Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Esperaux OP wrote

My perspective on this is that ideas never stay in the same permanent state. Yes absolutely there are parts of Marxism and what Murray Bookchin espouses not compatible with other anarchist perspectives. However, that doesn't mean you just discard absolutely everything said by any group. It's important to learn from all different elements and perspectives in order to build your own worldview as an individual. I don't think it's constructive to place any one individual under a simple label and just make assumptions of their entire worldview based on that label. For example we can look at how Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives. Both pointing towards how the issue of nature extends into social relationships such as how we structure ourselves and treat other people. Obviously his works aren't flawless but that doesn't mean it's worthless. When it comes to Marx, it's very obvious his own outlooks come from that of someone who supports centralization and authoritarianism. However we can look at key parts such as what Marx describes as commodity production and from there what drives the logic of growth for the sake of growth under capitalism. This is especially useful I think you of all people would agree with since it serves to critique the market socialist perspective of us simply adopting a worker cooperative society where the means of production are merely collectivized. I think we can both agree however this doesn't actually bring any meaningful changes however to issues like the coercion of work itself and the drive for constant extraction and exploitation of resources. Obviously I should do a better job describing my own views better however if I present myself otherwise. I simply think it's worthwhile to read from the works of others and see what can be compatible and what is not compatible instead of narrowly focusing on one single ideological solution and convincing myself it is the only perspective.

−1

ziq wrote

Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives.

You don't understand anticiv. Bookchin's ideas are not anticiv in any way when his solutions all come down to "more civ". If anything, he's demonized and smeared anticiv ideas more than any single individual in history.

But this continued doublespeak is why you're an entryist. No better than Leninists telling us Lenin is extremely compatible with anarchy, as they do.

5

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? What parts do you see as specifically advocating more civilization in this sense? When I hear the word civilization it seems to be used in two ways. Civilization is either simply just used synonymously with technological society or used as a term to create an outgroup of uncivilized people who are then subjected to brutal conditions until they fall in line with the lifestyle of their oppressors. I personally think civilization tends to be a pretty vague label overall since it's either used broadly or simply in a more racist manner.

Bookchin's earlier writings especially tend to be more centered around his departure from Trotskyism and centered around the discussion of how hierarchical relationships develop and how they factor into our treatment of nature. Mainly through the theme of the domination of nature by human coming from the domination of human by human. He did incorporate many perspectives from folk such as Bakunin, Malatesta, and Kropotkin for example though.

Bookchin later on however did eventually distance himself from anarchism due to his bickering mainly with people like Bob Black who I think also has very good points as well especially with what he had to say in regards to the abolition of work. Bookchin eventually reincorporated Marxist elements with anarchist elements leading to communalism which isn't really either Marxist or anarchist. Though people who call themselves communalist tend to be much more open to critiquing structures of power and embracing decentralization.

I think Bookchin was far from flawless though there are elements I think that are worthwhile to read into. I don't think reading a book means someone has to adopt all the positions involved I think people should think for themselves and see what elements apply in their current lives and issues. I don't exclusively read or take influence from Bookchin I try to look into various other works and how they can relate to each other. Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism. At least again in his earlier works it seems as if his main hostility was aimed more towards people who inform their treatment of nature through mysticism. My present concern though is mainly seeing what variety of ideas may seem compatible or touch on similar points which can also help when trying to find common ground with people irl I'm not interested in proving if he belongs in some anarchist hall of fame or not.

0

ziq wrote

Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism

Uh he literally called us fascists. Maybe you need to read more Bookchin.

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? 

Don't pretend civilization isn't already clearly defined in anarchist theory in thousands of texts. My definition doesn't stray from the standard definition. Your wanting to pretend these simple words with crystal clear definitions are somehow up in the air and that maybe red and green and hierarchy and anarchy are the same thing is again, entryism.

Of all the places to do entryism, this is the one place where you won't succeed because I'll call it what it is every time.

2

Esperaux OP wrote

Yeah I would very much like to see where Bookchin specifically called anti civs fascists. Maybe I didn't read that portion. I do know however he early on argued against neo malthusian outlooks which he saw as eco fascist. Also a lot of times many of the people lobbing accusations of eco fascism towards anti civ types tend to specifically mean groups like ITS or types who take influence from books like Atassa which I personally do understand that these do not represent anticiv views even though they are often confused as such.

