ECO-STALINISM

I realize this, and am unironically Stalinist because of it.

whoops, shitposting flag

...

bump

...

.

lol your a fucking retard dude

Best Korea is already one.

NK is shit but Cuba is basically ecological Leninism.

we should have massive solar/wind farms and processing biofuel from dead kulaks

solar and wind is good too, but nuclear energy will continue to be a massive source.

Utopian pipe dream, humans are not responsible or moral.

daily reminder that the nazi's were the first green party

kys tbh famrade

yeah right

The one good think they did was save the last old growth forest in Europe. Stalin was going to have it cleared when the Germans invaded.

There is literally no logic behind this. It is a thesis with no defense.

I agree. I don't see why decentralized direct democracy would suddenly lead to people caring for the environment. Eco-Stalinism would actually be a more reasonable approach as the state could simply gulag anyone who failed to adhere to the environmental standards.

Ecofascist pls go

Actually there is volumes written about this subject. The idea that our ecological problems are fundamentally social problems rooted in the emergence of hierarchy is the fundamental principle of Bookchin's social ecology. Here is a good introductory essay that discusses these ideas: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html

But they are clearly the results of capitalist exploitation of nature for profit. We could live in the most horrid dictatorship and no one would be burning fossil fuel if cost and profit were not motives.

The idea of dominating nature would continue though, as human society projects its social relations onto nature.

"We must emphasize, here, that the idea of dominating nature has its primary source in the domination of human by human and the structuring of the natural world into a hierarchical Chain of Being (a static conception, incidentally, that has no relationship to the evolution of life into increasingly advanced forms of subjectivity and flexibility). The biblical injunction that gave to Adam and Noah command of the living world was above all an expression of a social dispensation. Its idea of dominating nature can be overcome only through the creation of a society without those class and hierarchical structures that make for rule and obedience in private as well as public life. That this new dispensation involves changes in attitudes and values should go without saying. But these attitudes and values remain vaporous if they are not given substance through objective institutions, the ways in which humans concretely interact with each other, and in the realities of everyday life from childrearing to work and play. Until human beings cease to live in societies that are structured around hierarchies as well as economic classes, we shall never be free of domination, however much we try to dispel it with rituals, incantations, ecotheologies, and the adoption of seemingly "natural" ways of life.

The idea of dominating nature has a history that is almost as old as that of hierarchy itself. Already in the Gilgamesh Epic of Mesopotamia, a drama that dates back some 7,000 years, the hero defies the deities and cuts down their sacred trees in his quest for immortality. The Odyssey is a vast travelogue of the Greek warrior, albeit a more canny than a heroic one, who essentially dispatches the nature deities that the Hellenic world inherited from its less well-known precursors. That elitist societies devastated much of the Mediterranean basin as well as the hillsides of China provides ample evidence that hierarchical and class societies had begun a sweeping remaking and despoliation of the planet long before the emergence of modern science, "linear" rationality, and "industrial society," to cite causal factors that are invoked so freely in the modern ecology movement. Second nature, to be sure, did not create a Garden of Eden in steadily absorbing and inflicting harm on first nature. More often than not, it despoiled much that was beautiful, creative, and dynamic in the biotic world, just as it ravaged human life itself in murderous wars, genocide, and acts of heartless oppression. Social ecology refuses to ignore the fact that the harm elitist society inflicted on the natural world was more than matched by the harm it inflicted on humanity; nor does it overlook the fact that the destiny of human life goes hand-in-hand with the destiny of the nonhuman world." - Bookchin

Who cares about dominating nature in some abstract sense? Gilgamesh can chop down a hundred trees and then piss in a river, that's not a serious problem for anyone. The actual threat is climate change threatening the existence of human civilization which is a result of specific processes, not a general "domination" of nature.

Bookchin literally hates all of these things because they are reactionary and basically equate to genocide and anti-humanist bullshit. His main tenent of ecology is that humanity has to advance itself to a point where it can be beneficial to the environment through technology, and argues the only way to do this is decentralization, as a hierarchal society would eventually destroy the environment.
His text "Remaking Society" goes over most of his views (PDF should be in Bookchin thread)

This ONE CHART completely BTFOs Bookchin. Bookchintards CAN'T refute this.

wew lad

...

compared to what, Rojava? wew lad

You have intrigued my interests.

