It is always a strange feeling when reading something written decades ago that could have been written today. It shows the wisdom of the author while also providing a reminder that the problems of today are also the problems of the past and future, ever changing shape. The reprint of Murray Bookchin's, The Modern Crisis invokes those feelings. His discussions of topics such as social ecology, bio/ecocide, climate catastrophe, authoritarianism, libertarianism (the original anarchist kind, not the appropriated right wing kind,) and more nestle themselves well in the current time. To be honest, I did not fully appreciate this book until I went back and read through my page flags. I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by political philosophy texts, but when I looked at my highlights, I saw more of the brilliance there.
It has been a while since I have read anything by a famous anarchist guy, but I have caught snippets of Bookchin's work here and there and figured he'd be someone I'd have things in common with. My portal into anarchism overall came through the green end of it and I remain very attached to green anarchism. Today, I think that all anarchisms, when practiced efficiently, are covering each other's bases anyway, so I don't tend to call myself one thing. But, there are times where it is important to draw divisions and Bookchin touches on some of those in this text. The titular line comes from this quote:
"The color of radicalism today is no longer red, it is green, and should be raised aloft boldly if the modern crisis is to be resolved."
While Bookchin does make references to other identity politics based issues, the essays in this book center humanity and everyone/thing else on the planet as a larger whole. Social ecology is the name of the game which differs from things like social "darwinism" and other anthropocentric and supremacist views of nature. While capitalism and authoritarianism create a myth of competition as the primary goal and who misrepresent Darwins teachings as some sort of war cry for toxic masculinity, social ecology involves seeing ourselves as part of the rest of the planet, dismantling and preventing oppressive hierarchy, and not assuming that something existing (patriarchy) means that it should or must exist.
One may wonder- especially outside of anarchist circles with running red vs. green snowball fight jokes- what the point is in creating such a distinction between red and green. Bookchin touches on this in multiple places, but especially in the essay "Workers and the Peace Movement." Bookchin dismantles the idea of "The Proletariat" as an inherently revolutionary class of individuals or as a monolithic people who will ultimately be liberated by seizing the machine that oppresses them. He dispells myths that activists who disrupt oppressive or ecologically destructive businesses are privileged people standing in the way of and at odds with the proletariat survival. Instead, he sees these people as all humans of differing backgrounds who must be part of the struggle together. He calls attention to the fact that many histories labeled only as workers revolutions were often far more complex in demographics and structure.
"Let us agree that no radical social change is possible without the support and initiative of working people - or, for that matter, of technicians, professionals, soldiers, women, ethnic groups, youth, the elderly, and the solidarity of the oppressed on a worldwide scale. But no radical change is possible unless "The Proletariat" transcends its suffocating class being and becomes a revolutionary *human* being."
Other essays touch on this and often reference the structure of ancient Athens as a model (while acknowledging oppression such as patriarchy that still existed then.) I don't know enough about that history to say much about it either way, but the gist of his argument seems to be that communities should be run by their members, with room to also respect and include "outsiders." Large nation sates make this sort of thing impossible, turning politics into a performative thing where individuals lose the ability to contribute in effective ways.
I do think that at times, Bookchin's own prejudices and anthopocentrism get in the way of his arguments. I knew before reading this that he did not always apply his critiques of anthropocentrism towards his personal behavior towards other animals in terms of consumption of their bodies and labor. I cannot ask him why this is, but there is always something that creates that itch in the back of my mind when someone is pointing a finger without necessarily pointing it at themself as well. This results in some comparisons between humans and other animals that don't mesh well with other comparisons and arguments that we are indeed part of the natural world like they are. Today's version of this is the cop out, "no ethical consumption under capitalism," which people often do not realize is a phrase that can be used to excuse countless atrocities involving money. (I am sure they would not say this phrase in regards to human trafficking for instance.) None of this means that his points are without merit of course. There is also a batshit out of place quote, "We buy and sell the outward trappings of personality: the sheen-like leather jackets that make humble bookkeepers look like dashing pimps and the high- heeled boots that make bored secretaries look like dangerously seductive temptresses." Temptresses replaced "whores" in the original version. There are so many hopefully obvious things wrong with this that I will not make this even longer in detailing. But, all this is to say he's not perfect. Overall though, he really hits the nail on the head in ways that I desperately wish more movements would connect with. I think perhaps when we include the other-than-human natural world in our movements and analyses, it forces us to look at ourselves more. That can be a lot harder than looking at cops and kings.
I'll end with a chunk of my favorite quote from the text in the essay, "An Appeal for Social and Ecological Sanity," that captures the gist of it all for me. His audience is clearly non-immigrant North American, but you get the point. It's all connected.
"With each such loss (of aforementioned extinct species, biodiversity, etc,) humanity, too, loses a portion of its own character structure: its sensitivity toward life as such, including human life, and its rich wealth of sensibility. If we can learn to ignore the destiny of whales and condors - indeed, turn their fate into chic cliches - we can learn to ignore the destiny of Cambodians in Asia, Salvadorans in central America, Kurds in Syria and Turkey, and, finally, the human beings who people our own communities."
This was also posted to my goodreads.
No comments:
Post a Comment