/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

wow, a read bookchin thread in the big 26

he is obese, ugly and an idealist so no

>>2783979
I don't think stalin was that fat

>>2783984
im speaking about bookchin

Read Bookchin? In this economy? So epic.

>>2783986
I don't get how you can confuse pictures of stalin for bookchin

>>2783987
Dengism has already risen though, 1.41 billion people are not waiting for the approval of western leftists

is it 2014?

>>2783989
bookchin: obese, ugly an idealist
stalin: good-shape, handsome, attractive, hot, masculine

Didn't the model communalist state (Rojava) fail though

>>2783977
Bookchin basically tried to imagine how to actually create the society Kropotkin described in The Conquest of Bread. Communalism is just anarchism in practice in modern times, although Bookchin rejected this notion towards the end

>>2784022
You really don't know why he called it communalism

>>2783997
forgot idealist at the end

>>2784055
I do know. His split with anarchism.

>>2784059
>commodity production is not capitalism
No more brother wars?

>>2784056
i left it on purpose

Bookchin was a Zionist btw.

I hate the community, talking to people is draining, this is why I will never organize or join a comune or co op, capitalism suits me better as an individualist, just make money and go home.

>i have defeated the prior tendencies finally found the true doctrine of revolution
>fails to organise social momentum
>soon everyone's talking about marx again

i am sure internet subcultures remain the true negation of marxist "dogmas"

>>2783972
Yes anon, we should embrace another failed sect which promote liberal values instead of real means for organising a proletariat.

Not to mention this dude was zionist and had sympathies towards libRETARDianism.

>>2784432
libertarianism isn't that bad, the problem is libertarians.
this is not the position i would've taken in 2017, but we're definitely in a direction of state-lead warmongering much worse than the worst that could be dreamed up by a global free market.

the problem with libertarians is that they mostly have personality flaws that've lead them to be Tax-cutting Trump type contrarians rather than committed believers in the rights of the individual. hence you see a shift towards "anarcho" capitalists who want the unspoken-state to throw taxmen out of helicopters, rather than libertarians who can say: go live on a commune if you want, but leave me out.

it and neoliberalism share a fundamental failure mode: they become very caught up on tax cuts and the immorality of taxation and forget all about regulation, even though overregulation, protection for businesses that should go under, etc, are in fact the most harmful interventions of the state. (tax is just a blip - it moves a cost curve a little bit, that's all. the market can handle that, but it can't handle if you just say "you can't open a coke bottling plant in this county because the government says only one guy's allowed to have one!") since it's obvious who loses from taxes (and not who gains), and since it's obvious who loses from deregulation (and not who gains - the answer is generally "more people than lose"), there's very little incentive to focus regulation and leave taxes alone, and lots and lots of incentive to rail against taxes at full volume with only quiet hypotheticals about regulation.

>>2783972
Libertarian municipalism feels like reinventing the wheel.
Like if you grew up in the 20th century reading Stalinite and Trot falsifications I can understand wanting to invent your own ideology, but you arrive at a similar conclusion if you just read Marx and fill in the blanks with council communist theory.

>>2784449
All this to just leave unconscious proletariat without any meaningful form of organisation because "muh authoritarianism!".

I get your dissatisfaction with Trotskyism and Stalinism but I still believe that Lenin was correct and any other forms of interpretation of Marxism just fail at resolving problems proletariat might face at glance of revolution.

Also Marx and Engels basically did critique fetishization of decentralisation and democracy.

>>2784449
>>2784465
What Bookchin argues is that the workers no longer have the power they once did. And syndicalism fails to capture civic institutions. A more broader radical philosophy is needed.

Communalism proposes to create dual power that can challenge the state. It's not only a form of organization. I haven't read much about council communism though

>>2784565
>Communalism proposes to create dual power that can challenge the state

So did Lenin

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/09.htm

But people like Lenin knew we couldn't limit ourself into one type of situation and/or tactic but still organise a worker's party which carries on an revolution towards abolition of bourgeoisie state instead of endlessly building a counter-hegemonies inside current state of being.

