What do you think?
Rate this book
Przebudowa społeczeństwa
Podejście proponowane przez Murraya Bookchina stanowi doskonały punkt wyjścia do realnej praktyki społecznej. Podstawową ideą stanowiska określanego przez autora ekologią społeczną jest teza, że problemy ekologiczne mają źródło w problemach społecznych. Spojrzenie z pozycji zarysowanych przez amerykańskiego anarchistę przekracza status quo i kieruje się ku alternatywnym formom organizacji społecznej. Rozważania zawarte w niniejszej książce nie dotyczą jedynie ekologii. Nie jest to typowo ekologiczna pozycja zachęcająca do oszczędzania energii i używania roweru zamiast samochodu. Problematyka tutaj poruszana jest znacznie szersza. Mianowicie kryzys ekologiczny okazuje się ściśle powiązany z kryzysem politycznym, z kryzysem ekonomicznym. Wszystkie trzy kryzysy są ze sobą powiązane, wyrastają z jednego fundamentu, który może zostać dostrzeżony z zielonego punktu widzenia. Myślenie ekologiczne jest XXI - wiecznym myśleniem rewolucyjnym.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
29 people are currently reading
1048 people want to read
About the author
Murray Bookchin
120 books637 followersMurray Bookchin was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement, Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 26, 2007
First of all, sorry for the no picture, I couldn't find one off the web to steal, and the bookcover was taken off the library edition I read so taking my own photograph would've been pointless.
This book basically is a summary of stuff Bookchin has said elsewhere, in perhaps a slightly more accessible, if vaguer, form. Thus, the sparce referencing of his historical and archaelogical claims (e.g. that gerontocracy was the first "hierarchy") are annoying. While not exactly forgivable, this omission is at least understandable. Less defensible is Bookchin's repeated invocation of Scala Natura. This refers to a "hierchy of being" expounded first by Thomas Aquinas and modified subsequently, that basically says there has been a dynamic, and moreover morally important, unfolding from "basic" amoebas all the way through echinodemers to humans. The idea is specious and biologically misleading. For instance, the pinus genome is considered innumerably more "complex" than the human genome, and to claim that mammals are more complex than, for instance, birds, is a dubious supposition.
Bookchin's damning and scathing critique of "Deep Ecology" and other mystical element s of the environmental movement are valid, but repetitive to the point of seriously compromising the integrity of this work. To be fair, at the onset he states that his goal is to demonstrate how the rape of our natural environment is rooted in the oppression of man by man. Hence the misanthropomism of the touchy-feely organic joggers is unfounded. The point is well taken. Yet one often gets the distinct sense that Bookchin is far more suspicious and disdainful of the mindless "activists" and "spiritual ecologists" than he is of the industrial conglomerates and our capitalist rulers. This fixation on what are, at the end of the day, unwelcome but certainly not mortal tendencies within the libertarian environmentalist movement makes one wonder just how "in touch" Bookchin is with the consumerist right and the herd mentality that form a much graver threat to the Enlightened society he espouses.
The conjunction of the book being little more than a rather curt summary of ideas expounded in, for example, "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" and his insistance on the mortal danger of the tree-hugging-apolitical -neo-pagan-"Environmentalists" (also pointed out in, for example, Re-Enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit against Antihumanism, Mysticism and Primitivism) conjoined with his cursorial and at times histrionic treatment of anthropology, history, and biologhy make for an admittedly dull reading. Still, those seeking a concise introduction to what the dude's been up to might get something out of it
This book basically is a summary of stuff Bookchin has said elsewhere, in perhaps a slightly more accessible, if vaguer, form. Thus, the sparce referencing of his historical and archaelogical claims (e.g. that gerontocracy was the first "hierarchy") are annoying. While not exactly forgivable, this omission is at least understandable. Less defensible is Bookchin's repeated invocation of Scala Natura. This refers to a "hierchy of being" expounded first by Thomas Aquinas and modified subsequently, that basically says there has been a dynamic, and moreover morally important, unfolding from "basic" amoebas all the way through echinodemers to humans. The idea is specious and biologically misleading. For instance, the pinus genome is considered innumerably more "complex" than the human genome, and to claim that mammals are more complex than, for instance, birds, is a dubious supposition.
