Is Libertarian
Municipalism a Utopia or a Strategy? by Jonathan Mansell
In The Next Revolution Bookchin describes a
utopia in which solidarity replaces egoism (P.20), scarcity is abolished and an
ethos of complementarity becomes the norm (P.85). This utopia, however,
is not postponed to the distant future, but is rather immanent within a
revolutionary strategy of the present whereby ‘means and ends meet in a
rational unity’ (P.85). Libertarian Municipalism thus envisages a
utopia-strategy of dual power by which the lived (participatory) politics of
utopia increasingly marginalises the reified (representative) politics of the
state.
There is,
however, a basic unacknowledged tension between utopia and strategy.
Bookchin’s utopian imaginary involves a ‘transcendence of particular class
being(s)’ (P.20) based upon the immanent bringing into existence of a
post-scarcity society in which economic antagonisms are evaporated. The
implication for strategy is, therefore, an abandonment of class ‘specific
interests’ in favour of the general human interest in averting ecological
catastrophe (P.91). The utopia replaces the political and as such we lose
any sense of fundamental struggle between opposed social interests across the
complex terrain of capitalist social relations. Ultimately, therefore,
Bookchin’s utopia-strategy seems somewhat reliant on processes of ‘character
building’ to forge a new communalist humanity, in which ‘hopefully such
prejudices as parochialism will increasingly be replaced by generous
co-operation’ (P.90). Certainly Bookchin touches many important
dimensions of a socialism for the twenty-first century. However, ongoing
experiences from Venezuela to Greece demonstrate that the utopian future cannot
simply be created, but must instead be won through strategic struggle within
the conditions of the dystopian present.
Politics under ecological catastrophe? by Ezgi Pinar.
The eco-communalist utopia of Bookchin,
which is expected to be realized through libertarian municipalism, is suggested
as a way to replace the grow-or-die market economy. Industrial development has
progressed so much that the problem now is not so much the exploitation of
labour, but the over- and misuse of natural resources. However, we should still
question his premise that ‘the historic domination of human by human has been
extended outward from society into the natural world’ (P.31) with respect to
its political outcomes. Are we really no more a hierarchical capitalist society?
Do we all come together ‘irrespective of our status’ to establish an ‘ecological
society’ (P.91)?
It is also questionable what the space is
and who are the actors in politics if we are in such a state of emergency. The
simple political categories at least for existing society, such as with whom we
are in solidarity and act together and also against whom or what, are being lost
under the heading of ‘general social interest’. The concept of ‘general
interest’ is clearly problematic. Equally, how can such a general interest be
realized? What forces the market economy either to grow or die should also be
put on the table, so that we can clearly see the obstacles in the establishment
of an eco-communalist utopia as alternative to ecological catastrophe.
The end of the working class in view of ‘ecological catastrophe’? - Kayhan Valadbaygi
Bookchin’s
utopia-strategy for a future Left rests upon the assumption that industrial
workers are no longer revolutionary agents. ‘The industrial working class is
now dwindling in numbers and is steadily losing its traditional identity as a
class’ (PP.4-5). It sees itself recast into ‘a petty bourgeois stratum’ by today’s
capitalism. The myth of working class, according to Bookchin, is
based on a misleading concept, which sees workers not as human beings but as
simply the embodiment of social labour (P.158). The success of the Left is
therefore possible if ‘it addresses the public as a “people” rather than as a
class’ (P.176). By focusing on the interclass ecological catastrophe created by
the capitalist grow-or-die- imperative as ‘a general interest’, the Left could
engender new politics with the effect of toppling the capitalist system.
Even if we concur with Bookchin that the labour movement
is dead, his argument for interclass interest is unlikely to galvanize the
masses. Apart from the principle of ‘reaching out to the people’, long the
dogma of the European centre left, the idea that ecological catastrophe will be
the focal point of the next revolution is euro-centric. The real
question is whether a class-oriented political system which characterises
itself as being against the global exploitation of workers, cognisant of the
increasing gap between the rich and poor and concerned with the increasing rate
of poverty across the global population is considered by the masses to be ‘café
politics advanced by many radicals today’ or a political message with resonance
throughout the global public. It is, in my view, highly unlikely that the Left
will be able to develop the political and organisational capacity necessary to
offer a coherent message to society with its primary basis being ecological catastrophe.
Is Marxism inevitably class reductionist? – Gorkem Altinors.
Murray
Bookchin's utopian idea based on his conceptualisation of ‘libertarian
municipalism’ is very central in his recently published book The Next Revolution. The book appears to
be a political one with a strong emphasis on urban struggles. For instance he
points out that even though capitalism appropriates pre-capitalist institutions
and symbiotically lives with them, it has already reached the periphery of
cities and non-urban areas with shopping centres and modern factories (P.4).
