rather than direct our struggle towards world-historical changes"
Yes, that's the purpose in making radical changes in your own life- revolutionary meaning drastic change after all. Could you reference this quote so that it can be put into actual context?
You're straying from the point again. What has this got to do them saying not washing is revolutionary? Stay on topic please.
No, it's not the crux of anything, only your misunderstanding of Crimethinc and use of language. 'Anti-capitalist' does not necessiate 'revolutionary'. Meaning you can have anti-capitalist habits i.e. not paying for food, which aren't revolutionary.
Yes, it is dressing up not washing, but it is not saying it is a revolutionary activity.
So far as it goes, I think that Edelweiss Pirate is making a shit load of sense. The post that ComradeOm posted (two up as I write this) also makes sense, except that, not, I think, in the manner in which they meant.
Don't wait for permission, for some far-off "world revolution," for later "when you have more time." Demand joy, danger, passion in your life today!
Indeed. Maybe, maybe, I'm a lifestylist and I didn't know it.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to reject capitalism, as much as possible, in one's individual life. After all, what is a group, but a collection of individuals?
How about this one then? From here
Revolution, then, is not a single moment, but a way of living: anarchy and hierarchy always coexist in varying proportions, and the important question is simply which you foster in your own life"
I was actually wrong in the above post, this is the quote that sums up Crimethinc. Anarchy as a lifestyle choices. Funny, no?
Need I really join the dots again? Crimethinc's position is that revolution, far from being something so trivial as the mass transformation of society's productive forces, is a fundamentally individual affair (as you note) in which being 'revolutionary' is really little more than changing your own lifestyle. It is about "chasing our dreams, breaking our old patterns, embracing what we love..., daydreaming, questioning, acting outside the boundaries of routine and regularity" - ie, stepping outside mainstream society
This is the essence of Crimethinc - that mere lifestyle changes are revolutionary in themselves. Not eating meat, not working, not drinking, not showering (yes); all these are part of a ideology that seeks to 'drop out' of capitalist society. They are solely concerned with the "revolution in our everyday lives". Hence actually buying deodorant or the like does not really factor into their anti-consumerist agenda. The latter, before you start, being something that they conflate with revolutionary change (see above and below)
You have of course heard of 'freeganism'? Or as Crimethinc put it here:
"If we want to change the conditions that have resulted in the widespread destruction and exploitation that characterize our world, we must work towards a complete overhauling of our economy—we must somehow escape from the vicious cycle of capitalism
...
I know that as long as I participate in the mainstream economy, whether I am buying vegan or non-vegan products, I am supporting the corporations which represent world capitalism. So rather than just buying animal-friendly products, I try to purchase as few products as possible"
So we escape from capitalism (while affecting a transformation of it!) though anti-consumerism. This of course feeds into the above about simply abandoning capitalist lifestyles and the way that it is perceived as revolutionary. Clearly not purchasing, ie not engaging in capitalism, is seen by many lifestylists as a welcome and revolutionary activity. Again, lifestylism as a revolutionary alternative
No, you've misconstrued the meaning of the piece. It is a direct repudiation of actually organising for a society-wide revolution (or similar collective variants) in favour of simply adopting a new lifestyle that is revolutionary in itself
Source is here. Full passage as follows. Like I said, its very entertaining to read
"Accordingly, our revolution must be an immediate revolution in our daily lives; anything else is not a revolution but a demand that once again people do what they do not want to do and hope that this time, somehow, the compensation will be enough. Those who assume, often unconsciously, that it is impossible to achieve their own desires—and thus, that it is futile to fight for themselves—often end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead. But it is still possible to fight for ourselves, or at least the experiment must be worth a try; so it is crucial that we seek change not in the name of some doctrine or grand cause, but on behalf of ourselves, so that we will be able to live more meaningful lives. Similarly we must seek first and foremost to alter the contents of our own lives in a revolutionary manner, rather than direct our struggle towards world-historical changes which we will not live to witness. In this way we will avoid the feelings of worthlessness and alienation that result from believing that it is necessary to "sacrifice oneself for the cause," and instead live to experience the fruits of our labors. . . in our labors themselves"
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
There is a lot wrong with CrimethInc, but they do occasionally get it spot on. This bit sums up a lot of Om's posts:
Lifestylism is useless, but it's no better or worse than leftism.
ComradeOm- Let's assume that members of CrimeThinc do think that these behaviors are "revolutionary." This does not mean that all people who are freegans or choose to withdraw themselves from capitalism think this way. I don't believe that you have made this claim but let's not let CrimeThinc represent this lifestyle as a whole. My questions for you:
1) What makes something "revolutionary?"
