From: "David James" <shddemon-AT-concentric.net>
Subject: lifestylism
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:57:46 -0800


I just read Murray Bookchin's _Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm_..

It's a good read, and makes good points... but it also seems like Bookchin
whines too much, and condemns the
homeless traveller lifestylists as being "neurotic"..

He seems to think that lifestylists just shoot heroin and go to punk shows
on their welfare checks, then read the Tao Teh King before passing out in
their tent,  or some shit...

Though the motivations of social anarchists and lifestyle anarchists may be
unbridgable.. does it
really matter why someone refuses to rule others and practices mutual aid?

IMHO, the existence of a class of people ("lifestylists") that are
voluntarily homeless, that practice mutual aid -
is a good thing.. It makes the streets a safer place to be for those working
class people that are laid off and
evicted. It gives suicidal, alienated people hope.. While the working class
is the only one that can destroy capitalism... the lifestylists help cushion
the blows that capitalism deals.. and strengthen social anarchism as a
result.

So the adage "the lifestylist liberates no one, including himself" is not
neccessarily true, IMHO. The homeless lifestylist liberates
everyone she aids by practicing her selfless altruism, and is liberated
spiritually by it as well... While Murray Bookchin may chide her for having
irrational, romantic notions of mysticism, and call her a neurotic gypsy...
The fact remains that **the world is a better place because of her**,
because today she comforted and fed and gave hope to someone that capitalism
chewed up and spit out.. and she sleeps under a bridge, listening to someone
who would have slept alone there.. and maybe committed suicide. And this
working class person will become more anarchized.. Perhaps,
feeling strengthened, go back to work at another job and "infect" her
co-workers ;)


Now maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this (wouldn't be the first time..
Thanks to fucking Prozac scrambling me brain 5 yrs ago).. but I don't see
what the fuck the problem is.. Bookchin's argument
seems to be that only the priveleged can afford to "play the nomad".. But
isn't doing that better than contributing to
the growth of capital?

I could be arguing semantics..I don't have a prob with most of Bookchin's
points. It just seems to me
like he is only looking at part of the issue here. Maybe I mean something
different by "lifestylism" than he does.

There may seem to be an unbridgable chasm in theory... but in practice
(Seattle, Philly, DC, etc)... the homeless lifestylist and the social
anarchist will both throw bricks through corporate windows and plant gardens
on courthouse lawns.

and shit.. people can figure out if their ideas are fucked up, and listen to
each other (perhaps I'm being way too
optimistic here.. :) but I'm trying to grasp Bookchin's points, though I
think he's a bit of a pompous ass.

I'm wondering what all of you think about the events of the past year and
how they relate to Bookchin's theories...