💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001145.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:48:45.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
GREENS ARE ANARCHISTS, OR SHOULD BE
Gary Elkin
The Unabomber claims to be both an anarchist and a radical
environmentalist. This has prompted the media to start using the words
_green_, anarchist_, and _terrorist_ in the same breath -- a convenient way
to discredit both anarchists and greens.
There _is_ a necessay connection between anarchism and the green movement,
but none between anarchism and terrorism. The image of anarchists as mad
bombers was largely concocted by the press in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, when the anarchist movement was gaining popularity among
workers. As the capitalist elite began to worry about this development,
the press "coincidentally" began a smear campaign against anarchists. Like
today, there were a few bombing incidents by unbalanced people _calling_
themselves anarchists, but most of the bombers had no clue about what
anarchism really is. Some of the bombings were carried out or instigated
by government agents provocateurs.
History has a habit of repeating itself, particularly when it's a question
of stamping out unwanted leftist movements. So in this article I want to
set the record straight by showing the actual relationship between
anarchism and the green movement.
The Authoritarian Paradigm
The word "an-archy" means literally "without the principle of authority or
rulership." This "principle (referred to hereafter as the "authoritarian
paradigm") has been embodied in a number of different socioeconomic and
political systems during the past 5,000 years or so, clothing itself at
various times in theocratic, military-imperial, feudal, monarchical,
liberal-capitalist, Fascist, and Communist forms. But the basic model of
social organization is still authoritarian in all "civilized" societies, as
shown by the fact that the major institutions of both capitalist and
"communist" nations are in the form of _hierarchies_: oganizations that
concentrate power and authority at the apex of a pyramidal structure --
e.g. factories, corporations, government bureaucracies, armies, political
parties, religious and educational establishments, etc.
Investigation of the hierarchical form shows that the two primary values it
embodies are domination and exploitation, the latter being made possible by
the former. For example, in his study of the organization of the modern
factory, Steven Marglin (1974-75) found that the main function of its
hierarchical form was not greater productive efficiency but greater control
over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective
exploitation.
Control in a hierarchy is accomplished by means of coercion -- that is, by
the use or threat of negative sanctions. Such control, including the
repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore implies centralization: a
set of power relations in which the greatest control, and hence the
greatest power of sanctions, is exercised by the head (or heads) of the
hierarchy, while those in the middle ranks have much less control and those
at the bottom have virtually none.
Given these facts, it's fair to say that hierarchy is the institutional
embodiment of the authoritarian paradigm. Today, after 5,000 years of
"progress" under that paradigm, the result is a hierarchical world-system
whose component nation-states have reached the highest level of
centralization in history. Yet it's clear that this system has reached a
point of potential self-destruction. The ongoing modern crises of social
breakdown, ecological destruction, and proliferating weapons of mass
destruction are convincing evidence that this is so.
The Green Movement
The green movement arose in West Germany during the early eighties, soon
spreading to other European countries and then to the US. At first it was
an informal network of people concerned with six major and closely related
issues: ecology, peace, social justice, feminism, decentralization, and
participatory democracy. In due time it became a political party (Die
Grunen). However, as will be shown below, the agendas of these six green
"consitituencies," both separately and together, imply anarchist
socioeconomic and political principles. This conclusion suggests --
although I won't argue it here -- that a parliamentary party dedicated to
achieving "green" objectives via the State is a contradiction in terms.
One might think that this claim would need no proof to members of a
movement that advocates decentralization and participatory democracy -- two
key elements of anarchism. Unfortunately, however, this is not so. Many
greens seem to be unaware that the principles they profess imply anarchism,
as can be seen from the time and energy they've recently spent organizing a
political party, engaging in electioneering, and developing statist
legislative agendas.
