💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › no-wing-ok-bookchin.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:06:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: OK Bookchin Author: No Wing Date: 11/12/2019 Language: en Topics: Murray Bookchin, Post Left, Social Ecology Source: https://medium.com/@NoWing/ok-bookchin-7410e5f9f1ff
There is perhaps no modern thinker who has done more to damage the term
“anarchism” than Murray Bookchin. Beyond all the physical repression
over the centuries, by both capitalists and communists, the right and
the left, Bookchin’s piece “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm” stands as the most notable instance of ideological
sabotage against anarchism.
Even the title of the piece is a lie. The only reason this “chasm”
exists, is because Bookchin and his followers have been harping about it
for the last 20 years. Additionally, individualist and social anarchism
share a long history of tolerating each other, if not working together.
Bookchin conveniently ignores that fact that many individualist
anarchists were members of the First International, right alongside
social anarchists, and even Marxists. There may have been tension
between these groups, but there was no chasm, as there was no chasm
until Bookchin created one.
Bookchin starts by going through the history of individualist anarchism,
making sure to label them as terrorists pretty quickly out of the gates.
“individualistic anarchists committed acts of terrorism that gave
anarchism its reputation as a violently sinister conspiracy.”
This is patently false, as shown in the work “The Anarchist Beast” by
Nhat Hong. If Bookchin knew what he was talking about, he would have
known that the drive to label anarchists as terrorists was going strong
since likely before the 1880s. Yes, some individualist anarchists were
terrorists, but anarchism had largely been stuck with that label
already. The deeds of terrorists are not what established the label, it
was the fear of those in power, and their need to discredit anarchism.
“Despite their avowals of an anarchocommunist ideology, Nietzscheans
like Emma Goldman remained cheek to jowl in spirit with individualists.
“
Here, we see Bookchin using Nietzsche like his name is some type of
slur, in addition to using him to discredit Emma Goldman. Goldman did
far more to advance anarchy in this world than Bookchin ever did, and
often did it side by side with more social leaning anarchists. Where is
the chasm then? Of course Bookchin wants to dismiss Goldman away, as her
very life disproves his thesis here.
“The period hardly allowed individualists, in the name of their
‘uniqueness,’ to ignore the need for energetic revolutionary forms of
organization with coherent and compelling programs.”
Moving past the 1800s and early 1900s, Bookchin moves on in time,
suggesting that social anarchists in the period past that had
“compelling programs.” What were these programs exactly? Allying with
the Stalinist red fascism in Spain and getting murdered? While
individualist anarchists may have been focused on smaller scale actions,
the larger scale actions of the social anarchists of the 1930s ended
quite literally, in fascism. I would hardly call that compelling or
coherent.
“These trendy posturings, nearly all of which follow current yuppie
fashions…”
It is at around this point in the piece that Bookchin abandons his
delusional version of history, and moves on to mere ad hominem attacks
and mere complaining. Bookchin is the last person who should be
complaining about anything fashion related! Look at his hat! Bookchin
constantly looks like how he thinks a worker should look like, and could
absolutely deal with some sense of fashion other than his self-styled
“assembly line chic”.
“the 1990s are awash in self-styled anarchists who — their flamboyant
radical rhetoric aside — are cultivating a latter-day
anarcho-individualism that I will call lifestyle anarchism. Its
preoccupations with the ego and its uniqueness and its polymorphous
concepts of resistance are steadily eroding the socialistic character of
the libertarian tradition.”
Here, Bookchin attempts to coin individualist anarchism as something he
created, a “lifestyle anarchism”, if you will. He claims lifestyle
anarchism erodes the socialistic character of anarchism? So be it! The
socialistic tradition in anarchism is what has led historically to
anarchists buddying up to, and later being murdered by, socialists and
communists. If erosion of this socialistic character is what it takes
for anarchists to stop thinking that leftist traditions have their best
interests at heart…Erode away!
“The ego — more precisely, its incarnation in various lifestyles — has
become an idée fixe for many post-1960s anarchists, who are losing
contact with the need for an organized, collectivistic, programmatic
opposition to the existing social order.”
What Bookchin does not realize, is that this type of collectivist,
programmatic “opposition” has become ingrained in the social order
itself. Mass politics, with its programs for social change, has become
part of the status quo. The system itself would much rather have people
mimicking its structures and playing within its rules, as opposed to the
infinitely diverse forms of resistance available to all individuals at
any moment. The state understands how to deal with the same dogmatic
resistance it has faced for centuries. It is not prepared for outbursts
of individuality, fluid and innumerable in their scope.
“Lifestyle, like individualist, anarchism bears a disdain for theory,”
Yes! We do! We disdain those who fetishize thought, while cowering from
action. Unlike Bookchin, who spent his life writing dozens of books, and
many more pieces outside of them, the individualists see the world as
their parchment upon which to write. Action is worth more than a million
words, and also the most effective way to breed more action. People have
been theorizing about the same things for centuries now, to little
effect. It has been those who commit themselves to enacting theory,
rather than steeping themselves in it, who have made the strongest
stands against rulership.
“The price that anarchism will pay if it permits this swill to displace
the libertarian ideals of an earlier period could be enormous.”
And here is where we see that Bookchin is not interested so much in
opposing rulership, as he is using anarchism as a method of control. As
evidenced above, Bookchin cares more about anarchism as a static
ideology, than as a fluid attempt by people to not be ruled. He is
concerned with anarchism as a monolithic entity, because as a singular
and dogmatic ideology, anarchism becomes another box in which to contain
people’s ideas, and thereby control people’s actions.
