Communalism General

lmfao, exactly as I said:
Bookchin supporters act like cultists, no matter how much you expose Bookchin's idiocy, imperialism, chauvinism, and anti-Marxism, they will blather endlessly about how "you don't really get what he meant," all the while only reconfirming the criticisms with more reproductions of Bookchin's inane nonsense.

They are not trying to be communists

Except you're reducing it to a quantitative matter, rather than a qualitative one of a political community. But whatever keep (autistically screeching)

Wrong, it's for all radical leftists.

Literally every Bookchin thread:

...

He "became a communalist" in a NATO prison. It was probably literally MKULTRA.

This short article talks about the link between Bookchin and Ocalan:
kurdishquestion.com/oldarticle.php?aid=bookchin-oecalan-fruits-on-the-tree-of-mankind
How ought we to understand the relationship between these two thinkers? How can we make sense of two sets of ideas, which are in many aspects so similar, yet in others so unique? To whom do the ideas that generated the recent transformative political events belong?
The answer can be found in their own methodology of dialectical naturalism. Dialectical naturalism was first developed by Bookchin as a critique and an answer to Marxism’s dialectical materialism, which saw social progress as driven by nature’s inherent scarcity. Dialectical naturalism portrays society as an organic entity, much like a tree with many branches that is still developing. Öcalan adopted this “retaining and organic” dialectic during his shift from a nationalist to an internationalist perspective. In 1999, after being rejected asylum by many countries and then kidnapped by NATO, Öcalan came to truly see and understand that the enemy was not only Turkey, but also the capitalist world system. His capture, he realized, had been arranged by Israel, the USA, Russia, and the EU. Meanwhile the role of the Turkish state was only secondary. As Öcalan explains in the first volume of his book Civilization, "The role that has been assigned to Turkey is to be the vulgar gendarme [soldier], the watchdog and the prison guard of all Middle Eastern peoples in order to make them more susceptible to the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist system".

Communalism is basically communism for hippies, they dont even understand basic marxist terms because their god Murray "I don't understand marx" Bookchin shat on it after reading the communist manifesto once. Reminder that Bookchin was a LARPer and changed ideologies like he changed his boxers. First a "Stalinist", then a Trot, then an anarchist and in the end he just embraced his anti-communism and called it communalism, which corrupted people like Ocallan.
Don't do it, youll start supporting imperialism.

This is blatant bullshit, as the PKK was a Marxist-Leninist militia prior to Ocalan's imprisonment and MKULTRA brainwashing. Therefore, they always identified capitalism as the enemy. Your article is complete nonsense propaganda.

Bookchin was a Stalinist and Trotskyist in his youth you faggot. Dialectical naturalism is entirely built upon the materialist conception of history.

No it isn't, it is idealist.

No, it isn't. Bookchin's entire philosophy was built upon materialism. You would know that if you had engaged in an even slightly serious study if his ideas.

You're doing it again.

...

Honestly, you people are like anarcho-capitalists who repeat the most asinine misunderstandings about socialism, without ever bothering to read about it.

still doing it

From /leftpol/, with love. Since this thread was immediately derailed

I've always understand Apo to fuse his disgruntlement with Turkey and Bookchin's ideas of social ecology. It shows in his bashing of the nation-state which is just shitting on the Turks but you get the idea

You ☭TANKIE☭s have found yet another deep end to go over. You can criticize over a dozen US military bases in Syria for accepting US support and playing into its neocon geopolitical plans, that’s all well and good, but don’t you even try to claim Bookchin is bad just because a group that allied itself with an imperialist country espouses his ideology.

As usual this thread proves why ☭TANKIE☭s shouldn’t be a part of any future large scale left-wing movement, all they do is autistically screech at anyone who doesn’t support their model, even if said people are also anti-capitalist and anti-imperalist.

no, Bookchin is bad because Bookchin is imperialist. the over a dozen US military bases in Syria espousing Bookchin is just more evidence that they are imperialist.

Can't wait for r*java to collapse so I can stop hearing about this shitty meme ideology

How is he imperialist?

He's a Zionist for one.

Someone didn't Google Bookchin

...

Discussion usually works better when you actually quote the person you're attacking instead of just espousing your hot takes.

Does anybody have any reason to believe this apart from that one article he wrote? Did anybody even read it? He basically just says that the Israelis aren’t cartoon villains and have legitimate concerns in the conflict, while the Palestinians have done some really shitty things they deserve to be criticized for. Nothing he said was untrue.

All that's missing is a few "supporting imperialism" bans.

You realize that that’s a captured flag right?

Communalism = Capitalism

Yeah, that's why I posted it. I personally love Mace Gifford with the shotgun on a bike

This is Zionist.

This is Zionist. Sorry, you're a Zionist.

fuck off

the third isn't even an argument

Call me a Zionist all you want, but what I said is true. Ignoring the fact that the first Israelis were literally refugees from the Holocaust, the majority of them today were born there, and it would be wrong to expect them to leave entirely. Therefore it’s safe to say that the state of Israel has a right to exist (if not in is current form necessarily) and thus a right to security. The Arabs have given the Israelis good reason to doubt their commitment to respecting that right to security, since they have waged several wars which no doubt would have turned into wars of annihilation if the Arabs had won. This doesn’t make the settlements, the embargoes, or really anything else the Israelis do okay, but to pretend that they don’t have any legitimate concerns is retarded.

If thinking that is Zionist then nuance is Zionist.

