Social Ecology
Oct 10 2005 20:56
Murray Bookchin...Libertarian Municipalism...it just had to be coming!
Is Social Ecology as advocated by Bookchin, but many others included, the logical unification of "Red" and "Green" Anarchisms? A necessary dialectial movement that combines the needs of both apparently divided schools? Or a liberal mishy-mashy cock up that gets us nowhere but putting council candidates forward and siding with Greens?
Love,
Volin
Oct 10 2005 22:57
#2
Volin wrote:
Is Social Ecology as advocated by Bookchin, but many others included, the logical unification of "Red" and "Green" Anarchisms?
There is nothing in "red" anarchism that isn't as green as it needs to be. Freed from the profit motive and economically-forced labour there will be no incentive to destroy the environment.
IMHO 8)
Oct 11 2005 07:20
#3
John. wrote:
There is nothing in "red" anarchism that isn't as green as it needs to be. Freed from the profit motive and economically-forced labour there will be no incentive to destroy the environment.
that is as plausible as saying "there will be no crime in libertarian communist society" 
I guess here is where we would have more in common with jehovas witness pamphlets with such a rosy picture of paradise...
I think the reality is far more complex than that: environmental problems require a high level of understanding of global consequences of our production structures and our culture. Even when freed from a profit motive we need a collective realisation of the impact we have on environment, and i don't think it is wise to assume this as being automatic.
Oct 11 2005 07:21
#4
So the deserts caused by humankind but in the day, were created by the profit motive then. The probable extinct of the wooly mammoth by over hunting was due to forced labour? 
Oct 11 2005 08:38
#5
Jason Cortez wrote:
So the deserts caused by humankind but in the day, were created by the profit motive then. The probable extinct of the wooly mammoth by over hunting was due to forced labour?
No of course not - but that's an anti-"Green" argument. Non-high tech societies still damaged the environment, but because they had almost no scientific understanding of what they were doing, or its possible consequences that sort of thing's bound to happen.
I say "green" meaning generally primitivists and it seems most modern indivualists (crimethinc, insurrectionists, some wombles etc.) who as a common argument say scientific understanding is bad in itself. When in fact it's the only thing (under workers' control) which can prevent and reverse environmental damage.
Oct 11 2005 10:58
#6
Also the history of 'the green movement' has been absolutely fucking dire so it's bad iconography. 
Is much cooler than , which justs looks nimbyish.
Oct 11 2005 12:29
#7
revol68 wrote:
oh come on I think we can all see that there is no necessary connection between Bookchins social ecology and libertarian municipalism.
Absolutely, and I'm reading John Clark's essay on this very topic, but I doubt Murray would be too happy having his municipalism pushed to the back seat (or out the window). One thing that can be said is that despite it not being a necessary part of Social Ecology it is, still, one of the strongest politcal trends within it, no?
John. wrote:
There is nothing in "red" anarchism that isn't as green as it needs to be.
I think it depends on your pespective; social anarchism should always try to work the environment and ecology into its framework (since they affect workers and people), and you can be "red" and at the same time be "green". *Maybe we need to stop differentiating the two approaches?* However, in reality, most class war organisations and anarchists do not put such concerns high up on their list and where they do actually care it's this idea of "well in a libertarian society it will all work out in the end, because capitalism's the main cause of environmental destruction"...the last part's correct, but without a good analysis of both I actually don't think it'll "work out in the end". Social Ecologists seem to be doing somethhing to change this.
Nick Durie wrote:
Also the history of 'the green movement' has been absolutely fucking dire so it's bad iconography.
I disagree! The green movement for conservation and ecological change, though dominated by liberal bastards and then the odd primmo wacko, has had many significant meetings with libertarianism and workers' control. Just read the origins of Social Ecology and you'll see how many anarchists and ecological thinkers have been in unity.
Oct 11 2005 15:10
#8
John. wrote:
I say "green" meaning generally primitivists and it seems most modern indivualists (crimethinc, insurrectionists, some wombles etc.)
That shows you've spent too much time arguing with them, green doesn't necessarily mean "low tech" or mystical bollocks.
Social Ecology and LM are seperate, but the municipalisation of the economy is fairly central to Bookchin's ideas for applying social ecology to society. In other words ending the separation of political and economic control, decentralisation of production where desirable etc.
Oct 11 2005 15:22
#9
greets
John P. Clark has written aninteresting article:
Quote:
John P. ClarkThe Dialectical Social Geography of Élisée Reclus
While Elisée Reclus is still recognized as an important figure in both the history of geography and the history of anarchist political theory, his thought has been given little careful examination in recent times. [1]
available here:
http://raforum.apinc.org/article.php3?id_article=551
sadly i haven't got round to OCR'ing his "On vegetarianism" and "The great kinship" yet, but do have "Anarchy - by an anarchist"
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/blackchip/anarchy_by_an_anarchist.htm
and "evolution and revolution"
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/blackchip/evolution_and_revolution.htm
a more contemporary writer who has interesting things to say is graham purchase, esp his
"anarchism and environmental survival"
see sharp press, 1994 (the copy i have)
mal
Oct 11 2005 15:26
#10
Quote:
municipalisation of the economy
Does Bookchin actually use that phrase?
what a fucking cock!
what the fuck is wrong with good ole communism, or fuck even socialisation of the economy.
