Federation of Anarchist CommunesBoard

Guararema wrote:

I think they're doing well with Democratic Confederalism, developed by Öcalan. The most important thing Öcalan took from Bookchin's work was to look for the revolutionary potential from the community, not strictly from the workers. And after that the confederalisation of democratic communes with recallable delegates, that in my view the only thing Bookchin did is to highlight the principle of federalism already present in the classical anarchist theory since Proudhon, but as a means of making a revolution, not only as an end. People accuses Bookchin of not giving due credit to previous anarchists that endorsed federalism long before, but I think he did a good job by changing the approach to a more pragmatical one that even creates possibility of a more broader (and necessary) dialogue with marxists. Harvey writes about it: "To the degree that anarchists of one sort or another have raised important issues that are all too frequently ignored or dismissed as irrelevant in mainstream Marxism, so too I think dialogue – let us call it mutual aid – rather than confrontation between the two traditions is a far more fruitful way to go."
http://davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/
I think is always important to remember, as you already said, that the Democratic Confederalism isn't the libertarian municipalism or communalism, and most of the Kurds have no idea of who Bookchin is. In my opinion it doesn't change the importance of his influence on Öcalan's new humanistic, radically democratic approach. The concern "about ecological problems, the rights of minorities and women, (...) [the] loss of political and social power, and the growth of the centralized state — problems that are not specific to a particular class and that cannot be resolved within the walls of factories" are highly present in Rojava, and not for nothing.
I have a friend who enjoys making fun of Rojava being supported by Israel and USA in some instances. It's not clear for me how their economy works, but it's not socialist or egalitarian at all. But I told him, and as a Zizek fan he couldn't disagree, that the Kurds (and also the Zapatistas, I think) cary a new position for the revolutionary left, a moral status. Capitalist forces avoid to oppose them because they're not authoritarian, they deal with war prisioners humanly, they oppose isis and have a narrow relation to Assad. They're flawless (until now). I told my friend, facetiously of course, that they are the new paladins of morality, the angels of the new religion: democracy.
At least this is the image we get from them, and attack them now is western political suicide. But I think they're still weak... They can inspire, but not give birth to the new world revolution, even less support it: they're supported instead. The conditions of a world revolution are not given and the left is insisting on the wrong path, the anarchists as well. We must support the Kurds because if they lose, an important part of our struggle spirit dies together, because they're in the worst conditions and doing their best. But we must not feed our egos with their fight like "we were always right", no. There was never any successful revolution against a developed capitalist democracy, the revolutions are against hierarchical oppressions much deeper than capitalism alone.
The following is my polemic opinion only: Capitalism has this ability to make suffering people happy. We still delude ourselves explaining people class struggle, and how capitalism sucks, trusting history will bend to our favor and celebrating palliative vindicating achievements. This is not enough. The fact that the never stopping production and consumerism will destroy the planet is placed in the background, or thought to be solved within free market. I have a vision of a future of near-fascist (or more than just fascist) States carrying the issues we were not able to address in time.
So, Rojava is great, but this isn't even the beginning of what is needed to be done. It's not to turn ourselves into nihilist kids, but to stop playing the single-cause activists, become real militants.

Thank you for your very detailed response. I am sorry I can't respond to each point you have so well made. I will add some of my own opinions, though.

I personally believe that class struggle is extremely important and a great source of oppression across the world. Should capitalism and class struggle be eradicated and replaced with an equal, fair system the world will be vastly better off. However, it isn't the only source of oppression.

I believe that world revolution can be achieved. However, in my opinion, it will differ across the world. It won't be exactly the same everywhere, as was believed in the past. I think a "pure" revolution can happen only in Europe, mostly, and then in some parts. In all regions of the world, revolutions will strive to fight issues that plague them, like what the Zapatistas or the Kurds are doing. I may be wrong in this, but this is how I perceive future revolutions. Also, greater cooperation between the left can help. Your assessment of this focus on moral values, democracy etc by these movements is also very true. It shows that perhaps a change of strategy is needed if we hope to succeed. Look towards the past but also the present and the future.
Not that I won't support a different kind of revolution if it changes things positively for the people, the oppressed and the working class of a region, even if it isn't by a great margin.

And I agree with you. We shouldn't be content with their successes and not do anything or think that Rojava or Chiapas alone will change the situation. It will take much more and those examples aren't even the beginning. We should hope they succeed. However, they alone can't change the world nor should we falsely hope they will. Would you agree?

What I was trying to say is there are several reasons to think true revolution will only happen in certain places, and I thought my own reasons which were just the opposite, and now I'm not so sure... We've been many times speculating about the future, and what we do get right are trivial stuff. In many spheres we're like gambling in the lottery again and again with a 100 years old awarded numbers and the lottery owner already got us.

World Anarchic Union wrote:

I believe that world revolution can be achieved.

