💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bob-black-withered-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:56:15. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Withered Anarchism Author: Bob Black Language: en Topics: anthropology, critique, foraging, freedom, leftism, post-left Source: Retrieved on April 21, 2009 from http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001843/wither.html][www.spunk.org]]. Proofread text source from [[http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3912, retrieved on December 9, 2020. Notes: Send comments to Bob Black, P.O. Box 3142, Albany, NY 12203–0142, USA. Initial page mark-up by Jean Heriot. Additional mark-up by Chuck0 Munson, Fall 1998
“The general level of insight now is more educated, curiosity is wide
awake, and judgments are made more quickly than formerly; so the feet of
them which shall carry thee out are already at the door” — Hegel[1]
The tale is told of the American tourist abroad who, encountering some
natives who didn’t speak his language, assisted their understanding by
repeating himself in a louder voice. That is Murray Bookchin’s way with
wayward anarchists. In Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm (1995)[2] the ex-Dean laid down for all time what
anarchists are to believe and what they are not to believe, but many
perversely persist in error. Its very title announces its divisive
intent. Two books[3] and a slew of reviews suggest an overwhelmingly
adverse anarchist reaction to the ex-Dean’s encyclical (although
Marxists like Frank Girard and Kevin Keating/“Max Anger” are of course
approving[4]). For Bookchin, there is only one possible explanation for
anarchist intransigence: they didn’t hear him the first time. For who —
having heard — could fail to believe? And so it came to pass — like wind
— that the ex-Dean is repeating himself, louder than ever, in Anarchism,
Marxism, and the Future of the Left, especially in the article “Whither
Anarchism? A Reply to Recent Anarchist Critics.”[5] But it’s not a
reply, just a replay. “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13).
For those unfamiliar with the ex-Dean’s dialectical mode of reasoning —
shame on you! — the distinction between appearance and essence must be
made incorrigibly clear. Thus, when the ex-Dean writes that “it is not
my intention to repeat my exposition of the differences between social
and lifestyle anarchism,” in appearance, he is saying that it is not his
intention to repeat his exposition of the differences between Social
Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism. But understood dialectically, in
essence, he is saying that it is his intention to repeat his exposition
of the differences between Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism. And
that is exactly what, and all that, he proceeds to do, which validates
the method.
My book Anarchy after Leftism, according to the ex-Dean, teems with
falsehoods so numerous “that to correct even a small number of them
would be a waste of the reader’s time.” AAL is “transparently motivated
by a white-hot animosity toward [him],” in stark contrast to SALA, which
is transparently motivated by Bookchin’s own impersonal, disinterested
quest for the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help him History. “So malicious are its invectives [sic]” that the
ex-Dean “will not dignify them with a reply.” Even a cursory reading of
SALA — more than it merits — confirms that Bookchin himself is too
high-minded to indulge in “invectives.” Never (except once) does he
relegate Watson and other anarcho-primitivists to “the lifestyle zoo,”
an expression so demeaning and vicious that I wonder why I didn’t think
of it first. Nor does he descend, as does my “gutter journalism,” to the
indiscriminate, malicious, and self-contradictory outpouring of such
insults as “fascist,” “decadent,” “individualist,” “mystical,” “petit
bourgeois,” “infantile,” “unsavory,” “personalistic,” “liberal,”
“yuppie,” “lumpen,” “bourgeois,” “reactionary,” etc. Never does
Bookchin, who is rationality incarnate, resort to these abusive
epithets, except (a hundred times or so) as objective, scientifically
validated characterizations of Lifestyle Anarchists. Bookchin is a hard
act to follow, except with a pooper-scooper.
Since the ex-Deanly dialectic takes a little getting used to, consider
another example. When he says that he will not dignify with a reply a
critique full of numerous falsehoods and “intense and personalistic
[sic] vilification,” such as mine, the reader unlearned in dialectics
might naively suppose that Bookchin means that he will not dignify with
a reply a critique full of numerous falsehoods and intense,
personalistic vilification. Thus he would never dignify with a reply a
book whose “almost every paragraph” contains “vituperative attacks,
manic denunciations, ad hominem characterizations, and even gossipy
rumors,” namely, David Watson’s Beyond Bookchin. And yet he does dignify
(if that’s the word for what he does) Watson’s book with many thousands
of turgid words of would-be rebuttal. Indeed , “almost every paragraph
of BB is either an insult or a lie”: even I could scarcely have
surpassed it in depravity. Once again I ask, what am I, chopped liver?
(I wish Watson’s book was even a fraction as much fun as Bookchin makes
it sound. Bookchin has given Watson a jacket blurb to die for.) But
despair not, neophyte dialectician. Even a trained philosophy professor,
avowed dialectician, and (for almost two decades) inner-circle Bookchin
crony, John P. Clark, does not and — Bookchin belatedly relates — never
did understand Dialectical Bookchinism. With the possible exception of
his main squeeze Janet Biehl, only Bookchin is as yet a fully realized
reasoning human who has mastered the dialectic and, deploying it
masterfully, divines the “directionality” of the Universe itself. The
rest of us are best advised not to play with fire but rather to play it
safe and simply believe whatever Bookchin tells us this week.
If I had any reservations about the way I rudely and ruthlessly
ridiculed the Dean in AAL — actually, I didn’t — “Whither Anarchism?”
would have laid them to rest. In Beyond Bookchin, David Watson responded
a lot more respectfully to Bookchin than I did, and a lot more
respectfully than Bookchin ever responds to anybody. A fat lot of good
it did him. The ex-Dean demonized Watson in the same hysterical terms he
demonized me, but at much greater length. Bookchin isn’t remotely
interested in being civil, reasonable or fair. To me, and not only to
me, that was already obvious from SALA. Watson let himself be played for
a sucker. I can’t say I’m especially sympathetic, since Watson affects a
holier-than-thou attitude only a little less unctuous than Bookchin’s.
He and his fellow anarcho-liberal Fifth Estate hippies gave me the
silent treatment long before the ex-Dean did.
To correct even a small number of my errors, according to Bookchin,
would be a waste of the reader’s time, unlike his correction of a large
number of the errors of the miscreants Watson and Clark. The carping
critic might complain that maybe the reader, not the writer, should get
the chance to decide what is, and what isn’t a waste of the reader’s
time. The number “one” is, if I remember my arithmetic, as small as a
whole number can get, yet big enough for Bookchin to draw “one sample”
to “demonstrate the overall dishonesty of [my] tract.” Bookchin, the
self-appointed champion of science, does not even know the difference
between an example and a sample. One observation is, to a statistician,
not a sample from which anything can be reliably inferred about even a
population of two, any more than a coin coming up “heads” has any
tendency to indicate whether next time it comes up heads or tails.
That someone has made one error has no tendency to prove that he has
made “numerous” errors. Even Bookchin — for the first time, so far as I
know — now admits that he made what he considers errors, indeed serious
errors, in his earlier, positive characterizations of “organic”
(primitive) societies. If one error is justification enough to dismiss
an entire book from consideration, then every book by Bookchin must be
dismissed from consideration. In fact, probably every book by anyone
must be dismissed from consideration. How are we ever to further what
Bookchin fervently avows — progress, cumulative improvement in
understanding — without mistakes to learn from?
If my entire book-length critique is to be dismissed on the basis of one
error, it should be a profoundly important error, one going to the
fundamentals of Bookchin’s dichotomy, his posited “unbridgeable chasm”
between Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism, or my more meaningful
dichotomy between leftist and post-leftist anarchism. Instead, this
denouncer of the “personalistic” preoccupations he attributes to the
Lifestyle Anarchists is, as to me, exclusively indignant about my
alleged errors in sketching his own personalistic political biography,
as I do in chapter 1 of Anarchy after Leftism. And even then, his only
substantive quibble is with my referring to him as “a ‘dean’ at Goddard
College (AAL, p. 18), a position that, [Black] would have his readers
believe, endows me with the very substantial income that I need in order
to advance my nefarious ambitions,” whereas the truth is that Bookchin
“ended [his] professional connections with Goddard College (as well as
Ramapo College, which [Black] also mentions) in 1981.” My citation to
the 1995 Goddard College Off-Campus Catalog, “a rare document,” is an
“outright fabrication,” as the Catalog does not identify Bookchin as a
Dean.[6]
Indeed it does not. I never said it did. For Bookchin to claim otherwise
is an outright fabrication. This is what I did cite the Catalog for:
“The material base for these superstructural effusions [i.e., the many
books Bookchin cranked out in the 1980’s] was Bookchin’s providential
appointment as a Dean at Goddard College near Burlington, Vermont, a
cuddle-college for hippies and, more recently, punks, with wealthy
parents (cf. Goddard College 1995 [the Off-Campus Catalog]). He also
held an appointment at Ramapo College. Bookchin, who sneers at leftists
who have embarked upon ‘alluring university careers’ [SALA, 67], is one
of them.”[7] I cited the Catalog, not to verify Bookchin’s academic
career — I never suspected he would ever deny it, since he has boasted
of it for so long — but rather in support of my characterization of what
kind of a college Goddard College is, an expensive private college
catering to the children of rich liberals. Maybe not an important point,
but better a little truth than a big lie.
Still, if the credibility of my entire book turns on these three
sentences, their truth assumes unwonted importance. Bookchin
categorically asserts that he ended his professional connection with
Ramapo College in 1981. But according to the jacket blurb for The
Ecology of Freedom (1982), he “is currently Professor of Social Ecology
at Ramapo College in New Jersey.” If Bookchin was not then
professionally connected with Ramapo College, he and/or his publisher
must have wanted people to think he was for marketing purposes. By 1987,
according to the jacket blurb for The Rise of Urbanization and the
Decline of Citizenship, he “is Professor Emeritus at the School of
Environmental Studies, Ramapo College of New Jersey and Director
Emeritus of the Institute for Social Ecology at Rochester, Vermont.”
According to the 1994 Bookchin biography posted electronically “to
Anarchy Archives on behalf of Murray Bookchin by Janet Biehl,” “in 1974,
he [Bookchin] began teaching in Ramapo College in New Jersey, becoming
full professor of social theory entering and retiring in 1983 in an
emeritus status.”[8] As all I said about that is that Bookchin held
(notice the past tense) an appointment at Ramapo College, and all I
implied was that this was in the 1980’s, Bookchin’s authorized
spokeswoman confirms that I was right. She also confirms, contrary to
Bookchin, that he did not end his professional association with Ramapo
College in 1981, but rather in 1983. Does it matter? According to
Bookchin it does, so who is anyone else to say it doesn’t?
Then there is the affiliation with Goddard College. Now in referring to
Bookchin as “the Dean,” I was merely following the custom of referring
to a distinguished retiree by his highest achieved dignitary title, the
way people refer to “General Colin Powell” or Clinton referred to
“Senator Dole” during the debates. Was my resort to this protocol, under
the circumstances, ironic rather than honorific? Obviously. Bookchin is
a self-important, pompous ass. He brings out the pie-throwing Groucho
Marxist in me. Sure, I can also trounce him on his own sub-academic
terms, and I did. So did Watson. But “beyond Bookchin” the
pseudo-scholar is Bookchin the blowhard and Bookchin the bureaucrat. In
a letter to me (April 28, 1998), C.A.L. Press publisher Jason McQuinn
relates that “the first thing I did before I agreed to publish your
book, was to call Goddard College to fact check the ‘Dean’ accusation.
The first person to answer didn’t know who the hell he was, but someone
else in the room confirmed that he had been such.” (I’d earlier made the
same phone call and gotten the same answer.)
Bookchin’s stunning expose of my dishonesty rests, at best, on a pissant
terminological quibble. As Janet Biehl says, “In 1974 he co-founded and
directed the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, Vermont, which
went on to acquire an international reputation for its advanced courses
in ecophilosophy, social theory, and alternative technology that reflect
his ideas.” For whatever legal or administrative reasons, the ISE was
set up as an entity formally distinct from Goddard College, but for all
practical purposes, it is the graduate school of Goddard College. Thus
David Watson in Beyond Bookchin made what he undoubtedly considered an
utterly noncontroversial reference to “the Institute for Social Ecology
at Goddard College.”[9] The administrator who has the title “Director”
at the ISE has the title “Dean” at most other post-secondary schools.
That’s why Goddard College spokesmen remember Bookchin as a dean. So
Bookchin was a dean whether or not he was a Dean. And his “professional
connection” with Goddard/ISE persisted at least until 1994 when, as
Biehl then reported, “he still gives two core courses at the Institute
for Social Ecology each summer, where he has the status of director
emeritus. “
Let us recur to why I devoted all of several pages out of 140 to the
Director’s bureaucratic and academic career, which spanned a quarter of
a century. One immediate purpose was simply to flag Bookchin’s gross
hypocrisy in denouncing leftists who embarked upon “alluring academic
careers”[10] when he had done the same thing himself for over two
decades. A broader purpose, opening out from that, was to challenge
what, if anything, Bookchin meant by his shotgun epithet “bourgeois.” If
it is an objective category of class analysis, then Bookchin (I
suggested) — as a salaried professional and order-giving bureaucrat — is
a bourgeois himself,[11] unlike at least some of those he reviles as
bourgeois, such as John Zerzan (a temp worker) and L. Susan Brown (an
office worker), who are objectively proletarians. But if the Director’s
use of the word is not objective and scientific, if he is not flexing
his modest mental muscles — the “muscularity of thought” he says he
brought to the mushminded Greens — then what does he mean by
“bourgeois”? In what way is what he calls Lifestyle Anarchism bourgeois
whereas what he calls Social Anarchism is not? He never says. For a
devolved Marxist like Bookchin, “bourgeois” (and “fascist”) are, as H.L.
Mencken remarked, just “general terms of abuse.”[12]
The ex-Dean, with typical obtuseness, never notices the obvious irony in
my repeatedly referring to him as “the Dean,” “presumably on the
assumption that mere repetition will make my title a reality.” In SALA,
Bookchin refers to Hakim Bey (the pseudonym of Peter Lamborn Wilson) at
least 27 times as “the Bey,”[13] presumably on the assumption that mere
repetition will make his title a reality. Hakim Bey is not a Bey.
Nowadays nobody is. A Bey was the governor of a province or district in
the Ottoman Turkish Empire, which ceased to exist decades before Wilson
was born.
I might have erred in Anarchy after Leftism in once referring to
Bookchin as “high income,” but even that remains to be seen. Bookchin
can always release his tax returns to settle the point. Undoubtedly his
income fell when he retired, as does everyone’s, but from what to what?
In addition to his salaries from two colleges, Bookchin collected
royalties from the sales of over a dozen books (and, as he says,
advances on others), and collected fees from lecturing in (his own
words) every major university in the United States. I have no idea
whether he managed all this money wisely, I only point out that he must
have had a goodly chunk of change to manage. I stand by my original
assertion that Bookchin probably has a higher income than anybody he
denounces (it’s certainly higher than mine).
In “Whither Anarchism?” the narrow, impoverished critique of SALA is
further foreshortened. In SALA (Inshallah), the Director Emeritus
startled anarchists, whom he had neglected for many years, by abruptly
departing the Green fields of Social Ecology for the killing fields of
Social Anarchism. He argued — or rather, he declaimed — that a tendency
he calls Lifestyle Anarchism, the sinister shadow of Social Anarchism,
has since the 60’s increasingly supplanted the latter, a usurpation he
attributes to a “climate of social reaction” which has prevailed for the
last 25 years or more. Curiously, this was the period in which almost
all the Director’s books were published, including all of them with even
a little explicit anarchist content (several had none). Apparently the
climate of social reaction proved as congenial to Bookchin as to the
Lifestyle Anarchists, for whom he never had a discouraging word until
recently. But in his reply to recent anarchist critics, the Director
Emeritus addresses, not criticism of his Social Anarchism, but criticism
of his Social Ecology. He changes the subject. And even on that plane,
his rebuttal dwindles to not much more than denouncing David Watson and
John P. Clark as mystics, which, even if true, is only name-calling,
unresponsive to their concrete criticisms. And not even Bookchin is
insolent enough to accuse me of mysticism.
The Director Emeritus and diviner of world-historical directionality
disdains to debate me directly, except as to details of his biography,
already dealt with to his disadvantage. Ignoring me didn’t work for him
before and it won’t work now. It’s only an extreme expression of the
essay’s monumental lack of proportion. He says nothing about work,
organization, and municipal politics, but devotes 2-1/2 single-spaced
pages (over 7% of the text) to debating with Watson the political
meaning of a Goya engraving. The Director declines to explain or justify
his previous abuse of the epithet “bourgeois” — in fact, he makes even
more use of it, as if other words are failing him — but spares four
pages to denounce Taoism. All his personalistic, self-serving stories —
especially concerning John Clark’s decades of disciplehood — are, even
if accurate, not a reply to critics. Judging Bookchin’s priorities from
what he finds important to discuss, he is much less interested in the
future of anarchism than in the future of his reputation. The irony is
that SALA and the reaction to it have surely done more damage, and much
sooner, to Bookchin’s anarchist reputation than has its molecular
erosion by Lifestyle Anarchist tendencies.
Some of the Director’s ongoing obsessions are of only symptomatic
interest to me. I don’t speak Spanish and I don’t know anything about
Goya. Having never read Lewis Mumford, I continue to stay out of the
unseemly custody struggle for his corpse — I meant to say, his corpus —
between Bookchin and Watson. I don’t think that trees talk to each
other, a possibility Watson reportedly does not rule out, but I do think
that no tree could be a worse woodenheaded listener than Murray
Bookchin.