Communalism itself doesn't invent new things, it just digests them so it can shit out bad "theory".

>>2784586
There's no need to invent new things. We need to adapt them to the present. According to ML, we must wait for the system to explode and workers to rise spontaneously. It won't happen. Also a vanguard party that seizes state power will become a new ruling class

>>2784586
Also just read that piece of shit text and that's just Lenin justifying the power of the party and why it should not be overthrown

>>2784628
>Lenin justifying the power of the party

We get it anon, you just want to LARP CAPITALISM AWAY.

>>2784628
>There's no need to invent new things

I agree, but Communalism apologists claim that their little sect does indeed invent "new" things.

>According to ML, we must wait for the system to explode and workers to rise spontaneously

There's no Marxists who believe in this shit, weak bait anon.

>Also a vanguard party that seizes state power will become a new ruling class

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

>>2783972
>>2784440
>>2784565
You are clinging to idealistic petty-bourgeois ignorance that does not solve any of the problems of capitalist crises, ignores class struggle, does not see the state as an instrument for one class to oppress another and that control of natural resources and land and regional inequality leads to the recreation of capitalist relations by coercion among those who have access to property will intimidate and blackmail those who do not.

Denying the supremacy of the proletariat, not wanting to abolish private property, not having solidarity with the workers of the world, not abolishing competition in the market for economic planning and not abolishing social classes inevitably leads to the recreation of capitalist relations and being a useful idiot for the bourgeoisie to use and discard by being absorbed by finance capital.

The use of state capitalism is better for advancing the communist cause, any attempt to decentralize not wanting a national bank and control of everything by the public leads to reactionaryism and co-optation by the bourgeoisie, state capitalism facilitates the socialization of the economy, if conservatives wish to intervene in the economy then communists should ask for complete public control and nationalization without compensation in what conservatives wish to intervene in rather than fantasizing a free market lie.

I will give you a quote of what is the fate of the petty bourgeois who betray the workers:

<No one had fought more fanatically in the June days for the salvation of property and the restoration of credit than the Parisian petty bourgeois – keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman, etc. The shopkeeper had pulled himself together and marched against the barricades in order to restore the traffic which leads from the streets into the shop. But behind the barricade stood the customers and the debtors; before it the creditors of the shop. And when the barricades were thrown down and the workers were crushed and the shopkeepers, drunk with victory, rushed back to their shops, they found the entrance barred by a savior of property, an official agent of credit, who presented them with threatening notices: Overdue promissory note! Overdue house rent! Overdue bond! Doomed shop! Doomed shopkeeper!

<Salvation of property! But the house they lived in was not their property; the shop they kept was not their property; the commodities they dealt in were not their property. Neither their business, nor the plate they ate from, nor the bed they slept on belonged to them any longer. It was precisely from them that this property had to be saved – for the house-owner who let the house, for the banker who discounted the promissory note, for the capitalist who made the advances in cash, for the manufacturer who entrusted the sale of his commodities to these retailers, for the wholesale dealer who had credited the raw materials to these handicraftsman. Restoration of credit! But credit, having regained strength, proved itself a vigorous and jealous god; it turned the debtor who could not pay out of his four walls, together with wife and child, surrendered his sham property to capital, and threw the man himself into the debtors’ prison, which had once more reared its head threateningly over the corpses of the June insurgents.

<The petty bourgeois saw with horror that by striking down the workers they had delivered themselves without resistance into the hands of their creditors. Their bankruptcy, which since February had been dragging on in chronic fashion and had apparently been ignored, was openly declared after June.

<Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, Part II From June 1848 to June 13, 1849

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch02.htm

>>2784685
Why do Marxists always cite quotes as if it was some sort of Bible and Marxists their prophets? Not once has the party dissolved and given power to the people.

That said, Communalism is better understood as a strategy and end. It wants to abolish private property, but you need to challenge the State for this. In modern times, the workers will not rise. A government can be overthrown unless there is enough coordinated power throughout the country. And only communities based on solidarity can do it, for even workers need a support base.

