Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote

Marxist Leninist reads anarchist theory. Realises anarchism predicted problems with Marxism. Misses central point made by anarchism. Criticizes anarchism for not being archist.

How's a cult of personality supposed to run without a hierarchy? What were you anarchists thinking?

5

subrosa wrote

Tl;dr: Anarchists are kinda cool but they have not embraced

real global democratic modernity

yet.

4

ziq wrote

What about this do you find agreeable?

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Overall the article itself is interesting coming from a more outside nonwestern perspective and critique. If I had to find any part agreeable it would be mainly that anarchists despite all their theory tend to neglect a more specific focus towards an organized mass movement capable of bringing wider change. I would say this also rings similar to the issues and critiques anarchists in South America and in the aftermath of the Ukraine Free Territory raised leading to the concept of especifismo/platformism.

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

nonwestern perspective

i'm from further east than he is and think his perspective is bullshit. him not being western isn't really worth anything when his critique is basically just 'authority is good if it's being done to you by a majority group'.:

I believe for them the most important aspect of self-critique is not seeing the legitimacy of democratic authority and necessity of democratic modernity.

I mean, what does this even have to do with east/west? Democracy is an invention of the west. He even says anarchy is a failure because it's not designed to work with democratic politics, modernity and 'civilization' by which he obviously means western civilization. plus, his politics are lifted from Bookchin - the most western leftist I can think of, and an ardent Zionist.

6

Esperaux OP wrote

Bookchin was not a zionist. The article referring to Bookchin as a zionist is him essentially making the argument for a no state solution. Nowhere in it does he try to justify the existence of Israel. Furthermore the main person who perpetuated that claim was Ben Norton a full on apologist for authoritarian regimes. This is the article being referenced https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-attacks-on-israel-ignore-the-long-history-of-arab-conflict

Neither was I implying that West always bad and East always good that's a false dichotomy. There are numerous instances throughout history and ongoing where democratic decision making is indeed incorporated in anarchist organizations. That doesn't make non-democratic methods nor the critiques of democracy as a binding system that applies to everyone any less valid.

On Abdullah Ocalan's above essay I see it as more relevant as a form of outside critique and perspective to learn from. You don't have to agree with everything he says to read into where these perspectives and critiques may come from and what different lessons can be applied as a result. I already brought up the point of especifismo/platformism which essentially was born out of anarchists reviewing past struggles and essentially coming to a similar conclusion that there are improvements to be made on the side of organization.

−1

ziq wrote

reads like settler colonialism apologia and whataboutism to me

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Nowhere is it justifying the existence of the state of Israel it's just pointing out how some statist elements use communities for their own self gain usually instead of pursuing liberation. This is even more clear if you actually read Bookchin's other works too or are aware of the fact the Zionist angle is literally perpetuated by Ben Norton from The Grayzone.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

ben norton not liking bookchin's defense of the european colonization of palestine isn't reason for me to like it. he's very obviously demonizing Arabs for fighting back against a white supremacist settler colonial project. it's no different than when marx praised US settlers for invading california and taking it away from its inhabitants because he considered Mexicans to be a backwards race

i mean look at this shit:

In some cases these armies, particularly the Arab irregulars who accompanied them, took no prisoners in their assaults on Jewish communities. Generally, they tried to systematically obliterate all Jewish settlements in their paths until they were stopped by furious and costly Jewish resistance.

he's talking about white settlers from europe, fully backed by the British empire, who burned down Palestinian villages and declared the land their god-given birthright

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Firstly I personally see violence against the state of Israel fully justified. I guess an argument can be made that Bookchin might not be so on board with acts of outright violence against Israel though even then I'm still doubtful given with what we have to go off. The point being made in the section you quoted seems to be that fighting for liberation doesn't demand the complete obliteration and slaughter of the other. Israel as a state institution perpetuates this nationalist imperialist system. That doesn't however justify engaging in full on brutality against Jewish communities. Instead Bookchin seems to desire and propose a less deadly approach that can avoid innocents getting caught in the crossfire. Again this is gathered from what is read of this article plus the context of his other works as well to better understand his logic. However if I did have to add my own thoughts or criticism I would agree his view seems to be more on the pacifist side which ignores the overall struggle of an oppressed group by a settler state. However given all the context of the article and Bookchin himself there's no reason to believe he's a Zionist wanting to preserve the state of Israel. The reason I brought up Ben Norton being the one perpetuating this claim is that it's consistent of authoritarian socialist types to attack or smear the character of individuals to obfuscate any further discussion of their works which they may deem threatening to their worldview. It's not a good faith act of condemning someone it's a way to obfuscate or derail any further conversation.

−1

ziq wrote

i consider bookchin to be an authoritarian socialist so

3

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Then you're clearly being uncharitable and have not actually read into his works. He very much puts a huge emphasis on addressing structures of hierarchy and domination stressing the importance of their impact on how we engage with not just each other but with our very environments.

−1

ziq wrote

Sorry i dont consider building one-size-fits-all authorative prescriptive rule-of-the-majority social systems with no out clause ("you can't leave unless the voting body wills it") to be "addressing structures of hierarchy and domination" unless by addressing you mean perpetuating

2

Esperaux OP wrote

Last I checked Bookchin wasn't saying individuals are unable to leave of their own volition in his writings the closest may be him presenting an imagined situation where a group may wish to act of their own interest in a way that outright threatens the wellbeing of the rest. Even concerning libertarian municipalism he's simply rehashing older concepts of anarchist federalism and reemphasizing organizing in terms of a community built out of individuals rather than just a pure focus on individuals. Also even with disagreement on libertarian municipalism his writings emphasizing a need for decentralization and concerning the impact hierarchical relationships serve on a systemic scale are still worth reading into.

−2

ziq wrote

check closer

2

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

I did and at least from what I see his point is surrounding hypothetical situations such as if a group where to want to go engage in action that could risk the lives or wellbeing of the rest. For example engaging in some form of construction near a bay that could risk disrupting the ecosystem there and thus risking the fates of everyone else there who subsist off fishing. I don't agree with everything Bookchin says but it seems fairly clear he's not discussing a situation where you're gonna get tossed in a prison for choosing a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Also even if one still disagrees with his stance on organizing alongside more primarily democratic lines his other discussions involving the way hierarchies form and lead to exploitation and his emphasis on decentralization are still very interesting aspects to read into. He delivers very good critiques of systems based around constant growth and unsustainable mass production as well. You do realize you don't have to idolize an individual to take for yourself what you read from their works? It makes no sense to box these concepts into either completely bad ideas or good ideas just because you don't like one aspect or perspective of it.

−1

ziq wrote

The anarcho-communist notion of a very loose ‘federation of autonomous communes’ is replaced with a confederation from which its components, functioning in a democratic manner through citizens’ assemblies, may withdraw only with the approval of the confederation as a whole.

The minority must have patience and allow a majority decision to be put into practice... Municipal minorities [must] defer to the majority wishes of participating communities.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Again that's not saying you're gonna be tossed in prison for wanting a hunter gatherer lifestyle or to just remove yourself from society as whole. Also again on this point you don't have to agree with libertarian municipalism to read into his other works. So what actual issues do you have with his writings addressing hierarchical relationships and how they translate over into more systemic forms of exploitation? Or discussions regarding the need for decentralization and moving away from a system based around growth for the sake of growth?

−1

ziq wrote

I'm using the power of democracy to make your greasy little fingers fall off.

1

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Leave my greasy little fingers out of this. That's just too far.

0

ziq wrote

Oh shit there goes your left pinky

The power of democracy compels you

1