The basic problem I really have is that whenever I meet leftists in the socialist and Marxist movements...

...

Take a look at the fucking tankies and academic left he was dealing with and it's hard to disagree with him

See how obnoxious they are now? They were 100x more obnoxious back in the day

Anarchists, everybody.

Yeah, imagine taking the Molly Kleins and Phil Greaves of the world and multiplying them. Sounds like hell.

He was a class collaborationist faggot and anyone that takes him seriously is a fucking idiot.

Enjoy your LARPing while you still can, ML. I'm sure you'll grow out of it eventually.

Kill yourself. And ancaps are currently advocating for muh helicopters, so you're wrong there too.

It's like you anarkiddies need to read a fucking book or something.

Only MLs are this autistic and devoid of humor.

Leninist reformism doesnt even try to abolish class

I can deal with tankie obnoxiousness without becoming a negation of all their ideas and everything they believe in, without pandering to right-wing cliches about how good ol' blue collar, beer-drinking regular joes don't like no leftist theory (as if they'd be into eco-libertarian municipalism) and certainly without patting any right-wing shitdick on the back out of our common hatred for Phil Greaves.

It's also really not clear if he's dealing with autistic tankies or just regular Marxists whose positions he's deliberately misrepresenting to make friends with cappies.

It's clear if you actually read Bookchin, rather than forming your opinion on his ideas based on one quote and the screeching cries of tankies on leftypol.

I'm inclined to agree with this tbh. I mean, once you literally say you'd rather have libertarian capitalists than socialists in power there's not much else I can call you.

Damn, Bookchinites really are just Fox News dads.

"the freedom to own slaves"
"the liberty to be a slave owner if YOU feel like it"

this is why murray bookchin is a hack and only american fake leftists like him because he validates their bourgeoisie egoist lifestylism. "democratic confederalism" is a fucking meme

There is no Leninism it's just Marxism. As for what Lenin was trying to do, it's doubtful he wasn't aware that his actions wouldn't lead to socialism. His whole plan hinged on Germany and other larger states joining in. You're also wrong on not trying to abolish class. The USSR did have worker control of the MOP at the beginning. The fact is that the vast majority of Russians weren't even literate at the time and so they had to rely on old mechanisms of government, which would inevitably become corrupt. Today the material conditions are different, and also the way we think about vanguard. Again, go study, anarkiddie. Knocking over trashcans doesn't even have anything to do with abolishing class or the state.

A few pages in and he admits he has no formal definition for the shit he complains about. Bookchin has no sensible theory.

Most of you retards spamming this board with Bookchin memes only post the same two quotes and the same screencap of the same page. I doubt you've finished a single one of this dumbass's books.

sauce on those quotes

Oh well, I guess you'll have to prove us wrong about you by putting us in a gulag.

Wow, now say something witty about the "betrayal" in Spain/Russia and you'll have articulated the entirety of anarchist theory in only two posts.

...

Relevant passages are still relevant passages. It's not our fault that you guys still keep repeating the same old tired arguments.

meh

Haha yes, tired old arguments, sorry for not being as innovative as "Leninists were authoritarians!!", which I'm sure took Bookchin years to come up with.

And if a handful of passages is everything of relevant from his work you can quote, after presumably reading at least one of his books, what does that say to you?

If you can't define what you're discussing, then it's useless because at any time you can say that x criticism doesn't apply because it's not what you meant. Theory is hard, I get it, but it's no excuse. Marxism has empirical and historical evidence supporting it, Bookchin's "theories" do not. Bookchin is a hack and belongs in garbage can.

Nice rebuttal of those "tired old arguments", faggot.

Implying you even made an argument

Nice. It's so clear to me why anarkiddies are anarkiddies. They're fucking idiots.

there's no sauce

MLs only know how to defame and purge. Look at this thread. It's like watching them try to airbrush Murray out of our hearts.

If bookchinites actually wanted to force their ideology, they could actually try mimicking leftcom strategies of dropping tidbits their theory and then linking to the source of their arguments rather than continously forcing
like some bots running on romanian proxy.

smart guy, any intelligent leftist becomes a libertarian.

He lambasted the classical workerist movements for not being class-emancipatory enough.
What a fucking laughable thing to say.

Since when is whining about your hardship and how you knew that you are failing a justifications for your crimes or a defense why your ideology does not necessarily get "betrayed". Retarded tankies dont even give a fuck about socialism, you just want a nicely managed autothoritan social democratic state that appeals to your feelings of inadequacy.

That's like saying Trots weren't often useful idiots/collaborators just because they criticized the Soviet Union for not being socialist enough.

Okay, so what's the argument here? That he somehow literally supported the bourgeoisie in a pragmatic manner?

Anyone who breaks bread with ancap fascists can lay with them for all I care.

Engels literally did this.

Oh no. Reaching out to people who might sympathize and try to build a serious political movement.
The horror.

When, exactly?

the fact that you dismiss probably the MOST important leftist of the past century is laughable to say the least.

tfw you're SO radical and SO leftist that you can't even be bothered fighting against american imperialism if the target is not FUCKING RADICAL enough

...

A guy criticizing Marx and Lenin making an appeal to authority and asking us to not criticized Bookchin based on his "leftist importance" is not eve laughable, just sad.

And again, this is classical anarkiddism: you make thread after thread attacking everybody, spam this board for months, and when you hear criticism back you cry foul. You have literally no argument against Marxists and Leninists other than ancap-tier retardations about authority and muh red Fascism.

No, you don't understand. Everyone has to have already reached the same ideological conclusions as me, or they get locked in a gulag.

Again, you're conflating not being able to create a complete definition as not defining it at all. Marxism actually makes a number of false assumptions, most obvious being were revolutions would come about.

Bookchinfags don't care and unironically will claim that anyone that isn't an anarchist is a ML adherent. They're retards and should be called so openly.

Yep. You're a faggot.

Alright, now I'm excited. Let's see how many reactionary positions you're going to adhere ITT just to protect this one "theorist" you've found through memes on a Holla Forums Facebook page.

He said it again!!

...

...

Again, you're a fucking retard. Nobody is saying the USSR was perfect. We criticize it and revise the theory. Anarfaggots on the other hand can only knock down trashcans. Yes, the USSR failed, but you people never did anything of note and never will.

Nice strawman.

Tankies always sound like edgy teens when it comes to their brand of anti-imperialism. "Oppressive regimes are good because they don't like America, and that is the extent of my international politics."

Communalist here. Let's be real, how many times have state socialists said this to leftcoms and anarchists on this board? That, or promised them a gulag.

Bookchin pdfs are shared constantly on this board.

hi r/FULLCOMMUNISM

Left individualism is the only way forwards.

You keep being so Leftist that you support Imperialism, my brainlet green-imperialist friend.

Ancaps have proven they will side with fascists and authoritarianism if it means they can destroy threats to capitalism. Again, Bookchin proved he was fucking retarded. He not only went to speak with them, but he openly sucked their cocks.

...

MLs have come so far.

"I refuse to take sides because everything is oppressive", on the other hand, makes you sound like a real grown-up.

Ok

Like pottery

Antiimperialism really was the biggest mistake of the left, burning itself up in useless pseudo struggles and shitflinging over positions that affect no one and change nothing. The inner purity of the revolutionary is completely mystified.

And you whine about strawmans and how people misinterpret your glorius science. Guess what, the USSR wasnt just "not perfect". It was impossible that it could have ever succeeded under any circumstance.

American Libertarian movement is slightly more complex than its modern american form, not that I think Bookchin was right in hoping to convince any of them.

talk to me when either Marx or Lenin make a coherent argument. Marx's entire political economy is just a bastardization of Proudhon, and let's not get started on Lenin's practice once he got into power.

So this is the power of ML.

THE MISKITOS'S MISURASATA MOVEMENT TOOK UP ARMS AGAINST THE SANDINISTAS, WITHOUT ALLYING WITH THE CONTRAS - THEY WERE A THIRD FORCE

A lack of formal definition means you cannot make formal and logical arguments. This is basic logic 101. I know, logic is hard. Too hard for anarchists.

That's yet to be seen. World-wide revolution is not only possible, but inevitable. Or how do anarchists plan to bring about their system? Oh, wait, they don't.

No, the biggest mistake of the Left is the cult-like behavior people tend to have regarding certain figures, whether it's Lenin or Bookchin, and refuse to be critical of anything they do or say.

Wait, who said anything about trashcans? Or the USSR? Are you so desperate for arguments you're literally arguing against something never said? lmao.

COMMUNALIST FLAG ON /liberty/ WHEN?

GET THOSE FUCKING TRAITORS THE HELL OUTTA HERE

tbf, Bookchin also did this other green anarchists

You know what you are? You're a checkers-tier autist. I keep telling you that I'm not ML, and yet everyone who doesn't like Bookchin must be ML, because to admit otherwise might mean acknowledging that you're fucking wrong and you're the odd one out.

From Russia to this day, the anarchist's favorite delusion.

I guess, we should all be like Sargon of Akkad and attack the left at every turn because if it isn't perfect, we must side with the right.

fans of murray bookchin reak of new york secular jewish daddy mommy money grubbing petit bourgouise. cool ypg flag you got there faggot. i'm sure you know so much about geopolitics and how glorious "democratic confederalism" ie american centrism is for developing nations

The day /marx/ gets a nazi banner, I suppose.

