> Sure they do. It is a common term used to describe a tendency, as per
> the definition I have given, which is a definition broadly in use
> amongst anarchist circles and held more or less in common to mean the
> same thing. You're correct that lifestylists don't actually call
> themselves that, which I pointed out in my post as well... I listed a
> whole host of names they go by, all of which are equally ridiculous.
> Instead of saying that the people I'm referring to don't exist, maybe
> you should try reading the definition and adressing what my comments
> refer to concretely, instead of engaging in deflection.
Look, as I stated before, these so-called "lifestylist anarchists" do not exist and never have. The few people who use this insult can't agree on the definition and there are no anarchists who self-identify as "lifestyle anarchists."
You can't even get things right when you talk about how this term is used!
When anarchists do use this insult, they are usually flaming people who dress up like anarchists and try to live the "lifestyle" of what they perceive as being an anarchist. If this insult is accurate in any sense, this would be the one because, after all, that's the meaning of lifestylism.
Now, there is this anarchist by the name of Murray Bookchin who wrote a book about lifestyle anarchism, only in his definition of the term, it meant anybody in anarchist or radical circles that Bookchin disliked. It was a disprate lot of writers and activists who got swept up in Bookchin's bromide, including several of his former compatriots. If you read between the lines in Bookchin's book, you would have figured out that his definition of "lifestyle anarchism" simply meant "people who disagree and dislike Murray Bookchin."
In the end, the only good thing about that book was an essay at the back on gun control.
More recently, there is this small group of anarchist zealots who have decided to use this term to smear all anarchists who don't agree with their narrow vision of anarchism. This is quite un-anarchist, as anarchism has always encompassed many tendencies and has been quite hostile to monotheistic visions of the philosophy. blackkronstadt suggested in a previous email that lifestylists were those anarchists who reject revolutionary socialism. Since these anarchists have no problems with socialism and communism--at least the libertarian versions--then we have to ask what this person is really arguing.
I suspect, based on my experience with these dogmatists, is that they believe that only anarchists who prioritize workplace organizing and syndicalism are anarchists. Of course, most syndicalists aren't this dogmatic, so we're talking about an ultra-orthodox wing of anarcho-syndicalism that is trying to make the case for the existence of "lifestylism."
> >By the way, I hate to pop the little dogmatic bubble that you are
> >living in, but almost all of those people you describe as being
> >"lifestylists" would have no problem saying that their preferred
> >economics is socialist or communist or cooperative.
>
> I doubt this is actually the case. Most lifestylists (yourself
> included, from what I understand) are self described "post leftists", a
> rather akward term.
As I pointed out earlier, there are no self-identified "lifestylists." I'm not one and can't be described as one. I've always identified as an "anarchist without adjectives." I tend towards social anarchism. And post-leftism is a critique, not a lifestyle.
The tendency to dissasociate oneself from "the left"
> broadly is nothing new... fascist "Third Positionists" do the same thing
> (and try to claim they are anarchists, mind you), so I don't think
> calling yourself post-left gives you any added credibility.
Well, none of us are fascists and anarchists hate fascists, so this argument is just stupid. Post-leftism is not about the right wing. It's about anarchism's divorce from the left wing.
> What I think
> the term means, however, is that by using the word "left" you are
> implying that "leftism" is socialism, and therefore you are anarchists
> who are post-socialist (an impossibility since anarchism is an
> inherently socialist ideology).
No, there are forms of socialism that aren't leftist. By Left I'm talking about that huge body of the Left and its history and its programs. The idea of building a big vanguardist socialist party. The idea of centralized socialism.
Anarchism is not inherently a socialist ideology. It's in fundamentally an anti-statist ideology, which lends itself to favor forms of cooperative economics, as well as libertarian forms of socialism and/or communism.
> Further, these petty insults like "little dogmatic bubble" betray the
> desperation of your position - you don't have a leg to stand on in
> making your point, so you resort to insults to flesh out your paragraphs.
>
> >Frankly, to be a bit more of an asshole about this, I think your
> >argument above is inconsistent with anarchism.
