Communalism outside of Rojava

...

._.
The Mujahedeen were funded by the US too, as was the USSR and Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
Do you really think that a society based on Marxist-Leninism and Communalism will be unwilling to go rogue?

They were funded at disparate points obviously
I might have gotten the timings wrong but you see my point

Also I forgot to mention Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Really? They used to at least

The only time the US has had a military presence in the USSR has been to fight the red army in the polar bear expedition. Thats very different from allowing US military bases on your soil and allowing US troops to dress up as YPG. If you want to be a stooge for US imperialism just admit it, there are other countries like you can emulate that have a US military presence on them.

Different person, but USSR literally coordinated with the Nazi's imperialism. This is OK but accepting aid from burgerland isn't?

Novorussia

No

So then you're saying we should condemn the memory of the USSR, as you would have us condemn DFSNS? Why even bother defending the USSR in the first place then?

In Russia there is this guy Vecheslav Malstev( who has shaddy history belonging to right and left wing parties) who is planing to do revolution in 2017-11-05 and establish Direct Democracy. I am trying to find a way to communalise the movement, but I, unfortunately I am no Lenin.

Anyways Maltsev program in a nutshell

lol wut. In what sense? How does he plan to conduct this "revolution"?

The USSR was neutral in world war two from 1939 to 1941. Well they "coordinated" some things with the Nazi imperialists they are also "coordinated" things with the Anglo imperialists and they were never completely in either imperialist camp, so to say that they "supported Nazi imperialism" is ridiculous. Neutrality in an inter-imperialist conflict is a perfectly reasonable anti-imperialist position. The Non-aggression pact was designed to preserve their neutrality, they only broke their neutrality when they did because they were forced to defend themselves against a genocidal invader their role was purely defensive and at no point did they coordinate with any imperialist. "Condemn their memory"? What would even be the point of that? What would condemning the memory of the first anti-imperialist state in human history and the main force that actually defeated the Nazis achieve except embolden imperialists and Nazis?.

"Neutral" in this sense meant invading Poland with Nazi Germany and divide the state. If this is not imperialism and supporting imperialism then what is? You can sugar coat it all you want but the fact is that the USSR helped to invade another country alongside fascists but somehow this is OK to you, but taking weapons from the US to fight against genocidal islamo-fascists isn't?

...

...

He has Youtube channel called Artpodgotovka in which he has a series called Bad News in which Monday trough Friday he reads the news and often talks about his view of things and what if he was in the government.

He also does marches called March of Free people and every now and then organises a opposition activity

Granted, parts of this are purposely fallacious, but even then it's more true then the drivel you spewed. It's almost like greentexting bullshit isn't a way to have a productive debate

OK? This doesn't tell me how he plans to conduct a revolution though

Its also worth mentioning that communalism is straight up garbage.

After the Polish government basically ceased to exist, the USSR went in and stabilized parts of the country whose government no longer functioned. Its worth noting that the French and the British did not consider this an "invasion" or a break in neutrality and they only declared war against the Nazis.
Fucking ridiculous. Nazi Germany was the greatest power outside of the United States, they could very conquer Poland on their own. They didn't need Soviet help, especially since they defeated Poland already before the Soviets even became involved. If the Soviets hadn't intervened then the eastern parts of Poland would have became Nazi then, so if anything that agreement delayed Nazi expansionism if anything.
I knew it come to this eventually, as it always does. You reduce the importance of the actual Nazis and the fascists and the people who actually fought them to push them aside for a media created "islamo-fascist" bogey man.

I tough you could take a hint.
By organizing the people. I don't know the details, but I hope it is going to be bloodless, like, excuse me for example, mussolinis march

I didn't mean it was functionally Marxist-Leninism, I just meant that the ideologies Ocalan etc. ascribe to developed out of Marxist-Leninist thought. As an abstract.
Maybe I'm wrong on the above but I feel like you were misinterpreting my point

Care to expand on that?

Soviet invasion of Poland, 1939. Advance of the Red Army troops

All it takes is a cursory glance at a wikipedia article to show how much shit you're full of. KYS my man

He also advices his viewers not to pay taxes, get guns, organised in local communities

He once complained how people who want to suicide kill themselves rather than trying to kill government official and die in process

I also heard rumors that the movement want to hire Chechen's to snipe government officials

IT might sound extreme but such is life in Russia

Meh. Guess I was hoping for something more comprehensive? I don't see it panning out honestly.

Oh shit negro now you're talking! How has this guy not been assassinated or imprisoned yet?

Organizing and preparing for commandments.

He was imprisoned and was about to be imprisoned again, but took refugee in George. Some of his other closer allies fleed to other countries and some have been arrested.

when did i say this? syria is obviously not socialist but that's not an excuse not to support them, would you prefer assad or some western puppet?