I don't know what you're asking. He's speaking very plain English. Socialists and anarchists are always talking about how they're going to kill him, libertarians don't, so he feels safer with the people who don't say "I'm going to kill you." Why is this hard for you to understand?

Coming from a Bookchinite it's hard to say if that's irony or not.

Missed you. Stop being such a buthurt faggot and read the thread

Hey man I completely agree, so please fuck off and actually read the man instead of going mad over some irrelevant speech of him completely unimportant in regards to what he can offer us today. Unionism is dead, democratic centralism is a joke and activism without a strategy is even deader. Politics needs to be revived and collective action needs to be reenabled, otherwise we are doomed.

...

Damn, I guess all the MLs telling me I have to unquestionably support Kim or Assad, the true paragons of the left, are right, I am an imperialist.

cool

I think the real kicker with ML and why I embrace it is i realized you are a naive shill if you don't think there will be need for containment of counterrevolutionaries at some point. it's just laughable that you would think otherwise… and worse, that you somehow think anarchists never did this very thing in catalonia.

Because if you dont want to get killed by tankies (because you actually want socialism and not a red technocracy) you are a traitor.

I dont even like Bookchins theory very much but this is just dishonest

Ocalan is better

most libertarians are just leftists that would prefer a western intellectual revise history for them than bother with other legitimate pro-communist perspectives

Yes, mindless support for "antiimperialist forces", democratic centralism, hate of self organisation and unionism is clearly the only thing that can help us against counter revolutionaries. Admit it, you just like the astethics and think that a strong army and revolutionary terror can only work under a dictatorship.

Bookchin is way better than Öcalan.

...

Except there is a clear difference between the Sandinistas and the norks or Assad. See, all governments do things that are wrong, but Bookchin chose to support Reagan's bullshit instead of a revolutionary government that did bad shit, but could be reformed.

ur an idiot

cool black nationalist flag ya got there. i'm sure you're not just a reactionary LARPer

Again, bullshit even by your own sources. Stop lying.

And? Are you going to judge theory based on minor geopolitical stances of their originators?

Seriously, was this dude only made popular because he taught the Left not to opposte virtually every US war ever?

Supporting any counterrevolutionary force is by default support for US foreign policy. That is undeniable. I get it that you faggots have a problem with logic, but this is the truth.

They honestly don't understand that their great purge masturbation fantasy is unappealing.

HEHE gulag I said it again!

I will explain it for you in more simplistic way because you seem to be retarded
Leftcom method:
You on the other hand do not provide incentive to read those pdfs, so don't cry nobody bothers with them

No, I'm going to judge it by their inability to even formally define terms at the outset. Bookchin is a retard and isn't worth reading.

...

The political equivalent of "you're not my real dad!"
Probably underage

Redistribution of lands isn't genocide. Get over yourself.

This.

All these tankies sperging over Bookchin's banter is making me want to finally google him. Where's that reading guide

If the sandinistas were oppressing people, clearly they were the counter-revolutionary force.

Did he actually support Reagan or are you deliberately and misleadingly conflating non-support for Sandinistas as his support for Contras?

I guess ethnic cleansing does sound nicer when you call it redistribution.

leftybooru

...

...

He knew that support for counterrevolutionary groups was support for Reaganist policy. This is a "lesser of two evils" choice, and he chose the greater.

It's a great detriment to the left that they're so obsessed with American imperialism that they overlook all other forms. Your blind spots and hypocrisy are ultimately used against the left as a whole.

...

Tankies are even dumber than advertised

No wonder their most common representatives online are gender-confused teens.

Imagine getting so devastated you have to pretend to samefag as a neutral observer who is now convinced Bookchin is good

You really are trying hard to make me sound like the bad guy here and I'm not buying it. No, I don't care for aesthetics, it seems to be the anarchists that do… you know, those guys that are obsessed with the color black so much and their symbolic street resistance. How isn't that an obsession with aesthetics and endless virtue signalling?

You can criticize faux anti-imperialism, and I would agree with your criticism. However, characterizing support for faux anti-imperialism isn't something all ML's do, that would be as retarded as me saying "anarchists have no theory".. it's a baseless charge on your part. I could level this at anarchists as well, but of course, you think *only* ML's do this sort of crap… how ridiculous and naive you are.

Pretty sure a strong army is needed no matter what revolution you're trying to fight for… I mean, even the dumbest of the dumb anarchist should realize the need for an effective fighting force. It is strange, though, seeing anarchists consistently construct what amounts to a state per the Marxist definition and always insisting it isn't one. There's a reason the "Let's build a state and call it not a state" meme exists..

And on that same front, hierarchies don't automatically become less oppressive due to their informality. This is something you guys automatically assume true without providing little or no evidence for.

On the contrary, there's plenty of room for wrongdoing, and natural leaders develop even in the smallest of affinity groups.

And if you get so butthurt about the proletariat forming a dictatorship (again, the Marxist definition here.. ), you should question how committed of a leftist you really are.

I don't hate self organization or unions, either. I don't know where you get this other than just by getting drunk on pure ideology. Stop listening to Noam Chomsky and other people like him, its bad for you.

If there is anyone samefagging in this thread, it's the tankie that keeps saying anarkiddie and trash cans in every post.

wew and i thought reddit was bad

What the fuck do you think contras means, dumbass?

There have been various threads explaining why Bookchin is relevant to the modern left, as he shows us a way out of the current drought of strategy. Its clear though that he will never appeal to non libertarians. Some flaws of him and him shitting on MLs makes Leninist really mad at him and their tendency towards dogmatism and wholesale rejection and acceptance of thinkers makes the situation even worse. Any thread gets instantly flooded by them and the usual leftcoms,

Its telling that there is barely any criticism. and no spastic wailing at all, of him from anarchists here despite some obvious points of contention.

Trashcan was only mentioned as an insult in two posts lol

Holy shit, an elderly man who is pro freedom says he is made to feel unsafe around people who say they want to murder him and 80% of Holla Forums gets triggered.

It's shocking to me that MLs have such a hard time recruiting anymore.

Be honest, did you even know who they were before this thread?

culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/misurasatasandinista-negotiations

Fucking Misurasata.

...

When you assume my contention with MLs and similar people is that they fight against counterrevolutionaries and think about structures to safeguard the revolution then its obvious that I attack that point because its not unique to your ideology at all.

Thats basically the reason why Bookchin wasnt an anarchist, and why he talked at lengths about institutions and their natures. He even dared to describe them and gave examples(pure evil utopianism according to the enlightend marxists)

I used the modern definition of the word, and it should be obvious that any dictatorship of the proletariat must be democratic to the highest degree or it no longer is a genuine class movement.

I never listend or read a single thing from him.

meant for

The poverty of tankie thought laid bare once again again in this thread.

What the fuck? There a thousands of ethnic/religious minorities around the world that I've never heard of. It doesn't mean it's ok to slaughter them…

Spoken like a true tankie.

You can oppose one policy of a government without opposing the idea of its existence. How retarded are you?

And had they only refrained from opressing that certain ethnic group, I am certain Bookchin would have had no issue supporting the sandinistas.

I guess I'm retarded because I don't view ethnic cleansing as just one little policy that you can brush aside.

Kill yourself smashie.

lol dummy, what I'm saying is that since you haven't looked at the subject in depth and you're only repeating MISKITO GENOCIDE because cult leader Bookchin said it, and there's a slight chance you're swallowing propaganda or, at least, a misconception of the issue.

What I'm saying is, basically, study something before you parrot it.

Yes, I bet those indians just rose up for shits and giggles

The Internet is a magical place.

...

Oh I'm sorry, for a second I forgot Bookchinites are just children playing radicals online and that studying something is beyond the realm of possibility here. You kids carry on.

...

Be more specific. What was this slaughter, how many died, and when did aggressions start, and by whom?

that's because lolberts are all high school nerds jerking each other off to the NAParoos with their Steven Universe dakimakuras

seems like this 90% of this board are anarchists who haven't read any theory. is there even a good place to discuss m-l? /marx/ is dead

Hey now, it's very mature and nuanced to stand counter to anything the US might also support no matter what because muh anti-imperialism.

Doesn't fucking matter. A small tribe of indigenous peoples are not a threat to your socialist utopia.

Nah, anarkiddies are a minority but they're organized and organize raids every now and then. It's not the first time they try to push a shitty thinker as a new God here, they did it before with Stirner.

You sound like a fascist.

Filtered, get rekt kiddo

Love to mirror the arguments of Holocaust deniers in the name of anti-imperialism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Politics must be very easy when you define all of your views as whatever is contrary to whatever the US is interested in.

I hate tankies so much.

Low effort shitposting

...

The Sandinistas continually denied their right to self-determination and even out-lawed teaching in their native language, forcing them to be taught in spanish only.
That is very close to the kind of ethnic chauvenism usually reserved for the "bourgeois" nation-state.

Yeah, the comparison is totally unfounded.

