Murray Bookchin and Communalism?

[MortyMingledon]

I've been doing some reading around online of some of Murray Bookchin's works. So far it seems like he had some great ideas relating to the relationship between ecological and social domination, but I know he broke with anarchism later in his life. What is your take on his newer political theory, Communalism? As far as I can see it is just a from of socialist anarchism which attempts to co-operate with the current bourgeois representative democracy in order to bring about libertarian communism (while I believe voting is mostly wasted time and effort). Thoughts?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

He can hardly even be considered a leftist at the end of his life. He supported the Libertarian Party. He upheld individual liberty as his guiding principle. We can see where that position has led to in the "Libertarian" movement, with Rand Paul not that long ago claiming that business/restaurant owners should have the liberty to discriminate against clients and refuse them service based on any prejudice they happen to have.

[Tim Finnegan]

He can hardly even be considered a leftist now. He supports the Libertarian Party.
He's been dead for five years. Are you sure you have the right guy? :confused:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

He's been dead for five years. Are you sure you have the right guy? :confused:

oops, my bad. Just change the tense and the point still stands.

[Jose Gracchus]

He can hardly even be considered a leftist at the end of his life. He supported the Libertarian Party. He upheld individual liberty as his guiding principle. We can see where that position has led to in the "Libertarian" movement, with Rand Paul not that long ago claiming that business/restaurant owners should have the liberty to discriminate against clients and refuse them service based on any prejudice they happen to have.

I've never heard this. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Given his background and having read some of his books, I find it hard to believe.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I've never heard this. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Given his background and having read some of his books, I find it hard to believe.

Indeed. One thing that struck me about his work was his critique of the more individualistic side of anarchism and emphasis on structure and even discipline of a sort. Perhaps Fly Pan Dulce was thinking of Murray Rothbard, one of the more well-known proponents of "anarcho"-capitalism.

[Gorilla]

Bookchin told someone in 1976 that if he voted, he'd vote Libertarian.

There's a YouTube video of him addressing a LP conference in what looks like the 70s or early 80s.

Don't know about the Civil Rights Act thing, although not really anything would surprise me about Bookchin.

[DaringMehring]

To be fair, the Libertarian Party was more up in the air politically and open to left-libertarians in those days. Not that I know for a fact that was Bookchin's angle, just saying.

[hatzel]

Bookchin told someone in 1976 that if he voted, he'd vote Libertarian.I don't know if that fits in entirely with FPD's claims that he supported the Libertarian party...though given his subsequent advocacy of the use of candidates in elections and the like 'in the mean time', it seems likely he would hold the Libertarian party to be more desirable than the Republicans or the Democrats, if these were the only options...

Still, despite all that, he did say plenty of decent stuff that's worth taking into consideration. Maybe not the whole Communalist ideology (though I hardly consider it abhorrent), but many of his more philosophical points are well worth considering :)

[Gorilla]

To be fair, the Libertarian Party was more up in the air politically and open to left-libertarians in those days. Not that I know for a fact that was Bookchin's angle, just saying.

Yeah, I think this was back when Dana Rohrabacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher) still considered himself a revolutionary anarchist. Lolz.

[RED DAVE]

Having known Murray personally, I would say that following: (1) he was somewhat politically inconsistent and unstable; (b) during the 60s, He was an active participant in the civil rights movement on the local level in New York.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, I think this was back when Dana Rohrabacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher) still considered himself a revolutionary anarchist. Lolz.

He was always a right-wing [propetarian] libertarian.

[renzo_novatore]

He can hardly even be considered a leftist at the end of his life. He supported the Libertarian Party. He upheld individual liberty as his guiding principle. We can see where that position has led to in the "Libertarian" movement, with Rand Paul not that long ago claiming that business/restaurant owners should have the liberty to discriminate against clients and refuse them service based on any prejudice they happen to have.

Wow. Just wow.

First off, there's a difference between bourgeois individualism and what I would call revolutionary individualism. Just because you see individual liberty as a good thing, doesn't make you a libertarian/capitalist. In my opinion, as was Bookchin's opinion when he was an anarchist, capitalism can't provide individual liberty, only socialism can.

And then you say that at the end of his life he was a libertarian/individualist/capitalist? Like rand paul?!!? Ever read what he had to say about lifestyle anarchism and social anarchism? Towards the end of his life, bookchin was vehemently AGAINST the notion of individual liberty. I mean, that's the reason why he stopped being an anarchist - he viewed it as being too individualistic. He even said that Paul Goodman was too individualistic and called Goodman an anarcho-capitalist. I mean, I'd love for you to tell Bob Black that Bookchin was an individualist towards the end of his life!