The way I see it, we need a combination of communalism and syndicalism. These 2 elements support each other. Communalism creates the base for workers to organize, and workers strike when the State threatens the popular assemblies.

>>2784699
Wrong. The creation of popular councils is already written in Marxist texts that will be organized collectively for the political supremacy of the proletariat to socialize the economy. The state arises from the irreconcilability of social classes in a class society; therefore, it is idealism to abolish something that is inevitably created from the contradictions of a class society between those who own property, those who do not own property, and other property owners. You are trying to co-opt the masses to ignore the struggle for the supremacy of the proletariat for petty interests without solidarity with other workers in isolated communities. This is petty-bourgeois idealism that does not understand the formation of the state, class struggle, and a class society where there will be no peace without resolving these contradictions by collectively planning the economy, abolishing private property, and abolishing competition. This also means abolishing competition in cooperatives. To achieve this, one cannot fantasize about decentralization but rather about mass coordination to plan the national economy of the socialist state that will be created.

>>2784763
State is not necessary to deal with the property and classes. State is counterrevolutionary and literally the apparatus that upholds the class divison

>>2784819
No shit retard

>>2784855
then why are you posting that Leninist shit?

>>2783972
>Bookchin, the man who destroyed marxism and anarchism
soy millennial rhetoric: "Contrapoints DESTROYS Palestinian goy cattle child slave with facts and logic"
>>2784059
>>2784071
>Bookchin was a Zionist
"I have no quarrel with Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, my main enemy is Marxists" Zoomers will remember him just another PMC Jewish radlib who was friendly with his fellow university lecturer Jeffrey Epstein class who literally taught about the economics of selling children in the free market when he was teaching in New York City
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rights_and_parental_obligations

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=rothbard

>>2784699
>Why do Marxists always cite quotes as if it was some sort of Bible and Marxists their prophets
Notice how these illiterates just ignore any scientific and rational arguments that bounce off their smooth brains, they are the Christian evolution denier of politics lol
>Not once has the party dissolved and given power to the people.
Ukraine anarchists in 2014: "we must SMASH THE STATE to give power to the Jeffrey Epstein class! Soros and BlackRock is antifa, the EU is antifa"

>>2783987
Stalin vs. ᴉuᴉlossnW is 20th century
Deng vs. Stirner will be the 21st century, since America is a Stirnerist country

>>2784819
Incorrect. The state arises from the irreconcilability of classes due to violence. The propertyless will inevitably use violence against the property owners, and the violence of other property owners eventually leads to the emergence of an alienated entity, separate from society, armed to maintain this class society and the ruling class of the time. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state that destroys the conditions that create the state. By organizing the popular workers' militia, like the Red Guard, for the expropriation of enemy classes in order to socialize the economy, you are already using the state. Pacifism is not revolutionary at all; it only means exposing oneself as weak and not fighting for the class interests of the proletariat to gain political supremacy. Enemy classes will use violence and their own militias to maintain their interests as the bourgeois state collapses. By denying the supremacy of the proletariat to crush counter-revolutionaries, you are merely a liberal, conservative, reactionary, or reformist who is not revolutionary at all because you refuse to accept the proletariat gaining strength to fight and crush its enemies, and you deny the proletariat organizing as a class to overthrow the bourgeois state, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialize the economy through expropriation. Your antipathy towards the state stems solely from your anti-social, petty-bourgeois sentimentalism, used by the bourgeoisie to domesticate workers, isolating them and aligning them perfectly with the logic of finance capital and liberal superstitions about the state facilitating austerity and intensifying worker exploitation. Because your moralistic fantasy won't change the truth: the capitalist class will use force and violence while you disarm the proletariat out of fear of "authoritarianism" and spread petty-bourgeois ignorance of bourgeois individualism to deceive naive workers into lacking the discipline to plan the economy.