It does matter, you just don't fucking know what you're talking about.

nytimes.com/1987/06/07/world/us-hpes-a-miskito-indian-parley-will-bolster-fight-against-sandinistas.html

upi.com/Archives/1985/05/31/Nicaragua-says-CIA-using-Indians-to-start-a-war/8634486360000/

books.google.com.br/books?id=IbFXs7_LutMC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=Nicaragua says CIA using Indians to start a war&source=bl&ots=6JCv830QkC&sig=2NO4De5DVGYCIGVS40qgFMExVOY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3jdi2idDTAhUCO5AKHVu5CFsQ6AEIRjAH#v=onepage&q=Nicaragua says CIA using Indians to start a war&f=false

Miskitos armed by Israel/Contras and the US

books.google.com.br/books?id=f0VnzMelzm8C&pg=PA762&lpg=PA762&dq="arm the miskito"&source=bl&ots=SJ-l7rYpgk&sig=cs-tJm0ueJ-GqgRMn_pMEhFMEQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjghMa8idDTAhUJIZAKHYLZBwkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q="arm the miskito"&f=false

Miskitos being used by foreign powers as an instrument of policy since the 19th fucking century

And, apparently, we're not dealing with fucking death squads here (unlike what the Sandinistas literally went through) but a repression of an uprising following a Sandinista attempt to expand into the east coast. This is what a simple googling leads to.

And before you go HURR RED FASCISM! GENOCIDE SUPPORTER! I'm not even saying I'm for or against them, I'm just saying, like one of you idiots said above, that this isn't black vs white, evil vs good, and to adhere uncritically to a US government/US media narrative like that just to avoid a criticism of Bookchin is ridiculously cynical and ignorant.

Except it wasn't ethnic cleansing.

The US forces every country to back up their currency with US-Dollar because of their global domination in oil trade. This leads to petrodollar recycling which forces countries to buy useless American shit and keeps the US-Dollar artificially inflated. This is why supporting Arab national liberation and Russia is a tool to bring down global capitalism besides the fact it leads to secularization of the area, stops CIA and Saudi-Arabian funded terrorism and maybe stops people from being killed by drones or straight out genocided like in Yemen right now. Are you going to support Saudi-Arabia now because the Huthi rebels aren't left enough?

I don't give a shit about what the US wants, but no other country is enforcing global capitalism the way the US does, so they must be fought and their influence drawn back. But I'm sure you'll brush this all off while saying

I guess they shouldn't defend themselves. They should just roll over and die because the US were the ones who gave them arms.

What does this right to self-determination entail and where in the Americas does it currently exist?

Also, is this what you arrived at? Weren't you crying ethnic cleansing/genocide!11! above?

Then you should be aiming at Bordiga who was a Holocaust denier

...

You're not blending in so well.

...

Lmao anarkiddies ITT are saying Sandinistas are bad and deserve to have the US empire attack them because they didn't give self-determination to an indigenous tribe that was being armed by Contras and the US. Are Bookchinites the new Trots?

You can have more than one thought. That's one of the reasons I don't like Bordiga. No one was talking about Bordiga, so I don't know why you bring up his denial of genocide to deflect from others denial. Do you want me to call out Cenk Uygar for denying the Armenian genocide next?

Your argument really is falling apart, m8.

If you wanna compare your movement to other capitalist or semi-fascist countries in the region to make yourself look good, then the outlook is not good.
Besides, self-mangement of workers is the whole point of socialism. It simply does not make sense if you cannot lead yourself by your own terms. Even Stalin gave different ethinc groups some sense of autonomy.

If someone counquerred the place you lived and then forced you to adopt their customs and language, I don't think you'd be all that happy either. Indeed, it's exactly what the US did too.
Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

...

From what?

Who's trying to kill them?

For what purpose?

You guys are not even just swallowing US propaganda/talking points, you're literally making things up to retrospectively justify a war just because Bookchin told you to.

A tankie accusing others of making things up retrospectively? Whoa.

Historical necessity. Or would you prefer the indios keep isolated in their own part of the world?

No, no,no, don't my question. What did this "self-determination" entail? Come on, google faster.

What did Stalin do that the Nicaraguas didn't do? What autonomy are we talking about? Did Stalin allow ethnic groups to be armed by countries they were at war with?

Fake news. Bordiga didn't write an analysis (which, "if anything, he proved the holocaust happened") of the Holocaust, but a certain Martin Axelrod ("a german french jew") did.

- defenders of US genocide of natives

Take your meds

Really makes you think.

Come on now, just admit you are out of your league and close this tab. Save your side from any further embarrassment.

The basic right for a people to manage themselves, set their own policies and maybe speak their own language.

Where was this indian oblast?

The institutional discrimination against indians began way before america entered the scene.

There's literally no difference between Fascism and Red Fascism, you tankie scum

t. bookchinite

I make no excuses. Bad things must happen for history to continue. The world is not sunshine and rainbows. The same with the execution of the Romanovs. It had to happen, and I would do it myself if I had to.

...

So I guess white nationalism is alright by you?

Integration is the opposite of discrimination. Kill yourself.

...

But they speak their own language and they have the same rights as anyone else. If that's what you mean then your argument about their self-determinationg being denied makes no sense.

lol at you realising your own analogy is stupid

Wrong, the CIA was arming them since the beginning:

books.google.com.br/books?id=rsWtsiwKv9EC&pg=PA213&dq=Nicaragua Miskito CIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3yKWQidDTAhVGkZAKHekfDMwQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Nicaragua Miskito CIA&f=false

Bordigas authorship isn't disproven. Whatever the case may be, you got to ask yourself how such views can fester so well amongst the leftcom community.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_or_the_great_alibi

This is your mind on Bordiga

literally constantly have these arguments.

Get your head examined, shlomo.

Pro-imperialism and now anti-semitism, Bookchin anarchists really are the Real Radicals™ of Leftism.

Nationalism has very little to do with self-determination and community control.

Forced assimilation is genocide.

But they weren't allowed to be taught in their own language, so no, they didn't have the same rights as everyone else. You could make the same argument to defend turkish chauvenism against kurds.

The mid-80's and 90's is not "the beginning".
The conflict between the two starts right from 1979, so your sources doesn't back up that the conflict was initailly started by US backing indians.

I bet my fucking ass you'd never ever grant weapons to Orania in South Africa when they are about to be raided

You're such a fucking hypocrite

Keep proving Bookchin right

Certainly, I would not want white people in South Africa to face institutional discrimination either, no.

That would be to insinuate that there's no premises in play. There exists a premise of what hierarchy and domination is, but Bookchin concedes that it's difficult to come up with an all encompassing definition. Nevertheless, the premises that are included can be used in a formal argument.
If you could stop being historically illiterate for just a moment, you would remember that socialist revolutions that did occur were in the industrially underdeveloped nations of Russia, Ukraine, etc. If you would actually bother to read bookchin, you would know that he believes in a program of dual power.

This 110%. OP *PROVES* Bookchin = porky

It has everything to do with that. If whites in one area want to maintain exclusive control, I guess you think that's fine. It's no different.

No, it's not. It's bringing people out of the darkness. The parents may not like it, but the children will benefit. It's historical necessity.

They continue to use their language to this day even with the Sandinistas still there, and please stop making dumb analogies

Wrong, the evacuations began in 1982 and the Miskito response right afterwards, from the get-go armed by other groups. See pic.

Also important to keep in mind here that the idea that the Miskito unanimously fought against Sandinistas is propaganda. Fagoth had like 3,000 people with him, out of over 100,000 Miskito back then.

Let it go, man. You placed your bets on the wrong horse.

You people are literally repeating Reagan lines even republicans thought would be hard to sell.

This thread is composed of intellectually dishonest responses fueled by nothing but inane and self sustaining butthurt.

No, it isn't. The problem is that it's difficult to come up with one that fits Bookchin's retarded logic and doesn't give rise to severe refutations of his shit. This is why he didn't define it. The premises can't be used to make a good argument because they do not readily allow you to interpret what is and is not hierarchy or why it should or should not exist.

And if you read more Marx, you'd know that they were doomed to failure because the only revolutions that can really change the way the world works is through seizure of sufficiently advanced MOP. There have been over 100 years of additions to Marxist thought. You should fucking keep up. Revolutions will be had in the future.

I don't care to read him because he's retarded at the outset. He belongs in the garbage can.

...

Fucking tankies I swear. I could shoot a child in the streets and say it was in the name of anti-imperialism and I'd be lauded as a hero.

...

Fucking imperialists I swear. I could arm a kid and tell them to shoot someone and if the person reacted they'd say children were being genocided.

Hey, I said "I hate AmeriKKKa" after I killed the kid. I'm an anti-imperialist hero, you fucking anarkiddie.

Every single right 'libertarian' turns fash when the chips are down, just ask that guy t, dapperton, love life anarchy

Sir, could you please stand still? I just paid this minority to kick you, and if you react that's ethnic cleansing and I'll be forced to bomb you.

See pics related. He's quite explicit in how he views it, and by these premises you can criticize it. He informally defines it based on how views it, recognizing that this view is not a universal interpretation of the meaning of the word.
Except this is conforming reality to theory, not theory to reality. To simply say that the MOP were not advanced enough, and just completely ignore the actual systemic failings of the bolshevik party is laughable.
Literally dumb and proud.

Oh wait I forgot things change magically depending on who the USA likes because Imperialism is just something the USA does

whose child?

Why are you still arguing with me? The kid didn't want to leave his home down the block and abandon his culture. This one kid was a direct threat to my glorious revolution and had to die. My revolution is good because America is bad.

What do you think contra means? Yes, by definition he supports the contras.

They don't. ISIS is also against Assad. Indios did not fight the contras or even make an attempt. Wonder why that is?

No, but we have logic, and you don't. Even your examples don't fit. We're not the ones sucking ancap dick and saying muh ebil socialists want to kill me.