2) How are the behaviors described in this thread NOT revolutionary? Support your assertions with evidence or reasoning.
3) What is wrong with not bathing/freeganism/not drinking?
Which pretty much sums up the idiocy of the post-left. The idea that anyone can compare centuries of revolutionary struggle and labour organisation with a few hippies who refuse to wash... well that says it all. It displays both your disconnection from the working class* and ignorance of history. Come back to me when lifestylists and post-leftists have accomplished a fraction of what the labour movement has achieved over the last two centuries. Unless of course you reject the very act of organising amongst the workers
(Although the idea that Marxist parties are not particularly popular because the workers are all "frequenting anarchist bookshops" was funny. As I've said, Crimethinc is always good for a laugh)
*Yeah... so marches, slogans, placards are an irrelevancy? Clearly the author has never been on strike. Then again I doubt he's ever worked a day in his life
There was a great passage from one of those Crimethinc articles that strongly echoed Lenin's conception of democratic centralism but unfortunately I can't find it. Regardless, we are discussing (or at least were at one point) the Crimethinc Convergence and the unhygienic state of its participants. The mere fact that this connection exists, ie that the convergence members were filthy, is evidence enough that the policies advocated by various Crimethinc publications are being followed to some degreeOriginally Posted by theredson
Well that depends entirely on your conception of revolution. To Crimethinc revolution is first and foremost a matter of personal lifestyle. Changing that, by withdrawing from capitalism or generally abandoning the mainstream, is therefore a revolutionary act in itself
This approach entails a specific rejection of the "revolution" as understood by virtually all socialists and anarchists. That is, a "world-historical" event/process, to quote Crimethinc, that fundamentally transforms society as a whole. It is by definition, in the last century or so anyway, a mass struggle and it is generally accepted that this must be waged on a class scale. Again, fundamentally different conception to that shared by Crimethinc and many other post-left outfits
Given the above, a revolutionary act or revolutionary role is something that furthers the process of revolution. Agitation, demonstration, organisation on a class basis, these are all common revolutionary acts today. Conversely refusing to eat meat or wash is entirely a personal preference that has no impact beyond your own lifestyle. It is absolutely worthless with regards mass struggle or the "world-historical" revolution
In the first place, the burden of proof lies on you to prove the positive. If it cannot be argued that not washing is in some way revolutionary then there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it actually is. Its therefore unnecessary to prove the negative
In any case, I think I've dealt with this enough above. Not washing is a lifestyle choice and nothing more. Step outside the ridiculously individualistic Crimethinc criteria and you'll see that it means absolutely nothing to the far broader and richer revolutionary tradition
Nothing particular, as long as you recognise that it is purely an individualistic lifestyle choice. These are simply not revolutionary gestures in any way shape or form. But then we've already established that Crimethinc does not feel the same way
Personally of course I don't agree with any of them but then that is my own particular preferences. I just don't see the attraction of that hippy-ish subculture
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Well Debated comrade. I agree with most of your point except your claim that veganism and not washing have no impact beyond oneself. This is simply not true. Meat pruduction beyond what it does to animals both uses more resources and creates more pollution than non-meat food production. A vegan diet therefor does
have a greater impact, maybe not in creating revolution but meaningful impact. Not using deodorant or not being overily hygenic reduces both water consumption and pollution.
Would you say that biking and not driving has no greater impact?
Do you consider boycotts to be effective?
Freeganism/non-consumerism is not the answer but definately better than continuing to give your money to our capitalist overlords, fill our landfills and poison the air and water.
Once again I was there... these people did not just have really bad "B.O." they had literal dirt on their body, not from doing hard work just being unhealthily unhygienic. I mean walking around barefoot smelling like shit will NOT attract any sort of positive acceptance by almost 90% of the population of America and isn't the point to try and change the accepted ideas of other people and try to turn them on to something different? Something people find approachable? Yet these people are so far removed from modern society as a whole they can't change anything.
Again it would be one thing if it was only even half of the people there that did it, but it wasn't. 98% of them all smelled, had dreadlocks and many walked barefoot in a building and outside that you could most likely end up with a very nasty foot infection at best or worms at worst. They too had become conformers almost dogmatic in their beliefs. Ironic.
Last edited by The Something; 6th August 2009 at 17:47.
Everything you do contributes to money in their pockets, power in their hands, and poison in our environment. That's the biggest flaw with lifestylist ideals. Individuals making morally positive choices isn't going to make any sort of impact.
