💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-eco-socialism-and-decentralism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:48:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Eco-Socialism and Decentralism
Author: Wayne Price
Date: January 11, 2016
Language: en
Topics: green anarchism, decentralization
Source: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28974

Wayne Price

Eco-Socialism and Decentralism

From conservatives and liberals to Marxists, there is faith in big

machines, big industries, big corporations, big cities, big countries,

big buildings, and big government—a belief in the necessity of

centralized, bureaucratic, top-down, socially-alienated, institutions.

This is not to say that most people like giant cities, big business, or

big government; but they do not see any alternative.

Instead, anarchists have advocated localism, face-to-face direct

democracy, self-governing agricultural-industrial communes, workers’

self-management of industry, consumer cooperatives, appropriate

technology, and federations and networks of such radically-democratic

institutions. Many people reject anarchism because they believe such

decentralism to be unrealistic.

However, in our time there is a new development: writers and theorists

of the ecology/environmental/climate-justice movement have been raising

decentralist concepts as part of their programs. They include moderate

liberals, radical ecologists, and even Marxists. Mostly they have no

idea that they are redeveloping anarchism. I will examine this

phenomenon.

Anarchist Decentralism

Of a cooperative, socialist (or communist), society, the anarchist Peter

Kropotkin wrote in 1905, “True progress lies in the direction of

decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of

the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from

the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the

center to the periphery.” (Kropotkin 2002; 286)

Paul Goodman put it this way: “Decentralization is not lack of order or

planning, but a kind of coordination that relies on different motives

from top-down direction….It is not ‘anarchy.’ [Meaning: it is not

‘chaos.’—WP]…Most anarchists, like the anarcho-syndicalists or the

community-anarchists, have not been ‘anarchists’ either, but

decentralists.” (Goodman 1965; 6)

Capitalism by its nature is centralized. A tiny minority of the

population dominates the whole society and all its institutions. The

production system is one of exploitation; the minority of owners, and

their managers, make all decisions, while the workers follow orders. The

workers produce society’s wealth but receive only a fraction of it in

payment, because the capitalists own the means of production (capital).

Under the pressure of competition, capitalist enterprises grow ever

larger. They are under the imperative to grow or die. The economy

becomes dominated by semi-monopolies, which now span the world market.

The giant corporations justify themselves by claiming to be more

efficient in producing and distributing commodities. Sometimes this is

true, but often it is not. Capitalism is motivated to produce greater

profit (surplus value), not more useful goods (use value). Often the

corporations grow for financial reasons which have nothing to do with

productive efficiency. They may grow in order to better control the work

force or for increased access to markets. Both to serve them and to

control them (in the overall interests of the capitalist class), giant

corporations require giant bureaucratic-military states.

Revolutionary anarchist-socialists seek to abolish all rule by

minorities, all exploitation, and all forms of oppression. They want a

classless, oppressionless, society of participatory democracy. They want

everyone to be involved in managing their own society, politically,

economically, and culturally, at every level and in every way. This

requires that institutions, at the daily, lived, level, be small enough

for working people to understand and control them. It requires that

small groups meet face-to-face to discuss and decide how they will deal

with most issues—in the workplace or the neighborhood. It requires

directly-democratic assemblies, in the work shop and the community.

There ordinary people will decide on overall concerns, and—where

necessary—elect people to do specialized tasks or to go to meetings with

elected people from other assemblies (elected officials being subject to

immediate recall, rotation in office, and the same standard of living as

everyone else). Radical democracy requires reorganizing our cities, our

industries, and our technology, to create a world without order-givers

and order-takers.

Anarchists recognize the need for a certain amount of centralization and

big institutions. They believe that self-managing industries and

communities should be embedded within regional, national, and

international federations—associations of associations. Such bottom-up

federations can coordinate exchanges of goods and can make decisions on

world-wide concerns. But no matter how large they grow, they are still

rooted in the face-to-face self-government of people’s daily lives.

(This is different from today where people vote every few years for

someone to go far away to “be political” for them—and then the voters

return to their daily lives of taking orders from their bosses.)

When everyone participates in governing, then there is no “government”

(no bureaucratic-military state organization separate from and above the

rest of society). There is just the self-organization of the people—of

the (formerly) working class and oppressed people.

