Why the hell doesn't Bookchin have a mass following outside Kurdistan?

so completely 100% incompatible with individualist anarchism and most anarchists who aren't commies

wtf i love bookchin now!

How many times have you fags been wrong as of yet?

and a non-misanthropic, non-luddite, non-dualistic perspective of nature compared to the ecofascists and caveman anarchkiddies

Because we really needed more class collaborationism.

kinda sad tbqh, he wasn't far off seeing Rojava.

I'm sure seeing his dreams get crushed by imperialism would have cheered him right up.

You have to go back to Tankie Twitter.

I'm not normally one to go down the route of calling people anarkiddies, but how the fuck are groups of people meant to make decisions besides voting. It is so unbelievably Utopian and naive to believe that large groups will ever come to consensus based decision. Have you ever interacted with a group of people? Become an anarcho-syndicalist or something individualist anarchism is a joke.

lel why even bother being an anarchist?
unironically thinking technology and capital aren't interdependent is a sign of extreme cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking
what does he remove the gap between outside and inside, on some Hermetics? lmao he probably says, "we're all parts of nature, so we have to think along those lines". What an insight, i've never heard faggot "naturalistic atheist" liberals say the same thing. Oh wait there's no difference between municipalist communalism, federalist syndicalism, guild socialism, fascism and liberal democracy. its all weak bug people trying to rule over strong geniuses

Ebin. Simply emphasizing that hierarchy and domination are issues that exist outside of class isn't class collaborationist

It is going to happen. I don't take pleasure in that fact, but living in denial does no one any good. Either it will capitulate totally to the established order and become merely an autonomous province of Syria, or it will be destroyed.

indeed
technology existed before and outside of capitalism/capitalist institutions. Don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe you need to read more Kropotkin
He subscribes to dialectical thinking, which is essentially non-dualistic. Lurk more.

Just telling people to google him is not enough tho. Someone should make simple videos and shit to explain the basics of his thought. Like it or not, short youtube videos are some of the most effective propaganda one the internet, outside of memes.

yes i agree and i hate the idea of consensus or asking for permission from the group
yes i don't recommend it
id rather watch Black science man specials all day than suffer through crypto-fascism repackaged as edgy communism

individualist anarchism is pure anarchism and thus the only real anarchism. you can't into it because you're addicted to social gaming and signalling

All you've done is make a case for why anarchism is shit tbh. It's not a practical ideology for change, merely a lifestyle choice for edgy contrarians

ok?
yes and porky exists because of technology, without technologies like fences and coinage and shipping routes there is no porky. porky is a side effect, even a stage of evolutionary expression for technology. and capitalism seems to be how technology propogates itself
no i like being ignorant of retard filler knowledge nonsense like "theory", i read your meme book "the ego and its own"
that's the first and last lefty thing i read
ffs no its not you can still be an atheist who thinks mind is an epiphenomena and thus a dualist, or conversely and idealist who recognizes matter and thus a dualist. you people are baiting and switching the meaning of dualism to suit your needs. dialectics isn't a marxist thing either the Hindus and buddhists used it for actual non-dualist philosophy thousands of years before atheist fags did

That's the best outcome. But I doubt that they'll even be given that.

I think a more appropriate question would be "why the hell does Bookchin have a mass following inside Kurdistan?"

no you just said that, because your premises are that society should or is intended to serve the interests of the majority. its not, society is a vehicle for the best gene expression possible and for geniuses to flourish and advance the frontiers of what's possible mentally and more importantly to cause epigenetic changes in the neurological development of their gene pool to push us towards positive evolution. you people think its about fairness or pleasure or security; none of those things matter. All that matters is that brilliant bodies and minds are given space to flourish and propogate themselves. You've proven nothing other than your own circular logic which was intended to come to a preconceived conclusion. you're basically spewing rhetoric and nothing else

...

This is why we need everyone to google Bookchin

Ocalan is locked up in an island in the middle of the sea and has nothing to do all day aside from read books. One day he read 'Ecology of Freedom' and was like "fuck this Marxist Leninist shit bruh" and then he passed on the word of Bookchin to the PKK and it spread from there.

