Ocalan and Bookchin

Is anything these guys write actually worth reading or are they overhyped? Are there any good reading-lists?

General thread on these guys, I guess

Attached: 4AB6FE27-F02B-4B8C-9CF5-3E1A407055FB.jpeg (300x371 537.88 KB, 44.71K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Oh look it's this thread again, for the fourth time this year.


Do we really need the same thread starting with asking "Was Bookchin good/worth reading/bad?" every couple of months?

Bookchin is ok, but he was hyper sectarian and he and his followers struggle to adequately explain how communalism isn't just ancom with social democratic characteristics. You're better off reading him for yourself to make up your own mind though.

Why not? It's not like the threads bumped off the catalogue were going to see life or vidya, thots, trump, japan acceleration, nationalism with socialist characteristics, and Ojeda are incredibly relevant topics.

Shit you're right.

Based on the state of this board’s quality I’d say this thread is more than welcome

Best two introductions to his ideas are The Next Revolution, followed by Social Ecology and Communalism. Otherwise this reading guide is good:

He really wasn't sectarian, unless we're understanding "sectarianism" to mean sticking to a principled position and not deviating from it.

Attached: 14264105_143302916123882_728993539593802303_n.jpg (960x960, 101.27K)

See pic for Bookchin. For Öcalan, try his Maifesto for a Democratic Civilization, and specifically "The Political Thought of Abdullah Öcalan." If covers jineology and Democratic Confederalism basics.

Attached: CommunalistReadingList.png (1074x1598, 1.21M)

Thanks, anons

Bookchin was too much of a Kurdophile for me to care about him.

Bookchin is alright for democratic confederalism but don't think his "Social ecology" isn't ecological at all if he still supports cities

Of course. Not many actually know what social ecology is or the difference between Communalism and DemCon.

Attached: 20180501_001622.jpg (836x470, 73.92K)

Absolute state

Attached: 6157B076-73AC-46BD-8095-6D66FA09936D.jpeg (1242x1869, 360.56K)

I think neither Bookchin nor his readers have the faintest clue about what the word ecology even means.


>>>Zig Forums2749208

While he admits to being inspired by Bookchin, Öcalan is a hack who just copy-pasted communalism, added a sprinkling of "national self-determination" (no state dough of course also not da bad kind of nationalism lol) and called it something completely different ("democratic confederalism")

Is it really stealing if you adopt what you think are good ideas and add some of your own thought to it? I doubt Bookchin sperged out

Find me a single sentence in the entire body of Bookchin's published works where he even talks about the Kurds

Bookchin talks about ecology's origin's in Haeckel, and expounds on the differences between a natural and social ecology. So maybe actually read him before making these claims you gigantic faggot.

Ocalan didn't "copy-pasted" communalism, he used Bookchin's dialectical naturalism and its general principles and applied them to the particulars of the Middle East.


You know what's wild? That list was originally from Zig Forums. The Zig Forums one is an edit I got from here lmao
t. That dude who got banned again

Ecology is not a "thing" or a state of harmony to strive for like non-biologist hacks like Bookchin would have you believe, it's a word that describes studying how populations of organisms relate to one another. hurr fuckin durr

Attached: 57A5E974-EA79-43C4-9FF9-7F70711DBEE3.jpeg (1242x808, 257.72K)

wtf i love ocalan now

Attached: ocalan on anarchism.jpg (494x707, 88.03K)

Is this what Bad Mouse is flaking on about?

Communalism is just a hybrid of syndicalism from what I've seen.

It's more like a hybrid of Kropotkinist anarcho-communism with Marxism.

As someone who likes Kropotkin and Marxism, it would make sense why this stuff appeals to me so much

Can't find the source for that quote anywhere. All I can find was an article that claimed he stated that without a source, along with another quote which *was* sourced talking about the need for a "lean state" devoted to administration, but not legislation. Which is not exactly how many anarchists would define a state. It just sounds like Bookchin's distinction between the justification of delegation for administrative institutions while retaining direct democracy for policy formation, something he even talked about while he still identified as an anarchist.

I'll actually backpedal on this because a lot of anarchists are against literally all hierarchy, and revise it to "Bookchinite anarchists".

Ocalan makes explicit his rejection of anarchism in his Prison Writings volumes. I don't remember the exact citation, as it's been a while since I read them. As for Bookchin's distinction between the state and government, you're kind of thinking along the right lines as to the distinction between policy and administration, although this is only one part of it. The full distinction between the state and government is clear when you understand that Bookchin was conceiving of governance along the lines of Arendtian social contract theory.

bookchin thinks industrial technology can be sustained in on an exclusively local basis, i.e. without exchange
hes delusional

The solution is to make threads about people you like so there's more good content on the board.

State =/= government. A state is specifically an institution that asserts itself through force to claim sovereignty over territory bounded by borders. A government can be defined as simply people collectively organizing to run things. Some people use the words interchangeably but from that quote it sounds like it's not a state being described.

"There is a need for a non-State oriented democratic socialist theory, programme, strategy and tactics."

"Democracy is governance that is not the State: it is the power of communities to govern themselves without the State."

Sounds pretty anarchist to me…

Attached: 20181219_225705.jpg (5312x2988, 4.55M)

Exactly the point I was making.