How did Murray Bookchin Contribute and Develop Anarchist Political Theory in the Late 20th Century?
This work is going to investigate Murray Bookchin’s contributions and developments of Anarchist political theory. To fully understand how he did this, a basic outline of anarchism needs to be given in order to evaluate Bookchin’s contribution.
The four areas of Bookchin’s work that will be analysed are:
Humanities relationship with the environment from an anarchist’s perspective.
How Bookchin’s ideal society would run on a day to day basis, focusing on organisation, decision making and practicalities of this type of society.
Bookchin’s critiques of different revolutionary politics, and how he sees a revolution happening.
Lifestylism Vs Social Anarchism: the differences and realities of the anarchist situation.
By focusing on these areas this dissertation will give a complete overview of Bookchin’s work without missing out any key ideas. Environmental issues constitute some of the most important ideas that Bookchin developed, most notably the Social Ecology movement. Understanding Bookchin’s perfect society will give a clear idea of how an anarchist society would function in the modern world. Bookchin’s importance in this area comes from his rationality and practicality in organising a society. Analysing Bookchin’s view on revolutionary politics will shed light on where he gets his own ideas from. From his critique of Marxism and Syndicalism it is clear where he gets his ideas of pre-revolution organisation from. Finally understanding Bookchin’s disagreements with Lifestylists explain Bookchin’s break with anarchism, a fitting place to end this research project. To fully analyse all of Bookchin’s work, I am going to read and analyse all of his published books. This will give a full account of Bookchin’s work focusing on every aspect that he felt was important. This will also give a clear insight into his development and changes of his own theory.
Bookchin’s Published works:
Our Synthetic Environment (1962)
Crisis in our Cities (1965)
Post-Scarcity Anarchism (1971 and 2004) ISBN 1-904859-06-2.
The Limits of the City (1973) ISBN 0-06-091013-5.
The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years (1977 and 1998) ISBN 1-873176-04-X.
Toward an Ecological Society (1996) ISBN 0-919618-98-7.
The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (1982 and 2005) ISBN 1-904859-26-7.
The Modern Crisis (1986) ISBN 0-86571-083-X.
The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship (1987 and 1992) ISBN 978-0-87156-706-2
Remaking Society (1990 and 1998) ISBN 0-921689-02-0
The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism (1990 and 1996) Montreal: Black Rose Books ISBN 978-1-55164-019-8
To Remember Spain (1994) ISBN 1-873176-87-2
Re-Enchanting Humanity (1995) ISBN 0-304-32843-X.
The Third Revolution. Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era (1996–2003) London and New York: Continuum. ISBN 0-304-33594-0. (4 Volumes)
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (1997) ISBN 1-873176-83-X.
The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism (1997, by Janet Biehl) Montreal: Black Rose Books. ISBN 1-55164-100-3.
Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left. Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998 (1999) Edinburgh and San Francisco: A.K. Press. ISBN 1-873176-35-X.
Social Ecology and Communalism, with Eirik Eiglad, AK Press, 2007
An Introduction to Murray Bookchin.
Bookchin himself has written and spoken about his full life in Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left (2001). Murray Bookchin was born in New York in 1921 and lived through periods of great revolutionary change. Bookchin was involved in radical politics from a very early age, coming from a radical family before joining the communist youth movement that existed at the time in New York . Bookchin started his revolutionary tradition as a Stalinist Communist organiser within New York, moving towards Trotskyism in the run up before the Second World War then finally coming to Anarchism in the late 1950s. As an Anarchist, Bookchin pioneered the Social Ecology movement, arguing for a complete and rational attempt to move toward a modern anarchist society that did not harm the environment. At this point it should be noted this is at odds with the Deep Ecology movement. Social Ecology is also a scientific look that analyses humanities relationship with the natural world. Bookchin later went on to develop ideas of Communalism or Libertarian Municipalism which took many aspects of social ecology, but placed more of an emphasis on the organisational aspects of a new society. This showed a shift in Bookchin’s thinking, away from traditional anarchist ideas of devout anti-statism and toward a highly organized administrative body that would help run a society. Although Communalism is libertarian, many individualist anarchists started to criticize Bookchin for his apparent statist views (Black, B. 1997a). At the end of his life Bookchin claimed he was no longer an anarchist, and started to develop the Communalist project. Towards the end of his life, Bookchin was criticised continuously by theorists from the individualist tendency, with many using personal attacks upon his personality as a way to discredit his work (Black, B. 1997b). Bookchin however, carried on writing and developing his own work until he died.
Basic Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory.
Anarchism as a political ideology is one of the most widely misunderstood theories in existence. Recently the words ‘anarchy’, ‘anarchism’ and ‘anarchist’ have been used to describe terrorists, violent acts and a general chaos that has little to do with actual anarchism. Anarchism, as a set of ideas, historically promotes self-management, statelessness and places full emphasis on the freedom of an individual. It must also be noted, however, that Anarchism has a full spectrum of ideas within itself, from anarcho-communism to free market anarchism that is promoted by the libertarian right. The area that this dissertation is primarily focused upon is the socialist aspect of anarchism, which Bookchin writes about. However, he also analyses other areas of anarchist thought. Anarchism as a political theory was first developed by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, who focused on the ideas of freedom and individual liberty. He was opposed to capitalism yet also centralised socialism, whilst calling himself a socialist. This is a vital point, because the majority of important anarchist theorists classify themselves as socialists yet have historically been in conflict with the main trends of socialist thought. Other examples of well known anarchist theorists include Peter Kropotkin, an anarcho-communist, and Mikhail Bakunin, an anarcho-collectivist. The major trend in anarchist thought is linked directly to socialism; economic equality, removal of property ownership, class solidarity and abolition of the state are all major ideas in both socialism and anarchism. Socialist Anarchism comes under many different names such as Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Collectivism, although these trends within Anarchism differ slightly they are all classified as Socialist. Another point to note is that a perfect anarchist society is incredibly similar to a perfect socialist society. However, there are major issues that anarchists and socialists disagree on. Organisation in pre-revolutionary society and ideas of individual liberty are two of the main dividing points. This tendency to disagree has been present ever since the First International, where the Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin was expelled by the socialist tendency led by Karl Marx. Although Anarchists and Socialists have a long history of disagreement they often work together in times of social change. They fought on the same side at the beginning of The Spanish Civil War or the period of the New Left in America, for example and as Bookchin later writes about. It’s vital to understand that Bookchin is a Socialist Anarchist because in his later life Bookchin critiques the liberal tendency in anarchism which came into full prominence from 1970 onwards; this can also be called individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism promotes the idea of self-autonomy and is inherently anti-organisational, making it at odds with any form of socialist anarchism. A few individualist anarchists include Max Stirner, William Godwin and Henry David Thoreau. The reason that Bookchin seriously disliked individualist anarchism is because it diverted a lot of social and environmental movements across the Western world. It must be noted that Bookchin is a self confessed socialist and that this research project is going to analyse his work with this in mind.