The anarchist rule is: As much decentralization as is practically

possible; and only as much centralization as is necessary. “We are in a

period of excessive centralization….In many functions this style is

economically inefficient, technologically unnecessary, and humanly

damaging. Therefore we might adopt a political maxim: to decentralize

where, how, and how much [as] is expedient. But where, how, and how much

are empirical questions.” (Goodman 1965; 27)

Anarchists claim that productive technology could be used decentrally to

create a society with sufficient goods for everyone and plenty of

leisure for all. There is a great deal of evidence that technology can

be modified and re-created to be consistent with a creative,

self-managing, and decentralized socialist economy.—which does not deny

that there would still be some large machines and factories, as well as

networks of smaller devices—such as the Internet. (For decentralizing

technology, see Carson 2010; McRobie 1981; Sclove1995.)

Other Decentralists

There have also been non-anarchist and non-socialist decentralists, such

as Catholic distributivists, students of Ralph Borsodi, cooperators, New

Age theorists, “small-is-beautiful” technologists, and others. (See

Loomis 1982.) Some were inspired by the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.

Impressed by the New England town meetings, he wanted to promote a

federation of local community “wards.”

“Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic…and

feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely

at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not

be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its

councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body

sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte.”

(Jefferson 1957; 54)

Unfortunately, the concept of decentralized democracy has been abandoned

by modern day liberals (John Dewey was one exception). Instead, the

language of “state’s rights,” “federalism,” and “small government” have

been monopolized by the right. They use it to justify oppression of

People of Color, opposition to regulation of big business, and the

cutting of government support for the working class and the environment.

Meanwhile these supposed advocates of “small government” advocate

expansion of the military, more power to the police, and laws limiting

women’s reproductive rights. It is difficult for modern liberals to

counter these false claims due to liberal statism and centralism.

In this period, there has been an explosion of advocacy of

worker-managed enterprises (producers’ cooperatives). This has been

promoted by a range of theorists, from liberals to revolutionary

Marxists. It has been experimented with—largely successfully. (For the

discussions about worker-managed enterprises, see Price 2014.)

There were decentralist elements in Marxism (the Marxism of Marx and

Engels, anyway). Mostly these reflected the influence of pre-Marxist

“utopian” socialists. These elements included positive comments about

worker-run cooperatives; discussion of the radical democracy of the 1871

Paris Commune; prediction of the end, under communism, of the division

between town and country—industry and agriculture—due to the widespread

distribution of towns; and prediction of the end of the division between

mental and manual labor (order giving and order carrying out). (See

Engels 1954; Marx & Engels 1971.) However, such elements of

decentralization were buried in other aspects of Marx’s program, such as

advocating a new state which would nationalize and centralize all

industry. Utopian, decentralist, aspects dropped out of post-Marx

Marxism.

Decentralism in Current Ecological Politics

Bill McKibben has long been a leader of the climate justice movement.

Politically he is a left-liberal, an endorser of Sanders for President.

One of his books (2007) is subtitled, “The Wealth of Communities and the

Durable Future.” He reviews the dangers of “nitrogen runoff, mercury

contamination, rainforest destruction, species extinction, water

shortage…[and] the overarching one: climate change.” (19) His main

solution to these (and other) ills is decentralization: “more local

economies, shorter supply lines, and reduced growth.” (180)

“…Development…should look to the local far more than to the global. It

should concentrate on creating and sustaining strong communities….”

(197) “…The increased sense of community and heightened skill at

democratic decision-making that a more local economy implies will not

simply increase our levels of satisfaction with our lives, but will also

increase our chances of survival….” (231)

A more extreme ecological perspective is raised by James H. Kunstler

(2006)—although the author describes.himself as “a registered Democrat.”

(324) In “The Long Emergency,” he advances evidence that our society

will run out of fossil-fuel—although not necessarily in time to avoid

climate change. (He would regard the current oil glut as temporary.)

“…There will still be plenty of oil left in the ground…but it will

be…deeper down, harder and costlier to extract, sitting under harsh and

remote parts of the world…[and] contested by everyone.” (65) This will

end globalized industrialism as we know it.

