🇵🇸 single use plastique 🏴☠️ on Nostr: Sylwia 🏳️⚧️ :nyarch: Oh they have their own theory of revolution made by ...
Sylwia 🏳️⚧️ :nyarch: (nprofile…twud)
Oh they have their own theory of revolution made by some guy, who i guess cites rothbard, so they want to be anarchsits but also set themselves apart from anarchists who's theory of revolution goes back at least 200 years and has been developed by modern thinkers spanning every continent. But you guys have your own theory, okay.
I mean what's wrong with the theory of revolution advocated by bakunin, not that he invented it, it's pretty simple and probably originates in the slums of Paris or London, or many places throughout history in different forms. There are numerous cases of stateless peoples doing just fine, or a society overthrowing their rulers and erecting nothing to replace it (like the Mayans) , there are quite a few abandoned cities in the Rainforest with corpses of elites buried unceremoniously, you can actually just kill your oppressor and dip, there is no basis of social power other than the willing obedience of the ruled, these systems can break down or be broken, and the basic ideas of socialism and anarchism and popular revolution were discovered simultaneously by mony people who found themselves oppressed an sought to liberate themselves, the basic socialist idea insofar is that it a modern development, is that the workers get together and sieze the means of production, cast off the ruling class and create a new system that's based in worker control, that's the only theory of socialist revolution, and the marxist and anarchist theories are just variations of this -- i'm not saying there aren't different ways of conceptualizing revolution that are valid, but this is the point of a socialist theory of revolution, unlike a bourgeois academic reading of revolution that might look at schemes or mechanitions of the elites, or exogenous environmental factors ( we are told climate change caused the Arab Spring, not simply that it was a contributing factor, but that it was a kind of involuntary unconscious reaction by masses of Arabs, so no need to listen to the diverse ideological content of these revolutions, like the calls for the abolition of all militarist states ) Most simply and universally: the oppressed overthrow their oppressors and steal their shit -- what is needed then, and what is the basis of legitimate controversy among socialists is strategy -- if Mutualists can offer practical knowledge that will benefit the formation and managements of workers cooperatives I'm all for it, but who the fuck is rothbard? lmao, you will get more from Gramsci or CLR James if you want to read someone critically. You do not need to create a new theory of history, the materialist conception of history in a broad sense is just mainstream history, and if I'm going to develop theories related to market anarchism in the sense of working class cooperatives engaging in business to support the growth of a revolutionary movement, i would be better off studying the history of Syndicalism / Unionism generally, or historians / theorists like Rudolf Rocker. Kropotkin, big ancom guy, actually wrote quite a bit about the organization of such such cooperatives in his day, building on his theories of mutual aide, so whatever good stuff you can mine out of Rothbard, i'm 100% certain it was already thought of and explored with more rigor by an actual revolutionary socialist. It's like if I made my theory of psychology based on Dianetics and called myself a post-Hubbardian Dianeticist, i guess one could do that, but why not just read another book lmao, and that's probably these rothbardian socialists they got sunk cost fallacy out the wazoo so they were conned by the mises institute into reading a bunch of rothbard, i mean some of what he says is true, but a lot of it he stole from popular intellectuals of his day like The Frankfurt school.
I have similar problems with like Bookchinites, and "Social Ecology" while i think they do better work than c4ss, bookchin was kindof a quack, not a serious academic, he falls back on a lot of bad and outdated anthropology like, the Golden Bough, i'm sure a fun read, but take for example his "theory of gerontocracy" totally ahistorical rubbish, elders do not rule over young men in neolithic type conditions, gerontocracy is not the origin of heirarchy, unless perhaps you mean the rule of parents over young children, which isn't what he says, among statless peoples, whether hunter /gatherers, herders or sedentary peoples, the social status of elders is purely customary with no enforcement mechanism other than social mores, because old people are physically weak and frail, but wise and loved they given a degree of deference, but it's not because everyone fears the elderly ( especially in a hunter gather society ) the old people love to scold but in a statless communal situation you can very easily just ignore cranky old people, this is not the basic os social hierarchy, gerontocracy exists within the elites of our society now but this assumes massive stratification and old poor people today have less agency than ever before.
likewise Bookchin's theory of Shamans as charlatans is just bad and false, he basically can't differentiate between a shaman or witch vs a priest, a shaman is someone who usually lives separate from society, they are neurodivergent outsiders with no social authority, but feared and revered because of supposed knowledge and power, people seek out for medical services or magical favors. Which is totally different from priest within a theocratic class society, who is usually connected to monarchy/nobility, and functions are also an advisor or scribe to the elites, with a doctrine and financial interests which they defend thru force of the state. The authority of clergy of this type requires a state, a ruling class and economic surplus. I suppose Shaman have some connection to priests historically, but it is a leap, but priests also have a habit of systematically exterminating Shamans/witches (Not only christians do this, the records of crimes of Brahmin against all forms of Indian folk religion goes back thousands of years )
Bookchin apparently abandons anarchy because he just can't handle the contradiction between individual freedom and social equality, he wants this dialectical tension to be resolved by metaphysical means and anarchists are incoherent by not just handwaving it away, he wants his own system, just like marx or hegel and aristotle and he's at the top because he's so smart. Maybe we have enough theories my dudes, the times of great thinkers with groundbreaking theories has past and was never a good thing anyway, always reproduced this hierarchy of knowledge that bookchin should be well aware of. So Bookchinism like Rothbardism, the two know each other and were quite similar in terms of their personality, the vanities of very selfish men with abrasive pedantic compulsions.