I agree with your vision of a localised global revolution, and myself, see it as the only way an anarchist world can be achieved. It's one of the things I both love and hate about bookchins "libertarian municipalism" and the approach to revolution of him and other western "urban" anarchists. Without realising it, groups like crimethinc in the u.s. are contributing to this global revolution by acting locally. "Lifestyle anarchists" and hippies are doing the same in the west as the ypg in rojava, just localised.

what is a "pure" revolution? If you mean an armed insurrection, europe would be one of the hardest places to do this. military communication is just too good. Small nations like ireland or slovakia would be easy, but germany or britain? Thats another story, and what about when france sends troops to help out? The uk and us are far too experienced at urban and counter-guerrilla warfare. Something Ghandi-esque might be possible but that was tried in the Arab nations...... and with "occupy" in the west. None of that has worked out yet.

A change in strategy is absolutely needed. What are we anarchists if not pro-active and revolutionary? Our strategies, along with our ideals, need to be flexible and evolutionary or we become another footnote to history like the Levellers or the Pythagoreans.
as to "class stuggle", too communist for me, can't we focus on "class unity" instead?

Maupof wrote:

What do you mean by [consolidating a] tradition?

Let's rewind to where all this started. I was saying that I'm waiting for a name to identify myself, a better one than anarchist since I stated pretentiously/teasingly "anarchism is dead". But I don't believe there actually is one.

Guararema wrote:

I'm still an anarchist, though... Just another sectarian scumbag waiting for a new name for actually libertarian socialists.

And a respectable person said that he/she likes the term "Radical egalitarianism" him/herself. Personally I describe myself in different ways depending on the situation, but I said the thing about consolidating a tradition and organizating.

What did I mean? Just that what I'm expecting isn't just a name to feel better with myself, but a more clear thing people can identify themselves with. Like anarchism, anarchism has a tradition, people recognise themselves with it because of the tradition. People actually have some idea of what do you stand for when you say "well, lady, I'm an anarchist", differently or less clearly than when someone says "well, sir, I'm a nietzchean post-leftist zizekist".

Why not anarchism? Because anarchism without adjectives, to me, means nothing. There are people unsympathetic with anarchism because of some disambiguations of it, like stinerism and/or primitivism and I want to be able to explain easily: "that's not quite what I'm supporting" I don't want to say "I'm an anarchist" and seem naive, because lots of us really are. Also anarchism as a whole is loosing response in society for several reasons, some of those I exposed on other messages at this RMB.

That's what I meant by tradition. But I can advocate for the use of the word "tradition" in other circunstances. I think ironically you are the one being divisive by trying to regulate that we (as a whole) shouldn't be using the word "tradition", because it's somewhat oppressive. Because of neuro-linguistics, which I respect, but I don't know how saying "neuro-linguistics" turns any more scientific, or any more true the effects of the word "tradition", or how the meaning of tradition can be politicaly destructive for anarchism as a whole. And do you remember what the word "anarchism" means to most people? Something next to chaos and anomie. There's a much deeper linguistical problem with the word Anarchism itself, and I don't even deny the evocations of tradition at all, they are like the evocations of politics. We can't define ourselves anti-'something' just because people who control this 'something' sucks.

We need to evoke respect for libertarian socialists, for anarchists as well (if it actually means something more concrete than its neuro-linguistical meaning) we need to use words like tradition, respect, pragmatism, order, government, politics, democracy, etc. and associate with us without fearing words being oppressive. Domination is oppressive, not the words we take from a vertical society to try to describe something new and horizontal. Of course everybody is free to not use these words as well, but don't call someone "fascist anarchist" just because of the words she/he uses, if it's not just a joke between friends it's sectarian hypocrisy.

I think you might be taking what I've written as a personal attack, which it isn't. Apologies if it has seemed that way. I am commenting on the general language used by the left and how that can affect the actions and psychology of people, which in turn affects the language used by those people and so on.

Guararema wrote:

But I don't believe there actually is one.

This is what I'm writing about in regards to the "value" of words.

Guararema wrote:

People actually have some idea of what do you stand for when you say "well, lady, I'm an anarchist", differently or less clearly than when someone says "well, sir, I'm a nietzchean post-leftist zizekist".

you go on to write that you use different descriptions of yourself when appropriate. In these different situations you (objective) can find similar reactions to whatever descriptions that you choose to use. All that is happening is that you are adjusting your terminology for your circumstance. The internal understanding and the connotations of those terms might be the same. People could have the same opinions of "anarchism" as others do of "nietzchean post-leftist zizekist".

Guararema wrote:

how saying "neuro-linguistics" turns any more scientific, or any more true the effects of the word "tradition"

It is part of a theory from korzypskis' General Semantics. It can be analogised as "the map is not the territory". Meaning that a "map" can never fully represent a "territory", a "map" is only a depiction of a particular level of "detail" of a "territory".
A "name" can never truely "describe" an object, or imbue any meaning on that object without human interpretation of the "name". When "name", which is only a label used th facilitate communication, becomes synonymous with "description", i believe that we limit the potential of both the "descibed" and the "perceiver". We can see it's effect on human behaviour, a great example to use is prisoners. Take a person imprisoned for "gang violence", put them in a stressful situation, continue to remind them they are guilty of "gang violence" and reinforced that as an identity as opposed to other possible ways for that particular person to self-identify, do this for a few years then release them. This person will (most likely) return to their world of "gang violence" because that's how they self-indentify. Check out the "Concord prison experiments", and Gestalt therapy. They use this type of neuro-linguistics. Of course these examples are at the extreme of what I'm writing about. Pragmatically we must use the words available to us, but that doesn't need to limit our understanding of those words.