To cope with this change ”…. Life…will become increasingly and intensely

local and smaller in scale… All human enterprises will contract with the

energy supply.” (238-9) “We will have to reestablish those local webs of

economic relations and occupations that existed all over America until

the last several decades of the both century, meaning local and regional

distribution networks….” (259)

One of the most influential texts on global warming is Naomi Klein’s

“This Changes Everything.” She declares, “There is a clear and essential

role for national plans and policies….But…the actual implementation of a

great many of these plans [should] be as decentralized as possible.

Communities should be given new tools and powers….Worker-run co-ops have

the capacity to play a huge role in an industrial transformation….

Neighborhoods [should be] planned democratically by their

residents….Farming…can also become an expanded sector of decentralized

self-sufficiency and poverty reduction.” (Klein, 2014; 133-134)

To refer to another authority: Pope Francis, in his 2015 “Encyclical on

Climate Change and Inequality,” cites “the principle of subsidiarity.”

(120) That is the principle that social functions should be as

decentralized and localized as much as is realistically possible. “Civil

authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in

support of small producers and differentiated production.” (79-80) “In

some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable

sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency….” (109) “New

forms of cooperation and community organization can be encouraged in

order to defend the interests of small producers and preserve local

ecosystems from destruction.” (111)

Writers for the Marxist journal Monthly Review have argued that only an

international socialist revolution will make it possible to prevent

climate catastrophe. This much anarchists can agree with, but the

Monthly Review’s trend has historically identified “socialism” with

centralized Stalinism. Over the years, its editors and writers have

supported Stalin’s Soviet Union, Maoist China, and (still) Castroite

Cuba.

However, one of their main writers is Fred Magdoff (a professor of plant

and soil science). He wrote a visionary essay presenting “An

Ecologically Sound and Socially Just Economy.” “Each community and

region should strive, within reason, to be as self-sufficient as

possible with respect to basic needs such as water, energy, food, and

housing. This is not a call for absolute self-sufficiency but rather for

an attempt to…lessen the need for long distance

transport….Energy…[should be] used near where it was

produced….Ecologically sound and productive agriculture…will take more

people working smaller farms…to produce high yields per hectare….People

will be encouraged to live near where they work….” (Magdoff, 2014;

30—31) Also, “Workplaces (including farms) will be controlled and

managed by the workers and communities in which they are based.” (29)

Why Decentralism?

I could cite many more ecologically-minded activists and scholars. These

theorists are not anarchists and (except for Magdoff) not socialists or

revolutionaries. They come out of traditions of liberalism and/or

Marxism which have historically been centralistic and statist. In the

past, a frequent response to environmental and ecological problems was

to advocate economic planning and state intervention. (Nor would

anarchists deny the need for some degree of federalized economic

coordination—but not by these bureaucratic-military-capitalist national

states!) Yet here they are arguing for increased decentralization,

localism, direct democracy, and worker management of industry! Without

knowing it apparently, they are recreating anarchism (or aspects of

anarchism) for ecological reasons. (For more on ecology and anarchism

see Bookchin, 1980; Purchase 1994.)

These are ecological-environmental reasons for decentralism. If we are

to cut back on energy consumption (and end carbon-based fuel use

altogether), we need to decrease transpiration and travel. That in

itself speaks to the need for local industry, consumption near

production, and workplaces near housing—not necessarily in the immediate

community, but at least in the region. Renewable energy sources tend to

come in small packets, when using wind, solar power, geothermal, and

water. Therefore small and local production and consumption makes sense,

as opposed to giant factories and mega-cities. The same is true when

using natural resources with the least side effects of destruction or

pollution, so these effects may be easily cleaned up. Democratic

economic planning is also easier to do on a local or regional level, if

we want widespread participation. At the same time, the Internet and

other media make coordination-from-below among vast regions easier than

ever before.

However, there is another reason for the spread of decentralist ideas

(that is, essentially anarchism). The radical alternative to our

capitalist society used to be Marxism. But Marxism has been discredited

in the eyes of many people, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and

the transformation of Maoist China. All of the quoted writers, except

Magdoff, reject “socialism.” They identify it with government-owned,

centralized, and top-down planned economies. (Historically, Magdoff’s

co-thinkers have also identified “socialism” in this way—except that

they were for it.) Yet today, the idea that we could solve fundamental

problems by increased state action, centralization of industry, and

totalitarian politics, does not appeal. But capitalism is barreling down

the highway to its own destruction, and the destruction of humanity and

the living world. So people are looking for a different approach.