It is also vital to understand exactly how Bookchin’s work should be analysed. Here we are analysing Anarchism as a political ideology, which can be difficult to comprehend due to the vast differences it contains within itself. Freeden provides a good idea that enables people to analyse ideology, stating that ideologies are rooms that are full of furniture with key items in each room. For example the sink is the key item to the bathroom, and the bed is the key item to the bedroom. Other items can be brought into the room to make it look different and can be re-arranged in an infinite number of possibilities, but the key item for the room is always present. This explains changes in ideology in the following way; Bookchin presents a theory based in Socialist Anarchism which is one way to organise the room, while an Individualist would present a theory based in Liberal Anarchism which is another way to organise the room. In both rooms, however, the key items are present. In Anarchism this means individual freedom, decentralisation, opposition to oppressive institutions (religious bodies etc) and opposition to corporate capitalism. However there are many elements of Social Anarchism that do not appear in Individualist Anarchism, just like in two rooms there are many different items. This helps to explain how Anarchism can be such a broad ideology that covers views from the extreme left to the libertarian right. Freeden says that the key concepts or items of each ideology will hold it together, and that ideologies in general are ‘fluid arrangements’ (Freeden 2003:44) that will often change. The idea that ideology is a room also helps us to understand Bookchin developing his own ideology. The development from Social Ecology to Communalism can be seen as Bookchin moving around the furniture in his own room, the key items such as decentralisation and individual freedom are still present but the ideology will look different.
Bookchin felt the need to break with Anarchism before he died. In order to explain this break a brief look at Anarchism in the modern day is needed. The term Anarchism today is synonymous with chaos, violence and general disorder, Bookchin attributes this to the rise of Lifestylism in Anarchism. In other words people who align themselves with Anarchism purely for the thrill of it, the riots, the street parties and the image of being an Anarchist. Obviously this is detrimental to anarchists who are genuinely trying to make a difference and have little interest in the image of being an anarchist. The major form Anarchism takes today in Britain is through radical protest methods. There is no major Anarchist movement; instead we are left with small propaganda groups such as the Anarchist Federation, or Solidarity Federation. The only time large numbers of Anarchists get together is when there is a large protest, the TUC anti-spending cuts protest on the 26th March 2011 (BBC, 2011) providing an example of this. The news media was quick to label any form of radical protest carried out on this day as the work of ‘anarchists’. This is the image that is portrayed to the public of Anarchists and Anarchism as a whole and many people do not realise the rational and theoretical background of Anarchism. Bookchin argues that this is the main reason why he felt the need to break with Anarchism: an ideology once known as the radical edge of socialism had become little more than a narcissistic fad for people to indulge themselves in. Anarchism had become nothing short than extreme liberalism. (Bookchin, M. 2002).
The way forward for Anarchism needs to be in the Social Anarchist tendency, and this research project will look at the rationality behind Anarchist theory, rather than a celebration of its violent tendencies. Bookchin provides rational and scientific analysis to his own work and the wider world. The fact Bookchin based his work in the reality of the situation makes him “the most important anarchist thinker in North America for more than a quarter of a century” (Biehl, J. 2011).
Humanities relationship with the environment from an anarchist’s perspective.
Humanities relationship with the natural environment is a key part of Murray Bookchin’s theories. His progressive views on how a society can be advanced but still be ecological lay the foundations for a rational new world. Bookchin’s views that humans can live in a world of abundance free of toil yet still not damage the environment put him at odds with large parts of the anarchist theoretical world from the late 70s onwards. The rise of primitivism and anti-rational rhetoric within the ecology movement never tempted Bookchin to change his views to fit in with the growing trend. Instead, Bookchin promoted social ecology as a way forward toward a society that focuses on social change as well as protection of the environment. To understand how Bookchin developed his ideas of social ecology it is first vital to analyse his critique of capitalist production with emphasis on its role in damaging the environment.
In Our Synthetic Environment (1962) Bookchin notes a number of scientific advancements that have helped humanity overcome certain limitations such as disease, death from continuous toil and limited diets (Bookchin, M. 1990:2). However, he notes how technological developments have led to a massive rise in different illnesses such as cancer and cardiac illnesses. Bookchin notes how these changes can be linked to the advancement in technology and the pollution of the natural environment. He gives the rise of tuberculosis in the urban working class in Europe after the industrial revolution as an example, suggesting that social factors can affect a population’s health. (Bookchin, M. 1990:7) Bookchin also notes how polluted the American water system is (Bookchin, M. 1996a:55), (Bookchin, M. 1990:53), how soil is filled with chemical pesticides and how the air in the United States cities is filled with pollution. (Bookchin, M. 1990:49). Our Synthetic Environment was Bookchin’s first book and it set out the groundings of his work in the ecology movement. The whole book is an investigation into the advancement of capitalism and its effect on the environment and public health. However, Bookchin does not blame the advancements in technology and science for damaging public health, rather he criticises the uses that these advancements have been put to. The need for producing ever increasing mass quantities puts a huge strain on the environment (Bookchin, M. 1990:24). Bookchin developed the idea that technological advancements do not need to be used to control parts of the population on mass and wreak havoc on the natural environment, but could be used to free humanity from toil and create ecological societies. Bookchin called this idea Social Ecology and it consists of a blend of anarchist organization ideals, and ideas that promoted the need for environmental societies. Social Ecology was the name Bookchin gave to his ideas, but others have called it Eco-Anarchism (Bookchin, M. 1999:56). Interestingly, many concepts that Bookchin argues should be central to the social aspect of his work also are highlighted in his view of the environment. Spontaneous development, for example, should happen in his society, but also the natural world. Bookchin notes how all ecological problems are also societal problems (Bookchin, M. 1996a:24). It is important to start with Bookchin’s critiques of capitalist degradation of the environment to make it clear to see how he developed his ideas on how a society could and should work with the environment.
To fully understand Bookchin’s ideas on humanity and its relationship to the environment we must first look at the idea of Social Ecology. Bookchin prefers the term ecology over environmentalism because ecology takes into account humanity’s relationship with the natural world rather than placing the environment as a separate entity to human development (Bookchin, M. 1996a:79). As well as this he also notes how environmentalism focuses on one issue at a time, rather than trying to develop a full ecological outlook (Bookchin, M. 1996a:59). This is still evident today with groups such as Greenpeace taking on individual targets rather than promoting a full green programme. Bookchin also notes how mankind’s domination of the environment develops from the notion of man’s domination of man (Bookchin, M. 1996a:76). Therefore until an equal and fair society is established, it will be impossible to develop a green society. Noting how Capitalism especially has had a massively negative impact on the environment (Bookchin, M. 2007:22) Bookchin also states that nature is not something you look at outside of your window (Bookchin, M. 1990:36). Nature, Bookchin claims, is everything in the world. This is a key concept of Social Ecology because this view ties together society and the environment; Bookchin notes how social evolution needs to happen along side natural evolution. Social Ecology also promotes the view that nature is not ‘cruel’ or ‘stingy’, it is in fact free of moral opinions. Nature is a participatory realm with interactive species whose main features are creativity, fecundity and directness as argued by Bookchin in The Modern Crisis (Bookchin, M. 1986b:55). Bookchin argues that relationships in nature are not the cause of domination, as many Marxists and Liberals argue (Bookchin, M. 1986b:51), but actually provide the grounding of social freedoms. The mutual nature of different organisms within nature is something that Bookchin advocates for his ideas of Social Ecology. He notes how organisms use each other to survive, and suggests that this should become a central part of a new society (Bookchin, M. 1986b:59). This is shown when Bookchin develops the idea of a municipal economy where separate communities work mutually with each other to develop the most desirable economy. This is where Social Ecology becomes important, because Social Ecology combines ideas of social freedom with a view of developing an ecological society. Another one of these ideas is spontaneity, which Bookchin promotes throughout his work as a vital aspect of social organization. He also applies this to the environment. He suggests that variety in nature arrives spontaneously, just as it should within a social arena (Bookchin, M. 1986a:98) and as a new species may spontaneously develop and expand the eco-system in a balanced relationship with other organisms. Bookchin notes how this concept is the same as individuals within a society, living in balanced relationships with other people but still being able to act and think differently (Bookchin, M. 1986b:99). This developed into Bookchin’s view on freedom, where he later argues that an individual can only achieve freedom within a society. This pitted him against many individualist anarchists whom he clashed with later in his life. The main focus of Social Ecology is that the environment and society are connected together. The advancement of capitalism has not only oppressed humans, but also oppressed the environment. Therefore Bookchin argues that the environmental crisis in America will not get better under capitalism, but also that a new society will not be possible unless it is going to deal with ecology.
