The age of Marxism-Leninism is over, Communalism is the next step in left wing politics...

The age of Marxism-Leninism is over, Communalism is the next step in left wing politics, they're not opposed as some of you might think

...

Bookchin never undertood anything, im not gonna read his books because of how big of a ignorant douche he was

Long live the immortal science of Marxism - Leninism

So the next step is to become a proxy force for the united states military?

Woah…

Stalin himself managed to do that years before memechin inspired militias.

Dude knew nothing about Marxism (or anarchist) and loved to talk shit about it.
Vanguard party + worker councils >> "Libertarian" Municipalism

Correct

classic

DUDE FUCK PALESTINE LMAO

I had hoped that Israel or Palestine could have evolved into a Swiss-like confederation of Jews and Arabs, a confederation in which both peoples could live peacefully with each other and develop their cultures creatively and harmoniously. - Bookchin

...

Im not going to read some dude that omits facts to justify his autistic rants

I don't give a shit about community or muh ecology. Very few proletarians do, really. Bookchin's outlook is as middle class and moralistic as it gets.

tbh that makes your scope of available philosophers quite small

...

classic

Holla Forums pls. You can be against zionism without being an anti-semite

Yes, because Stalin totally had US military bases in the Soviet Union

Go to Palestine and tell that to the people there and they will laugh in your face. The truth is that if you oppose Zionism you will be treated as an anti-Semite either way so I learned not to give a shit.

kek

Can Holla Forums ever say something non contradictory?

...

No they won't, that's something Palestinians say themselves all the time.

Wow, what a great analysis!

Not really, a child could tell that there is no contradiction there

Yeah it's not like Stalin helped literal nazis to invade and balkanize another country before

Bookchin would have been a tankie if he read, if he knew how the soviet union worked he would have advocated for it

I've never read bookchin, can someone tell me or link me a good source on how a communalist society would organize it's government and economy.

Bookchin was basically raised by the communist party, and was a Stalinist and Trotskyist in his youth.


The Next Revolution is a good read that focusees mostly on government and economic matters.

I've read "listen, Marxist" multiple times as well as his other work on the marxist internet archive.
It gets worse each time.

figures

literally everything i read by this guy either seems like a nonsense word salad or some vapid whining.

This would be like judging Marx as inadequate for calling Lassalle a Jewish nigger.

Well he's better than the other Murray, Rothbard.

humanists, get out

who dat

I've never really understood why people shill this guy so much? What does he even have to offer beyond some democratic assembly that gets mentioned here all the time?


A far more interesting philosopher and theorist.

A new and updated view of history, people, and dialectics. How are you going to judge him as uninteresting when you've never read him? It's turning into a meme in itself by now

Althusser

...

Because state socialism has proven itself incapable of bringing world revolution or overthrowing capitalist states, relies on antiquated Leninist party models and is generally unsympathetic to ecological concerns or the popular distribution of political power. Likewise, individualist anarchism also fails to challenge capitalism or achieve much of anything, and cannot be extended organizationally beyond very small groups of people.

Libertarian Municipalism is an attractive attempt to synthesize old school anarcho-communism with assembly democracy, ecology, and a focus on cities instead of states. AFAIK it can also be made compatible with economic planning, cybernetics and communization theory.

State socialism worked though.

We would have better luck gaining new comrades within our own communities where we live than trying to convince tankies and lifestylists to change ideologies that they invested a lifetime in it.

Kinda, maybe a little, in Cuba, and thats it.

You know this also applies to you, you know?

HELL YEAH!!

No the next step is social democracy. Just look at Rojava.

...

No, Marxism-Leninism is somewhat old with it being 100 years old now but the replacement is most definitely NOT Bookchinite Communalism, Anarchism is in no way at all viable or scientific, I think the replacement hasn't been made yet, the most modern form we have is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, all the rest are Liberal trends within the Marxist movements, but yes I agree we need an alt to ML. ML is good but it's a bit old at this point

Read Kropotkin

Science is utopian and not scientific.

