Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0

Murray wrote

When I look around my community at the people who call themselves anarchists, most of them are not involved in any type of organizing that is working to negate capitalism/states/etc.

Anarchism to them is more of a punk lifestyle, a highly individualistic and hip way to live your life. I think these "anarchists" would be more accurately called radical liberals because all their solutions focus on individual change and they never critique structural problems. They'll like go dumpster diving every night and attend punk shows, but when you ask them to help organize or spread anarchy they just laugh and tell you to go read what bob black said about organizing (lol). I always feel like they are using postleft ideology to justify their first world hipster attitude and disengagement with class war.

The social anarchists I know all have some lifestyle commitments, but they never claim those commitments are revolutionary. So, it can be said that bookchin's claims are a false dichotomy there. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of anarchists, the net movement, has become an ineffective and individualist response to society. Interestingly, the lifestylism strategy in anarchism is tightly correlated with the triumph of neoliberalism and the establishment of liberal post-modern theory. We can even see the individualization of radicals across different movements; the feminist movement went from structural criticisms to postmodern fun feminism at a similar time.

I'm always disappointed to see anarchists who think the current anarchist movement has no strategic problems. Bookchin's criticisms are sharp and on point as always.