Murray Bookchin

Lab Rat, I've not read it but it's likely to be a big rant against Deep Ecologists, something Bookchin is very good at, not necessarily the best starting point. I'd start with Post Scarcity Anarchism, or the Murray Bookchin Reader.

My considered advice would be to ignore any advice you get from coffeemachine because just about every post he ever puts on here is an attempt to troll.

For what it's worth.... I happen to like a number of folks who associated with Murray during his anarchist phase. At his funeral he didn't want to be remembered as an anarchist.

In regards to some of Murray's writings, he made some substantial contibutions over the years. Even if we can disagree over certain points, the issue of social ecogoly is important.

My recollections of Murray are really more from afar than personal. I recall how Sam Dolgoff felt a bit double crossed by Murray when Sam wrote his "Anarchist Collectives". mainly over the issue of information sharing, And Murray's criticisms of syndicalism (all the while befriending Sam so Murray could write his book) seemed somewhat dishonest.

Murray's rabid anti-syndicalism was a turn-off. During the 1980s and 1990s (early) he seemed to go out of his way to attack syndicalism as if it was the evil incarnate of the anarchist movement.

Yes, but he seems to be saying that once a "hereditary proletariat" becomes established, then the only hope comes from marginalised groups.Would anyone care to try to tie this in with autonomist theory, where groups outside the point of production also contribute to the creation of value- Negri's multitude?

come on catch he asked for someone's opinion, i gave it. Are you saying my assessment of bookchin's essay is wrong, if so how so.

Okay you got me on the lifestylism bit

On the Bob Black thing, one thing you can say for him is he's kick ass for cool sounding quotes:

Or

Somewhat ironically, when Bookchin decided he was not an anarchist anymore he wrote some very flattering things about syndicalism. He also rewrote his own history from the 1970s in which he maintained he was never actually an anarchist -- in spite of the numerous articles he wrote saying he was an anarchist and defending his anarchism from syndicalists and others!

It is a shame he spent the last five years of his live destroying his own legacy. But I hope anarchists are big enough to forgive those last pathetic years and remember his amazing contribution to anarchist thought from the 1960s to the 1990s. While I disagree with some of his arguments, he made overall a positive contribution. Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Toward an Ecological Society and The Spanish Anarchists are all classics.

I would say he was extremely wrong in his rejection of class struggle (mainly because he rejected the working class because his class analysis of "proletariat" was Staliniod/Trotskyist in that he limited it to factory workers). His notion of standing candidates in local elections was reformist nonsense. However, his analysis of hierarchy, ecology and Marxism are spot on.

Anything by Bookchin is worth reading, even when he is wrong!

Iain
An Anarchist FAQ

sam sanchez, true, but i love how bob black then concludes that communists are supportive of the work he describes

I guess I should chip in here, what with me being in Social Ecology London and all...

Obviously I think there are a lot of things that are great about Bookchin's writings. For me he expressed the clearest and most thoughtful libertarian ecological synthesis I've seen.

Reading him attack ecological politics that fail to relate ecological problems to a social/economic context or savage the antihumanism of deep ecology and primitivism makes me feel all tingly downstairs.

His ability to take in great sweeps of history, philosophy, politics and ecology make many of his writings incredibly stimulating reading, despite an occasionally turgid writing style (weirdly some stuff's fantastically written, whilst other stuff is a real chore).

Whatever you think of libertarian municipalism (the name's crap for a start...), it was a solid attempt to look at how a future society might work, looking back at democratic forms through history - and their failings - and suggesting forms that would be ecologically sensitive, non hierarchical and, through the promotion of solidarity and interdependence, lead to a growth in human potential.

The focus of attention on hierarchy and domination as such is surely something we almost take for granted now.

On the downside -

The constant feuding towards the end got tedious and repetitive.

From what I've read he failed to properly articulate his understanding of class. As others have said, his rejection of the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary agent of change does not imply a rejection of class struggle - though he was for a while too enamoured of the 'counter culture'. He did refer to class relations many times, but his stance against a crudely defined syndicalism led him in my eyes to move too far away from the economic sphere towards the social/political.

For a start, for me anyway, the workplace is still the sharp end of class relations and the most naked example of class oppression. Outside the pure economics of what's going on they are the area where most of us experience the order giver/order taker relationship at its clearest.

Clearly focussing solely on this is missing the wider picture, but I can't see how any movement for change can ignore it.

In focusing on what he saw as the overwhelming importance of us seeing ourselves as citizens in a future society (a worker not being a full human being but a particular role that may prelude wider outlooks) he saw economics as something that should be taken into the political sphere.

I disagree. Primmo objections aside, we will have to take part in productive activity. By seating economic decision making solely in the community assembly we would be in danger of losing self management as workers.

I've never quite made up my mind on this. For a start I think there are differences between local politics in the US and the UK. New England town councils seem to be much more ripe for geniune local decision making than ours. On top of this he's not merely advocating people standing as representatives - the point is that local people can grab hold of a nominally democratic organ and claim it for their own, so it becomes a citizens' assembly based on direct democracy.

My gut reaction is against this, but if I'm honest I think a lot of this is my own dogmatic conception of what you're meant to think as an anarchist. Elections bad. Boo.

I can see the possibilities in the creation of a public space. Bookchin makes it quite clear that there has to be an open antagonism with the state, that it can't degenerate into a tactic for liberals who fancy lipservice local democracy.

I think it would only become reformist if it simply became electoralism for its own sake.

Personally I'd be happier with the creation of such 'spaces' autonomously, without the local politicking though.

Bookchin is okay in my book, though he did shoot himself in the foot from time to time. In my opinion social ecology as an idea could have had a much broader appeal if it had been put forward by someone with a bit more common sense. It still could have I suppose, but it needs a better publicist than Bookchin was.

I disagree

Depends on how local the election is.

Bookchin's The Limits of the City (assuming it hasn't been mentioned, I've been skimming) coupled with some of Goodman's thoughts on the subject, are good mental nutrition for imagining new ways of arranging the physical spaces we inhabit, almost aside from the question of how the decisions regarding those spaces are made. As best I recall, anyway, from several years ago.

It's like, so annoying when people don't understand The Truth isn't it? For it is plain for us all to see, as the good reverend used to say in my churchgoing days.