Hey anarkiddies and narchos

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the armchair.

[ineffectual pseudo-activity intensifies]

Well we lose money buying books too.

That's why you pirate them you faggot.

See:

But yes, you'll need to spend quite a portion of a month's wage to drive to your nearest furniture dispenser and purchase a ready-to-assemble armchair. If you know your way though, you can end up much cheaper with a second hand antique armchair, but you have to be aware of the risks this comes with.

*grumble grumble*

What about recruiting and trying to help comrades in third world countries where revolution is at the doorbell already?

While yes, all examples of actual working socialism have failed due to one reason or another, you seem to act like the second they collapsed, their mark on the world just vanished.

You ignore the many strides these revolutions made that would of never happened if we take your 'lets just wait and do nothing' approach.

For example:
The Paris commune was one of the first examples of the 8 hour working day, it's likely it would of taken much longer to become mainstream had it not been for them. Same with separation of church and state.

The USSR did countless shit, but mainly prevented Russia falling to Fascism around the revolutionary period, caused extremely rapid industrialization and leaps forward in scientific progress which could only have happened at such a rate under central planning and is literally the only reason we are not all speaking German right now.

Rojava is saving thousands of lives from the clutches of ISIS, and providing a home for many of all religions.

There are more examples but you get the point I'm trying to make.

Furthermore, I've always wondered. How do left-coms know when the /real/ revolution is coming? How do you know to stay in your armchair, and to actually take to the streets?

By existing.
As long as you live you're not gonna get that ass out of that chair.
Where's that webm of the guy forever stuck on his armchair when you need it?

So basically act all intellectual but just let a bunch of people with no understanding of theory lead the revolution

But this is not what I'm saying. Every single instance of failed revolutions I mentioned are moments in which there was an authentic revolution, and there was an opportunity to be taken. The point is that there has yet to be a taken opportunity with either lasting results, or any results that have not been recuperated by capital. You mention the 8 hour work day and, even though such things already were pushed by monarchists like Bismarck, where exactly does it lead us? Progress, yes, but to where? When we see that capital can itself amputate its excesses and assimilate "revolutions" as symptamic curing through reform, you know that there is a big problem.

I welcome all attempts, but what I welcome more is critique. And here I channel Marx:
It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. (Marx, in his letters to Arnold Ruge)

Discourse analysis. You know, that dialectical shit Marx for example did.

I've got you fam. Glad my OCs are taking off.

So what are you critiques and more importantly improvements for future revolutions?

I agree with many critiques. As far as recent events such as Rojava go, I very much agree with e.g. Dauvé: libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauvé-tl

Since there is also a slight return of enthusiasm towards the "social market" or "market socialist" ideal as of late, these analysises of past experiments like Yugoslavia are important to bear in mind for anyone attracted to them: insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/
transform-network.net/journal/issue-092011/news/detail/Journal/workers-self-management-in-yugoslavia-an-ambivalent-experience.html

I really liked your critique of anarchism. Pretty nice job ;)

You might be trolling (please be), but I know there's puerile people on the left who unironically think this.

Their elimination would be a poor call not upon the bourgeois as a whole but the few who hold the power to make those executive decisions - and even though they answer to much of the rest of the elite, they're all still much more interested in maintaining their personal power

Their continued existence is more than just "not a threat"

I don't know user, pre-agriculture society was pretty successful, some might extend the period of success to the early agriculture society if they really wanted to.

They won't. If it succeeds they'll have lost nothing and if it fails they'll critique from the armchair removed from any conflict. The fact is that while their critique is in some cases sound they won't EAO because it's impossible to do that from the armchair. Much as I think the anarchist demonstrations and marxist-snowflakist parties are mostly wheel spinning, they are more likely to recruit and educate proles than some wordy faggot isolated in an armchair ever will.

As I said before, conditions. And the anarchists back then are not the same as the ones we have now; stop bringing up past bullshit to justify present or future pretenses. Anarchism works, and we will make it work. So either help out or stay in your chair and rot.

>if it weren't for those [fucking Trotskyists/revisionists/Lenin dying], it wouldn't have been that bad!

so.. what do YOU suggest Mr Leftcom-shits-on-everyone ?

...