The next aspect to analyse is how Bookchin uses advancements in technology to create an ecologically sound society. Bookchin has always argued that, used in the right way, technology can help restore natural environments and help to liberate society. Again, this has put him at odds with large parts of the primitivist and mystic ecology movement (Bookchin, M. 1995a:156) who believe that all technology is necessarily evil for the environment. However, Bookchin argues that technology can be applied to a number of uses within a small scale community, one of which is ecological protection. Firstly in Post Scarcity Anarchism, he states that any community must first examine the natural environment that it is in, making a note of its air, water, climate, geological, raw materials, soil, and natural flora and fauna (Bookchin, M. 1986a:139) before deciding what the community will be able to manufacture. He then Suggests that the community’s land management must be completely guided by ecological principles (Bookchin, M. 1986a:139) so that a balance is maintained between the environment and humans. Within these communities they will have highly mechanized agriculture systems that remove toil from work but also that will not over work the soil (Bookchin, M. 1986a). Each community will have a different natural environment and so will only produce products that will not harm their local environment (Bookchin, M. 1986a:158). This idea is again linked to the idea of mutual co-operation for survival. In Our Synthetic Environment it can therefore be interpreted that Bookchin envisioned separate communities as different organisms within the eco-system where they are independent but work mutually to survive. For these changes to start happening Bookchin notes that humans need a new ethic based on ecology and nature (Bookchin, M. 1986b:97). These ethics must not use technology to exploit the environment and over produce from it, but to encourage interdependence with it, promoting a non-hierarchical human society. (Bookchin, M. 1986b:75).
When looking at humanity’s relationship with the environment it is vital to understand a number of key issues that Bookchin highlights. Firstly, social development cannot ignore ecological problems like Marxist groups often do, and vice versa, an example being deep ecologists who refuse to acknowledge social problems when looking at the environment. Bookchin’s key idea is that humanity and the natural world are intrinsically linked, therefore any movement must take into account both social and ecological issues. This is the main concept behind Social Ecology, and indeed ideas from this also surface when looking at Libertarian Municipalism, which Bookchin developed later in his life. The next point to note is that any ecological movement must be forward thinking and based in rational scientific thought. Bookchin’s criticism of the deep ecology movement shows this perfectly. He sees that anti-humanistic movements are useless when looking at how to actually create an ecologically society. Finally, it is also clear that Bookchin feels that the environment and humans are completely connected. Now, when capitalism has full oppressive control over large parts of the world population, it is no surprise that the environment is also in its worst state. This fundamental view must have been vital to Bookchin when he developed Social Ecology in which he shows that the only way to help the environment is through alleviating social conditions and vice versa.
How Bookchin’s ideal society would run on a day to day basis, focusing on organisation, decision making and
practicalities of this type of society.
When looking at how Murray Bookchin’s ideal society would function, it is important to note that his ideas changed and developed throughout his lifetime. It is impossible to create a list of set points which Bookchin supports due to these changes within his own beliefs. What can be done, however, is to understand the main strands of thought that continue to appear in his work throughout his lifetime. The core of his ideas can be classed as anarchist, libertarian and socialist, but his ideas vary from many other similar academics that fall in to the latter categories. The focus of this chapter will be how Bookchin’s society would be organised, how citizens would live, how they would make decisions, the day to day work of citizens and finally the economic realities of such a society.
Firstly, when looking at how Bookchin’s society would run on a day to day basis, it is important to look at how the community would be organised and what Bookchin actually means when he uses the word community. Throughout Bookchin’s work the need for community organisation on a localised scale is repeated and championed. Bookchin argues that modern cities are far too big and this, he argues, creates serious problems such as damage to the environment, poor living conditions and an alienation of people from each other. People within these small communities would be citizens, but these citizens are very different to what we would consider a citizen in a modern society. Bookchin defines exactly what a citizen would be in his community: they would be a vital part of community life, educated and active in local issues. They would also be encouraged to participate in decision making process to help progress the community. They would be fully involved in community issues and would co-operate with other citizens to help civic affairs (Bookchin, M. 1987a:259). What Bookchin is promoting here is the idea that if citizens were fully involved within the local community, and had the means to be political (unlike today) then they would want to active in community affairs and would co-operate with other citizens to make the community the best it could be. In his own definition a “citizen presupposes a commitment to the public good” (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J 1997:86). It is also important to note that being political for Bookchin’s ideal citizens goes much further than just voting for a representative; it includes participation in decision making with a knowledge and commitment to bettering the community. Bookchin would argue that when people are fulfilled in their political and civic responsibilities then there would be no need for commodity greed and selfishness that controls people’s lives today.
It is also important to understand exactly what Bookchin means when he talks of a free society. Freedom is the central focus of all Anarchist as well as Marxist theorists. For anarchists, this focus is on the freedom for an individual to act as he or she pleases, whilst Marxist theorists tend to focus on economic freedom. Bookchin has often been criticised for his ideas surrounding freedom in his ideal society due to the fact that his society has structures and institutions that many consider to limit individual freedom. Bookchin puts forward the argument that an individual can only be free within a society. He calls this social freedom and describes how his ideal society would create free individuals by the very way it is structured. These structures include political freedom, freedom from toil, freedom for individuality and personal interaction with other citizens.
Decision making in Bookchin’s ideal society is also a vital point to investigate in order to understand the key issues that Bookchin raises. It is important to appreciate that for Bookchin’s societies to survive they must be a lot smaller than current cities (Bookchin, M 1990:187). Firstly he champions a direct ‘face to face’ democracy, originating from Athenian democracy (Bookchin, M. 1999:146). His ideal decision making process would allow small scale communities to debate and discuss issues before deciding on the best possible policy, allowing people to intellectually and emotionally confront each other using dialogue, body language and personal intimacy in the decision making process (Bookchin, M. 1987a:249). They would do this within the context of an assembly which might be all the citizens from one street or neighbourhood, depending on the size of it. For this to work, Bookchin suggests that everyone within the community would participate in decision making on a community level in local citizen assemblies. Bookchin states that individual communities could not survive on their own even if they do practise direct democracy (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J. 1997:97), they need to be interdependent on other communities for economic, ecological and human rights issues (Bookchin , M and Biehl, J. 1997:100). These local assemblies would then send delegates to a council of confederates, who would repeat the wishes and decisions of their own citizens from their community. The council of confederates would not be a policy making body, just an administrative council who work to carry out the wishes of each community. All policy decisions would come from within the community assembly.