Sir, these children just claimed 38% of your income, your house and your personal property after you gave them a platform to make political demands for the first time ever, and if you say no I'll be forced to give him 600,000 in military equipment. Come on, just be a "real leftist" here, haven't you googled Bookchin?

Hey maybe killing kids is bad but killing the tsars I can't say am sad

No. l don't need to work within his framework. He's simply wrong in saying there is no formal definition. There is, just not one that he can use to justify what he says. This is why he pretends it doesn't exist.

Then he should stop until he can formally define it so we can logically talk through what he means. But, again, he didn't do that because he knew he would be caught out.

Except we didn't ignore the failings of the party, namely that it wasn't organized in the ways we would today, or that the vast majority of people had not chance of membership, or that elections were not subject to immediate recall. You seem to think you're the first one to think about this. You're not. Material conditions have changed, and they will make revolution inevitable.

You must be talking about Bookchin. Why would I waste my time with someone that can't even properly define this thesis? It's literal garbage.

What do you think Not Socialism means? Yes, by definition they support socialism.

Quit being a fucking pedant. You know that in this instance that Contra, with a capital C, refers to specific groups.

Fucking end yourself before you carry out more ethnic cleansing in the name of anti-imperialism.

this thread is your daily reminder that tankies aren't even real, they're an ongoing CIA PSYOP to make leftists look bad and poison the well of public opinion

Before night of the long knives, sure.

Yeah, let's say I agree with you. Why didn't the indios ever fight the other contras, if these were, a "third party"?

Again, you have shown no evidence that this was an ethnic cleansing. All you've done is regurgitate Reaganist propaganda.

No, they're what anarkiddies call everyone that disagrees with them.

lmao, if anything this thread proved that Bookchinites spout literal neocon talking points

How many levels of cognitive dissonance are you on?

I assume you’ll grant that the USA and Australia did nothing wrongs when it came to “integrating” the aboriginal populations, right?

Ummm…

They did?

Everything that makes us look bad is imperialist propaganda: the autistic tankie's guide to viewing the world.

No, they are apologists for the violence and crimes against humanity perpetrated by twentieth-century Marxist-Leninist regimes, particularly the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Again with the stupid analogies. The Miskito who fought against the Sandinistas, which were a few thousand among almost a fifth of a million, were literally armed by the CIA and worked with Contras.

washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/08/27/miskito-contras-still-lack-aid-but-quit-camp-for-nicaragua/6a1a4648-3ad7-410d-be22-4a32c77f83cb/?utm_term=.893af8239a51

And the Miskito isn't a monolithic "muh people" group waiting your help you racist fuck, they have political opinions and divergences like anyone else. There were several pro-Sandinista Miskitos who got killed by Contras.

They did, but mostly not the same ones who fought against Sandinistas.

If they were doing it to actually integrate them, no, that would have been just fine and dandy with me. This was done in Mexico, and I see nothing wrong with that.

No, it's only bad when the US does it.

Guantanamo Bay? Bad.
Gulags? Good.
Ethnic cleansing natives in North America? Bad.
Ethnic cleansing natives in Central America? Good.

Evidence, please.

Babbys first steps in geopolitics

Which ethnic cleansing are you talking about lmao. Read the thread before you jump in, retard.

Put up or shut up. We know you have no sources.

I know what tankie means. I just don't think they actually exist ITT, and dumb anarkiddie is calling everyone ML just because they don't worship Bookchin.

I'm usually on board with tankie hate but 'post left' liberals who pal around with the right are far more cancerous, at least I won't have to fear that the tankie I'm alongside isn't going to turn traitor

Give me a formal definition that everyone will agree upon and I'll eat my hat.
We can already logically talk about what he means. Tell me, what is wrong with the basic premise of hierarchy being as a "complex system of command and obedience in which elites enjoy varying degrees of control over their subordinates without necessarily exploiting them."
As far as I'm aware, there is no M-L groups that rejects a one party state or "democratic centralism" within the party, two things which inherently corrode the revolution. Btw, I've been criticized on this board numerous times for accusing marxists of thinking revolution is inevitable and here you are doing just that.

Exactly my point, but Bookchin supported those that did fight against Sandinistas.

books.google.com.br/books?id=rsWtsiwKv9EC&pg=PA213&dq=Nicaragua Miskito CIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3yKWQidDTAhVGkZAKHekfDMwQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Nicaragua Miskito CIA&f=false

This thing that you posted even says it.

WHOA

Gassing people? Depends on who does the gassing

Syria is Schrodinger's Gassing.

Did Assad do it? It's good.
Did the extremist rebels do it? It's bad (until America says it's bad)

HAHA, are you fucking serious? You better be prepared to lose all critical thought and bootlick like the best of 'em, or else YOU'RE the traitor. They're no better or worse than fascists.

...

edgy

That it makes it impossible to identify what is and is not hierarchy without ambiguity. Whereas Marxist material analysis allows you to definitely claim one or another as proletarian or not, Bookchin's definition does not let you do this. This is a major problem.

Then maybe you should look at groups other than Marxist-Leninists instead of being a stupid idiot that thinks that this is what makes up the whole of Marxism.

Revolution is inevitable with a major caveat, that we do not die off first. There is no other way to bring about change other than revolution. If you think this is not the case, then please explain.

It says the page is unavailable for viewing.

Assad didn't gas his people you idiot.

Exactly. The period before the Civil War and after the October Revolution I would consider as socialism. Lenin handed power to the Soviets and had the these governing bodies to produce based off their local needs. There was food and the infrastructure to support the population (despite WW1) and things were going bretty well until the imperialist nations invaded.

Of course he didn't, he's a despot you guys like.

I'm not even the person who said that, do you not know how internet boards work?

By the way, are you , and and so on? Because I don't know if Bookchin readers are really horrible at banter or that's just you samefagging for hours now.

That wasn't him who posted this link, that was me.

...

No he didn't. Read the MIT report. The whole thing was a hoax.

You probably also believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction

The Miskitos who fought the Sandinistas were a a faction that literally gang raped and murdered other Miskitos, and you people think that was some Woke pro-native rights group that spoke for all the tribes.

But keep shouting "ethnic cleansing" (which is not claimed, even by them) because, uhhh, fucking tankies, am I right?

They don't, but they'll pretend they do. Everything Bookchinites did ITT was to cynically pretend to believe in US propaganda in order to annoy Leninists. Some anarchists are so deranged in their quest to fight Marxism that they will even side with reactionary forces against us.

The MIT report has been debunked. It was proven that the prof who wrote it was relying on data from an entirely different gas attack

Tankies aren't Leninists.

It's no secret everyone hates you.

Except that that's woefully inadequate in what it doesn't include.
"systems of command and obedience" seems pretty straightforward to me. It's no more ambiguous then the definition you produced. Mind you, bookchin goes on to elaborate what these systems are, how they functioned etc.
For Bookchin's time they were, and even now the only marxist groups doing anything revolutionary are M-Ls. Usually, in countries that are some of the least developed.

Everyone that doesn't agree with Bookchin is apparently a tankie now, so what difference does it make?

cuck
anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

This is some cosmic brain shit right here. ISIS must also be good because they fight the Great Satan–U.S.A.!

Come on, don't pretend anyone but triggered Bookchin supporters are fighting us here.

You're that guy, right?

Okay, then what doesn't it include? Or is it just that you want to shoehorn more into it?

It's not. A teacher and student, or parent and child, has a system of obedience that is widely recognized as legitimate. Is this something that needs to be eliminated now? What about architect and worker? Or engineer and technician? Do you see why your shit doesn't make sense?

No, my definition is pretty unambiguous, but it comes off as less worthy of elimination that whatever Bookchin thought up and might even be a necessity, so now you can't really bitch about it. And it doesn't matter what Bookchin went on to elaborate. It's built on a rocky foundation and meaningless without that. It's simply a way for Bookchin to get you to buy his shit without thinking too much.

And? That's completely irrelevant. Just because someone isn't using an idea right now doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean it will forever go unused. The same thing can be said of liberal democracy, which existed in theory far longer than it existed in reality. The same thing is true of Marxist socialism.

more like never-read-a-Bookchin lol

...

hahahhaahhaa

So we have evidence that the rebels used toxic gas but we have no evidence that Assad used gas yet the latter is self evident because the White House spokesman says so?

And 4 years later the same fucking shit comes up defying all logical reasoning?

Wow sounds really legit to me

Give me hard proofs about Assad using gas or shut up

Notice how you didn't actually present a criticism of Marxist theory. It's because you don't have one.

It doesn't include anything of substance by which to critique it
Both of the things you've mentioned are not always legitimate, and the things that they entail are not nearly as neat and simple as you make it out to be. The vast majority of teachers serve the state and system. There is nothing wrong with the idealized meaning of teacher, as somebody who merely teaches, but there are plenty of problems with the reality of the position and what it entails. The same goes for parenting, in the sense that there is nothing wrong with the idealized definition but etc etc etc
You mean it's lacking in any real substance? You've sure got me there :^)
He was critiquing the actual institutions of his time that composed marxism, something very sane for anyone active in leftist politics to do. Not in the sense that they should all criticize marxism, but that they should be critical of the prevailing institutions of their time (especially the ones that fail to do much of anything). Ultimately, his critique of Marx is different from his critiques of marxism.