I leave you with two quotes:

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

[…]

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<It appears that the defeat of the Parisians was their own fault, but a fault which really arose from their too great honnêteté [decency]. The Central Committee and later the Commune gave the mischievous abortion Thiers time to centralise hostile forces, in the first place by their folly in trying not to start civil war–as if Thiers had not started it by his attempt at the forcible disarming of Paris, as if the National Assembly, which was only summoned to decide the question of war or peace with the Prussians, had not immediately declared war on the Republic! (2) In order that the appearance of having usurped power should not attach to them they lost precious moments–(they should immediately have advanced on Versailles after the defeat (Place Vendôme) of the reaction in Paris)–by the election of the Commune, the organisation of which, etc., cost yet more time.

<You must not believe a word of all the stuff you may see in the papers about the internal events in Paris. It is all lies and deception. Never has the vileness of bourgeois journalism displayed itself more brilliantly.

<Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht In Leipzig, (London, April 6 1871)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_06.htm

>>2784685
the capitalist state, controlled by the bourgeoisie, is is not your friend. this is the most fundamental lesson you can learn. it is entirely possible to have a state-directed economy in which the workers are even less free, even less capable of mounting a revolution than before.

>>2784699
they do so because politics today is secular religion with little to no connection to practical action.
(this is one reason to sympathize with libertarians. "just have the state stop doing things and leave people alone" is eminently more implementable if you blunder into power than "i will engage in complex reordering of the economy, btw i can't even do the basics of marketing a party to the public :)")

>>2784763
you decry fantasies of decentralization and then engage in fantasies of centralization.

>>2785242
to reject "scientific and rational arguments" in the face of empirical evidence is not entirely irrational. it does not matter if one day it really is inevitable that the proletariat will seize power: as it stands, their vanguard parties are some of the most self-important losers in the world. speedrunners contribute more to bringing revolution forward than the average socialist/communist party member.

i should also say: i personally find arguments more credible without source. pass off marx's work as your own and it's very easy to run through the idea in and of itself, quote scripture and i immediately suspect the only words in the whole text you really understood were the bit on the bottom of the cover that says "by karl marx", "by lenin", "by stalin"… i will make a slight exception for mao because mao is often an exceptionally funny writer. don't study - go to bed!

>>2783972
>Marx is outdated
t. every bourgeois asshole

>>2785415
Our vanguard parties make your trust fund kiddy parasitic ancrap ass hurt since 100 years because you know they are the ones who will put you in gulags where you belong and deal with crapitalist military as well. Disorganized delusional hippies aka anarchists are unable to do so, because they are entirely defenseless against divide & conquer tactics, fork over the most irrelevant shit and dissolute quickly just like literally every anarchist project under bourgeois attack in history.

>>2785425
name one western vanguard party that isn't disorganized and delusional, defenseless against divide & conquer tactics, and liable to fork over the most irrelevant shit. (i will grant that they don't dissolve quickly, but longevity in the face of achieving nothing is no virtue!)
hard mode: name a functional one that isn't just an obscure gaggle of edgy socdems kept functional by the prospect of parliamentary jobs.

frankly, i am more likely to be put in a gulag by an ancap than by any communist.

>>2785415
>he only words in the whole text you really understood
So what? What's your problem, why don't you want to argue against OG Marx, Lenin or Mao texts with your own words then? Why do you need an anoymous instance on the internet rewrite an argument that has been made very clearly previously for you?

>>2785432
>name one western vanguard
>western
Why western? CPSU, CPC and SED. They proved Marx & Engels right and all of them achieved during their reign more for the national & international working class than all anarchist projects (western & non-western) combined ever, not to mention anarchists don't give a shit about the working class at all.

>>2785435
because one argues against people, not words. you and i, right now, are arguing. were i to start copy and pasting bible verses at you instead of saying something original, it would (i hope) be apparent to you that it is a waste of your limited time on this planet to have what is - effectively - a one-sided conversation between you and someone else's ctrl+v keys.

now answer my question >>2785432

>>2785439
>because one argues against people, not arguments
Bist du bescheuert? Rhetorische Frage.

>>2785438
2 dead parties from failed states and the good old "we exported making microwaves to china, why not outsource the revolution as well"
western because this is site is almost entirely western by userbase, so it would help to see some proof westerners are remotely capable of organizing to make good on their threats. "one day, you'll see, china will let me gulag you" - a frankly embarrassing fantasy. the victory of world communism may be inevitable, but the victory of this site's userbase is very much evitable.