Also I'm asking you to give me your definition of civilization so that I'm not misunderstanding your own position or what you are specifically critiquing. I provided my own explanation for what I personally view and see as what civilization may mean. Last I checked theorists like Malatesta, Goldman, or Berkman didn't really discuss civilization or some like Kropotkin gave a pretty loose usage of the term civilization. I don't think I've even seen it clearly defined in works like Desert then again it's been awhile which is again why I am asking you to tell me how you define civilization.

Also entryism tends to refer to the encouragement of members to join larger groups to expand influence. I don't encourage any specific group to interact in this community. I interact with different online and offline groups on my own time I guess but I've repeatedly stated I think there needs to be groups specifically geared towards and unified around a set of goals and ideas instead of simply being spread out and made to work within other organizations. I just go online every now and then and share content I think is interesting or that I am personally exploring.

1

ziq wrote

You're seriously going to make me quote your guy to you? k, i've got time to kill.

this is all from his prototypical attack on all 'individualists', but especially anticivs ("primitivists") who he mentions more than any other current in the essay

First he establishes that the 'lifestyle anarchists' he's writing the essay to smear are anti civilization and individualistic:

More recent works on lifestyle anarchism generally sidestep Stirner’s sovereign, all-encompassing ‘I,’ albeit retaining its egocentric emphasis, and tend toward existentialism, recycled Situationism, Buddhism, Taoism, antirationalism, and primitivism — or, quite ecumenically, all of them in various permutations. Their commonalities, as we shall see, are redolent of a prelapsarian return to an original, often diffuse, and even petulantly infantile ego that ostensibly precedes history, civilization, and a sophisticated technology — possibly language itself — and they have nourished more than one reactionary political ideology over the past century. [...]

He continues to strawman us all through the essay, again very specifically singling out anticivs, nihilists, egoists and insurrectionists:

...the shift among Euro-American anarchists away from social anarchism and toward individualist or lifestyle anarchism. Indeed, lifestyle anarchism today is finding its principal expression in spray-can graffiti, post-modernist nihilism, antirationalism, neoprimitivism, anti-technologism, neo-Situationist ‘cultural terrorism,’ mysticism, and a ‘practice’ of staging Foucauldian ‘personal insurrections.’[...]

He goes on to equate our individualism with hierarchy and fascism:

In its amoralism, this elitism easily lends itself to the unfreedom of the ‘masses’ by ultimately placing them in the custody of the ‘unique ones,’ a logic that may yield a leadership principle characteristic of fascist ideology

He again equates us with fascists:

Social anarchism is radically at odds with anarchism focused on lifestyle, neo-Situationist paeans to ecstasy, and the sovereignty of the ever-shriveling petty-bourgeois ego. The two diverge completely in their defining principles — socialism or individualism. Between a committed revolutionary body of ideas and practice, on the one hand, and a vagrant yearning for privatistic ecstasy and self-realization on the other, there can be no commonality. Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents.

I could keep quoting all night but..

keep sealioning, entryist.

5

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from and thanks for providing the proper context. This definitely reads out in a manner that can be used as ammunition to strawman anprim and anticiv positions. I don't really see individualism and collectivism as natural opposites personally. Though this seems to come out of an already existing argument between the so called "social"anarchist current and the "individualist" anarchist current. Such as earlier debates that arose during Malatesta's time between organizationalists and anti organizationalists.

I notice in the quoted paragraphs you provided Bookchin reference his disdain for things like Taoism which I find has many interesting influences to learn from. Though this is definitely consistent with his earlier hostility towards anything he saw as "mysticism". His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things. Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist? Also in terms of anti technologism it's clear that not all anticivs see all forms of technology as needing to be destroyed. I don't agree with Murray Bookchin's overall critique of what he calls lifestyle anarchism but I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

"Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents."

For example this part sticks out the most to me because this seems to be fairly descriptive of things like the modern libertarian movement in the United States. They promote themselves on this hyper individualistic outlook going on to rebrand capitalism as a form of individualism. Yet rightwing libertarian communities tend to hold a strange relationship with white nationalist or even outright fascists.

Again I don't personally agree with Bookchin's framing of anarchism either being only organization or lifestyle. I also agree a number of these points are indeed used to strawman anticivs who are lumped in with this critique. Though I don't think this is here to specifically call anticivs fascists but rather influences that come out in relation to these currents. Again this can be seen with groups like ITS or readings like Atassa which again I understand are not anticiv representative even though many people use these as representation of their positions.