I'm pretty sure the user that brought up Assad and the gas in Syria was being hypothetical, but whatever.

What a fucking faggot.

Read it and get educated you classcuck bookchin faggot

8ch.net/leftypol/res/1590962.html

THIS

low energy. sad

People have critique Marx on here a number of times. Essentially, the criticism amounts to: over emphasis on the base, not enough emphasis on hierarchy, incorrect view of the proletariat as the revolutionary agent.

...

No, the proletariat is still the revolutionary agent. Marx's biggest problem was his ambiguity on/ willingness to tolerate authoritarianism. Communists must unambiguously be pro-proletarian democracy

we should try to convert everyone we can. Libertarians can often be swayed with Stirner, Bookchin, Goldman and Proudhon and we should expose them to left-liberterianism as much as possible.

And regardless of those critiques, marxian economics have been empirically proven correct time and time again.

I'm so sick of the leftcom infantile bullshit that goes on here. I'm so sick of that shit, I really am. Start acting like fucking adults people, and if you don't like what I'm saying

GET THE FUCK OFF THIS BOARD

And Bookchin doesn't reject marx's criticism of capitalism. So what are you arguing exactly?

Libertarian socialism specifically. They are nowhere near as scared of the word socialism as they are of communism, and if you attach libertarian to it, it will pique their interest. Explain workers' self-management and seizing the means of production, rather than social programs and high taxes.

Love Triggering Nazibols

Reminded that the peasantry were the majority of the revolutionaries in russia and in the soviets

I'm referring back to this original post

lol, marx was in favor of direct democracy

"Democracy is the road to socialism"

yes he does

Part oh me thinks this sectarianism is cointelpro tbh. Sides, we should be stealing stealing lolbert talking points and use them against them with worker ownership thrown in the mix.

And how did those turn out, fam? I'm not really blaming the peasants here, they had a bunch of leaders who had everything to gain by declaring what they created socialism instead of developing a framework to progress through capitalism to socialism.

and I'm referring back to this original post:

Shut the fuck up and google this great man:

t. Closet fascist brainlet

Closet porky

What's this relationship between Communalism and NazBol

There is some sexual tension in the air

In the abstract, sure. In terms of praxis, and in the theoretical framework for transition, he was equivocal at times.

Perhaps a bigger criticism of Marx was the groundwork he laid to make history the big other of marxism, a new god of sorts.

t. Classcuck

notice how this is a shit thread, and that was a shitpost and neither did you present a fucking argument either you dunce.

I've read Marx and Engels work in a sufficient enough detail to know that all attempts at the application of his theory have failed miserably, and that few of his ideas hold any weight in academia as of today, but keep going on about muh dialectic.

Just because they BTFO you on arguments? I mean, you should inform yourself beforehand.

no u

Nice appeal to authority there, you said his theories werent empirically supported, you got linked some material that proves they are, you dismiss them by calling them gobbelty gook.

You are no better than sargon of fucking akkad, "for fuck sake, you couldn't summarize this in less than 5 minutes?"

youtube.com/watch?v=bFtcLJVN8yg

get BTFO you closet porky

If you actually read their theory, you'd know most of it is a description and analysis of capitalism, most of which was proven empirically correct.

Reported for using a racial slur againsts East Asians, enjoy your account getting deleted faggot

lol, okay I'll look at a few of them so I can laugh later, just hilarious that you literally can't pull a single argument out of them to defend your point.

no shit it was A description, a fucking terrible one at that.
you mean virtually none of it, but yeah sure.

You can't even define hierarchy, you faggot.

really scratches the noggin

t. Holla Forumsyp

god damn tankies you scary

No, it was the very belief by people like the bolsheviks that you needed capitalism in order to reach socialism. The essentially socialist institution is the soviet after all, and once their power was subsumed to that of the party the revolution was over.

"systems of obedience and command"
realizing that peasants have revolutionary potentional isn't class collaborationist ya dingus

We literally debunked this point a long time ago. It says a lot about Anarkiddies that you just keep repeating the same points despite being disproven.

Can we finally agree that Bob Black>Boockhin now?

lel no

tankies have proved anything ITT except their usual backwards consequentialism that leads to authoritarian dictatorships.

enjoy your dead ideology.

Is that why all the anarchists trying to push the very unconvincing that natives were abused under the Sandinista regime just quietly left the thread after getting pounded again and again and shift the goalpost one time after the other?

Enjoy your hip and alive eco-libertarian municipalism or whatever.

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about these tankie comments like

do you guys really believe that?

No, they got tired of dealing with your dismissal of anyone and any group whose interests may coincidentally ally with the US. Speaking to tankies is like speaking to a brick wall that only responds to any criticism as imperialistic.

But whatever, I'm sure fighting against everyone who even has the slightest disagreement with your authoritarian social democracy will help bring M-Lism back into prominence.

I'm not that dude so I'm not sure, it depends on what he means by that.

I guess what I'm asking is, in general do you think it's ok to force an indigenous population to 'integrate' into a larger collective.

Of course they do, they believe in vanguards.

So, again, parent and child? Teacher and student? Architect and builder?
See how stupid your definition is?

Except Bookchin was living in an age where peasantry was scarce to come by and he thought office workers weren't real workers. He's a fucking idiot.

Their interest did ally with those of the US, they too wanted to destroy the Sandinista regime.

Imagine discussing US foreign policy and all its techniques with people who think any criticism of war means you'd also support ISIS.

I love how you people keep talking about how dead ML is as if your ideologies were super popular and taking over the world right now. There are Maoist cults in New Jersey with more adherents than Bookchin.

It's difficult to give you a response when you deliberately keep things as vague as possible just to be able to read whatever you want from my reply. "Integrate" here can mean a lot, so can "force".

But sure, let me just say yes and get called a genocidal maniac by someone who can't even find Nicaragua on the map for the 10th time.

Yes, Mexico did the same thing, as well as other latin-american countries. This is different from what the US did in the past.

damn it feels to be good to be master race

well no shit, the americans got their attitudes towards the natives from the british. the spaniards always got along better as they were willing to intermarry.

you misspelled rape

shut the fuck up and google this great man

Damn, are you planning to ethnically cleanse the millions of people in Rojava next?

what the fuck am I supposed to google

MLs are too busy defending Stalin every day. They don't have the time to read other viewpoints.

...

see
Architect need not be a dictator to a builder. Same goes for parents and teachers.

Architect does need to have final say on all those decisions, namely because he's the goddamn architect. It's a system of obedience and control. This is a necessary hierarchy. Same thing with sergeant and private, parent and child. This is hierarchy as defined by Bookchin. Now why should anyone take him seriously?

An architect has no inherent power in itself. The builders can defer from the architect if they choose, whether or not it is unwise to do so is another matter. Likewise, a person is not beholden to parents or teacher in so far as the system makes them or situation dictates to follow their judgement. The facilitation of expertise towards a goal is not a "a system of obedience and command", and to say it is to imply that teachers have to be listened to or that parents have to be listened to, and in the end neither do.

Well, I can strike him off the list of people to read once I run out of pdfs on British election history.

...

Actually when it comes to building shit, yes, he does, as does the project manager. This won't change under socialism.

No, actually they can't, or they'll be removed from the worksite.

Your parents will punish you and so will your teacher if you fail to obey. This is seen as necessary authority to carry out both tasks, and I see no reason to change this.

Except it is, the architect designs and the builders build. If they deviate, they are disciplined by removal. This is how it should be.

Again, punishment is legitimate, and unless you think it somehow isn't and brats should be allowed to run around all they want, then you are still required to follow orders.

Now, if you're saying that this isn't the case because you may disobey in spite of punishment, then we have no hierarchy now because you can always disobey, even with potential punishment as a deterrent.

I'm not really a socdem, but it's a good way of approximating what I know, because my main interest/knowledge is in recent-historical (1950-2000ish) bourgeois politics. In actuality I arguably have no positive political belief, since I've fallen into a deep pit of "Reformism doesn't work and revolution isn't coming" from which only actual revolution - not theory - should be able to rouse me, leaving the only consistent view I hold as "Things will only get worse"

This may change however, as I'm coming over to the view that capitalist realism is built on that expectation of decline, of misery.

A community can decide not to follow the wisdom of an architect when constructing something. Not necessarily in the society we find ourselves, with it's rules and regulations, but in a communist or communalist society. Would they be unwise to? Yes, but ultimately it's their choice to make. Likewise, there are situations where it is prudent to follow the wisdom of a teacher or parent, but you do not have to follow it. Children can defy both and suffer punishment, and punishment is just as likely to encourage them to repeat the offense as it is to deter them from it. All your doing is projecting your own beliefs regarding these relationships as automatically just when the reality is much more complicated then that.

Mind you, I am not saying that by defying it hierarchy does not exist, only that this hierarchical relationship has negative consequences which could be easily negated by re-looking at these relationships and making them more egalitarian

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me all that but OK

And they can do that in capitalism too. Look at China's buildings. Don't be retarded.

So you're saying that we won't have rules and regulations or building codes under socialism? Are you retarded?

Newsflash, this could happen and does happen today. If you think this is a problem, then you're retarded.

Actually, yes, you do or you will be punished, until you are an adult and out of education, that is.

Okay, then hierarchy doesn't exist now because people can do things while ignoring punishment. Go ahead and build shitty things and break the law, punishment is no impediment to you now. You've defeated hierarchy. God, you're retarded.