Now THIS is an ideology I can fully put myself behind! Bookchin ETERNALLY BTFO'd. Time to get working on an Eco-Stalinist flag, boys.

...

The trees have spoke to me.
We must gulag Bookchin posters.

Domination of nature has been a problem for much longer then the lifetime of capitalism. Sumeria is probably the earliest example

False equivalency considering the amount of time that rojava has been around and the fact that rojava is under a more potent embargo then Cuba is or was, but that ignoring the fact that Cuba is a state capitalist country that is adopting free market liberal economics.

Eco-Stalinism is the way forward.

...

ayyyy

Does he incorporate Evola and Nostradamus as well?

...

10/10 oc

...

Oh, I didn't notice the part where the USAF was helping Cuba with airstrikes and weapon drops.

As opposed to Rojava which already has free market liberal economics. Look, I like Rojava, but Cuba is clearly a more concrete success story. Let's see where Rojava is in five years. There's a good chance it just won't exist.

...

Wew lad
80% of the economy is socialized in one form or another, with all enterprise essentially municipalized

Here's a pill for you, of whatever color you like: there is no alternative for dominating nature. With our current technology, any attempt to create a society that no longer dominates nature, will make the planet uninhabitable because of friction. Because if you think 6,5 billion people will just lied down and die peacefully, you have another thing coming.

The fuck is wrong with that? Am I supposed to praise Nature for the meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, diseases, mass extinctions, or for the fact that 99,99999% of the universe is uninhabitable for us?

Fuck Nature! She doesn't even exist! It's literally total chaos and nothingness we anthropomorphize into Oneness.

TOP WEW

Fuck the fucking environment we are supposed to serve according to Bookchin. It should be the other way around: we create the environment that serves us.

Literally Feuerbach-tier.

To say that ecology is "social" is pretty much tautological. "Ecology" in itself encapsulates a relationship: ours to the environment. Bookchin reifies Nature into an Other, which is like the arch-statement of ideology.

And this is exactly the problem with the following:

To say this you have to neutralize "Nature."

She is not responsible, of course, only us – this is a one-way relationship, according to Bookchin.

In other words, Bookchin takes Marx's Hegelian concept of "alienation" (without taking into account this term's progression and eventual disappearance in Marx's work) and applies it to "Nature."

This is literal fetishism: "Nature," as something inside of our sphere of influence when the effects are negative, and "Neutral Nature" as something which is supposedly fine if we leave it alone.

TL;DR: Kill Bookchinites.

Bookchin is wrong about primitivism. Read Anarchy After Leftism.
inb4

So what's the problem? Can't or shouldn't Gilgamesh want immortality? Does it hurt your "naturalist" sentiments that humans are freaks of nature, that is, against its rules?

The fuck is "first nature?"

(KEK, it literally it happened the other way around: "Nature" has always been our enemy!)

And this is exactly we should counter: our subservience to nature. We should strive for "freedom from nature," ffs!

Bump for response from Bookchinites

I am a student of ecology. And while I think that it is really sad to see so many species going extinct, I do think that mankind has priority.
If species extinction can be easily avoided, we should. But in other cases maybe we need to let go.
While certain extinctions of animals and plants sadden me "what keeps me up at night" are things like climate change, resource depletion and soil destruction and so on and so on - things that effect humans, and possibly me directly in the future.

I've had some odd and somewhat edgy obsession with what are considered pest species including non-native species (edgy because many people dislike them). And for now, efforts to control them do not always work that well. If you look beyond endangered species nature is very persistent.

In a report on one weedy plant, it mentioned that getting rid of it would bankrupt the country.

I do think it is completely sane to want to save some ecosystems and species. But at times I think we go to far without tackling the causes of biodiversity decline. And for me one important cause is the way we handle resources: such as consumerism and a throw away culture.

I personally hold the philosophy that I rather have self sufficient nature. And when I say that I do not mean the pristine nature with no touch of humans. I am fine with sustainable wood harvesting.

In the first world a lot of nature is intensively managed and sometimes that is absolutely necessary or necessary for the type of landscape people want to have. I am just not a fan of those.

Ecologists usually have similar views but amongst laymen my vision is more often shared (source: study on views of nature). It actually causes me trouble to motivate for my study, because it seems pointless to manage nature when itself is actively recovering by influx of more human resistant species. And I think there are much bigger problems.