Bookchin's damning and scathing critique of "Deep Ecology" and other mystical element s of the environmental movement are valid, but repetitive to the point of seriously compromising the integrity of this work. To be fair, at the onset he states that his goal is to demonstrate how the rape of our natural environment is rooted in the oppression of man by man. Hence the misanthropomism of the touchy-feely organic joggers is unfounded. The point is well taken. Yet one often gets the distinct sense that Bookchin is far more suspicious and disdainful of the mindless "activists" and "spiritual ecologists" than he is of the industrial conglomerates and our capitalist rulers. This fixation on what are, at the end of the day, unwelcome but certainly not mortal tendencies within the libertarian environmentalist movement makes one wonder just how "in touch" Bookchin is with the consumerist right and the herd mentality that form a much graver threat to the Enlightened society he espouses.
The conjunction of the book being little more than a rather curt summary of ideas expounded in, for example, "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" and his insistance on the mortal danger of the tree-hugging-apolitical -neo-pagan-"Environmentalists" (also pointed out in, for example, Re-Enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit against Antihumanism, Mysticism and Primitivism) conjoined with his cursorial and at times histrionic treatment of anthropology, history, and biologhy make for an admittedly dull reading. Still, those seeking a concise introduction to what the dude's been up to might get something out of it
April 20, 2014
In this work, Bookchin summarizes and introduces his classics Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Ecology of Freedom, Rise of Urbanization and others. Unfortunately, he has lost the extremely playful, utopian tone of the earlier works. As a result, he gets far too caught up in an overly hostile (though valid) critique of competing tendencies, such as deep ecology and primitivism.
If you want a good introduction to Bookchin’s thought, I recommend starting instead with his short articles, most of which are available for free online. Some of them are collected in The Murray Bookchin Reader. Don’t get too caught up in his critiques—as important as they are—before recognizing his utterly creative and still-relevant contributions to ecological and utopian thought.
Read instead: “Toward an Ecological Society,” “What Is Social Ecology,” “The New Municipal Agenda”.
If you want a good introduction to Bookchin’s thought, I recommend starting instead with his short articles, most of which are available for free online. Some of them are collected in The Murray Bookchin Reader. Don’t get too caught up in his critiques—as important as they are—before recognizing his utterly creative and still-relevant contributions to ecological and utopian thought.
Read instead: “Toward an Ecological Society,” “What Is Social Ecology,” “The New Municipal Agenda”.
July 26, 2021
Bookchin severlerde bugün :) Kitabın yarısını çift dikiş, çoğunu da sohbetli okudum-kesinlikle hakediyor. Kitap Bookchin ve toplumsal ekolojiye giriş niteliğinde. Birçok fikrini içeren - basit bir dili olan bir kitap. Birçok yeri çizildi, sindirildi kesinlikle tavsiye ederim. Bugünkü dünyayı anlamak ve bir çıkış bulmak adına Bookchin umut verici kesinlikle. Bu kitapta insanla insan arasındaki uyum sağlanmadan doğayla uyuma varılmayacağını savunuyor.
S9: Toplumsal ekolojinin belki de en önemli mesajı doğayı tahakküm altına alma düşüncesinin bizzat insanın insan üzerindeki tahakkümden kaynaklandığıdır. Öncelikle, ekolojik sorunlarımızın çözümüne giden yol toplumsal niteliktedir. Bu olgunun nedeni insanın insan üzerinde kurduğu tahakkümün toplumdan doğaya sıçramış olmasıdır. Tahakküm olduğu gibi toplumsal yaşamdan kaldırılmadıkça ve yerine gerçekten toplulukçu, eşitlikçi ve paylaşımcı bir toplum geçirilmedikçe, bugünkü toplum bütün biyosferi tüketecektir.
S11: Bu toplumun ortaya çıkardığı ekolojik kriz sistemseldir. .. Büyüme, daha fazla büyüme.
S60 Ancak tahakkümü bütün biçimleriyle ortadan kaldırdığımızda gerçek anlamda akılcı ve ekolojik bir toplum kurmayı başarmış olacağız.