0

ziq wrote

His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things.

everything that doesn't fall in line with his democratic Marxism is reactionary if the essay didn't make that clear. egoists, nihilists, anticivs, taoists, anyone who isn't a 'social anarchist', which he later expanded to anyone who isn't a bookchinist (communalist)

Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist?

rationalism, much like centrism, humanism and dialectical materialism, is just a handy tool for pseudo intellectual authoritarians and crypto-authoritarians (like bookchinists) to shame people who don't immediately fall in line with the safe status quo they're working hard to uphold

rationality is whatever most benefits the ideological worldview of the person who is dictating to others what is and isn't rational

see: bookchin's disgust for any spirituality, ideology or way of life that conflicts with his own

I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

repeatedly comparing 'lifestyle' anarchists to fascists, saying they end up embracing fascist and reactionary ideology is fash jacketing 101 and the only reason you won't admit it is because you're taken by his authoritative, scientific-sounding pratterings, while heavily internalizing his spiteful disdain for anarchy and then repeating it at every opportunity because it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways

anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best

3

Esperaux OP wrote

"anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best"

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

I've made my own personal views and nuances on this clear.I already said I don't agree entirely with Bookchin's positions. You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture. Also there's a difference between calling anprims inherently eco fascist and pointing out that there is indeed an issue where some inadvertently align with neo malthusian outlooks. Multiple times I have spoken with anprims who effectively embraced the ideology because of what they see as a moral decline in the West which they blame on any movement focused on improvements for minority groups within the current dominant system. Their interest is not liberation. Again however they are not representative of anticivs.

Also rationalism is a little more complex than simply dictating to other people what is right and wrong. It's one of many different manners of which people inform their own personal decisions. You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments when advocating anticiv positions yourself. Pointing towards issues like mass production and mass extraction. Weighing the odds of preserving a capitalist system to the necessities of embracing a post capitalist system. It also served as an influence in critiques of establishments like the churches. Prominently featured in Bakunin's earlier critiques of religion from an anarchistic perspective. Then again you aren't obligated to be a rationalist though I don't see where you're going with this. Communalists don't support the status quo. Social ecology as well which is apart from communalism doesn't support the status quo either.

"it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways"

Why do you keep trying to impose your own views and biases onto others? For someone so passionate about anarchism you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent. It's not one camp or the other when it comes to all these traits. Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits. When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you. I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen. DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something? You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state. If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have. It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

1

ziq wrote

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

My issue with Bookchin is that he's an authoritarian entryist who did more damage to anarchy in the 90s and 00s than any single individual. His ideology is hierarchical af as I outlined in my essay about communalism. The fash jacketing of anarchists was just a small part of his entryist project to convert ancoms to Marxist-Bookchinism.

People who read Bookchin and decide his ideas are good are not anarchists because his ideas are not anarchist. They're authoritarian. An involuntary hierarchical crypto-statist social system whose citizens are forbidden from breaking with it is authoritarian. People who adhere to communalism are thus authoritarians.

There is no nuance involved - either you embrace anarchy or you embrace authority. There is no in between. Anarchy isn't a pick and choose proposition. It's all or nothing. But you know that, all entryists know exactly what they're doing when they pretend anarchy is nuanced, debatable, undefined, open to interpretation.

You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture.

You can read all the books you want and no one said otherwise, stop strawmanning.

You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments

They're only rationalist if I proclaim them to be rationalist and I don't claim to be a rational person because that would create hierarchy over anyone I'd deem irrational by comparison. I don't fuse the language of authority into my opinions when I spout them because unlike Bookchin, I'm an anarchist.

Communalists don't support the status quo.

Industrialism is the status quo. Civilization and the city are the status quo. Authority and hierarchy are the status quo. Democracy is the status quo. Production and extraction are the status quo. Agriculture is the status quo. Leaders / councils / rulers are the status quo. They support the status quo.

you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner

Me telling you what I think of you is not authoritative. Me calling you an entryist is not authoritative. You trying to water down the meaning of words like authoritative by calling things authoritative that are not in any way authoritative is entryism designed to normalize and excuse actual authority by pretending that it's something else.

as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent.