It was actually pretty good, fuck your gulags you apologetic fag.

Not an argument.

If only you were consistent in your opposition of gulags.

And your opposition against the state without calling it one.

Aussies actually have the benefit of knowing how to shitpost and being the kings of shitposting.

See pic:

If you won't take "read a fucking book because nobody knows jack shit yet" for an answer, go whip yourself for your sins or w/e and call me an armchair critic for not joining you in your pseudo-activity. Just don't come crying when you inevitably fail because you did not properly investigate material conditions of existence and a proper praxis to go along with it.

I'm glad I at least made it on the list.

What does IHOP have to do with Bordiga?

Read a book you cuck

Nothing. IHOP (diner chain famous for its pancakes) is usually referenced in connection to Anton Pannekoek ("pannekoek" being Dutch for "pancake"). Because he was also a part of the left communist faction against the Bolsheviks in the Third International, he is often linked to the rest of the communist left and so Bordiga, but the two couldn't be further apart politically.

TL;DR: IHOP is a Pannekoek meme, not a Bordiga meme (his are more like being called juvenile because Lenin called the left of communism as such in his famous critique: Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder).

You gave up on defending the quasi-Stalinist Spanish revolution already? And now you're linking us books on Victorian-era pirate fiction? Come on now, lad.

Stay cucked, I have never defended the he spanish revolution, it was infected with Marxists, no wonder they failed

This dumb cuck thinks illegalism andmcounter economics are fiction top kek!

I am glad the left is now n its deathbed, hopefully the working class will finally understand the sheer stupidity of centralized planned prodiction

Nice.

wew. Who does this remind me of? It was subverted by da joos/anti-communist revisionists/the damn yankees!

Yes, illegalism and counter-economics as wholesome systems reliant upon themselves are a fiction. Without the mercantile state to value the money and gold forms during the era of piracy, piracy would just be autistic LARPing on the seven seas.

Same tbh: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm

wew

Please do stick around fam.

Illegalim and counter economics had done more damage to global capital than your special snowflake version of marxism

Prove me the fuck wrong

Brotip; you cant and will grasp at straws instead

It's too bad Proudhon was a failure in pretty much everything he did, and that his ""socialism"" was completely destroyed by Marx for literally being Capitalism with a human face.

As opposed to your special snowflake anarchism?

Yes, such damage. The revolution is but one crack cocaine deal away, I'm sure. How could communist internationals even compare?

How about you give me some of your amazing examples instead of begging everyone to laugh at your austitic fantasy world in which illegalism is a substantial threat to global (let alone local) capital kek.

...

For real though, that's all it was.

Remember when in his "critique" of Marx he literally said that working class striking against capital should be refuted? Full petty bourg.

I'm a little reluctant to say that he failed at literally everything, because save for some parts of his conclusions "What Is Property?" and his general theory on property were interesting at the time (even if Marx took those things and made them much more coherent and challenging to contemporary economic theories of the time).

Capitalism will fall after I sell my latest batch of Chinese Norinco handguns, trust me on this one!

You're ever more retarded and annoying than a common AnCap. It's mind boggling.

Come on, user.
Drug sales on the internet aren't bringing revolution.

Fucking ignorant marxsists piss me off so much! I am glad their so called communism will always succumb to black markets

top kek faggot, lrn a thing or two about counter economics

Posts like these are just making anarchism look even worse than it already does, you idiot. You're literally using retarded ancap "logic" and axioms to defend your shitty and worthless ideas. Put off that fucking flag and stop embarassing us or just fuck off altogether.

...

"What is Property" is okay. None of his contributions were novel. His economic theory was lifted from the Ricardian socialist and French utopians like Sismondi (Sismondi worshipped petty commodity exchange just like Proudhon) while his theory of the State often recourses to moralizing despite some historical analysis. I may have been hyperbolic, but the Proudhon v Marx debate that often occurs between anarkiddos and Marxist is inane and theory-less.

Yes, what brought down the Paris Commune and the German revolution was black market porkies slamming dough on the black market, and not direct state violence motivated by social democratic, monarchist or fascist regimes backed by actual porkies.

This is bait, isn't it? You can't legitimately be this retarded. [/spoiler]Right?[/spoiler]

...