The claim that the green movement is essentially anarchist rests on the
argument that each of the six green constituencies needs to dismantle
hierarchical (and therefore authoritarian) institutions in order to achieve
its major aims. In the economic sphere, this argument implies the need for
a decentralized, participatory-democratic, worker-controlled economy. Thus
the shared need for workers' control -- an objective that has always
been the heart of anarchism -- is the glue that unites all six
constituencies of the green movement.
The argument that green = anarchist proceeds by examining the relations of
mutual dependence that obtain between all possible pairs of green
constituencies, starting with:
Feminism and Ecology
It's becoming clear to most people that environmental damage has reached
alarming proportions. Many scientists now believe that there may be as
little as 50 years to act before vital ecosystems are irreparably damaged.
Without radical solutions now, the future of the human race, and perhaps of
the biosphere itself, is in doubt.
A number of eco-feminist scholars have argued that the domination and
exploitation of nature has paralleled the domination and exploitation of
women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (Merchant
1980; Plumwood 1986). On this view, both women and nature are victims of
the obsession with control that characterizes the authoritarian
personality. Hence many ecologists and feminists recognize that the
authoritarian paradigm must be dismantled in order to achieve their aims.
For feminists, this implies dismantling the hierarchical institutions in
which the patriarchal-authoritarian values of domination and exploitation
are embedded. Feminists, particularly eco-feminists and
anarcha-feminists, often refer to this as the "feminization of society,"
since domination and exploitation are commonly regarded as "masculine"
values. "Feminization," to them, thus means means replacing "masculine"
values with those that are commonly regarded as "feminine:" e.g.
cooperation, sharing, mutual aid, compassion, respect for nature, etc. [1]
That the main problems addressed by both feminists and ecologists are
rooted in the authoritarian paradigm can perhaps best be seen from the
economic standpoint. A number of ecologists have drawn attention to
capitalism's built-in need for a consistently high rate of economic growth.
Although rapid expansion is regarded as essential by virtually all
mainstream economists and politicians, it's becoming clear that such
expansion in a finite environment is leading to ecological catastrophe.
Therefore some ecologists have called for the development of a
"steady-state economy": a system that is (a) based on alternative,
environment-friendly technologies and recycled or renewable raw materials,
and (b) not dependent on high levels of defense spending or rapid growth in
order to avoid disastrous collapses. So far, however, most ecologists
have focused entirely on (a), with little emphasis on the fact that
pressure for rapid growth and military Keynesianism necessarily arises from
the _predatory_ nature of capitalism -- i.e. from the competitive struggle
between individual capitalist enterprises and between political aggregates
of such enterprises (nation-states) pitted against each other for profits,
market shares, raw materials, and cheap labor. The few ecologists who do
recognize this fact would probably agree that a steady-state economy is
impossible _in principle_ unless the so-called "masculine" values of
domination and exploitation are overthrown and supplanted by the so-called
"feminine" values of cooperation, mutual aid, and an equitable sharing of
the world's wealth. In other words, a steady-state economy implies
"feminization."
This is an abstract way of showing the interdependence of feminism and the
ecology movement. There is a more concrete way, however, which is based
on the argument that both movements require workers' control to succeed.
Although most ecologists recognize the pernicious effects of the capitalist
grow-or-die philosophy, most of them fail to make the connection between
that philosophy and the _authoritarian form_ of the typical capitalist
corporation. This failure is odd, because there's a large body of evidence
showing that worker-owned and self-managed firms -- especially the type in
which profits are shared equally among all full-time members -- are under
far less pressure toward rapid expansion than the traditional capitalist
firm.
The slower growth rate of worker cooperatives has been documented by
several scholars (e.g.Schweickhart 1980, 1993; Jackall and Levin 1984).
Their studies have shown that in the traditional capitalist firm, owners'
and executives' percentage share of profits greatly increases as more
employees are added to the payroll, and this because the corporate
hierarchy is designed to funnel the major portion of the "value added" from
labor to those at the top of the pyramid. Such a design gives ownership
and management a very strong incentive to expand, since, other things being
equal (e.g. no recession), their standard of living rises with every new
employee hired. Hence the authoritarian form of the corporation is one of
the main causes of runaway growth.