Only a little more interesting to me is John Clark’s opinion that Taoism
is, or could be, compatible with anarchism. Offhand it looks like it all
depends on what you mean by Taoism and what you mean by anarchism; if
this seems like a banal observation, it is. Bookchin now claims that he
could “never accept Clark’s Taoism as part of social ecology,” but he
kept his criticisms private so long as Clark acted in public as his
loyal adjutant. According to the Director, “that my association with
Clark lasted as long as it did is testimony to my silent endurance of
his Taoist claptrap and my distinctly nondogmatic tolerance of views not
in accordance with my own.” Such stoic fortitude! Such latitudinarian
generosity! “But in the late 1980s, as this type of mystical quietism
gained more and more influence into [sic] the ecology movement, I could
no longer remain silent.” So then (the reader has been primed to expect)
— more in sorrow than in anger — the Director went public with his
critique of Clark, notwithstanding that Clark was “widely assumed” to be
the Director’s “spokesman,” perhaps because “from the mid-1970s until
early 1993, the author was a close associate of [his]”? Actually, not.
As the Director goes on to say, in the late 1980s he critiqued, not
Clark, but “deep ecologist” Dave Foreman of Earth First! Whatever
Foreman’s failings, and they are many, he is no Taoist. Bookchin never
openly repudiated Clark’s dabbling in Taoism until Clark broke with
Bookchin in 1993. The Director’s “silent endurance” — silence, like
“quietism,” is a quality Bookchin does not conspicuously display — looks
more like opportunism than tolerance. Either way, Bookchin must never
have thought that Taoism was any kind of serious threat to, or important
influence on, contemporary anarchism — and it isn’t.
It does the Director no good to disinvite me to his (vanguard) party.
Erisian that I am, I’m crashing it. I don’t need the Director’s
direction to identify targets of opportunity. Of these, the most
conspicuous is the Director’s dogged and dogmatic reiteration of the
bourgeois Hobbesian myth of the lives of pre-urban anarchist foragers as
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,[14] in dramatic contrast to
the life of Murray Bookchin: nasty, brutish, and long.
For all his huffing and puffing, the Director Emeritus adds nothing to
the inadequate and dishonest “evidentiality” (one of his gratuitous
neologisms) of SALA which Watson and I have already shown to be lacking.
He continues to ignore the anthropological studies summarized in John
Zerzan’s Future Primitive, Watson’s Beyond Bookchin, and my Friendly
Fire[15] and Anarchy after Leftism. He continues to pretend that the
thesis that stateless hunter-gatherers enjoyed a sort of primitive
affluence was a short-lived 60’s fad, like smoking banana peels — little
more than the rebellious, euphoric romanticizing of non-Western peoples
by tripped-out hippies, like the ones who fell for Carlos Casteneda’s
“Don Juan” hoax. This anthropological aberration, he again assures us,
has been corrected by the sober scholarship of the period of social
reaction.
Before going into the merits of that contention (none), let us consider
its implications for Bookchin’s own theory of a protracted period of
“social reaction” as the explanation for why decadent Lifestyle
Anarchism has supplanted heroic Social Anarchism over the last 30 years.
The implication is that periods of — what? social progress? political
turbulence? — foster theoretical progress, such as that accomplished by
the Director. His clear implication, by dating the commencement of the
period of social reaction to the 1970’s, is that the 60’s were not a
period of social reaction. Indeed it was then that the Director came
into his own as an anarchist theorist, proof enough of the fructifying
influence of those heady times. Yet this was also when the hippie
anthropologists concocted their ludicrous “primitive affluence” thesis
based on little more than intensive ethnographic fieldwork and careful
historical research. Incredibly, this absurd, empirically-grounded
conception prevailed as anthropological orthodoxy, as the Director
Emeritus complains, well into the 80’s. Undoubtedly it owed much of its
undue influence to its qualified endorsement by the Director Emeritus
himself in The Ecology of Freedom (1982), an epochal work which — as I
demonstrated in AAL by surveying all its academic reviews (both of
them)[16] — took the world of social science by storm. If, and insofar
as, there has been a professional reaction against the
primitive-affluence thesis, it is entirely, like Social Ecology and
Lifestyle Anarchism, the product of a period of social reaction. How odd
(and yet, how dialectical) that from decadence, from decay, the
life-force, conscious “second nature” — renewed by rot and reaction — is
resurgent in the person and the praxis of the Director of directionality
and such lackeys as he finds useful from time to time.
To support his claim that Hobbesianism has been restored to
anthropological orthodoxy, the Director cites one highly controversial
book, one review of that book, and a pop science story,[17] none of
which is of very recent vintage. It is characteristic of Bookchin’s
scrupulously scientific method that he affirms as the new consensus —
because it suits his political purposes — the most extreme statement of
one polar position (Edwin Wilmsen’s) in what is actually an ongoing
unresolved controversy (see Appendix “C”). Make that “controversies”:
anthropologists are debating a number of issues involving foragers,
issues at least partly and often wholly independent of one another. What
most exercises the specialists turns out to be what’s least relevant to
anarchists. To say that “the !Kung [San] model of the foraging lifeway —
small, nomadic bands — is no longer taken as typical of preagricultural
human societies”[18] does not mean much unless the components of “the”
model are disaggregated. As of 1992 there were already at least 582
items published relating to the Kalahari foragers[19] — ample evidence
of controversy. And yet, insofar as any generalization is possible, even
a leading revisionist, Thomas N. Headland, approvingly quoted by the
Director,[20] very recently writes that “while we now doubt that
prehistoric hunter-gatherers were as affluent as Sahlins, Lee and others
first suggested, we do not want to return to the pre-1966 Hobbesian idea
that their lives were nasty, brutish and short ... ”[21] In Anarchy
after Leftism I already quoted M.A.P. Renouf, writing in 1991, to the
effect that “although the more idealized aspects of the Lee and DeVore
model are commonly acknowledged, I think it is fair to say that no
fundamental revision of it has been made.”[22]
For present purposes, as in AAL, I am only addressing aspects of forager
society of direct relevance to anarchism. Revisionist corrections mostly
relate to other issues. It doesn’t matter to anarchists, for instance,
if contemporary foragers are “living fossils” who have always lived as
they do now, in “pristine” societies. It doesn’t matter that they have
histories, including histories of trade and other interactions with
agriculturists and herders. It doesn’t matter if foragers aren’t always
and everywhere the benign caretakers of the environment. It doesn’t
matter if prehistoric humans were scavengers (not a revisionist thesis,
by the way, but rather a quirky Bookchinist thesis). So what does matter
to anarchists about these people? In two of my books I specified two
crucial points:
“They operate the only known viable stateless societies.”
“And they don’t, except in occasional emergencies, work ... ”[23]
To these I would now add (or rather, make explicit) two more. The first
— courtesy of the Director — is the egalitarian communism of
hunter-gatherers:
“There is very much we can learn from preliterate cultures ... their
practices of usufruct and the inequality of equals [?] are of great
relevance to an ecological society.”[24]
And finally, a somewhat general, summary contention:
Foragers enjoy a relatively high quality of life, when the blessings of
anarchy, leisure, equality and community are considered along with
relative good health and longevity.
It is only certain aspects of this last contention (of those of any
interest to anarchists) which some revisionist anthropologists would
seriously dispute, but even if we had to bid farewell to it, the first
three points would still stand.
So far as I can determine, none of the research or arguments of the
revisionists even purport to deny the long-established and unanimous
anthropological consensus that nonsedentary hunter-gatherers, at least —
and at least most of the sedentary ones — have always been stateless.
This was common ground between them and the Lee/DeVore school and all
their predecessors. Not even Bookchin seems to dispute the
primitive-anarchy thesis, the thesis most important to anarchists.
In “The Original Affluent Society,” which Bookchin has apparently not
read,[25] Marshall Sahlins wrote: “A good case can be made that hunters
and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather than a continuous
travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is
a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any
other condition of society.”[26]
Citing the then-unpublished results of Richard B. Lee’s fieldwork among
the !Kung San (“Bushmen”), Sahlins estimated that the San worked a
four-hour day. In their refined, published version, Lee’s figures were
even lower, 2.2 to 2.4 hours a day.[27] Such evidence renders ridiculous
what Bookchin is still spouting in 1998, the Marxist dogma about “toil
and material uncertainties (as well as natural ones)[28] that have in
the past shackled the human spirit to a nearly exclusive concern for
subsistence.”[29] The foraging San were not preoccupied with
subsistence. They had no reason to be.
The quantitative data, as startling as they are, only begin to disclose
the qualitative difference between primitive and modern work, in
respects I summarized in Friendly Fire: “In addition to shorter hours,
‘flextime’ and the more reliable ‘safety net’ afforded by general food
sharing, foragers’ work is more satisfying than most modern work. We
awaken to the alarm clock; they sleep a lot, night and day. We are
sedentary in our buildings in our polluted cities; they move about
breathing the fresh air of the open country. We have bosses; they have
companions. Our work typically implicates one, or at most a few
hyper-specialized skills, if any; theirs combines handwork and brainwork
in a versatile variety of activities, exactly as the great utopians
called for. Our ‘commute’ is dead time, and unpaid to boot; they cannot
even leave the campsite without ‘reading’ the landscape in a potentially
productive way.”[30] To which I might add that hunting, in Europe as
elsewhere, has always been the “sport of kings” — play, not work —
characterized by what Kierkegaard called “the lovable seriousness which
belongs essentially to play.”[31] The synthesis of work (production for
its own sake) and play (activity for its own sake) is what I have long
called, and long called for, the abolition of work. Someone else might
phrase the goal differently, as, for instance, “a joyous artfulness in
life and work” — as once did Murray Bookchin.[32]
According to an author highly regarded by Bookchin, “the labor of
pastoral peoples is so light and simple that it hardly requires the
labor of slaves. Consequently we see that for nomadic and pastoral
peoples the number of slaves is very limited, if not zero. Things are
otherwise with agricultural and settled peoples. Agriculture requires
assiduous, painful, heavy labor. The free man of the forests and plains,
the hunter as well as the herdsman, takes to agriculture only with great
repugnance.”[33] The anarcho-primitivist crazy who wrote these words was
Mikhail Bakunin.
It is not just that foragers work much less than the members of
agricultural and industrial societies, if by work is meant production.
It is not just that they work differently, in more varied and mostly
more challenging and satisfying ways.[34] It is not just that they work
in cooperation, not in competition. It is not just that they are almost
always free of time-discipline, i.e., at any particular time they
literally don’t have to do anything.[35] It is not just that they sleep
in as late as they like and loaf a lot. In every one of these
particulars, forager working life is superior to ours, but more
important is what their coincidence implies about the foraging mode of
production. At some point, less work plus better work ends up as
activity it no longer makes sense to call work at all, although it
furnishes the means of life. Foragers are at that point. They don’t
work, not if work means forced labor, compulsory production, or the
subordination of pleasure to production when these objectives diverge.
Now it is possible to define work in other ways than I do. No one owns
the word. But an important revolutionary current, by now rooted mainly
in anarchism, is explicitly anti-work in approximately the sense I’ve
defined work in several essays, one of them well-known,[36] going back
at least fifteen years.[37] There is widespread appreciation among
anarchists that the abolition of the state without the abolition of work
is as fatally incomplete — and as fated for failure — as the abolition
of capitalism without the abolition of the state. In his early anarchist
essays, Bookchin seemed (to many of us) to say so too when he condemned
needless and stultifying “toil.” I of course prefer my own definitions —
to which I have devoted some years of careful thought — and which I like
to think identify the essentials of work while still corresponding with
common usage. But if somebody else prefers a different terminology,
that’s fine, as long as he makes its meaning explicit and refrains from
squidlike outgushing of eccentric verbiage to muddle the matter. Words
are a means to an end: the expression of meaning. If somebody wants to
call what I call “the abolition of work” something else, that’s all
right with me, especially if it makes the idea less scary to the timid.
But whatever you call it, foragers usually had it. They were
zeroworkers.
With respect to the San, Bookchin fudges the figures about working time
in a crude way which is extraordinarily, and blatantly, dishonest even
by the relaxed standards of his dotage. He claims that ”[Richard B.] Lee
has greatly revised the length of the workweek he formerly attributed to
the Zhu [sic][38]; the average workweek for both sexes, he wrote in
1979, is not eighteen but 42.3 hours.”[39] Now I cannot do better than I
did in Friendly Fire to refute, in advance, this clumsy lie. Originally,
“Lee studied the San equivalent of what is conventionally accounted work
in industrial society — hunting and gathering in their case, wage-labor
in ours.” In other words, as I discuss in Friendly Fire, “shadow work” —
housework — was originally excluded from the comparisons Sahlins made,
not only because Lee had yet to measure housework, but also because
housework had always been excluded by our economists from what they
measure as work because it is unpaid, and anything not measured in money
is invisible to economists.[40] This does not, as I wrote in Friendly
Fire, invalidate the comparison, although it invites the more expansive
comparison which Lee returned to the field to record, and which I
summarized as follows: “Upon returning to the field, Lee broadened his
definition of work to encompass all ‘those activities that contribute to
the direct appropriation of food, water or materials from the
environment’ — adding to subsistence activity tool-making and -fixing
and housework (mainly food preparation). These activities didn’t
increase the San workload as much as their equivalents in our sort of
society increase ours — relatively we fall even f[u]rther behind. Per
diem the manufacture and maintenance of tools takes 64 minutes for men,
45 minutes for women.”[41] San women devote 22.4 hours a week to
housework, 40.1 hours to all work.[42] American women with full-time
jobs devote 40-plus hours a week to them in addition to doing 25–35
hours of housework.[43]
After the deceptive citation to Lee, Bookchin adds, as if to clinch the
point: “Irven DeVore, the Harvard anthropologist who shared Lee’s
conclusions on [sic] the Bushmen in the 1960s and 1970s, has observed:
‘We were being a bit romantic... Our assumptions and interpretations
were much too simple.”[44] Nothing in the article by Roger Lewin
(quoting DeVore) suggests that DeVore is referring to the data on
working time. The article’s only reference to forager working time is to
summarize the original Lee/DeVore finding “that the !Kung were able to
satisfy their material needs with just a few hours work each day, their
effort being divided between male hunting and female gathering of plant
foods.”[45] Lewin reports challenges to several aspects of the
Lee/DeVore model, but none to the findings on working time.
Lee studied the !Kung San of the Dobe area of the Kalahari. Jiri Tanaka
studied another group of San in the Kade area of the Kalahari in the
late 1960’s and early 1970’s. His figures on working time, though
slightly higher than Lee’s, in general provide independent support for
the primitive-zeroworker thesis. The daily average of time away from
camp, hunting and gathering, is 4 hours and 39 minutes; this includes
breaks, as “the sun’s rays beat down mercilessly on the Kalahari most of
the year, [so] the San often stop to rest in the shade during their
day’s work ...” In-camp chores add about two hours a day.[46] That makes
for a workweek of 46 hours and 33 minutes, a bit higher than Lee’s
estimate (44.5 hours for men, 40.1 hours for women). Tanaka is Japanese,
from a nation of workaholics. It is unlikely he was subject to the
counter-cultural influences which Bookchin improbably blames for the
primitive-affluence theory. Tanaka did not come to the Kalahari as a
believer in that theory: the figure he arrived at “is less than [he]
expected.”[47]
So far as I can tell, none of the Director’s cited sources overturns or
even qualifies the primitive-zerowork thesis. The Lewin article I have
already dealt with. Wilmsen’s polemic Land Filled with Flies is a fierce
critique of most aspects of the Lee/DeVore model, but does not address
forager working time. Headland’s review of Wilmsen, “Paradise Revised,”
after mentioning Lee’s contention that “the Dobe !Kung were able to
supply their needs easily by working only two or three hours a day,”
goes on to make the point that Lee’s original “calculations of the
amount of work the !Kung devoted to subsistence ignored the time spent
in preparing food, which turned out to be substantial.”[48] Headland
does not say how much time devoted to food preparation he considers
substantial, but there is no reason to think that the time that San
foragers devote to food preparation (about two hours a day) is much
different from the time we devote to it, factoring in shopping and
eating out. Whereas the time they devote to direct food acquisition is,
as we have seen, far less.
For no apparent reason, the Director fast-forwards (or -backwards) to
medieval Europe: “Given the demands of highly labor-intensive farming,
what kind of free time, in the twelfth century, did small-scale farmers
have? If history is any guide, it was a luxury they rarely enjoyed, even
during the agriculturally dormant winters. During the months when
farmers were not tilling the land and harvesting its produce, they
struggled endlessly to make repairs, tend animals, perform domestic
labor, and the like.” The appeal to history is unaccompanied by any
reference to what historians actually say about work in medieval Europe.
How many weeks of work a year did Englishmen devote to subsistence in
1495? Ten![49] Marxist that he is, Bookchin should remember that Paul
Lafargue in The Right to Be Lazy wrote that 25% of the pre-industrial
French peasant’s calendar consisted of work-free Sundays and
holidays.[50] But, for peasants as for foragers — although to a lesser
degree — simply counting days of work and days of leisure understates
the superior quality of low-energy modes of production for the direct
producers. “The recreational activities of the Middle Ages,” writes
historian Keith Thomas, “recall the old primitive confusion as to where
work ended and leisure began.”[51]
This is the one aspect of forager society which Bookchin even now
accepts and approves of. The revisionists have not gone very far in
dispelling this conception, to which both Marx and Kropotkin subscribed:
they have just identified a few more exceptions to the general rule of
equality and food-sharing. Usually, as I pointed out in Anarchy after
Leftism, it is the sedentary hunter-gatherers who may (but often do not)
develop some social stratification, as did the Northwest Coast Indians
with permanent villages adjoining salmon runs in which property rights
were recognized. Their anarchy is a borderline case.[52] It’s not
impossible, however — just extremely rare — for even nomadic
hunter-gatherers to distribute wealth unequally or assert ownership
rights to the means of production. A 19^(th) century example is the
Tutchone, a nomadic Athapaskan Indian people in the Yukon. Despite their
general poverty, they allocated food resources unequally and even
maintained a form of domestic slavery, allegedly without borrowing these
practices from other stratified societies.[53] In SALA, Bookchin cited
another example, the Yuqui.[54] But that’s just “the
‘not-so-in-Bongobongoland’ style of argument.”[55] If forager
egalitarianism is not universal, it almost is, and every other form of
society departs from equality to the extent of its greater complexity.
