reformism and lifestylism - not all bad?

Not only would I agree with you but I would say that the logic of your argument pretty much backs up what I have been trying to argue on another thread i.e that a whole gamut of positive community-based activism can be a good thing, beneficial both in the here-and-now and for the cause of ongoing revolutionary change. cf. Social Ecology & Permaculture.

I believe that there might be a category between reformism and The Revolution which you might call revolutionary reformism - this category might include anything that prefigures the new society but doesn't bring it about in its entirety today.

But I don't think that calling it reformism makes much sense. If you call it that - even though the intention of the agents is revolutionary then everything is reformist until the final act that creates the (mythical) end of history revolutionary society.

A new society must be built one brick at a time, one cultural step after another. If the intention is to undermine and destroy the status quo then that ain't reformism.

when i say reformism, and i don't think i've said it recently, i mean activity which seeks reforms granted by working for them within capitalism, rather than conceded by threatening to go beyond it. the latter, revolutionary approach doesn't preclude accepting reforms but always locates them in a matrix of class struggle, i.e. materialism, the latter tends to idealism; 'the power of a good example' etc to appeal to the powerful to implement the proposed reforms. obviously these are to some extent abstracted, ideal types, but i think the former does preclude the latter because its goal is to ameliorate capitalist contradictions rather than exploit them to our benefit.

i don't know much about co-op housing schemes etc, but they seem like practical responses to living in capitalism with its high housing costs etc, practical, but not particularly political. a movement of co-op housing schemes could challenge the logic of capitalism by positing housing as a fundamental human need, demanding (or even seizing) property from the state/capital etc, and so could be conceivably revolutionary, or it could posit housing co-ops as the solution to remedy the 'housing problem' within capitalism, which would be factually misguided and reformist.

workers co-ops? i don't know much about them, but again, positing co-ops as 'the answer' would be a reformist strategy, working in them to get slightly less (albeit self-managed) exploitation may simply be a pragmatic response to the imposition of wage labour, which has no real political content in itself. as to the possibility of workers' co-ops being revolutionary, as long as they're based on the production and exchange of commodities for the market i think that's impossible - much as i think zanon is a beacon of possibility, i also think it is a sign of failed revolution.

kudos to tacks. lifestylism is only bad if you mistake your choice of purchases for the method of fundamental change, though it is a method. and reformism, as i understand it, is the only way change is going to happen, unless you think that revolution is going to sweep the globe within 24 hours with the change in time zones.

and what about the fact that in supporting crap like fair trade and ethical consumption you are infact shoring up illusions in capitalism?

Buying different bananas does not shore up illusions in capitalism. Holding street stalls telling people that buying different bananas is the way to contribute to social change does. Tacks is suggesting the former, not the latter.

quite, the point being that it's an issue that never gets beyond individual preference and so is about as relevant to anarchists as whether you wipe with your left or your right hand.

Also Black N Red Ned, if i want to spend more money on cable tv to watch sports than on some local produced food that's of no relevance politically.

So what Revol? Couldn't you say the same about any ethical activity? Perhaps we should all be as anti-social as possible in order not to shore up the illusion that we live in a civilised society in which we respect the authorities and subscribe to judaeo-christian values. Let's leave little old ladies unable to cross the road and call that anarchism! Let's let people die of starvation to show how clever we are!

That was a shit post Revol!

what are you blathering about? Are you saying not buying fair trade/local bananas is anti social?

This is exactly why you raising this shit as anyway relevant to politics is soo bollocks, it leads to pathetic moralism like this.

And yes your post was shit Ned

Could you or could you not take your - paper thin - argument and apply it carte blanche to any ethical decision in our very flawed world?

seriously you are losing me, of course i make ethical decisions in my day to day life, i just don't elevate them to the political. I mean what next will we have libcom discussions on what implications dumping your partner has for communism?

That would be interesting. No but, look Revol some ethical decisions are political. It's not an open and shut case. Some actions do have implications that are political, it's not a question of elevating them to the political.

Yeah, but that sort of ethical consumerism is ultimately apolitical. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with it, just that we shouldn't be going around claiming that it's a form of political action or claiming moral superiority over those who don't. We all engage in ethical consumerism to one degree or another, in any case, whether we do it consciously or not.

yes and to name some of the most obvious, child abuse, rape, beating up old people, spousal abuse, homophobia and loads of other stuff.