By contrast, in an equal-share worker cooperative, the addition of more
members simply means more people with whom the pie will have to be equally
divided -- a situation that greatly reduces the incentive to expand. For
this reason, workers' control is one of the necessary ingredients of a
steady-state economy, and therefore essential to the success of the ecology
movement.
But workers' control is also implied by the concept of "feminizing"
society. As noted, "feminization" refers to the subversion of the
authoritarian paradigm, and thus to the dismantling of hierarchies.
Economically, therefore, the feminist agenda implies a horizontally
structured, democratically run economic system to replace the current
system of corporate hierarchies. Thus feminists and ecologists are linked
through their shared need for workers' control.
Moreover, for obvious reasons feminism depends on the success of the
ecology movement. If delicate ecosystems are irreparably damaged, thus
rendering the planet unfit for human habitation, it will be meaningless to
speak of the "success" of _any_ social movement. In what follows, then,
I'll assume that none of the other constituencies of the green movement can
attain their respective aims unless ecologists attain theirs.
Feminism and Peace
The peace movement is another natural ally of feminism. This is because
international disarmament, like the liberation of women, can never be
attained without widespread rejection of the authoritarian paradigm, and
specifically of its two central motive principles: domination and
exploitation. For, when pursued along gender, class, racial, ethnic, or
national lines, domination and exploitation produce resentment, hatred, and
hostility which often explode into violence and armed conflict. Therefore
peace depends on introducing into public policy "feminine" principles such
as cooperation, sharing, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, reverence
for life, etc. But this, of course, is "feminization." Consequently the
peace movement cannot attain its major objective unless feminists attain
theirs.
Conversely, the success of feminism depends on that of the peace movement.
For there will be no "success" for anyone in an age of high-tech armaments
if international peace efforts fail, weapons of mass destruction continue
to spread, and the human race is eventually wiped out in a cataclysmic war.
In what follows, then, I'll assume that the success of every constituency
of the green movement presupposes that of the peace movement.
Feminism and Social Justice
Another ally of feminism is the social justice movement, which seeks fair
and compassionate solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment,
economic exploitation, discrimination, poor housing, lack of health
insurance, wealth and income inequalities, and the like.
That the major problems with which the social justice movement is concerned
can be traced back to the authoritarian paradigm is not difficult to show.
For, given the purpose of hierarchy, the highest priority of the ruling
elite is necessarily to maintain its own power and privilege, regardless of
the suffering involved for others. Today the US is reaping the grim
harvest of its leaders' single-minded dedication to this priority: armies
of the homeless wandering the streets; social welfare budgets slashed to
the bone as poverty, unemployment, and underemployment grow; sweatshops
mushrooming in the large metropoles; nearly 40 million Americans without
basic health insurance; obscene wealth inequalities; and so on.
In short, social injustice is inherent in the dominative-exploitative
functions of the State, which are made possible by the authoritarian form
of State institutions and of the State-complex as a whole. Similarly, the
authoritarian corporation gives rise to social injustice in the form of
unfair income and wealth differentials between management and labor. Hence
the success of the social justice movement, like that of the feminist
movement, depends on dismantling the authoritarian paradigm in both its
state and corporate embodiments. Which is to say that these two movements
are related in such a way that it's impossible to conceive of one of them
achieving its goals in isolation from the other.
Ecology and Social Justice
The social justice movement, like feminism, is closely connected with the
ecology movement through the shared need of each for workers' control.
The argument that social justice requires workers' control is simple: a
worker-controlled economy would tend to produce a more equitable overall
distribution of social wealth, which would help to eliminate poverty and
its attendant evils. Studies of worker cooperatives have shown that they
can provide more jobs, at the same level of capital investment, than
traditional capitalist enterprises, which means that a worker-controlled
economy would reduce unemployment (Levin 1984). Hence workers' control is
as important for the social justice movement as it is for the ecology
movement -- a fact that links the two groups in such a way that it's
impossible to conceive of either of them attaining their aims in isolation
from the other.