Just freeze me up so I can wake up in whatever year the cryogenics company I hired goes under thanks to the ultimate collapse of capitalism so I can join the fight.

Capitalism became the dominate social order because of the decaying social order of feudalism, not because the technology did not exist for it before that point. Coinage and commodity exchange existed for centuries but did not become the dominate mode of production until this point. Read libcom.org/library/were-we-wrong-murray-bookchin
literally
Technology and scientific is a historical process by which innovations are built on past innovations. In essence, it's a product of society for society, and people like Newton and Einstein were not motivated by the profit motive nor were/are the vast majority of innovators.
Literally doesn't understand what dialectics is. Read hegel and lurk more, or at least bother to read the wikipedia page on dialectics you retard.

Baseless unscientific hogwash. Those that are "fit" to survive do, not the "fittest". Furthermore, evolution bends towards an increasing diversity and complimentaryism, a symbiosis by which species become interdependent on one another to thrive and survive. Take your fascistic pseudo-science nonsense back to >>>Holla Forums

*scientific progress

majoritaianism isn't a necessarily valid presupposition, therefore you didn't prove anarchism is wrong. or that individualist anarchism isn't valuable. you just proved that individualist anarchism is incompatible with majoritarianism. which was obvious to all of us, which means all you did was assert a rhetorical point and then re-state a non-argument as if it was an argument. you never proved anything, you just said, "look my thing is incompatible with your thing, therefore its wrong" which isn't an argument, its rhetoric. its nonsense. if you had proven thay majoritarianism is more desirable than individuality and sovereignty then we would be debating. but since you stated rhetoric and all i've done is deconstruct your rhetoric, this is more a lesson in the difference between an argument and a statement.

because he's a meme. it's telling that he's the best upgrade the kurds could find from the derelict dead end that is ML.

how do I get people to read bookchin

nod an argument :DDDD
and it's made them into the only meaningful and productive revolution in decades. You should read him tbh.

its not baseless, if it was it wouldn't be consistent enough to argue against you idiot. baseless claims are claims that have no root in anything, which are limited to black propoganda and delusions (which this is not). so unless you're pulling a classic commie, "lel you're just crazy because you don't agree with my total restructuring of human social relationships", you just said something fucking stupid right off the bat
lol no its based on natural philosophy, ""science""" is analytic nerd shit. natural philosophy is much more valid and immediately useful for organizing information. Nature tries to produce perfect archetypes through genius and eugenics, it changed form over time to more completely flesh out these archetypes. we are the pinnacle of this effort. You have no proofs against this as there are no other ecosystems to compare our planet to. But, its almost guaranteed by drake's equation and logic that life trends towards complexity and thus sapience and perfection through epigenetics and eugenics
logical positivism and empiricism are smoke and mirrors hog wash for constructing heavy metal laden gadgets that restrict people's conscious attention. why don't you learn some new vocabulary words that don't sound like a normie atheist on Facebook is spouting off at some young earth creationist?
yes and diversity of genotypes can only be acheived through separation from the writhing hoard of medicority and look-alike bug people. unique looking faces and genotypes come about from unique life outcomes and relationships with food and environment. if everyone lives together like one big hive they will eat, look and think the same
yeah species don't vote on symbiotic resource distribution, its done in total self
interest, unconsciously and spontaneously. nothing could be less organic than democracy of any kind
first of all im not allowed to post on Holla Forums because i think Israel isn't a threat to whites and because i dislike the State strongly. second of all fascists love the State and value chauvinism over feminine sensititivity which is something i do not support. i have no hatred towards femininity and despise the state. Third of all psuedoscience is a buzz word it only has meaning in
the context of a self appointed hierarchy of conveniently friendly cabals of research fellows, professorships and chairs of foundations deciding that what you said is profitable to their careers. "science" is as biased as politics and the incredibly bad reproducibility of most science is telling of this.

why don't you go back to /r/science and stay there you fag

Thank god I'll never read Ayn Rand.

that, and being sanctioned by and allied to the ruling political faction of the nation (assad's government) they fight in and receiving military, logistical and intelligence support from the largest MIC in the world (the US). not a coincidence that their relevance in the region started after these things happened.

bookchin really is a meme tbh. do you think people like zizek, badiou, lordon, etc. do not acknowledge him for any other reason?

