anarchy vs communalism
Anarchy Vs. Communalism – Bookchin, ‘Lifestylism’, Ideology & Greenwashing (2018) by ziq
anarch ism ness et al
via 10 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-anarchy-vs-communalism-bookchin-lifestylism-ideology-greenwashing]
notes/quotes:
4
Equating anarchism with liberalism, when he spent years of his life identifying as an anarchist is a rather shameless attempt at rewriting history in order to sell his new vanity project. It’s a true shame that he ended his long history in radical politics on such a sour and self-defeating note.
murray bookchin et al
and to me.. equating anarchism with legit freedom if still us & them ing.. with the bricks ness et al
He increasingly spoke out against the innate individualism of the anarchist movement, and finally broke with anarchism completely to form communalism. He was a professor and taught students his political theories.
This is a description of communalism in his own words (while also managing to disparage both anarchism and Marxism in the same breath, in true Bookchin fashion):
The word originated in the Paris Commune of 1871, when the armed people of the French capital raised barricades not only to defend the city council of Paris and its administrative substructures but also to create a nationwide confederation of cities and towns to replace the republican nation-state.
Communalism as an ideology is not sullied by the individualism and the often explicit antirationalism of anarchism; nor does it carry the historical burden of Marxism’s authoritarianism as embodied in Bolshevism. It does not focus on the factory as its principal social arena or on the industrial proletariat as its main historical agent; and it does not reduce the free community of the future to a fanciful medieval village. Its most important goal is clearly spelled out in a conventional dictionary definition: Communalism, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is ”a theory or system of government in which virtually autonomous local communities are loosely bound in a federation.”
5
Communalism brings production and certain property under the control of municipal assemblies, who decide how property should be best distributed to meet the needs of the confederation.
While not being a state by the most common definition (since the political process is strictly localized), municipal assemblies could still be described as a form of hierarchical government. Communalism is a big step up over most other forms of government, attempting to curtail and decentralize the power structures we are governed by, but it’s not anarchy.
and again.. to me.. anarchy not legit freedom if still us & them ing.. with the bricks ness et al.. if still any form of m\a\p
Localized power structures are still very corruptible. They still create hierarchy. They can still grow out of control. Similarly to ancient Greece’s democracy; communalism deliberately allows for majority rule (or democracy-by-the-majority). .
ie: brick throwing (futility of struggle et al)
So, according to Bookchin, a community which joins a confederation “may withdraw only with the approval of the confederation as a whole.” This is probably the worst aspect of his majority-rule fetishization, as it locks entire communities into his system forever, whether those who didn’t want the system like it or not. Any organization that forbids you from withdrawing from it is clearly at odds with libertarian ideals and the right to freedom of association, so it’s really dishonest of him to talk about ‘libertarian’ municipalism when it’s anything but:
even worse.. thinking we have to have system ness..
Put into practice, I believe communalism can initially be a successful departure from the unwieldy nation-state monolith that plagues the world today and a reversion to the city-states that were once prevalent in ancient Greece at the dawn of civilization. Bookchin writes fondly of classical Athenian democracy, which he uses to glorify his romantic view of Western civilization.
as can that feeling of throwing a brick can be..
But does simply returning to an earlier state of civilization go far enough? Will an effective micro-state not morph back into a super-state as it grows and faces both internal and external pressures? Decentralization is admirable, but is it enough to successfully safeguard us from statism? And are Athenian democracy and Western civilization even things we want to reproduce, when both allow for the brutal oppression of minorities, were both built on slavery, and institutionalized the denial of human rights to anyone that wasn’t a member of the privileged class?
totally with all the morphing ness.. but goes too for you brick ness.. goes for any form of m\a\p.. otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. [again].. for (blank)’s sake..
6
Anarchy allows for communities to be adaptable to the conditions present in the place and time where the community exists.
to me.. if still adapting (rather than dance ing).. sign of a cancerous distraction
The unwillingness to sway from ideological dogma; however impractical the planned system proves in practice, has frequently led to disaster. So any political movement that has strict guidelines for how society should be structured and governed has big weaknesses right out of the gate. *Anarchy requires flexibility, because all forms of social planning can lead to unexpected hierarchies popping up. **The avoidance of hierarchies needs to be more important than sticking to a pre-written ideology if we are to pursue anarchy.
*why planning ness et al if anarchy ness?
**avoid hierarchy.. aka: sans any form of m\a\p
Dedicated ideologues often tarnish anarchy as being ‘vague’ and lacking in exact instruction. I’d argue this is exactly why anarchy succeeds and manages to be so ageless; reinventing itself with every new generation of revolutionaries. Prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution to life is impractical in an ever changing, multi-cultural world. Especially while we’re experiencing unprecedented worldwide social and ecological collapses. The greatest strength of anarchy is its flexibility. Anarchists have long laughed in the face of those who would have us live by their rigid rules.
oooof.. to me.. that’s ie of not enough ness.. can be flexible all you want.. but if still in sea world.. same song rebirths with each new flex..
7
Green anarchists like myself are often most critical of Bookchin’s ideas because of his *concept of ‘post-scarcity’; which to anyone paying attention to the catastrophic mass extinction event we’re in the midst of, is dangerously idealistic. Resources don’t cease to be scarce when socialism is adopted; the reality is that resources are dwindling all over the planet after centuries of over-extraction; including by socialist states. **Once those resources run out, there’s no getting them back, so an ideology that envisions a ‘post-scarcity’ economy is intrinsically flawed.