Yes, anarchist communism actually dented the Spanish bourgeoisie and forced it to launch a nationwide offense at it which lasted almost 4 years before it was finally defeated by the full might of its monarchy and a fascist dictator.

Meanwhile, you claim to be doing (as if you're really out there doing illegalism and aren't just a child making us look bad) something of value?

As I said before, just become an ancap already if you're so deadbent on doing little more than being a porky while pretending not to need a state for it.

This retard belives belives thee were no counterfiting and smuggling of goods in the soviet union that utterly fucked up the numbers involbed in the central plan

Top kek!

Also

Kek, didnt it last for a week, and yet you can belive you can make fun of the ukraine, rojava or spain

Top kek!

Counter economics have done way more to destroy capital relations than anything nazbol faggotry ever has

Friendly reminder some retarded nazbols even tried to take part in bourgeoise elections kek!

Again, counter economics does a lot more harm to capital relations than a fascists state that lasted only 4 years

Prove this statement wrong

...

Yes, the real nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union was Ivan and Sergej trading pints of vodka outside of the Soviet kolkhoz and sovkhoz markets.

For 2 months, and not before getting assaulted by the entirety of the French army with Austrian support.

I do both, fret not my autistic child.

You've yet to quantify this with more than your own claims, buddy. You can start giving us some examples and numbers any time now, but you already didn't 15 posts ago so I doubt you're here for more than just making yourself look like a total sperg.

This must be bait. Retardation like this is real, and it's here.

the State funds the black budget of its security apparatus with countereconomics. countereconomics are no threat to the state.

Constructive critique of Paris Commune from Marxist POV, for anyone interested (although I doubt anarcho-autist will be, but I digress): libcom.org/history/paris-commune-revolution-counterrevolution-paris-1870-1871

At this point we should assume annil posters are edgy faggots with nothing of value to say.

Ancoms are far superior to you marketfags.

Where are those states now?

I won't deny that Catalonia was flawed, but I feel like you're being unfair.

There were flaws, to be sure. But unlike some socialist uprisings, this one was, in my opinion quite successful as the means of production were handed to the people.

The problem with these dictatorships of the proleteriat is that they do, indeed, lead to dictatorships, which is something, in my opinion that should best be avoided.

Our main objective is to seize private property and to decentralise the state. Considering workers co-ops are more effective than privately owned companies, this is an indication that anarcho-syndicalism, in my view can indeed work. Hell, agriculture, health and literacy improved substantially under anarchist catalonia.

anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI8.html

thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

The problem with "dictatorship" of the proleteriat, in my view, is that the dictators aren't necessarily willing to give up their power, and this could lead to shit which we saw in the USSR and China, i.e state socialism. Thus, the dictatorship of the proleteriat becomes a new state in it of itself, with the workers not controlling the means of production, and instead resulting in a totalitarian regime which would be worse than the evidence you have presented.

In my opinion, I doubt sitting back and waiting for revolution to happen is a bit a shit move. What should be done is that workers co-ops need to be formed. My plan is start a workers co-op of film makers, architects, artists and animators and make art related to anarcho-syndicalism and films based off political ideologies, as a way to critique capitalism and imperialism.

The Free territory and Catalonia were crushed by Bolsheviks. Rojava's playing the same political game as the USSR did in WW2, but make no mistake, it is the real power in its territory.

Agree about Chiapas and Freetown Christiania though.

Nice selfie

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yet you have the audacity of making fun of the ukraine or rojava

I dont have to spoonfeed you shit, you can google "counter-economics" and start from there. You claim to know about the topic at hand yet you always demonstrate to be utterly clueless, too bad a subpar quality webm from kapitalism 101 cant save you this time

Counter economics are a true danger against the bourgeoise state. Which is why they spend millions of taxpayer money trying to destroy any organization involved with them, you are a hack and are also incapable of understanding how any revolutionary movement, anarchist or not will have to make use of it

By makimg fun of it not only do you prove that that you lack any knowledge about the topic at hand, but also that you lack any revolutionary theory, let me know about your proletariat revolution that dosnt make use of an alternative currency or stops paying taxes, good luck with that

Are you crazy? Nothing better than watching marxists circlejerk about how something was not "true socialism"

Sure they are, which is why every ancom movement can't get away of market relations, right?