>>2785441
>from failed states
Very funny, coming from a westerner. You have no idea how much i despise your shitty western crapitalism, which turned out inferior in almost every aspect to what i was used to growing up under AES. The only thing that failed in 1989 was the security apparatus and military of the USSR and DDR, because it was too hesitant to deal with the libshit wreckers like the CPC did.

>>2785425
Anarchists are not against organization, in theory. But modern anarchism has become too individualistic, trapped under a philosophy that doesn’t allow any sort of organized action as it is considered authoritarian.

This is why I feel attracted to Communalism, as I feel it is anarchism in action. But it needs to find a way to defend itself, which is why I believe it must be fused with syndicalism. Completely rejecting the power of the worker is a mistake by Bookchin I believe.

I just don’t feel attracted to Marxist parties. They are dogmatic and their theory just says to wait for the right moment. That no longer applies in modernity. Trotsky himself said that if WW2 didn’t trigger a revolutionary response by the workers, a new strategy must be found. So I don’t know why Marxists are still stuck in the past.

>>2785443
>The only thing that failed in 1989 was the security apparatus and military of the USSR and DDR
It's because they were alcoholics. They were loaded on sausages and Nordhäuser Doppelkorn.

Does Bookchin actually advance a political economy that does away with wages, commodities, private property, etc? Been a while since I read him but from what I remember he was mostly focused on the politics side of things, not economics.

>>2785113
You can't deal with bourgeoisie and capitalist relations single-handedly, it's impossible to achieve socialism in one country alone so otherwise we need proletarian party which can abolish bourgeoisie state and implement new worker's state (DoTP) and since there's still a class division and contradictions there's a need for state which has to suppress any bourgeoisie oppossition.

You can't achieve le communistic relations in one commune alone if you don't want to starve your people, and even if you do create le anarchist (state) commune then it's impossible for it to be in any way a communistic society because it still has to trade with external countries, produce commodities and even has remaining elements of petite-bourgeoisie, every example of anarchism did at best implement radical democracy petite-bourgeoisie state in small area.

Creating counter-hegemonies or other quasi-states which are suppossed to challenge bourgeoisie state, in reality it doesn't actually challenge it and even just conservates it by preventing any means of organising a proletariat in order to overthrow existing state of being.

>>2785450
>But modern anarchism has become too individualistic, trapped under a philosophy that doesn’t allow any sort of organized action as it is considered authoritarian.
Isn't that why Makhno and co split with other anarchists to found platformism?

>>2785450
>Their theory just says to wait for the right moment

This doesn't mean that communist parties aren't actively organising itself and expanding their influence or/and connections among proletariat.

Revolution isn't something that party can trigger at any moment but can lead it.

>Trotsky himself said that if WW2 didn’t trigger a revolutionary response by the workers, a new strategy must be found.

I think Trotsky was wrong, and even if he was right then what strategy we should adopt according to you?

>>2785512
You keep mention the class division as a reason for a proletarian state (which always becomes another bourgeoisie state) as needed. But history shows the elite always flees during a revolution (Cuba, Rojava, Venezuela, etc.). There are other ways to uphold a revolution that don’t involve a State, like Communalism (Rojava, Zapatistas, Makhnoschvina,etc.). Although I agree not being recognized as a State is problematic in the current situation. This has caused Rojava problems as it’s not a state, technically speaking
>>2785515
Yes. Makhno even exchanged letters with Malatesta arguing that anarchism was philosophically strong but organizationally weak. And this problem has plagued anarchism since its inception.
>>2785516
Isn’t that the one million dollar question? The way I see it we need to create a base for workers to rely on, so they are more willing to take risks (such as being fired for starting a syndicate, not having savings, etc.). This base is the community, communalism, solidarity among its members.

In order to protect the popular assemblies from State power, the syndicates threaten by striking. It’s a mutual support between communalism and syndicates, without the need if a vanguard party or authoritarianism.

The problem is it’s too ambitious and it’s technically an attrition war against the State