Bookchin Thread

Post Bookchin memes, Bookchin books, Bookchins arguments, arguments against Bookchin and generally anything Bookchin related

Attached: images.jpeg (225x225, 10.11K)

what the fuck is a Bookchin?

Wasn't Bookchin an idealist?

Also, what's up with his flirting with AnCaps/Lolberts?


He was trying to get them to support his ideas

Cracked open Post Scarcity Anarchism for the first time the other day.
I haven't made shit for progress as I work my ass off but its pretty good so far.

I feel like non of this matters because we are all going to get dead by means of hot house anyway but I look forward to the ecology memes.

no, he was a naturalist

He got me into anarchism after buying a beaten to death copy of PSA on a whim for $0.89, having no idea who he was. Very insightful writer. Here's the only Bookchin meme I have.

Attached: bookchin.png (600x1052, 742.31K)

Bad image. Bookchin wasn't against vanguards

Yeah, he totally was. And his lack of formal definitions and lack of proper logical connections makes him just another faggot writing to stroke his own cock. This is the man that said t he proletariat weren't revolutionary because people didn't work in factories. He's a fucking retard.

Read Listen, Marxist!

There's two important phases in Bookchin's later life. The first one is his anarchist phase, which is before the 90s. The second phase was his non-anarchist Communalist phase, which begins approximately in the 90s when he was stating in private to his comrades that he no longer identified as an anarchist. In his non-anarchist Communalist phase he takes revolutionary ideas much more seriously, in my opinion. There's a reason why the PKK adopted his Communalist ideas and went with them.

If you want to read starting from his Communalist period, I'd recommend starting with The Next Revolution and Social Ecology and Communalism.

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

Also, in his Communalist phase he was very much pro-vanguardism, although what he meant by that was a sort of Gramscian intelligentsia aimed at the creation of a confederal political body as the vanguard. It wasn't aimed at a Leninist seizure of power, but a gradual accretion of power from below.

Hmm, admittedly most of what I've read by him is pre-Communalist. In which of the writings you mentioned does he delineate this concept of a vaguard in the most depth?

The Next Revolution discusses the role of leadership in a few different essays, which is basically synonymous with vanguardism, despite the latter being a more contentious term. Bookchin's notion of an intelligentsia was also very similar to the Gramscian notion of organic intellectuals, which he talks about in his essay Intelligentsia and the New Intellectuals.

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

Communalist Bookchin is much better than pre-Communalist Bookchin

Respectfully, I hate comments like this.
Like please tell us why.
Just throwing your preferences out there doesn't help anyone.

Is there something he expands upon?
Can we actually talk about communalist ideas please?

Thanks bruv

If leadership and vanguardism are the same things than anarchists support vanguardism j/s

lissen Marxist was a shity Easy.

Yeah obviously. In the Old Left everyone talked about needing a vanguard. The distinction was what you meant by that. Kropotkin even published a periodical called Vanguard. Neo-anarchism has this strange aversion to vanguardism or even leadership though, which is just one reason why Bookchin (correctly) broke from it

Non-anarchist Communalist Bookchin:
- heavy emphasis on a dialectical theory of history
- heavy emphasis on vanguard organisation and formation of organic intellectuals
- incorporation of military strategy
- incorporation of transitional demands
- rejection of anarchism
- extremely critical of contemporary tendency towards theoretical incoherence and eclecticism
- attempting to recover "The Left That Was"

Attached: 17951928_10154703202535756_1134482840341111433_n.jpg (540x540, 101.16K)

The meme still works then, because a ML wanting to start a vanguard is different from a communalist wanting to. Czechmate

In what ways does he "reject anarchism" with communalism, beyond castigating lifestyle anarchism? I do intend on reading it for myself, but I'd just like a brief idea of how communalism is incompatible with central anarchist principles.

If there was even a single central principle of anarchism, there wouldn't be 10,000 anarcho-[MEME] off shoots. Core "principles" of ancap and ancom are completely incompatable. And those are incompatible with AnPrim, etc. There is no such thing as a "core anarchist principle". And even if everyone might agree with a statement, it's only because they interpret the words differently, like a philosophical Rorschach painting.

Well, I'd better rephrase. How is it incompatible with the ideas of his anarchist period?

Attached: ili2.jpg (417x402, 14.56K)

>Anarcho-X is not true anarchy
see what I mean?