Catalunya had its own internal market

Countereconomics are merely a tool, its no suprise the state makesmuse of it

The bourgeois state also makes use of planned production for the allocation of goods

Historical Materialism is wrong and Marxism is seriously flawed
libcom.org/library/were-we-wrong-murray-bookchin

Like pottery.

I'd love to actually talk to a Bookchinite who does more than just spam links or PDFs and dodges any response with more links and PDFs, but in the meantime I must know, have you read this: bbk.ac.uk/bih/lcts/summer-school-2015/Springer Commentary - David Harvey.pdf or not? It'll make my first points much more precise and critical.

...

Haha, reaching a new level of ragequitting and denial

Pic related u

...

...

Gives your examples of iweegalism and counter-"economics" relevantly impeding capital any day now, fam.

Here's your very own no u pic related.

It is serving as the national capitalist in this case.

Didn't we have this conversation already? The class reductionist view of Marx is a strawman that confuses rhetoric for philosophy. The inability of the proletariat to organize is why Marx's closest followers conceived of the Vanguard.

It's like he never read Marx's critique of the way capital uproots traditional production.

I've been in contact with a geneticists named Joseph Graves. He's African American and spent quite a lot of time critiquing Rushton and Jensen, at one point actually debating Rushton at a panel on race in 1997. I have some material for you to add to your race realism copypasta if you're interested.

I've read some of the article. Left-com's seem obsessed with the historical materialist part of marxism especially, which is not the part of marxism bookchin had in mind when he said we should take the best of both traditions.

Hundred percent, send it through

I'm Bat'ko BTW, and I was a bit amused to see my anthem used in OPs thread

Counterfiting money
Tax evasion
Alternative currency

Keep dancing!

Post all the "theory" you want, but actually offer something in discussion. I've read through a bunch of Bookchin's critiques of Marxism, and I want to talk to someone who agrees with him instead of a piece of paper or the same piece of paper on a screen. Put some effort into your convictions.

David Harvey is not a left communist…

Did you even get to the first part of the text: the part where the author, their credentials and positions are located?

That is not the impression one gets when actually reading Bookchin and his critiques. Much of Bookchin's points seem to indeed put primacy on the critique of HisMat and he raises against it a naturalist-ecological discourse to replace the historical narrative.

Why do anarchists spell counterfeiting that way?

I don't know if you realized but someone responded to your "Debunking Stormfags" article. You issue a response. I looked through his blog and noticed what I thought I would. He constantly switches between which definition of race to use. He cites zoology in support of phenotypic (which he rails against for being a strawman conception of race in other post), Dawkins for taxonomic (not withstanding respect to Dawkins, he fails to realize taxonomic conceptions of race were dropped for a reason) and clusters for population based (which I have engaged him on and am currently awaiting a reply). The constant switching between different definitions to support the vague conception of three "races" is something you should consider when updating the copypasta or issuing a reply. I'll post the PDF's now.

Yes, this is what your ideal spergouts against capital look like, we know.

Now, please give us examples and numbers of this actually doing something to ultimately unroot capitalism once and for all.

What makes bookchin's work "theory" and not theory?

And he also sent me his review of Something Wade's book on race: evolution-institute.org/article/book-review-great-are-wades-errors-in-a-troublesome-inheritance-genes-race/

Grammar rules are authoritarian

English is my second language

Now its your turn, feel free to properly adress

Its a marxistbtradition to undermine everything that does not fit their religio.. I mean dialetics

Could you flip the second one so it's vertical and not horiztonal?

It's more of a jab at the fact that slinged PDFs and links do nothing to properly defend one's position. You have to actually put your theory to use in discourse, lest it not just be "theory" (hey guise here r da links lolz xd). Otherwise, it's on the same level as those "read Bordiga" memers we have who really do little more than instruct us to read some book but never argue their case against anyone.

Here is a crazy idea: If you think leftcom is a stupid and confusing term, and it is, STOP CALLING YOURSELF LEFTCOM. Otherwise you are an obscurantist.

