I am a communalist, refering to the philosophy of social ecology as developed by Murray Bookchin. I am also a student at the Institute for Social Ecology.
If anyone has any questions on Murray Bookchin or communalism, I will do my best to answer them.
Recommended reading on communalism:
Other urls found in this thread:
communalismpamphlet.net
opendemocracy.net
scientificamerican.com
biehlonbookchin.com
en.wikipedia.org
revleft.com
biehlonbookchin.com
libcom.org
twitter.com
I like the idea of it. But how would it work in practice?
What if conflicts arise between councils and regions?
Is it possible to solve the environmental crisis at this point?
What if people have no interest in taking part?
How would things like space travel and other huge projects organised?
Do you belive social ecology and communalism is really that incompatible against left-wing markets
Deep ecology = trash
Porky
The two clear examples of a specifically communalist society are currently the Rojava federation in North Syria, and the Bakur region in South East Turkey (although the revolution in Bakur has been severely repressed).
An essential component of communalism is the concept of confederalism, which means that the councils would not only be networked across distances through councils, but also that they would be economically and politically interdependent.
Yes. We can use ecotechnologies to undo the damage done and being done to the biosphere. We need a revolution to ever live ecologically though, for as long as domination exists within human society, the idea of dominating nature will persist and lead us to ecological extinction.
To quote Bookchin:
"Having reviewed carefully the course of almost every major revolution in the Euro-American world, I can say with some knowledge that even in a completely successful revolution, it was always a minority of the people who attended meetings of assemblies that made significant decisions about the fate of their society."
We don't need everyone to participate, we just need enough people that we have a mass movement.
The image I'm posting right now is a diagram of the political system of Rojava. For specialised projects like space travel, I'd imagine if it were to happen it would be done under a relevant commission. Probably either a general science one or one specifically for space travel.
communalismpamphlet.net
>Communalism holds a set of social ethics that reflect the developmental trends in evolution. An objective ethics, meaning an ethics rooted outside the ambiguities of our imagination and perceptible to all, is important because it provides us with a set of principles from which to counter injustices and to guide our efforts for a truly free society void of any form of domination.
Oooh, boi.
Yes they are incompatible. Bookchin was adamantly in favour of the abolition of the market economy, and its replacement with a "moral economy", or that is an economy that is guided by rational and ecological standards.
do you like ocalan
That is correct. The philosophical underpinning and ethics of communalism is Bookchin's naturalist philosophy dialectical naturalism. However, a crucial difference is that Bookchin did not believe that ethics were present in nature (unlike ethical naturalists). To Bookchin, ethics could only exist in human society (what Bookchin called "second nature"). So there are ethical principles that we can comprehend as human beings, which are objectively a part of natural evolution and the logic that brought us into being. Two examples of these principles include the evolutionary direction towards complexity and diversity.
Good luck with your "objective ethics," Ayn Rand Bookchin! Please tell us when you achieved transcending the human condition in order to reach for what is out of the grasp of ordinary humans.
I have some criticisms of some of Ocalan's ideas, although I don't really understand them enough to give a completely clear critique of them (all of his works haven't even been translated into English yet). However, I support the revolutions happening according to his ideas that think that they're are the most important things occurring in the world right now.
Bookchin's naturalist ethics are grounded in principles of evolution that exist objectively. Unless you disagree with the directionality of evolution towards diversity (such as symbiosis between various organisms) and the emergence of evolutionary complexity, then you would have to acknowledge that the principles at the base of Bookchin's dialectical naturalism are indeed objective.
Were it not for these principles, we would not even have eucaryotic cells and thus complex life due to the non-existence of endosymbiosis.
>Ayn Rand Bookchin
What's up with the children of Russian Jewish immigrants and >muh objectivity meme?
Ayn Rand's capitalist ethics are grounded in principles of capitalism that exist objectively. Unless you disagree with the directionality of capital (such as circulation and accumulation) and the emergence of economic complexity, then you would have to acknowledge that the principles at the base of Ayn Rand's objectivism are indeed objective.
Were it not for these principles, we would not even have iPods and thus modern life due to the non-existence of the entrepreneur.
Bookchin's ethics are *grounded* in objective observations about the natural world. That's a good thing. Most people who leverage this postmodern critique haven't read even the most accessible summaries of his work, let alone the text itself
But capitalism is a spook, nature is not
Kant wasn't a postmodernist.
(Just more proof that the basic strategy of the philosophically illiterate is to stick "pomo" on anything they don't understand.)
