Stop opposing imperialism

...

Bookchinites are the worst.

Marxists in america were mostly tankies and anarchists were/are mostly lifestylists. Bookchin wrote about his own experience with the new left, and his criticisms of what Marx actually said are different from his criticisms of Marxists

Not being able to summarize something in a sentence or less does not mean leaving it undefined. It's almost like the entire book's purpose was to expound on what hierarchy and domination truly entails ^:^)

If you can't summarize your beliefs in a few sentences then either:
1. You don't understand your own beliefs
or
2. Your beliefs are built on such a flimsy foundation that they can't be explained

And yes I'm looking at you leftcoms

Wew

Bookchinites are almost onto something but they need to read Marx.

Bookchin was responding not to theory so much as the behaviors of adherents to theory. I think if he'd had more understanding of Western Marxism and 20th c Marxist theory he would have aligned himself more toward the left communists.

90% of Bookchin's material is reconcilable with Marxism.

I have read Marx. Marx really didn't concern himself with hierarchy and ecology.

I might as well be a Hegelian quote Hegel and say that "All that is actual is rational, and all that is rational is actual" to have all kinds of retards misquote, misinterpret and call me a fascist and all sorts of slanders.

Literally not even what I said

Bookchin makes these weird platitudes about Marxism and Marx that are applicable to ML movements but not much else.

I honestly don't see why he tried to separate his own ideology from contemporary Marxism because they're very very compatible. Everything he laid out works with Communization theory.

I think you mean polemics. "Listen, Marxist!" definitely fits into what you mean, but there's other works by him that address Marx's thinking more directly and not just the Marxists of his time.
Here's one example
libcom.org/library/were-we-wrong-murray-bookchin
All in all Communalism is indeed compatible with much of left communism and libertarian socialist thought in general, but he does have finer philosophical differences with them regarding ecology and hierarchy.

Because he was a historical materialist. Historical materialism explains all that shit way better than Bookchin's pure ideology.

Have you even read any of his books?

Historical materialism isn't a pick-and-choose philosophy. It's comprehensive.

we get it socdems, you're crypto-fascists.

Stop everything.

Really the main difference between the two is that bookchin places more emphasis on the superstructure. Read Ecology of Freedom or Philosophy of Social Ecology before dismissing his ideas as "pure ideology"

AKA spooks. he's an anti-Marxist, anti-communist shithead.

wdhmbt? Are you trying to say that ideas have no effect on society, because stirner was making the opposite point.

Turn off CNN you fucking libtard.

kys retard

Russia and Iran are not doing imperialism. Imperialism is an economic relation, not, "country does stuff to other countries."

both Russia and Iran are trying to expand their influence in the middle east in order to gain favorable economic relations with other countries.

It's great to see that Bookchin continues to trigger MLs and smashies from beyond the grave.

It truly is.

...

One of the things I love about Bookchin, is just how quickly he makes such a wide range of autists lose their tendies.

Bookchin was a zionist and would probably be Anti-German as well.

Was he an anti-Japaneseist as well?

That's not the definition of imperialism, so fuck off.

So Anarkiddies have gone from pretending that everything that a country does is imperialism to claiming that imperialism doesn't even exist. Really making me think here guys.

Yes it is.

That's not what imperialism means.

According to that definition, USSR defeating the Nazis was imperialist.

So the Russians are colonizing Syria? They are the only fucking factions there which acts in Syria on invitation of the government lmao

That depends.

Are the Americans colonizing Rojava by your logic?

What? Make an argument or fuck off.

The Americans have the goal of balkanizing Syria which is a form of imperialism in which Rojava is the useful idiot

google Milo Yiannopoulos, you're going to love him.

Because keeping Assad in power is in their geopolitical interests.
When America props up/supports other leaders for their own gain is that not imperialism?

If I'm going to answer your question I need clarification on this topic. Do you think Rojava is an imperialist asset to the USA?

If yes then Syria is absolutely an imperialist asset to Russia.

One conclusion leads to the other, because if they're all imperialistic, then opposing any of their aggressions would be siding with someone else's imperialism, which is exactly Bookchin's retarded logic.

For him, Palestine is imperialist, Iraq are imperialist, Sandinistas are imperialists and so on, which is his pseudo-radical reasoning for his abstentionism when those are under attack.

Holy shit…

That wasn't what you asked before. The answer I that question is yes, clearly, why would ever think otherwise?

Nice try to weasel yourself out of this. Russians weren't in Syria before, they defended the countries self-determination because they happen to have the American geopolitical interest, particular stopping the Qatar-Turkey-Pipeline which in itself is an imperialist project. This is not the fucking same as propping up some ragtag milita to balkanize a region and create a frozen conflict with the goal to oust some legitimize government. I don't know how you can not see that?

Because it's more than a bit hypocritical to denounce America being in Rojava as imperialist but defend Russia being in Syria because Assad invited them when the same is true for the Kurds deciding to accept American help.

Is America not defending Rojava's self determination? Something Assad would never let the Kurds have I should add.

I see, governments are legitimate and it's unacceptable to take violence to overthrow them.

How is this not the standard liberal line when it comes to our own countries?

I like him because he presents a coherent political philosophy, far more relevant to our contemporary circumstances than anything else. That he tends to trigger such a wide variety of people is merely a bonus.

like how the kurds want self determination but Assad stonewalled them for decades?
this isn't polisci 101, no government is legitimate.