Can you highlight some of what you consider to be the worst parts?

u r a fag

...

Whats the point? Its just a democratic organization of communities, even MLs have that, id rather have modern marxist dialectics than dialectical naturalism

This is why we unironically need eco-Stalinism. The people aren't going to save this planet of their own accord.

But that was Marx's finest hour.

t. Bookmeme

What about ML- M

Seems kind of unfair to judge him by such an early work. It's like saying Marx is a SocDem cuz of the Manifesto.

Except the manifesto was based, Marx never said that those proposals = socialism, just that they were goals of a workers movement

This was published in 1971. He was formulating these ideas during the height of the 1960s youth counter-culture. It's more understandable why he might have felt this way given the context. It's also worth pointing out, that this essay is from his anarchist period, not his communalist period (they are, in fact, two different ideological outlooks).

Ok so how much better is late bookchin compared to his early stuff, does he still reject marxism with his crypto burgouise view in the 60s/70s

Towards the end of his life he started to publish things like The Left That Was, and became quite sentimental for this Old Left that (at least in the US) he helped bury. Communalism is far, far more sympathetic to the organisational outlook of Marxism than Bookchin's anarchism was.

I've been turned away from his stuff because of the anarchist stuff, he just seemed really dick-ish even if he didn't mean it, If a Leninist like Ocalan turned into a Communalist then there has to be something of value there

That’s why I prefer Bookchin over anarchidies.

fuck off. Utopian socialism is the shit. The USSR failed and so did anarchism, as such a new form of socialism must be designed. And to do this we need utopianism.

Bookchin likes hippies. So what hippies are better then normal burgers.

It can't be denied that the man wasn't a total asshole, but then again so are most great minds. It's not Marx wasn't a complete dick most of the time. Ecology of Freedom and Urbanization Without Cities are definitely the meat of his theory, and probably the works that influenced Ocalan the most (by bookchin at least)

Yeah I can understand why it would be offputting, as a lot of Bookchin's trolling-tier vitriol is. But remember he was dealing with Maoists in the SDS (i.e. the start of contemporary ID pol like Noel Ignatin). But his communalism is a good deal different. I'd recommend checking out The Next Revolution, which is a good look at his communalist-era work.

800kch1n

the problem isnt that he liked hippies its that he thought kids smoking weed were the revolutionary subject. Keep in mind these are the same boomers who later voted for Reagan, bought SUVs, and ran the economy into the ground in '08

Communalism is repackaged ancom with an emphasis on muncipalities and a fetish for local democracy, you might as well read Kroptokin instead for that. And if you're basing the value of an ideology off a Leninist converting just look at Eastern Marxist and muke to see why that's dumb.

It's a gross simplification to say that it's just repackaged ancom. It certainly builds off of Kropotkin's work but it also builds off Marx's work and dialectical materialism.

jesus fucking christ that fucker sucks ass

classic

I suppose off-brand ancom or diet-ancom would have been more appropriate, but I was feeling generous.
It rejects historical materialism and the proletariat as the revolutionary subject, if you wanted Marxism without Marx MLs already have that covered.

95% of the time that heuristic works, though. people who say stupid things have a strange tendency to keep saying stupid things. if you had to read an entire book by some alt-right weirdo just to confirm that their book is stupid shit rather than a genuinely revolutionary political third way to prosperity and ending exploitation, you'd never get anything done.

although with bookchin "sociable with ancaps" is a much more efficient sentence.

By your logic nobody should read marx because he said some dumb stuff about other races and jews. Your entire point is logically fallacious at it's core, but I'm not terribly surprised considering the flag you're using

Have you actuall read ecology of freedom or know even the basics of dialectical naturalism? It's built off of both kropotkin's view of mutual aid and marx's dialecitcal view of history. You can reject parts of an idea without rejecting the entirety of it.

Yes, I was unimpressed.

stupid logic: nobody should read marx because he said some dumb stuff about other races and jews
clever logic: everybody should be willing to throw racial issues under the bus in service of a wider goal because marx said some stupid things about those topics.