There are valid ecological arguments in favor of management and against non-native species, but I think we could do with less of the former and sometimes the latter can be the seeds of the future (though I think intervention against non-native species can absolutely be justified)

If we let a mass extinction happen, which I think we most likely will, we would have to live in such a world but at the same time the door is opened in the far, far, far future for live to evolve again and for new lineages of animals.

I am not even sure of all my views and need some time to think it through, maybe we can have some talk on this. I can give book and paper suggestions for those interested.

One thing I would like to share is that Europe is already ecologically impoverished. Some of you may know that humans caused megafauna extinctions across the globe, but the ice age caused a large extinction of plants in Europe. I mainly know about trees, and many species that Asia and North-America have were wiped out in Europe.

OBSERVE!
Here we have the usual response of Bookchinites:

The gulag is too good for your kind.

P R O P H E C Y
R
O
P
H
E
C
Y

I am actually not, this was my first post in this topic here. Haven't read Bookchin.
What I have read is the following book and it made me even more pessimistic about nature conservation as I was.

I actually thought independently that an "eco-dictator" might be the only thing that works since democracies have to keep ties with supporters other than the army, and according to this book democracies function only by sustaining a hedonistic lifestyle amongst the population.

But as I said I worry less about nature, which should always have some species persist, than I worry about mankind. Climate change could cause mass migrations while also causing food crises, same with soil destruction and lastly resource depletion will cause social conflict as well.

I, for one, welcome the initiative to gulag Bookchin-followers, because they are clearly unable to address any criticism. In fact, I think, that Bookchin-fags should be tortured until they finally utter their true proposition:

That's basically it, tbh. I wonder what others think.

I hold a similar view as philosopher John Gray

Fuck "nature conservation," tbh. "Nature" is our enemy. As far as we are reliant on it for our survival we should address it, but our initiative should be preserving humanity against what is propelled by "Nature."

I honestly disregard OP's initiative… Xir's "Eco-Stalinism" is a joke, but he does raise legit concerns: how do we keep up human civilization if it damages the very conditions of existence of human civ. itself?

Sure. The only answer is an anti-humanist approach towards "Nature." We are not Nature's little children. We are its enemy.

Lol at how triggered the Marxists and deep ecologists are in this thread.

I could agree, but it isn't black and white. We benefit from parts of nature, others are absolutely hostile to us.
That does absolutely concern me. It seems to me that corporate interests are too heavily nested inside democracies. But who says it would be different with dictator. All I can think of is that regulations are necessary.

Stalin pls go.

[Autistic screeching]

As far as we are reliant on Nature it is our enemy.

It seems to me that ecology-fags interests are too heavily inside democracies.

Just what are you on about? Communists aren't for dictators, my God!

Yes, global regulations are more than necessary: they are the prerequisite for human survivor.

I saw this post and I was utterly shocked. I immediately revised my hitherto held beliefs and turned to a new God: Bookchin!

Praise your comment for changing our lives! You are more than a necessity: you are the representative of the Zeitgeist itself!

Praise you!

Nature can't be dominated, Bookchin says this himself. However, this does not keep humanity from trying to, resulting in ecological calamity that will invariably either lead to collapse of civilization, as it has in the past, or in the extinction of our species in the near future. It is completely irrational to view humanity outside of the law of interdependence that we observe all other species obeying. To put it simply, we rely on other species for survival, and we can use technology to not only help these species but also help them ultimately to serve us better. Deep ecologists routinely criticize bookchin for wanting to interfere with nature, and seeing humans as the stewards of our environment.The deep ecologists do indeed practice a sort of anti-humanism that you are railing against (but wrongly attributing to bookchin). Now, to elaborate on what bookchin means by first nature: first nature is the type of social structure based on blood ties and tribalism as we observe in primitive tribes and peoples whom inhabit wilderness, but at the same time have deep rooted ecological practices. Second nature is the type of social structure that came about with the creation of the city, where humans stopped basing social relations less on tribalism and blood ties and began to destroy our ecology. Bookchin is not against second nature, or first nature, but sees that society needs to be formed from a synthesis of both that maintains the advance in social relations provided by second nature but at the same time serves to promote ecology as in first nature.

tl;dr google Murray Bookchin

I wonder how long can you keep up this charade.