Show me where he makes any of these assertions pls. Bookchin doesn't want to side with any statist actors, plain and simple. That doesn't imply any assertion of imperialism.

You're wasting your time. This is the same guy who supports duterte, even though duterte is just a wannabe despot who kills communists on the regular.

The American goal is to balkanize Syria to get their fucking pipeline running, Russia wants a stable, peaceful Syria wir new elections and constitution and don't import foreign mercenaries. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THE FUCKING THING.

Yeah right, and comrade Trump is a student of Democratic Confederalism. How delusional can you be? They don't give a shit about the Kurds, they want to destroy the Syrian state

I'm not opposing Rojava gaining independence in the beginning of the war. I'm opposing them allying themselves with USA and Saudi-Arabia to fuel another conflict with the Syrian state.

Why does the US militarily intervene in Arab states to arrange for favorable oil pipelines when they could just buy off the leaders?

...

They couldn't buy off Assad. They couldn't buy off Gaddafi either.

They're merely different strategies of imperialism suited to two different imperialist operators. Russia expanding their influence into the middle-east requires a strong Syrian state with Assad at the helm. America expanding their influence into the middle east requires Assad out of the way. No matter what way you swing it, it is imperialism.

So do we?

Are you Turkish or something?
Or is this just RT's new hot take.

What, is Assad that loyal to Great Russia or something? I don't necessarily mean "dude take this bribe lmao", but say they offer X billion in development aid and military protection like they do with the Saudis. The US can always afford to pay more than Russia or whatever other aspiring empire can offer, as they cannot run out of money. This has to be less than the cost of the military intervention. What gives?

You are a caricature at this point

Wrong.

Yeah, totally the same thing.

So you're ISIS? Just because you are an anarchist you support every misery being brought upon your fellow proles because they are all "statist"? Don't hurt yourself with thay edge.

Or is this just RT's new hot take
I'm talking about the FSA and the hundreds of Islamist sects operating Syria right now. Because you implied it's totally okay to topple a government, even when the US does it.

Is that why the communist party of the Phillipines supports him? You want to patronize them too? Lay down the New York Times for once…

Because they look at what happened to Saddam and they don't want to end up in a mudhole.

It worked fine for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

The Arab leaders just seem to be fucking stupid, if the "America is propped up by petrodollar cycling" theory is to be believed. You're going up against a military behemoth that can't run out of money, and prints the world reserve currency. All you have to do is play along, and you can get rich and get military protection. There appear to be no obvious downsides to this from the Arab leaders' point of view.

You can't make politics on a case-by-case basis like that, this isn't a Paradox game. I'm sure they could bribe any government into doing whatever they want, but how does that correspond to the previous arrangements and designs they had for that place? How would their established allies feel about that? What can it imply, in the long term, if that bribed regime's ideology prevails in the region? How dependent does that make them on good diplomatic ties that may not last? What are the odds this regime will use this as a tool of bribery and coercion later?

The US doesn't need a favorable trade agreement or economic victory here and now, the US needs long-lasting control.

Let us revisit the definition of imperialism
Is Russia not expanding their influence by defending Assad with military force?

I'm not even an anarchist. I'm just pointing out that anyone who can call themselves a communist with any credibility wants to bring down every bourgeoisie state on the planet. It's no crime to destabilize a bourgeois government in itself.

lmao, the man who supports every tinpot dictator on the planet just to be contrarian to America calling others edgy.

Who was defending the FSA?
I'm just saying that Russia is imperialist and Assad is their imperialist puppet. If it's clear to you that what the USA is doing is imperialism then this shouldn't be hard to understand.

The Arabs on the Arab peninsula are allied with UK and the US since World War I. Quite a different relationship. Look, Gaddafi did cozy up with the US for quite while, and wants he talked about the gold standard he ended up being skinned alive in a pipe. USA are the worst ally you could ever wish for.

And look how well that's turned out for them
philstar.com/headlines/2017/05/31/1705476/duterte-communists-stop-fng-government

it say OR, dipshit. Thus you can read it as "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, OR extending a country's power and influence through use of military force, OR extending a country's power and influence through other means."

Again, you seem to be incapable to apply your own definition so you are trying to evade the issue with word acrobatic. What interests does Russia have with Syria? How did they extort surplus value form Syria before? Do they not just want to restore the status quo ante bellum? I'm sorry, defending a countries self-determination isn't imperialism, no matter how much you hate Putin.

If Saddam and Gaddafi brought down the wrath of the US military on their countries because they wanted to play at Arab Nationalism, then they are fucking stupid, I'm sorry. Assuming that this response would be expected of the US if you try to sell oil in a different currency, what would be the actual goal of doing so? Every other fiat currency is effectively backed by the USD. To seriously upend the system would cause a global meltdown, at which point all bets are off as to who might do what.

Well they're expanding their influence because Assad is totally in Russia's influence and is a pivotal part of their foreign policy goals as their foot into the middle-east's door.

Just because the local dictator happens to be in charge does not make this any kind of meaningful self-determination for the people there. Especially when he totally denied self-determination or even recognition to the Kurds.

Nope, that literally is not imperialism. That's only what stupid fucking liberals and anarchists think it is.