Hmmm

I didn’t say that. I’m just saying that the desire of Jews to migrate to Palestine is completely understandable, and given what actually happened the conflict is more the fault of the Arab porkies and the UN. The former because they were the ones who were initially actually forcing poor Arabs off their land, and the latter because of their obviously retarded and biased partition plan.

Again, that doesn’t make the occupations acceptable, and they should be fought tooth and nail, but that doesn’t mean we should see the Israelis as inhuman.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Can someone give an actual arguement that anti-nuclear isn't NIMBY shit that led to massive amounts of fossil fuels being used that didn't need to be?

Wow, what a surprise. The Bookchinites who keep saying Bookchinisn't Zionist are Zionists.

not this guy but this is further proof that leftypol mods are slowly but surely becoming wannabe smart poltards
ban me if you want i´m leaving anyways cause i´m sick of this reactionary ☭TANKIE☭ bullshit

Zionists are basically Holla Forumstards. Why are you so butthurt?

these bans (and others ive seen) are getting to be imkampfy-tier. it looks bad

*and just to clarify, i don't agree with that user's view and i don't particularly have a lot of love for Bookchin

zionism was banned basically from the beginning. your reddit is showing.

...

based mods

Israelis have the right to exist and keep their homes, in a fully enfranchised worker's state without settler colonialism.

That wouldn't be Israel then, and they wouldn't be Israelis anymore.

It wouldn't be Israel, but Isaelis would still exist, assuming there isn't a genocide or ethnic cleansing (which no one should be advocating for).

They only "exist" the way Rhodesians exist. Anyone who willfully identifies as a Rhodesian is clearly a white supremacist. Same to Israelis.

more of an epistemological problem than an economic one

I see you went to page 5 of google search results and found an interview from 1979.

Bookchin supporters act like cultists, no matter how much you expose Bookchin's idiocy, imperialism, chauvinism, and anti-Marxism, they will blather endlessly about how "you don't really get what he meant,"

I’m sorry for asking.

But can some ☭TANKIE☭ explain why communalism supports/does not challenge imperialism? I’ve learnt nothing so far from this thread, please help

It supports a form of communism essentially, so I don't get how some "Marxist-Leninists" think it supports what this poster accuses it of supporting. I'm pretty sure it just amounts to being too critical of existing marxist groups and Marxist-Leninist states, as if this in itself constitutes support of capitalism or something. Read the man yourself and you'll see as much.

I’ve been reading through him recently and haven’t found any explicit supports of imperialism, he is definitely in words anti-capitalist.

I was just wondering if his system inherently results in something where imperialism can succeed.

Does Bookchin's comments on Israel and libertarians actually detract from the points he makes in his books or Communalism as a whole?

yeah, but the points he makes in his books are retarded on their own too

For whatever reason a lot of unironic communalists are huge zionists. Or at least they were before they got banned.

That's a lot harder to say tbh. I suppose it's better at resisting imperialism with anarchism, since the "confederation" is more centralized, and members can only enter or exist with the consent of all other members.

Than*

yeah "communalism" has a great record of resisting imperialism

Anti-nuclear energy is helping annihilate the environment and plays into the hands of fossil fuel bourgies.

Imperialism isn't constituted by accepting military support from imperialist countries. Imperialism requires economic and diplomatic subjugation, neither of which has happened so far (though I wouldn't put it past either russia or the US to try)

it's constituted by betraying your country to let America install over a dozen US military bases in Syria.

Is there a good source on Bookchins ideas that isn't insanely dense and split into multiple volumes. His writing is cryptic and annoyingly dissipated over multiple books. There doesn't seem to be any entry level stuff.

my dude, bookchin is brainlet stuff. it doesn't get much simpler.

Again, you're not "betraying your country" by accepting military help from imperialist countries. If DeFNS were say selling oil or otherwise subjugating themselves economically and diplomatically then you would have a point, and it's very possible they will do that. Not going to condemn them prematurely while communist guerillas are still there fighting and participating in the government.

The reading list has already been posted ITT. Justy check out the introduction texts. The thing about bookchin is that he's mostly just rebranding concepts then innovating on them too much. "Dialectical Naturalism" isn't really all that distinct from Dialectical Materialism, even though he pretends otherwise. Memechin was a vain blowhard, but not an untillegent one.

...

Yeah, otherwise Assad would be a fucking traitor

that's not the issue with his post, this ☭TANKIE☭ flagged liberal is just deliberately misrepresenting the fact that they're not being aided with "military help". they allow foreign imperialist military occupation without any means to remain in charge.

this.
it's the fucking difference to lend lease and bases in the ukraine during ww2, it's the difference between the government and the liberal cucks that represent themself like nutsacks as "the kurdish people", because we all know that a people always has one common ideology

fucking saved

I think your assement is alarmist to say the least. Burgerland isn't determining economic or political policy within the DeFNS, and I don't see how they can possibly hope to maintain their presence their unless through consent. It's very possible that they could attempt to overthrow the current ruling government and install a puppet, but barring that I don't see them being capable of maintaining a presence there without consent, and the current consent is based purely on geopolitical reasons not economic or ideological. DeFNS requires their continued presence, as well as the continued presence of Russian and Syrian government forces, because otherwise they face an inevitable invasion by turkey. For the DeFNS, this is not about a desire to sell the countries resources to foreign powers. It's purely about survival.

It's really not. His writings remind me of the Frankfurt School