S82 Hiyerarşi, ekonomik olarak sınıflı toplumu ortadan kaldırmakla değil, gündelik yaşamın içindeki bu kökleri radikal biçimde değiştirmekle yok olacaktır.
S116 Eşitlerin Eşitsizliği ilkesi: Son derece farklı yetenekleri olan ayrı bireylere aynı yükler yüklenir.Kişilerin edindiği Haklar ne denli eşit ve tam olursa olsun, bu haklar fiziksel ya da maddi engeller nedeniyle onları kullanamayanlar için anlamsızdırlar. Böylece yalnızca biçimde kurulan adalet özde eşitsiz hale gelir. Yargıda herkese eşit davranan, yani fiziksel ve zihinsel koşulları gözardı eden bir toplumda ortaya eşitlerin eşitsizliği çıkar. Eşitlikçi olduğu bilinen Kabil’e toplumları böyle büyük eşitsizliklerin varlığını tanıyor ve hakiki bir eşitlik uygulamak için telafi mekanizmaları bulmaya çalışıyorlardı. Yazı öncesi toplumlar başka bir ilke tarafından, özgürlük idealinin temelini oluşturan eşitlerin eşitsizliği ilkesi tarafından yönlendiriliyordu. Kaçınılmaz eşitlikleri eşitleme çabası, kişinin denetiminde olmayan koşulların yol açtığı kayıpları yaşamın her düzeyinde telafi etme çabası özgür bir toplumun başlangıç noktasıdır.
S180 Mevcut toplumsal düzenin verdiği zararların düzen tarafından telafi edilebileceği gibi tehlikeli bir yanılsama vardır. Çevrenin kendi doğasından uzaklaştırılması, sınırsız bir yayılma ve sermaye biriktirme sistemi olan kapitalizme içkindir. Çevrecilik parçalı bir reform hareketi olarak anlaşıldığında, kendini kolayca devlet idaresinin cazibesine katılmaya kaptırabilir. Devleti meşrulaştırır ve güçlendirirken aslında halkın gücünü elinden alır.
S192 Ekoloji her ne kadar bir çeşitlilik mesajı savunsa da, aslında savunduğu şey çeşitlilik içinde birliktir. Ayrıca ekolojik çeşitlilik kendisini oluşturan birimlerin çeşitliliğinin yarattığı bütünlüğe dayanır.
S198 Bir başka etik ideal de bütünlüğe verilen önemdi. Her şey hakkında bir parça bilgi sahibi olmak, ve bir tek şey üzerinde çok fazla bilgi sahibi olmamak bir kimsenin bütünlüğünün kanıtıydı. Bütünlük aynı zamanda bir ölçüde kendine yeterliğe de işaret ediyordu. Kişinin “kendi kendisinin insanı” olması, kişinin yetkin olmasının yanında bağımsız olması anlamına da geliyordu. Birçok değişik işi yapabilen bireyin, geniş bir sorunlar yelpazesini anlayabileceği varsayılıyordu. O bireyin diğerlerinin görüşlerinden istenmedik bir biçimde etkilenmeyip nesnel bir yargı oluşturabileceği varsayılıyordu.
S211 “Buradan oraya” gitmek uzun bir entelektüel ve etik hazırlanma dönemi olmadan ani bir değişim patlamasıyla gerçekleşmeyecektir. S219 “Buradan oraya” yapılacak olan sıçramayı hiçbir tepeden inmeci yöntem gerçekleştiremez; keza, böyle bir yöntem de istemiyoruz. İnsanlar, kendi adlarına biçim veremedikleri bir şeyi denetleyemezler de. Bu şey onlara nasıl ihsan edildiyse, aynı şekilde kolayca ellerinden alınabilir.