It is. You've given no evidence to the contrary, and I'll reiterate my previous point:
Your understanding of evolution is memetastic.
I'm glad you admitted it's unscientific bullshit. The rest of what you said isn't substantiated by anything other then feels since your arguments certainly don't depend on any kind of evidence
Democracy can be an expression of symbiotic relationship between humans. Ants for example actually do decide things through voting insidescience.org/news/when-ants-get-together-make-decision
fuck off to >>>/liberty/ then
"an"-caps are merely scared fascists anyways.
Tell me. Do you even understand the basics of philosophy of science like deduction and induction?
Read a book you silly sophist

...

DFSNS is tolerated by the regime because they pose an actual threat not to it's legitimacy but to it's military force. The only support they receive from the US is in the form of airstrikes and intel, beyond that they get nothing. The fact that they have so far not been victims of a famine or economic collapse despite being isolated, under siege and embargoed in a completely undeveloped area is a testament to their civic abilities. Read cooperativeeconomy.info/the-economy-of-rojava/
The fact that meme tier philosophers like Zizek don't know about him (at the same time saying they approve of the kurds work in rojava) is a testament to their own ignorance and well deserved label of meme philosophers. Worth noting that their theories have literally resulted in nothing, unlike bookchin's.

...

not only to it's legitimacy*

i can't give you evidence of a self evident truth lol, nature provides space for ideal forms and gene expression. geniuses make use of that space by pushing the boundaries of evolution forward, as do ideal physical specimens. they are natures back-flips and flourishes, her celebration of her own excellence. go look at the most successful animals they are always the best looking, strongest or smartest. they may not be the only one's who breed, but they are by far the best at proliferating themselves. this is backed up by countless evo-psyche studies on humans and evo-bio observations of animals. animals with highly developed secondarycsex characteristics and superior decision making always outperform animals who are average looking and of medicore intelligence. its a law, its not debatable
that's not a word nor does it constitute an argument. i didn't say what you quoted that was someone else i was talking with.
communism and communalism aren't scientific and would be wrong according to your retard logic. of course you can try to prove they are, but all scientists will show you that nature is anti-democratic and highly hierarchical. but, of course they also wouldn't necessarily advocate using "scienc
as the basis for social organization, which is why all scientists tend to defer to ethicists when it comes to social organization. ethics being something foreign to most of nature and certainly not in line with survival of the fittest. so either anything not scientific is invalid, in which case all leftist theory is invalid, or some things which are unscientific are valid. and natural philosophy which is the parent of science and has no special love for empiricism, is one of those things which is valid outside of science. therefore natural philosophy is, while """unscientific""" superior to science because it combines philsophy (of which ethics is a part) and the seeds of science together.
no i reject empiricism as the source of truth, its a self referencing ideology. empiricsm is right because its right, therefore everything is judged by it. which is nonsensical and is self refuting, there is no empirical evidence that the statement "empiricism is the basis for truth" is true. this is why idiots like you aren't taken seriously by most philosophers who aren't rabid science department cock lickers (Krause and Dennet)
lol at this being proof of democracy, lol wolves don't vote on who eats first, bison don't vote on who fucks first. antelope don't vote on who gets to get into the river first. you're grasping at straws and its pathetic. nature is brutal and hierarchical, the meek and complacent are eaten savagely
i'd be banned for making fun of them
yes all of my arguments have been deductions thus far and i inferred correctly that you were a basic bitch empiricist who doesn't understand that empiricsm and logical positivism are self refuting
go back to /r/science, you're an idiot and you belong in the company of other nerd idiots who think being able to do calculus and understand stats equals being a scientific authority

what are you doing here then?????