Once again it seems ole Bookchin is changing so terminology and passing it off as something more profound!
Oct 11 2005 15:46
#11
Probably 'cos socialisation of the economy could be:
1. nationalisation
2. market socialism
3. syndicalism
4. any other socially owned model where economic decisions aren't taken by society as a whole and are still separate from the political.
I try to use general terms like socialism and communism but I'm also prepared to spend ages arguing about what they mean.
In the US, communism is even more a confusing term than it is here, and what he's proposing is a subset of communism - a strategy for achieving it through municipal politics. You shouldn't be complaining about people using specific terminology, you're as bad as anyone on here.
http://libcom.org/library/municipalization-murray-bookchin
the subtitle of that article is "community ownership of the economy" - he's not being deliberately obfuscatory. Have you ever actually read any of the LM stuff? The one I've linked is a pretty decent overview.
Oct 11 2005 15:58
#12
of yeah cos no one would ever mistake libertarian municipalism for some sort of pish ecomonic system ran by your local council.
municipal swimming pools, golf courses etc.
municipalism doesn't say any more than socialisation and infact i'd hold that it says even less. Atleast socialisation has more militant connatations than bookchins wank. And why are we so fucking hung up on structures that tell us nothing about content. I don't wanna live in a self exploiting municipal democracy, so im sticking to libertarian communism, which denotes both structure and content.
and the subtitle is even fucking worse, community ownership!!!! Ownership? what doe she define the community as, is it everyone in a geographical area? I would accept that post revolution but im not having the abolishment of capitalism watered down by a bunch of green voting coffee shop owners and their liberal ways, and im sorry but Bookchins strategy of running for local councils means exactly that.
Oct 11 2005 16:12
#13
revol68 wrote:
of yeah cos no one would ever mistake libertarian municipalism for some sort of pish ecomonic system ran by your local council.
Didn't say it was a good choice of words, just explained why the decision might have been taken. Too many syllables for me. You're way too hung up on definitions and are ignoring the substance of it.
Quote:
municipalism doesn't say any more than socialisation and infact i'd hold that it says even less. Atleast socialisation has more militant connatations
Not sure about that. Social Democracy's hardly militant is it? Loads of liberals describe themselves as "socialist". They are both more and less specific than each other dependent on context.
Quote:
And why are we so fucking hung up on structures that tell us nothing about content.
Errr, I thought this was about Social Ecology and Libertarian Municipalism - did you forget?
Quote:
im sticking to libertarian communism, which denotes both structure and content.
Me too. Bookchin's stuff is a subset of libcomism though, as are other historical and theoretical trends, your setting it up as if it's a clean break from everything else where as it's clearly not, and not claimed as such. Fucking Trots (at least some of them) call themselves libertarian and communist.
Quote:
and the subtitle is even fucking worse, community ownership!!!! Ownership? what does he define the community as, is it everyone in a geographical area? I would accept that post revolution
That's the idea innit?
Quote:
but im not having the abolishment of capitalism watered down by a bunch of green voting coffee shop owners and their liberal ways, and im sorry but Bookchins strategy of running for local councils means exactly that.
Yes Revol, that's exactly what it means.
Oct 11 2005 17:42
#14
Catch wrote:
John. wrote:
I say "green" meaning generally primitivists and it seems most modern indivualists (crimethinc, insurrectionists, some wombles etc.)
That shows you've spent too much time arguing with them, green doesn't necessarily mean "low tech" or mystical bollocks.
People who call themselves "green anarchists" are pretty much like that. IMO the main difference is just the old communist/individualist one.
Oct 11 2005 19:22
#15
Hi
Some individualists are not Green. The trouble with Green politics is the promotion of the interests of “the environment” above those of the proletariat. The working class’s agenda should not be to live in harmony with nature, but to master it.
Are green measures necessary for our survival? Forgive me for suggesting that those that are already belong to a strictly working class revolutionary agenda and do not require modification by an extra specially environmentalist, conservationist or humanitarian position.
Love
LR
Oct 11 2005 20:21
#16
Lazy Riser wrote:
The working class’s agenda should not be to live in harmony with nature, but to master it.
No it shouldn't. The working class's "agenda" (if a lazily labelled group of individuals can have an agenda) should be to abolish class, then stop humans from fucking things up.
Mastering nature is part of the problem in the first place.
Oct 11 2005 20:24
#17
Hi
And there, comrades, are the positions in sharp relief.
All the best
LR
Oct 11 2005 21:20
#18
John. wrote:
People who call themselves "green anarchists" are pretty much like that. IMO the main difference is just the old communist/individualist one.
Yeah I'd agree with that, hence why that had to put social in front of economy - Lazy's right that anarcho-capitalists and some others aren't really like that. I'd also argue as Jason Cortez did that an anti-tech society might well lead to wood fires, deforestation and extinction of species - doesn't necessarily make it ecological.
I don't think economic and ecological questions should be framed in terms of what a few anarchists think though.
