Can someone explain Communalism to me, or at least give me some good starters for me to learn more about it?
Other urls found in this thread:
Ancom-lite with a fetish for enviormentalism.
We fuck a lot.
The Next Revolution is a good starting point. /r/Communalists is probably the best resource for info on the subject on the internet.
It's pretty much just AnCom with some added pretentiousness. It's only because modern anarchists are such degenerates who care more about lifestyle and idpol than real structural change that Bookchin felt the need to rename his ideology.
Sex in an armchair sounds difficult.
Read Marx. Too authoritarian.
Read Lenin. Too authoritarian.
Social Ecology and Communalism is a good next step
lmao what the fuck is an authoritarian, and why do you think Bookchin's imperialist hogwash isn't authoritarian? you do realize that the only pseudo-implementation in history of "democratic confederalism" (YPG) is a one party dictatorship propped up by the US military, right?
Nobody can explain it because Bookchin was too good for formal definitions of anything he wanted to say and left it as vague as possible so nobody could criticize him without him going "hurr dat's not what I meant." Of course, if you don't subscribe to him, you're either a tankie or a lifestylist, though he was cool if you were AnCap.
Whereas Marx's materialist conception of History was created through a critical appropriation of Hegel's idealism, Bookchin's naturalism was created through a critical appropriation of materialism. In this way, dialectical naturalism is the end, thus far, of German Idealist philosophy. Marx's theory of History began with Primitive Communism, as stage of History that was informed by 19th century anthropology. Specifically, the unilineal evolutionism of Lewis Henry Morgan. Unfortunately Marx and Engels were limited in their time by the anthropology of their age, and Primitive Communism never existed in fact. Unilineal evolutionist anthropology has been virtually rejected by contemporary anthropologists. Even by neoevolutionists, who instead subscribe to the evolutionist antropology of Leslie White, et. al. What Bookchin did, was to look at Marx's theory of History through the lens of modern anthropology. When this is done, we find that not only did hierarchy exist before class, but that it contributed to the emergence of class. And these hierarchies are not strictly material. So Bookchin incorporates Marx's materialism in quite a few ways, but also moves beyond it and presents an alternative in anthropology to idealism, materialism, and sociobiology. Bookchin presents a coherent, revolutionary philosophy that answers the questions we face today, regarded to the present ecological crisis and the historical failures of the Left.
t. never read Bookchin
It's the pinnacle of Amerifat leftism and therefore has no coherent definition. Thus why we are always told to simply "google" or "read" Bookchin. There is no way to describe his ideas in a succinct way. Honestly he was a huge fag and his "new" ideology was lame.
lmao hierarchy is psychological
kill your parents
So how does hierarchy differ from class, according to Bookchin?
The parent-offspring relationship is a biological one, and not an institutionalised system of command and obedience (like the state, for example), you retard.
hahahaha what the fuck
no it's not, it's fucking psychological
children are not biologically connected to their parents once you cut the umbilical chord.
Bookchinites once again posting retarded shit.
The fact that primates, and particularly humans, have evolved in a way that they have protracted periods of adolescence that require parental care is a fact of evolution.
Except that's such a vague definition, that even parenting is considered authoritarian. Of course, Bookchinites will later claim that this is obviously not what he meant by that.
Actually read the thread and actually read Bookchin, autismo
You're a fucking cultist.
He added an extra syllable to communism
You are the only one here who has acted like the member of some religion
no it's not. I would kill my alcoholic family members without doubting it twice. they're not my parents btw but they're trash better dead tbqh
What matters is deeds not words. Marxism is the only means of practice to actual combat authority and achieve true communism, whereas utopians would prefer not to combat existing authority but rather to make their own petty escapist utopia somewhere that they can pretend they are free of the system, well often they even make excuses using false, disingenuous, anti-Marxist arguments to justify ultimately reactionary positions.
Just restoring my response to this post which got me banned :^)
"Google Bookchin" BTFO.
Please quote Bookchin saying private property ought be sustained. Please. It'd be awesome to see this proof that disputes everything he ever wrote besides that and isn't quote-mining at all.
Bookchin proposes nothing. About 90% of his works are just him shittalking other leftist trends.
No that's not true.
AnComs usually conflate politics and statecraft, and are therefore often weary of rigid organization, laws and constitutions. Communalism has no such hang-ups and that's a huge difference. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
Make a judgement on this:
Or, post it to /r/rojava
All of "the next revolution" and the last chapters of Urbanisation are concrete suggestions as to how a communalist society is supposed to function and suggestions as to how we realistically can get there. Bookchin is not Bordiga. He was all about real tangible change hand how it could realistically achieved.
You saying thing indicates to me that you dishonestly are claiming to have read material you cannot have read.
I'm in a train right now, can't listen to it. I'll get back to you later.
So you know how anarcho-syndicalism foresees revolution occurring via horizontal unions? Communalism is kind of like that but replace unions with horizontal community structures. It's one of the most coherent forms of post-industrial anarchism, and stands in contrast to idpol lifestylism.
Nothing wrong with being a NEET.
