So what actually is communalism...

...

see pic. The Next Revolution is a good intro into Bookchin. Also check out r/Communalists on reddit. Yeah, I know, reddit. But its still a good Communalist forum so whatever.

yes, Communalism is the future you nerd

Go choke your wife althuser

Bullshit, for lack of a better term (and nothing because they're all nonsense).

Appealing first to the fact his material is well researched and sourced, and then pointing to his standing in the academic community, despite being denied tenure at

because of his activism

do you see that man in your OP

google him

it's not like stalinists or maoists read

Communalism is a libertarian socialist ideology, appealing to the revolutionary traditions of the medieval communes, greek city-states ect.

Bookchin held that the biggest error of Marxists and Anarchists alike was conflating statecraft - meaning domination and alienated power within society - and politics - meaning organization of communal affairs.

This lead Marxists to confuse hierarchy for organization, and thus not be weary enough of any kind of domination but exploitation in anything but a purely economic sense, and lead Anarchists to shy away from formal social organization and laws, confusing it for domination.

Thus Communalism, is a distinct third revolutionary branch, as distinct from both anarchism and Marxism as those two are from each other.

Good summary. I would add that (as far as I understand) Communalism tries to amalgamate the best parts of both traditional anarchism and traditional Marxism and sees itself dialectically with regards to both of those streams.

wherehavemysidesgone.jpg

to a library hopefully

a place your head has certainly never been

Did you even google Bookchin?

If there are no borders and also no imperialism, why would they ever leave their native societies to come here if they don't fit in? Do you seriously believe that it's DA JOOZ telling them to come to the West and fuck that white girl who should rightfully be yours? Have you considered that maybe it's because they're being bombed and robbed by states and corporations?
As a Jew myself, maybe I should send a pack of niggers after your mom; you Holla Forumsyps certainly deserve it.

But Bakunin actively supported the decisions made by the Commune, to immediately begin organizing society democratically. If you read The Conquest Of Bread, it's all about how the people create their own organizations which must be defended. That's plainly not true about anarchism, unless you're talking about the edgy liberals in antifa, who've never accomplished anything except ruining the word "anarchism".

the best part is most Arab media is owned and controlled by the Qatari royal family, not Jews. Arabs don't watch fucking Fox News or MSNBC they watch Al Jazeera

And yet those, while clearly holding views that were compatible with communalism, never put much focus on formalized organization or indeed the importance of collectivized decision-making that took precendence over the will of the individual.

Let us not forget that the Communards called themselves so for a reason. They understood themselves to be something quite different to the anarcho-individualists, a movement that has always been inherent to the anarchist movement.

Bookchin's trouble with Kropotkin came largely from the "voluntariness" of the communal arrangements he proposed.

So basically, Bookchin recognises that anarchists did indeed organise, he thought their organisation was afraid of any exercise of power. He wanted to separate the idea of power from that of domination.

HAH! Read a fucking pamphlet! Platformists specifically rejected them while taking on the legacy of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin's ideas almost a hundred years ago, before Bookchin was even born!

Most Communards were mutualists, with Blanquists being a significant minority as well.

What kind of logic is that? Pirate ships were voluntary to an extreme - they would never take on unwilling sailors because that didn't work. I don't think you'd say that they hesitated to exercise power. At the same time, they pioneered constitutional democracy half a century before the USA made its bourgeois document, distributed booty equally, and made the captain a revocable delegate in practice.
Kropotkin regards all products of society as a common good, without specific origin and therefore without specific ownership. A municipality splitting off like that would not deprive anarchist communism of any productive capacity and/or efficiency. Bookchin's burning down a straw man.
A municipality splitting off and depriving the whole commune of their due product without their consent is therefore nothing less than an act of violence and aggression akin to seizing property for oneself so as to fleece the fellow man, if an impersonal and collective one.

Third and final quote is from "The Conquest Of Bread", page 14, Part 3 of Ch1 (Our Riches)

You should familiarize yourself with dialetical naturalism: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12140/full

Also this is how communalism is distinct from Marxism: libcom.org/library/were-we-wrong-murray-bookchin

And the platformists took major flak from French anarchists when Makno arrived in Paris, exactly because their communalism was seen as too authoritarian despite the lack of hierarchy.

Unfortunately, post leftism is the logical conclusion of anarchism, and this unabridgeable gab has exited from the very beginning between those who actually propagated medieval communalism and those who were anarchists.

Pirate ships weren't based on the anarchist notion of individualist voluntarism and spontaneity either.
They had strict formalized procedures and measures of punishment and dicipline.

...

Which anarchists, exactly? A couple aren't representative of the whole movement, which itself states in the name that it is not something. I've read Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, Dolgoff, and Leval. I find myself almost universally agreeing with their ideas (beyond Proudhon's, although they form a good foundation for the others), except where they are not applicable to the modern world. I also read Stirner, and while I agreed with a lot of what he had to say (the concept of the spook, the ego ultimately being the one verifiable thing from your own point of view if you take an idealist stance, the necessity of unions of egoists to change anything), I heavily disagreed with his lumping-in of all reason and analysis of the material world's relationships with idealist concepts as spooky. So I disagree somewhat with the individualist anarchists and agree almost entirely with the social anarchists. Does that make me not an anarchist and rather a communalist? Well, I've read some Bookchin, but never a whole book. I couldn't stand the idpol! The main reason why I left Marxism was because I didn't see how dialectics fit the development of the material world, seeing as they were made for the development of ideas. Pretty sure I'm an anarchist. The synthesis of social and individualist anarchism is pretty recent- it's hardly the end conclusion unless you say that class warfare is dead like Bookchin. It isn't - it's on the rise anew. Out with Bookchin, in with anarchy.

A state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself.
Nothing.

Hey, why do Communalists never talk about Bookchin's earlier work, like Anarchism and Post-Scarcity? Is there some kind of internal schism between Bookchinites who like his early anarchist stuff and Bookchinites who are strictly Communalists?

*Post-Scarcity Anarchism

A lot of French anarchists, Emma Goldmann amongst them.

Yeah. That's what I came to discover myself.
Anarchism is dead, mainly because it is based upon abstract communities, such as workerism, and thus in many cases would establish nothing but worker-capitalism (and thus class-struggle alone has never been emancipatory, nor could it be) and has inherently anti-organizatiorial tendencies, that bases itself on ahistorical individualism.

Bookchin himself was very much against identity politics.
He called it uncivilized, anti-political and directly refered to it as "chaos".