Stop supporting authoritarians

Fucking autocorrect
*intersectionalist

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 (marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1926/05/neither.htm) 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:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm
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.

No.