deleted by creator

🙅‍♀️

meritocracy is a neat concept

Very pertinent theory which has some interesting takes. The way he mixes ecology, urbanism, and overall local political organisation is interesting and can be very useful.

That said, he does have some blind spot. His uncompromising loyalty to an abstract concept such as liberty sometimes brings him to have some problematic views: he refuses giving critical support to any of the state driven socialist projects of the 20th. This leads him to say he'd (and those on the anar sub agree with stupidly and blindly) rather ally with right wing libertarians if communists were to take control of the state apparatus. Going as far as saying the whole of the libertarian community are the true remnants of the left in the US.

Things that people are saying that sketch you out prob come from this interview: https://reason.com/1979/10/01/interview-with-murray-bookchin/

"Let me make it very plain that if socialism, which is what I call the authoritarian version of collectivism, were to emerge, I would join your community." "That's archaic, to say the least. I regard Marxism as the most sinister and the most subtle form of totalitarianism. There are people, of course, who profess to be libertarian Marxists. I believe they mean very well, and I even write in their periodicals; but I write very militantly that I regard Marxism as a very subtle form of what I would call the totalitarian ideology—all the more subtle because it professes to advance the notions of freedom."

Still, Bookchin has some pertinent critiques and does bring about some practical ways of actualising politics. I'd read him but mantain a critical view concerning his ideological defence of absolute freedom, while paying attention to the way he presents organising politics. My biggest issue with him is that I personally think Bookchin disregarded the trend of leftist political organisations (Black Panthers) to bring about a reflection of communalism. An example of this would be Huey P Newton's theory of intercommunalism.

https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-the-late-theorizations-of-huey-p-newton-chief-theoretician-of-the-black-panther-party/ https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-1974/

Good on you comrade!

Aight, you got me, i like Fanon too much to disagree

Self crit: I let lib ideology convince me out of the definition rigorous theorists gave of the third world. In doing so I'd lost a useful framework to analyse global capitalism that guides us how to organise a pragmatic anti-imperialist political project. Therefore I will downvote all my previous posts.

@antioedipus

don't, tbh its a waste of time or at least not the place to start theory

if you want to get into deleuze and are starting your journey into theory overall, I'd start with 'what is philosophy?'

Its easy to read, also addresses what the function of philosophy is related to other domains, also its fun

maocchiatoh w caruhmel pleez

Wow, comrades were really upset by my comment. It was used in the past so it means it's still relevant?

Fair point, I was being purposefully blunt. Still, feel you're mixing a bunch of things. Don't know if NAM necessarily equates to "third world". Also dunno if "third-worldism" (as you're using it) equates to countries that are currently categorised as"third-world", even more so since the 90s and the decline in the Eastern bloc, pan-africanist, pan-asian, ect. political movements.

And I'm down if we're using Mao's interpretation, but it also contradicts what many people on this site advocate for: that the working class in the "first world" don't actually belong to the proletariat. And if you're saying its appropriation by libs doesn't change its theoretical basis, I'd say that China is no longer part of the "third world" (not trying to be a Hoaxist) according to its own theory (even more so if we're considering post Dengist China and present day China). And if we're being faithful to Mao's thoughts we're also claiming the USSR was part of the "first world" and imperialist, which lots of people seem to be reticent to.

So, to me, it seems it wasn't wrong in reacting like I did, since there was a lack of specifity concerning what you were referring to as "third world". Again, you can argue against me saying we don't have to agree with its contemporary use; but "third world" is generally used differently and doesn't mean the same thing it used to politically. And its wasn't clear what particular theory you were referring to in the first place.

"third-world" is some lib propoganda and counter revolutionary

abstractly and if interpreted literally the japanese will stop existing

it's at the very least a funshi 憤死,ふんし towards national identity

communist hara kiri.. intense...

hot take: all philosophy is philosophy

short version: kinda but not really

cheers, will defo check it out

this comment is a second upvote

LONG LONG POST (I RECOMMEND COMRADES WHO COME FROM IMPERIALIST NEO-COLONIAL CENTERS OF POWER TO READ- also don't let my labor go to waste) :

Completely agree with the this post. Also its not very difficult to see in which ways MLM has tried to intergrate elements of various leftist traditions (the entire concept of mass line tries to get rid of this opposition between vanguard party and the people overall).