To seriously challenge the thesis of forager egalitarianism, the
revisionists would have to reveal inequality among the many foraging
peoples among whom ethnographers have hitherto found equality. So far as
I know, the only revisionist to make such a claim is Edwin Wilmsen in
Land Filled with Flies. His provocative example is, improbably, the San.
Wilmsen asserts that “meat sharing — the putative sine qua non of San
egalitarianism — is thoroughly controlled to meet the political ends of
the distributors.”[56] There are several difficulties here. The
distributor of meat (the owner of the arrow which killed the animal) has
no political ends, for the San are anarchists. What he does have is
expectations to satisfy which are determined mainly by kinship. To infer
inequality from this is a non sequitur, for few if any San are entirely
without family and friends at a campsite. If in fact they are without
family or friends, they should be, and soon would be, on their way to
somewhere else more hospitable. San principles of food-sharing
priorities do not mathematically guarantee absolute distributive
equality, but in practice they approximate it.
However, even arguments at this modest level of sophistication are
unnecessary to dispose of Wilmsen’s example — for that’s all it is: a
single “anecdote” (his word) about a San who complained of receiving no
meat from a household in which she had no relatives. These San were not
foragers, they were pastoralists who hunt, part-time, from horseback,
and partly with rifles.[57]
Wilmsen’s claim for class distinctions among foraging San is his “most
contentious,” overstated, and least accepted proposition.[58] Several
anthropologists, even Wilmsen’s main target Richard B. Lee, credit
Wilmsen with placing more emphasis on the historical dimension of San
studies, but they contest the findings of his fieldwork, which commenced
only in 1973, as “so at odds with previous works that it is impossible
to reconcile one’s prior knowledge of the Kalahari with what Wilmsen
presents.”[59] Even a fellow revisionist like Thomas Headland, in a
review which Bookchin cites approvingly, concludes that “one can be
generally convinced by Wilmsen’s [historical] account of outside
influence in the Kalahari desert while being troubled by his complete
rejection of earlier portraits of the !Kung.”[60] Wilmsen’s embrace of
history (and archeology[61]) at the expense of ethnography looks like
sour grapes. He arrived in the field too late to study viable San
foragers, as Lee, Howell, Tanaka and others had done, and so he rummaged
the archives to prove that there’d never been any such foragers, only
the same impoverished underclass he found in the 1970’s.
Still another of Wilmsen’s reviewers notes that “page after page
denounces Richard Lee and a host of other ethnographers with unnecessary
stings, while some other pages rely on the findings of these very
scholars.”[62] Murray Bookchin is right to recognize in Wilmsen a
kindred spirit, another lawyer trapped in the body of a scholar, except
that Bookchin isn’t even a scholar. “Scholarship,” according to one of
Bookchin’s rare scholarly reviewers, “is not his point, or his
achievement,” and his “method is to ransack world history — more or less
at random” for examples that seem to support his position.[63] Bookchin
relies on Wilmsen in exactly the opportunistic way Wilmsen relies on Lee
“and a host of other ethnographers,” grabbing whatever sounds like
support for an advocacy position, and never mind what it really means or
the context or the rest of the story. When lawyers pillage history this
way, historians refer to the result contemptuously as “law-office
history.”[64] Bookchin writes law-office history, law-office
anthropology, and law-office philosophy, which is to say,
pseudo-history, pseudo-anthropology, and pseudo-philosophy.
By the catchall phrase “the good life” I refer to various further
features of foraging society which are significant for what I can only
refer to, vaguely at the outset, as the quality of life. Necessarily,
interpretation and value judgments enter into the assessment of this
dimension even more openly than in the assessment of the first three,
but just as necessarily there is no avoiding them. Viable
anarcho-communist societies naturally interest anarchists, but if
hunter-gatherers enjoy little more than the freedom to suffer, and
equality in poverty, their example is not very encouraging. If that is
all that anarchy offers, anarchism has no appeal except to the fanatic
few. Abundance and good health, for instance, may not be supreme values,
but values they are. If they are too lacking for too long, the widest
liberty, equality and fraternity lose their savor. But for foragers, the
price of liberty, equality and fraternity is not nearly so high.
When Marshall Sahlins characterized hunter-gatherers as the original
affluent society, he meant to make several points. One I have already
dealt with: relatively short working time. The other, which has always
attracted more attention, is the contention that foragers typically
enjoy a food supply not only abundant but reliable. They do not work
very much because they have no need to work any longer or harder in
order to have all that they want to consume. They do not store much food
or for long, partly for lack of the requisite technology, but
fundamentally because of their confidence that they can always go out
and get some more.[65] Instead of the desperate preoccupation with
survival which Bookchin attributes to them, the foragers’ attitude
toward the quest for subsistence, is, as Sahlins says, one of
“nonchalance.”[66]
The world of the foragers is not, any more than ours is, absolutely
secure. Such words as “paradise” and “edenic” are never used by
anthropologists and not often used, and then usually metaphorically, by
anarcho-primitivists. It is their critics, above all Bookchin, who put
these words in their mouths, compounding the deception by putting these
nonexistent quotations in quotation marks — a Bookchin abuse I targeted
in Anarchy after Leftism but which the Director Emeritus now indulges in
more recklessly than ever. Like Bookchin, but unlike a fine wine, it has
not improved with age.
As everyone acknowledges — Watson and I included[67] — although
abundance is the norm among contemporary hunter-gatherers, they may go
hungry occasionally. There’s a two-month period of the year, for
instance, in which San food intake declines. That does not validate the
Hobbesian view, which is exactly the opposite: that for foragers, hunger
is the norm and satiety the exception. Lee and demographer Nancy Howell
measured a 1% to 2% loss in San body weight during the low point, “far
short of [the] 4 to 6.5 percent average loss observed among
agriculturists.”[68] And although saying so incenses the easily irked
Director,[69] it is obviously relevant to the primitive-affluence thesis
that in prehistoric times, foragers had all the world’s habitats to
enjoy, not just the marginal wastes to which contemporary foragers are
relegated by civilized techno-violence. It is reasonable to infer that
when foragers had the whole world to themselves, they enjoyed even
greater ease and affluence, the material base of their successful
anarchy. I daresay that more Americans than foragers will go to sleep
hungry tonight.
Just as he fudged the figures for San working time, the Director goes on
to misrepresent the figures on their caloric intake, although this time
without bothering to cite any of them. He claims — citing only himself —
that “Richard Lee’s own data on the caloric intake of ‘affluent’
foragers have been significantly challenged by Wilmsen and his
associates... Lee himself has revised his views on this score since the
1960s.” The identical passage appears in SALA.[70] Between 1969 and
1979, Lee did revise his estimates of San forager caloric uptake:
upward, from 2,140 kilocalories to 2,355 kilocalories, as noted by
Wilmsen himself! I had already drawn attention to the revision in
Friendly Fire as had Watson in Beyond Bookchin. And far from “sharply
challenging” Lee’s estimates, Wilmsen agreed with them: “considering the
margin of error inherent in calorie counting, either figure is in good
agreement with my estimate of 2,294 kilocalories/person/day for foraging
Zhu in July 1975.”[71] As of 1960, over half the world’s people consumed
less than 2250 calories a day, less than the San did; the civilized
people of China, India and Indonesia consumed much less than that.[72]
Bookchin’s blunders are so basic that they cannot have been committed in
good faith unless by someone whose intellectual capacities are gravely
impaired.
For many years now, the Director Emeritus has exhibited a personalistic
preoccupation with old age. Shortly after he turned 60, Bookchin’s
Ecology of Freedom (1982) advanced, among other eccentricities, the
thesis that the origin of hierarchy in human society was gerontocracy,
domination by the elderly. No anthropologist thought so then and none
thinks so now. The only anthropologist to review the book (and
surprisingly sympathetically) wrote that the Director’s “emphasis on age
stratification as the key to domination is unconvincing and suffers from
such a paucity of empirical evidence that it reads at times like a
‘Just-So’ story.”[73] With characteristically well-crafted cruelty, I
quoted this comment in Anarchy after Leftism in a context that implied
that Bookchin’s belief in gerontocracy — “the original form of hierarchy
(and still the best!)” — was wishful thinking.[74] Something
approximating gerontocracy does prevail on college campuses (there it’s
known as “tenure”) such as those where the Director Emeritus spent the
latter half of his adult life — but in few other areas of contemporary
society. The Director’s personalistic obsession with age increases as
his own does.
In SALA, and now again in its sequel, Bookchin indicts the San (standing
in for hunter-gatherers) for their brief life-spans. Unlike in SALA,
Bookchin this time provides a source for his claim that the average San
lifespan is 30 years — it is Headland’s review of Wilmsen.[75] Headland
has done no research on the San and provided no reference to anyone who
has. In SALA, Bookchin left the impression that “Wilmsen and his
associates” came up with this figure,[76] but Wilmsen does not even
refer to San lifespan, much less purport to estimate it based on his own
research. This is actually a difficult research problem, because the San
don’t know how old they are, and in their own language they can only
count to three.[77] The most thorough investigation of San demography
was done by Nancy Howell, a member of the Lee/DeVore team, among the
Dobe San. Her estimate of life expectancy at birth was 30–35 years.[78]
Another study, which I cited in Anarchy after Leftism, produced an
estimate of 32 years.[79] For the ¹Kade San, Tanaka’s estimate was 40
years.[80] By comparison, the life expectancy for ancient Romans and
medieval Englishmen was 30 years. Just a century ago, American life
expectancy was only 40 years.
Are these statistics appalling? No doubt they are to a sick, scared old
man like Bookchin who knows his time is short. Had he died at 40, none
of his books would ever have been written. It is embarrassingly obvious
that his recent tirades are the outbursts of someone in a desperate
hurry to perpetuate an ideological legacy he rightly perceives to be in
eclipse. He fears the loss of the only kind of immortality he believes
in. But his private terror at the prospect of death and disregard is a
personalistic demon. There is more to the quality of life than the
quantity of life. How much more is strictly a value judgment. Achilles
chose a short life as a hero over a long life as a nobody. Pirates
preferred a short and merry life to a longer life of drudgery. Some
people, as Zapata put it, would rather die on their feet than live on
their knees. And some people can pack a lot of life into a short span.
If foragers generally live lives of liberty, conviviality, abundance and
ease, it is by no means obvious that their shorter, high-quality lives
are inferior to our longer, low-quality lives. Murray Bookchin tells us
that it is modern medical technology which is keeping him alive. It
would never occur to him that the enemies he defames might not consider
this an argument in favor of modern medical technology. Judging from
SALA and “Whither Anarchism?” the Director Emeritus is not enjoying his
golden years. Nobody else is enjoying his golden years either.
Before anyone else panics over the statistics, let’s consider what they
really mean. In Anarchy after Leftism I already pointed out that life
expectancy at birth is no measure of how long those who survive infancy
can expect to live.[81] In all human populations, including ours, infant
mortality is high relative to the mortality of all other age groups
except the very old. In this respect, as Nancy Howell concluded, “the
!Kung have an age pattern of mortality more or less like everyone
else.”[82] The high rate of infant mortality depresses the average
lifespan, but real people live, not the average lifespan, but their own
lifespans. According to Bookchin, back in the Old Stone Age, “few lived
beyond their fiftieth year.”[83] As Nancy Howell discovered, that was
not true of the San. Over 17% were over 50; 29% were over 40; 43% were
over 30. One San man was approximately 82.[84] According to Tanaka, too,
many San live far beyond the age of 40.[85]
Unconscious irony has become a hallmark of Late Bookchinism, the Highest
Stage of Leftism. Well-known examples include Bookchin’s denunciation of
leftists with alluring academic careers just as the Director retired
from an alluring academic career; his scathing contempt for John Clark’s
“cowardly” hiding behind a pseudonym the way Bookchin did in the
60’s[86]; his personalistic abuse of individuals he accuses of
personalism; his vilification of other writers for appearing in the same
“yuppie” publications he’s been published or favorably reviewed in; and
his denunciations of anarchists for agreeing with what he used to write.
(See also Appendix A.) Although inconsistency, not to mention hypocrisy,
is nothing new for Bookchin (see Appendix B), lately the devolution of
his reasoning powers is dizzying. Paradoxically — or is it? — his
intellectual decline coincides with the Director’s shrill defense of
Reason With a Capital R against the Lifestyle Anarchists and the rest of
the irrationalist hordes. To borrow one of Bookchin’s favorite cliches,
you might say that his commitment to Reason is honored in the breach.
The Director taxes Watson (that poor “philosophical naif”) for referring
“to science (more properly, the sciences, since the notion of a Science
that has only one method and approach is fallacious) ...” — for speaking
of Science in the singular. In Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Bookchin, who is
never fallacious, or even facetious, nonetheless found it meaningful,
not only to speak of Science in the singular, but to say strikingly
Watsonish things about it: “Indeed, we have begun to regard science
itself as an instrument of control over the thought processes and
physical being of man. This distrust of science and of the scientific
method [emphasis added] is not without justification.”[87] Distrust of
Murray Bookchin is likewise not without justification.
Someone who admires or pities the Director more than I do might like to
interpret this as a cautious condonation of methodological pluralism,
what the late Paul Feyerabend called “epistemological anarchism.” Alas,
it is not so. Bookchin is no more an epistemological anarchist than he
is any other kind of anarchist. Elsewhere in the same interminable
paragraph, the Director rules out any such possibility: “Watson is free
to say anything he wants without ever exposing it to the challenge of
reason or experience. As Paul Feyerabend once wrote: ‘Anything goes!’”
Let’s put aside Bookchin’s here openly announced hostility to freedom of
speech — enough by itself to confirm my contention that he’s not an
anarchist.[88] In the sequence in which Bookchin places it, the
Feyerabend quotation — unreferenced — looks like a summons to freak out.
In fact, it was only an endorsement of pluralism in methodology.
Feyerabend’s point was that scientific discovery does not necessarily or
even normally result from following rules, including the rules of the
scientific method (which Bookchin agrees does not exist).[89] The tales
of Diogenes in the bathtub and Newton under the apple tree may be
mythical, but, as good myths do, they express non-literally a truth. In
principle, any context may serve as what Karl Popper called the context
of discovery: religion, drugs, psychosis, chance — anything. According
to the Director, “mythopoesis” (mythmaking) has its place, but only in
art. The “experience” to whose authority he appeals confirms a wider
role for mythopoesis and nonsystematic sources of insight. As Feyerabend
put it: “There is no idea, however ancient or absurd that is not capable
of improving our knowledge.” One stimulus to the Copernican theory that
the Earth moves, for instance, was Hermetic writings (also carefully
studied by Newton) reviving that long-discredited Pythagorean
notion.[90] Nor was the Enlightenment as scientific and secular as the
Director imagines: “The eighteenth century was too deeply involved with
the occult to have us continue to associate it exclusively with
rationalism, humanism, scientific determinism, and classicism.
Manifestations of irrationalism, supernaturalism, organicism, and
Romanticism appeared throughout.”[91]
The Director’s reverence for Reason rises in inverse proportion to his
practice of it. He now says that he has “long been a critic of
mythopoesis, spiritualism, and religion,” although I have found no such
criticism in his extant writings of the 60’s and 70’s. He also claims to
be a longstanding critic of conventional, analytic, instrumental Reason.
Much more revelatory, he says, is dialectical Reason, “the rationality
of developmental processes, of phenomena that self-elaborate into
diverse forms and complex interactions — in short, a secular form of
reason [there’s a religious form?] that explores how reality, despite
its multiplicity, unfolds into articulated, interactive, and shared
relationships.” What, if anything, this means is anybody’s guess. Do
“developmental processes” exhibit an inherent rationality? What’s
rational about gangrene or cancer? By definition, relationships are
interactive and shared, so what do these adjectives add to whatever the
Director is trying to say? Casting about for a dimension of reality
which, despite its multiplicity, unfolds into articulated, interactive,
and shared relationships, what first comes to mind is capitalism.
In Anarchy after Leftism, I quoted the Director’s admission that his is
“a fairly unorthodox notion of reason.”[92] To say the least. His brand
of reason, he says, is dialectical, but only in the sense that I long
ago defined dialectics, “a Marxist’s excuse when you catch him in a
lie.”[93] To hear the Director talk, what dialectical reason adds to the
ordinary variety is the developmental dimension, but none of his bombast
makes any more sense diachronically than synchronically. Bookchin
denounces his renegade disciple John Clark for mistaking dialectics for
functionalism, the notion that “we can identify no single cause as more
compelling than others; rather, all possible [sic[94]] factors are
mutually determining”: “This morass of ‘reciprocity,’ in which
everything in the world is in a reciprocal relationship with everything
else, is precisely what dialectical causality is not, unless we want to
equate dialectics with chaos. Dialectics is a philosophy of development,
not of mutually determining factors in some kind of static equilibrium.
Although on some remote level, everything does affect everything else,
some things are in fact very significantly more determining than others.