Therefore today's class conflicts cannot be limited to only the factory or
workspace. Rather, they have emerged in urban struggles as Bookchin exemplifies
with specific examples from France, Russia and Spain (P.55). This strong claim
is undoubtedly a very plausible one and is embedded in both anarchist and Marxist
theories. He rejects, however, the focus on class. According to Bookchin, Marxism
makes two mistakes by vigorously highlighting the working class. First it does
not take the petty-bourgeois elements of salaried white-collar workers into
account separately from industrial workers. Second, it overlooks that while the
service economy is booming, the number of industrial workers has been
decreasing (P.158).
It seems
to me unfair to blame the whole Marxian thought for class reductionism, because
there are numerous Marxist thinkers (such as Gramsci and his concept of
‘hegemony’), who conceptualise class in much more complex ways than Bookchin
attributes to Marxism in general. The reason that such criticisms come from
Bookchin might be his overemphasis on the state and its evil role in
reproducing authority. Although Bookchin gives an outstandingly detailed
blueprint of the political side of ‘libertarian municipalism’, the economic
aspects of this utopia seem rather weakly articulated.
What
about production? – Andreas Bieler
Murray Bookchin is
very detailed in his institutional outline of libertarian municipalism and the
way these popular, direct democratic assemblies are linked up in larger
confederal structures (e.g. P.40). Although he recognises the expansive nature
of capitalism as the root of social and ecological problems (P.6, P.57 and
P.166), he says rather little about how the economy should be organised
alternatively. He regularly refers to the ‘confederated municipalisation of the
economy’ and contrasts this with the nationalisation of production as well as a
production system based on workers’ control. ‘Confederalism as a principle of
social organization reaches its fullest development’, he writes, ‘when the
economy itself is confederalized by placing local farms, factories, and other
needed enterprises in local municipal hands; that is, when a community, however
large or small, begins to manage its own economic resources in an interlinked
network with other communities’ (P.76). He has great hopes for the
civilizational implications of such an economy in the production of a general
interest (P.91), but not enough thought is given on how to create such a system
and how more precisely to organise it.
His general
account of rational beings and a commitment to the ‘enlightenment programme’
based on education, make him overlook the potential of conflicts and struggle
involved in changing the current production system (P.101). There is a strong
focus on the importance of fighting against statism and state structures of any
kind, but the transition in the economic sphere towards a municipal economy
seems to be the result of rational reflection by educated, enlightened human
beings.
Does Bookchin over-estimate the possibilities of human rationality? – Pei May Lee
While
Bookchin criticises Marx for being overly focused on the working class (P.158),
he himself seems to focus overwhelmingly on the absolute power of the state,
without any consideration of other actors in the global system. This is a
problem, because since the triumph of neoliberalism and associated processes of
globalisation beginning in the 1970s, state power has been deeply
undermined. As such, non-state actors particularly multinational
companies and transnational agencies should be given at least some
consideration in this book.
The
positive dimensions of Bookchin’s argument are perhaps more convincing, in
particular his account of participation in popular assemblies.
Acknowledging the practicality that not ‘everyone can, will, or even wants to
attend popular assemblies’ (P.51) Bookchin believes the fundamental thing is to
preserve the spirit of true democracy by ensuring ‘the door of the assemblies
remain open for all who wish to attend and participate’ (P.54). Bookchin
should be commended on his great efforts to conceive of a rational model of
‘egalitarian and directly democratic ecological society’ (P.XI). However,
other practical questions are left unanswered, for example: does everyone have
adequate knowledge or experience to participate in every particular
decision-making process? Bookchin appears to be perhaps overly optimistic
about our rational capacities, and does not adequately acknowledge that in many
cases citizens would vote for policies which seem to favour them at the time
without considering the greater consequences in the long run. Moreover, I
am curious to know what would follow after a successful revolution? Would
people be purely generous and the world be purely co-operative, or would new
divisions emerge that lead to a new fragmentation?
Gorkem
Altinors
is PhD candidate at the School of Politics and International Relations and
member of the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ) at the
University of Nottingham.
Andreas
Bieler
is Professor of Political Economy and Co-Director of the Centre for the Study
of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ) at Nottingham University.
Pei
May Lee
is first year Doctoral Researcher in the School of Politics and International
Relations and member of the Centre for the Study of Social and Global
Justice (CSSGJ) at The University Nottingham.
Jon Mansell recently completed his PhD on
Displacement and the history of international theory at the University of
Nottingham.
Ezgi Pinar is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of
Political Sciences at Istanbul University. She was a Visiting Research Fellow
at CSSGJ from January to July 2015.
Kayhan Valadbaygi is MA student in
International Relations and member of the Centre for the Study of Social
and Global Justice (CSSGJ) at the University of Nottingham.
This post was first published on the Progress in Political Economy blog at Sydney University.
This post was first published on the Progress in Political Economy blog at Sydney University.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!