Oct 11 2005 23:37
#19
Hi
Quote:
Lazy's right that anarcho-capitalists and some others aren't really like that.
Serves me right for mincing my words, or are you just baiting me? I was thinking Tucker rather than Rand there.
However, you have reminded me that, like veganism, environmentalism is not necessarily incompatible with anarcho-capitalism (as if capitalism without a state is feasible). There is certainly a profitable market in providing for the life-style choices of the eco-savvy consumer.
Witness the tribulations of life-sciences firms and other bunny manglers, the market has decided their fate in the interests of our furry friends.
Love
LR
Oct 11 2005 23:48
#20
Lazy Riser wrote:
The working class’s agenda should not be to live in harmony with nature, but to master it.
That's absolutely meaningless terminology. The two are both meaningless in themselves, and any meaning they do have aren't contradictory anyway.
Oct 12 2005 00:14
#21
Hi
Quote:
any meaning they do have aren't contradictory anyway.
I could be talked into that. But even if they are provably contradictory, the planet exists only to serve our desires. There’s nothing wrong with sacrificing biodiversity for the sake of proletarian convenience.
Love
LR
Oct 12 2005 07:07
#22
Lazy Riser wrote:
But even if they are provably contradictory, the planet exists only to serve our desires. There’s nothing wrong with sacrificing biodiversity for the sake of proletarian convenience.
i guess next thing you will tell us that God told you so 
Oct 12 2005 07:42
#23
Lazy Riser wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with sacrificing biodiversity for the sake of proletarian convenience.
Unless proletarian convenience depends on biodiversity, which it does. Some species of bee are at risk at the moment. No food for us if they fuck off, and I don't mean honey.
And aren't our bananas nice and yellow and seedless and bendy? Fuck, they've got no genetic diversity because they have to be grown from cuttings, and the only thing stopping them from being wiped out by fungal and pest attacks is chemical useage so high that Del Monte growers' kids are being born without hands or feet.
Quote:
There is certainly a profitable market in providing for the life-style choices of the eco-savvy consumer.
That's very true though.
Oct 12 2005 08:39
#24
Hi
Quote:
they've got no genetic diversity because they have to be grown from cuttings, and the only thing stopping them from being wiped out by fungal and pest attacks is chemical useage
Skunk growers nightmare. I do find that increasing my chemical intake works a treat though. God told me so.
Quote:
proletarian convenience depends on biodiversity
Just a little, not a lot. The fact is that biodiversity should suffer for us, not the other way around.
Love
LR
Oct 12 2005 09:02
#25
Lazy Riser wrote:
Just a little, not a lot. The fact is that biodiversity should suffer for us, not the other way around.
Love
LR
i pretty much agree with what you'e said in this thread, i definately think this planet and all it's life forms are here to be used by us, the earth is our home, our factory, and our park
but, while i do think we can survive reductions in biodiversity, i'm not sure it is ever to our benefit in the long term
Oct 12 2005 10:36
#26
Lazy Riser wrote:
The trouble with Green politics is the promotion of the interests of “the environment” above those of the proletariat.
No, that's liberal green politics (e.g. flat taxes on fuel), and not even all Green Party people agree with that.
Class struggle anarchism that is green is based on the idea that there is no conflict between the overall interests of 'the environment' and of 'the working class'.
Oct 12 2005 10:50
#27
Hi
Quote:
there is no conflict between the overall interests of 'the environment' and of 'the working class'
Ghia-worshiping-workerists are bound to say that, and it might even be true for all the difference it makes. The liberalism here is in defending specifically green perspectives by uniting them with class interests after the fact. Rather, we’d be better off computing rational courses of action to guarantee environmental sustainability without regard to the interests of competing species. If all the rats in Streatham spontaneously combusted, that would be a cause for celebration, not heartache.
And don’t get me started on the dolphins, dirty tarts.
Love
LR
Oct 12 2005 11:00
#28
You do have a point and I salute your intellectual courage in saying so, nonetheless the difference between your approach and Lazlo's on this issue specifically is emphasis, not substance.
Amen to the death of rats by the way, and fucking beetles too.
Oct 12 2005 12:31
#29
Hi
Quote:
the difference between your approach and Lazlo's on this issue specifically is emphasis, not substance.
Not if you're a cow it's not.
Love
LR
Oct 12 2005 12:44
#30
Nick Durie wrote:
Amen to the death of rats by the way, and fucking beetles too.
If all rats and beetles disappeared tomorrow we'd be totally screwed. Rats are a parasite, but without them we'd be drowning in far more filth.
"The liberalism here is in defending specifically green perspectives by uniting them with class interests after the fact."
Well you're simply repeating the stance that I've already rejected -- I don't see any issues worth fighting over as 'specifically' green'. You're mistaking 'greeness' for a special interest group, and I've already said that moving towards stronger ecology is not different to moving towards working class power. Are you arguing with absent liberals?
oh come on I think we can all see that there is no necessary connection between Bookchins social ecology and libertarian municipalism.
In terms of ecological theory I think Bookchin is sound. Post Scarcity Anarchism is aight!