Eco-Socialism: Decentralism is Not Enough

But decentralization is not enough. All the theorists quoted above—with

the exception of the Marxist Magdoff—are still essentially for

capitalism. They want worker-managed enterprises and consumer

cooperatives—to compete on a market with each other and with capitalist

corporations. These corporations would still exist, even if with more

rights for workers and consumers, smaller size, and more regulation by

the government—but still functioning on the competitive market.

In contrast, anarchist-socialists oppose profit-making firms and

corporations and the market. they are eco-socialists. They advocate that

self-managed, cooperative, enterprises network and federate with each

other, to create a democratically planned economy from below.

The market is not a democratic people-managed economy. It runs according

to its own spontaneous laws, which it imposes on enterprises though

competition. To repeat: it drives the economy toward accumulation,

increasing growth, greater profits, and continual quantitative

expansion. Its law is grow-or-die.

This has at least three important effects. For one, an economy built on

continuous growth must be in conflict with natural ecologies which

require harmonious balance and dynamic stability. Capitalism treats

nature as an endless mine, with natural resources as apparently free

gifts. This is true whether the competitive enterprises are big or

small.

A second effect is the inevitable tendency of smaller enterprises to

grow into bigger ones. The drive to accumulate more than its competitors

pushes each firm to grow as big as it can. So even if capitalism (or any

other imagined competitive economy) were to magically be returned to its

original state of small firms, it would once again grow into gigantic

semi-monopolies.

Third, through its drive to accumulate, capitalism produces a work force

which must be exploited. If the working class got back all that it

produced, then there would be no capitalist accumulation. Market-driven

accumulation contradicts any goal of worker industrial democracy.

However, the existing system of global semi-monopoly capitalism has

created a larger international working class than ever before in

history. (The relative “de-industrialization” of the U.S. goes together

with “outsourcing,” which creates more industrial workers elsewhere.)

Unfortunately, none of the authors cited above refer to the importance

and potential power of that international working class. With its hands

on the means of production and distribution and communication, the

working class is a force which could end capitalism’s drive to

ecological disaster. (Even Magdoff and his co-thinkers at Monthly Review

are uncertain about the role of the working class.)

In short, capitalism should be replaced by a society which is

decentralized but also cooperative, producing for use rather than

profit, democratically self-managed in the workplace and the community,

and federated together from the local level to national and

international levels. This is eco-socialism in the form of

eco-anarchism.

References

Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo:

Black Rose Books.

Carson, Kevin A. (2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution; A

Low-Overhead Manifesto. Booksurge.

Engels, Federick (1954). Anti-Duhring: Herr Eugen Duhring’s Revolution

in Science. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

(Pope) Francis (2015). Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality; On

Care for Our Common Home. Brooklyn/London: Melville House.

Goodman, Paul (1965). People or Personnel; Decentralizing and the Mixed

System. NY: Random House.

Jefferson, Thomas (1954). The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson (ed.:

John Dewey). NY: Fawcett/Premier Books.

Kropotkin, Peter (2002). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary

Writings (ed.: Roger Baldwin). Mineola NY: Dover.

Kunstler, James H. (2006). The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil,

Climate Change, and Other Coverging Catastrophes of the 21st Century.

NY: Grove Press.

Loomis, Mildred (1982). Alternate Americas. NY: Universe Books/Free Life

Editions.

McKibben, Bill (2007). Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the

Durable Future. NY: Henry Holt/Times Books.

McRobie, George (1981). Small is Possible. NY: Harper & Row.

Magdoff, Fred (Sept. 2014). “Building an Ecologically Sound and Socially

Just Society.” Monthly Review (v. 66; no. 4). Pp. 23—34.

Marx, Karl, & Engels, Frederick (1971). On the Paris Commune. Moscow:

Progress Publishers.

Price, Wayne (April 2014). “Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises.”

Anarkismo.

Purchase, Graham (1994). Anarchism and Environmental Survival. Tucson

AZ: See Sharp Press.

Sclove, Richard E., (1995). Democracy and Technology. NY/London:

Guilford Press.