S9: Toplumsal ekolojinin belki de en önemli mesajı doğayı tahakküm altına alma düşüncesinin bizzat insanın insan üzerindeki tahakkümden kaynaklandığıdır. Öncelikle, ekolojik sorunlarımızın çözümüne giden yol toplumsal niteliktedir. Bu olgunun nedeni insanın insan üzerinde kurduğu tahakkümün toplumdan doğaya sıçramış olmasıdır. Tahakküm olduğu gibi toplumsal yaşamdan kaldırılmadıkça ve yerine gerçekten toplulukçu, eşitlikçi ve paylaşımcı bir toplum geçirilmedikçe, bugünkü toplum bütün biyosferi tüketecektir.
S11: Bu toplumun ortaya çıkardığı ekolojik kriz sistemseldir. .. Büyüme, daha fazla büyüme.
S60 Ancak tahakkümü bütün biçimleriyle ortadan kaldırdığımızda gerçek anlamda akılcı ve ekolojik bir toplum kurmayı başarmış olacağız.
S82 Hiyerarşi, ekonomik olarak sınıflı toplumu ortadan kaldırmakla değil, gündelik yaşamın içindeki bu kökleri radikal biçimde değiştirmekle yok olacaktır.
S116 Eşitlerin Eşitsizliği ilkesi: Son derece farklı yetenekleri olan ayrı bireylere aynı yükler yüklenir.Kişilerin edindiği Haklar ne denli eşit ve tam olursa olsun, bu haklar fiziksel ya da maddi engeller nedeniyle onları kullanamayanlar için anlamsızdırlar. Böylece yalnızca biçimde kurulan adalet özde eşitsiz hale gelir. Yargıda herkese eşit davranan, yani fiziksel ve zihinsel koşulları gözardı eden bir toplumda ortaya eşitlerin eşitsizliği çıkar. Eşitlikçi olduğu bilinen Kabil’e toplumları böyle büyük eşitsizliklerin varlığını tanıyor ve hakiki bir eşitlik uygulamak için telafi mekanizmaları bulmaya çalışıyorlardı. Yazı öncesi toplumlar başka bir ilke tarafından, özgürlük idealinin temelini oluşturan eşitlerin eşitsizliği ilkesi tarafından yönlendiriliyordu. Kaçınılmaz eşitlikleri eşitleme çabası, kişinin denetiminde olmayan koşulların yol açtığı kayıpları yaşamın her düzeyinde telafi etme çabası özgür bir toplumun başlangıç noktasıdır.
S180 Mevcut toplumsal düzenin verdiği zararların düzen tarafından telafi edilebileceği gibi tehlikeli bir yanılsama vardır. Çevrenin kendi doğasından uzaklaştırılması, sınırsız bir yayılma ve sermaye biriktirme sistemi olan kapitalizme içkindir. Çevrecilik parçalı bir reform hareketi olarak anlaşıldığında, kendini kolayca devlet idaresinin cazibesine katılmaya kaptırabilir. Devleti meşrulaştırır ve güçlendirirken aslında halkın gücünü elinden alır.
S192 Ekoloji her ne kadar bir çeşitlilik mesajı savunsa da, aslında savunduğu şey çeşitlilik içinde birliktir. Ayrıca ekolojik çeşitlilik kendisini oluşturan birimlerin çeşitliliğinin yarattığı bütünlüğe dayanır.
S198 Bir başka etik ideal de bütünlüğe verilen önemdi. Her şey hakkında bir parça bilgi sahibi olmak, ve bir tek şey üzerinde çok fazla bilgi sahibi olmamak bir kimsenin bütünlüğünün kanıtıydı. Bütünlük aynı zamanda bir ölçüde kendine yeterliğe de işaret ediyordu. Kişinin “kendi kendisinin insanı” olması, kişinin yetkin olmasının yanında bağımsız olması anlamına da geliyordu. Birçok değişik işi yapabilen bireyin, geniş bir sorunlar yelpazesini anlayabileceği varsayılıyordu. O bireyin diğerlerinin görüşlerinden istenmedik bir biçimde etkilenmeyip nesnel bir yargı oluşturabileceği varsayılıyordu.
S211 “Buradan oraya” gitmek uzun bir entelektüel ve etik hazırlanma dönemi olmadan ani bir değişim patlamasıyla gerçekleşmeyecektir. S219 “Buradan oraya” yapılacak olan sıçramayı hiçbir tepeden inmeci yöntem gerçekleştiremez; keza, böyle bir yöntem de istemiyoruz. İnsanlar, kendi adlarına biçim veremedikleri bir şeyi denetleyemezler de. Bu şey onlara nasıl ihsan edildiyse, aynı şekilde kolayca ellerinden alınabilir.
