I just wanted to inform readers of Negations that we have now published the first part of my reply to Chuck Morse. The whole essay is titled “Measures of Failure and Success.” The first part deal mainly with Morse’s accusations that Bookchin was an idealist and a voluntarist, and the necessary presentation of the historical perspectives of social ecology. This discussion I think is necessary to fully explore Morse’s superficial and distorted presentation of the legacy Murray Bookchin left us.

You will find the essay here: http://www.communalism.net

Solidarity,
Eirik Eiglad
editor@communalism.net

Thanks for the comment. My observations about Bookchin and racism and white supremacy have generated a lot of debate, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue more fully.

To reply, I’m going to have to echo what Mike S. said: Murray did not: “address the particularities and complexities of race relations and white supremacy.” Or, to put it slightly differently, he did not advance an analysis of the meaning, origins, or trajectory of white supremacy or racism and did not examine how racism and white supremacy impact the forms of hierarchy that he did analyze.

In my view, this absence in his work invalidates his claim that he had provided a general theory of “the emergence and dissolution of hierarchy” (to site the subtitle of the iEcology of Freedom). It is not possible to understand the modern world without a strong and highly articulated analysis of racism and white supremacy. These are not secondary issues.

Vincent says: “Let’s move on! Improve, go further that he did. This is our job, clearly.”

I support that statement wholeheartedly. However, to move on, I think we need to “identify Bookchin’s shortcomings and surpass them in an analysis that balances both praise and critique” (to quote the conclusion of the above article). Don’t you agree?

“Chuck’s argument was that some like Murray, who attempted to develop a comprehensive vision of the world and how to change it, needed to address the particularities and complexities of race relations and white supremacy, AT LEAST SOMETIMES.”

But he did. Not deeply enough for many, certainly. But he did. And what ? He was just a man. He cannot know and write about everything. He did a lot, more than anyone of us I would say, I won’t be the one who tell him : you could have done more on this, you make a mistake that. Let’s move on ! Improve, go further that he did. This is our job, clearly.

One last thing. It’s really strange for me, each time I read some criticism of Bookchin I have this feeling that we didn’t have read the same books. I just don’t recognize anything.
It’s not a theoretical point, mostly a communication one I would say. So many people reading the same text and so many ways of interpret it. Do we understand only what we want, making pre-theories on what we are going to read/see/watch ? I really believe so, and this is a great problem.

And nobody is saying that you should solely write about racism and read anti-racist texts. Absurd.

Also, I think that your point about Biehl, Heller, Tokar, and Munsterman having “really good ideas about communalism and what it is” is moot. As far as I know, they are not developing any communalist organizations or getting involved in local elections (as communalists, at least) or organizing town hall meetings (again, as communalists). I have to assume they must feel that radical social change is not as simple as it was made out to be in the Libertarian Municipalism: The Politics of Social Ecology, that the situation in the U.S. is much more complex… (That’s not to say that they’re not doing good, important work. I know Tokar has been at the forefront of the social critique of biofuels and has been working tirelessly to connect global climate change and radical social change.)

“I totally support the anti-racist movement, that doesn’t mean I have to write about that or racism all of the time, or read anti-racist texts all of the time.”

This is an obvious strawman. No one has suggested that racism and anti-racism should be anyone’s sole focus. Chuck’s argument was that some like Murray, who attempted to develop a comprehensive vision of the world and how to change it, needed to address the particularities and complexities of race relations and white supremacy, AT LEAST SOMETIMES.

It’s this complexity that I think the communalist transitional strategy fails to address in the U.S. At best, if a communalist movement were ever to develop the only people who could participate fully would be those who have the luxury of not having to worry about meeting their immediate needs–mainly white, middle class folks… hardly democratic and hardly welcoming to people of color and people struggling to make ends meet, especially with the “promise” of a revolution (not in their lifetime, to boot!). Whereas Western European and Scandinavian welfare states help to alleviate a lot of these concerns regarding day-to-day survival, making participation in a movement for radical change such as communalism somewhat more likely.

I think this has a lot to do with why it is overwhelmingly European social ecologists and communalists (and maybe a Canadian or two) that take such great offense and go to such great lengths to defend Bookchin and dismiss criticism of him not adequately addressing racism.

I would also suggest that Bookchin’s break with anarchism showed Bookchin at his worse. There was extensive revisionism of his own history, in terms of him announcing that he was aware of the limitations of anarchism back in the 1980s. He kept that quiet, particularly in the many articles in the 1990s he wrote saying he was an anarchist and proud of it! Then there is the last two volumes of his The Third Revolution. Volume 3, on Russia, was okay (if uncritical of vanguardism). Volume 4, on Spain, was terrible — it came across as being written by someone ignorant of anarchism (not to mention in total contradiction to his The Spanish Anarchists)

I explore some this these issues in my review of Social Ecology and Communalism.

Still, overall, Bookchin enriched anarchism greatly. He had his flaws, who doesn’t? But it is a case of building on his best work. It is a shame he spent the last few years destroying his own legacy by becoming so anti-anarchist.