Federal Communalism

Federal Communalism is a ideology which draws heavily from the writings of American  Murray Bookchin, especially his ideas on. It is strongly against centralization of power and sees decentralization as the only viable method of preserving a revolution. However, in believing that the state can and should be a source of good when under the direct control of its constituents, it advocates for a government with strictly limited state power. While it is, it retains elements to benefit the working class here and now.

Philosophy
Federal Communalism arises out of the idea that all humans, as well as their well-being, are morally equal. This compels care for the weak and the enforcement of equity. Since human well-being is tied to environmental well-being, it is also environmentalist and sees climate change as an existential threat. However, individual liberties are important for a free society, so enforced complete equity is seen as detrimental to freedom.

Economics
WIP

International Affairs
WIP

Social Organization
WIP

Praxis
WIP

Comrades
- Usually on the statist and reformist side, but principled and a valuable inspiration. - The focus on spontaneity might be fatal to the revolution, but the principles are impeccable. - RIP and fuck the SPD. Es lebe die USPD! - Not pragmatic enough, but the goals are good and realistic. All hail Howie Hawkins! - Not quite as good as, but still admirable in its pursuits. - Anti-social socialism. - The movement is full of idiots, but the ideas are based. - What Catholic Social Teaching could have been. - My friends. Hedonism - We are all hedonists.

{{Collapse|

Self-Inserts
Rocksism - Significantly more moderate, but still within the same realm. The main differences are over globalism. AshleyHereism - Quite utopian in end goal. A gift economy would not function well on a large scale, and I see it as beneficial to have larger-scale countries. I also find the absence of the state dangerous. Still quite agreeable in all other beliefs. Owfism - A ton of overlap. The main difference seems to be the focus on higher levels of government rather than local governments. Regardless, it still values decentralization to a degree. Self-determination being a central tenet of Federal Communalism, I disagree with World Federalism. The attempts at international unity won’t work, and separatist movements will form and fight back if they don’t resist joining in the first place. International cooperation is great, but a permanent government would be too much pressure on many countries. Also, global corporations would ideally not be allowed to exist at all. I’m also a determinist. We have no free will. Yoda8soup Thought - Why does everyone like world federalism? Perfect otherwise, though with a bit too much emphasis on markets. Glencoeism - *claims not to be a socialist* *is practically a socialist* While it doesn’t provide as many services through the government as is preferable, it still is full of great ideas. Some of the policies are too specific to be applied everywhere, as it was designed for the U.S. The technocratic council is an interesting idea, but I think it better to educate those with good intentions than to trust those who may have bad intentions. Also abolish the death penalty and postpone space travel until we can be eco-friendly about it. }}

Decent People
Corbynism - What do we want? “A gradual increase of the minimum wage to a still-below-livable amount!” When do we want it? “Incrementally over a period of five years!” - Quite reductionist at points. However, it provides some great insight into sociology. It also inspired many of the greatest political movements the world has ever seen. - We May see eye-to-eye on social issues, but capitalism kills. - I may be willing to work with authoritarians, but you better believe I will fight with them on their statism. - The intentions are all there, but the methods are a recipe for disaster. The authoritarianism of Lenin combined with an unwillingness to compromise results in an ideology which has all the same problems as while being more susceptible to all the problems of hyperauthoritarianism. - Wrong. - Fuck the KPD. Roman Stoicism - Quite outdated in some areas, but a good ideology overall. Cartesianism - While Descartes has been somewhat influential on my own philosophy, he had plenty of pitfalls. The one that I am most familiar with is his apologetics for God’s existence. I won’t even begin with those. His politics and their justifications were also generally bad. - Wrong. However, no revolution begins without the public seeing what the left can provide them with. Reformism should be embraced while the foundation of the revolution is being built. {{Collapse|

Self-Inserts
American Social Democracy - My former politics. Capitalism is exploitative by nature. Not even a robust welfare system (even with lots of other bells and whistles) can fix the disaster that is production for profit, and the wealthy won’t give up their wealth without a fight. Semi-presidential systems being less democratic than, as a close alternative, full parliamentary systems makes the claim of being “democratic” sound dubious (though of course I am not doubting MATT’s honesty). The mention of ceremonial monarchs opens another yet path, but suffice it to say that I disagree. On Social Authoritarianism, I am reminded unsettlingly of. Also, planning on a national level should be rare, if ever, in order to best meet the needs of local communities. This would also greatly diminish the need for a market economy at all. Also, nationalism in any form… No. Otherwise delectable. }}