Particularly in [sic] social and historical phenomena, some causes are
major, while others are secondary and adventitious.[95] Dialectical
causality focuses on what is essential in producing change, on the
underlying motivating [sic] factors, as distinguished from the
incidental and auxiliary.” So then what’s dialectical about it? As
Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have written: “[Marxist] dialecticians
have never been able to indicate exactly how they see dialectical
relations as different from any of the more complicated combinations of
simple cause/effect relations such as co-causation, cumulative
causation, or simultaneous determination of a many variable system where
no variables are identified as dependent or independent in advance...
there is only the word and a lot of ‘hand waving’ about its
importance.”[96] Peter Kropotkin, who, unlike Bookchin, was an anarchist
and a scientist, dismissed dialectics as unscientific.[97]
“Objective ethics,” the directionality of nature, humanity as “second
nature,” articulated multiplicity, collective consciousness, “the
actualization of rationally unfolding potentialities” — all this jargon
and gibberish marks mucid Murray as a mystic. His pseudo-system is
exactly what Marx said Hegel’s philosophy was: “logical, pantheistic
mysticism,”[98] only less logical. The Director may not refer to God by
name, but his abstract universal principle of directional development,
ever more conscious and mastering of its nature and destiny, is the
World-Spirit which Hegel identified with the Christian God.[99] If it
looks like a God, acts like a God, and (through His oracle, the
Director) quacks like a God, it’s probably God, up to His old tricks.
Putting another name on Him, or It, or not naming It at all, makes no
difference. Christians say God, Jews say Yahweh, and Muslims say Allah,
but they are all theists and monotheists, and so is Bookchin.
Even if none of his other doctrines did, the Director’s moralism would
discredit him as a rationalist. There is no such thing as an “objective
ethics.” What is passed off in certain times and places as objectively
true morality is only the morality which then and there is popular or
imposed by power. No matter how far you range across space and time, you
will never find a universally accepted moral tenet — and even if you
did, that wouldn’t prove that it was objectively true, only that
everybody till now happens to believe in it, a consensus easily
shattered by the first skeptic. There must have been a time when
everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but it was
never true. The only universally true generalization about moral
propositions is that they express the subjective values of those who
believe in them (this is the “emotive” theory of ethics).[100] This is
one respect in which Bookchin’s regression to Marxism has not gone far
enough, for Marx and Engels noticed early on that morality was not only
subjective, it was usually relative to class interests.
As usual with Bookchin’s dichotomies, his moralism/amoralism distinction
fails to match up with his Social Anarchism/Lifestyle Anarchism
distinction. Some Lifestyle Anarchists, such as David Watson, also
subscribe to objective moralism. And some Social Anarchists reject it,
such as Emma Goldman. In her essay “Victims of Morality,”
anarcho-communist Goldman denounced the umimpeachable “Lie of Morality”:
“no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and
paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of
Morality.”[101] I do not propose to rehash here my own critique of
moralism or that of any anarchist or Marxist or Situationist. I refer
the interested reader to Stirner and Nietzsche among many others.
Bookchin has never bothered to provide, or even purport to provide, a
rational basis for a belief obviously derived from revealed religion.
What Bookchin describes is determinism, not dialectics. It’s what Marx
called mechanical materialism. The distinctive feature of dialectical
reasoning is the progressive approximation to truth through the clash of
opposites and their supersession: “Truth exists not in unity with, but
in refutation of its opposite. Dialectics is not a monologue that
speculation carries on with itself, but a dialogue between speculation
and empirical reality” (Feuerbach).[102] There is nothing like that in
Bookchin. The Director is predictably wrathful at Watson’s likening his
dialectic to Stalin’s, but the comparison is apt. Both Leninists, Stalin
and Bookchin, deploy the jargon of dialectics to justify their abrupt
ideological reversals, their opportunistic changes of “line.”
Bookchin’s dialectical naturalism may be restated as follows: nature
follows a “law of evolution” consisting of “an integration of matter and
concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from
an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent
heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel
transformation.”[103] Herbert Spencer, high priest of Social Darwinism
and laissez-faire capitalism, first published these words in 1864.[104]
There is something developmental but nothing dialectical about Spencer’s
“rigid and mechanical” formula.[105] And its political implications are
as conservative as Spencer was. Industrial capitalism with its social
division of labor is the supreme example of definite coherent
heterogeneity. In the words of Spencer’s disciple William Graham Sumner,
“the sentimentalists have been preaching for a century notions of rights
and equality, of the dignity, wisdom and power of the proletariat, which
have filled the minds of ignorant men with impossible dreams.” Society
must be left alone to work out its destiny, “through hard work and
self-denial (in technical language, labor and capital).” Should we
arrive at “socialism, communism, and nihilism,” “the fairest conquests
of civilization” will be lost to class war or mob rule.[106]
As is typical of Stalinist disputation, vulgar determinism in the
abstract accompanies an opportunistic voluntarism in practice. In George
Orwell’s 1984, one day Oceania would be at war with Eurasia — it had
always been at war with Eurasia — the next day, Oceania would be at war
with Eastasia, had always been at war with Eastasia.[107] It is the same
with John Clark, the Director’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Bookchin says that
“it is difficult to believe that from the mid-1970s until early 1993,
the author was a close associate of mine,” that they “had a personal
friendship that lasted almost two decades.” Betrayed and insulted by his
erstwhile acolyte, the Director says: “How could Clark have so
completely misjudged me for almost two decades?” A better question is:
how could Bookchin the Great have so completely misjudged Clark, his
intellectual inferior, for almost two decades? How could so principled
and penetrating an intellect as Bookchin’s have failed for so long to
detect this snake in the grass? The Director’s answer, such as it is, is
Orwellian. “Our ideas,” he says, “indeed, our ways of thinking, are
basically incompatible”: “I could never accept Clark’s Taoism as part of
social ecology.” And yet, the Director continues, “despite the
repugnance I felt for some of his ideas, I never wrote a line against
Clark in public” — not until he had no further use for Clark, or Clark
had no further use for him. Bookchinism is basically incompatible with
Clarkism, starting today. Bookchinism has always been basically
incompatible with Clarkism, starting today. Oceania has always been at
war with Eastasia, starting today.
I have no interest in defending Clark, who is at least as much in need
of excuses as Bookchin for their long-term relationship. And Taoism is
so peripheral to anarchism that how reconcilable they may be hardly
matters to me. But there’s something important, and disturbing, about
the way the Director is going about discrediting Clark. Clark, says
Bookchin, came to anarchism from the right, he was “never a socialist.”
As a young man, Clark was a “right-wing anti-statist,” a Goldwater
Republican in 1964: “Causes such as the workers’ movement, collectivism,
socialist insurrection, and class struggle, not to mention [so why does
he mention them?] the revolutionary socialist and anarchist traditions,
would have been completely alien to him as a youth; they were certainly
repugnant to the right-wing ideologues of the mid-1960s, who afflicted
[sic] leftists with conservatism, cultural conventionality, and even
red-baiting.” (The last part of the sentence makes no sense, but the
quotation is accurate.)[108]
Assuming all that to be true, what are the implications for anarchist
revolution? Apparently, anybody who has never been an old-fashioned
revolutionary leftist can never be, or be trusted to be, a revolutionary
anarchist. Bookchin, who accuses Clark and other alleged Lifestyle
Anarchists of elitism, is imposing a severely limited, exclusivist
entrance requirement on the millions of Americans who, he claims, are
itching for anarchist revolution. The Director is the elitist. There are
very few living Americans who have ever been socialists or
left-anarchists. In opinion polls, twice as many Americans identify
themselves as conservatives than as liberals, and liberals are well to
the right of the few people who identify themselves as leftists
(“progressives” is the current euphemism). If a right-wing background
disqualifies one as a revolutionary anarchist, then there will be no
American anarchist revolution, because there just won’t be enough
revolutionaries. So long as ideologues like Bookchin continue to think
in terms of left and right, so long as they quarrel on those terms, the
right will always win, or if the left wins, it won’t make much
difference. Bookchin’s nostalgia for the Left That Was is literally
reactionary.
Some of the Director’s readers must be puzzled by his terms negative and
positive freedom, especially if they know what they mean. Negative
freedom is “liberty from,” positive freedom is “a fleshed-out concept of
freedom for.” Bookchin does not define these opaque expressions, he
simply assigns them as gang colors. Lifestyle Anarchists “celebrate”
negative freedom — also known as autonomy — in keeping with their
bourgeois individualist liberal heritage. Social Anarchism, in contrast,
“espouses a substantive ‘freedom to.’”[109] It “seeks to create a free
society, in which humanity as a whole — and hence the individual as well
— enjoys the advantages of free political and economic institutions.”
The Director has made a category mistake. What a conception of freedom
means and what kind of society would realize it are questions of a
different order. And these particular formulations are also empirically
false in obvious ways. The celebration of individual freedom is not the
definition of Lifestyle Anarchism, for liberals and laissez-faire
libertarians also celebrate individual freedom, but they are not
anarchists.[110] The quest for a free society cannot define Social
Anarchism, for, as Bookchin says, “many lifestyle anarchists eagerly
plunge into direct actions that are ostensibly intended to achieve
socialistic goals.”[111] Social Anarchists may be right and Lifestyle
Anarchists may be wrong, but not by definition, especially in the
absence of definitions.
Although he never explains what these phrases mean, the Director does
say where he got them: Sir Isaiah Berlin’s well-known essay “Two
Concepts of Liberty.”[112] Although this forceful polemic was at one
time much discussed by philosophers, it never quite made the distinction
clear. Generally, negative freedom means freedom from prevention of
action, from interference, or as John P. Clark says, “freedom from
coercion.”[113] Positive freedom is the freedom — I think “capability”
or “power” is the better word — to accomplish one’s purposes. The reader
who finds this confusing or hair-splitting has my sympathy. What use is
freedom of choice with nothing worth choosing? How is the power to act
possible without some protection from interference? I am persuaded by
Gerald C. MacCallum’s argument “to regard freedom as always one and the
same triadic relation, but recognize that various contending parties
disagree with each other in what they understand to be the ranges of the
term variables.” Freedom is a relationship among an agent, “‘preventing
conditions’ [such] as constraints, restrictions, interferences, and
barriers,” and “actions or conditions of character or
circumstance.”[114]
What Sir Isaiah did make quite clear was his judgment as to the
political implications of the two concepts. He was writing during the
Cold War and he was strongly committed to the West. Negative freedom
implies limits on state action, but positive freedom is totalitarian in
tendency.[115] At least since Rousseau, many theorists of positive
freedom have, like Bookchin, equated freedom with identification with
the general will. Real freedom consists, not in unconstrained individual
indulgence, but in fulfilling one’s — or everyone’s — true nature. In
the case of humans, rising above their animal origins, self-realization
occurs in and through the social whole. As Bookchin has approvingly
written, “Bakunin emphatically prioritized the social over the
individual.”[116] It can happen that the individual, as Rousseau put it,
can and should be forced to be free. I do not care for the prospect of
society prioritizing me. Negative freedom is not necessarily anarchist —
Berlin is no anarchist — but positive freedom, he thinks, is necessarily
authoritarian. This of course is diametrically opposed to Bookchin’s use
of the distinction, which explains why Bookchin keeps the specifics of
Berlin’s argument out of his own.
Berlin’s own census of major philosophers of freedom shows that his
distinction is no predictor of their politics. Adherents of negative
freedom include Occam, Erasmus, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Constant, J.S.
Mill, Tocqueville, Jefferson, Burke, and Paine. Adherents of positive
freedom include Plato, Epictetus, St. Ambrose, Montesquieu, Spinoza,
Kant, Herder, Rousseau, Hegel, Fichte, Marx, Bukharin, Comte, Carlyle,
T.H. Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet.[117] Bookchin has accused Lifestyle
Anarchists of perpetuating the pernicious German philosophical tradition
which led from Fichte and Kant through Stirner to Heidegger and
Hitler.[118] (For obviously self-serving reasons he skips over Hegel and
Marx, and does not remind the reader of his former admiration for
“Fichte’s stirring prose.”) All these gentlemen adhered, as does
Bookchin, to the positive concept of freedom.
For Bookchin, of all the malignant influences on Lifestyle Anarchism,
Max Stirner seems to be the worst. Stirner with his individualist,
arational, amoral egoism epitomizes more of what Bookchin loathes than
any other classical anarchist thinker. In 1976, the Director’s disciple
John Clark devoted an entire book to refuting Stirner’s heresies, which
had not received so much hostile attention since Marx and Engels wrote
The German Ideology 130 years before. Stirner, then, should be an
exponent, maybe the ultimate exponent of negative freedom. Rather he is
the ultimate exponent of positive freedom: “Who is it that is to become
free? You, I, we. I, therefore, am the kernel that is to be delivered
from all wrappings and — freed from all cramping shells. What is left
when I have been freed from everything that is not I? Only I; nothing
but I. But freedom has nothing further to offer to this I himself. As to
what is now to happen further after I have become free, freedom is
silent — as our governments, when the prisoner’s time is up, merely let
him go, thrusting him out into abandonment.”[119] For Stirner as for
Bookchin, negative freedom is insufficient at best, a formalistic
mockery at worst.[120] What Bookchin calls positive freedom, Stirner
calls “ownness” (die Eigenheit): “I have no objection to freedom, but I
wish more than freedom for you: you should not merely be rid of what you
do not want; you should not only be a ‘freeman,’ you should be an ‘owner
[Eigner]’ too.”[121]
Even if it has some utility in other contexts, the distinction between
positive and negative freedom does nothing to differentiate Social
Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism. On the contrary, as John Clark says,
“anarchism is the one major political theory which has attempted to
synthesize the values of negative and positive freedom into a single,
more comprehensive view of human liberty.”[122] Bookchin has never
demonstrated that any Lifestyle Anarchist espouses negative freedom to
the exclusion of positive freedom. His misappropriates the distinction
to try to infuse some content into his own incoherent dichotomy between
Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism, but the infusion does not
relieve the confusion. The Director is, as so often, showing off by
pretending to be more knowing than he really is.
My first time around, in Anarchy after Leftism, I gave Bookchin’s
history of recent anarchism the scant attention it deserves. This time
I’ll scrutinize it in more detail. Basically it goes like this. At the
economic base, there are periods of “apparent capitalist stabilization”
or “capitalist stability,” of “social peace,” and then there are periods
of “deep social unrest,” sometimes giving rise to “revolutionary
situations.” When capitalism is crisis-ridden, Social Anarchism “has
usually held center stage” as far as anarchism goes. When capitalism is,
or seems to be, stabilized — the ambiguity is a big help to the argument
— then the Lifestyle Anarchists come to the fore to flaunt their
cultural and individual eccentricities.
The first thing to be said about this analysis is that it reads more
like a justification than a critique of Lifestyle Anarchism. It looks
more like a reasonable social division of labor between what the
Director calls the two “extremes.” When social revolution is a
possibility, let those so disposed lead the way. When revolution is not
on history’s agenda, it makes sense to uphold the black flag on the
cultural and individual terrains. Better Lifestyle Anarchism than no
anarchism at all (although Bookchin would surely disagree). Somebody has
to keep alive what the Spanish anarchists called “the idea” in a climate
of social reaction.
But that was just the first thing. Here’s the second: a time of
capitalist stabilization can also be a time of social unrest. The 1900’s
and the 1960’s were periods of prosperity and protest (both liberal and
radical). In the years before the First World War, anarcho-communists
and especially anarcho-syndicalists were as conspicuous as they would
ever be in the United States and several other countries. Since
Bookchin’s thesis is empirically inconsistent, you can read this fact as
either proving or disproving it, which is just to say that the thesis is
unverifiable, unfalsifiable and meaningless. As for the 1960’s, there is
an unbridgeable chasm between Bookchin’s recent junk Marxism and his own
earlier, accurate conclusion that 60’s unrest was important precisely
because it was not the reflex of an economic crisis, but rather a
qualitative crisis of everyday life. The May-June 1968 uprising in
France “exploded the myth that the wealth and resources of modern
industrial society can be used to absorb all revolutionary
opposition.”[123] Inexplicably, in the 1970’s the same wealth and
resources underwrote a period of popular quiescence and social reaction
which persists to this day.
No matter which determinant of anarchist fortunes you get out of
Bookchin — “capitalist stabilization” or “social unrest” — it fails as
an explanation. If you go for capitalist stabilization, that explains
why (as he concedes) Lifestyle Anarchism was more influential than
Social Anarchism in the 60’s, but fails to explain why Lifestyle
Anarchism increased its lead over Social Anarchism through the 1970’s, a
period of recession and retrenchment. That was the decade in which
emerged such Lifestyle Anarchist themes as primitivism,
anti-organization, zerowork, and the critique of technology. Bookchin is
even less of an economist than he is an ecologist, so it’s hard to tell
what he means by capitalist stabilization. It’s quite a capacious
concept if it encompasses the recession of the early 70’s and the
prosperity of the late 90’s. The suspicion arises that this is not an
economic concept at all, but rather a synonym for social reaction and an
antonym for social unrest.
The social unrest explanation is equally flawed. According to this
theory, Social Anarchism should have dominated in the 1960’s and
Lifestyle Anarchism thereafter, with a resurgence of Social Anarchism in
the 90’s when, the Director assures us, the system is creating “mass
discontent.”[124] That’s not what happened; that’s not even what
Bookchin says happened. Rather, for thirty years or more, in times of
protest as in times of privatism, the Lifestyle Anarchists have gained
on the Social Anarchists. That is exactly what Bookchin is complaining
about. The Director’s thesis, in either version, does not meet the tests
of reason or experience.