A heuristic technique (/hjuːˈrɪstɪk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, "find" or "discover"), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, guesstimate, stereotyping, profiling, or common sense.

In computer science, artificial intelligence, and mathematical optimization, a heuristic is a technique designed for solving a problem more quickly when classic methods are too slow, or for finding an approximate solution when classic methods fail to find any exact solution. This is achieved by trading optimality, completeness, accuracy, or precision for speed. In a way, it can be considered a shortcut.

A heuristic function, also called simply a heuristic, is a function that ranks alternatives in search algorithms at each branching step based on available information to decide which branch to follow. For example, it may approximate the exact solution.[1]

Oh? Do tell.

Yep, you're definitely a retard

I read it about six months ago and found it to be underwhelming regurgitation acting as some profound new insight.

Making broad generalizations about the work isn't any kind of substantive critique of it. What specifically did you take issue with?

...

I already told you, are you expecting me to review a book on an image board?

Your heuristic is essentially an adhominen.
I don't know why you think it's wise to try and defend a logical fallacy as anything but logically fallacious

I expect you to actually provide an example of what you claim is wrong with it, otherwise what are you doing besides just jerking yourself off?

Go onnnnnnnn…


No, this is an Ad hominem: Bookchin is wrong because his supporters are evidentially denser than concrete.

My heuristic is "Bookchin hangs around with anarcho capitalists and says dumb things, therefore there's no reason for me to investigate anything he says further when I can ignore him and find tenuously relevant Simpsons videos instead."

That's just another example of an ad hominem. You follow up by stating another ad hominem. By your own logic, as I stated previously, newtonian mechanics is incorrect because Newton believed in alchemy, or that his ideas are not worth investigating because he believed in a "bible code". Both are stupid things to believe in but neither actually have any barring on the validity of calculus or physics.

I've never stated anyone was incorrect. The point of the heuristic is that you don't need to know that and can get on with your life, you Blue Circle dunce.

Though it's worth noting even if we adopt the stupid edge case examples, the heuristic still works: There are a million things more fun than reading the works of Isaac Newton. Perhaps, just perhaps his ancillary crazy beliefs are a sign that even if your interests lie in the area of Newtonian mechanics you should consider a modern textbook rather than picking them up directly from the source.

By your own logic, you have to sit down and read the entirety of Keynes' General Theory right now. It's important. Nothing you say will hold any meaning until I get an in depth book review of this influential work.

The heuristic doesn't work because as you stated, the entire point of the heuristic is leaping to a conclusion of invalidity

Um no sweetie x
Heuristics are tools. If you can't independently weight "thinks visiting ancap conference is a good idea" against "wore a stupid t-shirt" in deciding who to truncate from your reading list, even reading The General Theory can't help you.
But you can't dismiss them without reading them, to do so would be to contravene your own logic. :^)
So read them.

If we're not talking about the validity of his ideas then why bother stating that they're invalid to begin with? Why continue to go on in the same post to make a claim that his ideas are invalid because he decided to talk to ancaps about libertarian communism (as if that's somehow worthy of comdemnation)? Literally nobody is talking about Keynes besides you. Do you just get off on being an obnoxious pedant or something?

Also known as "Marxism."

Nah, read pancake

...

...

DPRK is socialist.

And a fucking nightmare. It's not exactly a poster child of the kind of society we should aim to establish

Pancake isn't an ML and council communism seems to reject the vanguard. As an anarchist I prefer it to memechin.

Certain aspects of classical Marxism and council communism are potentially congruent with libertarian socialism. Bookchin is but a form of libertarian socialism. If you are truly an anarchist there really isn't any reason to hate Bookchin other than you haven't actually read him and are influenced purely on memes and tankie bullshit

wrong again, kiddo

there is

It never fully abolished capitalism.

You are the only person talking about validity.
'The point of introducing Keynes was to clearly demonstrate that regardless of the validity of Keynes, you aren't going to read him.
Something something pots kettles invalid ad-ollam.

Are you retarded or just #merelypretending