I'm offering a critique of the one of the core principles of left-communism. I'm not afraid to admit that I can't put it better then the man himself. If you can't be bothered to read it that's your problem, but I consider pretty funny that the armchair-leftist who does little more then read dislikes the idea of reading in this case.
never suggested as such, merely addressing the OP and his ideology
So because bookchin critiques and ultimately rejects hismat, he is including hismat as the part of marxism that he wants to keep? What?

As expected

I'd use a Bordigist flag if there was one. I'm not the one who decided on the draft of available flag; that's the BO. The leftcom flag simply comes closest, even if there's no such thing as left communism as more than a historical assemblage of various communist opposition groups.

I could, but couldn't you as well? Anyway, are you going to respond to the post? I think you should. These guys thrive in having the last word.

Funny coming from they guy who spams "poverty of philosophy" and the critique of gotha everytime he spergs about market socialism

Where is it? The first thing you did ITT was say "X is wrong, here's a libcom link".

And it should once again be emphasized, if you weren't aware already or hadn't read the thread, that there is no such thing as:
>one of the core principles 'of left-communism
which once again is just a historical assemblage of communist opposition.

Literally all you need to do to properly address me is to address Marxist communism, which I thought you were already aware of when you posted a link (without any of your own arguments to accompany it, but I digress) featuring Bookchin about historical materialism (a Marxist communist theory).

I asked you if you had read a text by David Harvey critiquing Bookchin's "Listen, Marxist!", and you said yes, then going on about left communism (as if it wasn't a debate between precisely Bookchin's communalism and Marxist communism).

I was very specific in mentioning that one gets the idea that Bookchin's biggest qualm with Marx is the historical narrative as guiding force in human society instead of the naturalist-ecological one… The piece ("Listen, Marxist!") which is the one countered in Harvey's "Listen, Anarchist!"…

If he starts posting race realism bullshit again, it's not that big of a deal, I've got plenty of sources which give a socio-economic explanation of low intelligence.

scientificamerican.com/article/lower-iq-in-children-linked-to-chemical-in-water/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18038039

Futhermore, just because he has the last word in and posts a blog doesn't mean he has won.

The evidence still stands.

...

Cheers fam. These sources could be used to debunk any race realist. So you're pretty gud tbh.

I agree, but this stuff spreads like wildfire on the internet. If you use the discord, I'd like to work on writing a proper critique of race realism that incorporates this guys arguments.

He has a blog called "not politically correct'". You can see his response here: debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

Funny coming from the guy who's instinctual first response to the question
is to deflect and reply with

Could you guys have a new debunking stormfags thread with the new information soon?

Send you an email.

Offering Bookchin's critique is somehow not offering a critique?

All of which subscribe to HisMat. You're dodging the contents of the article. So because you poorly regurgitate the arguments of Bordiga, Dauvé and Marx I should attempt to do the same? Much better to simply let the man speak for himself in the coherent manner that he is famous for then to poorly imitate it.
And my point is that the historical narrative driving left-com inaction on this board is fundamentally flawed and incorrect, as bookchin points out in the article I linked. Also, it's hilarious that you accuse me of providing no argument by providing said link and then immediately afterward provide a pdf as you're argument against bookchin.

Will do.

It isn't. Once again, give us a critique in your own words so that there can be discourse. I can't critique Bookchin himself, but I can critique you and your ideas, and you're not (I'm sure) a carbon copy of his writings, are you?

Yes, Marxists subscribe to historical materialism…

You haven't offered me anything to reply to you on, once again. All you gave me was a link.

I've yet to argue against anything you've said, because all you've done is delay the point at which you actually give us an argument by posting a link and then confusing us with semantics.

I've already read him. Now speak for him. Why are you so hesitant to actually argue anything? Prove your convictions are worth in discourse; raise your argument against historical materialism or anything Marx, but don't just sling around links.

Wut? Left coms (Marxists) do not subscribe to vulgar accelerationism; the idea that everything will just magically fall into place if we let it happen. They, like all Marxists, subscribe to critique and not just doing the first thing that pops into our heads without any consideration for critique (Marxists pioneered this concept called "utopianism" to define this very form of pseudo-activity).

Bookchin's critique is much more sophisticated than "Marxists supposedly think that just waiting for communism to happen because of HisMat", and you're not giving him enough credit for his actual critique and it seems you didn't quite grasp Bookchin's argument itself, which was actually aimed at seeing historical narratives as fallacious and inconsiderate of ecological discourse.