Actually you're just being retarded. If these relationships are not hierarchical, then hierarchy does not exist. Kill yourself.

#SAVAGE

You're not saying anything. You just said something stupid and now you're trying to salvage it with word salad. You have made no definition of hierarchy that is worth a shit, and you have not shown why these are bad. In fact, you've made good arguments for why nobody should ever listen to Bookchinites.

So then you concede that an architect does not have be listened to, and in actuality commands no power
I'm saying any such rules and regulations will be decided upon democratically and locally by the citizenry, not by an architect.
What are you even talking about now? My entire point is that these positions are not necessarily about obedience and command as you imply it to be.
Yeah and I don't think you should be punished unilaterally by a parent or teacher, because power ultimately should not lie in the hands on any individual over another, but rather by the whole of society over themselves. Meaning, a teacher has no right to simply punish a student for an act of disobedience nor do parents. A child can rightfully criticize either and they should be free to do so without fear of reprisal
No I didn't say that, and if you had read this post you would know that
I'm saying that though they may exist in the present as hierarchical relationships, that ultimately they should persist as such and instead be more egalitarian and cooperative. The fact that you're so upset by this mere suggestion is quite troubling

Let be more explicit then, since you fail to understand me: all hierarchical relationships should be abolished, and the mere fact that teacher and parent exist currently as hierarchical roles does not mean they have to persist as such.

Oh, then I guess nobody commands any power since people are fucking stupid and violate safety laws or simply fail to do their jobs. Hierarchy no longer exists!

That's already the case, dipshit.

Once an architect is at a job site, you have to obey him if you are a builder. This is instituted by society, but it makes it no less hierarchical.

No, should we ask kids if they want to be punished for misbehavior? Nice job being retarded.

Define this. This is more nebulous shit.

Okay, so you do want kids running around with no discipline like animals. Nice job proving you're retarded.

Children don't get punished for criticism. They get punished for misbehaving. It's how we socialize the young ones to be adults.

That is exactly what you said. Trying to walk it back isn't a valid way to argue. You said that because people can disobey, then it's not hierarchical. In that case nothing is hierarchical and you need to kill yourself for being a fucking retard.

Define this. Be specific.

This, TBH. It was a shit thread from the beginning.

You fucking retarded tankie, by taking the idealist spergings of the retarded liberal who wrote that seriously, you've just revealed you haven't actually read the essay itself.

So parents no longer have the power to discipline their children and architects and engineers can't tell workers how to do things. Is that it?

Provide an alternative. Some hierarchies are necessary. Get over yourself.

I never knew a thread on Holla Forums could run solely on autism for this long.

Where did I ever imply that? People can get arrested for such a thing after all. That is, in our current society.
No it's really not, and the fact that you call yourself a socialist and genuinely believe that is pretty hilarious.
Yeah, this is instituted by a hierarchical and capitalist society. I seek to abolish both, and really the architect only has as much power as the person who is really in charge of the project, be it state or bourgeois, lends to them through their authority and systems of obedience and command.
Misbehavior can mean disobeying a parent for not dressing in a particular fashion, not holding a certain belief etc. I am not of the belief that people should be punished for such things, that if you really want them to change their behavior it is better to do so through positive methods
Politics as opposed to statecraft. People deciding on their own affairs as opposed to having their affairs dictated to them by professionals.
Discipline should be self enforced not dictated to. Children are not mindless animals but individuals, with more capacity to understand then you give them credit to.
You have to sufficiently qualify the difference between the two. Children have and consistently do get punished for criticizing the actions of their parents and the parents punish them because they can.
I even went on to elaborate further here , but don't let me keep you from being intellectually dishonest and arguing in bad faith :^)
Define what part exactly? Cooperative and egalitarian relationships? I mean a child should not be compelled to do things through negative enforcement but through positive reinforcement, and by encouraging their capacity to reason and be individuals as opposed to just doing whatever their parent or teacher tells them to do.
Let me ask you something, are so bent on the legitimacy punitive punishment because that's how you rationalize your parents abuse to yourself? Tell me about your mother, user.

Parents would not have the power to unilaterally punish their children, and people are free to choose when and where they listen to the judgement of professionals.
I did, read my other post. I'm not the one arguing dogmatically in favor of the status quo matey. Maybe you should take a nice long look at yourself.

Y'all should read Bookchin
Really, just read any book. All of you

And you should get arrested if you fuck with the design of a building without having the right credentials. You should be punished if you build a dangerous structure. Yes. That's not exactly a bad thing.

Oh, yeah, building codes do not at all reflect what is and isn't a safe building. Right.

And under socialism it will be instituted by socialist society and will be no less hierarchical.

Doesn't matter. All that will change is that the architect or engineer is now in charge because of his expertise. Hierarchy between him and worker won't change.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that for any infraction the ones with the power to punish are the parents, whether you consider it legitimate or not. Unless you want to say that parents may no longer punish children, then this will not change.

Your 4 year old child is throwing shit in public. How do you get them to stop? Do you give them a quick spank, or do you beg them and try to reason with a 4 year old child?

So again, more nebulous shit. Why can't you be specific? Is it because you're full of shit? Which people "manage their own affairs" what constitutes that anyway? Certainly burning tires in your backyard is not your own affair. So what exactly do you mean? This is Bookchin's problem too. He can't seem to settle on definitions so that we can openly talk about it.

Children are not adults. They need discipline and unless you want to argue that parents have to negotiate with toddlers, then this will not change, and it will not change for teens either because sometimes kids are fucking stupid and want to do things that do not benefit them, no matter how you reason with them.

Actually children are very much like animals, and so are you. This is why we respond to positive and negative reinforcement.

Even if all punishment was always "legitimate" it would still be a hierarchical relationship by Bookchin's retarded definition. This won't change no matter how much re-direction you attempt.

I did see that, and it's still retarded because you imply that from now on nobody can ever say anything to someone else, including engineer to worker, or parent to child, or teacher to student. It's a retarded idea.

And you're stupid to think this. Sometimes a kid needs on the spot correction. According to you, you can't stop a kid from hitting someone else, because you might infringe on their rights. Best to talk them down, and you certainly can't spank a child having a tantrum, because that too is hierarchical. Same thing with having a child take his medicine.

Children are not adults. Stop being a fucking retard and realize this. I've been a teacher, and I know what it's like from the smallest kids to grown-ass adults that just don't know how to reason quite yet. We know this from neuroscience. This is the definition of wishful thinking.

Nice re-direction. My parents never had to beat me, unlike my siblings I kept to myself and my books. But, of course, they did correct me from time to time, and if I didn't obey then, a spanking would have likely been next. This is how parenting works, but you're too retarded to understand that.

Again, do parents need to ask their kids if they want to be punished now? Is that what you're getting at?

Not without consequence, nor should they. If a worker doesn't want to follow directive, he should be removed. I don't know why you think this is controversial.

I don't have a problem with hierarchy. I have a problem with material exploitation, which Marx actually defined, which is quantifiable, and which is readily identifiable. Unlike whatever it is Bookchinites bitch about, we have a legitimate set of theory.

so this is the sort of worldview that having radical convictions with no theory behind will lead you to

ITT:

Restorative justice > Punitive justice
The idea that they're decided upon democratically and locally by the citizenry is ridiculous, user. We don't live in a democracy.
Then a socialist society is ultimately dooming itself to the reemergence of class relations
So technocracy then. At least howard scott won't be alone on here anymore :^)
It does matter, and in essence you are making my point for me. The ones with the power should not be with the parents for this very reason, and no parents should not be able to unilaterally carry out punishment.
The 4 year old child can just as easily keep screaming. People are not dogs that should be beaten for misbehavior. Eventually, dogs and man will bite back, and it's not as if a 4 year old cries out for no reason. Even babies cry out when they specifically want something, and you would not spank a baby now would you?
They manage their own affairs through democractic institutions like popular assemblies. How can you pretend to know what "bookchin's problems" are without having ever read him or take the time to understand his most basic of theories? Instead, you screech autistically because of preconceived biases and use something as petty as the child parent relationship to justify hierarchy and domination as completely legitimate with no negative effects.
Children are people capable of higher though and reasoning. If i do not beat my dog to teach them then why on earth would I beat a child to teach them?
Unless you want to go full deep ecology and say that humans and animals have the same worth I'm not sure of your point. Again, I do not beat the animals under my care so why would I beat my child?

ebin tbh

See? I can meme poorly to if I want :)

Fuck off. Marxism is about rigorous analysis, not liberal pandering.