Scourge of the Earth
Statism - Leads to the suppression of individual rights quite easily. - A group may be a mere “collection of individuals,” but a society works together for the benefit of all. (Also see caption.) - You shouldn’t be able to own more land than that your house is on. Begone with your “objectivist” crap. - BEGONE! - Philosophically unfounded and always dangerous. - Two in one! - All the right thoughts with all the wrong conclusions. Not valuable as a comrade either. - Free market my ass. - The “pink” is just a front to sell more products. - Based economics. Nothing else. Not even the critiques of capitalism are good. (Update: Fuck the economics too.) is still feudalism. - Against everything I stand for. - Authoritarian collectivist bullshit. - Personality cult around a guy who tried (and mostly failed) to make a dictatorship out of a country which has a long history of liberal democracy. Also AuthRight for good measure. (Update: Trump has gone completely off the rails now. Because of this, Trumpism has also gone off the rails. I swear the guy is trying to push all the moderates who liked him away. It’s fascinating.) - Unfettered individualism is precisely one of the largest problems with capitalism. - It pains me to put this here, but LVT requires land ownership to begin with. - I swear I’ve seen this before… - Late-stage. - I refuse to share my toothbrush. - Blind contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Also bad in every way. - Bad in every way but worse. - Bipartisanism is only good when both sides have good ideas. This is not the case. Cuteservatism - Misogynistic and pro-free market capitalism. - “More women CEOs” but unironically. - Nothing to add. Anti-Communism - There are certain lines I draw when deciding whether to work with others. Communism is not one of them. If we share most of the same goals, we share enough. I love you commies. - What if instead of negotiating with the oppressive, self-interested state and employers we just minimize their existence? Just a thought. - It would be tolerable if eugenics weren’t part of it. - Marx and Lenin roll in their graves every time a ML speaks. Also the PSL can go to Hell. - I had to cleanse my eyes with r/antitankporn after reading about him. - Defeatist idealism. - Utopian. - Dystopian utopia. - Self-absorbed, philosophically shallow idiots. Post-civs are the worst. In fact, the entire post-left is like this. - Counterrevolutionary scum. - A stupid idea with a stupid philosophy behind it. - Self-determination need not include land, and I am opposed to land ownership beyond practicality. Thomism - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA How is this guy taken seriously? Natural Law Theory - Indescribably wrong, and the implications of accepting it are even worse. An essay debunking this coming soon to a blog hub near you. - Easily manipulated and usually misguided. This is the main Catholic “criticism” of Marxism. Of course, class conflict doesn’t have to involve a group of elites who are all consciously suppressing the proletariat. There is plenty of unconscious suppression being done. Not everything rich people do is in the name of hurting us. Thoreauism - The embodiment of American Romanticism. Ego-Capitalism - Ignores a lot of ideas from Stirner himself in order to create a true hellscape. It’s a special kind of bad.

{{Collapse|

Self-Inserts
}}

WTF
Authoritarian Libertarianism - Wrong, wrong, wrong. - Maoism + anti-intellectualism. No. Reichsbürgerbewegung - How the hell did Qanon spread to Germany? I swear the more I read on this the crazier it gets. You even got a bunch of “kaisers” setting up their own “kingdoms” while not even being descended from the actual Kaisers. Then there was this idea that Donald Trump was going to come to Berlin and restore the “real” Reich. - What do you mean “totalitarianism is bad”? - Nope. Just no. How does anyone unironically believe this? - ……?

Fuck You in Particular
- 9/11 never forget. - The state profiting off its own people? Disgusting. - Conservative authoritarian capitalism disguised as “socialism.” Pathetic. Stalinism - You too. Xi Jinping Thought - When Deng didn’t sell out his own people enough. Mesoconservatism - The worst sides of and  combined. All redeeming qualities go out the window. Pragerism - but adapted to conform less to reality and be broadcasted through Dennis Prager’s propaganda network.