I think we'd all be better off if we understood that elements of the various traditions all need to be used. Generally most people I've met who are actually in the field are willing to concede different things. My anarchists friends have admitted that intergrating and using social organisms or institutional frameworks (when it comes topics such as immigration, public education, mental health, health care) need to be used and taken advantage of. While I (and I think any serious ML) will admit that anarchist praxis overall, when organised outside the state to destabalize it, is very useful atm in several parts of the world.

Still I think the issue lies elsewhere, and if I'm honest I think this debate (even if spread worldwide) is most present in western eurocentric circles. Best example is you using the Zapatistas and claiming they are anarchists while they themselves have answered they aren't (I'll put the link below, personally not my cup of tea but still recommend all comrades whether anarchists or ML/MLM to read it). The real issue, and I mean this only with love, is that this debate usually ends up manifesting itself in some kind of form of ideological neo-colonialism (albeit 'progressive'). The real issue is that people are too stuck up in their ways and see themselves as being the manifestation of past political successes and representatives of current ones, which is bs, since most people aren't doing shit. Same with Rojava, MLs or anarchists won't hesitate to jump and say 'its more this cus party ... its more this cus Bookchin' which is ridiculous.

If we look at what have been the greatest successes in starting the path towards communist societies they have been outside the imperialist centers. And because of it have reclaimed their own specific regional identities in some shape or form and actualised communist politics while drawing inspiration from many international traditions/theories. African socialists began describing themselves as socialists precisely because westerners were trying to co-op their movements. Pinning different politically successfull groups against each other because of their ideologies might be some of the most reactionary shit possible, even more so when people are themselves not engaging in any revolutionary struggle.

That's my personal beef with many modern day anarchists, since its an ideology that claims universality and yet doesn't concretely theorise specificity. BUT that was also what was reproached by many communists across the globe to the european MLs during the 20th century (even if indeed cold war ect. ect.).

Once we get rid of this Western lense of a universal MLs approach or a universal anarchist approach (which still have some western imperialist tendencies since they proceed from percieving starting from the 'centers' and moving to the 'outsides') we can move forward. If you look at the EZLN, you look at Nepal, you look at Rojava, Burkina Faso, Maoist China, ect.. they each successfully express themselves as they should in the territories they inhabit (same could be said about different anarchist projects and movements or others such as the Black Panthers). And if successfull in putting/inacting revolutionary politics then who gives a fuck what 'team' they belong to, fight along with them.

Its not suprising considering what the chapo demographic is, still, it remains problematic that there's generally a lack of reflection on this topic even if theoretically peeps are down w anti-imperialism and decolonialism. Seems to me people are really undermining what it means to be engaged in revolutionary politics whatever expression it may take by immediately denouncing it as 'not the right way'. Some MLs need to stop pretending that the most they can do politically is argue for a vanguard party and some anarchists need to stop projecting and essencialising the state apparatus as something 'bad' (in cases such as Bolivia it is directly related to giving power to indigenous people and therefore decolonial).

MLs should stop bashing anarchist comrades for some of the great work they're doing even if they aren't in a political party. Anarchists should stop seeing isolated local politics as sufficient to develop general public goods (education, health care ect..). EDIT: Completely agree w OP in that we should all remember we are communists before bickering, as to at the very least recognise we all want a classless, moneyless, stateless society.

PS: I'll prob repost some variation of this onto main, since i've generally seen some reductionist anti-imperialist, neo-colonialist, decolonialist takes and I think this is a discussion worth having.

Much love to you all

EDIT2: replaced 'come from' for 'live', still not sufficient since depending on the person reading in question this may or may not be more or less relevant EDIT3: grammar

https://iaf-fai.org/2019/05/05/a-zapatista-response-to-the-ezln-is-not-anarchist/

For then there will be great tribulation, war between the speculative materialists and transcendental nihilists, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. - Mat. 24:21

nah.. for free