Literally no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, let me help you.

meaning:

pastes text instead of actually engaging discussion:

Do you understand now or are you retarded, fam? Bookchinites operate on this level on leftypol:

I can't really be more straight forward than that. Bookchinites are Stirner-tier parasites of this board.

only this is mine, and my post was written myself and addressed to the posts I linked to originally. I don't know why you're sperging out so much and making false claims instead of addressing what i said in the post fam

Nature can be dominated and nature should be dominated!
Oh, wow, I guess I'm BTFO, since Bookchin said it himself!!!

Dominating nature does not lead to the collapse of civilization, it is, in fact, a prerequisite of civilization.

The possible extinction of our species due to the complete disregard of our environmental prerequisites of life are not due to our "hurting mother Nature" but quite the opposite: our not having the economic system that accounts for the opposite tendencies of nature and us.

It is, in fact, completely "natural." To understand and accept humanity's capability to dominate nature, and on the same note, to look at the rest of the fauna and conclude that they can't do it should reinforce our "humaneness" not counter it.

Thank fucking god that rats can't build skyscrapers and we can.
So? Isn't it our main purpose to make that change? We currently rely on this fucking planet's survival. Do you think that this should stay as-is always? No! We should overcome this fucking chaotic planet, just like we should overcome all of the biosphere.

Too abstract. It's anthropologically incorrect. You can't point to a living human community that has this.

LEL!
Humans "destroyed >muh Nature" beginning from the agricultural revolution. No tears were shed. We started to subsume plants to our needs, and thank god for it.

Thank you, but no. We, humans, want our environment to serve us, and not the reverse.

Bookchin: truly ahistoric and idiotic.

bump 4 more nature fetishism

How can a fruitfly or a mollusk be dominated? The only reason why humans can be dominated is because of advanced cognitive abilities that we posses.
Merely pointing out your lack of knowledge regarding bookchin. Odd how critical you are of him without really understanding anything about his theory.
The first civilization, Sumer, collapsed mainly because of ecological reasons i.e. salinifcation of the soil.
You again classify humans as being separate from nature. Extinction is pretty much guaranteed unless drastic steps are taken towards ecology, and no one is denying that capitalism is the main culprit of the current ecological degradation. Capitalism is merely the logic of domination taken to it's natural conclusion, by which I means everything becomes something to dominate, to exploit and extract profit from.
Again, this assumes that man exists outside of nature and not apart of it. You're entire argument is contingent on science fiction, not on the reality of our circumstances. The fact of the matter is that we live in a biosphere, dependent on the existence of other species for survival. Humanity itself came about from millions of years of evolution, from millions of different species culminating in our species.
Bush people, native american tribes before colonization and genocide, australian aboriginals before contact etc etc. How is it to abstract, since it's obviously not incorrect given the examples.
Bookchin isn't against agriculture silly goose. Agriculture is fine so long as it's not ecologically destructive and ultimately serves our interests not just through the direct consumption but through maintaining a healthy biosphere. Permaculture is perhaps a good example of this.
We best serve ourselves by maintaining and promoting a symbiotic relationship between us and our environment. Stop confusing bookchin for deep ecology

Lel, I can't believe we are having this discussion, tbh! "A fruitfly" can and should be dominated because it is a biological entity that is contrary to our needs/striving. We (humans) don't need it on the long run, so we should plan on without it, and if it gets in our way, eradicate it.

They did their best. "They," as in a civilization being part of our history, should be commended for that. They didn't know better. What are you suggesting? That since they didn't know any better we should ultimately accept a subservient position towards nature?

Fuck that! Thank God for the Sumer's failure! We can learn from that and we can build a better civilization!

I don't, really. I classify "humans" as an inherent subversion of and by nature. This, ultimately, boils down to our understanding of nature as such. Nature is a chaotic non-subject that eventually created a proper subject (meaning humans) that could undermine it. Good for us! Sucks for "Nature!"

This is totally besides the point, you dense faggot. Human extinction is "guaranteed" by human actions as per their relationship to their current environment, and NOT by sabotaging some kind of holy "Nature."

Read Capital maybe and afterwards understand how stupid this statement makes you look?

"Man" will always exist in his current environment. What makes the "natural" kind of environment different from the "artificial" kind of environment is possibly his intention. I'm saying ''possibly" because – as we all know – the capitalist means of production does not allow for rational planning of man's reproduction and man's environment.