no capitalism is a result of the consolidation of power and influence in the hands ofa technolgically empowered elite who used the promise of progress to enslave whole populations to the factory, mill and storefront. you're a lying idiot. technology exploded at the exact same time capitalism did. they are inseparable.
first of all Newton was a member of the landed gentry, a monarchist, a theocrat and a reactionary. second of all he was a NEET who lived off of endowments and inheritance. third of all he hated the impous and the poor. fourth of all Newton didn't invent any technologies he discovered patterns in nature that are useful. that's it. einstein also discovered patterns that are useful, literally stole these patterns from other french scientists and then was given money, recognition and status for doing so. he wouldn't have been interested in them
if it wasn't for the reactionary state-capitalist structure in germany that was conducive to his research. also science isn't progress, its just exchanging temporarily useful
prediction models depending on the need and scope of the inquirer. scientific, like economic progress is totally a-moral and has no net value. we haven't gained anything from more people being able to access the internet and we haven't gained anything from nerds thinking they know how far away imaginary mathematical objects are. the only gains we make are through gene mutation and increasing biodiversity in the biosphere, and since autism and cancer are the only significant gene changes we see along with massive loss of biodiversity its fair to say that technology is a net negative for us.
no only if you're an ahistorical fag, i know what it is. its not non-dualism, hegel was a dualistic fag. the only non-dualistic philosophers in the west are mystics. all of western philosophy is predicated on dualistic conceptions. i don't
care what you meant by it, that's not what the term refers to in the world outside of snowniggerville

disappoint.jpg.gif

literally feels >>> reals
Communalism and communism utilize scientific understanding extensively, while you reject science completely as you've demonstrated so far
Again, evolution is the survival of the fit, not the fittest. I'm not sure why you're appealing to evolution when evolution is based on inductive inferences, which you reject.
demonstrate so. inb4 feels > reals
So again, feels > reals. You can recognize other forms of truth outside of inferences gained from induction and still subscribe to truth outside of such inferences. To simply reject inferences gained by induction is to reject the existence of evidence, making it ultimately pointless to even talk to you since for feels > reals.
common misconception regarding ants. the queen does not have any decision making powers really. The colony is obligated to protect and ensure the well being of the queen, but outside of that the queen serves no purpose.
It's merely evidence that your blanket claim regarding life is bullshit.
He says as he speaks nothing of anthropology
Not really no.Why would you be here if that were true?
Deductions based on your extremely poor understanding of a theory based on inductive inferences. Truly ebin
no, u

This is wrong for several reasons. The technological book coincided with the enlightenment and the groundbreaking works of newton. Without these two things there would have been no technological boom, not with all the money in the world. I never said capitalism is an "evolutionary stage of hierarchy". Capitalism is a cancerous growth that grew in the carcass of the decaying social order of feudalism which could no longer maintain it self. Capitalism essentially commodifies anything and everything, and is currently resulting in a mass extinction of species with our species most likely to be killed off by it at some point
They weren't. You don't seem to understand what that word means. You contradict yourself by immediately calling Newton part of the gentry afterwards, which he was and simply serves to show you that he was no capitalist and did not research out of the profit motive. Einstein was a prole, and never expected his work to make him wealthy one day. It's also worth noting that he was a socialist
Now you're arguing semantics. Technological progress is dependent on more reliable models being developed that are more consistent with the reality of things. Newtons models allowed the development of more sophisticated tools and machinery, and his models would not have been developed if the people before him had not developed mathematics and physics up to that point.
Then practice what you preach and get off the computer son.
He certainly advanced it considerably from it's stage in greek philosophy.
Hegel was not by any means a dualist. If he was he would simply believe that becoming is the antithesis to being, instead of it being the synthesis between being and non-being

>IGNORANT AND PROUD!

Accept your Communalist overlords already bakka

>>>/liberty/ is probably the most lax modded board since Holla Forums, even though most of the userbase is Pinochet levels of annoyed with unread Ancoms making threads there.
You'd fit right in too since your worldview borders on objectivism.
I strongly recommend it.

I disagree. The beauty of "Google Murray bookchin" is that it gives the IMPRESSION of requiring zero time investment.

I thought organization and agitation was useless, because the people will magically become revolutionary on their own?

(:

...

This thread has been really interesting for me, as I now see that anarchists actually have the same fundamental disagreement within their ranks that socialists do.

In 'The Two Souls of Socialism' (available on Marxists.org), Hal Draper talks about two schools of thought within socialism, namely Socialism-From-Above and Socialism-From-Below. He is referring to the fact that some socialists (Marx, Luxemburg, etc) were in favour of the working class being the agent of its own liberation, whereas many other 'socialist' thinkers (Lasalle, Stalin, etc) were of the opinion that socialism had to be brought to or in practice forced on the workers.