What do you mean by "community structures?"
Also, how the fuck is the YPG actually doing this?
It's always funny when you see someone post this image, because it's a sure sign they've never read Bookchin and would rather meme outright falsifications about him.
It starts out with muddying the waters. Whether or not Bookchin was a "contrarian" or an "asshole" is unrelated to whether or not he was right about his overarching theories about history and anthropology.
So already there we're dealing with pseudo-intellectual trickery.
They go on to ridicule the fact that Bookchin talks about how we shouldn't try to dominate Nature, and how the conquest of nature is born from the fact that humans view each other as reasources for the plundering. The ridicule the fact that complementarity with nature will not "do anything against a hurricane", missing the point entirely and not actually presenting a counter-point. A cursory reading of Bookchin reveals that he has nothing against augmenting or changing nature, just that we should refocus our efforts at changing nature for the betterment of nature and humanity alike, rather than just scavenge it for resources with no regard for the repercussions. Again a wonderful example of what must either be arrogant ignorance or malicious dishonesty.
Then there's a long tangent about how being "cool" should actually be a bad thing.
It is also claimed that Bookchin believes that humans are "better" or "of a higher standard" than animals which misses the entire point of the text they've just read.
Bookchin believes human beings to be more complex than animals, but the use of better or of "highter quality" is reflective of the very hierachical racialism projected unto nature that Bookchin is talking about. The difference is immense. It is the diffence between complementarity and competition.
I'm 20 minutes in and all they're doing is stalling and shitposting. If there's any other great points against Bookchin I've missed please link them and I'll deal with them.
Wasn't Bookchin a Zionist?
How in the world did you get an interpretation of what was said that ends up with this? Pretty much the reading was a joke since what Bookchin says is so obvious it's boring. You also so.show didn't hear about how 'better' has nothing to do with social hierarchy. What the fuck do you think he believes? Complexity as he means it >is ontological complexity< which IS higher by his own use of Hegelian logic, it is something emergent above lower orders. Nothing to do with hierarchy of power over things, and we agreed with him.
No one ridiculed the idea of not dominating nature. You literally must have hearing problems because we all agreed it was obvious. You missing the joke about hurricanes and what it was abiut also makes me think you have some problem hearing.
Christ, you people are out to be victimized it seems. You're either a moron, or you're too invested in your joke ideology to notice that philosophically Bookchin is rightly ignored. His political theory is something else, and I frankly don't care.>>2129413
Basically I don't see any value at all to Bookchin. He can comfortably be ignored by anyone really interested in theory.
What's with you people and your obsession with dialectics? Seriously, why can't you accept you just aren't retards and want to theorize with context like any good theoretician of the anlytix stripe? That's basically all you fuckers do anyway. You're literally analytical Marxists who are just stumbling by trying to wear clown shoes thinking it'll make you run better when in fact it just holds you back.
Great, so you posted a long podcast with you being sarcastic for 50 minutes, claiming it BTFOs Bookchin because you wanted attention, and now you're backpedalling.
Please site him uttering opinions that equates to jewish nationalism.
I never claimed to BTFO Bookchin. How the fuck does anyone think I did? I literally agreed with the essay. It was a boring read, and my final comment was that Bookchin is a terrible writer, an unoriginal theorist, and that there is no reason to ever read him considering much better writers and theorists who go over the same things more competently and interestingly.
K E K
EXCEPT FOR THE ONLY RELEVANT REVOLUTIONARY LEFTIST MOVEMENT TODAY : ^)
You're a joke. Noone likes you here, and your arrogance and vanity is grating.
Ell oh ell.
none of these things are arguments.
Unlike A.W, internet armchair hero
Which pretty much demonstrates that you are completely unaware of the sociobiological far-right and the arguments they're using, and also just how prevalent these arguments are today. Lose the pretentiousness you armchair revolutionary.
Why would you use Bookchin to refute these people? Son, are you aware Hegel already refuted them more directly, concisely, poetically, and to the depths of metaphysics itself?
Who in their right mind would use an intellectual manlet like Bookchin for such a fight?
Bookchin is worth reading solely for his ability to piss off tankie cultists. Which is weird because he's pretty ruthless in his critique of anarchists
is this your first day of being a leftist?
Shit we are trying to do something in the REAL WORLD and now are under attack by islamist fascists. The yanks, who originally played a role in propping up those groups, offer help. We are running out of options. What else could we do than try it with the yanks? Sit in our armchairs until the fascists come in and cut our heads off?
Gee, thanks! One can always count on the helpful advice by the Marxists.
These people are not marxists user. Read Marx if you have not and if you are in YPG stay strong.
Pissing off tankies is extremely easy but Bookchin pisses them off for the right reasons with his support for Israel and reference to revolutions as coups. His critique of anarchism is shit and his response is to turn around and advocate for diet-ancom with some democracy fetishization. Ultimately Bookmeme is boring and will return to the dustbin when Rojava fails or becomes marksucc.