Define "restorative justice".
Again, the hierarchical relationship won't change just because the people actually voted on the codes. The codes still have to be followed and the one that makes the design has the last say. This will not change, nor should it.
Class emerges from material conditions. This is what you don't get. If you feel otherwise, please provide a logical argument to why this would happen.
No, not at all, but I wonder how you would construct a building without an architect being able to dictate design.
No, it doesn't. You say that parents should not be able to unilaterally carry out punishment, so according to you it doesn't matter what they are being punished for. In your world, a parent has to ask a child's permission for punishment. That actually is just a flip of the relationship. Now the child calls the shots, I guess. Great job, retard.
At which point you keep spanking until they stop throwing a tantrum.
No, you're right, we should just ask the child to stop, pretty please.
Actually they do cry for no reason and ask for unreasonable shit. And I didn't say cry, retard, I said throwing shit and being a complete asshole. Children do this for no reason all the time.
Except now you're just misrepresenting my argument. I said "throwing shit in public", as in misbehaving, not just crying. A baby doesn't really have the ability to throw a tantrum, but discipline can be had by ignoring their cries, which is something that should be done from time to time to avoid having spoiled children anyway.
I like that you went on to mention some other shit that didn't have to do with what I asked you. What counts as "their own affairs", and if the majority can dictate to the individual or the minority, then is this also not hierarchical by Bookchin's definition? This is a system of command and obedience, no matter how democratic.
No, actually, they're not. They're less capable of it. That's why they're children. It's why we don't throw them in prison for shit that we would to an adult, and it's why we don't fuck them. Oh, but under Bookchin, we can fuck kids if they consent. To say otherwise is to be hierarchical, maaan.
Except not all punishment means beatings. Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said?
That you can use similar techniques to socialize both. Are you retarded?
Not all punishment is beatings, and if an animal is, for example, attacking someone, you better beat that animal, or you're the one who is going to get the punishment.

Only if you believe that power can only ever equate to hierarchy, when the reality is power can be held in an egalitarian method through democratic institutions. A democratic institution is not one of "obedience and command" for the simple reason that if there is anyone you are obedient or commanded by it is ultimately yourself.
No I never implied that, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. What I did say is that you don't have to necessarily listen.
This only works if you qualify self defense or stopping violence against another as creating a hierarchical relationship, an insinuation that is fundamentally absurd. Obedience and command can manifest itself through the cessation of violence, but cessation of violence does not always require obedience and command. Physically stopping someone from hitting another person is not an institutional relationship
Oh so that's why your so cucked to authority. I didn't say children were adults, I said they were people and individuals with capacity to reason and understand without violence. Your inability to teach without using negative reinforcement is your own personal failing, not a truth of people.
Memes aside, I suppose I was close enough. Teacher makes a lot of sense.
As I've said previously, Restorative justice > punitive justice.

The consequence lies in broken buildings and shitty shoes, not through an alienated bureaucracy or despot.
Hierarchy existed before class and lead to it's development, along with changes in the base of course. You still pretend to understand bookchin when you refuse to even read anything written by him, so I don't know on what you make this accusation, though it is hilarious that you make it

By Bookchin's definition, this is the case.
So it's okay if one group of people tell another group of people what to do, but not if it's one individual. Got it.
I mean, unless you lose the vote, break a law, then get arrested under that law. Or are you going to argue that law enforcement will not exist? I guess I should get to raping, then. After all, you can't tell me not to, or it's hierarchical.
You do have to listen or be removed. If you're going to argue that this isn't the case, then hierarchy doesn't exist. Kill yourself, you stupid faggot.
But that doesn't fit Bookchin's definition. See, here's where the problems start to crop up. As soon as we mention something that doesn't fit, you go on about how it's not a formal definition, but the fact of the matter is that your definition will probably just mean whatever you want so you can't be criticized.
So again, you're going to ask nicely that people not kill each other.
So does it now have to be institutional? Then in that case, it's only wrong if society gives someone the legitimate power to do this in all circumstances. Do you realize how retarded that sounds?
You implied they reason like adults. They don't. Hell, most adults don't reason like adults.
Hey, you should try that on fascists. They can reason and shit, so don't oppress them, okay. Be nice.
Yes, we should beg children to listen instead of issuing on the spot corrections at any time. Why they're can think, and that means they can never be unreasonable shitheads ever. I guess violence is unnecessary and no revolution is required, amirite?
Again, you're talking out your ass. Bookchin's "theories" don't fit reality.
You still haven't defined this, so kill yourself and restore the sanity of this board.

Yes, because people should live with shitty buildings and products because workers don't want to listen to The Man. You'e a fucking retard.
Nobody disputes that retard. I'm aware Bookchin thought this. The difference is that I disagree with him because it's a retarded idea. He can't even fucking define what he means in a formal sense and we're supposed to believe that because x existed before class, it must have given rise to class relations, when that is completely inconsequential. There is no logical connection there and Bookchin never provided one because he knew any attempt would look fucking retarded. Thankfully we're not as stupid as he thought.

Again, Marxists do not care about "hierarchy" because it's inconsequential when class dissolution is achieved. At this point all unnecessary hierarchical interactions will have already been done away with. Bookchin was just a contrarian faggot that had no idea what he was talking about and couldn't for a coherent set of thoughts if his life depended on it. Unfortunately you were dumb enough to fall for the meme.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
Except one is come upon through a common understanding and another is essentially dictated. One is a hierarchical relationship, the other is not
Class became possible with a change in the material conditions but the material conditions did not necessitate class relations. It was only because of prexisting hierarchies did these material conditions lead to class
The architect does not dictate anything, he proposes a design.
A parent not having unilateral and uninterrupted power over their child is not the same thing as a child having unilateral power over their parent. Both can be individuals and have rights as individuals
And at what point do you stop spanking then if the child persists? At a certain point our current society would punish you for child abuse
As opposed to the child asking the parent to stop, pretty please :^) Again, there is such a thing as equal and fair relationships
Right because children have no agency or reason to do anything, they are somehow less then animals in this :^)
Looks like baby jimmy threw his pacifier. Time to get out the belt :^)
As in the things that effect them and their immediate community, and it's not a system of command and obedience because what person are you commanding or obeying? Who is the person above you exactly?
I said they were capable of it, not the same capacity as an adults. As in, if I can teach my dog to do something without punitive action then I can teach a child to.
Except that you've consistently used it throughout this conversation as an example of punishment to follow.
Again you qualify self defense or cessation of violence as hierarchy. What is in question is not merely the matter of punishment, but by who punishment is being carried out and for what reasons. Is it being carried out unilaterally by one person against another because of failure to obey, or is it being carried out for violating someone elses rights, rights decided upon by the society? One is built upon obedience and command, the other is built upon a common and agreed upon understanding.

mfw

really makes one think huh?

At least the tankies are honest.

He's literally using a liberal definition of politics and preening himself over occupying the high moral ground while acknowledging its impotency. What else is there to say?

Fortunately, he was just being a moralist and knew that his support or opposition was worthless in either case.

Read Walter Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History – you'll like it.

Sure. I'd really recommend following the wisdom of a structural engineer, however.

Welcome comrade, enjoy your stay. Have to say this thread is a rocketship of autism. Quite a sight.

...

No it's not. Power can derive from a mutualistic understanding as opposed to obedience and command.
This implies that the individual is not part of the group and has no power within the group, something patently false when considering that this is a democracy.
No, because ultimately you agreed to these things. No one is forcing you to be apart of this community, and your participation in it means that you've agree to it's social contract. Otherwise, feel free to move someplace better suited to you.
Have we finally come to the point where you're just going to screech autistically at me?I kid of course. We passed that point long ago
Institutional relationships based off of obedience and command is not the same thing as stopping someone from hitting you. I mean really, this is just getting silly
No, I'm going to give people the means to defend themselves. Not allowing yourself to be subjected to hierarchy is not the same as forming one ya dingus
Institutional relationships were implied from the beginning. We're talking about how people associate to one another within a societal framework, after all. No, creating an institutional hierarchy does not mean it's not an institutional hierarchy because "society" created it.
I implied that they had the capacity for reason, and that that capacity should be encouraged not discouraged by punitive actions
Self defense against fascists is not a hierarchical relationship user
We should reason with children and tell them why what they're doing is wrong and what they should do instead, but that does not mean forcing them to do just that. Give them the choice for growth by making their own mistakes. Again, self defense is not a hierarchical relationship
You don't even know what those theories entail so how would you possibly know? Truly an excellent teacher who doesn't even attempt to understand the reading material before judging it. An exemplar for your students without a doubt :^)

Yeah of course. I'm not disputing that they should, merely that they don't have to

Trips of death.

Fam, just because you should trust experts to do their thing doesn't mean you should let them run society. Now, , ,
stop arguing and let this thread die already.

fug OK :^(

wew

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
I didn't ask you for a wikipedia page. Either make an argument or stop posting.
And if the other person refuses to come to an understanding? I guess you're shit out of luck, then, retard.
Yes they did. That's literally how class is defined. Kill yourself.
You keep claiming this, but haven't ever managed to provide evidence for this. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.
No, the architect literally makes a design and if he's the head architect it gets built. That's the end of it, same with engineers.
It is, actually, because children are known to be little shits. If you cannot discipline a child, that child has power over you, retard.
What a meaningless statement. Nobody said otherwise, retard, but the fact remains that the parent has right and responsibility to discipline the child, no matter how much you bitch about it.
You can move on to other punishments, and most children of spanking age can't even take one good spanking, much less one that can cause injury to the buttocks somehow. That would be some SERE level child.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a child asking the guardian first. This is the way parenting works now and there is no problem with it.
Except I didn't say that. I said children do cry for no reason, and they have less reasoning power than adults. I would have said you or I, but it's clear you're retarded.
You're again being dishonest about what I said. Why not address the argument? Oh, right because your "theory" is shit and has no relationship with reality.
So if the community votes to ethnically cleanse all the niggers, I guess we have to abide by that because they got a vote, amirite? That's not command and obedience: get out or we kill you.
Simply spreading authority makes it all better. Next time we'll have two teachers and two parents vote on punishing children and the child can't complain because they got a vote, according to you, this would mean we can have literal child abuse because it's not "hierarchical".
Again, you've never raised a child and never taught them. At some point you must mete out punishment. You are trying to do things with one hand tied behind your back simply because you're a religious Bookchinite. Pure ideology, my friend.
No, I haven't. You've done that. I've merely admitted that this is one form of punishment, and there's noting wrong with that.
It can be, by your own definition. Cops can't break up a fight or even duel with two consenting individuals. That's hierarchy, a system of command and obedience.
Because your own definition doesn't encompass that. It's that retarded.