Here we can see a clear plan of how Bookchin would design a free and engaging political policy making process. This design that Bookchin supports has put him at odds with a number of anarchist theorists, who prefer the idea of consensus when it comes to decision making. Consensus is the idea that everyone within a decision making body, for example a community assembly, must agree on a decision or not vote, if someone disagrees with the decision they have the right to block the policy. Bookchin argues that in his experience this leads to intimidation of members to vote a particular way and also leads policy to become the lowest common denominator people can agree on - in other words ‘cheap policy’. Most supporters of the idea of consensus argue that even direct democracy in a way that Bookchin supports will cause the minority to be oppressed by the majority. However Bookchin argues that although there would be a majority rule, the minority would be allowed and encouraged to dissent and work to reverse the policy. Bookchin explains how this would happen, through open podiums for the minority to speak, a balanced media that was open to the expression of all views and a continuing debate about the policy (Bookchin, M. 1999:147). He argues that this will lead to a better policy because it has been debated and analysed by opposing view points. This idea of direct democracy being the best way to organise a decision making process has been repeated throughout Bookchin’s work, and is one the major strands that doesn’t really change over his life time.
One issue that needs to be addressed is the idea of work in Bookchin’s ideal society. Bookchin argues that people will not have to work tirelessly to survive, as we do today. Bookchin has always been a big supporter of technological advances, unlike many other anarchist thinkers, who argue that technology has been used for the advance and profit of capitalism. Although Bookchin acknowledges this, he also argues throughout his work that technology can give liberation and freedom to citizens within an anarchist community. Bookchin argues that technology can be used to reduce toil from work, so people wouldn’t have to work as hard or as long to create the resources needed to support their lives (Bookchin 1986a:156). This point is connected with Bookchin’s ideas of citizenship and political decision making. Bookchin argues that people would have more time to be able to be involved within their community, due to the fact that the working day would be reduced (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J. 1997:98). This again strengthens and supports the argument that citizens within the community would be able to be fully active in politics. He also notes how work would vary from day to day on a rota basis (Bookchin, M. 1990:195) including gardening, crafting, reading and manufacturing installations which are very different to modern day work which is repetitive and lacks creative human input. What is also important to understand is that Bookchin’s communities would be linked within their environment. Therefore, different production of materials would be suited to different communities depending on their environment. This would also shape the nature of work within the community, and can only be fully understood with closer investigation of the ecology surrounding each individual community. Again this also supports his idea that communities need to be interdependent with each other. Bookchin argues that communities co-operating with each other would easily have enough resources without damaging the environment.
A point that is linked to the idea of work and production in Bookchin’s ideal communities is how community economies would work. It is important to note that citizens within the community would decide on all economic policy for the entire community, rather than the decisions of large corporations that hold this power today. Bookchin argues that a society cannot be free if there is a massive gap in the distribution of wealth (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J. 1997:119). Therefore, in Bookchin’s ideal community people would not accumulate large amounts of wealth. Instead, all wealth generated from production would go to the community or municipality. The citizens would then decide how the wealth would be distributed, again in a similar way to political decision making where each community would be interdependent with other communities surrounding economies. They could decide to trade and co-operate with each other as well as making decisions on production that went across municipalities. In Bookchin’s own words a “thorough politicization of the economy would take place” (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J. 1997:200) meaning that citizens would decide on economic policy within the political realm of assemblies and decision making.
When you look at Bookchin’s work throughout his lifetime it is clear which points are central to his ideal new society. The use of decentralised communities to make politics available to every citizen, the use of technology to remove toil from work, a transparent and fair decision making process using local assemblies and interdependent communities working together on a number of issues. This gives us an idea of what Bookchin not only sees as an ideal society but also a practical and working society. This is vitally important because Bookchin, far from being a utopian thinker, dreaming up ideas, has based all of his work on facts and evidence. This is proven by the revisions that he made to his own work: he was continuously trying to find new ideas that were workable and based in workable realities. This makes his ideal society seem more of a practical real alternative to the current world. Every point that he includes in his vision of an ideal community is supported by evidence of where such aspects have worked in the past, such as Athenian democracy and revolutionary assemblies. He tackles the problems that these historical examples encountered and has provided his own influences into resolving these problems. The focus on technology and environmental issues is especially supported by scientific evidence. In Post Scarcity Anarchism 1986, for example, Bookchin provides numerous examples of how technology was advanced enough to remove toil from work and help sustain the natural environment. When Bookchin crafts together his ideal society, it is more of a practical plan for a future sustainable world rather than his idealistic fantasies.
The ideas that Bookchin had on how an ideal society ended up becoming what he called Libertarian Municipalism. Bookchin calls Libertarian Municipalism a free ecological society (New Municipal agenda). This idea was developed by Murray Bookchin using the key points I have mentioned in this chapter to create a full social theory. Libertarian Municipalism is based on small and local communes working together in a confederal manner; here we can see how Bookchin’s ideas on community were developed. The communes would co-operate on the economy, political issues that stretch across more than one commune, and the administration of communes. The confederation of the communes would perpetuate interdependence from an authentic mutualism based on sharing resources, produce and policy making (Bookchin, M. 2013). For local decision making Bookchin uses the idea of the local assembly, again noting that all citizens will have the right and the time to participate if they want to (Bookchin, M. 2013). Libertarian Municipalism entails all the features that I have already noted. Bookchin collated these ideas into a set ideal society towards the end of his life; Libertarian Municipalism can also be called Communalism. At the end of his life, Bookchin felt the need to call himself a Communalist rather than an Anarchist, as the individualist tendency within Anarchism rejected ideas of Communalism. The major critique from an Anarchist perspective is that Communalism has a state, and as Anarchists they are opposed to it. In reality Libertarian Municipalism does not have a state in the sense of an overreaching hierarchical body of institutions. It would be more accurate to call it organised in a sense of mutualism and cooperation, something which individualism is again opposed to.
Bookchin’s critiques of different revolutionary politics, and how he sees a revolution happening.
This chapter will analyse Bookchin’s view on revolutionary politics, highlighting the changes that take place in Bookchin’s own personal thought. When looking at the question of revolutionary politics it is vital to understand where Bookchin started and who his main influences were. By looking at Bookchin’s critique of different trends in revolutionary politics it will help explain his own views on revolutionary politics. The most important aspects of this chapter are the influences of Bakunin, Bookchin’s critique of Marxism, Bookchin’s critique of syndicalism, Bookchin’s views in the 1960s and finally how Bookchin envisioned the fall of capitalism at the end of his life. The main focus of this chapter will be on Bookchin’s views in the period as an anarchist theorist.