All I said along with this link is: "have you read this?", because if so, it will make replying to your eventual critique much different (I wouldn't have to use the same devastating arguments Harvey raises). Why? Because it's the most current and popular answer to Bookchin's attack on Marx, and the most effective. I'd still much rather actually convince you by talking to you directly, but if you'd read that popular piece the content would have changed.

Gonna peace out for today. Getting late and I have to work tomorrow. Talk to you then, pce.

good work. for a second there I actually thought you weren't FBI. keep it up!

How so?
I certainly can agree with the contents of the article, which you haven't read or address.
A link which contains an article which contain a critique which you fail to address because either you can't or are not intellectually honest enough to do so.
Except that's what precisely you are doing by refusing to address the contents of the article and saying that it's somehow not a critique/argument. You've given nothing to indicate that you have read him or the article I provided, merely argued semantics while deflecting the fact by accusing me of arguing semantics.
Accelerationism was never mentioned. A false critique resulting in inaction, and never once did I say that Marxists are merely waiting for communism. If you have actually read the critique, and are now acknowledging as a critique when literally the same post you said it wasn't a critique, then address said critique instead of arguing in bad faith.
If it's so devastating then why have you not provided your version of the argument, in your own words already then as you insist I do? Stop arguing in bad faith, stop deflecting from the fact that you're arguing semantics for the most part, and be intellectually honest and do as you preach.

Ily

I'm probably just wasting my time. Left-Coms never argue in good faith.

Woah now, not all of us. Remember that Marx never once uttered that term.

I know leftcoms never do anything but have you tried researching rather than pulling random shit off biased google searches? You don't even have to leave your chair.
None of that shit ever happened and you know it.

wew.

I've asked you several times to raise your own arguments from Bookchin and make his theory talk for you, not the PDF. I'm not going to line by line deconstruct and entire PDF in a critique against a Bookchinite, and surely not on an imageboard.

You now have the catch 22 of never truly doing more than linking a PDF and me going in on your poor interpretations to say "hah, but you were the one arguing semantics all along!".

It is surely the kind of vulgar thing you imply when you say
– as if the crux of ultra-leftism lies in doing nothing and letting things just unfold and happen.

Idem for you, and you're the one who barged in ITT, first thing to do being say "x is wrong, here's a PDF to argue it for me".

It seems I'm not going to shake any more substance out of you than an automatic regurgitator of weblinks and PDF files, so I'll just prepare and post a general critique of Bookchin now.

But first:

wew'd again!

1/2

So the first qualm any Marxist worth his salt with have with Murray Bookchin is his explicit rejection of class struggle as the main motivator of history. This can be seen in passage such as this from "Thoughts on Libertarian Municipalism":
Passages such as this not only highlight his rejection of class struggle as the main motivator, but also display that in his communalist model, multiple classes would remain existent
– "citizens' assemblies" being a civic level of his larger libertarian municipalist model.

All these things do not simply imply a rejection of class as a necessary-to-tackle block, but set the general tone for the content of his idea: that different classes remain existent within his model, and that they should collaborate on a civic level in his libertarian municipalist milieu.

It doesn't matter: communism is a proletarian movement, guided by the historical narrative of the working class being the necessary negative of capitalism which constantly contradicts it. The only consequence of permitting other classes a place in these "citizens' assemblies" is compromise to the existing order and class collaborationism, chaining the working class to interests other than its own. If Bookchin sees these assemblies as preceding communism, then they should be assemblies that are expressions of worker power i.e. exclusively proletarian. If he sees them as a model for the future (which is fundamentally an idealist assumption) then he sees classes as existing in his "communalist society" which means it is not a communistic, let alone a post-capitalistic, one.

Let me reiterate:
because yes: Bookchin, in tactically abandoning class struggle as the motor of history, does not even have a proper basis for his supposed post-capitalistic model. He falls here into the same trap utopians fell into and continue to fall into: that we can solve the problems of capitalism with as many layers of representation and delegation as possible.

Now, I have no idea who this "Marxist" is that he's trying to make Listen(!). The things he says about Marx are wrong, and the things he says about Marxism are also wrong when they're not complete caricatures.