The core "principles" of ancap are incomparable with literally all other forms of anarchism. They're the odd-man-out. That's why they're not true anarchy.

The difference is what you mean by "vanguard". MLs seem to mean a Leninist styled vanguard, organised on the basis of democratic centralism and wanting to seize power. Communalists was a confederal styled vanguard, organised on the basis of majoritarian direct democracy and wanting to accrete power rather than seize it.

What distiguishes Communalism from anarchism, is that unlike anarchism Communalism supports governance through social contract theory, as well as the use of laws and courts in said governance.

>therefore we're all correct, and they're wrong
You're only proving my point more about the Rorschach painting that is "Anarchism"

Marxism, Liberalism, and virtually every ism also have many off-shoots based n differing interpretations and conditions, many of which are less compatible with each other than the various anarcho-xs barring ancap. Does this mean that Marxism and Liberalism have no central principles?


behold: the tanktard in all its glory

Wait… communalist societies are states? Wat

Except they don't even derive their ideology from anarchist writers.

What words you godamned retard

Arendtian/Aristotelian social contract theory. So governments, but not states

At least read an introductory communalist book before commenting you ignorant faggot

I don't see how the horizontal social contract conflicts with anarchism, since it doesn't imply any sort of hierarchy, but maybe I'm missing something? I suppose I'll have a better idea when I just read it for myself.

Bookchin literally claims that private property is not inconsistent with communalism. That's right. If a commune decides to have private property, then it will be so, and so, in theory, Bookchin can have his communalist utopia, while private property remains. Bookchin was a hack, and he should rightfully be forgotten.

Bookchin argued against both markets and private property consistently throughout his entire life. There was even a split between him and Takis Fotapoulus because takis wanted to create "artificial markets". Saying that theoretically a directly democratic society could shape it's own future, even if it's a future we disagree with, is merely being consistent with the ideal of direct democracy. That does not mean advocating for this result.

It doesn't really. A lot of anarchists on here don't really understand anarchism, advocating for the abolishment of even justified hierarchy which is absurd

Provide a citation, because having read pretty much all of Bookchin's theoretical works I can tell you that's a load of horseshit. Communalism seeks to abolish money and exchange value all together, abolish markets, and institute the MUNICIPALIZATION of property, meaning eliminating private property and bringing the MOP under the control of the confederation.

Jesus Christ, this is really Communalism 101 level stuff

You actually have no clue what you're talking about. Communes aren't "autonomous" under Communalism. They're economically and politically interdependent with the rest of the whole confederation. If one commune decided to ignore the decision of the confederation as a majority go abolish private property, then the rest of the confederation would step in and force that commune to abide by the laws regarding municipalization of property decided upon by the rest of the confederation. Communalism is not some anarchist philosophy where individual communes can do whatever they want

They were talking about Bookchin on the "It's Going Down" podcast. They said Bookchin is bullshit. That he was frustrated with how reactionary and non-revolutionary Marx's proletariat have proven to be amen to that brother. And that he was seeking a new revolutionary subject in the "citizen".
They said it's bullshit because porky will never let "citizens" vote away their power.
I'll admit I'd come to a similar conclusion of Bookchin. Thinking that liberals might be the real revolutionary subject because they share many traits the bourgeoisie had relative to the aristocracy. LIberals tend to be knowledge workers and have a special relationship to the MoP, like porkies had under a king, they power ebbs and flows but it seems over all to be at parity to the state at least, and so they are the biggest power block with an interest diametric to that of the state.

I haven't listened to the podcast you're talking about, but if this was their critique then Bookchin would have agreed with it. Communalism seeks to gradually grow power through local assemblies through a strategy of dual power.


Yeah but hows that even that different then a Socialist / M-L goverment that is a Unitary state (DDR for example) or a Federal state (USSR for example)?

Far more decentralised

bookchin's focus on "citizen" wasn't that he thought that they would be a new revolutionary subject but that he believed capitalism had changed in the 20th century and that it would be necessary to take into account people previously dismissed as having no revolutionary potential, mainly the rural population that isn't as close to the industrial factory

Specifically it's view towards social contract theory. Governance in communalism is distinct because it's grounded in the social contractualism of Hannah Arendt and the notion of the polis.


guess we better accept anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-totalitarianism, and Christian anarchism as well

Attached: 1435950448205.jpg (580x679, 57.81K)

Attached: crabrave.webm (640x360, 4.05M)

Attached: 121413.png (459x716, 349.68K)