So? It sucks, nevertheless. Your statement: factual, but non-political. My statement: political and inductive.

Maybe read your first book on anthropology? I recommend this one, btw: libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=99A18760BC761A4C08694C305B2DA416

I didn't say he way, "silly goose." >reading comprehension I said that, and I quote:
"Dominating nature […] is, in fact, a prerequisite of civilization."

(If you don't see how agriculture is a form of dominating nature then maybe kys?)

As far as we are faced with an environment that we did no will: fuck it! As soon as we create an environment that serves us: bring it on.

Are you really this stupid, mate? Can't you fucking understand what I'm saying, for crying out loud?

Thanks, I finally undertand.

t. ex-bookchinite

b-but B-bookchin?

no tears, he tried his best at fetishism

Highly simplistic thinking base on a nonexistent reality. Something that is not even sentient cannot be dominated, and the fact is that humans do indeed need other life forms to sustain themselves. BTW, a world where humans are the only lifeform sounds like a dystopian hellhole.
You're viewing nature as an Other, when in reality nature is something that we exist within and apart of. You completely missed the point, btw. Civilizations that do not exist in ecological balance cease to exist at all.
To say that we undermine nature, while at the same time being part of nature, is to say that we are also undermining ourselves. Either we exist within nature or we do not, and to say the latter is to be delusional beyond comprehension.
I don't know why you think I view nature as holy, when I have not used any terminology to suggest as much, and only addressed nature in the context of how it affects humans. Yes, human action is the prime reason for it's own extinction. This was never in dispute. Ecology is a science, not a religion.
This is a non-argument. Not only is it a non-argument, it's out right hypocrisy on your part considering that you criticized others for "pasting text", which is less intellectually lazy then simply saying 'read x".
Really? I thought the point you were making was that we can do away with our environment and live off of protein paste like some dystopian hellhole
Natural being how we currently view life scientifically, with the ever growing trend towards diversification and symbiosis. The idea is entirely to plan with this in mind and encourage diversity and symbiosis within or environment. Communalism certainly isn't a capitalist/market economy. It's a form of planned economics that bookchin refers to as municipalization.
Whether it "sucks" or not is irrelevant. You cannot provide anything other then fantasy to suggest a life where this is not the case.
>Maybe read your first book on anthropology? I recommend this one, btw: libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=99A18760BC761A4C08694C305B2DA416
Again with the hypocrisy. If we're going to play that game I suggest you read The Ecology of Freedom.
Except that agriculture is not dominating nature, and no one argued that it was except you silly goose. As I said previously, agriculture is fine as long as it doesn't cause ecological harm, and even better if it encourages a healthy ecology through new methods.
I understand what you're saying perfectly, and I'm telling you that it is currently outside of the realm of reality and merely a fantasy that you insist on ranting about. What we can do in the meantime is create an ecological society that keeps us from resulting in yet another extinct species

I can't be bothered to argue more then once an hour with a ranting autist. Sorry

Humanity has always strived for its continued existence, consciously going against what "Nature" dictated. You say that this is a "nonexistent reality" and I say that this is what makes us human. We have eradicated rabid animals to pursue this goal. We have eradicated viruses for this goal. We have made rivers flow the opposite direction, we have created islands and disconnected continents just to ensure that our environment suits us better.

Yes it can be, since volcanic eruptions killed our tribes, since meteors wiped out our cities, and since diseases tormented whole populations. We fought back, and we won. We started to dominate nature.

The current state of humanity depends on certain environmental conditions that are contingent to historical change. We used to depend on rivers – now we have water reservoirs… Do I need to go on?

no, you, you retard

Nature doesn't exist. I said that like 6 posts before, you still didn't respond to it. Good luck at trying to charge me of "viewing nature as an Other," tho.

"Ecology" as used by you is religion. One just needs to look at your posts.

Scientific ecology should start from the radical point of denying the existence of any kind of nature whatsoever.

Good luck with your servitude to an anthropomorphized chaos and nothingness.

LEL

What's your fucking problem with protein paste? Is it not NATURAL enough for you?

My God!

So let's translate this to plain English. Your idea of an ecology is to let nature take its course. Nothing else. LEL.

