You must log in or register to comment.

heckthepolice2 wrote

change them to "lifestylism" and "social lifestylism" to piss of the bookchinites


n_n wrote (edited )

I would start to call myself a lifestylist-forummist. :D


n_n wrote

And post-left to post-lifestylism.


An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I think both are theoretical and applied though, and that we should just unmake the dichotomy by understanding the ways that we all are connected and co-constituted with things beyond us. I think that dissolving ourselves in a complete destruction of mediated relationships is a tendency that will result together with the complete decentralisation of politics that is anarchy.


ziq OP wrote

I'm using terms also used to make a distinction between theoretical physicists and applied physicists.

Theoretical physicists write theory and imagine future implementations of physics models. Like ancoms writing theory for global communism and determining how it would work. There's no real world implementation of communism because it would necessitate statelessness and the abolishing of money.

Applied physicists undertake real experiments in physics that can be demonstrated right now. Applied anarchists are 'lifestylists', they set up communes, art projects, and they demonstrate living, breathing models of anarchy that exist despite the global capitalist-statist order.

You can be an applied anarchist (e.g. someone who lives in a commune) and also theorize about theoretical anarchy. But you can't practice theoretical anarchy because it's still theoretical as long as the state functions.


existential1 wrote

No quarrels from me. Less arguments about things that don't matter or meaningfully change anything can't be bad...right?


lori wrote

Wouldn't syndicalism or mutualism be 'applied' though? The prior by unionizing and the latter via dual power structures? Or do I misunderstand?


ziq OP wrote (edited )

Syndicalists do what they do in order to push for a communist society. It's a tactic more than anything else, and they believe it's the tactic that will allow them to create communism. I guess Syndicalism could be described as applied, but I think it's more useful to describe it as a tactic of anarcho-communism rather than a distinct social anarchist ideology.

Mutualism is a wider economic theory to structure a society around; much as anarcho-communism is, but the dual power / gradualism tactic for sure is applied. That tactic is only a small part of mutualism though, like how Syndicalism / unionism / striking in general is a small tactical component of broader anarcho-communism.

Maybe I should add a tactics section to group Syndicalism under? Or just add Syndicalism to the Anarchist Communism page since it's really just a footnote anyway? Mutualism has always been harder to categorize since it's accepted as both individualist and socialist and as being both an economic theory as well as a tactic.

Or maybe I should not try to categorize them at all, and just list each anarchist school of thought in alphabetical order?


lori wrote

I would argue it should be alphabetical order - mutualism being difficult to categorise is a point of its own, but then you run into the egoist-syndicalist current of Scotland where they took 'union of egoists' literally, and you can even find agorist syndicalists in the US (I hear from a friend in California), and so on. I think trying to divide the currents neatly is a lost task from the start.


shanc wrote

You just SPLIT THE PARTY!!!1


chokingvictim wrote

second one is kind of long but maybe it is because i am lazy

otherwise it is fine