Gang
- Gang.

Home
GPUS - Actually very similar to my own beliefs. - You can’t say no to a pirate party.

Passable
- Doing good. Still not socialist. - This might be more popular if the U.S. didn’t have a rampant individualism problem.

Ass
- Centrist neoliberal trash. A corporate hijacking of what should be a powerful workers’ movement. - At least Libertarians want to get rid of the bad parts of the government too. - If you don't hate the PSL, you should hate the PSL. - Only a ML party like the PSL can outstrip this abomination. They even got scared over federal agents raiding Donald Trump's residence for classified documents. "If they can do it to a highly suspicious former president who is a known simp for various dictators, they can come for you too." (Also, "Unconscious Trotskyist" my ass. Castro was okay at best.) - Most members aren’t even actual libertarians. They want the government out of economics and nothing else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this. - Not the worst ML party out there, but still an ML party. Its glory days are over, and it’s now probably about to be fucked over by those “MAGA Communists” who are trying to infiltrate it. I feel bad for those still in it honestly.

Home
- The marketing is terrible. The party will not get much done. But Bündnis 90 isn't far left enough and Ökologische Plattform exists, so here I am. - It's a pirate party. How can you say no?

Passable
- Used to be a party (admittedly with a questionable track record). Now they put the “center” in “center-left”. - A center-left green party.

Ass
- RightLib scumbags. - If you don't hate the CDU, you should hate the CDU. The CSU is only worse. - The CDU but on crack. I don't believe a single member was sober when they joined. - Imagine only not being banned because you're too small to make a difference. - Definitely not just the KPD trying to circumvent their ban. Also fuck the KPD.

Comments
{{Collapse|

Since Shutdown
}}
 * - So you're saying people shouldn't live their anarchism? It should be more like robotic disconnected obedience to the cause? Also also, capitalism only works precisely because individuals aren't selfish, they are dragged along by necessity or cooperation within markets (obviously people had to come together to form a market). If one had actually read Stirner, you would know he hated capitalism perhaps even more than socialism.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Of course anarchists should live in an anarchic way. The problem is when that becomes the only part of their anarchism. Anarchism is about the exterior world as well as the interior. I believe that to lose sight of either of those aspects is to lose sight of anarchism altogether. Capitalism and the markets within not only exist out of ultimate self-interest, but they promote it as well. The market in a given society likely first formed when someone realized that they could exploit someone else for their own gain. Markets work best only for those who are supremely self-interested and shed as many physical and psychological barriers to their own freedom as possible. When people are dragged into cooperation in a market, it is only because it is in the interest of themselves that they do so. The free market is not truly free for everyone, but for those able to survive, it certainly pushes a egoism-esque philosophy on them. Of course there are constraints placed upon them by society at large (obviously there are large differences between egoism and capitalism), but my point still stands.
 * - "The problem is when that becomes the only part of their anarchism." - Living? See the problem here is that then you assume that there should be something else to anarchism other than a life. If one were say a communalist and were not wholly living as an anarchist (well they would be from the start seeing as they by definition are a city state minarchist) but then doing some other thing, you would say they are more the anarchist, which actually doesn't make any sense. "Anarchism is about the exterior world as well as the interior." Yes, and if I was perhaps collapsing living or life into the category of thought, only when I think do I live, then you could have fun with an exterior living. However, I do not, and no such lifestyle anarchist has ever "forgotton" about the exterior life, they associate, have their communities, get their dues, etc. Only because they don't fit your definition of exterior living you see fit to disqualify them, much like any other terrible act of "seperation", oh they aren't the correct race, or gender, or human, or etc. You create an essentialist definition to the exclusion of all the cracks. Precisely what post-anarchism bashes classical anarchism for. "Capitalism and the markets within not only exist out of ultimate self-interest, but they promote it as well." No, capitalism promotes the pseudo-worship of property rights, money, and efficiency. None of these universal "wants" could ever be self-interested, solely because you become interested in them, you are a slave to the passion of greed. Even if capitalism promoted self-interest, then capitalism itself as a society would not lay at the heart of any individual, but rather they themself would. Besides you seek a better life for yourself in other systems, so would not these systems promote or even have promoted egoism? "The market in a given society likely first formed when someone realized that they could exploit someone else for their own gain." The anthropological data is out on this one, but if we looked to more recent times, we would see that the bourgeoisie of the french revolution or earlier must have had some social cohesion to bring about their new regime. "Markets work best only for those who are supremely self-interested and shed as many physical and psychological barriers to their own freedom as possible. " No, capitalism is for the devoutly religious, who have lost themselves in the pursuit of something else. "When people are dragged into cooperation in a market, it is only because it is in the interest of themselves that they do so." Is the slave interested in this society? Is a society in which most of those involved are hoodwinked about their most natural and obvious interests an egoistic society? Or rather do we find that they are disinterested but forced? "The free market is not truly free for everyone, but for those able to survive, it certainly pushes a egoism-esque philosophy on them." - oh yes, let us hear from the high-priest of egoism himself, 'Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the things for competition. Against my person there can be no objection, but because I don’t have the things, my person must also withdraw. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Well then, I could take them away from him! No, the state has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession.'. "Of course there are constraints placed upon them by society at large (obviously there are large differences between egoism and capitalism), but my point still stands." No it does not.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - First, communalism can be anarchistic, just not what you in particular might consider “completely free.” I do not know whether you consider your brand alone to be “true anarchism.” As with all forms of social anarchism, communalism is a community-based society (and in some forms) without a state. Since it has no state and no other place for people to rule over others, it is anarchism. I, however, am not an anarchist, as I believe this page makes clear. Moving on, I admit that I do not fully understand the sentences “If one were say….an exterior living.” Something in the grammar/wording is confusing. I do, however, understand and object to your accusation that I somehow “disqualify” people’s methods of living out anarchism. Please let me know of when I have done that. You also seem to think that I criticize egoists as lifestylists, which I do not. You have already seen the one bit of criticism (though obviously uselessly reductionist, as with the whole “Relations” section) that I have given egoism on this whole page. There are, as I am sure we both know, people of any political belief who will take the aesthetic without the less comfortable implications; most notably, actually working to radically change society. This is especially a problem with anarchism, as it works to discredit the movement in an entirely new and more insidious way. This is all that I mean by politics becoming a “lifestyle” and nothing more. Next, capitalism provides a means through which people feed self-interest. People fall to avarice, but