<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>This is quite the interesting reply...</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Like I said before, "lifestyle anarchists" don't exist. This is </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>simply a flame term used by dogmatic anarchists who don't understand </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>that anarchism has always been a philosophy with many branches. </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Given that the people who use the term can't even agree on its </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>definition, all the more reason to dismiss it. There are no people </EM><EM>>who run around calling themselves "lifestyle anarchists" either. </EM> <P>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.</P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>By the way, I hate to pop the little dogmatic bubble that you are </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>living in, but almost all of those people you describe as being </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>"lifestylists" would have no problem saying that their preferred </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>economics is socialist or communist or cooperative. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P> I doubt this is actually the case. Most lifestylists (yourself included, from what I understand) are self described "post leftists", a rather akward term. 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. 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).</P> <P>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.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Frankly, to be a bit more of an asshole about this, I think your </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>argument above is inconsistent with anarchism. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P>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.</P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>You seem to have a rather elitist and condescending attitude towards </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>other anarchists. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P>No, I have a very critical attitude towards lifestylist anarchists.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>You know who you sound like? Louis Proyect. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P> More petty insults designed to deflect attention from the weakness of your position.</P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Of course it it. You were putting down anarchists who showed up at a </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>demo all dressed in black. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P>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.</P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Ahh, getting rather defensive there are you? I'm going to repeat </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>again that your comments sound exactly like a fucking liberal </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>activist whining about the black bloc. I'm willing to bet that </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>you've been hanging around with Mark and Brian a bit too much, huh? </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Mark's a good guy, when he doesn't go into suburban Republican dad </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>mode and tell me to get a job. Brian is simply full of shit about </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>anarchism. Several of us have a wager that he will turn into the </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>next Chris Day, and end up ranting about anarchism from some Maoist </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>perch. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <P> 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.</P> <P>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.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Barricada is a significant voice in North American anarchism. That </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>doesn't mean that it is right. And lots of anarchists refer to </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Barricada as "black block porn" for all the photos they reprint of </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>demonstrations. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>Of course it doesn't mean they are right. If you are going to imply they aren't right, however, maybe you should stop making comments like "lots of anarchists refer to Barricada as..." etc., and address the problems you have with their criticisms. I'd like to hear what you think about all these issues, not what some anonymous "anarchists" nickname a magazine, or how you think everyone who disagrees with you is a "fucking liberal".</P> <P><EM>>Look, I have been involved with at least 4 black blocs and have </EM></P> <P>At least! That's not very many. But if you've been in these bloc's, I don't see why you're having a problem articulating on the views that have been expressed.</P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>debriefed others who have participated in the black blocs in </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Seattle, Genoa and elsewhere. I think there are some problems with </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>the black bloc tactic and those who use it, but I'm not going to </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>engage in a blanket dismissal of the tactic. The tactic works. </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>Should we all swear off mass rallies because ANSWER does so many bad </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>ones? No, of course not. That's why I'm being such a pisser about </EM> <DIV></DIV><EM>>your comments. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>"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. </P></div><br clear=all><hr>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMLEN/2021">Get 2 months FREE*.</a> </html>