“Thus, instead of disclosing the sources of present-day social and
personal pathologies, antitechnologism allows us to speciously replace
capitalism with technology, which basically facilitates capital
accumulation and the exploitation of labor, as the underlying cause of
growth and of ecological destruction. Civilization, embodied in the city
as a cultural center, is divested of its rational dimensions, as if the
city were an unabated cancer rather than the potential sphere for
universalizing human intercourse…”
Bookchin also attempts to attack currents of thought like primitivism
and anti-civilization, but really just proves that he does not
understand the critique these strains are making. Anti-civilization
ideas are generally not “anti” technology, so much as they are insisting
on an honesty about technology. The technology that exists, exists
because of a globalized system of coercion. As anarchists, we need to be
critical of this system, and understand that without coercion modern
technology would simply not exist. Those who critique technology often
do not oppose technology itself, but the manner in which technology is
produced. Bookchin’s claim of “antitechnologism” is either a
misunderstanding, or a purposeful falsification.
It is also worth noting that Bookchin again vulgarizes primitivism and
anti-civ ideas by equating civilization with cities. He dares not
address something like Fredy Perlman’s idea of civilization as the roots
of all hierarchy…as simply rulership. Instead, Bookchin shows his
cowardice by addressing anti-civ ideas with a meme level understanding
of it, avoiding those who have thought deeper on the subject.
“Lifestyle anarchism must be seen in the present social context not only
of demoralized black ghettoes and reactionary white suburbs but even of
Indian reservations, those ostensible centers of ‘primality,’ in which
gangs of Indian youths now shoot at one another, drug dealing is
rampant, and ‘gang graffiti greets visitors even at the sacred Window
Rock monument,’ “
And, of course, no old white man rant would be complete without some
statements that just end up sounding like a confused racism. Bookchin
actually attempts to claim that lifestyle/individual anarchism is
responsible or related to the severe marginalization of people of
color?! I believe that responsibility lies with capitalism and the
racist structures it has created, not some individualist spectre.
“Social anarchism, in my view, is made of fundamentally different stuff,
heir to the Enlightenment tradition…”
Finally, Bookchin comes clean, after the thinly veiled racism, and comes
forth with an admission of his true forebearers…the archetypical “old
white dudes” of the Enlightenment. Bookchin’s anarchism is not rooted in
a simple desire for “no rulers”, but tied up in the liberal white
supremacism of Enlightenment ideas.
“it describes the democratic dimension of anarchism as a majoritarian
administration of the public sphere.”
Bookchin cannot rid himself of statist ideas, as he goes on to talk
about his notion of Communalism. Bookchin does not stop to think “What
if the majority does not want to administrate anything?” To him,
anarchism is just another system of rulership, albeit a “majoritarian”
one. Anarchism to him, becomes less about “no rulers”, and more about
“everyone rules”.
“The sovereign, self-sufficient ‘individual’ has always been a
precarious basis upon which to anchor a left libertarian outlook.”
Clearly, Bookchin does not believe in any sort of “bottom up”
egalitarianism, or else he would not be so quick to dismiss the
individual. Free and empowered individuals make up free and empowered
societies, and should absolutely be the basis of liberty. One cannot
force a system onto people, and then call those people free, no matter
how inclusive the system.
“Democracy is not antithetical to anarchism; nor are majority rule and
nonconsensual decisions incommensurable with a libertarian society. “
Any sort of rule…Any sort of nonconsensual decision is antithetical to
anarchism. Here, again, Bookchin shows his desire to control others in
the name of freedom. He literally attempts to reconcile the very tools
of the state with anarchism!
“That no society can exist without institutional structures is
transparently clear to anyone who has not been stupefied by Stirner and
his kind.”
Again, his blatant statism is laid bare. Is “institutional structures”
not simply another name for “rulership”? Of course, given the many
societal blueprints that Bookchin created in his lifetime, it is clear
that Bookchin saw himself at the helm of, or at least a theoretician of
these “institutional structures”. Bookchin is incapable of rejecting
these structures, because he views them as instruments to be used in
ruling over others.
“Certainly, it is already no longer possible, in my view, to call
oneself an anarchist without adding a qualifying adjective to
distinguish oneself from lifestyle anarchists.”
And again, Bookchin shows that he is the one attempting to dilute
anarchism, by attempting to add qualifiers and appendages to it. If
anarchism can be obscured by adjectives, then its true meaning of “no
rulers” can be watered down and even changed into something else.
“Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with
Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical
precedents. “
Bookchin finishes with a bit of classist flair, using the same terms
that Marx used with disdain when talking about the underclasses of
people. Bookchin, the “good worker”, must berate and chastise others. In
a fit of workerism, Bookchin then plays the card common to leftists, and
sinks to claims of fascism, putting to rest the notion that he ever had
any real argument to begin with.
This final cry of “fascism!” truly shows Bookchin’s true designs here.
He is willing to use the threat of fascism to scare those who might not
be convinced by the piece’s end into complying. This final statement
perfectly illustrates the authoritarianism masking itself as anarchism
that Bookchin exemplifies.
“Follow my ‘organized’ and ‘coherent’ plans, or you are a fascist!” he
cries.
OK Bookchin…