Murray Bookchin's "Communalism" Philosophy

[Magón]

So recently a roommate of mine bought the book, Social Ecology and Communalism by Murray Bookchin, a former Anarchist who became disillusioned with it, and instead created what he called "Communalism", an idea he theorized that fell under Libertarian Socialism, and is for some either just branching off Anarchism, or completely leaves it behind for something new and fresh.

Just for you who don't know, or aren't familiar, there's a quick snip.

And here are the Wikipedia links to get more on either.

Murray Bookchin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin).

Communalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_(political_philosophy)).

Anyway, I took a bit of a look at the book, not really familiar or as knowledgable with Communalism, as I am with Anarchism and the classic theories like AnCom, AnSyn, etc. and I'm really on the fence about it. I've only really known enough about Communalism to get by, like that they're against private property but not personal property, they want an egalitarian society, no money, and basically the basics of Communism. But what I didn't know was that Communalism has a major hangup for me. It sounds great and all, but when I looked into the book, and did some research on the internet (beyond Wikipedia), I found out pretty quick that it doesn't sound as Revolutionary as it might first sound like.

For one, and my biggest hangup, is Communalism sees no problem (as far as I'm aware) with voting in the current system of elections, and how they go about them, which to me sounds like a SocDem line. I mean we all understand you can't vote in revolution, but that seems to be sort of what Bookchin and Communalism, are saying?

Doing a little more research, and talking with my roommate about this, I found out that Communalism, although not a big subject in todays discussion, or ever was as far as I know, is debated among Anarchists as being revolutionary or not being revolution, and is possibly just another reformist ideology that some guy who became disillusioned with a real revolutionary ideology, made to better fit what he saw.

Basically that got me more interested in Communalism and Anarchists, because I don't know many Anarchists (any really,) who have a solid opinion on Communalism. They all seem to have the opinion I have, which is really on the fence about it. In one hand, yeah, it sounds nice, but on the other there's this big hangup on them seeming reformist and thinking you can "vote revolution in", which I just don't see or agree with it at all.

So what are you opinions, ideas, 2 cents worth on Communalism and Bookchin? Revolutionary or Reformist?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Utopian

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I read the book by Janet Biehl called The Politics of Social Ecology

[NewLeft]

I believe that he developed it out of his dialectical naturalism method. It is basically based on dual power (not Lenin's). It definitely has its roots in anarchism, since it puts emphasis on direct action.

[Raúl Duke]

I've had some interests in reading his stuff...but never really did read enough.

I feel the reason why he was disillusioned with Anarchism was more with American straind of Anarchism of his contemporary times rather than anarchism itself. IN some ways, communalism seems more like a re-hashing of anarcho-communism except with a stronger focus in "duel power" to the point that even some element of participation with the current governmental system may be allowed as long as it meets certain requirements (i.e. a "libertarian socialist candidate"). I feel his purpose of creating this theory with that particular name is more a matter of semantics in the North American sense plus as a way to distant himself from stuff he disagreed with within the North American anarchist milieu. Anarchism, the word and how the theory is perceived, doesn't carry a solid connotation towards egalitarianism as it does with freedom (thus why we have abominations like "anarcho-capitalists"). Communalism however is a word that would immediately invoke egalitarianism.

I'm not sure if it's fair to say it's either/or reformist or revolutionary, at least not from what I can glean about from the wiki. I'm going to guess that it's reformist in so far as the kinds of reforms it seeks (to maximize communal power) is possible (which I personally don't think so) and revolutionary in so far as there's a revolutionary situation arises, whether from a tension caused by dual power or not, for them to progress towards revolution; I think their main modus operandi is just to build structures of "dual power", communitarianism, and mutual aid. If you want to accuse them of anything, maybe you could accuse them of a little lifestylism, although I personally don't begrudge at their attempts and projects towards this "dual power"/communalism.

[Magón]

I've had some interests in reading his stuff...but never really did.

