Communalism thread

What's Holla Forums opinion on communalism and murray bookchin? Are really his ideas a progress compared to the ones that leaded the revolutionary movements of the 19th century?
I would like to have various point of view on this man.

Other urls found in this thread:

chuangcn.org/

what's the difference between communalism and libertarian municipalism?

He is the first person to formulate coherent attempt to look at society as a whole since Marx. In his sublation of Marx's materialism, Bookchin also places himself at the peak of dialectical philosophy. His ideas improve upon the limitations and historical failures of both marxism and anarchism, and are, perhaps, the only hope for a truly revolutionary movement in the West.


Communalism refers to the whole of social ecology as developed by Bookchin. Libertarian municipalism is one component of the whole—the political strategy.

Communalism is the general ideology and ontology, relativly unspecific and not based on a specific tradition of freedom. Libertarian Municipalism is a political strategy more specific to the western world.

But dont sweat to much about the terms Bookchin uses for his general thought, he switched that often depending on his current relation to the wider leftist movement.


I wouldnt put Bookkchin on the same podest as Marx for example, but he made an extremely valuable contribution that has to be build on.

well the shit is getting field tested as we speak in Rojava, no?

so we'll be exiting the realm of theory and entering the realm of hard data right about now. exciting stuff

It's what ancom would look like in practice called something else because lifestylists are cancerous faggots.

But isn't a soviet republic (i'm not talking about the actual SU but an ideal state based totally on a soviet parlament not a one-party dictatorship) already a form of libertarian municipalism?

Really depends, how you understand a soviet republic and how you understand Communalist Confederalism. But its pretty evident that the structure and ideology of the organisation that carries the revolution or is most prominent will inprint itself on the society formed afterwards. So I strongly doubt that any vanguard party engaged in parliamentary politics will ever be able to bring forward a libertarian society.

Progress for the sake of progress isn't always good.

I like what Rojava is going though.
Not too keen on the feminism aspect of the whole thing.

It's the middle east ya dickhead. Do you really think a culture as fucked as your typical arab nation is going to lie down and accept women in power?

While the particular ideological justifications might seem a bit retarded, it is absolutely necessary in the style its done there. Even anti-PYD local feminists accept that for the first time in history there something gets done. Only raw female political, economic and military power will create a semblance of equality between genders there. Allways remember that sexism is an economic force in the middle east and going against it is a fight against a massive entreched part of the population profiting from it. Prudeness and weird ideas about respectabillity are still in place, but besides that they are extremely effective and managed to produce massive results in only a few years,

The soviet system and the dual-power as described by Lenin are definitely Russian forms of freedom, on which a Russian communalism could possibly be built. But it is not by itself communalist or libertarian municipalist.

this doesn't mean anything.


How exactly is "arab culture so fucked"
And to answer the question, no I don't. Why is that a necessity?

why is it necessary?

why is this desirable?


sexism(superstructure) is determined by the economic base, capitalism.

Is that your question? Because you really have to read some Engels then. Basically sexism is economic exploitation supporting the structure of capitalism and turning the nuclear family into another exploiting relationship. Socialism is based on excerting universal values denying any natural right of anyone to exploit another, which is what sexism in the middle east is.

Not completely, you really have no clue how restricted and exploited women are there do you? They are literally sold and forced into marriages for economic gain. Having multiple wives is a sign of economic prosperity and a tool to increase ofspring which are essential to further your economic dominance. Its basicall feudalism.

Also this sexism and unequality undermines the basic democratic structure necessary to run a decentralised structure. Empowered women also fuck over islamists for all time, no women cadre, politcian, coop worker, policewoman ect. will ever bow to islamists out of pure self interest.

Wrong. You don't understand dialectical naturalism.

wrong. through socialism we get equality. If that is the case I'm fine with it but I'm not too keen on feminism, first or third world.

it absolutely is

Also arranged marriages usually stay together because the families are closer etc

But again there is no reason to just have feminism for the sake of progress. If you get it as a result of worker ownership of the means of production would make sense

To go on this means that sexism rests on and supports an economic structure that can only be dismantled by force if you want to do it fast, and its a economic structure incompatible with collectivised economic structures. So it has to be dismantled.

...

...

Not a single argument.

Thank you for proving my point. To reiterate: you don't understand dialectical naturalism.

Well the whole thing started with me not liking feminism. And the "its the fucking middle east" argument wasn't too convincing

Nah you just hate women. Because otherwise you would support their liberation.

In which books Bookchin talks about dialectical naturalism?

The Ecology of Freedom and the Philosophy of Social Ecology. Tbh I dont think you need to understand it though to grasp most of his arguments.

That's like asking in which books Marx talks about materialism. Dialectical naturalism is the philosophical underpinning to communalism, and all of the other four laters of communalism are drawn out of dianat. The recommended reading in this pic is fairly good though.

Thank you comrades

wonder insight


Neither. I don't hate them or support their liberation

Slavery is definitely part of the base, but sexism, racism, etc. justify it.
This is what DemCon is trying to change, and it's working.
If you change the material conditions (in the Marxist sense) you help invalidate the need for racism and sexism, and the social structures they perpetuate.

You can't claim that it will magically disappear, explain why is it necessary now and how this will change with the material conditions.

you're arguing against a point I've never made.
If women's liberation comes from socialism so be it. However I don't care for it

My bad.

Womes liberation is not binary, basically what we have here is capitalism liberating women from feudalism by making them economically independent.

women's liberation does not only come from socialism, its necessary for it to succeed

I'm not a fan of women's liberation

Ok

Chuang is god tier mate, yall nigs should read them.

chuangcn.org/

While this is true, do you want to highlight how they relate to Communalism?