Criticisms of Communalism

What are some of your criticisms of communalism? The most I hear about it is in reference to Rojava.

Well Bookchin explicitly broke with anarchism when he developed Communalism so the anarchist critique is that it preserves the state, just in a different, more localized form.

He did break with anarchism, but he didn't ever stop believing that communalism was essentially stateless. His break with anarchism mostly had to do with it's individualism, not it's statelessness

I know that Communalism claims to be stateless, I'm saying that some anarchists argue it isn't (although I don't have much of an opinion myself).

It's not utopian enough for all the strict doctrinarians here.

I don't think "it's a state" is a criticism, only a way of saying that it's not anarchistic. An anarchistic criticism would be to apply an anarchist analysis and how a communalist state would fail to produce positive or lasting change.

bum for interest

Well, this is my biggest criticism of Bookchin:

STOP PRETENDING YOU'RE NOT AN ANARCHIST!

Bookchin was never actually a minarchist, indeed, he took a hard-line stance on interacting with parlairmentary politcs, pointing to it as the main reason the CNT/FAI failed.

However, he was soo annoyed with types like Bob Black that he felt that calling his own movement of Social Ecology for "anarchism" would only hurt him and his chances.

:^)

Literally statist critique of all anarchism kekek

I can't blame him, Bob Black is a narcing cunt whose writing is as devoid of substance as a reality TV show.

Really? None of the many "intellectuals" on here have anything to say?

Go to bed, Kane

it's just like the soviet system, pretty cool for me

literally who

Minus the shitty vanguardism and authoritarianism, sure. Communes actually have power instead of being controlled by the vanguard.

I have the same question for all ultra-localist x-treme federalists. That is, how do you deal with wealth differences in terms of natural resources available? I think oil for instance should not belong to some specific group who happens to live closest to it.

natural resources are more or less owned by the whole of the society, not just whichever individual commune happens to be sitting on top of it

it's a form of bourgeoisie nationalism. there is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Rojava. You have business owners and capitalists. The PKK/YPG is far too accommodating to US Imperialism, and hostile to the anti-imperialist communist party supported Assad government. It's pretty much a pentagon proxy by now. Must be due to its lack of authentic class character.

Meaningless drivel. You're still clinging to false theories and failed praxis. The revolution will not take the form of a DotP because the proletariat has proven itself to not be a revolutionary class. The workplace serves to regiment people to accept hierarchy and domination, not to overthrow it. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that the economy is already mostly (80%) either cooperatives or collectivized. Assad is not "anti-imperialist", he simply serves the interests of a different empire, Russia. To say that the SDF is too accommodating when they have given the US nothing and merely taken support is absurd.

Guess the CIA is revolutionary now, who could have guessed? Syria is an independent nation. The people of Syria are merely defending their self determination against Western Colonialism and Imperialism. The FSA, and to a lesser extent the SDF, are loosely organised groups, no real leadership, which makes them susceptible to infiltration by islamists and NATO operatives. You got the YPG posing with the same US Marines who were killing muslims in Iraq less than a decade ago.

Let me guess, petit-bourgeois intellectuals will lead us this time?

Your argument continues to lack any substance. The CIA funds the FSA, not the SDF, and even if they did it would not change my point. The DFNS has given nothing to the US. To say that the SDF is a "loosely organized group", and therefore akin to the FSA when it is ultimately responsible to the self government, and drastically different ideology merely serves to parade your ignorance on the matter. The people of Syria is not the equivalent of the Assad government, which can only described as a Ba'atist dictatorship.

Give me an instance where intellectuals did not lead the way towards social change. To dismiss all intellectuals as "petite bourgeois" is ridiculous. Marx was an intellectual. Kropotkin was a prince and an intellectual. Lenin, Stalin etc etc etc. All intellectuals. If you want to dismiss Marx as merely a "petite bourgeois intellectual" then I don't know what to tell you.

the sdf is essentially colonial in character. Greater Kurdistan would be a 2nd geopolitical Israel and would further the interests of imperialism throughout the middle east. The petit bourgeoisie managers of Rojava will end up siding with capitalism if there is no real proletarian power

is it so hard to make a substantive argument? you can't even adequately address my previous points, instead you move on to even more absurd claims. The DNFS is not merely kurdish, in fact the law demands ethnic representation of kurds, assyrians, arabs, turkmen etc. Have you even read the Social contract?

FACT: majority of Syrian Workers support Assad and the territorial integrity and self determination of Syria against fascism and imperialism.

...

No one should ever work.

Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.—BB

...

I'd argue that suffering comes from living in a world where people still unironically quote Bob Black.
:^)

pretty much this

Good thread bump 11

TEV-DEM is the vanguard and the PYD is the dominant party within. Communes are able to control and manage their own affairs but power rests on the higher levels, which are dominated by the PYD. Keep in mind it's the PYD which actually organizes the military and the social contract/ constitution of the federation stipulates that the Self Defense Forces (YPG, YPJ, etc.) are the only legitimate military force in the Cantons. There are local militias but they're dependent on the PYD for arms, training, and legitimacy.


Guess the attempted German and Russian revolutions were just a collective hallucination.
Have you worked a day in your life? People hate this shit.


You're historically illiterate. Lenin and Trotsky weren't even in Russia when it all began in February 1917. Luxemburg, similarly, was in prison for most of the Great War, and did not start anything herself. Yet each found their way to the revolutionary forefront because they supported the most radical movement of the proletariat towards revolution.


That is entirely probable.

We've discussed this before. A coalition/social movement is not the same thing as a vanguard party. Power does indeed rest with the communes since the communes ultimately determine who is in the legislative assembly. The PYD does not even have a majority at that level. The SDF is composed of more then just the YPG, and funnily enough since the Turks don't want the US to give arms to the Kurds, the YPG gets said arms through SDF affiliates. You completely ignore the existence of the "security forces" within each canton as well.

Russia was a backwater with a small proletarian class, and the German proletariat post WW1 opted to embrace fascism instead of communism. Hate it, but that does not mean they do not accept it.

You're being disingenuous. The ideas, the theory, that lead to the revolution came from intellectuals.

Just plain lazy tbh

Yeah, and you couldn't refute a damn thing. You spent the entire thread whining about how none of what I argued actually mattered. Pathetic tbh.
The PYD is in TEV-DEM and guess who have a collective majority?

The rest of your post isn't worth the effort.

This level of intellectual dishonesty is disappointing but not surprising. The Legislative Assembly, i.e. the body that rights policy, is not controlled by PYD. It's in no way reminiscent of a vanguard party historically.

Writes*. It's a little late over here.

It's quite reminiscent of a vanguard, as we've discussed, but I won't bother replying to you in future. Low effort bitching doesn't interest me.

And yet you have been unable to adequately demonstrate how, despite your claims. I'll remind you that it is you who is "bitching", considering that you are the one making the claim that they are a vanguard to begin with. Indeed, it is low effort bitching as well since you can't even be bothered to formulate an adequate response