Recent comments in /f/Communalism

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

I guess if you agree to give someone royalties then you should do that, but it's odd to me that this is work done for money (especially some white US man). The truly weird thing is how the rights to the work passes on as property to inheritors.That's where I'm a bit confused about all the signatories.

My anarchist bookselling method has always been to take texts free, print them and sell them cheaply, labouring for free. If anything like profit is made, it goes into printing more books. Nobody makes money, and as many people as possible get access to the text. Weirdly I'd never given much thought to how others do it.

3

Potemkin OP wrote

Thanks ziq! I may reach out. I just thought I'd try to support this site and maybe run into some people for discussion. I've fallen out of the loop a bit, and honestly have found many Communalists to be a bit rigid. I think the ideas of social ecology are pretty compelling, and lend themselves to anarchist-communist and even unorthodox Marxist interpretations. Of course, this is blasphemy to some, but I think an "open" social ecology is really the only (and most exciting) way for it to move forward. It seems that, for all the coverage of the Kurdish stuff (which I find incredibly exciting and inspiring) and talk of Bookchin and social ecology, very few seem to be actively engaging with the ideas at more advanced levels.

4

Potemkin wrote

Greetings! Not sure if anyone is here much anymore. I've been getting back into political reading and trying to move forward and organize locally and things. It would be nice to find some social ecologist-types to discuss things with. Social Ecology and Communalism can indeed be an exciting read!

I remember how excited I was to read Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Its discussion of "preconditions" and how to identify them as a basis for moving concretely toward the world we wish to see was compelling, along with the critique of authoritarian Marxism. Its advocation for "study" or "affinity" groups seemed to provide a pipeline from the theoretical directly to social action.

Currently, I'm reading Biehl's biography of Bookchin, Ecology or Catastrophe, and re-reading works such as Damian White's Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal. If anyone is reading this, maybe we can get this Communalism forum a little more active again?

3

bdheeman wrote

Are you aware that less than 1% clever ruling class people or political goons are enjoying luxurious lives at cost of taxes paid by rest of the hard working and honest class people, all over the world. 😋

Be it democracy, communism, socialism or whatever pyramids you name, all these are nothing more than cloacks these cunning political people wear to deceive us, the general public, since the early days of civilization. 😇

All political parties and, or politicians are similar their one and only aim is either to acquire or remain in the power, except this they have no other business. 😉

We elect them in the hope of good governance, but as soon as they come into power they start treating us like slaves, hence all governments are corrupt 😩

−4

christobal wrote

I reckon it has more to do with funding, as all things that are good. Theres no doubt people with skills and and want to do this around the world, but probably harder to afford doing it full time + material and equipment.

We need to get on rural hacklabs.

permaculture - open source ecology - hacklab. Every village should have one.

2

kore wrote

Seems like Bookchin didn't follow his own advice of always respecting minority opinions! I found that strange about some of his essays: he says that Marxism doesn't apply to the present day because the "worker" as Marx conceived it doesn't really exist, and then presents his philosophy as rather eternal.

4

Murray moderator wrote (edited )

If you are indeed "familiar" with Black, and I have certainly seen his antics described by people who are much closer to a "lifestylist" way of of thinking than I could ever be being as I have been immune to fads for years, then you should NOTE one obvious thing. The continued tolerance of his vicious antics is OBVIOUS ! TOTAL ! UNEQUIVOCAL ! proof that the ideology of anarchism as it exists in North America has NO ! answer as to how to prevent psychopaths and other criminals from running rampant in whatever vague utopia they may have in mind. Black is not just a psychopath. He glories in it.

What amazes me about the arguments against a REAL anarchist movement is the delusion that their proponents have that a) they are new and b)that their illusionary syndicalist or anarchocommunist opponents have had nothing to say about such matters in the past or even the present.

First of all the various themes of the mishmash that is popular in American anarchism are actually 100s of years old and predate not only anarchism but modern society in general. "Primitivism" ie the "golden age" is thousands of years old.

"Insurrectionism" ie "the Apocalypse" is equally ancient. The arrogance of "bohemianism" may be younger, but it certainly predates the 1840s and Proudhon's declaration of "anarchism". So-called "spirituality" and the belief that so-called "primitive people" have some magical connection to nature also predates anarchism. I could go on and on with other examples, but the point is obvious. The average American anarchist has a grasp of history that it takes a microscope to see.

Similarily it is the height of both arrogance and ignorance to ignore the actual history of REAL anarchism ie when it became a mass movement. The most popular anarchist book in Spanish translation was Kropotkin's 'The Conquest of Bread', and his vision there has NEVER been exceeded by ideological lifestylists and has only rarely been exceeded by those outside of the ideology. Where anarchism has NOT been the badge of identity of a subculture it has always ! addressed matters that were outside of the workplace, and this was not restricted to Spain. This was a fact long before the 8 hour day or the birth of the ideologues who claim there is no more working class (I can remember the same claim being made by the likes of Marcuse in the 1960s). It is a delusional slander to say that this wasn't an obvious fact.

I will use the example of community gardens because I am quite familiar with both the technical and social context of same.

1)Ordinary people have done such things for decades WITHOUT the input of subcultural anarchists.

2)They do it BETTER technically AND socially than such "anarchists" do.

3)They outnumber the subculturists by at least a thousand to one and probably much more.

4)Such things are, of course, important whether they are "revolutionary" or not.

Personally I am NOT a 'revolutionist". They deserve attention BUT the attention of subculturists is often more destructive than beneficial. If, for instance, I was trying to set up a community garden I would try my damndest to get rid of the scrubby looking ideologue who wants to rant to the people about being "middle class" and how "civilization should be abolished".

Eventually all anarchists are going to have to make a choice. Set aside the liberal bullshit you were taught in school that every opinion is equally correct which has received dogmatic assertion amongst young anarchists that they should genuflect to "diversity of tactics". Either you go with your idea that there is a "non-confrontational" way to anarchism. I call it gradualist anarchism. Others have called it by different names. OR...you can go with the idea that anarcho- arsonists who endanger the lives of anybody living nearby should be glorified. I say this as a resident of a city where gang delivered bullets more often than not hit innocent victims rather than the intended target.

If you are like Bob Black and are willing to side with such people when they "justify" themselves by saying such things as, "I really didn't mean to burn the little bitch" then we have little to talk about. If, however, you are a bit above this PLEASE consider the implications of the tactics you advocate. Anarchism is not an ideology for violent psychopaths, no matter what the likes of Bob Black would have you believe.

−3

Murray OP wrote

Anarchism is historically labor movement and I think it's returning to being a labor movement via communalism; the only active anarchist movement that is capable of revolution (in Kurdistan). We need to attract the working class but we can't accomplish that by purposely being really eccentric (hair colors) or dictating peoples lifestyle.

0

Murray OP wrote

There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first ... People have got their entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation. This is the heart of communalism and what sets it apart from useless lifestylist ideologies.

−1