avarice is a form of self-interest. No matter how we live, we are always slaves to one thing or another, whether it be conscience, ego, etc. We can only choose the best master, and even then, it at most remains the ego with a few important detours. Social cohesion under capitalism is (if the society is new) a result of the tangled web of the market. It does not require any selflessness whatsoever. If it simply carried over from a previous system, of course, it is only an artifact from that preexisting system. “Capitalism is for the devoutly religious, who have lost themselves in the pursuit of something else.” Anything other than explicit self-interest that is pursued under capitalism is only in the chase of self-interest. The means do not affect the goal. There are arguments to be had over how to best pursue the fulfillment of individual freedom and well-being, but to say that capitalism requires even a drop less self-interest than any other socioeconomic order is ignorant. “Is the slave….but forced?” The society mentioned is certainly one driven by egoism in its most basic sense. Because of the lack of a cap on others’ pursuit of their own self-interest, the majority of society is forced into a position where they cannot pursue their own well-being besides basic necessities. However, people at every level are forced to look out for their well-being to the largest extent possible, whatever that might be. “‘Free trade….as possession…’” Is this to suggest that one of the greatest differences between an egoist society and a capitalist one is that under an egoist system stealing would be allowed? In any case, my original complaint about egoism boils down to “Both capitalism and egoism are based on the pursuit of personal interest to the largest extent possible, and I don’t like that.” We both know egoism is, and I argue that capitalism also is. I don’t want to drag this debate out, so I want to stay away from other topics like Stirner’s view of capitalism (to be clear I knew he was against it) and the possible debate about the value of individualism.
 * - Look if you don't want to debate on the actual topic that I started and wished to discuss, and thereby have the last word, then be my guest.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - This debate was not about whether egoists (much less Stirner specifically) like capitalism, nor was it ever about the value of individualism. We discussed how anarchism is supposed to be lived out and whether capitalism requires the same concern for the ego as egoism does. These, if you remember, were the topics you chose to talk about. To be clear, I am not objecting to the use of egoist critiques of capitalism, but you seem to be saying that we were discussing WHETHER egoists care for capitalism. I simply want to prevent us going down paths that I don’t care to go down at the moment (though I genuinely would love to debate them another time). I take your lack of response to anything else I said to be a sign that you are somewhat over this, so I don’t know whether to expect a response. In that case, I would like to apologize for the latency in my responses. I have been trying to stay off this site in general to improve my mental health. It was not a slight on you, nor was it me using an absurd amount of time to formulate my responses. Unfortunately, I cannot promise to be any quicker in my posting. Have a good day.
 * - "whether egoists (much less Stirner specifically) like capitalism" (You) - "If one had actually read Stirner, you would know he hated capitalism perhaps even more than socialism." (My original comment) - we when both went on to discuss egoism and its relation to capitalism. " nor was it ever about the value of individualism" - Seeing as I opened with lifestyle anarchism it was a discussion about individualism. "We discussed how anarchism is supposed to be lived out" - Yes as an individual, "and whether capitalism requires the same concern for the ego as egoism does." Egoism has no concern for the ego, WHAT? "I take your lack of response to anything else I said to be a sign that you are somewhat over this" - I just find that if you want to move away from the original discussion towards things such as "capitalism is when selfish people" then I don't really need any more information from you.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Your comment (“If one had actually…socialism.”) responded to nothing I said. Of course I know that Stirner hated capitalism. We went nowhere with that. There is nothing to debate there, so we did not debate it. What I was saying is that it is not a question of whether an egoist society is the same as a capitalist one. The point of discussion is whether capitalism represents another attempt to follow the ego, where I contend that it does and you the opposite. The discussion of “lifestyle anarchism” never seemed to be a discussion of whether individualism is ultimately good. “Lifestyle anarchism” is the point where a self-identified anarchist is not a revolutionary. They become only interested in the aesthetic of being revolutionary, nothing else. This had nothing to do with ideas of individualism. Your surprise at my phrase “same concern for the ego as egoism” is confusing, as I assume you are a native English speaker. Maybe you were confused by the use of “concern?” If you could elaborate on that, that would be much appreciated.
 * - Capitalism cannot work without the state, leader(s) of the state can place any system it/they wants, but capitalism proved itself to be the best at increasing GDP. Next - leader(s) extract wealth from the people for himself, the only winner there is leader(s), others do not understand and believe it is the best for them. So, capitalism relies on people to be not self-interested on this topic.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - People tend to like a higher GDP because it means that they will personally gain from it. How is that not self-interest?
 * - People tend to like GDP because they don't have their best interests in mind. Just like the drug addict likes drugs even if they don't want to be an addict. You are confusing necessity with interest. You obviously like money because you wish to live, but at the same time you wish to abolish money, because socialism according to you is in your best interest. As such socialism promotes and relies on egoistic individuals looking out for themselves.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - There is no more direct method of serving self-interest than markets. It does oppress many people, but it truly works for some. People use money as a direct bridge to free themselves from all constraints. In the end, the market remains the only limiting factor, and even then I fail to see how a society (or any group of people) not based in participatory economics could be much different.
