Anarcom give me reasons and argument to be one of yours …

Anarcom give me reasons and argument to be one of yours …
And also argments to fight against "Anarchism is not viable"

Attached: 1610p_BANDERA DE LAS BRIGADAS INTERNACIONALES.JPG (700x445, 15.69K)

Google Bookchin

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

Chomsky is 100% better (at least for an anarcho-liberal) and also not a zionist. Bookchin is a cold war relic who, much like Chomsky, tried to reinvent the metaphorical wheel by promulgating a totally not "communist" (soviet) version of communism in order to keep the lovely gibs that he received from American academia while also attempting to erect a strange little cult around himself. The only good thing he ever did was destroy Bob Black.

he is not even an anarchist

Zionist fucktard

murray bookchin is an anarcho capitalist giant piece of shit. and an un-ironic zionist who thinks "arabs are of a primitive ilk".

googling bookchin is the most reactionary shit you can do and only americans would think he's cool or not a gigantic piece of shit

Attached: 8359b7d9a8bb9520fd02bdc7f86ba126345dfe96.png (780x1200 266.01 KB, 774.31K)

rekt

read the bread book

wtf is he a porky, dissappointing

oh well, there are still the real anarchists

poisoning_the_well.jpg

the quote isn't real, and no one is referring to bookchin because of his stance on American libertarians or Israel decades ago. Bookchin constantly revised and updated his theories as he aged.

btw you have to go to page 9 on google to find murray bookchin's reason.com interview from the 70s.

Google Hoppe

yeah no, thats not how it works
you need to go back >>>Zig Forums

lmao, literally reddit

fucking stop, dude.

stop defending bookchin w my flag, bitch. marxism is the way.

"Google bookchin", when taken by anyone with an ounce of social awareness, obviously means make cursory investigation of Bookchin's life and ideas. finding a passage of an obscure interview from the 70s on the 12th page of results is obviously not what google bookchin is recommending, and wouldn't ever been taken as an endorsement of the contents within.
Bringing up things bookchin has said in the past is completely innocent, and people have every right to this. of course you are free to criticize as you like. When you say "Don't bring up" you are burdening me with the accusation that you're being silenced or not allowed to talk about these things. Like you are free to criticize, I can also criticize your motives here. you aren't so much "bringing up" issues which you can have with bookchin for learning and discovery, but attempting to shut down discussion with a few wedge issues you've identified, I.e. poisoning the well.
I could better understand you acting this indignant if your original post didn't include a fabricated quote. The origin of it is obviously a personal anecdote relayed by Parenti, in the context of Bookchin evidently regarding his defense of the USSR as a non-sequitor to his criticisms. But Parenti never provides this quote. "I don't care about" doesn't appear in his anecdote, nor does Parenti even say this was Bookchin's state of mind. the original author of the image may feel like he can perform necromancy and read his mind, but presenting this as a quote is extremely dishonest. I'm sure if you were to address Parenti himself with this image, he would object as well. he's fairly prompt in responding to emails at mp[@]michaelparenti[.]org

Whether you think Bookchin is a total comrade or not is a question. You would have to be extremely stupid to think I made any attempt to answer that question. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I don't think you're that stupid. Instead, you realized your reply sounded weak, so you decided you had to misrepresent three short sentences to make your reply that much snappier, just as you feel threatened by Bookchin, so you have to misrepresent his work. no reasonable person reacts this way when someone just tries to keep them honest.


I think you're the one 'plagiarizing' my flag.

hey man, I'm not the person you originally responded to. I do think it's very bad that the Original person is knowingly or otherwise disseminating a fake quote by Bookchin. my snappy reply wasn't particularly directed at you and what you pointed out, but more so the general fallbacks I see anarchists using to deflect all criticism of Bookchin. I can see how this would be insulting to you, and I'm sorry for intentionally misrepresenting you and associating you with that category. I'll try and "remember the human" as it were from now on and be more mindful and open when analysing Bookchin et al.

you really are quite the sperg getting triggered into drawing out a reply like that over some mockery.

is some faggot says "google bookchin" is legitimate, then so is "poisoning the well" and just taking a shit on this
also
Read Stalin

:-DDDD

find something else to criticize besides length, it's actually easier to write like this than to spend time condensing and reformatting as green text. That reply took five minutes to type and one to proof. On the other hand, you can't accuse me of taking poorly to mockery, because you haven't been mocking me if all you do is misrepresent.

I take it you don't think saying "google bookchin" is legitimate anyway, so you must not think what you're doing is legitimate either. Certainly under no circumstance can posting fabricated quotes ever be called legitimate.

I have actually read far more Stalin than I have Bookchin. If you're under the impression that I am an anarchist or mutualist, you're wrong. I'd be eager to read more. suggest something by Stalin, and I'll tell you if I haven't read it already.

i almost want to give you a cookie for that, you did well

Anarchism is stupid and is never going to happen.

get's me every time!

What's wrong with Bob Black?

(You)