In the book, Draper puts all anarchists in the 'from above' camp, citing some anti-democratic quotes from Proudhon and a couple of others. Having seen this debate though, I think that the truth is a little more nuanced.

I think that anarchism is riven in the same way that socialism is - split between the camps of Anarchism-For-Me (individualist, egoist, lifestylist, primitivist, etc) and Anarchism-For-Us (syndicalist, bookchinist, etc). The fact that you both call yourselves anarchists leads to a lot of talking past each other, since you hold radically different definitions of shared words.

For example, when a proponent of Anarchism-For-Me talks about removing hierarchy and domination, they're talking about all societal structures and conventions that prevent them from doing exactly whatever the fuck they want, up to and including hurting and exploiting others. When Anarchism-For-Us folks use the same words, they seem to mean them in the sense of barriers to an equitable and just society. Anarchism-For-Me seems to disdain the very concept of living in a society with other people, let alone ever listening to them or helping them. Anarchism-For-Us, it seems, embodies the polar opposite of that belief.

Overall, I think those who follow the ideal of Socialism-From-Below have more in common with Anarchism-For-Us types than the two types of anarchism have with each other. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the varied traditions of Socialism-From-Above and Anarchism-For-Me embody the kernel of truth hidden in the bullshit of horseshoe theory - I mean, if you don't trust the people and refuse to empower them, how are you concretely any better than a fascist?

How do you expect to implement individualist anarchism without democracy? At some point you will have to make collective decisions that effect your society as a whole, and the way to do that that maxmizes personal freedom is through democracy.

I don't know if you can consider the guy I was speaking to as an Anarchist. He just seems like some illiterate with feelings of self importance and a meme-tier understanding of evolution. The kind of idiot who believes "anarchy means no rules maaan XD".
Hal Draper is wrong to insinuate that anarchism is "from above". Being critical of representative "democracy" is not the same as rejecting democratic decision making, it's simply the recognition that what passes for democracy isn't democracy at all. Even the union of egoists is a sort of democratic institution, but one that is completely voluntary and uses purely consensus decision making.
There's some validity to this, though communalists don't consider themselves anarchists at all. I don't necessarily think that individualists want the right to rape and pillage, but have an extremely utopian view of a world where power can somehow not exist and institutions would not be necessary at all to facilitate organization and cooperation. There's a reason that the collectivist/communalist group has a history of revolutionary movements and massive armed struggles while the individualist group has a history of illegalism and terrorist attacks that culminate ultimately into nothing.
Again, I wouldn't be so harsh on individualists to call them fascists. There is a case to be made for communalists and collectivist anarchists/ancoms having more in common with say deleonism and other "libertarian Marxists" then say individualist anarchism though.

anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/hal-draper-numpty
Hall Draper was an absolute fucking moron, and that's still an understatement. Always take what he said with a grain of salt, the guy was living bullshit-spewing machine.

and part two!
anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/hal-draper-numpty-part-deux

yeah that's the impression I got when he called anarchism "from above", but I didn't want to be too rude.

Could DemCon be a considered a revisionism of Bookchin's ideas since Rojava is nationalist even though Bookchin was explicitly against that?

It's not nationalist in the way we mean it when we talk about nationalism 99% of the time. Explicitly setting up organizations for other ethnic groups to get them to buy into the political process is not exactly the path to a nation-state.

I freely admitted that I thought Draper's assertions about anarchism were an overly broad generalisation - in fact that criticism was the basis of my entire post - but I take umbrage at that second article you posted.

I am so fucking sick of people on the left, both socialists and anarchists, who always jump immediately to an effectively anti-democratic politics. The middle section of the second article you posted is just so much sickening anti-deomcratic fucking 'tyranny of the majority' bullshit, it's fucking enraging.

And the pseudohistorical examples it cites! It's absolutely baseless to suggest that racism and homophobia originated from the minds of the mass of the population, they are obviously ideas designed to divide the population and secure minority rule.

You're so fucking terrified of democracy that you refuse to even support it in principle! With positions like that I honestly fail to see how you are any better than the fascists or the monarchs.

