>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."
"lifestylism" is a term whose definition I have given to you, and whether or not you accept its usage that usage is broad amongst anarchists along the perameters I've defined in previous posts. For the purpose of getting you to cease avoiding criticism througb attacking the word "lifestylism", I will now say "post-leftist" instead.
>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.
The meaning of the word lifestylism, much like the meaning of the word anarchism, is very different from the simplicity of its ontological derivatives.
>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."
While I am no supporter of Bookchin, your analysis of his book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgable Chasm [referred to often as "SALA"] is somewhat flawed. Bookchin acknowleged that anarchism as we know it which exists throughout the world, essentially anarcho-communism [being usually referred to as merely "anarchism" because of the marxist connotations of the word "communism"] and anarcho-syndicalism [founded by an anarcho-communist named Pelloutier] was not lifestylist by any means. Yet it is precisely this form of anarchism, of which easily 99% of the worlds anarchists identify with, that most strongly criticises Bookchin, both in North America and abroad.
>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.
Who are these mythical "monotheistic zealouts"? Are you referring to the majority of the worlds anarchists who reject your "post-leftism" outright?
The post-leftists have a tremendous problem with socialism and communism - they reject it outright, and that's the whole problem - they reject half of anarchism.
>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."
Obviously your "experience" is inadequite to make any kind of informed decision. The most steadfast critics of post-leftism are not anarcho-syndicalists but anarcho-communists. Again, I don't know about what mythical "ultra-orthodox wign of anarcho-syndicalism" you're talking about, and I don't know of any that exist. Anarcho-syndicalism has many adherents, especially in Spain where there are close to a 100,000 workers in the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and CGT unions.
>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.
If you purportedly tend towards "social anarchism", why do you uphold post-leftism [which is inherently anti-social anarchism], self-identify as an "anti-organisationalist" [social anarchism also inherently believes in the necessity of organisation for achieveing anarchism]? This seems very contradictory to me.
>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.
Calling an arguement "stupid" does nothing to actually address the said arguement. You have so far failed to be specific about what you mean as far as anarchism "divorcing" itself from the left wing. What does this mean, specificaly? Can you elaborate for us?
>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.
Can you be more specific? Are you saying that there are "vanguardist socialist parties" and "centralized socalism" within anarchism?
>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.
Your ignorance of anarchism shines through once again. Anarchism *is* an inherently socialist ideology. Here's a little qoute from Bakunin to clarify things a bit: "Liberty without socialism is privelege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality"
Anarchism is not merely an "anti-statist" ideology, It is much, much more than that, and "anti-statist" is not the summation of what is "anarchist". Furthermore, Anarchism long ago [slightly before Proudhon's death, in fact] broke with cooperativism.
>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.
What exactly are you getting at by saying I am subscribing to a "western liner idea of anarchism"? Could you clarify what this means, specifically, and then state specifically what you subscribe to?
You're correct in that we are not Bakuninists or Kropotkinists, and there are things in both writers I and other anarchists do not adopt. However, the underlying principles and ideological thought as voiced by Bakunin and Kropotkin capture the essence of anarchism and articulate them in such a way that the anarchist movement the world over recognizes them as founders of anarchism.
>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.
So what? You've again entirely ignored the context in which the
organisations were listed, and the criticism of your position that was made.
>>No, I have a very critical attitude towards lifestylist anarchists.
>
>Boo!
yes, "boo!" indeed. Don't bother responding, just throw some more incoherent slander my way.
>My position is rock solid, but I just hate to waste my time responding to
>dogmatic anarchists like yourself.
Sure, "rock solid", right. Calling me "dogmatic" is just another way to deflect criticism of your position, by pretending that you are not in the minority within the anarchist movement on this issue [which you clearly are if we look at the composition of the anarchist movement worldwide]. You obviously hate responding to criticism as you admit, since you've failed to do so even in your many slander-filled e-mails.
>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?
post-leftists are few in number and in the communities they exist anarchists know them quite well. Also, since the anarchist movement is relatively small in north america, we know who most of the other anarchists are in our communities.
>Participating in a black bloc is not some form of immunization against
>holding liberal ideas.
I never said it was. And you still havn't elaborated on how my ideas are "liberal". Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
>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%.
I disagree with B. Sheppard, and he's never launched a "diatribe" against me. Rather, what you're doing now is launching a diatribe against him. Could you post a URL to one of his essays and exlpain, specifically and with reference to the essay, how it is an "incoherent disatribte against everybody who doesn't agrree with him 100%"?
>Nobody takes Sheppard seriously.
I don't think you're qualified to make this statement, but whatever, I'll let Sheppard respond if he wants to.
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail