Anarchists and Lifestylism revisited…

[Random]

Because they get Arts council grants (apparently) to study how to clown/protest

Yeah, and taking funding from THE MAN is, like supporting the SYSTEM, maaan.

See -- you do it too

Being irritated by their style of prose is not a serious objection, so we're left with that one criticism you posted above, which you admit is based on a rumour.

I'd not do clowning myself, but I agree with TopDog that some people seem to get disproportionally pissed off about them.

 

[catch]

OK the main thing I have a problem with is that they claim to be a new thing in terms or political activity - a new tactic - when in fact they're simply a different side of the black/pink/fluffy/spikey dead-end debate which does nothing to question the validity of spectacular protest itself. It's a kind of micro-micro change within largely closed system of set-piece engagements, is inward looking to the utmost, and it made me feel guilty when I watched the indymedia video and felt myself hoping the police would twat the most annoying ones over the head.

And taking state funding to protest against the state is just about where I draw the line in terms of dependency. My pay-check comes from the state, but that's based on me providing a service for them - working jobs in the education sector. If the service I provide is protesting against them, then that's a very different kind of service, one that anyone who'd like to seriously challenge the state ought to be very worried about.

Even with my own music stuff we try to fund it ourselves because to get funding usually requires aesthetic and organisational compromises with paid bureaucrats that we generally aren't prepared to make. It's not ruled out by any means, but there's a career path for "artists" (and clowning probably comes under it somewhere) in tailoring their activities to application forms. If your "art" is based on protest, or "artivism" or whatever, then that raises serious problems which cannot be resolved. I have about the same level of respect for arts-council funded artivists as I do for SWP full-timers.

 

[catch]

Oh yeah. CIRCA's funding situation I'm not sure about - I'm not obsessed by them. But I have noticed this on the Space Hijackers' website:

"The Space Hijackers are proud winners of this years arts admin bursary for mid carrer artists."

 

[Random]

OK the main thing I have a problem with is that they claim to be a new thing in terms or political activity - a new tactic - when in fact they're simply a different side of the black/pink/fluffy/spikey dead-end debate which does nothing to question the validity of spectacular protest itself.

That seems to be a very inward-looking reason. Is it really relevant to your political activity what various artists are 'claiming' to do?

 

[sihhi]

And taking state funding to protest against the state is just about where I draw the line in terms of dependency. My pay-check comes from the state, but that's based on me providing a service for them - working jobs in the education sector. If the service I provide is protesting against them, then that's a very different kind of service, one that anyone who'd like to seriously challenge the state ought to be very worried about.

Why necessarily ought- it depends on the source and conditions of that funding?

Even with my own music stuff we try to fund it ourselves because to get funding usually requires aesthetic and organisational compromises with paid bureaucrats that we generally aren't prepared to make. It's not ruled out by any means, but there's a career path for "artists" (and clowning probably comes under it somewhere) in tailoring their activities to application forms. If your "art" is based on protest, or "artivism" or whatever, then that raises serious problems which cannot be resolved. I have about the same level of respect for arts-council funded artivists as I do for SWP full-timers.

Can you name names please- I don't know these "arts-council funded artivists"?

 

[sihhi]

But I have noticed this on the Space Hijackers' website:

"The Space Hijackers are proud winners of this years arts admin bursary for mid carrer artists."

Mate try not to take them so seriously- it'll start doing your head in.

They like to have fun by having lunch on moveable tables in parking bays.
It's a hobby for them just like appearing on Robot Wars or perfume shopping is for others.
Nothing more nothing less.

 

[catch]

The Space Hijackers I don't have any particular problem with at all - they seem pretty good natured. None of this affects either my political activity or much else very much, but I won't be associated with it. And it's worth spending a little bit of time arguing on here about it. I think a very important thing for revolutionaries to do is to look at how movements have become co-opted or destroyed by the state and capital, and that includes looking at current manifestations of that process.

 

[janis joplin]

but you do a damn fine impression.

Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.

wow, don't think anyone's ever put me on a pedestal before! i thank you

i think i explained pretty clearly my problem was with people who are more advantaged looking down on people who have less advantages in life and not with the way they live their lives as such.

i don't have a problem with the circa lot raising lots of money through the arts council, but it does bug me when i hear them laugh at groups who raise money with more hard slog, and it particularly bugs me that they don't put on workshops to train others in how to put together successful funding proposals instead of quite so many clown workshops. or do they only do workshops they get paid for?

 

[Herbert Read]

well not to get too bogged down in definitions (because this discussion may have legs) but yes i think catch is essentially an marxist. 'Libertarian marxism' (in the terms & conditions expressed) is simply marx minus the state. I think catch hangs his politics from the pedestal of marx then attachs the various libertarian currents to fit that pedestal. Again not a criticism as such. Once he ditches the 'anarchsim' bit i think he'd be a lot more settled & satisfied with in his politics.

I don't have a camp, neither am i part of a 'movement' or part of a 'scene'. I know many would disagree but i would certainly decline any invitation to be a part of such.

I want libertarian communism and i am an Anarchist


So you have left the wombles scene then

 

[The Black Hand]

Certainly there are elements of this in the anarchist movement, the most obvious examples being Openly Classist and Class War.

Does everything revolve around Class War, quite possibly

AS far as sterotypical views of the working class... I can't remember anything crass that was used, and if you think swearing is 'unsophisticated' or stereotypical you're a bastard wanker fuker etc... I appreciate that not all the working class are from the rougher parts, but if you read the aims and principles of CLass War, it ALWAYS said we were PARTICIPANTS, and that means we knew we weren't the only part of the working class as we were enagaged in class struggles... Yes we were loud, but 'shy bairns get no broth' Or is that too northern and working class for all you southerners to understand?!

 

[Top Dog]

I don't think squatting was exterior to class struggle in the post-war years, or possibly for quite a long time after that. As it stands though, it's again only a lifestyle option available to a pretty small number of people, generally young people with no dependents. Squatting itself isn't a problem, nothing against people who do it, but holding it up as revolutionary activity, or worse, criticising people who rent for "supporting the capitalist system...maaaan" is rightly pounced on as being a load of bollocks.

But who here is criticising people who rent? I havent heard anyone do this (...yet). To accept that there are people in this milieu with some serious (inter)personal or mental health problems that mean they come out with irrational bullshit like some of the vegan/AR nonsense like in the eg.s you post is one thing. But to extend their argument out, and seek to challenge it is to give their 'argument' some credence, which it just doesnt have. Ignore it. Its meaningless. One of the dangers of giving the time of day to loonies is that quite understandably you polarise your own opinion to disassociate yourself from them. But in doing so be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

I would actually challenge the assumption that squatting these days in solely a 'choice' for a

small number of people, generally young people with no dependents.

That is of course true for a very large part of the squatting community - in London in any case. But there also remain a dwindling community of long term squatters that have spent many years moving away from the periphery into their communities and becoming part of the fabric of a locality. And there are others still... where i work we get many people coming in with serious housing problems... we had a young colombian family come in last week for instance, who have been squatting for the past 9 months, bacause of their precarious immigration status. These arent isolated instances either. In fact we get quite a number of clients that tell us their housing workers within the local authority have 'unnofficially' and 'off the record' signposted them to the squatters advisory service for help with accomodation, where there was little else on offer - even though it is not ASS's job to provide squatted housing for people - and even when the local authority was failing in its statutory duties to house certain vulnerable groups.

But perhaps we're getting close to the nub of my original question. When you say that some people wrongly hold squatting up "as revolutionary activity", that leads me to ask the next question which is:

what IS revolutionary activity?

 

[editor]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)

 

[blamblam]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75...

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)

I've not read the rest of this thread yet, but in answer to this, I spose I generally consider u75 as more of a DIY/independent community thing than a political site, but politically I'd consider it broadly libertarian/non-party left. What would you think of that?

 

[jonH]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)

nihilist
picnicker

 

[Top Dog]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)

i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt have a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin... I think about it in this way... the reason i got into politics (anarchism), was because it was about doing, rather than being. So yes, u75 is DIY maybe, or is it anarchy in action ? Maybe not, but its based on similar community/communistic values that are central to most anarcho's politics... whether the site lives up to that is another thing entirely

 

[jonH]

i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt have a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin... I think about it in this way... the reason i got into politics (anarchism), was because it was about doing, rather than being. So yes, u75 is DIY maybe, or is it anarchy in action ? Maybe not, but its based on similar community/communistic values that are central to most anarcho's politics... whether the site lives up to that is another thing entirely

Ultimately the site must die

 

[rednblack]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)

the fact that it is funded by those who can, or want to, and available to all who want to access it suggests communism (in an inperfect sense - because we cant have perfect communism in a capitalist society)

but the fact that it is essentially controlled by a unremovable 'leadership' (not a dig, i havent got a problem - i couldnt be arsed) means its not democratic more consultative, but then again as you often say - if people dont like the 'leadership' decisions they can always start another board and see if thats more difficult than putting up with occaisional decisions they're not happy with (the one example of that so far - utterly failed, though i think thats at least partly down to the personalities involved on both sides of the argument then any real flaws in their idea)

its a difficult one, because we still arent used to how this sort of community works, and we are still finding new forms of running them, i'd say its a consultative communist dictatorship - its a rubbish term, but only because there arent any real terms to describe it

 

[rednblack]

i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt have a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin...

i'd agree with that...

 

[kropotkin]

i'd agree with that...

I agree- I want mutual aid and solidarity and organising on a class basis- I don't need people flying black and red flags.

I believe communism develops naturally from this.

 

[kropotkin]

TopDog, you seem to be criticising catch for misrepresenting "liftylists", which is entirely fair enough. I personally think that you have also misrepresented those you criticise "lifestylism"- especially with the comments about their class composition (but that is a little niggle- just loked like a standard lefty smear to me).

I too am very wary of polarisation- I don't think it helps anyone to characature opponents, so perhaps it would help here if we actually clarified exactly what we are talking about.

If "lifestylism" is not what catch was disagreeing with (criticisms which you clearly share), can you define it for the purposes of discussion? How far apart are you from those you are targetting this at?

 

[JoeBlack]

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Utopian socialist?

As in the 19thC movements which were often based on individuals or small groups with resources setting up a colony that others could be part of providing they were willing to follow the rules laid down by those who owned the colony. I don't know enough about the history of these movements to be more specific than that but the parallel is obvious.

 

[editor]

i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt have a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin...

Of course you're right there.

One of the reasons I started this site was the sheer frustration with the anti-CJB people I was dealing with, some of whom seemed more concerned with the label than anything else.

I hated the way that people seemed keen to box people into political areas: "aah, you're against this so you must also be against this, this and this...", so I wanted to find a place where I could articulate my political responses free from a fucking committee strangling my enthusiasm at birth.

I can remember the much tut-tutting that went on amongst the lefties and anarchos when I started the Football vs CJA campaign.

Football wasn't deemed as 'cool' as road protesting/squatting, even though the Act was likely to affect more ordinary fans than anyone else.

It's hard to remember how uncool it was to be a footie fan in the early 90s!

 

[editor]

its a difficult one, because we still arent used to how this sort of community works, and we are still finding new forms of running them, i'd say its a consultative communist dictatorship - its a rubbish term, but only because there arent any real terms to describe it

I rather like that!
I'll have a badge made immediately: "Editor, Consultative Communist Dictatorship"

When I started these boards, I had lofty ideals about free speech and no censorship, but those dreamy notions were quickly crushed by a slew of racists, trolls and people hell bent on trashing the site.

I honestly don't believe you can run a fairly well-known board of this size that covers similar issues without some kind of strong moderation.

I wish it weren't true, but sadly there's just too many people out there who get their kicks out of breaking things they don't like and to many persistent nutjobs, racists, attention-seekers and fuckwits.

 

[kropotkin]

This site does a fine job given the attacks it comes under.
There are few substantive complaints, despite the friction of the last month or so.

 

[editor]

This site does a fine job given the attacks it comes under.
There are few substantive complaints, despite the friction of the last month or so.

Thanks for that.

It's quite timely, because I have to say that the mod team are lurching towards something of a crisis at the moment, with morale at an all time low.

But more of that later.

 

[steeplejack]

sorry to hear that.

the atmosphere's been bad, but it;s been worse before and the site has got over it- keep it going.

 

[rednblack]

Thanks for that.

It's quite timely, because I have to say that the mod team are lurching towards something of a crisis at the moment, with morale at an all time low.

But more of that later.

i'm going to start a thread about that in community, a serious one

 

[Top Dog]

TopDog, you seem to be criticising catch for misrepresenting "liftylists", which is entirely fair enough. I personally think that you have also misrepresented those you criticise "lifestylism"- especially with the comments about their class composition (but that is a little niggle- just loked like a standard lefty smear to me).

fair point. i assume you're referring to this bit:

its a little funny to me how many of the most vehemently anti-hippy types ive met, the ones that are charmed by a certain kind of urban prole (or lifestyle) actually come from backgrounds about as far removed from those social subjects that they fetishise. I don’t think that’s a great surprise to many, but it is important to acknowledge it, if it means a muddle-headed approach to understanding what revolutionary politics are about. Is it because they imagine it’s the sociological attributes that are the essence of what it means to be working class?

I think i know what you're getting at but its not intended as a lefty smear. I'll elaborate more if you want, but first, was this the section you have the problem with?

If "lifestylism" is not what catch was disagreeing with (criticisms which you clearly share), can you define it for the purposes of discussion? How far apart are you from those you are targetting this at?

ive tried re-reading but i dont understand this bit... could you clairfy what you're asking and i'll have another go...

 

[kropotkin]

sorry

The OP was criticising a section of anarchists who are needlessly caustic towards another section. catch took up the mantle of defending a crtique of lifestylism, which turned out to be one you share.

Given that, it would seem that your definition might be different- so could you clarify exactly what you mean by "Lifestylism"?

It seems to me that the definiton you are using is so broad as to include loads of activity that no sensible person would have any qualms with. Perhaps the problem is that this is equally done on the other side, and lots of reasonable people get erroneously tarred with the mad brush?

 

[kropotkin]

I've just seen your edit: yes, that was the section I was referring to. It also characterises criticisers of "lifestylism" as people who are removed from the "social subjects that they fetishise".
a/ proof? Otherwise a smear
b/ this casts those who criticise lifestylists as fetishisers of what they percieve to be w/c attributes. Proof? Otherwise a smear.