>
> How is my arguement inconsistent with anarchism? I think if you
> explained this, your position would be a lot more clear, because it
> would define what you personally see anarchism to be, and how you
> disagree with the anarchism I am advocating. So far, you seem to have
> rejected the latter, which is the anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin to
> contemporary anarchist organisations in North America like NEFAC,
> FRAC-GLR, and FNAC and anarcho-syndicalist organisations like the
> IWA-AIT and the IWW.
It's really sad that you subcribe to a Western linear idea of anarchism as being some kind of timeline. You do understand that there have been anarchists other than Kropotkin and Bukunin, right? We aren't Bakuninists you know.
Just for the record, while NEFAC is indeed an anarchist organization, there are many anarchists in the U.S. who don't belong to any of the groups you mention. Speaking for myself, I used to be a member of the IWW.
> >You seem to have a rather elitist and condescending attitude towards
> >other anarchists.
>
> No, I have a very critical attitude towards lifestylist anarchists.
Boo!
> >You know who you sound like? Louis Proyect.
>
> More petty insults designed to deflect attention from the weakness of
> your position.
My position is rock solid, but I just hate to waste my time responding to dogmatic anarchists like yourself.
> >Of course it it. You were putting down anarchists who showed up at a
> >demo all dressed in black.
>
> No, I was criticising lifestyle "anarchists" for showing up at a demo in
> full black bloc "gear" (ie- hoodies, bandanas covering faces, sticks in
> hand, with rocks in backpacks). This isn't merely the colour of the
> wardrobe they happened to wear to a demo. Aside from that, you haven't
> even addressed my criticisms of this tendency... I wonder why that is.
How do you know if they were "lifestyle anarchists" or not. Did you survey them? What if they happened to be a bunch of mis-guided young anarcho-syndicalists?
> >Ahh, getting rather defensive there are you? I'm going to repeat
> >again that your comments sound exactly like a fucking liberal
> >activist whining about the black bloc. I'm willing to bet that
> >you've been hanging around with Mark and Brian a bit too much, huh?
> >Mark's a good guy, when he doesn't go into suburban Republican dad
> >mode and tell me to get a job. Brian is simply full of shit about
> >anarchism. Several of us have a wager that he will turn into the
> >next Chris Day, and end up ranting about anarchism from some Maoist
> >perch.
>
> If you were to explain to me, and this list, how my comments are
> "liberal" (quite ironic since I view your politics as being closer to
> liberalism, if anything) then perhaps I would interpret them as
> something more than slander designed to deflect from serious debate of
> the issues that have been brought up. To say that I'm a "liberal
> activist" contradicts the fact that I have personally participated in
> several black bloc's, and that other anarchists such as myself who have
> participated in them have similar criticisms as I do.
Participating in a black bloc is not some form of immunization against holding liberal ideas.
> As for your incoherent diatribe against people who you fail to mention
> in full name, I'm not quite sure who you're talking about. Perhaps the
> Brian you are referring to is Brian Sheppard, in which case I will let
> him respond to your petty slander if he so desires, as I understand he
> is on this list. What I will say about B. Sheppard (if this is indeed
> who you are referring to) is that he is a committed anarcho-syndicalist
> who has made a much more significant intellectual contribution to
> anarchism than you probably have, and implying that he's a maoist is
> just another way to attack him without directly adressing what he says.
Hah! Brian Oliver Sheppard has had nothing significant to add to contemporary anarchism. His essays have been dogmatic, incoherent diatribes against everybody who doesn't agree with him 100%.
Nobody takes Sheppard seriously.
> >debriefed others who have participated in the black blocs in
> >Seattle, Genoa and elsewhere. I think there are some problems with
> >the black bloc tactic and those who use it, but I'm not going to
> >engage in a blanket dismissal of the tactic. The tactic works.
> >Should we all swear off mass rallies because ANSWER does so many bad
> >ones? No, of course not. That's why I'm being such a pisser about
> >your comments.
>
> "debriefed", no less! My criticism is that the tactic works sometimes,
> and other times it doesn't, and it can't be applied carte blanche (as
> some are trying to do), and that its not the only way of expressing
> militancy.
I agree. It's not a tactic that can be applied in every situation, but you were making a blanket statement that black blocs had "a lot of problems." I have my criticisms of the black bloc tactic, but I'd say that the positives have far outweighed the negatives.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips