Comments on: Pluriarchy, confederalism and abundance

By: Bob Haugen

Bob Haugen — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:46:33 +0000

I’m pretty sure Murray saw himself as part of that whole stream of practice and theory, and not as inventing something himself out of whole cloth. His communalism, by the way, arose after he quit calling himself an anarchist.

By: David de Ugarte

David de Ugarte — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:03:04 +0000

Dear Connor,

Confederalism was defined by Proudhon, and already in 1873 there was a local-confederalist revolution in Spain
https://english.lasindias.com/the-historical-origins-of-p2p-thought-on-the-iberian-peninsula

The contribution of Bard and Urrutia is they link confederalism with network dynamics and experience… what by the way is not done by Murray Bookchin whose theory is just a rebranding of traditional federalism.

By the wawy, dont you think theory born of direct historical practice from Proudhon to Urrutia should be the reference and not a one-man’s-job out of social movevement like Murray Bookchin’s? This new obsession in Bookchin is something more than anglocentrism?

By: Connor Owens

Connor Owens — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:23:51 +0000

This is interesting but it’s nothing new. Social anarchists have been calling for confederations of self-governing communities as a socio-political model since the 19th century.

This model has similarities especially to the libertarian municipalism devised by social anarchist and Communalist Murray Bookchin.