Here is a more accurate description of the last 40 years of North
American anarchist history.[125] In 1960, anarchism was dying and nearly
dead. By then, according to George Woodcock — who once believed in it —
anarchism was “a ghost that inspires neither fear among governments nor
hope among peoples nor even interest among newspapermen.” Moreover, “nor
is there any reasonable likelihood of a renaissance of anarchism as we
have known it since the foundation of the First International in 1864;
history suggests that movements which fail to take the chances it offers
them are never born again.”[126] In 1966, two academics who set out “to
take anarchism seriously” — and did — nonetheless acknowledged that “few
today entertain either hope or fear that government might be abolished
as easily as it was called into being.”[127] After 40 years of decline,
anarchism was a historical curiosity not far from suffering the fate of
the Shakers.
In 1967, Woodcock reconsidered. There was still no “obvious” — he should
have said “overt” or “avowed” — anarchist revival, but he detected an
anarchist influence in America on the New Left and especially the
counter-culture.[128] But this anarchism, he thought, was not the
revival of the classical ideology but something new. He was right. The
new anarchism developed, not out of the old versions, but out of the
youth culture.[129] It could do so because the youth culture’s tendency
was anarchistic. Anarchism was the best theoretical synthesis of the New
Left and the counter-culture. Unfortunately, anarchism had sunk so far
into obscurity that few radicals had the opportunity to make the
connections to anarchism which are so obvious in retrospect. Also,
Bookchin is not all wrong to identify an anti-theoretical tendency in
the youth culture which delayed widespread awareness of its anarchist
affinities. Although we speak of “the 60’s,” implying a decade of
dissidence and dissonance, the radical phase lasted only some five or
six years. The rush of events was overwhelming, and a lot of people
were, yes, going through changes. When militants felt the lack of
theory, their first inclination was to turn to what was available, not
what was appropriate — to Marxism, not anarchism.[130] That turn was a
turnoff; many lost their way. The movement wasted time, unaware how
little it had left.
No one has ever explained to my satisfaction the left’s abrupt freefall
in late 1970. It astonished me then and it astonishes me now. I see now,
as to some extent I suspected at the time, that the decline was
exaggerated by the media. The 70’s were not the times of flatline social
reaction which Bookchin makes them out to be. I also appreciate now that
most people cannot indefinitely sustain a revolutionary pitch of
intensity in the indefinite absence of revolution itself. Even some who
felt regret at the decline of activism felt some relief too. Whatever
the explanation, the decade was critical for the development of
contemporary North American anarchism.
Already in the 60’s, the vestigial anarchist groups and projects were,
relative to their size, inundated by the few young radicals who
consciously identified themselves as anarchists. Intergenerational
friction might ensue, as it did in the Industrial Workers of the
World.[131] In the 70’s, 60’s veterans and their younger counterparts of
similar background and outlook increasingly identified themselves as
anarchists, participating in existing projects — mostly publications —
and starting new ones. Mostly they came from the campus and/or the
counter-culture. Thanks to a flurry of academic interest in anarchism
which continued out of the 60’s, anarchist histories, biographies,
anthologies and classics appeared almost in abundance, sometimes from
mainstream commercial publishers like Dover, Doubleday, Schocken,
Norton, Dell, Random House, Beacon Press, etc., and from university
presses. Ramparts Press published Bookchin’s Post Scarcity Anarchism in
1971. Important anarchist presses commenced which still publish: Black &
Red in Detroit, Black Rose Books in Montreal, Left Bank Books in
Seattle. One of the original underground newspapers, Detroit’s Fifth
Estate, went anarchist in 1975 and immediately became influential. Other
noteworthy anarchist tabloids included No Limits (Madison, Wisconsin)
and Front Line (Washington, DC). Not in 70 years had anarchist ideas
been so accessible to North Americans. More and more people, myself
included, appropriated some of these ideas, sometimes critically,
sometimes not — and sometimes added their own.
The distinctive novelty of the 60’s persisted: the youth culture
connection to anarchism. Punk rock is the conspicuous example. Punks
have been explicitly involved with anarchism, as ideology or
affectation, for over twenty years. Some of the earliest punk bands,
such as CRASS, openly proselytized for “the idea,” and some still do.
The nexus goes beyond punk music as such, or any style of music as such.
Subcultures oriented to other marginal music genres (industrial, hip
hop, etc.) are also connected, and music is not the only or the only
important expression of youth culture. Deviations in diet, drugs, sex,
religion, reading tastes, and defections from leftism or libertarianism
— usually in combinations — any or all of these, with or without music,
are typical of those who nowadays become anarchists, mostly Lifestyle
Anarchists. Anarcho-leftism, I should add, has also gained support from
the youth culture connection, especially as represented on campus,
“college boys in designer hardhats.”[132] The formulas of classical
anarchism provide the belief structures so necessary to reduce to modest
order the intellectual confusion of anarchists like Jon Bekken, Jeff
Stein, Tom Wetzel and Chaz Bufe who could never quite cut the umbilical
cord to the campus. The traditional leftists got a spillover share from
the general resurgence of anarchism — but not a proportionate share. It
is in that context, and in awareness of its ominous implications, that
the Director denounces the Lifestyle Anarchists while he still can. But
it is already too late. The men who will carry him out are already at
the door. The women too.
The youth/counter-culture connection has its drawbacks. Most North
American anarchists are younger than most San anarchists, but not nearly
as well adapted to their environment. Even if they are in — or have been
in — college, their general education is inferior to what was provided
in the 60’s and 70’s. This is one of the few points on which Bookchin
and I, who have both toiled to teach them, probably concur. Song lyrics
are really not the most effective vehicle for conveying political ideas,
except maybe Fascist or Fundamentalist Christian ideas. Necessarily the
message is drastically oversimplified even if the ideas are expressed
with all the amplitude the form permits. Some punk anarchists are as
stupid as they are ignorant. For many it’s just a phase they’re going
through, although there always seem to be more — and more of them — to
take their place.
Nonetheless the point is that, since the 60’s, there have always been
open channels of access and attraction, however imperfect, between
anarchists and young people. The channels have not been as broad or deep
for decades, not since the anarchists lost influence over the classical
workers’ movement and then that movement withered away. Without such
channels, a theory or ideology grows old and dies. I am as exasperated
with much of what passes for anarchism as Bookchin is, and I said so a
decade sooner,[133] with better reasons.[134] But potential anarchists
have to come from somewhere, and youth/alternative culture is where
they’ve mostly come from for over 30 years. Exceptional individuals also
wander in from unexpected places, as they always have — as Bakunin and
Kropotkin wandered in from the Czarist aristocracy — and these
exceptionals often contribute ideas and energy out of all proportion to
their numbers. But unless a lot of people who are not, or not as,
extraordinary also wander in — as at certain times and in certain places
they have, in large numbers — anarchism has no future except as an
ancestor cult and a magnet for crackpots.
The Director may be cycling, but anarchism isn’t. The leftist varieties
are stagnant or in decay. In North America the most ambitious recent
effort at anarcho-leftist organizing, the Love & Rage federation, just
went through a three-way split. In Britain, Class War split in two: the
final issue of their newspaper admitted their ineffectuality. As
organizationalists, these leftists stand self-condemned. Some
anarcho-leftist projects may be surviving artificially on life-support.
Rich anarchists, like rich people generally, tend to be conservatives.
Noam Chomsky subsidizes select anarchist projects. So does the
triple-platinum English band Chumbawamba, the only anarchists who have
ever performed on “The Tonight Show,” the best source of anti-Unabomber
jokes. AK Press, Bookchin’s publisher, is among their favorite
charities, but the band has done nothing for the Green Anarchist
defendants who are on trial (two so far were convicted, but their
convictions were reversed on appeal, one acquitted, with two to go) for
nothing more than publishing news reports of acts of resistance. No
quantity of financial formaldehyde preserves against decay forever.
If this is, as Bookchin’s title implies, the question, it is one for
which he has no answer. In “The Left That Was,” the appendix to SALA, he
all but concedes that the classical left is forever defunct.[135] Long
ago he announced that “the traditional workers’ movement will never
reappear.”[136] He does not discuss the social composition of the
“millions of people today” who experience “the sense of powerlessness”
which renders them “a potentially huge body of supporters” of
anarchism.[137] Who are they? They cannot be bourgeois, for the
bourgeois are by definition the enemy. They cannot be proletarians, for
the proletariat, according to Bookchin, has been bought off and
bourgeoisified. They cannot be the underclass, the idle poor, for these
are the “lumpens” Bookchin says are actual or potential fascists.[138]
So who’s left for the left?
After repeatedly denouncing Lifestyle Anarchists for their personalism,
individualism, narcissism, navel-gazing and psychologism, the Director
himself defines the yearning millions of potential anarchists in purely
personalistic, psychological terms, in terms of their “sense of
powerlessness.” Are they powerless, or do they just think they are? Do
they need revolution or just therapy? If all they need is therapy, the
system is surely capable of supplying it (for a price). An awareness of
powerlessness is surely as old as its reality. The slaves and peasants
of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia must have known that they were
powerless, but such awareness more often results in resignation than
revolution. Bookchin cannot explain why powerless people sometimes
revolt but usually don’t. For that matter, Bookchin can’t explain
anything else either.
According to the Director, the enormities and the eccentricities of the
Lifestyle Anarchists are “in no small measure” responsible for the
anarchist failure to recruit and deploy “a potentially huge body of
supporters” ripe for revolution.[139] That’s an extraordinary measure of
blame to heap upon an imperceptible fraction of the population with no
access to the mainstream media. Absolutely no evidence supports the
assumption that anything anarchists of any orientation have done or not
done in recent years has repelled vast numbers of people. There is
absolutely no evidence that vast numbers of Americans have ever
encountered anarchism in any form. Bookchin brags of having lectured at
every major university in the United States, which provided him forums
on a scale no Lifestyle Anarchists have ever had access to. Here was his
opportunity to convert strategically situated cadres of the youth
intelligentsia to his advanced ideology. Here he could have gone far
toward strangling Lifestyle Anarchism in the cradle. He failed. Or
rather, he never even tried. His self-promotional careerism took
priority. Is it accidental that it was only when his career was over
that Bookchin assailed the Lifestyle Anarchists?
According to the Director, thousands of decadent Lifestyle Anarchists
have discouraged many millions of other Americans from embracing
anarchism in a version Bookchin approves of. What discouraged many
millions of Americans from embracing anarchism in the many decades
before Lifestyle Anarchism came along, he does not say. (Did the
machinations of Leninists like himself have anything to do with it?) One
suspects that anarchism’s unpopularity had more to do with anarchism in
general than with any of its particular versions. Bookchin’s fantastic
exaggeration of the influence of Lifestyle Anarchists corresponds to his
fantastic exaggeration of his own influence. The Lifestyle Anarchists
must possess very powerful juju in order to outshout the voice of Reason
as it booms forth so often and so eloquently from Murray Bookchin.
As in SALA, the Director rebukes the Lifestyle Anarchists — belatedly
including John Clark — for elitism. This dictum, again unexplained,
makes no more sense than it ever did. It is not clear why collectivist
elitism — vanguardism — is superior to individualist elitism. Bookchin
decries “abstract individualism” but never entertains the possibility
that what his enemies espouse is concrete individualism, what Vaneigem
calls radical subjectivity. Nor does he consider the possibility that
what he espouses is abstract collectivism, not concrete collectivism
(community). Abstract collectivism is totalitarianism, which is much
worse than abstract individualism (classical liberalism). Elitism
implies exclusivity, but Bookchin is the one who is reading thousands of
anarchists out of the movement. Lifestyle Anarchism is intolerable, so
Social Anarchism is intolerant. The movement “must become infected with
intolerance against all who retard its growth by subservience to
spontaneity,”[140] as the lawyer Lenin put it.[141] There may be a sense
in which some so-called Lifestyle Anarchists might be elitists, i.e.,
they aspire to excellence and they want to level up. But they want
everybody to level up — they want company — they want a world of what
Raoul Vaneigem calls “masters without slaves,” not out of pity or
paternalism but because they crave a community of fulfilled, enriched,
masterful other individuals to relate to. John Simon, referring to the
late American critic Dwight Macdonald, admitted that Macdonald was an
elitist of sorts, but “an elitist, then, who would eagerly help others
join the club, who would gladly have abandoned his badge of superiority
for the sake of a world full of coequal elitists.”[142] Only in that
sense are post-left anarchists elitists.
Bookchin’s proposed means of overthrowing hierarchy are patently
hierarchical. Anarchists require “an organization ready and able to play
a significant role in moving great masses of workers.” The vanguard is
to lead, the masses are to follow, as usual. Bookchin would no doubt
protest that he envisions something more dialectical, but on his own
account, dialectics is not mere reciprocity, “some things are in fact
very significantly more determining than others.” The organization is
significantly more determining than the masses — that’s its purpose.
This is Leninism — not metaphorical Leninism, not swear-word Leninism —
it’s the real thing. The dog has returned to his vomit. The mantle of
leftism which Bookchin has donned is a shroud.
The latest of the Director’s ironic indiscretions is his heavy reliance
on Edwin Wilmsen’s Land Filled with Flies to bash the
anarcho-primitivists. In SALA, Bookchin asserted an affinity between
anarcho-primitivism and post-modernism, with sublime indifference to the
fact that post-modernism has no harsher critic than John Zerzan.[143] To
any reader of Wilmsen not in thrall to an ulterior motive, Wilmsen is
blatantly a post-modernist. One of his reviewers, Henry Harpending, is a
biological anthropologist who is charmingly innocent of exposure to
PoMo. He had “a lot of trouble” with the beginning of the book, which
contains “an alarming discussion of people and things being
interpellated in the introduction and in the first chapter, but my best
efforts with a dictionary left me utterly ignorant about what it all
meant.”[144] Not surprisingly: the jargon (“interpellation of the
subject”) is that of Louis Althusser, the structuralist Marxist who went
mad and murdered his wife. Other anthropologists, more widely if not
better read, have noticed Wilmsen’s post-modernism.[145] According to
Thomas Headland, Wilmsen-style “revisionism is not just testing and
rejecting hypotheses. Partially fueled by postmodernism, it seems to be
ideologically driven.”[146]
When it was published in 1989, Land Filled with Flies created a
sensation, as it was meant to. Not only did it debunk the conventional
wisdom, it did so as insultingly as possible. Not only did it furnish
startling new data drawn from language, archeology and history in
addition to fieldwork, it placed them in a pretentious theoretical
apparatus. And it seethed with self-righteousness. By not recognizing
the San for what they are — an underclass, the poorest of the poor under
comprador capitalism — all other anthropologists were ideologically
complicit in their subjugation. Since all anthropologists who have lived
with the San are strongly committed to some notion of their rights and
autonomy, naturally they were infuriated to be castigated as the dupes
or tools of neo-colonialism. Rebuttals were soon forthcoming, and the
controversy still rages. But Wilmsen enjoyed a strategic advantage: his
quadruple-barreled shotgun attack. His linguistic, archeological,
historical and ethnographic researches all converged on the same or on
congruent conclusions.
Academics are the timid type in the best of circumstances. By
temperament they prefer to be the big fish in a pond however small. The
phrase “a school of fish” says as much about school as it does about
fish. Specialization is the source and the limit of the academic’s
authority. The expert in one subfield, such as ethnography, cannot help
but lose self-confidence — something he probably never had very much of
— when his certitudes are impeached by researches in three other
subfields. He begins to wonder if he can be sure of even the evidence of
his own senses (or what he remembers to be such). Wilmsen, by purporting
to possess expertise in so many areas, intimidates the experts in all of
them — at first, anyway. But scholars have started checking up on
Wilmsen, just as anarchists have started checking up on Bookchin, and
with similar consequences.
Most of Edwin Wilmsen’s observations of 70’s San are strikingly unlike
the observations of all his dozen-odd predecessors in the field.
Previous anthropologists had already reported how abruptly the San
foraging life-way was succumbing to pressures ranging from protracted
drought to entanglement in counterinsurgency in Southwest Africa to the
sedentarizing, nationalizing policies of newly and nominally independent
Botswana.[147] Nobody now denies that most of the San have been forced
into the capitalist world-order at its very bottom level — and while it
was happening, nobody did deny it — but only Bookchin is obscene enough
to enthuse over this particular extension of the development of the
productive forces. He doesn’t care what happens to people so long as he
can turn it to polemical advantage.
Most of Wilmsen’s fieldwork was done at a waterhole he calls CaeCae,
whose inhabitants he labels, according to how he classifies their
“principal production activities,” as variously “pastoralist,
independent, forager, reliant, and client” — a rather elaborate typology
for just 16 households, only 9 of which were San.[148] There’s almost a
category for every San household, which rather defeats the purpose of
categorization. In 1975–1976, only two households (both San) consisted
of foragers, people deriving over 95% of their food from hunting and
gathering; by 1979–1980, both subsisted on a combination of relief and
casual wage-labor. As for the “independents,” who owned some livestock
but derived over half their subsistence from foraging, there were three
households in the earlier period, two in the later.[149] Those in the
other households did some hunting, but subsisted mainly by other means.
Now even if Wilmsen’s findings are accurate, they derive from a
ridiculously small sample, 2–5 households at the most, of people who
were obviously caught up in a process of proletarianization so
accelerated that it would have made Karl Marx’s head spin.