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
On an individual scale, of course not. And that's regards environmentalism; certainly it has no effect on helping to create the conditions for a proletarian revolution. Ditto for meat eating and washing. You might do these to improve (*cough*) the quality of your own life but on the wider scale they are entirely inconsequential
I'll not write off any tactic and, while I have my doubts about their broader use, boycotts can possibly be constructive in specific circumstances. However I'm referring here to the mass boycott that is one part of a specific campaign. Simply withdrawing from capitalism on an individual basis is absolutely useless. Numerically you're completely insignificant and, as I note below, its not viable on a mass scale
Not really. We live in a capitalist society and work in a capitalist economy. The position of socialists is to transform this society, not simply withdraw from it
It also has to be noted that this 'freeganism' is an inherently parasitical practice. Its not a viable economic model and its not possible for a mass movement to adopt it. People who practice 'dumpster diving' haven't really withdrawn from capitalism... they've just retreated to the edges where they can live off those those still working and producing
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
I like Solidarity's definition:
So, I'd consider deliberately not washing as a political act to fall into the sterile and harmful category, because it'd increase your differentiation and alienation from other, cleaner, people. On the other hand, boring hierarchical politics as championed by Comrade Om and the like also fall into the sterile and harmful box, not least because of the apathy they induce.
I'm not a post-left anarchist. The post-left crowd would doubtlessly consider me a leftist, and I consider their politics idiotic (which isn't to say that some of them aren't nice, dedicated people, of course).
Actually, having thought it over, lifestylists are probably less harmful than leftists. In any genuine revolutionary situation, I'd expect CrimethInc and their like to be completely sidelined; the leftist groups, on the other hand, would probably still be playing their traditional role as the last defenders of capital. And in the meantime, lifestylism is useless but fun, but pious lefties are useless and boring.
I don't claim lifestylists and post-leftists are going to accomplish anything, that's why I called them useless. On the other hand, you don't seem to have overthrown capitalism yet either. You've won reforms (which are nice, but obviously you don't think that's what we're fighting for, otherwise you'd be a reformist), which can be taken away at any moment, and occasionally managed to install new factions of the bourgeoisie in power. Well done.
Of course not.
Lol, learn to read. Frequenting anarchist bookshops was mentioned as something that the workers aren't doing. That was from a piece which is harshly critical of the anarchist movement, including the anarchist-communist tradition I identify with. I disagree with their general perspective, but I still think that some of their points are worthwhile. And, as I've just demonstrated, that particular extract is excellent for winding up dull lefties like yourself.
I like how you magically know it's a he, because obviously women can't write. And yes, it's probable that the author has never been on strike. We are living through a historic period of very low working-class militancy (although it does seem to be improving this year), thanks to the defeat of organised workers in the Thatcher/Reagan years. It might be worth looking at why our movement was so heavily defeated, and how we can respond to these new conditions. But that would mean acknowledging that the mighty labour movement isn't actually perfect, and can fail at things.
I personally don't say demonstrating as any more inherently revolutionary than not eating meat. It may have more revolutionary potential, but that doesn't mean that your average liberal demo threatens capitalism any more than your average Crimethinc party. And is probably less fun.
Don't ascribe to others your own inability to think in political terms or engage in meaningful action. The idea that workers, ordinary people off the street, cannot relate to political action or simply find it "boring as fuck" perfectly illustrates the incredibly shallow nature of both yourself and Crimethinc. Hey, who cares about economic realities, who gives a fuck about revolutionary conciousness, get rid of that cultural hegemony nonsense... people aren't flocking to Marxist/anarchist groups because their language is boring! Of course, how simple
And how incredibly stupid. You've got all the answers, I'm sure of that. But as I said, come back to me when you have even a fraction of organised labour's accomplishments to your name. You sneer at 'the left' and those who comprise it yet you've nothing to show for your own 'creed' save a gathering of unwashed hippies and a new, sexier, set of buzzwords and jargon
And don't pretend to be an anarcho-communist or anything of the like. I have plenty of respect for many anarchists, and particularly within the AF, but you are a perfect example of the jokers that they often let in. Idiots like yourself, who can seriously compare two centuries of agitation and labour struggles with not washing, give anarchism a bad name. Not that you'll particularly care about something said by a 'boring statist' but then that's a result of having your head up your own arse
You see, this is what I'm talking about. "Leftist groups" now comprise the "last defenders of capital" and their reforms count for nothing because they apparently can be "taken away at any moment". You slander generations of workers who fought for their rights and real change in society, and you slander those who continue to fight for these today
But then you have no interest in the nitty gritty of class struggle. You don't give a fuck about the million tiny victories that have been wrenched from the bourgeoisie, and often paid for in blood. You don't consider these to be necessary or desirable; instead your own conception of society and struggle is purely binary - there is capitalism and then there is not. The actual condition of the working class, their struggle for material gains and class conciousness... all irrelevant to you. Which is exactly why you are irrelevant in turn. Anyone who contends that the likes of the minimum wage, the right to strike and unionise, the 40hr week, etc, are not significant victories for the working class is completely divorced from the latter
So you may not be a post-leftist, you may not be a 'leftist', but you are certainly no communist of any stripe or colour
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Then why are all existing revolutionary groups in Western countries so tiny? I don't deny that mass revolutionary movements have existed, and I hope they will do again, but you can't deny that they're entirely absent from the UK and Ireland at the moment.