I feel the reason why he was disillusioned with Anarchism was more with American straind of Anarchism of his contemporary times rather than anarchism itself. IN some ways, communalism seems more like a re-hashing of anarcho-communism except with a stronger focus in "duel power" to the point that even some element of participation with the current governmental system may be allowed as long as it meets certain requirements (i.e. a "libertarian socialist candidate"). I feel his purpose of creating this theory with that particular name is more a matter of semantics in the North American sense plus as a way to distant himself from stuff he disagreed with within the North American anarchist milieu. Anarchism, the word and how the theory is perceived, doesn't carry a solid connotation towards egalitarianism as it does with freedom (thus why we have abominations like "anarcho-capitalists"). Communalism however is a word that would immediately invoke egalitarianism.

Like I said, it is that whole point of taking part in the current electoral system that I find one of my biggest hangups with Communalism. The requirements of a candidate fitting the criteria of a "libertarian socialist candidate", seem to just mask what seems to really be nothing more than the whole SocDem reasoning that you can "vote in Socialism" and change to an egalitarian society. To me at least, it seems like that.

How do you define what candidates are "libertarian socialists" in the first place? Do they have to be across the board "libertarian socialists", or do they just have to be 50% in their stance on certain issues, that makes them the "libertarian socialist" candidate? I mean, would someone like Ron Paul to a Communalist, be enough to call a "libertarian socialist"?

[Raúl Duke]

Well, I'm not exactly a follower of Bookchin (or of anyone) and I certainly disagree with the whole electoral sthick...you might have to ask those who call themselves communalists how that works out.

It could perhaps, to some, include people like Ron Paul although if that were the case Bookchin would be rolling in his grave. I think it originally means voting in actual libertarian socialists/anarchists/communalists like these people:

http://electduffyatx.com/an-anarchist-candidate/ (John Duffy)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/20/18436599.php (Josh Wolf)

and I recall I think a woman in Florida (!), before these 2, ran for political office and considered herself an anarchist, but couldn't find any links about it.


be nothing more than the whole SocDem reasoning that you can "vote in Socialism" and change to an egalitarian society. To me at least, it seems like that.In practice, it may end up like that.

In theory, I don't think Bookchin intended it to be like that per se; I feel his main focus is in creating independent anarchist/communitarian structures which in turn create a "dual power" and it's out of these organs where the whole socialism will come about. He just seems to see elections as another means, besides I guess other tactics whether they be out-right direct action/confrontations or other things like legal tactics. I haven't really read much about his ideas on this electoral shit, but I guess he intended it to be more like as something, another avenue I guess, for legitimizing and strengthening these structures (how exactly, I don't know!) yet the "dual power" structures continue to maintain their independence and their outlook to seek to replace the state functions slowly and than the state itself, as a means of political representation, completely. I don't believe Bookchin visualized his conception of dual power as one of merging between the structures and the state but one of confrontation/tension.

[MarxSchmarx]

I thought in his later years bookchin settled on something called "libertarian municipalism" or something like that which basically was modeled on new england town hall systems and at the city level where turnout is abysmal and elections could still matter to keep the powers that be from interfering in the construction of dual power like over things like zoning laws.

[Raúl Duke]

I think "libertarian municipalism" was one of his later years ideas...but meant as a component of communalism.

Take a look at this link (I've read about a long time ago): http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/cmmnl2.mcw.html
It's what he wrote defining communalism.

[Magón]

It could perhaps, to some, include people like Ron Paul although if that were the case Bookchin would be rolling in his grave. I think it originally means voting in actual libertarian socialists/anarchists/communalists like these people:

If it was actually meant to mean voting actual libertarian socialists/anarchists, etc. like the people you linked, then I guess it's a bit better, but still how revolutionary can it be if the most Communalists are looking to do, is simply vote in their candidate like any other party voter?

I wish we had some Communalists around here, or they were easy to find out in the real world, then I could figure out how revolutionary they are, or if they're willing at all. Because like I said, by the sounds of it, the way they approve the current voting system for use in changing things, doesn't sound very Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist. Unless they otherwise are for Revolutionary change, and are for voting later on, but that just doesn't come up in anything I've read.