March 31, 2015
More readable than his book "Ecology of Freedom". He suggests that the contemporary ecological crisis -- a topic Bookchin had begun to write on back in the early '60s -- has the potential for a "trans-class" social movement to transform society. If the common human interests were clear, it would be hard to explain the resistance of the elite to recognizing that capitalism is at the root of the problem (as Naomi Klein has argued in her recent book, This Changes Everything). This is especially true of the oil & coal corporations but others in the establishment as well.
Bookchin provides an over-view of radical movements & ideas, such as the social movements and the "New Left" of the '60s, and earlier working class based socialist movements -- which he calls "proletarian socialism." Bookchin rejects Marxism in its entirety, which he tends to interpret as highly economistic and deterministic. Marx's theory of history has been interpreted that way by some but there are others who interpret it in a more non-determinist fashion. And Bookchin doesn't acknowledge these nuances.
Bookchin believes that the era of working class radical insurgencies -- "proletarian socialism" -- is permanently a thing of the past. His argument is that workers in the early 20th century were attracted to ideas of worker control and socialism because there was still a living memmory of when working people controlled their own work, as farmers or self-employed artisans. The irony is, this argument suffers the same defect of economism and excessive determinism that he criticizes Marxism for.
Readers are likely to find his discussion of ecology in the later chapters more relevant to present day concerns. His discussion of use of majority vote in assemblies and systems of delegation and federation among communities as a way to run society communally and democratically has a certain plausibility...and this is the aspect of his thought that apparently influenced the current radical Kurdish movement in Turkey & Syria.
Bookchin provides an over-view of radical movements & ideas, such as the social movements and the "New Left" of the '60s, and earlier working class based socialist movements -- which he calls "proletarian socialism." Bookchin rejects Marxism in its entirety, which he tends to interpret as highly economistic and deterministic. Marx's theory of history has been interpreted that way by some but there are others who interpret it in a more non-determinist fashion. And Bookchin doesn't acknowledge these nuances.
Bookchin believes that the era of working class radical insurgencies -- "proletarian socialism" -- is permanently a thing of the past. His argument is that workers in the early 20th century were attracted to ideas of worker control and socialism because there was still a living memmory of when working people controlled their own work, as farmers or self-employed artisans. The irony is, this argument suffers the same defect of economism and excessive determinism that he criticizes Marxism for.
Readers are likely to find his discussion of ecology in the later chapters more relevant to present day concerns. His discussion of use of majority vote in assemblies and systems of delegation and federation among communities as a way to run society communally and democratically has a certain plausibility...and this is the aspect of his thought that apparently influenced the current radical Kurdish movement in Turkey & Syria.
April 24, 2023
I'm oversimplifying things, but this book was 90% historical fiction ("the past was so great, especially participatory democracy (if you were a white, male property owner)) and 10% utopian novel. In the tiny amount of pages he spent talking about the future he desires he never really explained how to get there besides education, which at this point in time just doesn't seem like enough. He also grossly misunderstands and falsely defines biocentrism.
July 30, 2017
"[..] capitalism completely incarnates Bakunin's notion of "evil" without the qualification that it is "socially necessary." Beyond the capitalist system there are no further "turning points in history." Capitalism marks the end of the road for a long social development in which evil permeated the good and irrationality permeated the rational. Capitalism, in effect, constitutes the point of absolute negativity for society and the natural world. One cannot improve this social order, reform it, or remake it on its own terms with an ecological prefix such as "eco-capitalism." The only choice on has is to destroy it, for it embodies every social disease — from patriarchal values, class exploitation, and statism to avarice, militarism, and now, growth for the sake of growth — that has afflicted "civilization" and tainted all its great advances." (p. 94)
Essentially this book is a synthesis of Murray Bookchin's work up until that point (1989). It contains a "cliff-notes" version of The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy[1]. A history of the rise of the city in history and bourgeois society's negative effect on cities [2]. A rather unique elaboration on the complementarity between feminism and social ecology [3]—in all other works there is only a short one sentence urging the reader to look into feminist, and other liberatory work. And an early version of the political project known as "libertarian municipalism". All tied together in Murray's typical anti-capitalism and disdain for authoritarian movements, and their uncompromising incompatibility with ecological thought [4].