I don't claim any of those things aren't important. But I think being boring certainly doesn't help.
I'm not the Saviour of the Proletariat and I never said I was. No single person could ever claim a fraction of organised labour's accomplishments, that'd be impossible. And I'm not against organisation. You confuse a critique of a particular model of organisation with opposition to organisation per se.
My creed has considerably more to say for itself than that. And if by "a gathering of unwashed hippies" you mean the crimethinc convergence, then I think I've made it clear that I don't consider that to be a part of my tradition. How many times do I need to say it?
I THINK CRIMETHINC ARE WRONG ABOUT LOTS OF THINGS, AND ULTIMATELY PRETTY USELESS. HOWEVER, I ALSO THINK THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING SOME WORTHWHILE POINTS. GROUPS DON'T HAVE TO EITHER BE PERFECT OR COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY MERIT.
There, was that clear enough for you?
Istrangers on the internet telling me who I am on the basis of having read about two paragraphs by me.
I wasn't writing off the whole of "two centuries of agitation and labour struggles"; I was writing off tendencies within them. There's a difference.
So you think that you can win meaningful change within capitalism, and the logic of capital won't lead the bourgeoisie to continually attack any victories we win? Does this mean that all we need to do is carry on getting more and more reforms until we arrive at communism?
And are you relevant? I'm aware that as an anarchist-communist I'm a member of a tiny minority, are you actually deluded enough to think the working class are listening to you?
Where is your proof that this sort of hygiene is unhealthy? Evidence! To the contrary I work in the dirt, get covered in "literal dirt" everyday and take a shower MAYBE once a week, during which I MAY use soap and shampoo. I get sick once a year for a day at a time and never need to go to the doctor. Being OVERLY hygienic is actually bad is a number of ways. The body needs a certain amount of contact with bacteria in order to build a natural immunity. If you are forever clean your body does not build up an immunity and so when you do come in contact with pathogens, your body cannot fight them. This is where allergies come from and why they are so prevalent. The over use of antibiotics, in products like soap has created bacteria that is virtually immune to all forms of anti-biotics.
As for going barefoot, WTF are you taking about worms and foot infections? I have never seen that happen and I know lots of bare-footed hippies. On the other hand I know lots and lots of people who have gotten fungus and rashes on their feet from wear shoes too much.
As for acceptance by society, you make it seem as though people ought to conform to societal norms, rather than do what they want. If dressing nice is all it took, we would have had a revolution a long time about, back when ditch diggers wore neck ties.
I think you need to relax and stop trying to impose your will on those who are different from you and those whom you do not understand.
Environmental damage disproportionately affects the third world and, within the developing world poor and minority areas. Therefor a collective effort to improve the environment can and has had meaningful impact on the lives of members of these communities. If people can focus on other things besides the health issues caused by pollution, they can focus on revolutionary activities. If they are no longer hungry because some Food not Bombs "lifestylists" pulled wasted food from a dumpster, their lives are better and the can focus on more important things. If you don't have to buy as much food or other consumer products you don't have to work as much and can start a blog or sell papers and liteterature, etc. Small actions can have big results; even a single spark can start a prairie fire.
Wow you are sounding pretty counter revolutionary in telling me that an individual or small group of people can never affect change. Mass social movements have to begin with smaller efforts. This small efforts have to begin with individual decisions. Now obviously my body odor isn't going to make a union strike but never, NEVER doubt the power of the individual.
Freeganism and the associated lifestyle are a viable economic model or method of mass, class struggle. I have never claimed as much. But for many, including myself at points it is a method of survival. I still work whenever I can but the bounty of capitalism does not always overflowth. Even if I am working, who couldn't use the extra money saved by snagging bread from a bakery dumpster? Why subject your self to the perils of oppressive labor relations any more than you have to.
P.S. I love how this thread's topic has a mind of it's own.