*yeah .. i think if we were legit free.. and grokked graeber stop at enough law ness.. we’d realize we still have all we need
**to me.. since nature is organism as fractal (aka: alive).. it is always re-fueling/making/generating itself.. so to me.. this sentence is intrinsically flawed
Bookchin and other socialists imagine a society where regular people, rather than states, have the power to determine policy. And they imagine this society will somehow be spared the same destructive pitfalls of capitalist society. But there’s no reason to assume that.
no reason to assume that as long as still in sea world.. ie: still policy ing et al..
We have centuries of history showing us that people will not altruistically opt for policies that will put the ecosystem or minority groups (especially indigenous and immigrant groups) ahead of their immediate personal interests.
oh my.. did you really just use that (myth of tragedy and lord).. oooof..
yeah.. all history ness to date is non legit .. because it’s all data from sea world.. black science of people/whales law et al
hari rat park law.. we need a big listen to bruce
Just as people now vote for politicians that loudly promote disastrous environmental and social policies in order to safeguard their own privileges in society, *history shows us they would continue to make damaging decisions if the system moved from representative democracy to direct democracy. **To imagine that everyone in a society is capable of acting unselfishly and putting other people and other lifeforms ahead of their own families is foolhardy. ***They will use their voting power to protect their own immediate interests at the expense of everything else. That’s how power works. ****It corrupts everything in its path absolutely, whether its wielded by a politician or a private citizen is irrelevant.
*again with the history ness.. filled to the brim w assuming decision ness
totally not getting to the root of problem
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
**or brave.. because means you’re letting go of all assumption.. again.. black science of people/whales law et al
***and brave (not foolish enough) to keep assuming voting ness.. power ness.. any form of m\a\p ness.. et al..
****the titles are what’s irrelevant.. the power is what’s irrelevant.. to the dance
Bookchin saw technology as a mode of revolution, and promoted using technology in ecologically sustainable ways, but green anarchists are often critical of the technologies Bookchin envisioned. We see them as inherently isolating and hierarchical. A position Bookchin scoffs at.
to me.. all techs to date have been isolating and hierarchical..
but.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. and we’re missing it..
f o r (b l a n k)’ s s a k e..
One of the technologies he promoted was cybernation, which is essentially ‘rule by machine’. Tasks are assigned, decisions made and resources distributed by computers; largely diminishing an individual’s self-determination and leaving it up to software algorithms. Like all software solutions, cybernation could potentially be hijacked by malicious actors who could seize control of the system and give themselves untold power. Cybernation is also exposed to the personal biases of the programmers who write the software. The programmers effectively govern the governor.
what we need is tech as it could be
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
Bookchin often wrote enthusiastically about the revolutionary potential he saw in such technologies:
Bourgeois society, if it achieved nothing else, *revolutionized the means of production on a scale unprecedented in history. This technological revolution, culminating in cybernation, has created the objective, quantitative basis for a world without class rule, exploitation, toil or material want. The means now exist for the development of the rounded man, the total man, freed of guilt and the workings of authoritarian modes of training, and given over to desire and the sensuous apprehension of the marvelous. It is now possible to conceive of man’s future experience in terms of a coherent process in which the bifurcations of thought and activity, mind and sensuousness, discipline and spontaneity, individuality and community, man and nature, town and country, education and life, work and play are all resolved, harmonized, and **organically wedded in a qualitatively new realm of freedom.
*ie of mufleh humanity law et al
**again.. only if we are brave/crazy enough to get to the root of problem
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
8
A society structured around advanced technology can even create new elite classes of technologically advanced people and exploited underclasses whose lands are used to mine and manufacture the devices the technological class grow dependent on. It’s easy to see how this cycle can lead to devastating hierarchies.
and again.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..
ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening – so we can hear what’s already on each heart as global detox in order to org around legit needs
9
The machines Bookchin speaks of are built using a large assortment of materials that need to be sourced from different ecosystems all over the world. The processes to extract the materials are destructive, the processes to transport the materials to the manufacturing plants and distribution points are destructive, and the waste products created during manufacturing are destructive. There are currently no viable solutions for any of these problems, and every new technology introduced to the market has instead created yet more inequality, warfare and environmental destruction; especially for the Global South that is exploited by the West for its natural resources and cheap (or slave) labor.
or perhaps no solution we’ve been brave/crazy enough to try.. ie: the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
The idea that rapidly advancing technologies can be distributed equally among billions of people (which they would need to be if we care at all about preventing power-hierarchies and inequality from forming), or that all people would even want their lives to be governed by these technologies is naive at best, or a malicious falsehood aimed at selling books and “Institute for Social Ecology” certificates at worst.
or crazy enough to work.. we just have let go enough to try a legit diff use for tech.. ie: tech as it could be
10
Bookchin eventually broke with anarchism completely when he finalized the guidelines of his communalist ideology. Today a lot of his more practical ideas have been implemented by the celebrated Rojava community in western Kurdistan, which has had mixed results in achieving his vision.
again.. because nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem
_______
______
______
_______
_____
______
_____
be you. 