Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

lmao that title rules.

And again, Bookchin shows that he is the one attempting to dilute anarchism, by attempting to add qualifiers and appendages to it. If anarchism can be obscured by adjectives, then its true meaning of “no rulers” can be watered down and even changed into something else.

This is a great point, he worked for most of his life to morph anarchism into a politer version of the Stalinism of his youth, got super bitter that not everyone oohed and aahed at his overbearing posturing, and finally gave up on trying to bend anarchists to his will and instead launched his new-and-improved ethical-statism ideology... An exact blueprint for re-structuring society into an angry old white dude's image with the warning that THE WORLD WILL BE DOOMED if we don't do exactly as he says.

“Follow my ‘organized’ and ‘coherent’ plans, or you are a fascist!” he cries.

Or in other words, once a tankie, always a tankie.

8

insurrectobot wrote

I hate how some social anarchists propagate the myth that Bookchin posthumously created Rojava. As someone else pointed out Rojava isn't an anarchist project, and Bookchin was one of many influences on Ocalan's thinking, it's also erasing 40 years or so of struggle by the PKK - struggle by the women members in particular.

7

DarkArmillary wrote

Obviously, one person does not create a revolution.

But of course, this is a post about Bookchin, so you can't truly be surprised by comments about... Bookchin.

−3

DarkArmiIIary wrote

But of course, this is a post about Bookchin, so you can't truly be surprised by comments about... Bookchin

Word salad.

2

Splinglebot wrote (edited )

did ghost-bookchin write the one comment on it lmao https://medium.com/@kevinkeating2010/i-was-around-the-u-s-d65c027ce6df

6

Splinglebot wrote

apparently the author didn't give their real name because they're a coward that lacks the courage to stand up for what they wrote ... what the actual fuck?

Not signing their name to this screed isn’t the hallmark of a cunning and dangerous incendiary stickin ‘it to the Man, legitimately covering their tracks with bosses and the state, but a predictably cowardly stunt by someone who lacks the courage of their lack of convictions and won’t stand up for what they wrote. If I wrote this garbage I’d hide my identity, too.

7

poly wrote

"What's something entirely irrelevant to the author's post that I can use to continue deflecting from their arguments and posture with my intellectual superiority?"

"Oh yeah, my name's Kevin."

8

arj wrote

People are afraid of anonymity.

6

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

Some thoughts, since I had them.

  • I liked the previous pieces by NoWingAnarchy a bit more . Not much new in terms of things already been said by people like Bob Black in Anarchy After Leftism, but it's nice to see this rearticulated now in very short form, more accessibly, and doing the rounds online.
  • I'm glad that NoWingAnarchy is writing and hope that they'll keep it up.
  • An interesting question for me is whether this text would change anybody's mind, or if it's just restates a set of positions that people who agree with already will continue to agree with and people who disagree already will continue to disagree with.
  • Since it invoked the OK Boomer meme I would have liked to see more overtly how Bookchin's situation relates to intergenerational conflict in the US, where I'll guess some more interesting things coulda been said.
4

zoochotic OP wrote

Yeah I agree with all that.

No one needs to do it better than Bob Black.

0

Cheeks wrote

I really want 'OK Stirner' memes more.

2

zoochotic OP wrote

"OK Bookchin" is pretty fucking funny.

1

DarkArmillary wrote

Anarchist lifestylists: "woohoo Rojava Revolution, permanent insurrection aw hell yeah! PS, fuck Murray Bookchin. What did he ever do for Anarchism anyway?"

−10

lori wrote

the dead white dude from vermont clearly caused the revolution, not half a century of struggles by an oppressed people

7

DarkArmillary wrote

People have been struggling against oppression for millennia. Of course there's history there, and you could have gone back further.

Obviously I'm not speaking ill, or taking anything away from the people who have been doing the fighting and the dying for their freedom and the freedom of others in the Kurdistan region, to bring up the fact that Bookchin's writings were highly influential to that social revolution. You'd think an anarchist would recognize that it's a positive thing that Bookchin's anarchist / anarchistic writings were influential in turning a social movement away from authoritarianism.

https://internationalistcommune.com/bookchin-kurdish-resistance/

−1

DarkArmiIIary wrote

were influential in turning a social movement away from authoritarianism

If not for this dead white guy they might be savages!!!

3

DarkArmiIIary wrote

Waaaahhh, why can't everyone give me ideological purity waaahhhhh?

1

arj wrote (edited )

Revolution/Insurrection... pick one. Also what does Rojava have to do with Anarchism other than some anarchists stand in solidarity with them? You do know a people are not an ideology... right?

5

ziq wrote

Penned salty rants badmouthing anarchism in order to sell social ecology certificates?

4

DarkArmiIIary wrote

it makes me angry when people don't fit neatly into clean, clearly marked ideologies

0

DarkArmillary wrote

Nah, one of my major criticisms is with the ideologues, who put ideology and group-think above critical thinking, actual material concerns, and empathy. The result tends to be toxic and repulsive, as seen on this very site.

Also I wonder if the mods will have the decency to shut down your impersonator account...?

[ u/bloodrose ]

−3

7b48dfb784360de35598f8dd3 wrote

People on this site seem pretty into anarchism as a philosophy as far as I can tell so what ideology are you taking about?

3

DarkArmillary wrote

u/nousername, I wish people on this site were into anarchism as a philosophy, and could, for instance, discuss values and explain their reasoning. But most seem to rely on it as Ideology, sometimes with an almost cult-like fervor (which is itself a sign of Ideology).

Philosophy is dynamic and critical; Ideology is static and dogmatic.

Philosophy is wide-ranging and dialogical; Ideology is narrow and prescribed, leading to a demanding and authoritarian groupthink. It can, and does, happen within anarchism.

Philosophy is the very movement of thought; Ideology calcifies and stultifies thought.

−1

shanc wrote

Not a bad post tbh. We'd all do well to follow your advice here, and you'd do well to follow your own advice too.

0