"Both are worse". If DFSNS does sincerely become an American puppet then I'll condemn them, but that hasn't happened at least not yet.

Meanwhile what is Assad doing? Oh right, neoliberalism and austerity since the fucking 90s.

Rojava A.K.A. The United States

Assad is a Russian puppet. Why would you support one imperialist (the less democratic, more authoritarian, and more capitalist one) over another?

...

Communalism is anti-Marxist. "Listen Marxist" is embarrassingly bad for example.
I am of the opinion that Marxism is the best thing that has even happened to the left. Without the guiding force of Marxism you are going to get distracted by other issues like ecology, naturalism, and anti-authoritarianism.

Wikipedia is a very anti-communist site with a massive liberal bias, and even it will show you that Leszek Moczulski was a major anti-communist activist completely biased against the Soviet Union. What the Soviet Union did was not helping them, as they already had gained a decisive advantage on their own and the Polish government ceased to exist in the areas they formerly occupied in the east as already described.

yes

...

...

While also fighting in a war against ISIS while bombed by turkey

Rojava is really that cool?

I sure hope you're typing this with a VPN, you wouldn't want to suddenly find polonium in your coffee.

Listen Marxist came out before communalism was even a thing. It's got nothing to do with bookchin's ideas of first and second nature, dialectical naturalism or libertarian municipalism. You haven't even read his theory and you pretend to know it

Leszek is only quoted in reference to troop counts. Even if you want to dismiss him as an unreliable source, that only dismisses the account of troop numbers. If you have a more accurate historiography that corroborates your claims, then share it, because as it stands you've posted no evidence for you claims.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_defeatism

This is wrong?

No it's not wrong, that's why your assertion that we should support x capitalist nation against y capitalist nation is absurd and even arguably anti-marxist. Flag is appropriate, actually

Nigga, the kurds are letting the US build bases on their land. Is that not supporting one capitalist power over another?

Bookchin's ideology is what happens when you combine moralism, utopianism, identity politics, anarchistic idealism, and ecology together into one package and call it a "theory." Bookchin will go on an on about a "moral politics", "libertarianism", "naturalism", or any other issue as long as it avoids dealing with actual economic issues and class.

Presence of US bases doesn't say anything about their system of economics or political decision making. I defer to this post
No, Rojava hasn't fully abolished the commodity form yet, but neither did the USSR ever do that. The potential to do just that is there and the intention is there as well. To call their society capitalist while their economic policies discourage capital accumulation and encourage socialization of production is patently absurd, especially considering Marx and Engles own proposed program for socializing Germany.

You're just making assertions, not critiques. You haven't discussed any aspects of his theory, only thrown labels at it. That's not a critique, it's public masturbation. Read pdf related and maybe we can have an adult discussion about bookchin and the flaws of communalism.

I didn't say it did

Except it does. They allow US bases on their land.

*the process of political decision making
Should have specified that better. Now respond to the rest of my post

That's so fucking bad, what the hell. I hate literally every aspect of this flag. It looks like an imbalanced version of the flag of Guinea with the DDR emblem and a random flower added in. What's up with the random orange / yellow? Why adopt the imagery of a state which has 70 years of capitalist negative propaganda against it?

I discussed the issue of class. He rejects the importance of class described by Marxism.

In what way does he reject the importance of class? What is his reasoning for it? What is his alternative historical outlook?

...

Honestly it was doomed from the start. Rojava is pretty much the communalist 1917 at this point.

"The worker becomes a revolutionary not by becoming more of a worker but by undoing his "workerness." And in this he is not alone; the same applies to the farmer, the student, the clerk, the soldier, the bureaucrat, the professional—and the Marxist. The worker is no less a "bourgeois" than the farmer, student, clerk, soldier, bureaucrat, professional—and Marxist. His "workerness" is the disease he is suffering from, the social affliction telescoped to individual dimensions. Lenin understood this in What Is to Be Done? but he smuggled in the old hierarchy under a red flag and some revolutionary verbiage. The worker begins to become a revolutionary when he undoes his "workerness," when he comes to detest his class status here and now, when he begins to shed exactly those features which the Marxists most prize in him—his work ethic, his character-structure derived from industrial discipline, his respect for hierarchy, his obedience to leaders, his consumerism, his vestiges of puritanism. In this sense, the worker becomes a revolutionary to the degree that he sheds his class status and achieves an un-class consciousness. He degenerates—and he degenerates magnificently. What he is shedding are precisely those class shackles that bind him to all systems of domination. He abandons those class interests that enslave him to consumerism, suburbia, and a bookkeeping conception of life.[11*]