 * - "there is no more direct method of serving self-interest than markets." - So if individual deserve to satisfy their interests (one of which I'm sure is not being a slave but ohwell apparently not for you), then why would you want to abolish the market. Again, there is a difference between necessity, gratification, and interest in the self. The market is a tool for gratification of desires, many of which like the drug addiction are perfectly opposed to self-interest. Capitalism creates a system of dependency and necessity, they have to be able to even live before they can think about anything else, including their self-interests. "People use money as a direct bridge to free themselves from all constraints" - Money itself is a constraint from the self, it creates dependency, - "Thus, self-denial is common to the holy along with the unholy, the pure and the impure. The impure person denies all “better feelings,” all shame, even natural timidity, and follows only the desire that rules him. The pure person denies his natural relationship to the world (“denies the world”) and follows only the “aspiration” that rules him. Driven by the thirst for money, the greedy person denies all warnings of the conscience, all feelings of honor, all gentleness and all compassion: he puts every consideration out of sight: the desire carries him away." I think you can guess who the quote is from. "Egoism" properly understood has nothing to do with capitalism or money. I think you've read too much Ayn Rand.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - The market, and the slavery that follows, come directly out of people attempting to free themselves of obstacles to freedom. It naturally arises out of free trade. It doesn’t begin as a complicated mess. Only later on does it inevitably develop into the hellish mess that we see everywhere today. People struggling to have their basic needs met does not mean they are not chasing that which is best for themselves. They are still pursuing self-interest, just at a lower level. It only means that they are in an oppressive system, but that fact is irrelevant for this debate and we both agree there anyway, so I will move on. As for money, I fail to see how it is a constraint in itself. I simply see it as a marker of value, a tool to improve trade when one has nothing to barter. However, after a bit of thinking, I have to agree with you on Stirner being correct in the quote you cited. I do not know why I did not see it earlier, but I agree now. Capitalism does, in fact, estrange people from themselves. I have thought about this before, so I really am not sure why I forgot about it. Capitalism, then, misguides people and channels their desire for fulfillment into the object of money, and forces them to channel their pursuit of themselves into a system that forces them and their interests apart. So some end up chasing what they assume is the fulfillment of their interests, while others know that they are chasing something separate but are forced to continue to survive. While there are some under capitalism who realize that they are not truly chasing self-interest, but only performing the actions necessary under that system, there are also some who believe that they are truly acting in a way that is best for them regardless of the necessity of capitalism. If you don’t believe me on that last point, I have friends and family who are the latter.
 * - Ahah, I had a whole paragraph going until I got to the second half. Well I am glad we have reached an understanding. Yes, capitalism is a piece of shit.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - I don’t know how to express amusement in text form. Maybe a “lol” will do? Whatever. Anyway, I am interested to hear the paragraph if it still applies. In either case, I am especially interested in your reasoning for the abolition of money.
 * - I don't want to abolish anything - let alone money.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - “Money itself is a constraint from the self, it creates dependency.”
 * - Sure, but so is religion, the state, capitalism, drugs, etc. I'm not going to abolish those either. I will be myself with or without those things around. As for money, if I let it control me...
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - I see. So you are advocating a sort of off-the-grid living while letting the current capitalist society do as it does?
 * - No. I would say I'm a lifestylist but I am no anarchist either.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Not an anarchist. So in an ideal society there would still be a state?
 * - You haven't read much of my stuff have you? I don't deal in ideals, because I don't live in a thought world. I live in the real world and deal with it accordingly. I don't imagine for myself a perfect little heaven on earth and then a 'catechism' of what everyone must do to achieve "my" society. Because I am not religious and don't seek heaven, I seek myself.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Funnily enough, I happened to read just enough to know that much, but I figured I might have missed a point where you at least thought about a possible end goal. My apologies. Well, unless you want to bring up another topic, this conversation is over. I do hope to discuss ideas again at some point, especially philosophy. Good day to you.
 * [[File:Jonah.png]] User:JonahF2014 - Hey just here to inform you that the label you gave the FDP, "RightLib scumbags" might be inaccurate. English Wikipedia sadly still lists "conservative liberalism" as the FDP's ideology, that is due to an outdated source from the 1990's! The FDP is a very progressive party, notably spearheading major reform to Germany's Trans (& LGBT in general) laws. They're really progressive (which is one of the reasons the AfD exists) and pro-freedom, but yes, they are economic liberals.
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - When I use the terms “left” and “right” I refer exclusively to economics. I do happen to frequent German Wikipedia, and I am also quite familiar with the FDP in general. I know they are generally progressive on social issues, but economically they are center-right, and civically they are libertarian, so I label them as such. For the cultural “left” and “right” I prefer the terms “progressive” and “conservative.” (As for the “scumbags,” I like to come across as more humorously dismissive in the lower rankings in the relations section. I am sure you have noticed this. It’s just me entertaining myself by having a go at ideas I don’t like.) I do appreciate your concern though.