I read a bunch of reviews of Wilmsen’s book, pro and con, before I read
the book itself. Nothing prepared me for the sheer, shocking
near-nothingness of its ethnographic database. Nothing Wilmsen says he
found in the field, even if true, refutes or even calls into question
what previous researchers discovered about far larger groups of San at
earlier times and in other places. Wilmsen berates his predecessors for
ignoring history (they didn’t[150]). But he’s the one who has trouble
accepting the possibility that, just as the people he studied were
living differently in 1980 than they were in 1975, the people that Lee,
DeVore, Howell, Tanaka and others studied before 1975 might have in a
rather short time come to live differently. The historian himself needs
historicizing.
Among Wilmsen’s most controversial claims is for longstanding social
stratification among the San and between the San and Bantu-speaking
peoples. Since his ethnographic evidence is paltry, he relies mainly on
evidence of inequality embedded in the languages of the San and their
Bantu neighbors, such as the Herero. Unfortunately for Wilmsen, one of
his reviewers, Henry Harpending, actually knows these languages. Wilmsen
claims that a word the Herero apply to the San they also apply to their
cattle, implying that the San are their chattels. However, the Herero
apply the same word to the Afrikaaners, and nobody would say that the
Afrikaaners are the Herero’s property. The Herero word implies
antagonism, not ownership, just as I do when I say that Freddie Baer is
a cow. According to Harpending, Wilmsen derives sociological conclusions
from bad puns: “This all, and much more, is fanciful drivel. It is like
saying that the people of Deutschland are called ‘Germans,’ meaning
‘infected people,’ from the word ‘germ’ meaning a microorganism that
causes illness. Almost every foray into linguistics appears to be
entirely contrived, created from nothing, even when there is no reason
to contrive anything.” Yet another “bizarre analysis,” this one drawn
from San kinship terminology, Harpending characterizes thusly: “ It is
as if I were to claim that the English word grandmother refers to a
custom whereby old people stay at home and grind wheat for the family
bread and that grandmother is really a corruption of grindmother. Of
course, if I were to write such nonsense it would never be published.
Editors and referees would laugh me out the door because they would be
familiar with English. But hardly anyone in Europe and North America is
familiar with !Kung and Otjiherero.”[151]
Wilmsen claims that archeology demonstrates — well, let’s let Bookchin
say it in his own inimitable way — “The San people of the Kalahari are
now known to have been gardeners before they were driven into the
desert. Several hundred years ago, according to Edwin Wilmsen,
San-speaking peoples were herding and farming [Wilmsen never says they
were farmers, an ecological impossibility], not to speak of trading with
neighboring agricultural chiefdoms in a network that extended to the
Indian Ocean. By the year 1000, excavations have shown, their area,
Dobe[152], was populated by people who made ceramics, worked with iron,
and herded cattle ... ”[153] These conclusions the Director serves up as
indisputable facts. That they are not.
Karim Sadr has recently taken up Richard Lee’s exasperated proposal for
independent review of all of Wilmsen’s controversial claims.[154] Sadr
addresses only the archeological claims, and concludes that they are
unsupported by what little evidence is available so far. Wilmsen’s ally
Denbow, as Sadr has recently related, “says that his model is based on
over 400 surveyed sites and excavations at 22 localities. The 400 or
more surveyed sites, however, provide no relevant evidence. The model is
really based on a dozen of the excavated sites, and of these only three
have been adequately published.”[155] One does not have to be an expert
to notice how forced and foolish some of the Wilmsenist arguments are.
Rock paintings of uncertain age depicting stick figures, supposedly San,
alongside cattle are claimed to be evidence that the San at some
indefinite past time herded cattle. From this premise — even if true —
is drawn the illogical conclusion that the San were working for Bantu
bosses who owned the cattle (why the San were incapable of owning and
herding their own cattle is not disclosed). As Sadr says, “the stick
figures may be herding or stealing the cattle, or the Bushmen may have
received the cattle in fair trade. To stretch the point, maybe the
paintings represent wishful thinking. One alternative is as speculative
as another.”[156]
The main evidence cited to show San “encapsulation” by Iron Age Bantu
speakers from the sixth to eleventh centuries is cattle and sheep
remains found at San sites. The proportions, however, are extremely
small, like those found in the Cape area where there were no Iron Age
chiefdoms to encapsulate foragers. The evidence of all kinds is scanty
and inconclusive. San might have been encapsulated at certain times and
places, dominant at others. Nothing rules out the possibility “that they
may very well have retained their autonomous hunting and gathering way
of life until historic times.”[157] Wilmsen claims that when Europeans
perceived hunter-gatherers (in 19^(th) century parlance, “savages”),
they were constructing them as such in accordance with ideological
preconceptions. But when Herero pastoralists, refugees from a vicious
German military campaign in Southwest Africa, passed through the
Kalahari in 1904 and 1905, they, too, saw only San who lived entirely by
foraging.[158] It is unlikely that these Bantus were readers of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lewis Henry Morgan or Friedrich Engels. It is
almost as if the San would have been foragers even if there had been no
Europeans to construct them.
Which brings us to the strictly historical content of Wilmsen’s case. He
made more, and more systematic use, of archival evidence than any
previous ethnographer of the Kalahari. Identifying these sources and
emphasizing their importance may well be his only lasting
accomplishment.[159] What he made of them is something else again.
Travelers reported seeing “Bushmen with cattle somewhere in the Kalahari
in the nineteenth century,” but since nobody ever doubted that Bushmen
have long been in contact with cattle-raising Bantu, this does not prove
anything about the Bushman way of life.[160] Wilmsen denounces the
classical social evolutionists and also those he derides, with
questionable cause, as their latter-day inheritors. But he shares with
them the assumption that upon contact with the higher, more complex
systems of society, the lower, simpler systems are subsumed or else wilt
and wither away. To Wilmsen, as to Bookchin, it is unthinkable that
foragers might hold their own against herders or farmers. They are, by
definition, inferior! Exposure to a higher level of social organization
is like exposure to pathogens to which the savages have no immunity.
Trade or any other interaction necessarily subordinates them to those
with a higher, more sophisticated form of society.
The only thing wrong with this assumption is everything. It begs the
question. For all anybody knows, foragers might have dealt with their
neighbors from a position of strength. If you look at the situation from
a purely military perspective, for instance, the foragers had definite
advantages over the Bantus. The Bantus permanently occupied villages
whose locations were easy for an enemy to ascertain. The San often moved
their campsites, taking their scanty personal property with them. The
Bantus mainly lived off their cattle, whose whereabouts were easily
known, and which could be stolen or killed. The San lived off of wild
game and gathered plant food which no enemy could destroy or despoil
them of. The Bantus could probably mobilize more manpower for war than
the San, but to do what? There’s no reason to think that Bushmen and
Bantus have, or ever had, some cause of chronic conflict. Wilmsen’s own
argument holds otherwise. The peoples had some incentive to interact,
perhaps some incentive to avoid each other otherwise, but no known
incentive to wage permanent war on each other.
It is above all with history that Wilmsen seeks to overawe the
anthropologists. His book is very much part of the historical turn the
discipline has taken in the last twenty years. “People without
history”[161] nowhere exist. Berating other anthropologists as
ahistorical possesses a strategic advantage for someone like Wilmsen in
addition to its trendiness. When he contradicts the ethnography of a
dozen predecessors, they are inclined to retort that either conditions
changed or Wilmsen is wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time an
anthropologist with an ideological agenda went into the field and saw
what he wanted to see. But if Wilmsen was a latecomer, perhaps a
too-latecomer to the field, he was almost a pioneer in the archives
where time is on his side. If the others point to the 1960’s, he can
point to the 1860’s. Take that! But there is a crucial disadvantage too.
There is no returning to the ethnographic 1960’s, but the archival
1860’s are available for others to visit. Wilmsen’s critics did research
his sources, as I researched Bookchin’s, and with the same devastating
results.
Richard B. Lee and Mathias Guenther sought out the traders’ and
travelers’ diaries (in English, German and Afrikaans), the maps, the
letters and the other sources on which Wilmsen relied to prove that the
remote arid region of the Kalahari where the Lee/DeVore anthropologists
found foraging San a century later was a major trade crossroads in the
mid-nineteenth century. The Dobe area, according to Wilmsen, “pulsed”
with commercial activity in which Europeans, Bantus and San were all
heavily involved. On this account the San, however, were herders, not
hunters — they were the serfs of the Bantus whose cattle they tended —
and when disease decimated the cattle in the late nineteenth century,
the San lost their livelihoods and were forced into the desert to forage
(“literally devolved, probably very much against their will,” in
Bookchin’s learned words). Even a priori there was reason to doubt this
remarkable discovery. As Harpending writes: “There is more trade through
Xai Xai than anywhere in South Africa! Yet Xai Xai is perhaps the most
remote isolated place I have ever visited. I am ready to believe that
the occasional trader showed up at Xai Xai, but I am not ready to
believe that it was ever a hub of major trade routes.”[162]
According to Wilmsen, the records left by European traders confirm their
commercial activity in the Dobe area. But not according to Lee and
Guenther.[163] Repeatedly, the diaries and maps cited by Wilmsen to
place these Europeans in or near the Dobe area actually place them
hundreds of kilometers away. In fact, the Europeans say that they went
well out of their way to avoid the area. It was unmapped — all the maps
Wilmsen refers to display the Dobe area as a big blank spot — its
commercial potential was limited, and its inhabitants, who were mostly
the then-numerous San, were known to be hostile to intruders.
The chicanery doesn’t end there. Wilmsen’s linguistic flimflammery,
previously noted, isn’t confined to obscure African languages where he
might hope to get away with it. He mistranslates German too. One of his
most highly-hyped findings is in a German-language source which, he
claims, identifies “oxen” at an archeological San site. The German word
quoted actually means onions, not oxen. Lee and Guenther also adduce
other mistranslations which even I, whose German is scanty, found fishy.
In self-serving ways Wilmsen inserts words which clearly have no
counterparts in the German originals, usually for the purpose of faking
evidence of ethnic stratification.
Revisionism in the extreme form espoused by Wilmsen is untenable, but
nothing less extreme debunks the primitive-affluence thesis as Bookchin
has caricatured it. The reader will by now be weary of !Kung
calorie-counting and kindred esoterica: and Bookchin is counting on it.
He deploys an argument almost as persuasive as the argument from force,
namely, the argument from boredom. Anything you say, Murray, just don’t
say it to me! Anyone ever involved with a leftist group knows the school
where Bookchin learned “process.” Bookchin’s perverse paradise is
precisely this pathology generalized.[164] The winner of every argument
is the guy who won’t shut up, the Last Man Grandstanding.
How surprised — and then, how unsurprised — I was to come across
evidence of a fracas 30 years ago between Bookchin (not yet a Professor
or Director) and the American Section of the Situationist International.
The Situationists adjudged to be unacceptable Bookchin’s articles about
the French uprising of 1968 which had appeared in the Rat, an
underground newspaper in New York City. Presumably these articles are
identical or substantially equivalent to the ones Bookchin reprinted in
1971in Post-Scarcity Anarchism.[165] Situationists (although not the
Americans among them) influenced and prominently participated in the
events of May-June 1968. With his usual prudence and courage, Bookchin
timed his arrival in Paris for after the insurgency ended. Since the
1930’s he has always managed to sit out every even slightly
revolutionary situation which might have been even slightly hazardous to
his health. Anyway, the SI’s American Section (then known as “the
Council”) produced a critique, rejected for publication by the Rat,
which I have not seen and almost nobody else has either. For present
purposes I am interested, not in the merits or content of this critique,
but in how characteristically Bookchinist was Bookchin’s way of dealing
of it:
“The Council wrote its ‘Reply to Murray Bookchin Concerning His Theories
of the Recent French ‘Revolution’ in response to the last of Bookchin’s
series of articles appearing in the Rat. The editor of that New York
paper rejected the reply on the grounds that it was over the heads of
the readership, and that it lacked entertainment value. We were also
told that some of the editor’s old friends did not understand that the
Rat just really wanted to make a buck.
“The ‘Reply’ was mimeographed (with a comment on its fate with the Rat),
distributed by hand, and eventually sent out in the general mailing
announcing the Council’s dissolution and the plans for this magazine.
Before the mailing, a copy was sent to Bookchin (and his ever loyal
followers, Herber and Keller). He immediately contacted us, asking if we
would either print an answer that he would write in reply or consent to
his sending it out to the mailing list which would be receiving the
‘Reply.’ The answer, naturally, was no.
“It was, according to him, our ‘democratic’ responsibility to allow him
to answer directly to those who had received the ‘Reply,’ but not
apparently his democratic responsibility to see that our ‘Reply’ find
its way to those who had received his commentary. Failure to do so
naturally signified that we were neither open nor democratic, thus
attempting to place us in a position of helping him disseminate his
ideology. The obvious duplicity — and attempted manipulation — behind
this little charlatanism has found echo in subsequent developments.
“It does not seem to have occurred at all to Bookchin that he could have
printed the ‘Reply’ and his answer in his own magazine Anarchos, which
has since appeared; that nothing of any of this has been made public by
him; that rather he has gone about spreading rumors from ear to ear
about undemocratic practices which we engage in.
“Bookchinism, peculiar American variety of anarcho-bolshevism, is
comprised of three main theoretical fetishes: ecology, technology and
false historicism (as Bookchin’s Greek ecclesia of the future). Its
effective practice is manipulative, in memory of Leninist humanism.
“Having broken with Bookchin already in December 1967 over his spirited
defense of sacrificial militants and mystics, we will only add that our
concern is with individuals consciously engaged in the qualitative
negation of class society (which, for Bookchin, does not exist, or if it
exists, does not matter). From this base, real dialogue only takes place
in the active process of demystification. To step aside to banter with
an ideologist who publicizes the fact (Anarchos, books, speeches,
lectures, etc.) would be to give up all and re-enter the old world on
its rules.”
“There is nothing new,” the Director Emeritus intones, “about the
romanticization of tribal peoples. Two centuries ago, denizens of Paris,
from Enlighteners such as Denis Diderot to reactionaries like Marie
Antoinette, created a cult of ‘primitivism’ [sic] that saw tribal people
as morally superior to members of European society, who presumably were
corrupted by the vices of civilization.” Actually, two centuries ago —
1798 — they were both dead. The Director makes it sound like they were
collaborators. If there was a Parisian cult of the primitive, the
airhead Marie Antoinette (d. 1793) — who was Austrian, by the way — had
no part in creating it. Her cult of choice was Catholicism. Denis and
Marie never met. And, as so often with Bookchin, the quotation marks
around “primitivism” do not identify a quotation, they imply disapproval
— an abuse, especially rife among Marxists, which I have already
protested.[166] No one called himself a primitivist in the eighteenth
century. The word didn’t enter the English language until the
mid-twentieth century.[167] Am I quibbling about dates and details?
Doesn’t the Director? This guy claims to discern the directionality, not
only of human history, but of natural history. How can he tell where
history is going if he doesn’t even know where it’s been, or even when?
Bookchin misdates the romanticizing of the primitive not by years but by
centuries and, in the Garden of Eden version, by millennia. The noble
savage was not dreamed up at a Parisian salon. Although it is not quite
primitivism, the pastoral ideal goes back to Bookchin’s dream-world, the
urban-dominated world of classical antiquity.[168] The German barbarians
of Tacitus are likewise noble and free. European notions of primitive
freedom, virtue and comfort are at least as old as extensive European
contacts with primitive peoples, especially in the Americas. That was
Columbus’ first impression of the Indians, and the first impression of
Captain John Smith. Neither of these conquistadors was by any stretch of
the imagination an Enlightenment humanist. In 1584, a sea captain
working for Sir Walter Raleigh scouted the coast of Virginia. He saw it
as a garden of “incredible abundance” whose inhabitants were “most
gentle, loving and faithfull, voide of all guile and treason, and such
as live after the manner of the golden age.”[169] In The Tempest (1611),
the “honest old Councellor” Gonzalo envisages Prospero’s enchanted
island — under his own self-abolishing rule — as an anarchist,
communist, amoral, libertine, pacific, primitivist, zerowork
commonwealth, a place not to repeat the mistakes of civilization.[170] I
am not claiming Shakespeare as a primitivist, only as a sensitive
witness that one pole of the European perception of primitives was
already, well, primitivist in 1611. Accurate or not, these impressions
indicate an attraction for the primitive which long antedates the
eighteenth century. And is it so unthinkable that some of these
early-contact impressions, formed before European aggression and
spoliation embittered relations with the Indians, might be true? Several
historians — historians, mind you, not anthropologists — believe that
they are.[171] That there is nothing new about an idea does not mean
that there is nothing true about it. Pythagoras, not Ptolemy, turned out
to be right about the movement of the earth.
Of all the things Bookchin does badly, intellectual history may be the
worst. He is hardly capable of an accurate statement about the history
of religion. At one point — actually, at too many points — he castigates
David Watson for thinking that civilization as such represents
regression for humanity. The Director makes the obvious comparison to
the Garden of Eden story, with which I find no fault except for its
banality. He should have left it at that. Everything he goes on to say
reveals him as an ignorant bigot.
“This sort of rubbish,” he continues in his usual dispassionate voice,
“may have been good coin in medieval universities.” Evidently Bookchin
is unfamiliar with the curricula of medieval universities. They taught
the Thomist interpretation of Aristotelian teleology, which Bookchin’s
dialectical naturalism is much closer to than it is to the mechanistic
philosophy of his revered Enlightenment. Official Christianity was never
anti-urban or anti-civilizational. Christianity originated in the
urban-dominated Roman Empire, and its original appeal was in the cities,
not the countryside — the word “pagan” derives from the same root as the
word “peasant.” Saint Augustine would not have written of the City of
God if he thought God had something against cities. The medieval
university was a purely urban institution.
