Talk:Communalism (Bookchin)/Archive 1

Archive 1

communitarianism

Mikkali- I noticed you've associated communitarianism with communalism. I really cannot speak for communalism, as I've never heard of it, but I think the opening sentence of this article doesn't quite apply to communitarians, that it puts the interests of the community above those of the individual. I think it is better said that they believe the best way to serve the interests of the individual is through the interests of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Ponderas (talk • contribs) 04:56, 31 October 2004 (UTC)

What you say they believe doesn't contradict the article. This belief logically means that interests of an individual cannot go against interests of community (which is "the best way", as you say). In an ideal society it is so, i.e., interests of an individual and community coincide. But the ideal was never reached, with rare exception of religious brainwashing communities.

But like I said, I am not interested in the subject and cannot contribute much. I only added a missing article. Thank you for your suggestion. Mikkalai 07:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ideal never reached? Maybe not always, but often. But I'll give an analogy; it's easy to say that supporting free trade is putting humanitarianism over the economy, but not always accurate, as many believe it would actually help the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Ponderas (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

Good article

Cheers, Tasks you can do 22:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Spade (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Marcus Acquinas

There is no such person as Marcus Acquinas, which undermines the validity of this entry. Is it a spelling error? A Google search shows that the only references to that name lead back to this Wikipedia entry, so the error is spreading like a virus. I searched on Questia which is the largest online library and received no hits for this name. (GCS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.248.108 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Worldview Theory Must be Included.

Worldview Theory is relevant because there are social systems of interaction associated with each of the three major worldviews. These systems of interaction contain the Values, Interests and Principles (VIP's) of the geographic locations and their attendant ethnic groups.

1. Central Worldviwe (African) = Communalism 2. Eastern Worldvieww (Asian) = Communalism 3. Western Worldview (Caucasian) = Individualism (e.g. rugged individualism of the West) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled thread

Should this article cover the enviromental philosophy of social ecology to help give context to what Communalism is as a political system to complement it, or is it suffeciant to have a link to the social ecology page in the header of the article?

Teknolyze (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that this article might be merged into Communalism. They are literally about the same thing. - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 20:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the article Communalism (political philosophy) be merged into this one. They are literally about the same thing. - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Communalism (political philosophy)

It seems that there are two pages representing the same general theme [Communalism (political philosophy)] so it seems like they should be merged. This one seems less accurate in some respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Freedman (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Communalism Without Government

The citation for the quote " Murray Bookchin, defines communalism as "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation", as well as "the principles and practice of communal ownership" does not seem to support the conclusion that this is how Bookchin defined communalism, but rather it is a dictionary definition he quoted which he explained is inadequate and contrary to the libertarian socialist sense of communalism - which does not involve a State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Freedman (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing

The article contains sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. The paragraph copied below, which appears in the introduction, includes one vague reference (Collected Works of Karl Marx), without even providing a page number. Also the word 'practice' seems to be misspelled.

Many historical communities practicing utopian socialism or anarchist communism did implement internal rules of communalist property ownership in the context of federated communalism. It is at least theoretically possible for a federation of communes to include communes which do not practice communalist rules of property, which is to say, that the overall national government may be a federation of communes, but that private property rather than communalist property is the order within each such commune. Karl Marx, often viewed as the founder of modern communism, criticized older forms, including primitive communism and/or utopian socialism, as poorly conceived and/or prone to disintegration in practise.[4]

The point above about Marx being the 'founder of modern communism' seems problematic as well. Long before Marx, you had revolutionaries like Babeuf who advocated communal property. Do you mean to say Marx developed (or gave a) theoretical basis to modern socialist/communist thought via his labour theory of value? Even so, Marx was quick to distance himself from such praise. As he pointed out in a letter:

"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.66.37 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@65.95.66.37: Several of things:

First, practise is a British spelling. Since the origins of this topic seem to be from the European continent & Britain, perhaps {{Use British English}} is in order.

Second, since you seem to be familiar with the Collected Works of Karl Marx, perhaps you can clarify the reference & provide a page number or numbers. Here is an online source that might help.

• "Preview of The collected works of Karl Marx [WorldCat.org]". WorldCat.org. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

Finally, I would say that the Wikipedia be bold editing guideline applies here.

Peaceray (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Igbo Form?

Why does this sound awfully familiar to the pre-colonial Igbo form of government? Is it really a new philosophy if it has already been implemented in some way? Do they not deserve a mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.148.8 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"...Is it really a new philosophy.." ?

No, and in my opinion need not be, since it has not taken root in the past and is waiting to be updated and to replace "representative democracy".

Janosabel (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Communalism (political philosophy)

Exact same topic. Septrillion (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly moving forward with merger. Has been proposed multiple times without any objection whatsoever. Septrillion (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)