Stop supporting authoritarians

Stop supporting authoritarians

Other urls found in this thread:




I posted that ironically, but I still feel disgusted with myself.

you should

I do not, but that doesn't make me like Bookmeme anymore.

Bookmeme gets a bad rap, but it's mostly his own doing. Spend half the time writing polemics at every other major branch of leftism and it's bound to leave you with a rather… troubled legacy. That said his theoretical works are still worth reading. Maybe not so much his earlier stuff though

But on the other hand, Bookchin was basically a based master troll who triggered parts of nearly every leftist tendency and continues to do so from beyond the grave. You are right though, his polemical style is offputting for many


actually he was just wrong and is pretty irrelevant tbh

Being a troll isn't exactly a good way to convince people though. The people that he's "trolling" end up getting supremely butthurt and mispresentor out right lie about what he said and thought.

Wrong about what

his rejection of historical materialism and class based politics. Also, democratic confederalism is unnecessary in first world/developed countries due to e-democracy which allows direct democracy on a mass/national scale.

Ah yes, Murray "Israel has a righteous claim to the whole of Palestine" Bookchin. Murray "there is no such thing as class" Bookchin. What a freaking legend!

His position on historical materialism and class based politics is more nuanced then outright rejection. What he believes is not that class is irrelevant to people's politics, but that class is merely one form of domination and that other forms of domination exist which effects a persons politics. In regards to historical materialism bookchin puts more emphasis on the superstructure then Marx did, and his view of dialects is not limited to the current class system but rather looks at the whole of human society throughout history, it's antithesis, and it's synthesis. In other words, first and second nature culminating in "free nature" (not society, society and free society)

wew, no wonder his supporters are tricked into supporting us imperialism through leftist rhetoric

That does sound a lot like intersectional theory, which is probably why a lot here as suspicious of it.

Holy shit people on this board are dumb. Bookchin is highly anti post modernist, anti idpol, does not deny class and thought that Kapital was a great analysis of capitalism. Braindead tankies eating the cheapest propaganda peddled by fundamentalist idiots that got triggered because he doesnt put Israel hate as his first priority.

Stop letting Engels go unread:

That's because internationalist theory is just an excuse for micro-nationalism for a lot of people. From Nationalism and the National Question

Fucking autocorrect

Wow so intersectional Murray! Fight that sexism and the patriarchy! Take down those class essentialists!

aye more like his last priority.
thanks murray! truly a man of the people.
love how he's "anti postmodern" when his central (dumb as shit) argument is shared with basically every postmodern philosopher.
it's the same shit foucault was on about. "we're actually, uh, oppressed by everyone and everything, so there is nothing we can do about it"
except bookchin has changed it up a bit, so that rather than being a paralysing philosphy of inaction - he basically uses his credo to justify impassioned defence of the most reactionary societies and fierce "principled" criticism of any extant socialist project.
the man was a fucking fed, accept it.
funny how apo has magically converted to his stupid ideas after being locked up in turkish jail.

I would love to hear where the other user got that from. Bookchin follows the anarchist conception of such things mostly. And no one would call traditional anarchists “post modern“ Bookchin precisely split from anarchism because of its trend towards post modern wish wash mumbling that is unable to make a coherent statement of analysis. Bookchin saw the communal sphere as the better area for class struggle instead of traditional unionism.

Are you guys making the argument that people have never been systematically oppressed based on their race, ethnicity or gender?

More that those "forms" of oppression are nothing without the element of economic class institutionalizing them. Socialism does not promise a society of equity; it promises a society of equal opportunity. Xir's wishes are obtainable by her means under a post-capitalist society, but I won't care to give her the right pronoun without the State telling me I should and I'll certainly take the liberty of calling xir a degenerate. Same shit with anything else. Post-capitalism means probably the first time ever where confronting institutionalized remnants of discrimination can be done meaningfully, now that there is no State to simply reinstitutionalize something else and no valorized production to recuperate and market all new forms of "freedom" for a surplus. Only the "intersectional" crowd thinks this is "class esssentialism" or "economic determinism".

Your nigger Bookchin went on record saying he'd oppose any instance of anarchists or communists seizing power; his notion of "revolution" is democratizing everything on the municipal level, including the whims of the bourgeois.

You can have a system that guarantees equal economic opportunity but still excludes people from political decision making based on race or gender. What bookchin actually said is that he would oppose a marxist takeover of government which is pretty consistent with his position on states and authoritarianism in general. How are the whims of the bourgeois to be realistically carried out on a directly democratic municipal level where their power is completely minimized to a single vote, and their class interests being completely different from the class interests of the majority of those participating?

And both Marxists (pic related) and anarchists ( knew already decades before that democracy does nothing, and is in fact merely another form of State in both the anarchist and Marxist sense, and much more importantly does not in any way enable any meaningful form of freedom:
Bookchin is a fetishist for the small, the local, the democratic and so on. His wankery will never find any type of connection with the anarchist and Marxist theoretical traditions. He'll face the dustbin of unsuccessful polemicists like the others before him, especially when the dust settles in Rojava and none of his bullshit could in any way come close to be implemented.