All in all, it is a complete shame that this book is so rare, because it would serve as an excellent introduction to Murray Bookchin's work.
[1] p. 45
"Domination of human by human did not arise because people created a socially oppressive "mechanism" — be it Marx's class structures or Lewis Mumford's human-constructed "mega-machine" — in order to "Free" themselves from the "domination by nature." It is exactly this very queasy idea that gave rise to the myth that the domination of nature "requires," "presupposes," or "involves" the domination of human by human".
[2] p. 93
"Competition began to permeate every level of society, not only to throw capitalist against capitalist for control of the marketplace. It pitter buyer against seller, need against greed, and individual against individual on the most elementary levels of human encounters. In the marketplace, one individual faced another with a snarl, even as working people, each seeking, as a matter of sheer survival, to get the better of the other. No amount of moralizing and pietizing can alter the fact that rivalry at the most molecular base of society is a bourgeois law of life in the literal sense of the word "life." Accumulation to undermine, buy out, or otherwise absorb or outwit a competitor is a condition for existence in a capitalist economic order."
[3]
"In a broad sense, social ecology and early feminism directly challenged the economistic emphasis Marxism had placed on social analysis and reconstruction. It rendered the New Left's anti-authoritarian outlook more explicit and more clearly definable by singling out hierarchical domination, not simply anti-authoriatrian oppression. Woman's degraded status as a gender and status-group was rendered clearly visible against the background of her seeming "equality" in a world guided by justice's inequality of equals. At a time when the New Left was decomposing into Marxist sects and the counterculture was being transformed into a new form of boutique retailing, social ecology and feminism were expanding the ideal of freedom beyond any bounds that had been established in recent memory. Hierarchy as such — be it in the form of ways of thinking, basic human relationships, social relations, and society's interaction with nature — could now be disentangled from the traditional nexus of class analyses that concealed it under a carpet of economic interpretations of society. History could now be examined in terms of general interests such as freedom, solidarity, and empathy for one's own kind; indeed, the need to be an active part of the balance of nature.
These interests we no longer specific to a particular class, gender, race, or nationality. They were universal interests that were share by by humanity as a whole. Not that economic problems and class conflicts could be ignored, but to confine oneself to them left a vast residue of perverted sensibilities and relationships that had to be confronted and corrected on a broader social horizon.
In terms that were more expansive than any that had been formulated in the sixties or earlier, the revolutionary project could now be clearly defined as the abolition of hierarchy, the reharmonization of humanity with nature through the reharmonization of human with human, the achievement of an ecological society structured on ecologically sound technologies and face-to-face democratic communities. Feminism made it possible to highlight the significance of hierarchy in a very existential form. Drawing heavily from literature and the language of social ecology, it rendered hierarchy concrete, visible, and poignantly real owing to the status of women in all classes, occupations, social institutions, and familial relationships. As long as it revealed the demeaned human condition that all people suffered, particularly women, it demystified subtle forms of rule that existed in the bedroom, kitchen, playground, and school — not only in the workplace and the public sphere generally. Hence social ecology and feminism logically intertwined with each other and complemented each other in a shared process of demystification. They exposed a demonic incubus that had perverted every advance of "civilization" with the poison of hierarchy and domination. An agenda even larger than that advanced by the early New Left and counterculture had been created by the mid-sixties; one that required elaboration, education activity, and serious organization to reach people as a whole, not merely a particular sector of the population."
[4] p. 160
"The denaturing of the environment must always be seen as inherent to capitalism, the product of its very law of life, as a system of limitless expansion and capital accumulation. To ignore the anti-ecological core of the present social order — be it in its Western corporate form or its Eastern bureaucratic form — is to allay public concern about the depth of the crisis and lasting means to resolve it.
