Confederal Municipalism

[flamehawk]

Hi there, long time listener first time caller...


Was wondering if anyone else has read up on Bookchin's works. I've read The Politics of Social Ecology and just finished From Urbanization to Cities but am unclear about certain things.

Firstly, what does he define urbanization as in his critique of it? I feel sorta stupid about this haha, seeing as he constantly mentions urbanization and yet I don't quite understand it in the general context of that term - people moving to cities. Unless he is critiquing the fact that a lot of areas are no longer at a 'human scale' and need to be decentralized institutionally and physically as he said?

Secondly, he asserts that majorities in a confederation will prevent human rights violations or ecological destruction caused by its constituent municipalities. But what if the municipality then chooses to become self-sufficent and just split off and continue with its actions?

... well, I guess those affected could just move, or for ecological destruction other municipalities can intervene even if its not part of the confederation? I am wondering if he elaborates on this.

Cheers

[flamehawk]

Noone read up on Bookchin's stuff??

[Raúl Duke]

While Bookchin interests me....I haven't had a chance to read much of his work.... (the libraries and bookstores in the vicinities don't stock his work...)

[flamehawk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:16 pm
While Bookchin interests me....I haven't had a chance to read much of his work.... (the libraries and bookstores in the vicinities don't stock his work...)
None of the libraries? Man that sucks. Where you from?

Thank god for UofToronto's library.

[syndicat]

Not sure myself what exactly Bookchin's distinction comes to, between urbanization and cities. I suppose if we think of the ways that capitalism develops cities, and the destructive consequences of capitalism on urban form, this may be what he has in mind. but i'm guessing.

Confederatl municipalism has a variety of problems. The one big meeting idea for running a city is problematic. It's sort of like central planning on a small scale. Bookchin didn't allow for workplace self-management. If the entire economy is run through the general assemblies of residents, there are so many decisions they'd end up requiring a staff, and then what? Appointing bosses over workers? They need some way of negotiating between the assemblies of residents and assemblies of workers over the work to be done.

There is too much of a tendency towards autarkic self-sufficiency in the thinking behind municipalism. And that's just not feasible. What if an area has worse resources than another? Should it be forced into deprivation? The social economy can't be viable if organized on the basis of each town making its decisions unilaterally.

[flamehawk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:04 pm
Not sure myself what exactly Bookchin's distinction comes to, between urbanization and cities. I suppose if we think of the ways that capitalism develops cities, and the destructive consequences of capitalism on urban form, this may be what he has in mind. but i'm guessing.

Confederatl municipalism has a variety of problems. The one big meeting idea for running a city is problematic. It's sort of like central planning on a small scale. Bookchin didn't allow for workplace self-management. If the entire economy is run through the general assemblies of residents, there are so many decisions they'd end up requiring a staff, and then what? Appointing bosses over workers? They need some way of negotiating between the assemblies of residents and assemblies of workers over the work to be done.

There is too much of a tendency towards autarkic self-sufficiency in the thinking behind municipalism. And that's just not feasible. What if an area has worse resources than another? Should it be forced into deprivation? The social economy can't be viable if organized on the basis of each town making its decisions unilaterally.
Well, given the small-scale of organization, will it really come to a point where there will be too many decisions to be made and people would need to be appointed to make certain decisions? I don't think so, he talked about the difference between policy and administration (can't remember if that was the exact word he used), do you think all administrative decisions would also need to be passed in a general assembly - assuming it was possible, though I understand you don't think it is - in order for it to be democratic?

Well, to give Bookchin credit, he did remark on the dangers of a community making decisions autocratically if self-sufficient. And that is why he emphasizes the confederal aspect of his proposal, that while decentralized, communities should also be dependent on one another. No one community can realistically be completely self-sufficient, nor should it be.

I dno what do you think?

[xskater11x]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:48 am
No one community can realistically be completely self-sufficient, nor should it be.

I dno what do you think?
I am not sure one community could ever be completely self-sufficient in all aspects, unless looking at it as a global community. Outside needs are always necessary, and I see that as one of the larger problems faced by people today, the exploitation of other peoples external needs for your own internal gain. That could also be used to argue that creating separate communities could pose a great problem.

As for reading the works of Bookchin, I have only been introduced breifly by web articles. My local library has actually refused to get a number of works for me from particular authors.

[flamehawk]

Originally posted by xskater11x+July 16, 2007 05:07 am--> (xskater11x @ July 16, 2007 05:07 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 04:48 am
No one community can realistically be completely self-sufficient, nor should it be.

I dno what do you think?
I am not sure one community could ever be completely self-sufficient in all aspects, unless looking at it as a global community. Outside needs are always necessary, and I see that as one of the larger problems faced by people today, the exploitation of other peoples external needs for your own internal gain. That could also be used to argue that creating separate communities could pose a great problem.

As for reading the works of Bookchin, I have only been introduced breifly by web articles. My local library has actually refused to get a number of works for me from particular authors. [/b]
So you think the problem of 'exploitation of other peoples external needs for your own internal gain' would still be a problem despite confederation? Hmm.. that's a good point, never thought about that, I would think that possibilities of that would be lessened if each community was dependent on one another. But what if one community just has nothing others would want/need?

Damn, really sucks not to be able to get the books. I guess I really shouldn't take my university's library for granted.

[xskater11x]

well the things that people are dependant on must then be equal, as human nature leads to want equal trade. It is a complete possibility though that it could happen.

I cannot wait to go to university though, since their libriaries are usually expansive and all inclusive, which is really a good privledge to have.