Firstly, it is important to look at how Bookchin developed as an anarchist theorist to help explain the reasons for his arguments. Bookchin has always been a revolutionary, following a number of different styles of revolutionary politics before coming to anarchism, and finally breaking with it in his last published work. This lifelong tradition of revolutionary politics is interesting because Bookchin lived through many influential events that helped shape and change his own views. Bookchin started out as a Stalinist organiser in America in the period running up to the Second World War, only breaking with this due to the Moscow Show Trials, Class Collaboration and the Stalin-Hitler Pact (Bookchin, M. 1999:44). This is particularly interesting because many of Bookchin’s later critiques within the anarchist movement use Bookchin’s history with Stalinism to discredit his views, although it is clear to anyone who has read Bookchin’s theories that he is in no way a Stalinist (Black, B. 1997b). After his period as a Stalinist, Bookchin started to follow Trotskyism but broke with this after the Second World War. Bookchin started to become involved within anarchist thought through environmental issues, which had largely been ignored by the Marxist and Socialist groups of the time. This helps to explain some of Bookchin’s main criticisms of Marxist groups in America which must be discussed in more detail. Bookchin spent the majority of his life developing anarchist political theory. However, he finally broke with the term anarchist before his death in his last work entitled The Communalist Project (2002). When looking at how Murray Bookchin developed anarchist theory it is clear that the focus needs to be on the period where Bookchin was writing as an anarchist and examining his main influences. Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin were the main two anarchist thinkers who influenced Bookchin’s views. Kropotkin was an anarchist who started the tradition of anarcho-communism, which shares many similar ideals as Bookchin’s Anarchism. But Bookchin also notes that he got ideas on environmental issues from Kropotkin (Bookchin, M. 1999:58). Something which, as I have discussed, was of a particular interest to Bakunin was the idea that a person can only achieve freedom within a society (Bookchin, M. 1998:22), which Bookchin developed and promoted in his arguments with the life stylists and in his own view of how a society should be run. An explanation of Bookchin’s life as a revolutionary is something which, as I have discussed, was of a particular interest and helps to explain some of the changes within his own views.
Bookchin heavily criticised Marxism in America as an outdated idea. In 1969 Bookchin noted how Marxist traditions of revolutions, including ideas of the class line, the vanguard party and cadres, were outdated and therefore detrimental to revolutionary politics in America. Furthermore, he argues that the idea that one theorist from the 1800s being able to foresee the exact development of capitalism is not feasible. (Bookchin, M. 1986a:200). Here Bookchin is arguing that Marxist groups are not moving forward, and he argues that they need a movement that looks to the future rather than the past, something which he tries to create in his work. He goes on to argue that revolutionary movements need a critique of capitalism that understands the current form of capitalism that Marx could not predict (Bookchin, M. 1986a:199). One example of this is that Marxism does not put any emphasis on ecological issues (Bookchin, M. 1999:266). This lack once again demonstrates Marxism as being outdated. Although environmental issues in Marx’s time were not part of revolutionary politics in America during the second half of the 20th century environmental issues form a massive part of the revolutionary political scene. Bookchin argues that revolutionary politics are only reflective of the current society they are focused in (Bookchin, M. 1990:130), meaning that the issues that Marx raised were specific to his time period. Yet many Marxist groups will follow his theories dogmatically in the modern era. Bookchin argues that this is counter productive. The way Marxist groups in America during the 1960s-80s operated is a point that supports Bookchin’s idea that Marxism is outdated as a revolutionary political theory, and is paramount in importance in understanding Bookchin’s critique of Marxist groups. Bookchin argues that another limitation of Marxist theory is the way that the Marxism views the so called stages and sub-stages of revolution. Bookchin notes how this can lead to Marxist groups acting against their own beliefs because they believe certain capitalist advancements are necessary before socialism. He gives the example of the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1920s that were reluctant to pass anti-monopoly legislation because they believed that the “concentration of industry and commerce” was historically progressive (Bookchin, M. 1990:135). The way Marxist groups view revolution can often have a negative impact on revolutionary politics, as Bookchin shows; in essence the S.D.P in Germany wanted to act in favour of capitalists over the working class because they believed it was necessary. Finally Bookchin talks at length throughout his work about how Marxist groups are obsessed with class relations and can often ignore and sometimes oppose revolutionary movements because they are not based in the proletariat. Bookchin notes the peace movement as one of these examples (Bookchin, M. 1986b:163) where Marxists supported the workers creating weapons over the people protesting against it due to the supposed class of the former. As the evidence suggests there are many criticisms of Marxism that Bookchin makes. By highlighting these criticisms it will help explain what Bookchin’s own views are when it comes to the organisation of revolutionary politics.
Bookchin also analysed Anarcho-Syndicalism, which was prominent in Spain before and during the Spanish Civil War. Firstly, it is important to know that Bookchin admired the Spanish Anarchist movement and wrote praising elements of this movement. He notes how Anarchist ideas were brought to Spain 60 years before the Spanish Civil War by Giuseppi Fanelli who was promoting Mikhail Bakunin’s ideas to young workers in Madrid (Bookchin, M. 1998:12). Anarchism was already a way of life for many peasant villages in Spain at this time and this gave a good base of support for Anarchist ideas and organisational techniques. Bookchin’s critique of syndicalism lies mainly with the CNT, which was an Anarcho-Syndicalist union that had huge support in Spain. Bookchin praises a number of features from the CNT including its democratic nature, its connection with its members, the cultural centres it created and its solidarity among workers (Bookchin, M. 1994:19). Bookchin also notes how the power in the CNT was held by regional bodies that came together in congress to organise (Bookchin, M. 1998:145) which led to Bookchin to say that the CNT provided a remarkably democratic arena for the most militant working class in Europe (Bookchin, M. 1994:26). Bookchin praises the CNT’s tendency to consciously limit centralization to organize power at the bottom of the movement rather than the top (Bookchin, M. 1986a:175). This provides us with a good idea of what Bookchin thinks forms good revolutionary organisation: features such as mass democratic bodies loosely connected in confederation, a bottom up decision making process with an emphasis on everyday life and cultural issues of individuals. However Bookchin notes that Anarcho-syndicalism also has its limitations as a revolutionary movement, the first issue being that it focused completely on trade unionism. This leads to bureaucracy and a tendency to move toward reformist rather than revolutionary tendencies like it did in Spain (Bookchin, M. 1992). Alongside this point, due to the nature of syndicalism centralisation of the economy tends to happen, which is something that Bookchin radically opposes. Bookchin also critiqued the idea of a centralised economy in his analysis of Marxism. Again, we can use Bookchin’s analysis of syndicalism to see where he gets his own ideas of revolutionary organisation from - he takes some of the aspects that he likes, and finds other solutions to the ones that he doesn’t.
It is now important to look how Bookchin imagines a movement that could seriously challenge capitalist society; the main features to examine are its organisation, its values and ethics and exactly how such a movement could lead to the creation of an anarchist society. Firstly, it is again vital to understand that Bookchin’s views on this subject change dramatically in the period between the 1960s and 2000s. However, as with his vision of an ideal society, there are elements that stay the same. One of the key arguments that Bookchin makes is that the revolution must develop with accordance to the society that they wish to create (Bookchin, M. 1986a:67), basically calling for groups to organise, act and live like they want to in the post-revolutionary world. Bookchin argues that revolutionary groups must not have power structures or be hierarchical which puts him at odds with many revolutionary groups who have leaders, central committees and other forms of power structures. His answer for this is the formation of community and assembly that are allowed to develop organically (Bookchin, M. 1986a:68), by this Bookchin means that a revolutionary group may encourage people to form assemblies in their local neighbourhood but not force the group’s own will upon them. He also notes that revolutionary organisations should make decisions in the same way, championing the style of debate and decision making in certain conferences of the SDS (Bookchin, M. 1990:144). This is a view repeated throughout Bookchin’s work, and he constantly promotes the idea that people must take power back themselves within their local community, forming democratic assemblies to decide on policy. This provides an interesting link to Bookchin’s views on an ideal society where the assembly is the focal point of decision making, yet Bookchin includes this in his ideas on revolution. This supports Bookchin’s ideas that the revolution must take the form of the society that it wants to create and the new society must arise out of the revolution (Bookchin, M. 1986a:189). Another key aspect of revolutionary movements for Bookchin is spontaneity. Spontaneity for Bookchin is “behaviour, feeling and thought that is free ofexternal constraint,of imposed restrictions” (Bookchin, M. 1975). Spontaneity is absolutely vital when it comes to revolutionary movements and Bookchin demonstrates how all the revolutionary movements of the past have started because of spontaneity (Bookchin, M. 1986a:189), and been often held back by revolutionary group’s lack of it (Bookchin, M. 1990:134). Here we can see what he means by spontaneous revolutionary practise, the ability for groups and people to act freely. This again puts him against Marxist groups who believe in revolutionary programmes, and centralized control of revolutionary practise.
