Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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