I thought in his later years bookchin settled on something called "libertarian municipalism" or something like that which basically was modeled on new england town hall systems and at the city level where turnout is abysmal and elections could still matter to keep the powers that be from interfering in the construction of dual power like over things like zoning laws.

And that's where I get some more of the SocDem vibe, from Communalism. Because knowing a little about that New England town hall system, it doesn't seem like it would fit well with Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism at all really. Because like you said, the turnout rate is pretty bad, and the variety in who's in charge at times, or running to be in charge, doesn't change as often as it should.

But then like Raúl said, it could be that that system actually functions properly, turnout is good, and those put in charge are changed when necessary in a revolutionary society?

[Bronco]

It seems to me that with libertarian municipalism he intended it as a means to contest the legitimacy of state power with the creation of local assemblies at a grassroots level and try and gradually interlink these with each other in a confederation, which would essentially be a "Community of communities". Instead of overthrowing Capitalism and the state the goal is to replace them

As regards to elections I'd say it is more a case of what Raul said about trying to vote in genuine libertarian socialists in local elections, though by that I don't think he means achieving socialism through the ballot box. He says here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives24.html) how "electing town and city councilors that advance the cause of these assemblies and other popular institutions" could just be a minimal step that could increase the legitimacy of "truly democratic bodies". Bookchin added an addendum to that text to clarify he didn't intend to endorse the reformist parties that are always going on about grassroot politics and that "libertarian municipalism is not merely an effort simply to "take over" city councils to construct a more "environmentally friendly" city government" but more to root them in popular assemblies (probably worth pointing out this was written in 1991, when he still thought of himself as an Anarchist, so his views on this in regards to Communalism might have changed over the following few years)

As to what I think of communalism and libertarian municipalism I'm not sure, before this thread I'd not read that much about it and mainly stuck to Bookchin's earlier stuff if I did read him. It doesn't seem to be revolutionary in the sense most of us would use the term anyway, as in he isn't advocating violent revolution and seeks to replace and not overthrow but then it still seems to have a fair bit in common with Anarcho-Communism and federalism. So yeah, I'd say I'm sort of on the fence as well

[x359594]

It seems to me that with libertarian municipalism he intended it as a means to contest the legitimacy of state power with the creation of local assemblies at a grassroots level and try and gradually interlink these with each other in a confederation, which would essentially be a "Community of communities". Instead of overthrowing Capitalism and the state the goal is to replace them...

Replace or overthrow, isn't the outcome the same? By whatever means the bourgeois mode of production is eliminated it will have to be replaced by a new mode of production.

I wonder if it's a measure of Bookchin's egoism that he came around to Paul Goodman's communal anarchism after dismissing Goodman as a bohemian dilatantte whenever Goodman's name came up.

[Bronco]

Replace or overthrow, isn't the outcome the same? By whatever means the bourgeois mode of production is eliminated it will have to be replaced by a new mode of production.

I wonder if it's a measure of Bookchin's egoism that he came around to Paul Goodman's communal anarchism after dismissing Goodman as a bohemian dilatantte whenever Goodman's name came up.

The outcome might be but I'm not sure the means could achieve it, it reminds me of the "counter-economics" idea that Konkin described in his New Libertarian Manifesto where through the building an underground economy it would gradually undermine the state and eventually render it redundant (I'm not saying that Konkin intended for an outcome remotely similar to Bookchin but it just seems they share the same idea of building a means of replacing the state)

[hatzel]

I don't really think Bookchin's approach to elections places him that far from the mainstream (for better or worse), the only difference is that he's honest about it. I mean sure, there are plenty of people who get downright indignant at the mere suggestion of fielding candidates in elections, or even voting, yet many of these same people still seem to like holding their little protests and demos, pretty much just asking the government (in this case the municipal council) to 'do' stuff, e.g. refuse to give planning permission to a certain development. Both advocate some kind of vertical appeal to (elements of) the powers-that-be, in the hope that they will enact (a) certain policy/-ies deemed desirable.