When it comes to starting a revolutionary group or movement Bookchin suggests a number of key factors that will help develop the group/movement. Bookchin notes the first step should be forming ‘study groups’ that will learn history, revolutionary texts, ethics and social thinking (Bookchin, M. 1999:324). Bookchin argues that these should develop into political bodies involved in their local politics, producing newsletters and have a set of coherent ideas that are not dogmatic but open for debate and change. Bookchin notes how groups must have a coherent outlook to avoid the group moving in different directions and contradicting themselves (Bookchin, M. 1999:327). After this happens Bookchin notes how the study group should involve itself in community life, trying to spread the ideas of left-libertarianism and communalism within the local community to create a grass roots movement within the community. As well as this the group must raise political consciousness in the local community, making demands for local power and working with other communities to create regional and over time national confederations sending deputies to create an administrational body (Bookchin, M. 1999:340). Bookchin notes how this will encourage local people to take power themselves in their local community which he believes is the only way a revolution will happen. This is related to the idea of self empowerment and self realisation which Bookchin notes as absolutely vital for any revolutionary movement. Bookchin argues that only by re-empowerment of the individual can a new society emerge (Bookchin, M. 1986b:124). This view goes hand in hand with the idea of setting up local assemblies for people to come and take part in decision making. From this we can see that Bookchin envisions a slow process of devolution driven forward by organised local communities as being the first step in a revolutionary action. Bookchin does not dwell on the organisation for conflict against the state, he merely notes that it is inevitable that it will happen as the people take more and more power back for themselves and if the state refuses to give full power to the people the people will have to claim their sovereignty in a revolutionary manner (Bookchin, M. 1999:341).
From Bookchin’s work on revolutionary politics we can see how his critiques of other revolutionary theories have led him to create his own with a set plan. His revolution is very different from historical Marxism and Anarchism - Bookchin believes in a slow process to educate and re-empower the population from a grass roots level. It could even be called more of an evolution toward a free anarchist society rather than a quick revolution. It is also clear how a new society must emerge out of the revolutionary movement, adapting to changes organizing themselves along the lines of what they envision afterwards. His focus on spontaneity, devolved power structures, grass roots organization and re-empowerment of the individual all highlight this. When we make comparisons with what Murray Bookchin’s ideal society would be like the organisational structure of the revolutionary movement is identical to the organisational structure of the future society.
Lifestylism Vs Social Anarchism, the differences and realities of the anarchist situation.
Anarchism has always had two tendencies that are fundamentally opposed to each other, the first being a personalistic commitment to individual autonomy and the second being a collectivist commitment to social freedom (Bookchin, M. 1995b). These two tendencies place emphasis on different aspects of freedom, individual autonomy or lifestylism, highlighting negative freedoms, in other words ‘freedom from’. Social Anarchism, by comparison, places a focus on positive freedoms, a ‘freedom to’. These two tendencies have been present in anarchism since its early days, with theorists putting emphasis on each side. Bookchin has always been a social anarchist, supporting the idea that people should create a free society to achieve freedom. Yet he has many critics from the individualist side and this chapter is going to explain Bookchin’s role in developing social anarchism at a time when lifestylism has come to a prominence.
Firstly, it is important to understand what we mean when talking about social anarchism and lifestylism. Social anarchism is the idea that people can only achieve freedom through a free society. Many theorists such as Kropotkin, Bakunin and Murray Bookchin support this idea and have written plans for such a society to exist. A detailed look at Bookchin’s idea to create a free society is given in the second chapter. Social anarchism includes Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism. These types of anarchism are based on the ideas that a new society is possible through various different means. They are also all connected to socialist theory. Bookchin argues that lifestylism is based not in socialist theory but in liberal theory (Bookchin, M 1995b) suggesting that social lawfulness is maintained by market competition (Bookchin, M. 1999:146). Lifestylists say that individual autonomy is the most important feature of anarchism, and that any form of organization is restriction on personal freedom. Whilst Bookchin and other social anarchists argue that an individual can only be free within a free society and dismiss the idea that an individual can be totally free with no forms of social organisation. Bookchin notes how lifestylism is based in “Ad hoc adventurism, personal bravura, an aversion to theory oddly akin to the antirational biases of postmodernism, celebrations of theoretical incoherence (pluralism), a basically apolitical and anti-organizational commitment to imagination, desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of everyday life”. (Bookchin, M. 1995b:3). The intricacies of lifestylism will be examined when looking at Bookchin’s critique of it as a movement. It is also important to note how lifestylist ideas have become prominent in political and social movements. Examples of this include; environmental movements, feminist thought and so called anarchist groups such as ‘Up Against the Wall Motherfucker’ (Bookchin, M. 1999) who Bookchin was in close relation with during the period of the New Left in America. The vast differences between lifestylism and social anarchism have been present since anarchism came to life as a political theory, with each trend becoming stronger at different points in history.
It is vital to understand Bookchin’s critique of lifestylism to see the problems and differences that the two tendencies have. In his article called Lifestylism Vs Social Anarchism, An Unbridgeable Chasm he gives a number of key points that evaluate and analyse the core motives behind lifestylism. One of the main problems that Bookchin has with Lifestylism is its notions of freedom. Bookchin, as an anarchist, has focused on the issues of freedom, yet these are totally opposed to lifestylist ideas. Lifestylists argue that self-autonomy is the most important aspect of freedom (Bookchin, M. 2005). Autonomy of the individual focuses the right to “Be the masters of your own thought” (Bookchin, M. 1995b:3) whilst notions of freedom are based in the social freedom of a free individual within a free collective (Bookchin, M. 1999:161). Bookchin notes that lifestylism is based solely on the ego, and that it becomes the most important issue for lifestylists, with them needing to assert their own ego within the capitalist world. This makes it clear why Bookchin highlights the links between liberalism and lifestylism; the main focus of the lifestylist is to assert their own personal freedom, whilst social anarchism is concerned with creating a free society for all individuals, which shows it roots within socialism. Although both tendencies are focused on freedom, lifestylism shows its liberal roots by focusing on an individual’s right to assert their freedom against the group, whilst social anarchism focuses on creating conditions for all individuals to be free together. Another issue that Bookchin raises is that Lifestylism has a commitment to anti-rationality, anti-theoretical and anti-human ideas. He notes how chaos has become linked with anarchism due to this lifestylist trend, with many anarchists rioting for the sake of rioting, to assert their autonomy against the state (Bookchin, M 1995b:4). He notes how lifestylists are less interested in the cause of the protest, than the excuse to riot to reach self-realization rather than social change. Bookchin is vehemently opposed to this because he believes that lifestylists use this to make themselves feel better, rather than fighting for a cause. It has to be noted that it is incredibly difficult to analyse the theoretical differences between lifestylism and social anarchism due to the fact lifestylism is anti-theoretical and anti-organizational. The best way to analyse the two tendencies is to look at how lifestylism has influenced movements and the problems created by this. Therefore, a final point to note is that lifestylism is not merely a tendency within anarchist thought; it has spread across a number of different campaigns with very negative effects. The environmentalist campaign is one of the campaigns that has been most affected by this creeping lifestylism; the concept of deep ecology has all of its roots within lifestylist thought.