Guararema wrote:

trying to regulate that we (as a whole) shouldn't be using the word "tradition", because it's somewhat oppressive.

not trying to regulate anything, just trying to understand others' perspectives by expressing opinion and inviting argument.

Guararema wrote:

"fascist anarchist" just because of the words she/he uses, if it's not just a joke between friends it's sectarian hypocrisy.

It is indeed used as a joke. I have used it to insult people who have absolutist ethics, the kind of people who talk of liberty, while being elitist and claiming to have a monopoly on "the truth". I'm sure you've had the pleasure of meeting some people like this aswell.

I just jumped from top 4% to top 0.07% in recreational drug use. #117 world rank.

Monday, the 24th, /r/socialistreaders will be starting The Society of the Spectacle, discussing Chapters 1-3.

Police in Ireland going on strike for better pay. Would you break their picket line?

LeftExpo 2016 has officially begun! Real life got in the way of me being able to share this last night, as well as the planned Eugene V. Debs Museum presentation, but we'll adapt and the festival will continue, albeit with some fluidity to the schedule. :)

Forum: https://theredand.black/forums/
Discord: https://discord.gg/59aRuGN - music now playing! :)
Verify Your Discord: https://theredand.black/discord

I want to share some words from Eugene V. Debs, whose death occurred 90 years ago yesterday and who we are recognizing at this year's LeftExpo. Debs's phrase "The most heroic word in all languages is REVOLUTION" serves as the theme for the festival. The text at this link was written by Debs for the New York Worker for their May Day 1907 edition:
https://theredand.black/forums/topic/478-revolution-by-eugene-v-debs/

In solidarity comrades!

Libertarian Australia wrote:

Why would we do it?

To break their strike. Why else is a picket broken?

World Anarchic Union wrote:

First off, a "May '68" style uprising but more widespread could work in Europe. Students and workers

may 68 is one of the things I was thinking about when a mentioned Ghandi. Though I think the "workers and students" demographic is problematic for more rural regions of europe. It is hard to damage agricultural economics without depriving civilians. Specific links in the resource chain need to be in the hands of the revolutionaries. Also, the interdependence of the major e.u. states will be a major factor. Revolutionaries will, at least, have to encourage an ignorance of state borders amongst themselves and plenty cross platform cooperation in order to have any real ability to combat the hyper-connectedness of european police/military.
Though the urban guerrilla turns the enemy's strengths into weaknesses. Thanks to this connectedness, globalisation in general, dependence on computers and the complacent greed of capitalism we have a new super-weapon, the internet, using cyber attacks to burn the system from the inside out.

I'm not sure about the "pure" revolution. I think to be able to mobilise enough of the population for a popular (and thusly valid) revolution a very wide set of ideals need to be appealed to, so much so that it would dilute the "pure" ideology too much to retain cogency. Sure, localised groups might be some form of vanguard or touchpaper, but I believe that inclusiveness and solidarity across the left is essential for actuation, and eventually success.
Personally I think that almost all forms of anarchist social organisation have some degree of merit and plausibility about them, but don't believe we should expect one system (however wide) to be a panacea.

Hippies and the such aren't just forming communes, they organise into collectives and open businesses, operating with minimal contact with the state. Even the drug addled lifestylists don't play the consume-produce game. It's praxis of Learys ideas "tune in, turn on, drop out". Bookchins ideas seem influenced by Learys ideas of operating outside and seperate from the accepted frameworks. The idea of simply making the state redundant by peacefully refusing to recognise it's existence or value is a tatic which holds great potential in my mind. Something like alan moores' v for vendetta. I see an erosion of authoritarian statist ideals by "european" liberal ideals. For the past 200 yrs or so european society has slowly and selectively been getting more and more liberal. The recent right swing of western politics, i think, is a result of this erosion, mainly through a "crisis of masculinity", the reactions of the patriarchy in the face of feminism and gay liberation. All these groups are nostalgic - reichsburgerbewegung, front national, make america great again, a thatcher clone in the uk - , they also have a highly distorted understanding of islam and salafism and fear some kind of global salafist conquest. It is not the foreigner they fear the most, it's the future.

When I say "class unity" I mean cooperation between the classes. Get the bosses on our side. They have the power, we want to have this power (so we can abolish it), so if the people with the power are on the peoples' side, then the people have the power,
There are historical examples, kropotkin, lady gregory, percy shelley.
We should converse with the opposition using language which resonates with them. Welcome their arguments and ideas, however inept they are, don't devalue their ethics, then convince them of the irrefutable logic of liberty.