Oh they have their own theory of revolution made by some guy, who i guess cites rothbard, so they want to be anarchsits but also set themselves apart from anarchists who's theory of revolution goes back at least 200 years and has been developed by modern thinkers spanning every continent. But you guys have your own theory, okay.
I mean what's wrong with the theory of revolution advocated by bakunin, not that he invented it, it's pretty simple and probably originates in the slums of Paris or London, or many places throughout history in different forms. There are numerous cases of stateless peoples doing just fine, or a society overthrowing their rulers and erecting nothing to replace it (like the Mayans) , there are quite a few abandoned cities in the Rainforest with corpses of elites buried unceremoniously, you can actually just kill your oppressor and dip, there is no basis of social power other than the willing obedience of the ruled, these systems can break down or be broken, and the basic ideas of socialism and anarchism and popular revolution were discovered simultaneously by mony people who found themselves oppressed an sought to liberate themselves, the basic socialist idea insofar is that it a modern development, is that the workers get together and sieze the means of production, cast off the ruling class and create a new system that's based in worker control, that's the only theory of socialist revolution, and the marxist and anarchist theories are just variations of this -- i'm not saying there aren't different ways of conceptualizing revolution that are valid, but this is the point of a socialist theory of revolution, unlike a bourgeois academic reading of revolution that might look at schemes or mechanitions of the elites, or exogenous environmental factors ( we are told climate change caused the Arab Spring, not simply that it was a contributing factor, but that it was a kind of involuntary unconscious reaction by masses of Arabs, so no need to listen to the diverse ideological content of these revolutions, like the calls for the abolition of all militarist states ) Most simply and universally: the oppressed overthrow their oppressors and steal their shit -- what is needed then, and what is the basis of legitimate controversy among socialists is strategy -- if Mutualists can offer practical knowledge that will benefit the formation and managements of workers cooperatives I'm all for it, but who the fuck is rothbard? lmao, you will get more from Gramsci or CLR James if you want to read someone critically. You do not need to create a new theory of history, the materialist conception of history in a broad sense is just mainstream history, and if I'm going to develop theories related to market anarchism in the sense of working class cooperatives engaging in business to support the growth of a revolutionary movement, i would be better off studying the history of Syndicalism / Unionism generally, or historians / theorists like Rudolf Rocker. Kropotkin, big ancom guy, actually wrote quite a bit about the organization of such such cooperatives in his day, building on his theories of mutual aide, so whatever good stuff you can mine out of Rothbard, i'm 100% certain it was already thought of and explored with more rigor by an actual revolutionary socialist. It's like if I made my theory of psychology based on Dianetics and called myself a post-Hubbardian Dianeticist, i guess one could do that, but why not just read another book lmao, and that's probably these rothbardian socialists they got sunk cost fallacy out the wazoo so they were conned by the mises institute into reading a bunch of rothbard, i mean some of what he says is true, but a lot of it he stole from popular intellectuals of his day like The Frankfurt school.
I have similar problems with like Bookchinites, and "Social Ecology" while i think they do better work than c4ss, bookchin was kindof a quack, not a serious academic, he falls back on a lot of bad and outdated anthropology like, the Golden Bough, i'm sure a fun read, but take for example his "theory of gerontocracy" totally ahistorical rubbish, elders do not rule over young men in neolithic type conditions, gerontocracy is not the origin of heirarchy, unless perhaps you mean the rule of parents over young children, which isn't what he says, among statless peoples, whether hunter /gatherers, herders or sedentary peoples, the social status of elders is purely customary with no enforcement mechanism other than social mores, because old people are physically weak and frail, but wise and loved they given a degree of deference, but it's not because everyone fears the elderly ( especially in a hunter gather society ) the old people love to scold but in a statless communal situation you can very easily just ignore cranky old people, this is not the basic os social hierarchy, gerontocracy exists within the elites of our society now but this assumes massive stratification and old poor people today have less agency than ever before.
likewise Bookchin's theory of Shamans as charlatans is just bad and false, he basically can't differentiate between a shaman or witch vs a priest, a shaman is someone who usually lives separate from society, they are neurodivergent outsiders with no social authority, but feared and revered because of supposed knowledge and power, people seek out for medical services or magical favors. Which is totally different from priest within a theocratic class society, who is usually connected to monarchy/nobility, and functions are also an advisor or scribe to the elites, with a doctrine and financial interests which they defend thru force of the state. The authority of clergy of this type requires a state, a ruling class and economic surplus. I suppose Shaman have some connection to priests historically, but it is a leap, but priests also have a habit of systematically exterminating Shamans/witches (Not only christians do this, the records of crimes of Brahmin against all forms of Indian folk religion goes back thousands of years )
Bookchin apparently abandons anarchy because he just can't handle the contradiction between individual freedom and social equality, he wants this dialectical tension to be resolved by metaphysical means and anarchists are incoherent by not just handwaving it away, he wants his own system, just like marx or hegel and aristotle and he's at the top because he's so smart. Maybe we have enough theories my dudes, the times of great thinkers with groundbreaking theories has past and was never a good thing anyway, always reproduced this hierarchy of knowledge that bookchin should be well aware of. So Bookchinism like Rothbardism, the two know each other and were quite similar in terms of their personality, the vanities of very selfish men with abrasive pedantic compulsions.