Bookchin was highly critical of the deep ecology movement within America and then across Europe that developed from the 1970s onwards. This movement is closely linked with the lifestyle tendency of anarchism. Bookchin’s personal views which link humanity to the environment have already been shown in the first chapter. The deep ecology movement took a very different view on humanity’s relationship with the environment. The first criticism Bookchin makes of it is its anti-humanistic ideas. They take the view that Humans are the worse possible thing that have happened to the environment and have developed a set of anti-humanistic views to support this (Bookchin, M. 1999:118). Deep ecology supports the idea of biological-egalitarianism as one of two ultimate human norms (Bookchin, M. 1999:98) (Bookchin, 1995a:89) which basically means that humans have no more intrinsic worth than any other creature including flies, beetle and parasites. This concept argues that humans can only kill animals to achieve their vital needs. Vital needs in this sense means survival which leads deep ecology to a point of primitivism. Primitivism argues that humans need to return to a point of basic human needs, which is anti-technological, anti-civilisation and therefore would only sees social interaction as a survival tool. This concept is radically opposed to Bookchin’s anarchism that promotes the need of technology to create an ecological society without human toil (Bookchin, M. 1986a:107), and that argues that social interaction in societies is the only way to achieve freedom. Deep ecology like lifestylism also promotes anti-rational and anti-scientific methods to evaluate its worth with its focus on human intuition to create an ecologically sound society (Bookchin, M. 1995a:97). Human intuition is the second of the two ultimate norms that deep ecology promotes. Bookchin’s critique of this argues that intuitions cannot be measured or even questioned because an intuition is personal to each individual. Bookchin notes his intuitions tell him that the theorists who support this idea are “outrageously wrong” but it doesn’t help to evaluate the worth of their ideas. (Bookchin, M. 1995a:96), and that by blindly following ‘intuitions’ it can lead to fascistic authoritarian practises. If people are not able to question and evaluate an action it can often lead to blind following of an idea which can have dangerous consequences (Bookchin, M. 1995:98). This again is directly linked to the lifestylist anti-theoretical approach in favour of human emotion as a way to move away from capitalism. It is also important to note that self-realization is prominent in deep ecology and lifestylism. Bookchin notes that in deep ecology self-realization means a quasi-religious experience of being able to define yourself. Once again this suggests a liberal notion of people trying to de-fine themselves in the world. Bookchin’s ideas of social ecology support the idea of individuals being connected with the environment, but in a way that supports a fair, free ecological society for all humans and the environment. What should also be noted is that all Bookchin’s ecological work can be measured by science and rational rather than out rightly rejecting scientific methods. This has led Bookchin’s critics to accuse him of scientism (Bookchin, M. 1999:202) which leads onto the issue of mysticism.
Mysticism is another vital aspect for understanding the difference between social anarchism and lifestylism. Mysticism is the word Bookchin uses to describe the entire move away from reason to a spiritual form of anarchism. This includes primitivism, technophobia, anti-reason and anti-theoretical beliefs. This has led to a sort of religious affiliation to anarchism for many lifestylists. Bookchin notes how the deep ecology trend has links to ancient eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism (Bookchin, M. 1996b:100). Bookchin notes how these cultures and religions are being celebrated for their view of the environment, yet these religions were used to exploit mass parts of the peasantry (Bookchin, M. 1996b:105). This contradicts the idea of biological egalitarianism, where all different life forms have the same value. Surely if all humans should have the same intrinsic value then there should be no hierarchy within the human race. These religious tendencies also highlight many more issues in regards to social anarchism. Firstly the growing trend in Taoism is completely opposed to social anarchism. Taoism believes in a social quietism, which has been adapted to the idea that anarchists shouldn’t bother trying to change the social structure. Again what has replaced this is the idea of self-realization that Taoism seems to give people. This again supports Bookchin’s idea that lifestylism has its roots in liberal thought and that people are using lifestylist anarchism to help define their individual personality. Social quietism is also in direct opposition to the idea of anarchists trying to create a fair and free society for all. Anarchism has also been the radical edge of socialist thought and this new trend represents a petty bourgeois self-fulfilment movement. A further issue of the rise of Taoism is that it dumbing down the anarchist movement. Instead of learning science and political theory, anarchists are now encouraged to “Follow the laws of Earth” (Bookchin, M. 1996b:216) and ideas such as “No organization, no programme and no politics” are being promoted (Bookchin, M. 1999:105). These vague statements are influencing people away from rational political activity in favour of a spiritual self-realization quest that lifestylism seems to offer to people.
Not only is lifestylism at complete odds to social anarchism, but by using the same name of anarchism Lifestylist’s have led to the idea that anarchism is purely chaos. Whether it is the cultural terrorism performed by the Black Mask group, or the idea of Temporary Autonomous Zones promoted by Hakim Bey the idea of chaos has also been undoubtedly linked with anarchism. Certainly, anarchism has had a history of insurrectionary action, bomb throwing and involvement in social upheaval, yet historically these have all been for a cause. The Temporary Autonomous Zone is created merely to show They can do it, whether this is a street party, fruitless riot or forest raves there is no greater meaning to it, something which Bey himself notes is the only reason for doing the action (Bookchin, M. 1995b:4). He goes as far as to denounce anarchists who have historically fought for a cause (Bookchin, M. 1995b:4). Anarchism has now become a synonym for chaos, for disorder, anti-organizational, and general criminality, and instead of refuting of this incorrect view the lifestylist trend seems to embrace it fully. It can be said that many people are drawn towards lifestylism exactly for the chaos it promotes.
It is clear to see how in the last 40 years anarchism has been split like never before. Although historically the individualist and socialist tendencies always existed, never before have they been so radically opposed to each other. When reading Bookchin’s critics it is clear to see how much they dislike both him and socialist ideas. One example of this is the so-called anarchist Bob Black and his article ‘Anarchy After Leftism’ (1997b). This piece of work is no more than a personal attack on Bookchin using many false facts and offensive language. This example is not the only one of its kind, but merely the worst and most offensive. Bookchin argues that Anarchists now need to decide which way they want the movement to go, toward a rational movement based in recreating society, or toward a narcissistic deviation of bourgeois society. Unfortunately for Bookchin he felt the need to disassociate himself with anarchism in his last published work The Communalist Project (2002) in favour of calling himself a communalist. He states that he has nothing to do with the lifestylist trend which has taken over the anarchist movement, favouring heroic individualism against the state rather than building a new social movement. However it must also be noted that although Bookchin dissociated himself with anarchism, anarchists can still read his work as specifically anarchist.