Environmentalism, conceived as a piecemeal reform movement, easily lends itself to the lure of statecraft, that is, to participation in electoral, parliamentary, and party-oriented activities. It requires no great change in consciousness to turn a lobby into a party or a petitioner into a parliamentarian. Between a person who humbly solicits from power and another who arrogantly exercises it, there exists a sinister and degenerative symbiosis. Both share the same mentality that change can be achieved only through the exercise of power, specifically, through the power of a self-corrupting professionalized corps of legislators, bureaucrats, and military forces called the State. The appeal to this power invariably legitimates and strengthens the State, with the result that it actually disempowers the people. Power allows for no vacuum in public life. Whatever power the State gains, it always does so at the expense of popular power. Conversely, whatever power the people gain, they always acquire at the expense of the State. To legitimate State power, in effect, is to delegitimate popular power."
Essentially this book is a synthesis of Murray Bookchin's work up until that point (1989). It contains a "cliff-notes" version of The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy[1]. A history of the rise of the city in history and bourgeois society's negative effect on cities [2]. A rather unique elaboration on the complementarity between feminism and social ecology [3]—in all other works there is only a short one sentence urging the reader to look into feminist, and other liberatory work. And an early version of the political project known as "libertarian municipalism". All tied together in Murray's typical anti-capitalism and disdain for authoritarian movements, and their uncompromising incompatibility with ecological thought [4].
All in all, it is a complete shame that this book is so rare, because it would serve as an excellent introduction to Murray Bookchin's work.
[1] p. 45
"Domination of human by human did not arise because people created a socially oppressive "mechanism" — be it Marx's class structures or Lewis Mumford's human-constructed "mega-machine" — in order to "Free" themselves from the "domination by nature." It is exactly this very queasy idea that gave rise to the myth that the domination of nature "requires," "presupposes," or "involves" the domination of human by human".
[2] p. 93
"Competition began to permeate every level of society, not only to throw capitalist against capitalist for control of the marketplace. It pitter buyer against seller, need against greed, and individual against individual on the most elementary levels of human encounters. In the marketplace, one individual faced another with a snarl, even as working people, each seeking, as a matter of sheer survival, to get the better of the other. No amount of moralizing and pietizing can alter the fact that rivalry at the most molecular base of society is a bourgeois law of life in the literal sense of the word "life." Accumulation to undermine, buy out, or otherwise absorb or outwit a competitor is a condition for existence in a capitalist economic order."
[3]
"In a broad sense, social ecology and early feminism directly challenged the economistic emphasis Marxism had placed on social analysis and reconstruction. It rendered the New Left's anti-authoritarian outlook more explicit and more clearly definable by singling out hierarchical domination, not simply anti-authoriatrian oppression. Woman's degraded status as a gender and status-group was rendered clearly visible against the background of her seeming "equality" in a world guided by justice's inequality of equals. At a time when the New Left was decomposing into Marxist sects and the counterculture was being transformed into a new form of boutique retailing, social ecology and feminism were expanding the ideal of freedom beyond any bounds that had been established in recent memory. Hierarchy as such — be it in the form of ways of thinking, basic human relationships, social relations, and society's interaction with nature — could now be disentangled from the traditional nexus of class analyses that concealed it under a carpet of economic interpretations of society. History could now be examined in terms of general interests such as freedom, solidarity, and empathy for one's own kind; indeed, the need to be an active part of the balance of nature.
These interests we no longer specific to a particular class, gender, race, or nationality. They were universal interests that were share by by humanity as a whole. Not that economic problems and class conflicts could be ignored, but to confine oneself to them left a vast residue of perverted sensibilities and relationships that had to be confronted and corrected on a broader social horizon.
