> There is no "lifestyle anarchism" as Bookchin defines it, because in
> his worldview, anybody who has ever criticized him is a "lifestyle
> anarchist." He completely failed to address the more common use of
> that phrase, used to moralistically condemn "anarchists" who are
> into the trappings of anarchism, such as the look, the lifestyle, and
> so on.
>
> I've always thought that there were more important things to worry
> about than these few people who aren't a problem.
If personal vendetta is the exclusive motive behind Bookchin's essay, he did a fine job making his targets out to be looney toons. The stuff he quotes from Hakin Bey and John Zerzan demands criticism, especially if that's what passes for anarchism. Did he wildly distort their propositions (to the point of outright lies) or are they irrelevant figures to modern anarchism?
A good portion of Bookchin's essay attempts to define what it means to be an anarchist, which he contrasts with being a Luddite, mystic, or solipsist. It strikes me as an important thing to worry about for those with any interest in anarchism, especially if what it means to be an anarchist is contested. Still, if you have some history about Bookchin and his interlocutors that would shed light on his reasons for writing Social Anarchism v Lifestyle Anarchism, and undermine his criticisms, please share. I don't know much about Bookchin's relations with others in the anarchist community.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.