And on the Bookchin-Marx relation, I always found it interesting that he raised up notions of natural dialectics, when Marx and Engels themselves uncovered natural discourse themselves in their own day, e.g.: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ (literally titled "dialectics of nature").

2/?

So on to dialectical naturalism, AKA putting as primary motor of history not a struggle of classes, a struggle of the ecological milieu.

Not only is this pure idealism: to raise in front of man's devastating influence of nature the prevalence of an ecological discourse, but it is also completely circular and self-defeating. In essentializing natural discourse, we see an abandonment of any sort of structuralist view of human society in favor of a theory based on ecological determinism (inevitable consequence of putting primacy on nature, in and of itself a thing man dominates, and if anything nature is entirely subject to man's architectural prowess as a species).

The major issue I have with Bookchin anarchists – speaking as someone who was first influenced by Bookchin and his social ecology ideas – is their willingness to involve themselves, almost deeply, in parliamentary democracy. This is sort of the double-edged sword of Bookchin's dual power idea, wherein you're trying to build an alternative, but you also put a heavy emphasis on near-term goals, almost to the sacrifice of your long-term outlook. The consequence is that if you're continuously involving yourself in bourgeois politics, there is no time or effort actually expounded in building the other power that is supposed to be challenging those institutions in the first place.

Nothing wrong with supporting immediate measures which lessen the misery of the working class, but this is often misconstrued as "doing something now" which a lot of anarchists (and Marxists, for that matter) concern themselves with. You're not actually doing anything now, where it regards working class liberation. The other problem is that there are a lot of social ecologists involved in the Green Party, or in other small, insignificant electoral parties, and ignore the fact that the way the system is set up almost always precludes "being involved" or making any sort of significant gains. It's all just wheel spinning.

The other problem I have is that these particular followers are really prone to utopianism. It's not as bad as the people who take parecon dogmatically, but it approaches that point.

I have known some Bookchin-inspired anarchists from the libcom forums. What will immediately strike you when you converse with these anarchists is the total lack of clarity, especially with regards to bourgeois "democracy", imperialism and the difference between the left wing of capital (Trotskyists, "post-Maoists", etc.) and the communist perspective. They dislike Chomsky (I never expected this, but looking at his followers this is surprisingly the case), but in spite of this they will in the end support the same politics in light of "voting for the lesser evil" and "supporting local initiatives", thus ending up in the same cultish "extreme left" camp that they supposedly want to avoid. Few of them are truly internationalist and some will openly "critically" support Rojava or any other regime or national liberation movement that pays lip service to local autonomy while doing next to nothing for any emancipatory anti-capitalist politics.

I talked shit about Trotskyites just a paragraph ago, but Trotsky himself surprisingly provided an amazing critique of parliamentarism and the democratic principle, see: youtube.com/watch?v=uwgJidatmH8. It comes from a different angle than Bordiga did before him, but is good food for thought regardless for the libertarian left ranks who want a real challenge.

3/3

If you'd even looked up his credentials you'd find out he not only isn't, but if you'd actually read the book you'd also find out he also critiques Trotskyist exploits on the ground in Spain. Seeing as it's apparent you've done neither, I feel very comfortable in wew'ing hard at
and I will wew at it loudly.

bump

wew harder lad.

And as I say before, it doesn't matter either way. Anarchism forward.

Calm the autism exhausts there, fallacy man.

Discursive bump.

As I said before it doesn't matter. Why so autistic?

Wait, I never said that? I said the forced labour camps were trot propaganda. And they are.

In your own autistic words

That's what I meant, trotskyist propaganda, by trotsky, who made it up. Not the author you're citing. lrn2read dumbass.

Seidman makes no use of Trotsky's citations; Trotsky himself isn't even mentioned (the Trotskyist critiques of CNT-FAI and the United Front are mentioned, though). It's all first hand accounts of the events, directly taken from CNT members and those who lived through their regime.

Sick cop out. Give us another fictional work about Victorian-era piracy, why don't you. This thread needs a lot more replies anyways.

Holy shit do you have no reading comprehension at all? I said the lie was made up by Trotsky, I didn't say Seidman was citing them.
See again:

The CNT's concentration camps are not the product of Trotskyist propaganda.