Christian orthodoxy has never interpreted human history or destiny as
the recovery of the primal innocence preceding the Fall. That was the
teaching of anarchic heretics like the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the
Adamites, the Diggers and the Ranters. Christianity, like Marxism and
Bookchinism, is forward-looking, eschatological. The Kingdom of Heaven
is not the Garden of Eden restored, it’s the City of God, the ultimate
polis, except that a loving Lord as a special blessing on the saved
excuses them from attending town meetings. In the Republic of Hell,
attendance is obligatory for all eternity. By the 18^(th) century, the
dominant tendency in religious thought was to regard the Fall as an
“episode in prehistory” marking the origin of human society, and not
such a bad thing after all.[172]
So here’s the Director’s next sentence: “But in the late Middle Ages,
few ideas in Christian theology did more to hold back advances in
science and experimental research than the notion that with the Fall,
humanity lost its innocence.” Try as I have, I am unable to understand
why the notion that humanity lost its innocence should retard scientific
progress. So far as I know, no historian has ever said so. And I’m
unaware that anyone in the later Middle Ages was even trying to conduct
experimental research, aside from the alchemists. Presumably, if the
Fall-from-innocence idea retarded scientific and technological progress
in the late Middle Ages, it must have done so throughout the Middle
Ages. That nearly reverses the reality. Scientific progress, it is true,
was slowed by the prevailing ideology — not by Christianity, but by
ideas inherited from pagan classical antiquity, from men like Aristotle,
Galen and Ptolemy. On the other hand, there was rapid technological
progress, unlike the stagnation of Greek and Roman times. The mold-board
plough opened up vast new territories for farming. Other innovations
included the windmill, the clock, and advances in shipbuilding and
navigation destined to transform the world. Military technology,
especially, progressed by invention and adoption: heavy armored cavalry,
the longbow, the crossbow, artillery, firearms, stone castles, etc.
Architecture surpassed its classical limitations — Bookchin’s beloved
Athenian polis could never have built Notre Dame.
The Sage of Burlington continues: “One of the Enlightenment’s great
achievements was to provide a critical perspective on the past,
denouncing the taboos and shamanistic trickery that made tribal peoples
the victims of unthinking custom as well as the irrationalities that
kept them in bondage to hierarchy and class rule, despite [?] its
denunciations of Western cant and artificialities.” Mopping up this mess
will take me awhile.
Having credited, or rather discredited, the Enlightenment with inventing
primitivism, the Director now credits it with refuting primitivism by
denouncing the taboos and tricky shamans holding tribal peoples in
bondage. But how would “a critical perspective on the past” bring about
these insights? 18^(th) century Europeans had little interest in and
less knowledge of the histories of any tribal peoples except those
mentioned in the Bible and the classics. They wouldn’t have been able to
learn much even if they wanted to. They were barely beginning to learn
how to understand their own histories. Anything resembling what we now
call ethnohistory was impossible then. Bookchin implies that the Age of
Reason was the first historicist period. In fact it was the last period
which was not. The Enlightened ones typically posited a universal,
invariant human nature. People are always and everywhere the same: only
their circumstances are different. The same circumstances always
determine the same behavior. A politician in 18^(th) century Britain or
America, for instance, will act the same way as an Athenian or Roman or
Florentine politician acted, as reported by Thucydides, Livy and
Machiavelli, in the same situation. So really there was little to learn
from the primitives. They were merely contemporary confirmatory examples
of a stage of society already inferred from Homer and Hesiod and Tacitus
and the Old Testament.
“Shamanistic trickery” is the crudest kind of soapbox freethought
cliché. Many primitive peoples have no shamans to dupe them. Many are
not in thrall to supernatural fears; some have a rather casual attitude
toward the spirit world. Shamans — healers through access to the
supernatural — aren’t frauds: they believe in what they do.[173] And
what they do does help. Medical science is taking great interest in
their medications. Beyond that, shamans alleviate the suffering of
victims of illness just by providing an explanation for it. American
physicians serve the same shamanistic function, and they know that they
do.[174]
Custom is not necessarily irrational: indeed no society could function
without it. Calling a custom a tabu does not demonstrate its
irrationality. The tabu against driving on the left side of the road,
for instance — which was a custom long before it was enacted into
law[175] — is a very sensible approach to traffic regulation. It would
be just as sensible to place the tabu against driving on the right side,
as most countries do, but that doesn’t make either tabu irrational, even
if it had originated in some superstition. Consider food tabus. Thus one
may be a vegetarian for any of several reasons — religion, morality,
politics, finances, health — but if the practice has positive
consequences, it has them regardless of motivation. Even so rational a
man as Murray Bookchin, I suspect, does not eat the insects available in
his back yard, although that might reduce his food bill a bit. It makes
no sense to call a food tabu irrational if there is other food
available. And usually, if the alternative to transgressing the tabu is
starvation, people transgress it, as in cases of lifeboat cannibalism.
As in SALA, Bookchin’s choice of words betrays his ignorance of
real-life primitives. In the above quotation, he blames the
irrationalities of tribal peoples, such as tabus and shamanistic
trickery, for keeping them in bondage to hierarchy and class rule. Most
tribal peoples exhibit far less hierarchy than any civilization ever
has. And almost by definition, tribes are not subject to class rule. By
way of the primitivists, most anarchists have been exposed to these
anthropological commonplaces. Indeed, they may be found in Kropotkin,
greatest of the Social Anarchists. What kind of idiots does Bookchin
take us for.
[1] Hegel: Texts and Commentary, translated and edited by Walter Kaufman
(Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1966), 110. “The feet of them which have
buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out” (Acts
5:9).
[2] Murray Bookchin, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm (Edinburgh, Scotland & San Francisco, CA: AK Press,
1995) [hereafter SALA].
[3] Bob Black, Anarchy after Leftism (Columbia, MO: C.A.L. Press, 1996)
[hereafter: AAL]; David Watson, Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a Future
Social Ecology (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia and Detroit: Black & Red,
1996).
[4] “Max Anger,” “Lies, Damned Lies — and Trotskyoid Lies,” Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed 16(1) (Spring-Summer 1998), 81 (“excellent and
timely”); Frank Girard, review of SALA, Discussion Bulletin No. 82
(1997).
[5] Forthcoming from AK Press. “Whither Anarchism” is available
electronically from Anarchy Press; in that format it is unpaginated.
[6] This statement is typical of Bookchin’s declining capacity to
express himself. He doesn’t mean what he says, that the citation is an
outright fabrication: the document “Goddard College 1995” does exist, as
he had just confirmed. He meant to say that my alleged implication (that
it supports the attribution of Deanly status) is an outright
fabrication. Similar errors abound in “Whither Anarchism?”
[7] Black, AAL, 18.
[8] I know that the last part of the sentence is nonsensical, but the
quotation is accurate.
[9] Watson, Beyond Bookchin, 38 n. 21.
[10] Bookchin, SALA, 67.
[11] Black, AAL, 28.
[12] H.L. Mencken, The American Language: Supplement One (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), 306.
[13] Bookchin, SALA, 20–26.
[14] Hobbes himself believed this condition “was never generally so,
over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now,”
as in many parts of America. His theory is an “Inference, made from the
passions” — deductive, not inductive. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C.B.
Macpherson (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1968),
187, 186; cf. C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive
Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (London: Oxford University Press, 1964),
20.
[15] Bob Black, “Primitive Affluence,” in Friendly Fire (Brooklyn, NY:
Autonomedia, 1992),, 19–41.
[16] Black, AAL, 93–96.
[17] Edwin N. Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of
the Kalahari (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989);
Thomas N. Headland, “Paradise Revised [a review of Wilmsen],” Sept.-Oct.
1990, 45–50; Roger Lewin, “New Views Emerge on Hunters and Gatherers,”
Science 240 (May 27, 1988), 1146–1147 (“Past Perspectives,” cited by
Bookchin as if it were an independent article, is just a four-paragraph
sidebar to the Lewin article).
[18] Lewin, “New Views Emerge on Hunters and Gatherers,” 1146–1147.
[19] Alan Barnard, The Kalahari Debate: A Bibliographical Essay
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992).
[20] Headland, “Paradise Revised.” Note that the title is “Paradise
Revised,” not “Paradise Refuted.”
[21] Thomas N. Headland, “Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology,”
Current Anthropology 38(4) (Aug.-Oct. 1997), 609.
[22] M.A.P. Renouf, “Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers: A Case for Northwest
Coasts,” in Between Bands and States, ed. Susan Gregg (Carbondale, IL:
Southern University of Illinois at Carbondale, 1991), 90; see also
Margaret W. Conkey, “To Find Ourselves: Art and Social Geography of
Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers,” in Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer
Societies, ed. Carmel Schrire (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984), 257.
[23] AAL, 106, quoting Bob Black, Friendly Fire (Brooklyn, NY:
Autonomedia, 1992), 54.
[24] Bookchin, SALA, 41.
[25] I infer this for two reasons. One is that Bookchin never cites it,
rather citing a brief excerpt from it, “Notes on the Original Affluent
Society,” from Man the Hunter, ed. Richard B. Lee and Erven DeVore
(Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1968). The other is that when Bookchin refers
to Sahlins, he always assumes that Sahlin’s only data were those on the
San supplied by Lee. In fact, Sahlins provided a second extended example
— the Australian aborigines — based on both historical and ethnographic
evidence, as I mentioned in Friendly Fire, 19.
[26] Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton,
1972), 14.
[27] Richard B. Lee, The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging
Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 256.
[28] Another manifestation of Bookchin’s faltering command of the
English language: what’s the difference between “material” and “natural”
subsistence uncertainties for hunter-gatherers whose way of life he
repudiates precisely because it is merely natural?
[29] I just noticed that the Director, in “Whither Anarchism?” when he
cites Sahlins, cites Sahlins’ brief comments from the “Man the Hunter”
conference as reprinted in Richard B. Lee & Ervin DeVore, eds., Man the
Hunter (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968). This is not the
influential Sahlins essay “The Original Affluent Society,” merely a few
of its highlights. It does not appear as if the Director Emeritus ever
did read the essay, which is far more than a short summary of Lee’s
research among the !Kung San.
[30] Black, Friendly Fire, 33.
[31] Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling/The Sickness Unto Death
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, n.d.), 131.
[32] Murray Bookchin, Toward an Ecological Society (Montreal, Canada:
Black Rose Books, 1980), 45.
[33] “Physiological or Natural Patriotism,” in From Out of the Dustbin:
Bakunin’s Basic Writings, 1869–1871, ed. Robert M. Cutler (Ann Arbor,
MI: Ardis Publishers, 1985), 190–191.
[34] “Men know no occupations other than hunting and warring, which our
own civilization still considers the most noble callings; ...” Ibid.,
191. I hasten to confess that I have truncated the statement to remove a
reference to the women doing all the real work. I did so because it
isn’t true. Bakunin repeats the standard misperception of Europeans who
only observed Indians in their villages, not on “the hunt — where the
writing kind of European does not seem to have followed.” Francis
Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of
Conquest (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1976), 92. Richard B.
Lee found that San women did less work than San men. Lee, The !Kung San,
277–278.
[35] “When we consider people living under some of the harshest, most
commanding conditions on earth, who can nevertheless do what they like
when the notion occurs to them, we should be able to witness the
contemporary doubt about civilization’s superiority without growing
indignant.” Watson, Beyond Bookchin, 240. Wishful thinking: there is
very little that Murray Bookchin witnesses, except Vermont town meetings
and seminars stocked with his acolytes, without growing indignant. After
quoting scraps of Watson’s sentence, the Director delivers a damning
riposte: “One can only gasp: Really!”
[36] “The Abolition of Work,” in Bob Black, The Abolition of Work and
Other Essays (Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1986), 17–33, and
in many more places. In the utterly unlikely event the Director never
saw it before, he certainly saw it in Reinventing Anarchy, Again, ed.
Howard J. Ehrlich (Edinburgh, Scotland & San Francisco, CA: AK Press,
1996), 236–253, along with Murray Bookchin, “Anarchism: Past and
Present,” 19–30. “Abolition” has been published in translation in
Russian, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and Slovene. A Finnish
translation is in the works.
[37] Ibid.; Friendly Fire, 11–62; AAL, ch. 9 & passim; “What’s Wrong
With This Picture?” Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, No. 43
(Spring/Summer 1997): 11–14 (reviewing Jeremy Rifkin, The End of Work).
[38] “Zhu” is not a synonym for “San,” rather, it is one of the three
regional divisions of the !Kung-speaking northern San peoples. Lee, The
!Kung San, 37–38.
[39] Citing Lee, The !Kung San, 278.
[40] Black, Friendly Fire, 20.
[41] Black, Friendly Fire, 20.
[42] Black, Friendly Fire, 20–21, citing Lee, The !Kung San, 277–278.
[43] Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of
Leisure (New York: BasicBooks, 1992), 83.
[44] Quoted in Lewin, “New Views Emerge on Hunters and Gatherers,” 1146.
[45] Lewin, “New Views Emerge on Hunters and Gatherers,” 1147.
[46] Jiri Tanaka, The San: Hunter-Gatherers of the Kalahari: A Study in
Ecological Anthropology (Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo, 1980), 77.
[47] Ibid., 78.
[48] Headland, “Paradise Revised,” 46, 48.
[49] Black, Friendly Fire, 27, citing Joseph Eyer and Peter Sterling,
“Stress-Related Mortality and Social Organization,” Review of Radical
Political Economics 9(1) (Spring 1977), 15. Bookchin’s word “farmers” is
inaccurate and anachronistic. A farmer is a capitalist, an agricultural
entrepreneur producing for the market. There were no farmers in Europe
in the 12^(th) century. 12^(th)-century cultivators were peasants
tilling the soil to sustain their households and, like peasants
everywhere, to pay rent, tithes and taxes to their exploiters. Eric R.
Wolf, Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 2. When Wolf
wrote of them over 30 years ago, peasants were the majority of the
world’s population. I don’t know if that’s still true, but peasants are
certainly still a substantial proportion of the world’s people, and
conspicuously so south of the U.S. border, in Mexico. If, as Bookchin
insists, the anarchist revolution must be worldwide and all-encompassing
if it is to succeed, his fixation on urbanism impedes that revolution,
for it reduces the peasantry, in traditional Marxist fashion, to
semi-conscious cannon fodder of the revolutionary proletariat. Now this
is rather odd, because Bookchin’s beloved civilization has usually been
associated with urbanism and always associated with statism. Ibid.,
10–11. Peasant anarchists actually engaged in revolution, as opposed to
just talking about it, haven’t noticed the inherent anarchist potential
of the city, possibly because it hasn’t any. The Makhnovists, Ukrainian
peasant anarchists, according to Makhno himself were mostly not
consciously anarchists, but “in their communal life they behaved with
that anarchist solidarity which, in ordinary life, only those toilers
are capable whose natural simplicity has not yet been infected by the
political poison of the cities. For the cities always give out the smell
of lying and betrayal from which many, even among the comrades who call
themselves anarchists, are not exempt.” Quoted in E.J. Hobsbawm,
Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the
19^(th) and 20^(th) Centuries (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1965), 184.
[50] Cited in Black, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, 23.
[51] Keith Thomas, “Work and Leisure in Pre-Industrial Society,” Past &
Present No. 29 (Dec. 1964), 53. “The pastoral relationships of country
life in the high Middle Ages tempered the purely economic necessities of
feudalism with a sort of freedom; play often took the upper hand in the
corvée, in the dispensing of justice, in the settlement of debts.” Raoul
Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith
(2[nd], rev. ed.; London: Rebel Press & Seattle, WA: Left Bank Books,
1994), 256.
[52] Harold Barclay, People Without Government: An Anthropology of
Anarchism (London: Kahn & Averill with Cienfuegos Press, 1982), 48–49.
[53] Dominique Legros, “Comment,” Current Anthropology 38(4) (Aug.-Oct.
1997), 617.
[54] Bookchin, SALA, 45.
[55] David Pollock, review of Yanomami Warfare, by R. Bryan Ferguson,
Ethnohistory 44(1) (Winter 1997), 191.
[56] Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies, 229.
[57] Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies, 229, 227.
[58] Jacqueline S. Solway, review of Land Filled with Flies, American
Ethnologist 18 (Nov. 1991), 817.
[59] Ibid., 816.
[60] Headland, “Paradise Revised,” 50.
[61] Little archeological research has been conducted in the Kalahari,
but Wilmsen has made expansive claims that it proves 2,000 years of
extensive socio-economic interactions between San and Iron Age Bantu. A
recent review of the literature finds the evidence entirely
insufficient. Karim Sadr, “Kalahari Archeology and the Bushmen Debate,”
Current Anthropology 38(1) (Feb. 1997): 104–112.
[62] Parker Shipton, review of Land Filled with Flies, American
Anthropologist 93 (Sept. 1991), 756.
[63] Anonymous review of Murray Bookchin, The Rise of Urbanization and
the Decline of Citizenship, Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs 32 (Fall
1988): 628, quoted in Anarchy after Leftism, 96.
[64] Alfred Kelly, “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair,” 1969
Supreme Court Review, 119–158.
[65] Were Bookchin to claim that it is their limited technology which
precludes foragers from accumulating capital and making long-term
economic plans and arrangements, he would be espousing the technological
determinism which David Watson plausibly accuses him of and which the
Director, implausibly denies in “Whither Anarchism?” But the other horn
of the dilemma also gores him. It implies that culture or social
organization determines technology, which is tantamount to saying that
primitive peoples can refuse technology, as Watson, Zerzan and I have
suggested. No anti-progressive heresy riles the Director more than this
one, which denies the directionality he divines in the cosmos itself.
[66] Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, 18.
[67] Watson, Beyond Bookchin, 110.
[68] Lee, The !Kung San, 301.