This is a guilt by association type of error. Bookchin associated with the libertarian party, rand paul is associated with the libertarian party, therefore murray bookchin advocates the exact same thing that rand paul does. Oh yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm). Murray Bookchin, by the way, was kicked out of Murray Rothbard's apartment. He associated with the Libertarian party as did Karl Hess. Karl Hess who was an anarchist (not an anarcho-capitalist - he was a fan of people like Emma Goldman). I mean Bookchin associated with the Libertarian party when the Libertarian party was trying to appeal to the left (i mean, this was why they stole the word libertarian from the left). I'd also like to point out that Bookchin was probably associated with the libertarian party because Karl Hess was and Karl Hess was into the alternative technology thing as was Bookchin. So, yeah, Bookchin was definitely definitely definitely not a capitalist/libertarian.

Anyways, back to the topic, I'm reading Post-Scarcity anarchism and I'm pretty impressed by it. With his later ideas, from what little I know of them, it seems to me that his communalism was pretty reminiscent of platformism - and probably scared anarchists in the same way that platformists did. Like for instance Bookchin wanted small communes that would be directly democratically controlled, federating together - the thing that makes this different from anarchism is the fact that each of these communes would have a monopoly on force in a given area of land, which was max weber's definition of a state. To me, that's a bit scary. I mean, could you imagine in the southern united states if some hicks were directly and democratically in control of their small towns and having a monopoly on force? I don't know, if I were black, I'd be pretty scared. I personally prefer, as did Kropotkin, free agreement.

[Kibbutznik]

He can hardly even be considered a leftist at the end of his life. He supported the Libertarian Party. He upheld individual liberty as his guiding principle. We can see where that position has led to in the "Libertarian" movement, with Rand Paul not that long ago claiming that business/restaurant owners should have the liberty to discriminate against clients and refuse them service based on any prejudice they happen to have.
I'd like to know where you heard that, because all of his biographies, including those written by his partner, Janet Biehl, indicate his continued commitment to libertarian socialism til' the very day he died. Hell, there's an interview on Youtube from just a year before his death where he's still his cantankerous, leftist self.

[x359594]

Having known Murray personally, I would say that following: (1) he was somewhat politically inconsistent and unstable...

That's true Dave. Especially toward the end of his life; for example, he claimed that he was never an anarchist!

His later writings, say from around 2000, seemed confused and regressive to me. But earlier works are thought provoking and useful.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'd like to know where you heard that, because all of his biographies, including those written by his partner, Janet Biehl, indicate his continued commitment to libertarian socialism til' the very day he died. Hell, there's an interview on Youtube from just a year before his death where he's still his cantankerous, leftist self.

RY1l5KcoleE

[chegitz guevara]

http://kasamaproject.org/2008/01/31/lessons-of-being-a-bookchinite/

Good article on the Bookchin cult.

[black magick hustla]

he became nutty and a fruit at the end of his life

[Jose Gracchus]

After Ely's pitiful showing re. his article on Kronstadt, here, I'm kind of skeptical of Kasama. Nevertheless, still thought-provoking and a lesson as to the concerns of having tiny radical circles around "the great thinker".

[Gorilla]

he became nutty and a fruit at the end of his life

The end of Murray Bookchin's life: ca. 1967-2005.

[Jose Gracchus]

RY1l5KcoleE

This kind of low-rent guilt-by-association arguments really grill me where we have "revolutionaries" on this forum who support political lines that were shared by CPUSA figures who gleefully ratted on the SWP to HUAC, where they gleefully meet with Achmedinejad's government, put up laughable art of Muammar el-Gaddhafi as [literally] a knight in shining armor against Western undead leaders...and I'm supposed to recoil in shock horror! because Murray Bookchin gave a talk to the Libertarian Party before it become a fully functioning Misean organization? Thanks, but no thanks. I think he had some useful things to write. Some poor, utopian, and insufficient in my view, but useful things as well.

[HEAD ICE]

http://kasamaproject.org/2008/01/31/lessons-of-being-a-bookchinite/

Good article on the Bookchin cult.