Monarchy gets a bad rap IMO, there's something to be said for being able to just fucking murder the source of a problem.

No not revisionism in the sense that you mean it. They're not "nationalists". Bookchin understood the necessity for his ideas to be fit to the circumstances of the particular region and their distinct history and culture. If DemCon can be considered as "revisionist" in any sense, it's because of their views on the state and the fact that they created a state structure in addition to the TEV-DEM communalist structure.

it's not nationalist, they explicitly call for demconfed for all the middle east

Also this. Anyone against democracy is #notmycomrade

Off topic, but how does Apo look so loveable in every picture?

Did you even read the article?

Anarchists were the first to propose bottom-up, delegative forms of democracy. While Marx was calling for a republic to be established by revolutionaries via a constituent assembly, Bakunin was calling for soviets and their confederation.

If there is any one ideology which has unequivocally upheld democracy itself, it has been social anarchism. As a DeLeonist (actually very similar to an anarchist, in retrospect), I considered anarchism more and more after watching Chomsky's lectures on it and realizing that I wasn't all that different. The final push was reading into it and realizing that I had more so agreed with anarchists like Kropotkin from the start than with Marx. The entire ideology is based around destroying current forms of hierarchy and replacing them with more democratic, individually-liberating alternatives.

Tyranny of the majority is not synonymous with democracy - rather, it is a symptom of its occasional dysfunction. This is why it is necessary that each soviet have its own constitution, much as each pirate ship did, in order to protect the freedom of all. The best possible mechanism, IMO, is a collective bargaining one - groups form themselves into temporary organs and have mandated delegates negotiate a compromise. This is a direct growth out of anarchist syndicalism's logic, an improvement of democracy upon itself. While you shout "democracy" and write it on your banners, my ideological inheritance is proletarian democracy and the logic which led to its genesis alongside socialism.
Well, that's mightily unmaterialistic of you! Racism and homophobia emerged, respectively, as a subconscious justification for the domination and degradation of fellow humans and the latter as a perversion of ancient mechanisms necessary to keep society functioning (because you can't afford to have homosexuality in place of heterosexuality in subsistence-based primitive societies). Certainly, the weaponization of both as tools of the reactionary is to divide and conquer, but in genesis, both are harmful and from the masses themselves. None of us are fully free from them - hence, it is in our best interests to acknowledge them for what they are and institute restraining mechanism for ourselves, much as Odysseus tied himself to a mast to resist the call of the sirens. There needs to always be a built-in mechanism for rank-and-file revolt (unlike the US constitution, a bourgeois document with tyranny baked into its genes), but this must also not be the first response to any given displeasure.

I'm not against democracy. Democracy is the basis of social anarchism, more so than it is that of Marxism.

Hal Draper created a massive straw man, and so does this poster.

Right in the feels.

I've stopped calling myself an anarchist a long time ago. This "egoist anarchism" where all decision-making is exclusively based on consensus is just not practical.

REEEEEE
Stop taking seriously
Hal Draper is a bullshitter and he needs to be called out for it, along with anyone else who advocates his spewing!

When will people drop the KDP propaganda?

You can't form a cult of personality without being photogenic m8. Even when angry and captured he's respectable.

Tbf, the second article does call majoritarian democracy "tyranny of the majority", and did use absurd examples to reinforce that point. I don't think consensus voting is necessary to have democracy.

Stahp.

This meem needs to die tbh

That day Bookchin had become Holla Forums

Bookchin replaces dialectical materialism with dialectical naturalism and proletarians with citizens. How is that not putting less emphasis on class?

Good post. This is quite an interesting perspective. Though I must say "anarchism for me" seems next to useless and is perhaps where the idea that anarchists are life-stylists comes from.

Idk why you are shitting on that guys post just because he cited an author you don't like. He just used him to flesh out the idea of socialism from above and below which seems fairly self- evident. That post was pretty insightful tbqh.

you are thinking from an authoritarian perspective

its like a whitelist vs blacklist

everything is allowed except what is voted on by consensus

vs

nothjing is allowed except what is voted on by consensus

you don't have to ask permission to do things with yourself or your personal property