Peace and Social Justice
We've already noted that world peace cannot be attained so long as the
authoritarian paradigm, based on domination and exploitation, remains the
basic model of social organization. But these same authoritarian values
also underlie the State policies that produce poverty, inequality,
discrimination, unemployment, and the many other problems that concern
social-justice activists. Hence both peace and social justice depend on a
dismantling of the authoritarian paradigm, particularly as manifested in
corporate-State institutions.
This point can be made more concretely in terms of a specific social
justice issue: labor rights. As Dimitrios Roussopoulos (1992) points out,
the production of advanced weapons systems is highly profitable for
capitalists, which is why more technologically complex and precise weapons
keep getting built. Now, it's arguably a basic human right to be able to
choose whether or not one will contribute to the production of
technologies that could lead to the extinction of the human race. Yet
because of the authoritarian form of the corporation, rank and file
workers have virtually no say in whether their companies will produce such
technologies. Hence the only way they can obtain this right is to control
the production process themselves, through self-management. For these
reasons, the peace and social justice movements, like the other movements
we've examined, are linked through their shared need for worker's control.
Participatory Democracy and Decentralization
Participatory democrats advocate horizontally structured political
organizations instead of the hierarchies of "representative" democracy.
They maintian that the latter is not working, first because so-called
representatives often use their power to enrich themselves, and second
because they're disproportionately influenced by wealthy business
interests. Hence participatory democrats favor local, grassroots
organizations (e.g. citizens' committees, popular assemblies, civic action
groups, etc.), the use of initiatives and referenda, and a return to
town-meeting style politics. They also support reforms to take the money
out of politics, restrict lobbying, etc. in order to lessen the undue
influence of wealthy special interests. And most advocates of workplace
democracy want it to be participatory rather representative.
Decentralists emphasize the need to dissolve monolithic institutions into
smaller, more horizontally structured bodies. They point out that huge
bureaucracies tend to be unwieldy, out of touch with local problems,
dehumanizing, self-serving, self-perpetuating, and antidemocratic. Hence
they wish to disband federal bureaucracies and give more responsibility to
state and local agencies; divide up large and artificial administrative
units (like nation-states) into natural bioregions defined by shared
geographical and ecological features; curb the power of multinational
corporations in favor of more self-sufficient, smaller-scale local
enterprises, and so on.
Obviously there's a close relationship between decentralization and
participatory democracy. Participatory democracy works best (and perhaps
only) in relatively small-scale, decentralized organizations and
administrative units (Balbus 1982, Ch. 10); moreover the very concept of
decentralization implies the diffusion of power represented by
participatory democracy. Thus communities and organizations based on
participatory-democratic principles set their basic policies by voting at
popular assemblies, renouncing a hierarchical structure and allowing
everyone access to all officials. And in large (e.g. regional)
organizations where mass participation is difficult or impossible,
participatory democrats favor the election of temporary, instantly
recallable, and unpaid delegates rather than professional representatives.
So participatory democracy and decentralization mutually imply each other,
which means that neither is workable or even understandable apart from the
other.
Feminism, Decentralization, and Participatory Democracy
The key feminist goal of feminizing society cannot be attained without both
decentralization and participatory democracy. This is because the
patriarchal values and traditions that feminists seek to overthrow are
embodied and reproduced in authoritarian hierarchies. This implies that
feminists must be decentralists, which in turn implies that they must be
participatory democrats as well. Many feminists have recognized this, as
reflected in their experiments with collective forms of feminist
organizations that eliminate hierarchical structure and competitive forms
of decision making. Some feminists have even argued that
participatory-democratic organizations are specifically female political
forms (Hartsock 1979: 56-77).