The most promising development in the factories today is the emergence of young workers who smoke pot, fuck off on their jobs, drift into and out of factories, grow long or longish hair, demand more leisure time rather than more pay, steal, harass all authority figures, go on wildcats, and turn on their fellow workers. Even more promising is the emergence of this human type in trade schools and high schools, the reservoir of the industrial working class to come. To the degree that workers, vocational students and high school students link their lifestyles to various aspects of the anarchic youth culture, to that degree will the proletariat be transformed from a force for the conservation of the established order into a force for revolution."

moralism, utopianism, identity politics, anarchistic idealism, ecology, etc anything that doesn't have to do with class

WE'RE REACHING LEVELS OF UTOPIANISM THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE POSSIBLE

How is that paragraph dismissing the importance of class? Your class interest is the abolishment of yourself as a class, of the class system in general, not the fetishizement of work and of your status as an underclass. To reject your place in a system that essentially exploits and reduces you to nothing more then a means for others to make money. What he is criticizing here is the tendency of marxist-leninists (not necessarily Marx) to fetishize work as an intrinsic good when in essence it is something to be reduced and abolished.

Wrong. Class is an aspect of hierarchy and domination, but it is not the only form. To abolish class is of utmost importance but to abolish hierarchy and domination is also the goal, and hierarchy and domination can exist independently of class. You haven't read him or tried to understand his point of view whatsoever. It's as if I were to judge Marxism by the communist manifesto, at which point I would have come to the false conclusion that Marxism means taxation and nationalization of industries.

...

You're just embarrassing yourself

He says that workers are no less bourgeoisie then professionals, etc comparing workers to the bourgeoisie.

No this is ridiculous utopianism. Your class interest is the improvement of conditions for you class not the abolition of it. Getting worker's to reject class consciousness will not be good for them.

He's talking about "classcucks", the kind of people that subscribe to a puritan work ethic, that think capitalist exploitation is fine because if you work hard enough you'll be get what you deserve. The kind of people that vote for their own continued oppression. The kind of people we routinely make fun of and loathe on here. Communism is ultimately the abolishment of classes, not the continued existence of the proletariat. Have you even read Marx?

No communism is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat (the abolition of classes follows). The liberation of the proletariat is achieved by their own class consciousness which in combination allows them to pursue their own interests through class struggle as well as by real material changes and technological development. It is not achieved through ideas, the idea of "class unconsciousness", or simply having the idea of no longer being part of a class anymore. That is why I can't agree with him as a communist who has even read Marx. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to your question.

Their own interest through class struggle is not their continued status as a worker or the fetishizement of work. Bookchin was well aware of the concept of class consciousness, he was a member of the communist party at the age of 9 and at a foundry to unionize workers. His observation was not the development of class consciousness but in fact the regimentation of workers towards their roles as workers, and no desire to transcend beyond that. Again, you've made no attempt to understand his arguments or reasoning but pretend to know his theory.

and later worked at*

Rojava is supported by the US, but Communalism as an ideology isn’t. If Communalism ever took over an area of importance to the US like Saudi Arabia he US would do everything in it’s power to shut it down.

They have a party similar to the greens though. It’s a standard soc-dem party that has dabbled in supporting co-ops. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party

How

Yeah, no

I actually support this.
You ask why?
Soviets forced the Americans to adapt capitalism with human face, with heavy taxes on the rich and social spending etc. Ever since the end of cold war this has changed leading to people see the true face of communism.

And in malstevs case it is because he is scared of Chinese. It's kind of double think. becouse he has praised Gaddafi numerous times and every now and then talks about western imperialism

P.S. I do wish there was someone better

And what’s wrong with that?

Utopianism isn’t an insult.

t. Bookmemer

Bookchin, he was from the US

This is how much leftypol has degenerated by bookshits like you
Utopianism has became the new idpol

What did he mean by this?

Imagine being this retarded

There's Bookhin's group, the Institute for Social Ecology still. You should come to one of our summer gatherings. There's also the Montreal Urban Ecology Centre. There's a few groups in the PNW as well that are organising assemblies. There's also some groups in Europe.

People Social Freedom Movement America.

What do you guys think of pic related?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAH
*takes breath*
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAH

I haven't really read a lot about him. There's mixed feelings about him though.

shit memes
>>>Holla Forums

Anything in particular you could mention?

Why does he look like Gerald McRaney???

Who’s Gerald McRaney?

...

terrible meme. Here, have a better one

Shit meme

bump

how can you make a flag that bad

It’s good though.

so this is the left's fabled memeing ability

It’s a good meme

Ebin my dudde XddDD

Wew

bump

It's what Marx totally destroyed. It's the difference being a communist and a socialist.

If my ruse detector wasn't going off the charts I'd be tempted to hit this post up with a

A rather nonsensical statement from one who claims to have read Marx.

Looks like the NEETs were the true revolutionaries after all!

Obviously it isn't the sole difference. Don't be so dense.

There is no difference.

...

...