You are my enemy because entryism is malicious and manipulative and ultimately sabotages anarchy. Not because you disagree with me.

Now please note that me calling you my enemy and other unkind things does not create authority because authority is not the act of voicing criticism of someone's politics on the internet. Authority is structural and coercive. I'm exerting no authority over you by voicing my objections to your politics in a public forum. Authority is not disagreement, it is not criticism, it is not cutting insults, it is authority.

Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits.

If any of those traits are willfully authority building, such as entryism, such as greenwashing, then those people are not my friends. I don't need to be friends with people who work to subvert anarchy. If you don't want me to 'impose' my views and biases on you, then stop fucking debating me.

When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you.

People who try to tell me anarchy is about building micro states and forcing the majority's will on the minority are going to get called out for their entryism whether they're irl or online. I don't pull punches.

I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen.

I've listened to your opinion and responded to it point by point, spent literal hours doing so, but keep playing.

DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something?

Once again, my problem with you is the constant entryism in anarchist spaces, not that you're a communalist. Be a communalist all you want, just don't pretend a communalist can also be an anarchist and don't present yourself as an anarchist to unsuspecting baby ancoms while advocating for authority.

You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state.

Some barely-disguised class reductionism you got going there, but you are a Bookchinist so I'm sure it's super rationalist.

If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have.

I should accept your Marxist entryism and Bookchin as my lord and savior because individuals are dehumanized? Pass. I'll stick with my 'buzzwords' or in non-entryist speak: my principles.

It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

Calling an anarcho-Marxist an entryist is divisive, sectarian and breaks left-unity. Yes.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

I'm not a marxist or a communalist lol. A lot of things I support and do would very much have Bookchin brand me a lifestylist. The only similarity to Marxism I have overall is the language I use when referring to modes of production. You repeatedly misrepresent my points and have no clue what positions I actually hold. Where have I ever said I support left unity or necessarily oppose sectarianism? I even specifically said I'm not here to defend Bookchin. I wasn't even here to attack anticiv positions. Also again there is a broad range of influences relating to Bookchin with communalism being one aspect. Social ecology is also another component that has over time evolved on its own past Bookchin. I don't deal with day to day shit just for some whiny ideologue to try and misrepresent me because god forbid I share solarpunk content that they seem to think is "greenwashing" since they've never actually done any research on it .Go do something better than being petty. We have a lot more in common overall than you think but you're repeatedly approaching this from a competitive domineering perspective and clearly not reading a single thing I type.

0

ziq wrote

I don't object to your solarpunk video, I didnt even watch it. I object to you saying bookchin and anticiv are "extremely compatible" and all the other entryist shit you say on reddit and raddle week after week. You are a marxist/communalist, your denials don't change that. The left unity jab is me mocking you for being a marxist-bookchinist who is sad that traditional marxists reject you.

4

Esperaux OP wrote

Not Bookchin's libertarian municipalism/ communalism specifically but when discussing aspects of how the way we structure our society and treat each other reflects onto our treatment of nature. Strictly in terms of discussions regarding social ecology. That kind of stuff.

I mean there is the following below quote from Ecology of Freedom in many respects I feel hits a similar mark that the book Desert was getting at too. I'm not here to prove Bookchin was an anarchist I don't agree with every little thing he has to say though I think there are still useful elements to read from.

""Civilization" as we know it today is more mute than the nature for which it professes to speak and more blind than the elemental forces it professes to control. Indeed, "civilization" lives in hatred of the world around it and in grim hatred of itself. Its gutted cities, wasted lands, poisoned air and water, and mean-spirited greed constitute a daily indictment of its odious immorality. A world so demeaned may well be beyond redemption, at least within the terms of its own institutional and ethical framework. The flames of Ragnarok purified the world of the Norsemen. The flames that threaten to engulf our planet may leave it hopelessly hostile to life-a dead witness to cosmic failure. If only because this planet's history, including its human history, has been so full of promise, hope, and creativity, it deserves a better fate than what seems to confront it in the years ahead."

1

JoeK wrote

Why are you even trying to reason with these cringe-inducing reactionaries? It's absolutely clear they have no interest in bettering society, they're even admitting to being primmies for christsake. These are people who want us to return to the stone age so they can club everyone weaker than them over the head and steal their furs. Giving them this much of your time is in no way helping. You can't get through to people who hate the world and want to watch it burn.

−4