One of the reason that Bookchin is important is because he directly confronts the bullshit pseudoscience of capitalist sociobiology which we're seeing a resurgence of
What does that even mean you retarded mongrel?
wew
Capitalism is a social system that is a part of natural evolution, not the other way around.
Bookchin was an enormous critic of post-modernism, and was thoroughly modernist. Go actually read Bookchin.
Everything that exists in human society is a part of natural evolution. Capitalism is certainly not rational or desirable, and it was certainly not inevitable throughout the course of History, but it exists as a part of human society and human society is a part of natural evolution.
Useless post, comrade. Do you even steelman bro?
So, like a pair of shoes, the fukushima catastrophe, the mathematical concept of the parallelogram, the onomatopoeia "boom," the emo subculture, your pet dog, and your mothers alcoholism are all equally parts of "natural evolution."
So what is this new, updated def. of evolution? Because Darwin certainly didn't talk about buildings, pairs of shoes, and math.
In other words: you commit category errors, bastardize the concept of evolution, just so you could desperately fit in everything into Nature, from economy to culture, from language to ideology, like a god damn hippy.
I'm most certainly not your comrade.
What you geniuses missed with this demonstration is this: just because something "objectively exists" (nature, capitalism, your mom) your reference to it is not part of that objectivity but outside of it, therefore it doesn't get a pass just because you referenced it.
This is how ideology functions, my god.
And what's up with this fucking nature worship, you pagans? Nature is fucking disgusting, its a heartless beast, its the original tyrant but worse: mindless.
it obv is the result of social structures caused by human design, its opposed to the spontaneous order found in nature
Interesting. Thank you
pretty sure he is misinterpreting bookchin, bookchin talks about a "second nature", which are basically social interactions found in humans
All right famrade I've got some questions:
1. How closely does Rojava adhere to Bookchin's model?
2. Why should I favor Communalism over anarchism or Marxism? The latter two have a century and a half of theory behind them from all over the world, whereas Communalism mostly just has Bookchin and Ocalan for theory and Rojava for practice (as far as I understand).
3. I don't really like going outside; is Communalism right for me?
Anyone making appeals to capitalism being natural etc. clearly have not read bookchin. Read the ecology of freedom.
You don't need to read Bookchin to know capitalism is warped and awful
communalism is in the tradition of both anarchism and communism, just a specific variant. I don't really see it in competition with these alternatives- but I do honestly prefer it myself. It's a specific plan and a strategy to bring it to life.
really?
can you surmise what Bookchin's core ideas for someone who knows nothing about him?
Fug. I explained that terribly. Capitalism is certainly not "natural", and is a thoroughly irrational phenomenon.
Within Rojava, the social structures that compose the MGRK and its commissions are being done according to the politics of libertarian municipalism. Within the MGRK (i.e. the assembly movement), the local cooperative economic system accounts for 80% of Rojava's total economy as of May 2016:
"According to Dr Alan Semo, PYD (the dominant political party in Rojava) representative based in the UK, the cooperative system contributes approximately 80 per cent to Rojava’s economy and the private sector represents 20 per cent of the economy. The Kongra Star co-ops, which are women-only, are independent of the Tev-Dem co-ops which are mixed. What this means in practice is that women are owners and members of the co-op but they may still employ male workers as they do in the Warshin sewing co-op I visited. The co-op has eight women owners and four male employees." - opendemocracy.net
The social conditions of today are thoroughly different from the era of the industrial revolution. The industrial proletariat, far from being the predominant class, has given way to a much larger petite-bourgeois stratum of workers since the end of the second world war. The working class has failed to fulfill its role assigned to it by the traditional working-class oriented left. Class tensions have not disappeared to be sure, but they have become less clear than they were in the era of the industrial revolution. However, the ecological crisis and need to remake society is a new trans-class issue that affects the entirety of the population (i.e. the whole 99%), such as mass ecological catastrophe.
Just talk about it on the Internet I guess. I enjoy reading Bookchin a lot, and they're very rewarding to study even if you're not intending to organise.
Why is this stated as if it is a scientific fact? Natural selection has no direction. Life on Earth has undergone several declines and upswings in terms of sheer biodiversity over its four billion+ history. Some species like Trichoplax likely came from "more advanced" eukaryote ancestors.
The idea that Earth's evolution is a continuous progression to "more advanced" or "more complex" stages is quite discredited in modern evolutionary biology. Evolution is not a race to the top. Evolution is a natural process, it can go in every which direction including up.
This is why sociologists shouldn't comment on biology.
This sounds a lot like capitalism. Even if it were 100% co-ops that wouldn't necessarily end exploitation; workers can still exploit themselves and each other.