So you're against soviets then?

And why do we give a shit? The Marxist sure don't, limiting their activity to ending how sprung economic laws from a productive relationship dictate activity, nor the anarchists who pretty consistently want to put an end to monopolized authority. In both cases the economy is no longer predicated on private property; anyone from any creed can do their business at a factory, farm, etc. and so on, and in both cases we are free to tell Cletus, Tyrone or Xir to fuck off.

Since the political is also dominantly a product of the economic (where there is private property, there needs to be its managing) it would barely exist anymore in a way not inherently free-form and associative, unlike where there is private and there needs to be State power on a national, regional or even municipal level.

And anarchist. Any working class effort to topple political power, actually.

Cuckchin merely wants to transform the State; disperse it, without in any way changing productive relations and keeping the elements that form economic class alive. There is nothing not authoritarian about letting such a reality live on under the pretext that your memetic reconfiguation will change it in any way.

.How are the whims of the bourgeois to be realistically carried out on a directly democratic municipal level where their power is completely minimized to a single vote, and their class interests being completely different from the class interests of the majority of those participating?
Because the bourgeoisie has power outside of the political, and it will not accept a configuration of power that also keeps it from using that. If it is somehow made to accept it, it will in time act outside of it. Even our current democratic structures are wholly ignored; the bourgeoisie cares not for legality or illegality; it exerts its power regardless because it wields economic power through the ownership of private property. We, both anarchists and Marxists, want to do away with private property entirely, and the only way how: violently.


Exclusion from political power can easily transform itself into economic muh privileges, and the reestablishment of class. Political exclusion began before the existence of class, and it's no mere coincidence that those who were not excluded ended up asserting themselves as the dominant class once class did emerge. Anarchists do not "seize power", certainly not in the marxist sense of the term. Marxists seek to take over the state and use it as their own tool while anarchists seek to abolish it. These are qualitatively different things. The municipilzation of the economy is not the maintenance of productive relations since it's a form of planned economy which abolishes private property bringing it under the control of the assembly. The bourgeois have power outside of the political, this much is true, but this also means that libertarian municipalism is completely against their interests since it threatens to take away both their economic and political power through aforementioned municiplization of the economy. Bookchin's conception of democratic institutions are in essence that of the Russian soviets pre bolshevik takeover.

I am getting of all this high grade anti Communalism propaganda by people who have obviously never read him or had an honest discussion with a Communalist. Probably tankies doing their little internet crusades because of muh purity.

Lol. You do realize that these were established with a bloody struggle; one that in fact involved the organization of communist workers against the State on multiple levels? That they heavily centralized power; made disassociation impossible because delegation enforced everything on a centralist basis? The bourgeoisie had zero power in these organs; it was excluded and persecuted, as was its ultimate aim: organizing the Soviets en masse into the supreme Soviet and waging bloody class war against the State.

There really power is outside of the political. The political, as the term implies, is representative; it is managerial of the totality of powers the bourgeoisie collectively wields and bargains with.

Like with Bookchin, critique of his quackery is elevated to "propaganda", just like workers violently seizing power is a "coup". Why don't you follow his footsteps and fraternize with lolbertarians, who will agree with your opposition to violent revolutionary activity and uphold the NAP?

And Bookchin does not really have any problem with any of this. This is from an article regarding his work The Third Revolution:
I post from this article instead of from the book since it's impossible to actually fine the damn thing in it's entirety online.

Communalism is in no way opposed to violent revolution. Violent conflict with the state is assumed to be unavoidable. Read a fucking book instead of just getting mad because Bookchin talked with Libertarians before he found his ideological direction. All of the economy is to be communalized, markets abolished and competition and money to be done away with. Anyone who claims that Bookchin is an anti-Socialist is a fucking retard who doesnt know what hed talking about.

For fucks sake Bookchin was hounded because he supported notions of an ideological vanguard, now MLs think hes some kind of pomo anarchist. He truly apparently had something to him that creats asshurt.

In regards to your comments regarding the power of the bourgeois and what constitutes "the political", I'll simply point out that politics actually comes from greek democracy which was directly democratic and not representative. The bourgeois really do not have any power within a system that allows their property confiscated and socialized at the behest of the people. If you want it in more kosher terms, consider the "libterian municipalism" as another form of the DotP.

And a non unionist strategy of organising anti statist, anti capitalist dual power that also is the basis of the alternative system after the revolution.

The people he trolled, such as Anarshitkiddietoddlers, aren't worth anything and their opinions don't matter.

Yes that to

I understand that sentiment, especially when referring to people like bob black, but I would rather have M-L's make a turn towards communalism like Apo did instead of being completely alienated by Bookchin's polemics.


Fuck you.

No u

if a revolution is authoritarian, then what isn't?

Truly the important question :^)

Supporting Israel, libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists obviously.

He never supported any of those things though.


What am I supposed to be reading here?