I have noticed a pattern in your posts about political sects you don't like. Do you denounce every and all groups you don't like as "cults"? You have made some dubious charges in the past but nothing at all in that link is even close to cult like behavior. It is clear that you only use "cult" as a slur rather than to make any meaningful statement.

[Kibbutznik]

The end of Murray Bookchin's life: ca. 1967-2005.
His personal character has very little bearing on the quality of his scholarship.

[chegitz guevara]

I have noticed a pattern in your posts about political sects you don't like. Do you denounce every and all groups you don't like as "cults"? You have made some dubious charges in the past but nothing at all in that link is even close to cult like behavior. It is clear that you only use "cult" as a slur rather than to make any meaningful statement.

No, I just denounces the ones as cults that turn out to be cults. Sadly, the revolutionary left is especially vulnerable to this type of degeneration, and a disproportionate number of our movement is composed of cults or cult-like organizations.

In regards to Bookchin, the link was quite up front about how disagreement with Bookchin meant leaving his group. If you don't have the freedom to question your leader or your organization, you're in a cult.

[HEAD ICE]

No, I just denounces the ones as cults that turn out to be cults. Sadly, the revolutionary left is especially vulnerable to this type of degeneration, and a disproportionate number of our movement is composed of cults or cult-like organizations.

In regards to Bookchin, the link was quite up front about how disagreement with Bookchin meant leaving his group. If you don't have the freedom to question your leader or your organization, you're in a cult.

lol. Ok so he was a passive aggressive fellow with a big ego. Big deal. Don't see how that makes him a cult leader.

[RED DAVE]

If you don't have the freedom to question your leader or your organization, you're in a cult.
lol. Ok so was a passive aggressive fellow with a big ego. Big deal. Don't see how that makes him a cult leader.Read what CG posted. When you can't question inside your organization, then you're in a cult.

By the way, I don't think the US is particularly prone to them. The only genuine cults that I have ever come across are the Labor Committee, the Sparts and the RCP. Many groups revolve around a leader, but that doesn't make for a cult. For instance the ISL was very much centered around Max Shactman, but that didn't make it a cult. There was constant, healthy opposition to Shactman within the group.

[B]RED DAVE

[Gorilla]

There may have been a small cult of personality around Bookchin but to call it a cult tout court is vastly undertestimating his complete organizational ineptitude and self-isolating tendencies. I don't think it's very fair. Blame the dude for playing cantankerous old lefty who Tells Hard Truths About Marxism for liberal applause, but don't blame him for shit he didn't do.

[chegitz guevara]

You over estimate the organizational necessity of a cult. They don't have to be brilliant. They just need willing followers.

Too many comrades dismiss cults on the left, either taking them seriously because they may have made some valuable contributions (as if the People's Temple hadn't) or because they just don't believe that it's possible.

[RED DAVE]

You over estimate the organizational necessity of a cult. They don't have to be brilliant. They just need willing followers.

Too many comrades dismiss cults on the left, either taking them seriously because they may have made some valuable contributions (as if the People's Temple hadn't) or because they just don't believe that it's possible.Could you give some examples and what their "valuable contributions" were/are?

RED DAVE

[caramelpence]

Could you give some examples and what their "valuable contributions" were/are?

RED DAVE

In all honesty, I've always been impressed by the Sparts' articles - aside from the fact that they seemingly find it necessary to attack the positions of multiple other organizations in a highly belligerent fashion in a lot of the articles they put out, and aside from their tendency to conclude analysis with slogans relating to the need to defend workers' states and their other political priorities, their articles often include serious Marxist social and historical analysis. I see this as a positive because other organizations (especially the IST tradition) have a marked tendency to produce theoretically impoverished journalism that is inadequate at best and grossly patronizing at worst. For example, which other organizations produce detailed analyses of events in Asian history like the Meiji restoration (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/58/meiji.html)? Or articles that carefully trace the current structure of the Chinese economy (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2000/China-743.htm)? These and other articles speak to a level of seriousness and political commitment on the part of the ICL-FI that is to be admired.

Then again, I'm personally hesitant about seeing the Sparts as a cult. They certainly don't glorify a leader, however unhealthy some of their internal practices and agitation techniques might be.

[Kibbutznik]

Personally it doesn't matter so much to me whether there was a Bookchin cult or not. Cultish behavior by those around him doesn't have much bearing on the quality of ideas he expressed.

This thread is about Bookchin's communalism, not about his cult. Since he is dead, I don’t see what is gained by discussion over Bookchin's divisive or cultish nature.