Wrong. The role of increasing diversity in evolution is an objective fact. We can see this most clearly in the existence of symbiosis (i.e. mutualism at the ecocommunity level). Complexity to is objectively a part of evolution, and even emergences irrespective of natural selection pressures:
scientificamerican.com
They are not cooperatives in the sense that we understand them in the West (i.e. capitalist cooperatives). They are cooperatives operating within the context of the municipalization of the economy (i.e. bringing the means of industrial production under the control of the MGRK municipal assemblies):
lol
Not an argument. The early graphs that showed a spike in novel genera over the Phanerozoic have been revised continuously downward over the years, painting a much different picture of Earth's biodiversity than your dogma will let you admit.
Since it's clear you just regurgitate the opinions of "experts", this will be your last reply. Have fun with your circlejerk.
The basic pattern of the diversity of marine fossils shows an increasing number of taxa, punctuated by mass extinctions. One of the biggest (and unresolved) issues in paleontology is: are there really more species in the modern world? Or is there simply a better record for younger fossils? The latter idea has been termed "The Pull of the Recent" (note: The Recent (capitalized) was a traditional name for the present epoch of geologic time, now formally called the Holocene.)
There are a lot of merits to the concept of the Pull of the Recent:
Our knowledge of the biology of more recent fossil organisms is better, as they have modern representatives. Thus, we might be able to better recognize sexual or ontogenetic variation, or be able to identify species from very limited material.
Because of the stratigraphic principle of superposition, the youngest stuff is on top, so it is easier to get to!
Because they are younger, more recent sediments (and their fossils) are less likely to have been eroded, metamorphosed, or otherwise modified.
If you look at the Burgess Shale fauna it demonstrates both diversity of species and disparity of body plans, doing so from the Middle Cambrian.
500 million years ago the majority of Earth's complex taxonomic families were represented in Cambrian fauna.
The point is that with each geological period we see the emergence of diversity as a function of evolution.
extracing: bookchin.7z
Sounds like the perfect Leninist plan of action, then!
: ^ )
oh shit has anyone made one of these for "the resistance"
That's not what a spook is. Do anyone actually read Stirner on this board?
How did capitalism originate?
bump
bump
bumping this thread from the dead, aside from Janet Biel's & Peter Staudenmaier's book what are some texts that critiques New age spirituality and it's overlap with Fascism?
Also are there any critiques of Jung, Mircea Eliade & Joseph Campbell?
Why was Bookchin such a fucking idiot?
How so? Evola is clear evidence of this.
Ecology is reactionary. Stop supporting this.
revleft.com
Stop shilling this pseud's revleft posts. Thanks.
Stop shilling for the next brand of fascism. Thanks.
t. somebody that has never read or listened to bookchin.
Capitalism is contingent on infinite growth in a world with limited resources. Explain to me how I'm wrong.
Bookchin never said that nature could not be rationally understood. Indeed, most of his work is based on a scientific view of nature and how social relations effect it/relate to it. Social ecology my man. Bookchin was quite critical of people that mystified nature and practiced reactionary "goddess worship" of nature.
I won't bother quoting the rest of the post because it would be redundant. Notice how he never actually says anything regarding bookchin nor what he means by ecology.
tl;dr: actually read and understand bookchin before posting an ultimately irrelevant post that does absolutely nothing to critique his ideas.
Also, kill yourself my man :^)
t. anti-transhumanist reactionaries
I'll reiterate: kill yourself my man :^)
...
: ^ )
...
no u
biehlonbookchin.com
How can somebody who was so close to Bookchin be so wrong? Reminds me a bit of Engles tbh
Tactically, Engels didn't do anything wrong, especially on Marx's behalf.
What makes you say that?
bump
This.
The living elements of the system have however tendency towards higher complexity only if said complexity is beneficial to keeping those things alive.
The cybernetics law of requisite variety is what is at play here.
The better can a neural network mirror the objective reality in the living organism, the more chances has this organism to survive in ever changing conditions.
Human brain is so far best at this. To mirror the objective reality and steer oneself in directions that lead to preservation of life and not getting killed.
You are putting the cart in front of the horse.
Just because it happens does not mean it is the guiding principle.
Why was Bookchin such a white knight, and why does does "EPA" stand for "euro-proletarian acceleration?"
Care to elaborate?
The Ecology of Freedom talks about how men—and only men—destroy the environment.
libcom.org
wanna cite which section you're referring to?
You're not serious, right?
why wouldn't I be serious?
Don't be a pussy, cite your shit.
Go ahead and skip to chapter 3.