[69] See note 2 supra.
[70] Bookchin, SALA, 45–46.
[71] Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies, 235.
[72] Jean Forestie, The Causes of Wealth (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press,
1960), 102–103, cited in Wolf, Peasants, 4–5.
[73] Karen L. Field, American Anthropologist (1992), 161, quoted in
Black, AAL, 94.
[74] Field, 161, quoted in AAL, 94. I have only just noticed, to my
dismay, that the Field reference does not appear in the AAL
bibliography.
[75] Headland, “Paradise Revised,” 46.
[76] Bookchin, SALA, 45–46.
[77] Tanaka, The San, 81.
[78] Nancy Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung (New York: Academic
Press, 1979), 82.
[79] AAL, citing Melvin Konner and Marjorie Shostack, “Timing and
Management of Birth Among the 1Kung: Biocultural Interaction in
Reproductive Adaptation,” Cultural Anthropology 2(1) (Feb. 1987), 12.
[80] Tanaka, The San, 86.
[81] AAL, 109–111.
[82] Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, 82.
[83] Bookchin, SALA, 46.
[84] Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, 30, 35; cf. Lee, The !Kung
San, 44–48.
[85] Tanaka, The San, 86.
[86] So successfully that in 1968, his situationist critics thought that
Herber was Bookchin’s follower, not his pseudonym. Situationist
International: Review of the American Section of the S.I. No. 1 (June
1969) (reprint ed.; Portland, OR: Extreme Press, 1993), 42.
[87] Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism, 57.
[88] Black, AAL, chs. 5, 10 & passim; cf. Zerzan, “Murray Bookchin’s
Libertarian Municipalism,” Future Primitive, 164–166.
[89] Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory
of Knowledge (New York: Verso, 1978), 27–28.
[90] Ibid., 47 (quoted), 49.
[91] Gloria Flaherty, Shamanism and the Enlightenment (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1982), 7.
[92] Black, AAL, 100, quoting Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom:
The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire
Books, 1982), 10.
[93] Black, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, XXXXX.
[94] Misspeaking yet again, the Director says “possible” when he must
mean “actual.” No one claims that possible but nonexistent factors are
even a little bit determining.
[95] Here the Director collapses two distinctions into one. The
dichotomy between primary and secondary causes is not the same as the
dichotomy between necessary and contingent, “adventitious” factors. An
adventitious factor — such as the death of an important individual — may
be a primary cause, a weighty cause, although it is not a necessary
cause rooted in an underlying process of social development.
[96] Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, Unorthodox Marxism: An Essay on
Capitalism, Socialism and Revolution (Boston, MA: South End Press,
1978), 52–53.
[97] “Modern Science and Anarchism,” in Kropotkin’s Revolutionary
Pamphlets, ed. Roger N. Baldwin (New York: Dover Publications, 1970),
152.
[98] Karl Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” in Early
Writings, ed. Quintin Hoare (New York: Vintage Books, 1975), 61.
[99] Black, AAL, 100–101.
[100] Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover
Publications, 1952), ch. 6.
[101] Emma Goldman, “Victims of Morality,” in Red Emma Speaks: Selected
Writings and Speeches, ed. Alix Kates Shulman (New York: Random House,
1972), 127.
[102] Ludwig Feuerbach, “Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy,” in
The Young Hegelians, 110.
[103] Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology (6^(th) ed.; New York: D.
Appleton, 1912), 367.
[104] I use the phrase “Social Darwinism” as it is usually used, but it
is not literally accurate. Spencer’s so-called Darwinism actually
preceded Darwin’s Darwinism, which might be called Biological
Spencerism. Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History
of Theories of Culture (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1968),
122–125.
[105] Ibid., 209.
[106] William Graham Sumner, “Sociology,” in Darwinism and the American
Intellectual: An Anthology, ed. R. Jackson Wilson (2[nd] ed.; Chicago,
IL: The Dorsey Press, 1989), 123, 124.
[107] George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Books, 1950), 15, 31–32.
[108] As if this purely speculative reverse McCarthyism wasn’t sleazy
enough, the Director aims another blow below the belt. “In any case,
1964, the year Goldwater ran for president, was also a year when the
best and brightest Americans of Clark’s generation were journeying to
Mississippi (in the famous Mississippi Summer), often risking their
lives to register the state’s poorest and most subjugated blacks for the
franchise. Although Mississippi is separated from Louisiana, Clark’s
home state, by only a river, nothing Clark ever told me remotely
suggests that he was part of this important civil rights movement.”
Instead Clark, “at the robust age of nineteen,” was presumably in the
personalistic pursuit of a college degree. And where was the 43-year-old
Bookchin in 1964? 43 may not be as robust an age as 19, but one did not
need to be robust to register blacks at that time and place, only
courageous and dedicated. Three civil-rights workers were murdered that
summer. Men of Bookchin’s generation, such as Walter Reuther and Martin
Luther King, Jr., were not too old for civil rights marches, civil
disobedience and other actions placing their lives and liberty at
hazard. All we know about Bookchin when he was at the robust age of 19,
in 1940, is that he was kicked out of the Communist Party and went over
to the Trotskyists, which is like changing deck chairs on the Titanic.
If Bookchin in all his life has ever taken a risk or broken a law or
done anything for anarchism or revolution except generating verbiage, he
has never said so, and he is not a man to be modest about his
accomplishments. According to John P. Clark, Bookchin’s boldest
political act was once complaining about the quality of Ben & Jerry’s
ice cream. I don’t know if a few hundred or a few thousand young
Americans participated in the Mississippi Summer, but I do know that
tens of millions of their peers did not. But many went on to participate
in the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the feminist
movement, the environmentalist movement and the other oppositional
currents of the 60’s. It is thanks to a few of them that anarchism
escaped extinction and commenced the modest recovery which continues to
this day. To use participation in one small albeit conspicuous project
as a litmus test of anarcho-revolutionary bona fides 30 years later is
to write off an entire generation — the last generation, according to
Bookchin, which even came close to realizing a “utopistic” revolution.
[109] Bookchin, SALA, 4.
[110] As Bookchin confirms, with respect to the libertarians, in SALA,
5, and in “Whither Anarchism” (second paragraph) with respect to the
liberals.
[111] Bookchin just had to throw in “ostensibly.” He’s constitutionally
incapable of acknowledging that anyone he disagrees with might be acting
in good faith. Yet by his own admission he’s a poor judge of character,
having misjudged the blackguard Clark for so many years.
[112] Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty (Oxford: at the Clarendon
Press, 1958).
[113] John P. Clark, Max Stirner’s Egoism (London: Freedom Press, 1976),
59. Note that this book was published when Clark was a Bookchinist. I
suspect this was where, and why, Bookchin came across the distinction.
[114] Gerald C. MacCullum, Jr., “Negative and Positive Freedom,” 76
Philosophical Review (July 1967), 312, 314. His “claim is only about
what makes talk concerning the freedom of agents intelligible,” ibid.,
314, and I acknowledge that there are intelligible ways of speaking of
freedom which fall outside the formulation, such as freedom in the sense
of political participation. John Gray, “On Negative and Positive
Liberty,” in Conceptions of Liberty in Political Philosophy, ed.
Zbigniew Pelczynski and John Gray (London: The Athlone Press, 1984),
326. I prefer to refer to democracy as democracy, not freedom or
political freedom, so as not to beg the question of democracy’s relation
to freedom in the personal sense. The concept of freedom should not be
identified with what Bookchin calls the forms of freedom by definitional
fiat. The Director’s beloved Athenian citizens, for instance, enjoyed
political freedom but were almost entirely without personal freedom.
Black, AAL, 66.
[115] Berlin Two Concepts of Liberty, 6.
[116] Bookchin, SALA, 5.
[117] MacCallum, “Negative and Positive Freedom,” 321 n. 7.
[118] Bookchin, SALA, 11, 29–30, 50, 61.
[119] Max Stirner, “Art and Religion,” in The Young Hegelians: An
Anthology, ed. Lawrence S. Stepelevich (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983), 344.
[120] Clark, Max Stirner’s Egoism, 61.
[121] Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, ed. David Leopold (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 142. Stirner goes on to characterize
(negative) freedom as “the doctrine of Christianity”! Ibid. The
quotation also gives the lie to the accusation by Marx, Kropotkin and
Bookchin that Stirner’s egoism is for the individual egoist alone (in
which case the charge of elitism would have some merit). Stirner exhorts
“you” — the reader — to assert your ownness. The effectiveness of his
own egoism is multiplied by the ownness of others. Cf. For Ourselves,
The Right to Be Greedy (Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, n.d.).
[122] Clark, Max Stirner’s Egoism, 61.
[123] Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, 249 (quoted), 249–250 & passim.
[124] Bookchin, SALA, 1.
[125] As in AAL, I prefer to confine the scope of my argument to
American and Canadian anarchism, corresponding to Bookchin’s subject in
SALA. I know far more about recent anarchist history in these countries
than in any others, and it would be reckless of me, not to mention
chauvinistic, to project that history onto other parts of the world. But
I know, as my foreign readers know, that nontraditional and post-leftist
anarchisms have emerged in strength in many countries, among them
France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Greece. They are
present in Mexico and Quebec. They are even manifest, and in
sophisticated forms, in Turkey and India. Apparently the American or
Anglo-American individualist tradition so hateful to Bookchin is not
necessary for Lifestyle Anarchism to spread.
[126] George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and
Movements (Cleveland, OH & New York: Meridian Books, 1962), 468.
[127] Leonard I. Krimmerman and Lewis Perry, “Foreword,” Patterns of
Anarchy: A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition, ed.
Leonard I. Krimmerman and Lewis Perry (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books,
1966), xvi, xv. This is the best anarchist anthology in English. I have
a personal reminiscence to put in here. I was in junior high school and
high school in 1965–1969. In one class — I think it was a seventh-grade
literature class — we read Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.”
It was the only anarchist text which any of us had ever read. Our
reaction was unanimous. We rose up, as one, to denounce it.
[128] George Woodcock, “Anarchism Revisited,” Commentary (Aug. 1968),
quoted and summarized in Michael Lerner, “Anarchism and the American
Counter-Culture,” in Anarchism Today, ed. David E. Apter and James Joll
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 34–59 (Woodcock quoted, 34).
This is the same Michael Lerner who now serves as a court intellectual
to the Clintons, especially Hillary, who seems to do most of their deep
thinking, such as it is.
[129] Lerner, “Anarchism and the American Counter-Culture”; David E.
Apter, “The Old Anarchism and the New — Some Comments,” in Apter and
Joll, eds., Anarchism Today, 7–8.
[130] According to Bookchin, “When the rebellious 1960s bubbled up after
a decade of social quiescence and numbing mediocrity, lifestyle
anarchism enjoyed great popularity among the countercultural elements,
while social anarchism exercised a measure of influence with some New
Leftists.” This is nostalgic nonsense. No kind of anarchism enjoyed
“great popularity” with anybody.
[131] XXXX
[132] Black, Beneath the Underground, 32.
[133] Black, “Anarchism and other Impediments to Anarchy,” in The
Abolition of Work and Other Essays, 149–151 (originally written in
1985).
[134] Further elaborated in Black, Friendly Fire, 181–193, 199–201, and
Bob Black, Beneath the Underground (XXXX),
[135] Bookchin, SALA, 66–86, esp. 86.
[136] Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, 28.
[137] Bookchin, SALA, 1.
[138] “Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens
with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical
precedents.” Bookchin, SALA, 61. As the Director refers to “precedents,”
in the plural, there must be at least two historical examples of this
bizarre union. Regrettably, Bookchin identifies not even one, perhaps
because not even one such example exists. I have searched the Marxist
scriptures in vain for a definition of the lumpenproletariat. As far as
I can tell, operationally, a proletarian is a lumpen who follows Marxist
orders, and a lumpen is a proletarian who does not.
[139] Bookchin, SALA, 1. The Director is much given to the
double-negative grammatical gambit by which he is able to say something
implausible or defamatory while reserving the right to back away from
its literal meaning if he has to. Thus he will say that some supposed
tenet of Lifestyle Anarchism is “not unlike” a tenet of fascism —
technically, he hasn’t called anybody a fascist, but the emotive impact
is almost as strong as if he had.
[140] V.I. Lenin, What Is to Be Done? (New York: International
Publishers, 1943), 44.
[141] As some of my enemies, such as Fred Woodworth and his dittohead
Chaz Bufe delight in reporting, I too am a lawyer. I don’t practice law.
I never did, except as an occasional favor to friends or
anti-authoritarians — Processed World, for instance, and a few
prisoners, such as anarchist Avi Naftel. My status is as an “inactive”
member of the California Bar, meaning that I can’t practice law even in
California. I was never a litigator. My expertise is in legal research
and writing. Exceptionally, last year I won an administrative appeal on
behalf of an SSI disability claimant, which I could do because anyone
can represent a claimant in Social Security proceedings. Does any
anarchist have a problem with that? No Social Anarchist or
anarcho-leftist, as far as I know, has ever denigrated Bakunin and
Kropotkin for being Russian nobles. I haven’t bothered to collect
examples of anarchist lawyers, although I often come across them as I
read about anarchism, but two prominent examples that I happen to
remember are the American individualist Lysander Spooner and the Italian
collectivist Luigi Galleani.
[142] John Simon, “Introduction” to Dwight Macdonald, Against the
American Grain: Essays on the Effects of Mass Culture (New York: Da Capo
Press, 1983), vi.
[143] John Zerzan, “The Catastrophe of Postmodernism,” Future Primitive
and Other Essays (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia & Columbia, MO: Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed, 1994), 101–134.
[144] Henry Harpending, review of Land Filled with Flies, Anthropos 86
(1991), 314. He continues: “When I deduced that ëinterposing instruments
of production between themselves and subjects of labor’ (48) meant
spearing animals I gave up on the rich language of the theoretical
arguments and decided to concentrate on the substance of the book.”
Ibid.
[145] E.g., Headland, “Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology,” 609;
Michael S. Alvard, “Comment,” Current Anthropology 38(4) (August-Oct.
1997), 610; Allyn Maclean Stearman, “Comment,” ibid., 623.
[146] Thomas N. Headland, “Reply,” ibid., 624.
[147] E.g., Lee, The !Kung San, ch. 14 (“Economic and Social Change in
the 1960s and 1970s”).
[148] Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies, 225 (quoted), 225–226, 198.
[149] Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies, 225–226.
[150] E.g., Lee, The !Kung San, ch. 3 (“The Dobe Area: Its Peoples and
Their History”).
[151] Harpending, review, 314.
[152] Sorry to interrupt so compelling a narrative, but Dobe is only a
small part of the Kalahari now inhabited by the San. Wilmsen’s
fieldwork, for instance, was conducted elsewhere, far to the north. The
Dobe area was where Lee, DeVore, Howell and associates focused their
research in the 60’s and 70’s. Obviously Bookchin has not even bothered
to read Wilmsen’s book from end to end, but only skimmed it to cull
quotes for the purpose of advocacy.
[153] Bookchin, SALA, 44.
[154] Richard B. Lee and M. Guenther, “Errors Corrected or Compounded? A
Reply to Wilmsen,” Current Anthropology 32 (1991): 298–305.
[155] Karim Sadr, “Kalahari Archeology and the Bushman Debate,” Current
Anthropology 38(1) (Feb. 1997), 105.
[156] Ibid.
[157] Ibid., 111.
[158] Harpending, review, 315.
[159] Harpending, review, 315.
[160] Harpending, review, 314.
[161] Eric Wolf, Europe and the People without History (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1982).
[162] Harpending, review, 314–315.
[163] Richard B. Lee and Mathias Guenther, “Problems in Kalahari
Historical Demography and the Tolerance of Error,” History in Africa 20
(1993): 185–235.
[164] Black, AAL, 66–70.
[165] Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism (San Francisco, CA:
Ramparts Press, 1971), 247–280 (essays dated “Paris July 1968”).
[166] Black, AAL, 38, quoting Theodor W. Adorno, “Punctuation Marks,”
The Antioch Review (Summer 1990), 303.
[167] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 2: 2354.
[168] Leo Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral
Ideal in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 19–24. “In
Elizabethan writing the distinction between primitive and pastoral
styles of life is often blurred, and devices first used by Theocritus
and Virgil appear in many descriptions of the new continent.” Ibid., 39.
[169] Ibid., 36–37.
[170] William Shakespeare, The Tempest, II. I. 143–160; Marx, The
Machine in the Garden, 48–49.
[171] Jennings, The Invasion of America; Edmund S. Morgan, American
Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1975); Neal Salisbury, Manitou and Providence:
Indians, Europeans and the Making of New England, 1500–1643 (New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982). Anthropologists have drawn
similar conclusions from historical sources, among them Pierre Clastres,
Society Against the State (New York: Urizen Books, Mole Editions, 1977).
[172] Norman Hampson, The Enlightenment (Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
England: Penguin Books, 1968), 102.
[173] For five years of his life, over a 30-year period, and on over 20
occasions, anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon lived among the Yanamamo,
warlike horticultural Indians who live in Venezuela and Brazil. Their
shamans, who undergo a rigorous year of preparation (including celibacy
and near-starvation), enjoy no special privileges and clearly believe in
their own healing powers derived from (drug-assisted) access to the
spirit world. Napoleon A. Chagnon, Yanomamo (4^(th) ed.; Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1992), 116–119.
[174] Megan Biesele & Robbie Davis-Floyd, “Dying as Medical Performance:
The Oncologist as Charon,” in The Performance of Healing, ed. Carol
Laderman & Marine Roseman (New York & London: Routledge, 1996), 314.
[175] John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law (2d ed.;
Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), 289