The purpose of this research project was to analyse the impact and developments that Murray Bookchin made to Anarchist political theory. Splitting Bookchin’s work into four chapters helped to give an entire reflection of Bookchin’s ideas without missing out any major issues. From this analysis we can draw several conclusions from Bookchin that he felt were major issues.
The first is that Anarchism needs to once again become a theory based in rational thought. Bookchin argued for a long time that the new Lifestylist trend in Anarchism had become anti-rational and anti-theoretical, with this trend growing larger and larger it became the ‘normal’ side of anarchism. When people today think of Anarchism they think of chaos, riots and violence. This new view of Anarchism, Bookchin argued, was due to the rise of lifestylist tendencies which have been explained previously. He argues that if Anarchists seriously want to make a change in society then they need a rational plan rather than just enjoying throwing bricks and breaking windows. He sets out a plan based on the idea of forming study groups and encouraging people to take back power on a localised level. By critiquing irrational elements of the Anarchist movement Bookchin has helped bolster Social Anarchists. This is incredibly important because many Social Anarchists get tarred with the same brush as Lifestylist, and Bookchin highlights the major differences.
The second point is that ecological problems cannot be solved without dealing with social problems. This view, presented in his Social Ecology work, explains that the environment cannot be saved unless we move beyond capitalism. He notes that groups like Earth First and the Deep Ecology movement are not helping save the environment, but are merely individuals using environmentalism as an excuse to ‘find’ themselves. This can be paralleled with lifestylism within Anarchism; both movements are anti-rational, anti-progress and are filled with people trying to ‘find’ themselves. Bookchin’s Social Ecology is one of his most important developments to Anarchist political theory. The completeness of Social Ecology is something that Anarchist theory has been missing. Although many theorists such as Bakunin and Proudhon set out ideas of how Anarchism could function, Bookchin modernises an anarchist society and makes it plausible by today’s situation. In doing this Bookchin brought together social problems and ecological problems together in a rational and progressive theory he gives people an idea of what needs to be done.
The third conclusion that we can draw from Bookchin’s work is that organisation is necessary (Bookchin, M and Biehl, J. 1997:122). Whether it is in pre-revolutionary groups or in his ideal society, Bookchin promotes the idea for non dominating organisation. This sets him apart from other modern anarchists who see any form of organisation as hierarchy and dominance. Again, by promoting the idea of rational organisation Bookchin sets a path forward for Anarchists who are committed to making serious social change. The idea of Libertarian Municipalism also gives Anarchist’s a view of how a modern society could function without domination and exploitation (Bookchin 1986b). Just by promoting Libertarian Municipalism Bookchin helps to argue to against the Lifestylist tendency of Anarchism. By showing how society could function in harmony with the environment he also goes a long way to disprove the anti-humanistic tendencies of the Deep Ecology movement. This are vital to Anarchist political theory because it shows people how things could be. Bookchin is not dreaming up impossible worlds, instead he is showing a possible society as well as highlighting exactly how the transition could happen.
Finally one of Bookchin’s biggest contributions to Anarchist theory is that he made Anarchism accessible to the general public. The way Bookchin modernised and sculpted his theory means that any member of the public can pick up one of his books and understand the key concepts of anarchism. In a sense Bookchin managed to normalise anarchist theory in times were many others anarchists were mystifying it. Bookchin makes clear the exploitative nature of capitalism, whether talking about the environment or people, and explains that this is not necessary. Bookchin’s ideas are explained in simple terms and the evidence suggests he is encouraging people to get involved, one example of this being the localisation of power. Many people have used the term anarchism as a complete rejection of society and civilisation, often putting people off anarchism. Bookchin makes anarchism not only seem viable, but also very necessary and attractive to people who have been alienated and exploited by the current system. This is vital because it can draw support to anarchist ideals, and can lead to people creating pressure for a positive change.
Overall what Bookchin did for the Anarchist movement was to modernise it completely. Bookchin looks at all the practicalities of how an anarchist society could function and formulates rational solutions to the problems. The fact that Bookchin promotes the uses of technology within this society helps people to be able to imagine it. This is vital because, when reading Bookchin’s work, the reader is not met with a utopia that is unreachable by today’s situation. Instead the reader has hesitations answered and, moreover, the transition from capitalism to a new society is explained. Instead of insurrections and violence that put people off Anarchism, Bookchin argues that local people gaining power in a slow process is the best way forward. Bookchin explains the first steps towards this society are small and easily done, encouraging people to be involved. By empowering people on a local level first, the need for mass protest and blood-shed are not glorified or celebrated like other anarchist theorists do. Instead Bookchin is able to reach out to people who feel disempowered and show them a way forward that does not necessarily mean great personal sacrifice. It is a great shame that Bookchin felt the need to disassociate his self with anarchism. With the rise of Social Anarchism across Europe perhaps Bookchin could have been persuaded back. Instead he felt at the time that Anarchism was lost and could not be recovered from the Lifestylist trend that he argued so bitterly against.
A number of Murray Bookchin’s books were published in the same year. To make clear which reference I am talking about I will put an (a) or (b) after the year in the reference.
The full list of books that need differentiating can be found here:
Toward an Ecological Society: 1996a
The Philosophy of Social Ecology: 1996b
Post Scarcity Anarchism 2nd edition: 1986a
Re-Enchanting Humanity:1995a
Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism- An Unbridgeable Chasm: 1995b
A Municipal Statist: 1997a
Anarchy After Leftism: 1997b
Bookchin, M (1986). The Modern Crisis. Philadelphia: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M (1986). Post Scarcity Anarchism. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M (1987). The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Bookchin, M (1990). Remaking Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M. (1992). The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Available: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/ghost2.html. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Bookchin, M (1994). To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936. London: A.K. Press.
Bookchin, M (1995). Re-Enchanting Humanity. England: Cassell.
Bookchin, M. (1995). Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism- An Unbridgeable Chasm. Available: http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Bookchin, M (1996). The Philosophy of Social Ecology. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M (1996). Toward an Ecological Society. San Francisco: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M. and Biehl, J (1997). The Politics of Social Ecology. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M (1998). The Spanish Anarchists. The Heroic Years 1868-1936. London: A.K. Press.
Bookchin, M (1999). Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left. San Francisco: A.K. Press.
Bookchin, M. (2002). The Communalist Project. Harbinger. 3 (1)
Bookchin, M. or Herber, L. (2005). Our Synthetic Environment. Available: http://www.pucsp.br/ecopolitica/documentos/docs_especiais/docs/our_synthetic_environment_Bookchin.pdf. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Bookchin, M (2007). Social Ecology and Communalism. London: A.K. Press.
Bookchin, M. (2013). Libertarian Municipalism: The New Municipal Agenda. Available: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/libmuni.html. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
BBC. (2011). Anti-cuts march: Anger amid the carnival. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12871759. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Black, B. (1997). Anarchy After Leftism. Available: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Black, B. (1997). Murray Bookchin - Municipal Statist. Available: http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/ArchiveMirror/blackOnBkchin.htm. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Biehl, J. (2011). Bookchin Breaks With Anarchism. Available: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/janet-biehl-bookchin-breaks-with-anarchism#fn1. Last accessed 5th Jan 2014.
Freeden, M (2003). Ideology, a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
discoholicmusic
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
theartofmadeline
ellievsbear
turnnoffyourmind
kaledo-art
janainaart