TOP LEL

You fucking fetishist scum, I swear! We need an artificial environment made by us and for us instead of a chaotic and unpredictable shithole that is the "natural process."

say hello to your appendicitis

And by the way! Where does your "symbiosis" start and end? Symbiosis with meteorite showers: nope? Symbiosis with the plague: nope? Symbiosis with cute animals: yes?

How old are you, again?

"Read my fetishist man, he will tell you to think otherwise." – no, thanks, I can clearly dominate you and your idiotic poopty man.

Our domination of nature has been a historical fact. It's what has made us human in a civilizationary sense. We didn't like the cold and we didn't like the rain so we made houses. We didn't like wolves eating us so we eradicated them. We didn't like the viruses so we made medicine to fend them off. We didn't like biological reproduction so we started to make alternative modes. We started to take over our own DNA.

YOU ARE CALLING FACTS FANTASY

YOU ARE CALLING WHAT MAKES US HUMAN NON-REAL

Good luck with your shit-tier denial, and see you in the gulag.

This makes Bookchin look like a conservative.

because he is

Nobody said not to make the environment suit us better, only that the best way to make the environment suit us better is by taking steps towards ecology. This does not mean that we should value mosquitoes as much as humans. This does not mean making humans to suffer more in order to preserve nature better, this simply creating a more vibrant eco-system that ultimately better serves us.
You're using an example of a volcano "dominating" humans, sentient beings, as an example of domination not involving sentient beings?
Yes but we still require water, just as we still require other life to continue to exist. It's a bad analogy.
You literally calling nature something evil that needs to be dominated. How is that not looking at it as an other?
Then why do you keep speaking of it as something to dominate if it doesn't exist? How do you dominate that which does not exist?
So does this mean you deny the existence of natural law to? What is nature but observable reality? If you're going to accuse me as treating something as a religion you're going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion. I am not anthropomorphizing nature. In fact, you are by creating it into an Other that needs to be attacked and dominated. This entire time I've made the point that we need to make our environment serve us better, but the way to do not is not through ecological destruction.
No, my idea of ecology is to help facilitate diversity, fertility, and ultimately guide evolution within our environment to better serve humans.

Clearly symbiosis regards life. Mind you, I never said that all of our environment is in a symbiotic relationship with us, just that we would not survive without the symbiotic relations we have with other life forms. We should encourage this symbiosis, and expand it when possible.
By blindly attacking a caricature that you've convinced yourself of? You know nothing about his ideas and yet you pretend to be an authority in a position to criticize him.
Houses and animal husbandry are not necessarily against ecology. As I've stated previously in my very same post, we should encourage more symbiotic relationships. Ecology does not mean simply subjecting yourself to the environment, only recognizing the need of other organisms to survive and the inherently beneficial relationships that can develop between organisms, including humans.
You are still attacking a caricature, not actually what bookchin talked about. You've made assumptions about bookchin without any knowledge of his writings and you refuse to recognize that your assumptions are fundamentally false. The idea that we survive without other lifeforms is indeed a fantasy, and that fact is just as true today as it was millions of years ago.
You're the one in denial fam. You need to google murray bookchin

p.s. pretty amusing to see your posts become more and more incoherent with every post/

That is not what I meant. It is related to the book I've read.
Corporate interests matter more. Politicians won't get offered jobs in the field of ecology. There is some environmental lobbying, but not as big as large corporations.

I think you underestimate that domination of nature often goes wrong. And I do not understand your attitude as I more or less gave up on nature already.

I think deep ecologists still work with outdated ecology and also anthropology concepts. There was no time period in which humans were in harmony with nature, just the extent of impact changed. Societies which held nature in high regard were just as dominating on nature it prevented nothing. Nature does have some kind of equilibrium due to coevolution but the notion of a balance of nature is false. Etc.

As for you, I think the following books might be good to read, our 'domination of nature' can potentially go at the expense of our future.

And no I am not a follower of the Bookchin man.

Now I don't think you'll read them or even be interested, that is how psychology works, but may I ask you on what you base your opinion of? Which books, if any, gave you such an anti-nature stance?

I've read two anti-nature books myself but thought they were weak in argumentation. Both in my native language.

Bookchinites literally don't have theory.

No u

bump for freudposter's autistic screeching

Here's a really interesting documentary about how Cuba became the first post-oil state.
youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6xoKmnYq8

this might be better quality
youtube.com/watch?v=99WCn_nFSAY

sage in all fields

faggot