Conversely, the success of both participatory democrats and decentralists
depends on the success of feminism. The US, despite the rhetoric about its
alleged "democracy," remains only superficially democratic. The majority
of Americans spend about half their waking hours under the thumb of
capitalist dictators (bosses) who allow them no voice in the crucial
economic decisions that affect their lives most profoundly. In this
situation, the psychological traits deemed most desirable for average
citizens to possess are efficiency, conformity, emotional detachment,
insensitivity, and unquestioning obedience to authority -- traits that
allow people to survive and even prosper as employees in corporate
hierarchies.
But it is qualities like flexibility, creativity, sensitivity,
understanding, emotional honesty, directness, warmth, realism, and the
ability to mediate, communicate, negotiate, integrate, and cooperate which
are most essential for true democracy to work. These, however, are
commonly regarded as "feminine" qualities, which feminists seek to infuse
into society's institutions. Thus the success of both participatory
democrats and decentralists depends on the "feminization of society," which
would give the majority of citizens the psychological qualities necessary
to maintain a decentralized, participatory-democratic political system.
Ecology and Decentralization
We've noted that decentralists aim at dissolving monolithic bureaucratic
hierarchies. Because administrators who occupy the top positions in
government bureaucracies are especially susceptible to the influence of
environmentally irresponsible special interests, such bureaucracies are one
of the main hindrances to the success of the ecology movement. There's a
similar problem with highly centralized multinational corporations, which
owe their allegiance only to corporate headquarters and thus tend to be
less responsive to local environmental concerns than smaller-scale,
indigenous enterprises. Therefore the achievement of ecological aims
presupposes both political and economic decentralization.
In addition, the alternative technologies advocated by ecologists are small
in scale and thus incompatible with large-scale societies and the
politico-economic centralization that accompanies them. For example, solar
devices, wind turbines, tidal generators, and heat pumps (so-called "soft
energy paths") produce relatively small quantities of electricity, and
scientists are not able to predict when, or even if, such technologies
would ever be able to produce enough current to power large megapolises
such as New York or Tokyo (Balbus 1981: 372). Organic methods of
agriculture similarly work best in small-scale operations. Hence the
arguments of ecologists for alternative technologies make sense only in the
context of a fundamentally decentralized society in which urban communities
are reduced in size and widely dispersed over the land (Bookchin 1971:
74-75).
Ecology and Participatory Democracy
Saving the biosphere will require that ordinary citizens be able to take
part at the grassroots level in decisions that affect their environment.
This is because such citizens are more likely to favor stringent
environmental safeguards than are the large, polluting special interests
that now dominate the representative system of government. Thus a solution
to the ecological crisis presupposes participatory democracy in the
political sphere.
However, this goal can't be achieved by working within the representative
political system. For that system, by its hierarchical nature, not only
precludes mass participation in political decision making but also
necessarily functions to perpetuate itself. This is why Bakunin
continually emphasized that the "social revolutio"n must _precede_ the
"political revolution" (see Dolgoff 1980). But for anarchists like
Bakunin, "the social revolution" means _workers' control_. It makes sense
to say that workers' control must come first, for as we've seen, daily
experience of participatory-democracy in the workplace is needed to give
ordinary citizens the psychological qualities required to maintain a
genuinely democratic political order.
So participatory-democratic restructuring of the political system
presupposes workers' control. But, as shown earlier, the success of the
ecology movement also presupposes workers' control. Hence ecologists and
participatory democrats are linked through their shared need for workers'
control.
Peace, Participatory Democracy, and Decentralization
We've seen that the possibility of peace depends on the permeation of
nonauthoritarian ("feminine") values into society's institutions.
Practically speaking, however, this permeation can only occur if (a) a
majority of people have a nonauthoritarian type of personality, and (b) the
influence of nonauthoritarian types on public policy is proportional to
their actual numbers in the general population.