The main distinction here is that those anti-election pro-appeal types hope/expect that there will be sympathetic ear on the council, to act in their favour, voting for or against a proposed policy (whilst simultaneously pretending that they have rejected modern governmental structures), whilst the pro-election pro-appeal types actively seek to elect this sympathetic ear to the council, to then be appealed to as and when it is necessary - Bookchin certainly didn't believe that his socialism will be enacted through/by the council, simply that certain councillors may be able to serve an important strategic role in contemporary society, defending particular interests, a belief which is clearly also held by many who claim to reject the electoral system. Any criticism of the communalists' advocacy of electoral engagement which fails to criticise the whole idea of appealing to existing political structures and individuals within them should be seen as brazen dishonesty, in my humble opinion.

[Raúl Duke]

I feel Occupy, in some instances, has a very Communalist nature (when they still have their occupations, and run mutual aid and other stuff out of those locations), even including a bit of libertarian municipalism (as in some of those candidates I mentioned, most seems to be linked to Occupy).

The only thing I really like about communalism is the whole "dual power" stuff of creating "structures" of assemblies, mutual aid, etc because I also feel this is an important component to add life and variety to our tactical repertoire beyond demos, protests, riots.

[Mr. Natural]

I despise Murray Bookchin. He was a very bright, very tough guy and an incorrigibly sectarian, egotistical asshole who often viciously attacked his personal rivals (almost everyone), other philosophies and theories, and thereby assured anything of value in his social ecology, communalism, municipal libertarianism, etc., would be stillborn. Murray Bookchin was the poster child for self-absorbed ultra-sectarianism.

Personal disclosure: I have identified myself as a "Judi Bari deep ecologist" in the past, and can only hate Bookchin for setting up deep ecology by identifying Dave Foreman and his "let Ethiopia starve" remark as representative of this philosophy and then easily kicking his ass in debate. Foreman and his liberal "party around the campfire boys" were only interested in ecological issues, though, and were the polar opposite of Judi, who was a red-green revolutionary.

Bookchin's sectarianism drove natural allies away. Joel Kovel, the current leader of American ecosocialism, was one. John Clark, who wanted to unite deep ecology and social ecology was another. Here is Clark on Bookchin in his essay, "How Wide is Deep Ecology?" in Katz, Light, Rothenberg's Beneath The Surface (2000):
"While Bookchin has posed some challenging questions for deep ecologists, he has also attributed to the movement as a whole views held only by a small minority of its proponents. He has also systematically refrained from recognizing the work of deep ecologists who have done the most sophisticated theoretical work or who have explored areas that he himself recognizes as important. In view of the lack of respect for others and the inaccuracy in depicting their views exhibited in his attacks, they can be questioned not only on intellectual grounds but also on moral ones."
Clark continues: "Bookchin has paid a considerable price for his crusade against deep ecology. While his viewpoint has gained increased recognition in the ecophilosophy literature, it has become identified with his most superficial, loosely argued, and often spiteful polemics rather than with his stronger theoretical works, such as his classic The Ecology of Freedom (1982). In addition, the quality of his work has declined as he has become increasingly strident, dogmatic, and irrational. As a result, many of his colleagues have been alienated from him, and he has threatened the credibility of the theoretical outlook that he did so much to develop."

Bookchin also opposed Marxism, probably seeing Marx as a rival, and the few social ecologists around now, such as Brian Tokar, can best be described as left-liberal.

However, let's not dogmatically toss out the idea of organizing locally in communities and townships by employing available electoral processes. We may not be able to vote in socialism ultimately, but we sure as hell can organize around electoral politics and intelligently take them as far as they will go. In doing so, we would be able to establish local forms of communal self-governance that will continue to operate when bourgeois "democracy" is withdrawn by the powers-that-be.

My red-green, Judi Barian best.