In fact, as Workers against Work displays, they first came to light through direct mentions of disgusted CNT members (whom the CNT's "anti-fascist" militias suppressed for being "too revolutionary", see: international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/SpainBil.htm, which also shows sources that are direct accounts of ex-CNT members and overseas anarchists who critiqued the CNT's methods).

I'm glad you're keeping the thread alive, but I'm gonna ask you to follow my humble demands and give us some pirate fiction to ponder upon.

What did he mean by this?

Cheeki breeki, who does this remind me of?

It isn't. Soviet expats also left the derelict hovel of an illiberal democracy at the barrel of a gun to greener pastures. Even actual communists, or rather especially actual communists, like Dunayevskaya and her comrades.

Why do you think anyone cares what you would've done? The point stands: there's CNT documents and direct admissions of CNT members saying the CNT raised up a state structure, created a state police and had dissenters and "anti-anarchists" locked up in gulags reeducation camps. Once again, who does this remind you of?

I also can't help but kek at the fact that you went from shitting on ancoms and blaming every failure of the Spanish revolution on muh Marxist infiltrators to unironically doing NO Us and dismissing everything as propaganda.

Now please follow your end of the bargain and provide us with some pirate fiction, lest you actually want more (You)s at least.

The process of libertarian municipalism is just that, a process. It does not promise to instantaneously destroy class, but rather it is the process by which capitalism and state power is subsumed to that of democratic will resulting ultimately in the destruction of both (capitalism/state). Just because this process does is not instantaneous does not mean that it will not result in classlessness, which bookchin does indeed advocate for ultimately. However, bookchin does not consider the proletariat as a revolutionary class do to the fact that the structure of businesses regiments people to accept hiearchy and domination. Communalism is not communism, nor does it pretend to be. As one user put it quite well,

continuing on to the rest of your post

You have a number of misconceptions regarding bookchin. Bookchin calls for producing things for the use value, not exchange value, same as marx does. Libertarian Municipalism is not merely the process of changing the realm of politics but the process of "municipalizing the economy".
Qualify this statement. What specific claims of his against marxism are false?

Another comrade in the communalist thread put it quite well.

>We come here to a breakthrough approach to a municipalist economics that innovatively dissolves the mystical aura surrounding corporatized property and nationalized property, indeed workplace elitism and "workplace democracy." I refer to the municipalization of property, as opposed to its corporatization or its nationalization. . . . Libertarian municipalism proposes that land and enterprises be placed increasingly in the custody of the community–more precisely, the custody of citizens in free assemblies and their deputies in confederal councils. . . . In such a municipal economy–confederal, interdependent, and rational by ecological, not simply technological, standards–we would expect that the special interests that divide people today into workers, professionals, managers, and the like would be melded into a general interest in which people see themselves as citizens guided strictly by the needs of their community and region rather than by personal proclivities and vocational concerns. Here, citizenship would come into its own, and rational as well as ecological interpretations of the public good would supplant class and hierarchical interests." - dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/libmuni.html
credit goes to

tfw you really like a Left Communism but they think you're a creep because of the people you hang out with.

Anarchy

What about aussie leftcoms? ::DDD

Don't exist.

While no formal leftcom groups exist in austrailia there are a handful of sympathizers here. There was a move a while back to create an australian section of the ICC (not that I'm a fan of the fucking ICC) but nothing ever came of it.

en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/04/internationalist-worker

What's wrong with the ICC?

Rminder OP is a redditor

Reminder that you're a faggot mutualist who's using the wrong flag.

Wrong, mutualism is anarchy, anarchy is mutuqlism

Nigga nihilists aren't mutualists.

I am a nihilist and that is why I am a mutualist

…and you call other people redditors?

Good good, keep using the flag. You give more excuse to make Stirnerists look like idiots.

OP posts the same shit on reddit, so yes
8ch.net/leftypol/res/1311043.html

OP may be a crossboard shitposter, but you're a lolbert retard larping as a leftist. Go sell some bitcoins faggot.

Try opening a book faggot

You first faggot.

I already read the last two tbh

And apparently you've learned nothing. Read Capital.

Nice idealism.

Nice non-argument