Now, condition (a) is already fulfilled: that is, most people already have
an essentially nonauthoritarian personality, which is to say that traits
such as cooperation and mutual aid are stronger than
dominative-exploitative traits. The latter are most important for success
as a capitalist manager, politician, or military leader, and hence are most
strongly developed in the relatively small capitalist class and its
politico-military and police entourage. In contrast, nonauthoritarian
traits are essential for success as an employee, and hence are most
strongly developed among the working class. Therefore, since the majority
of people are employees rather than capitalists, most people already have
an essentially nonauthoritarian personality.
Condition (b), however -- the requirement that nonauthoritarian types exert
a proporitional influence on policy -- is not fulfilled. For the current
political system is hierarchical, which is to say that discrimination
against nonauthoritarian types is built into it. For authoritarian traits
are required to advance to top of any hierarchy, where the real power and
influence lies. This fact insures that nonauthoritarian types will have
very little influence on public policy.
A decentralized, participatory-democratic political system would remedy
this situation, by allowing for the proportional influence of
nonauthoritarian types, thus eliminating domination and exploitation as the
main motive principles underlying public policy. And since the possibility
of peace depends on this kind of restructuring, it follows that the success
of the peace movement presupposes the success of both the participatory
democracy and decentralization movements.
Social Justice, Participatory Democracy, and Decentralization
Social justice, like peace, is only conceivable on the hypothesis that all
major institutions become permeated by nonauthoritarian values. For only
then could social policies be shaped according to the principles of
equality, fairness, and nonexploitation. But, as just shown, such a
permeation depends on participatory democracy and decentralization, which
are therefore also necessary for the social justice movement to succeed.
Conversely, decentralization and participatory democracy cannot take place
unless society becomes more just. For as things now stand, members of the
ruling elite resist decentralization and participatory democracy because
they know that these developments would put an end to their own privileged
positions. Yet those privileged positions, _which in themselves constitute
social injustice_, are what enables this elite to resist the efforts of
decentralists and participatory democrats. In other words, social justice
and decentralization/participatory democracy are two sides of the same
coin, so that neither is conceivable by itself.
* * *
The foregoing discussion shows that the concept of _interdependence_ is
relevant not just in describing ecological relationships but also the
relationships between each of the six constituencies of the green movement.
As these constituencies come to a deeper realization of their mutual
dependence, they should be able to work more effectively together toward
their common goal: dismantling hierarchies and creating a horizontally
structured, green anarchist society in its place.
Notes
1. I don't know of any feminist who regards so-called "masculine" and
"feminine" values/traits as biologically determined. Rather, they are
regarded as being acquired by socialization in patricentric society.
References
Balbus, Isaac D. 1982. _Marxism and Domination_. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bookchin, Murray. 1971. _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_. Berkeley, CA: Ramparts
Press.
Dolgoff, Sam. 1980. _Bakunin on Anarchism_. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Hartsock, Nancy. 1979. "Feminist Theory and the Development of
Revolutionary Strategy." In Eisenstein, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case
for Socialist Feminism.
Jackall, Robert, and Henry M. Levin, eds. 1984. _Worker Cooperatives in
America_. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Levin, Henry M. 1984. "Employment and Productivity of Producer
Cooperatives." In Jackall and Levin, Worker Cooperatives in America.
Marglin, Steven. 1974-75. "What do bosses do?" Review of Radical Political
Economics 6, 7.
Merchant, Caroline. 1980. _The Death of Nature_. New York: Harper & Row.
Plumwood, Val. 1986. "Ecofeminism: an overview and discussion of positions
and arguments." In Women and Philosophy, supplement to the Australiasian
Journal of Philosophy, vol. 64, June.
Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. 1992. _Dissidence_. Monreal and New York:
Black Rose Books.
Schweickart, David. 1980. _Capitalism or Worker Control? An Ethical and
Economic Appraisal_. New York: Praeger.
____. _Against Capitalism_. 1993. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.