{"id":2136,"date":"2012-05-27T20:24:56","date_gmt":"2012-05-28T00:24:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=2136"},"modified":"2012-05-27T21:10:12","modified_gmt":"2012-05-28T01:10:12","slug":"murray-bookchins-rejection-of-anarchism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=2136","title":{"rendered":"Murray Bookchin’s “Rejection” of “Anarchism”"},"content":{"rendered":"

in a 2002 essay he called The Communalist Project<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

By the same token, anarchism\u2014which, I believe, represents in its authentic<\/em> form a highly individualistic outlook that fosters a radically unfettered lifestyle, often as a substitute for mass action\u2014is far better suited to articulate a Proudhonian single-family peasant and craft world than a modern urban and industrial environment. I myself once used this political label, but further thought has obliged me to conclude that, its often-refreshing aphorisms and insights notwithstanding, it is simply not a social theory. Its foremost theorists celebrate its seeming openness to eclecticism and the liberatory effects of \u201cparadox\u201d or even \u201ccontradiction,\u201d to use Proudhonian hyperbole. Accordingly, and without prejudice to the earnestness of many anarchistic practices, a case can made that many of the ideas of social and economic reconstruction that in the past have been advanced in the name of \u201canarchy\u201d were often drawn from Marxism (including my own concept of \u201cpost-scarcity,\u201d which understandably infuriated many anarchists who read my essays on the subject). Regrettably, the use of socialistic terms has often prevented anarchists from telling us or even understanding clearly what<\/em> they are: individualists whose concepts of autonomy originate in a strong commitment to personal<\/em> liberty rather than to social<\/em> freedom, or socialists committed to a structured, institutionalized, and responsible form of social organization. Anarchism\u2019s idea of self-regulation (auto nomos<\/em>) led to a radical celebration of Nietzsche\u2019s all-absorbing will. Indeed the history of this \u201cideology\u201d is peppered with idiosyncratic acts of defiance that verge on the eccentric, which not surprisingly have attracted many young people and aesthetes.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

As for anarchism, Bakunin expressed the typical view of its adherents in 1871 when he wrote that the new social order could be created \u201conly through the development and organization of the nonpolitical or antipolitical social power of the working class in city and country,\u201d thereby rejecting with characteristic inconsistency the very municipal politics which he sanctioned in Italy around the same year. Accordingly, anarchists have long regarded every government<\/em> as a state<\/em> and condemned it accordingly\u2014a view that is a recipe for the elimination of any<\/em> organized social life whatever. While the state<\/em> is the instrument by which an oppressive<\/em> and exploitative<\/em> class regulates and coercively controls the behavior of an exploited class by a ruling class, a government<\/em>\u2014or better still, a polity<\/em>\u2014is an ensemble of institutions designed to deal with the problems of consociational life in an orderly and hopefully fair manner. Every institutionalized association that constitutes a system for handling public affairs\u2014with or without the presence of a state\u2014is necessarily<\/em> a government. By contrast, every state, although necessarily a form of government, is a force for class repression and control. Annoying as it must seem to Marxists and anarchist alike, the cry for a constitution<\/em>, for a responsible and a responsive government, and even for law<\/em> or nomos<\/em> has been clearly articulated\u2014and committed to print!\u2014by the oppressed for centuries against the capricious rule exercised by monarchs, nobles, and bureaucrats. The libertarian opposition to law, not to speak of government as such, has been as silly as the image of a snake swallowing its tail. What remains in the end is nothing but a retinal afterimage that has no existential reality.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

The choice of the term Communalism<\/em> to encompass the philosophical, historical, political, and organizational components of a socialism for the twenty-first century has not been a flippant one. The word originated in the Paris Commune of 1871, when the armed people of the French capital raised barricades not only to defend the city council of Paris and its administrative substructures but also to create a nationwide confederation of cities and towns to replace the republican nation-state. Communalism as an ideology is not sullied by the individualism and the often explicit antirationalism of anarchism; nor does it carry the historical burden of Marxism\u2019s authoritarianism as embodied in Bolshevism. It does not focus on the factory as its principal social arena or on the industrial proletariat as its main historical agent; and it does not reduce the free community of the future to a fanciful medieval village. Its most important goal is clearly spelled out in a conventional dictionary definition: Communalism, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language<\/em>, is \u201da theory or system of government in which virtually autonomous local communities are loosely bound in a federation.\u201d<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Finally, Communalism, in contrast to anarchism, decidedly calls for decision-making by majority voting as the only equitable way for a large number of people to make decisions. Authentic anarchists claim that this principle\u2014the \u201crule\u201d of the minority by the majority\u2014is authoritarian and propose instead to make decisions by consensus. Consensus, in which single individuals can veto majority decisions, threatens to abolish society as such<\/em>. A free society is not one in which its members, like Homer\u2019s lotus-eaters, live in a state of bliss without memory, temptation, or knowledge. Like it or not, humanity has eaten of the fruit of knowledge, and its memories are laden with history and experience. In a lived mode of freedom\u2014contrary to mere caf\u00e9 chatter\u2014the rights of minorities to express their dissenting views will always be protected as fully as the rights of majorities. Any abridgements of those rights would be instantly corrected by the community\u2014hopefully gently, but if unavoidable, forcefully\u2014lest social life collapse into sheer chaos. Indeed, the views of a minority would be treasured as potential source of new insights and nascent truths that, if abridged, would deny society the sources of creativity and developmental advances\u2014for new ideas generally emerge from inspired minorities that gradually gain the centrality they deserve at a given time and place\u2014until, again, they too are challenged as the conventional wisdom of a period that is beginning to pass away and requires new (minority) views to replace frozen orthodoxies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But compare Bookchin’s earlier essay titled What is Communalism? The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism<\/em><\/a>, written when he still called himself an anarchist:<\/p>\n

How, then, would society make dynamic collective<\/span> decisions about public affairs, aside from mere individual contracts? The only collective alternative to majority voting as a means of decision-making that is commonly presented is the practice of consensus. Indeed, consensus has even been mystified by avowed \"anarcho-primitivists,\" who consider Ice Age and contemporary \"primitive\" or \"primal\" peoples to constitute the apogee of human social and psychic attainment. I do not deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with one another. But to examine consensus in practical terms, my own experience has shown me that when larger groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly of people can attain is adopted -- precisely because everyone<\/span> must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue. More disturbingly, I have found that it permits an insidious authoritarianism and gross manipulations -- even when used in the name of autonomy or<\/span> freedom.<\/tt><\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

If consensus could be achieved without<\/span> compulsion of dissenters, a process that is feasible in small groups, who could possibly oppose it as a decision-making process? But to reduce a libertarian ideal to the unconditional right of a minority -- let alone a \"minority of one\" -- to abort<\/span> a decision by a \"collection of individuals\" is to stifle the dialectic of ideas that thrives on opposition, confrontation and, yes, decisions with which everyone need not agree and should<\/span> not agree, lest society become an ideological cemetery. Which is not to deny dissenters every opportunity to reverse majority decisions by unimpaired discussion and advocacy.<\/tt><\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n


\n<\/tt><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

in a 2002 essay he called The Communalist Project: By the same token, anarchism\u2014which, I believe, represents in its authentic form a highly individualistic outlook that fosters a radically unfettered lifestyle, often as a substitute for mass action\u2014is far better suited to articulate a Proudhonian single-family peasant and craft world than a modern urban and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2136"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2136\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2138,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2136\/revisions\/2138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}