Bookchin has a wealth of historical and anthropological research at his side that Hegel did not and could not have had access to. Çatal hüyük for example and the immense bearing it and other hunter-gatherer cities had on our understanding of how civilization came into being was not discovered until the 1970's.
Hegels thought also suffers from Christian one-to-one dualism, meaning that they're too crude and simplistic to gain a proper understanding of society, anot organic construction of holistically intersecting factor much like a biosphere of ideas. It was exactly this rigid simplicity of Hegels dualism that lead others to believe that class-conflict (or race/national or individual/collective conflict in the minds of others) that singularly or primarily dictated the totality of society, rather than each factor of the ideological totality synergizing with each other, creating different synthesis depending on the ideological biosphere the thesis and anthesis is found in.
It's easy to read something simple, written as a bare-bones instruction to a wider concept, not be able to present any arguments against their points, and then declare them "intellectual light-weights". It's easy to then just dismiss them so you don't have to question your ideology.
So if you really want to prove to the rest of us you're such an intellectual heavy-weight, give us a refutation of some of Bookchins arguments. Please, demonstrate your own ability to do so.
Because this thing you're doing to desperately prove you're smart to the rest of us is disheartening, and it saddens me that you have to be like that.
When does he utter support for Israel, when does he refer to revolutions as coups and what is your concrete problem with his criticism of Anarchism?
I'm sure a tankie will post the article soon.
His Reason interview.
Memechin's surprise at anarchists rejecting voting in local elections is laughable, they aren't socdems after all. Anarchists have historically rejected such participation, as we can see in the split of the 1st international. Bookchin conflates this partcipation with organization, indicating a socdem bent to his politics and a fetishization with the ballot box abadoned by even the Marxists after it failed them time and time again. In addition he ignores the historical ability of Anarchism to organize or work within organizations, like Bakunin's international or the IWW and paints it as anti-organization based upon the lifestylists post-60's emergence. This rejection based solely on current events is a common pattern for Memechin, as his rejection of the proletariat because of a 1948 strike was, indicating an inability to look past current circumstance.
Except according to Bookchinites, everyone not him is either a tankie or a lifestylist.
Rojava is socdem.
You've clearly not read Hegel. Look, I know you're desperate to have Bookchin look new, but he's not. The question isn't about empirical history, as if that matters to our ideal conceptions of what we >should< be doing, but about an ideal conception which allows for the end to properly be conceived.
I've not learned a single thing from Bookchin, where is his wealth of information? Wherever it is, it's in books and articles more competently written than his.
Bookchin was an ancap in red clothing
Bookchin was a fucking fascist!
No, but he sure liked to pal around with them. Rather, he was a useful idiot.
Argument.exe not found
That article literally begins by stating his support of a demcon solution to israel. That's not at all supporting an ethno state. Referring to M-L take overs as coups is not the same thing as dismissing all revolutions as coups. His criticisms of anarchism begin more so with the spanish civil war and the anarchists unwillingness to fully revolt, opting instead to enter the state apparatus, then with lifestylists in the new left.
Read ecology of freedom. Read urbanization without cities. You've clearly never read bookchin, and implying that the anthropological data hegel had access to isn't extremely outdated is absurd
Let's say I haven't.
Explain to me how I am wrong. Present an argument. Do something that's not just cheap and easy.
I don't think that is really Bookchins primary criticism of anarchism though, and I think you conflate his criticisms of anarcho-individualism with his criticism of anarcho-collectivism, two criticisms that are quite different.
Hegel didn't even believe in evolution and supported fixity of being, you enormous faggot
How about no?
Look, I'm not here to convince you to do anything. I don't want you to read Hegel for any purpose, neither does Hegel want to be read for any utilitarian external aims. You read Hegel because you've arrived at the questions he deals with and want to read the biggest autist in history who claims to solve everything. I'm just here to tell you Bookchin aint shit, his writing is shit, and his theory is meh.
Just because you morons can't critically read does not mean I can't.
You asked where the wealth of information was to be found. Now you know. You choose not to seek it out.
That is called willful ignorance.
Good. So present an argument. It should be easy, he's shit after all, right?
I mean, way easier than intellectually lazy mudslinging, that is.
been a while since I heard this meme
Daily reminder that Bookchin's ideas have never been tried in the real world. Rojava is not communalist. Bookchin was just a wannabe Bob Black that was too much of an asshole to build a devoted cult around himself.
EVERY TIME FASCISM AROSE IT WAS PRECEDED BY SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS WORSE THAN HOXHAISM
Fair enough, I openly profess I do not care about his take.
Why don't you? Arguments aren't anything when they're subjective. Unlike you, I don't hide this.
Just because you say things doesn't make them true, user.
Fine. But then you can have no opinion about him ever again, since you actively choose not to know what his positions are. You have chosen to be ignorant and thus next time you profess to have knowledge you now know you you do not, you will be a liar. Know this.
I did. I pointed out problems with Hegel's dialectics. You said I was wrong, but didn't make an argument as to why. And just sayong I'm wrong is not an argument.
And again, if I'm wrong it should be really easy to refute me. Because, you know… I'd be wrong.