So if society decides that niggers are second class citizens, we can go ahead and beat them and it's legitimate?
No, it's not. Just because a cop is installed by a democratic society, it doesn't meant that the hierarchical relationship goes away by your own definition. That means, I guess that a society is free to vote for a dictator and that's not hierarchical.

ebin :DDDDD

No, it can't, or else it's not power. Power doesn't require consent.
So if you are allowed to vote in your workplace, then there is no hierarchy, because you can vote, and if everyone votes to shit on you, then it's okay.
Just find another place of work if you don't like it. Nobody is forcing you to work this shit job for this shit wage. :^)
No, we reached the point where you deflect and refuse to answer to an argument because I called you a stupid faggot. Thanks for proving my point.
The preceding argument didn't mention that. Why do you keep lying? It's getting silly because you keep making shit up and lying instead of admitting that you're fucking wrong.
So in your world, there are no police officers or military. Everyone just carries a gun and if you get fucked, then it's okay, because I guess nobody can defend you. That would be commanding someone to obey.
Define institutional relationships, because now it just means whatever you want, it seems.
Nobody said that they shouldn't be, but punishment goes hand-in-hand with socialization of people. I don't know why this is so hard to believe for you, someone that has most likely never raised a child or even been around them for extended periods of time.
It's okay. Fascists will never attack you because they know you won't do shit when they institute their policies or keep the MOP, because revolution would be so hierarchical.
You're going to reason with a 4 year old child? Are you a fucking idiot? Children do not have the same capacity to reason as adults. Get over it.
Or you can use punishment when that fails instead of begging a child to not be a faggot. And self-defense is what, exactly? Revolution isn't self-defense. It's revolution. You can't kill porky for his factory. That's hierarchical.
You keep saying that ,but I'm well aware that his theories are nonsensical at the outset. Why you keep harping on about them is beyond me. Every argument you've made is fucking retarded and the vision of society you have is even more stupid.
I don't have to read an entire book of retardation if it's retarded from the very beginning. You people keep bitching that we should "google Bookchin", but when we do you get made that we think he's a fucking retard. You should read every neocon book and ancap thesis, otherwise you can't criticize them. :^)

this is why leftist United Front is retarded
I would not hesitate to kill my political opponents if they would try to undermine my policies
some abstract concept of democracy means nothing to me
democracy only good because its nature is antagonistic to class society
but the moment when the democratic decision making organ makes a decision in the favor of capitalists, I will crush it if I have the power without a second thought

end justify the means
it's always better if the necessary decisions are made democratically
but if they cannot be made democratically, they must be made anyway

And this is why you guys allways fail. Inabillity to think strategically and longterm. How you claim to be the movement of the proletariat while alienating them, thus forcing you to build up an opressive apperatus dooming any chance at promoting self organisation and decentralisation is beyond me.

it is precisely because I think longterm that I will crush them
they may think that decentralizing economy and allowing everyone to live in their little economic bubble is a good thing
freedom of individual and all that

but it will lead to the demise of the proletariat in the longterm

proletariat as a class is more than the sum of individual wageslaves

Red mysticism. Only the proletariat itself can be the movement for the emancipation of the proletariat.

for fuck's sake 8ch get your shit together and fix your bugs

meant to quote>>1631695
in my previous post

proletariat is not a movement

proletariat has a historical mission of overthrowing capitalism and establishing new economic order based on the production for use
if individual wageslaves are working against this end goal, they must be isolated or removed altogether

particular wants of the proletarians does not matter
all that is matters is proletariat's historical mission

like bukharin? lmao

It's a pretty classic reoccurrence.

Ever heard of the "Center for a Stateless Society" AKA C4SS (c4ss.org/)? It's a "market anarchist" think tank that tries to force memes like mutualism and market "socialism", but guess who's on the board of directors? An actual anarcho-capitalist called Kevin Carson. Here's some gold on this fellow:
>Carson has written sympathetically about several anarcho-capitalists, arguing that they use the word "capitalism" in a different sense than he does and that they represent a legitimate strain of anarchism. He says "most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." With the release of his book, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Carson aimed to revive interest in "mutualism." In his book, he attempts to synthesize Austrian economics with the labor theory of value, or "Austrianize" it, by incorporating both subjectivism and time preference.

Hahahaha.

ahistorical tankiddies at it again

Generic liberal of the time
Yet another generic liberal of the time.

Why did you switch from the narcho-nihilist flag to the black flag btw

wym, this is my first post itt

The entirety of liberalism can be seen as proto-anarcho-capitalism. Your point?

You're not the same illiterate faggot who used to get humiliated trying to force market anarchism into existence with the annil flag but disappeared for a few weeks?

I do have mutualist sympathies, but no, I am not that person

Implying that manchester capitalism wasnt literally what anarcho capitalism would mean in the end.

Actually I've always wanted to know this about Holla Forums, and I didn't want to waste a post in the cybernetics thread asking: What is the reply limit for threads here? And what happens to threads that reach it, are they bumplocked?

450 here, but it varies across the site as it's an admin setting. Once the number is reached if it's cyclical then the first reply is deleted when another reply is made, otherwise you become unable to post in the thread.

Thanks. Continue with your autism, thread.

polite sage

guess what this is

M-L's are retarded and bookchin is a hack who would rather be an individualist than a leftist.

God ok so the front page is full of cancerous talk about memes and Holla Forums and fucking nazbols so let's get this autism train rolling out of the station again.

Hey tankies, your system was shit and was structurally incapable of moving meaningfully toward full cybernetic planning of the whole economy because of the counter-revolutionary influence of the bureaucracy.

Hey bookchinfags, your whole thing is shit because you are attempting to impose a model on society. Your utopian bullshit will never work because you refuse to consider what it is about the basic material conditions of modern production & existence that make capitalism spontaneously override any attempts to overcome it imposed by utopian cunts like yourselves. Also Rojava is a nationalist shithole in the middle of the desert that will never seriously affect global capitalism, let alone be the birthplace of a revolution.

Hey leftcoms, your obsession with spontaneous activity of the working class has made you unable to tolerate any praxis with more teeth than sucking up to the labour aristocracy in the trade unions. Also your intolerable focus on obscurantist French philosophers and the analysis of ideology and capitalist cultural hegemony has rendered you completely incapable of actually analysing the real material trends that point toward the abolition of the Law of Value, like peer production in software and media. In place of real economic analysis, you have substituted millenarian fervour about the 'final crisis of capitalism'.

There, did that get everyone mad enough to start posting real shit? Or is this just the shitposting hour?

That would be the Central Economic Mathematical Institute in Moscow. The sculpture specifically is a mobius strip.

...

What the fuck do you even mean by this?

Thankfully Communalism has allways existed in an abigous sphere between ideologies that blind adherence to Bookchin thought never developed. Also Bookchin was pretty positive towards grabbing power when the chance presents itself and most of the communalists that dont merely consider it a version of green anarchism agree. But that comes later, just like all ideas off how to maintain gains of the movement(although I think communalists have fine ideas regarding that) First we need to create the situation where any leftist political movement can even hope to thrive. Repolitizing society has to be the first step building on the basic tendency of self organisation. We are far less utopian than all the people imagining that some great stable movement will spring out of some surely to come misery. Anarchists are allready slowly understanding that their affinity groups and individual action doesnt work. Now only marxists need to understand the limitations of the party and unionism. I really dont give a fuck if you use Marxism and anti colonisation stuff to argue for communal organisation or Bookchin. Fact is that most current leftist struggles have a highly localist caracteristic, and that we need a workable alternative to pure national identity to rally people.

why?
why was it a structural problem?
I think if Stalin was immortal he could've done it
and please don't sperg out about anti-cybernetics campaign, it had nothing to do with the automation of planning or compsci and everything to do with unhistorical theories of control in societies

Seems like your system fucked up continuity of power and the creation of a stable movement that doesnt tend towards revisionism.

The means dialectically effect the end, friendo

it's an anus

I like how this entire thread basically proves Bookchin right about how petty and sectarian Marxist circles have been, and continue to be.

and bookchin fags are so non sectarian that they embrace class collaboration

...

MURRAY PORKCHIN

Stalinists making stuff up again. How unusual.

He was palling around with ancaps and sucking their dicks. That's the whole point of this thread. It's one thing to criticize Marxists. It's another to go and hang out with people that are definitely opposed to socialism.

Was it consensual or """"voluntary""""?

You people are delusional. How else would you spread your ideas and convenience the other side?

...

Kek leftcoms are highly critical of trade unions.What are you talking about?

marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm

marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

Y'all retards.

Foucault is guilty of the same thing.

jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/

...

Absolutely hilarious when you look at the Byzantine bureaucracy that it has created.

This shit is enough to turn anyone into a full blown Khmer Rouge apologist tankie. Turn your back for two seconds and someone else is fraternizing with the single least desirable socio-political system yet created. at least until we overthrow it with something worse.

...