However what has that got to do with whether I buy free trade bananas or spend more money on sky sports than some organic lentils? I mean once you start making that political/ethical you can expect me to ask you were your trainers came from, why do you need electricity? Why do you need an internet connection etc?

Tacks, going back to your first post - and I don't mean to be patronising - I think you're misunderstanding reformism and lifestylism. I'm not sure I can see how they would be applied accurately to what you're talking about.

I think that those questions are all relevant Revol. I do not believe that examining ethical questions as political questions need necessarily lead to self-righteousness or moral superiority.

For me the best socialism, and certainly anarchism has to be ethical. That doesn't mean that we all have to be perfect. In fact, as I am sure you agree, that would be impossible. I am not preaching intolerance and I always look for collective solutions rather than individualistic ones.

If you buy the right bananas then you help to keep basically good people on family holdings free from the horror of the corporate pesticide-driven nightmares of much of Central America. That does not mean that it is wrong to say either should I be supporting the transport of fruit around the world at all? Or there has to be an even better way to produce bananas and get them here.

lots of us seem to be "misunderstanding" it. can we get a specific definition? you go first.

so where do you get you and your families clothes from?

Could you maybe provide us with a budget breakdown so that we can make an ethical comparison with the family who have Sky television? How much on food? Alcohol? What about your kids toys? Nice furniture? Footwear? Movies?

Or maybe such stuff is non of my business and you should tell me to stop being a moralising prick.

reformism- small changes in the way capital operates, little victories for the working class. e.g higher wages, saving the local bus station. Good, as long as you look beyond them.

lifestylism- individual choices which have nothing to do with class struggle. e.g. who you bank with, what you eat. Irrelevant and possibly counter productive because it will make people associate anarchism with annoying hippies.

?

Is that really reformism though, as opposed to winning reforms?

Reformism means explicitly getting reforms within capitalism without trying to go beyond them.

Lifestylism is trying to drop out of capitalism by changing your consumption patterns and generally not working.

Revol, I could provide you with what you ask for but that would hardly be the point. I would not suggest that anyone try to live in that way or account for everything they do. I do not advocate the equivalent of Jainism for the shopping basket, in any event a vainglorious pursuit in a world in which the economic system is a seamless fabric. Nevertheless, little things can make a difference and decisions based on ethics can be important. I am not making any kind of absolutist argument here.
There's a pretty broad streak of intolerance running through the counter-argument I think. I can't see what the motivation is for the searing attack in what, say Jess, has to say about 'lifestylism'. It would be just as easy to construct a dismissive critique of reform on the basis that it is often largely irrelevant, if not destructive to some third party hidden from the agent or recipient of the reform. In addition you might argue that put together intelligently, for example credit unions as opposed to a "green" bank account ethical/lifestyle choices can do more to get people "looking beyond" capitalism than reforms which might well tie them ever more tightly to the status quo.

I make these arguments not in order to suggest that there is one right way; I hope to make the point that what's needed is a little understanding for people involved in real life situations whether they are workers defending their rights in a shit job working for Mr Shit making shit burgers, or a bunch of folks getting together and forming a co-op, a credit union or even a social centre.

John, the "generally not working" phrase means what? Do I take it you think that good class struggle anarchists should all hold down jobs or be lifestylists?

so i take it you're taking back your comment that whether someone spends more on Sky Sports than on locally sourced organic food is politically relevant?

see these are already different:

i agree completely inc. with the last bit. these victories are always good, as long as you look beyond them. the idea that reformism innoculates people to a desire for further change is erroneous, IMO.

cf:

Traditionally Reformism is the belief that a series of reforms to capitalism will add up over time and eventually bleading to "socialism".

Reforms happen, but revolutionaries say that reforms can always be taken away, therefore unless we change the system, we'll be on a treadmill of reforms. Much different than above.

The Leninists are kind of in between these two positions because while they claim the revolutionary position, they practice reformism, adviocating reforms which will lead to a situation giving rise to socialist revolution.

No I'm not! It is relevant.

about as relevant as to how much money you spend on Irn Bru. Catch a grip.

Anyway I purposely avoid all that organic shit because the way it is marketted and the type of tossers that buy it annoy me. It's not really political it's just a personal choice, the same way i won't buy an iPod.

they are different, because i think Jess equated reforms with reformism, and John. pointed that out. i would say the looking beyond is what precludes the gaining of reforms becoming an ideology of reformism.

yes, but strict anti-reformists (i just invented a tendency there) will criticize the desire for reforms as reformism, and it isn't. just to be clear on that.