In terms that were more expansive than any that had been formulated in the sixties or earlier, the revolutionary project could now be clearly defined as the abolition of hierarchy, the reharmonization of humanity with nature through the reharmonization of human with human, the achievement of an ecological society structured on ecologically sound technologies and face-to-face democratic communities. Feminism made it possible to highlight the significance of hierarchy in a very existential form. Drawing heavily from literature and the language of social ecology, it rendered hierarchy concrete, visible, and poignantly real owing to the status of women in all classes, occupations, social institutions, and familial relationships. As long as it revealed the demeaned human condition that all people suffered, particularly women, it demystified subtle forms of rule that existed in the bedroom, kitchen, playground, and school — not only in the workplace and the public sphere generally. Hence social ecology and feminism logically intertwined with each other and complemented each other in a shared process of demystification. They exposed a demonic incubus that had perverted every advance of "civilization" with the poison of hierarchy and domination. An agenda even larger than that advanced by the early New Left and counterculture had been created by the mid-sixties; one that required elaboration, education activity, and serious organization to reach people as a whole, not merely a particular sector of the population."
[4] p. 160
"The denaturing of the environment must always be seen as inherent to capitalism, the product of its very law of life, as a system of limitless expansion and capital accumulation. To ignore the anti-ecological core of the present social order — be it in its Western corporate form or its Eastern bureaucratic form — is to allay public concern about the depth of the crisis and lasting means to resolve it.
Environmentalism, conceived as a piecemeal reform movement, easily lends itself to the lure of statecraft, that is, to participation in electoral, parliamentary, and party-oriented activities. It requires no great change in consciousness to turn a lobby into a party or a petitioner into a parliamentarian. Between a person who humbly solicits from power and another who arrogantly exercises it, there exists a sinister and degenerative symbiosis. Both share the same mentality that change can be achieved only through the exercise of power, specifically, through the power of a self-corrupting professionalized corps of legislators, bureaucrats, and military forces called the State. The appeal to this power invariably legitimates and strengthens the State, with the result that it actually disempowers the people. Power allows for no vacuum in public life. Whatever power the State gains, it always does so at the expense of popular power. Conversely, whatever power the people gain, they always acquire at the expense of the State. To legitimate State power, in effect, is to delegitimate popular power."
September 7, 2025
Maybe this book deserves a higher rating. It is probable that Bookchin's reputation preceded him and I built up my expectations unreasonably high. After all, I did get a fair bit out of this read. The historical analysis of society through the lens of man as an ecological creature was mostly very insightful. And there were some criticisms of Marxism and leftist revolutionary politics here that I found both unique and astute. I especially resonated with the critique of Marxism's embryonic nature, and how it was foolish to believe that a period of gestative capitalism was necessary to bring about a stateless, socialist utopia. As if allowing a populace to become opiated by materialist indulgences and an ownership class to become wealthy and powerful as monarchs would lead to a coherent and capable revolutionary landscape. Humans are, after all, creatures of cultural habit, and it is foolish to believe that either:
A. we can so assuredly predict where a certain cultural path will lead us, and
B. that we can pinpoint a breaking point well in advance where we might strike and craft society into something entirely different, like a blacksmith's hammer striking heated metal.
But while Bookchin has a keen critical eye for looking backwards, I felt his looking forward was a bit lacking. In a book called "Remarking Society" I had expected a bit more concrete of a blueprint for moving forward. I appreciate his vision of the world he believes we should be striving for, even if I disagree with some of his specifics, like his rabid aversion to nuclear power, which I would hope can be explained by the near-Chernobyl era in which this book was written. But the idea that people can simply revert their own municipal level social practices to be egalitarian anarchic ecologies and the rest of the world will follow that example, I feel is a bit naive. Perhaps that seemed more realistic going into the 90s, but I would argue even then we had enough examples for how monolithic nation states treat such digression from the mean within their perceived borders. Also, for a visionary who so disparaged primitivists in the beginning of this book for their aversion to technological advances and treatment of man as though we are just like any other animal, he certainly seemed to veer into primitivism in the later pages (what few there were of them) when he actually discussed practical steps for achieving his vision.
All things said, it is definitely worth the read, and I'm probably the naive one for expecting more than vagaries which may guide us on a long trudge through the fog towards a glass castle in the sky. I just hoped for more.
A. we can so assuredly predict where a certain cultural path will lead us, and
B. that we can pinpoint a breaking point well in advance where we might strike and craft society into something entirely different, like a blacksmith's hammer striking heated metal.
But while Bookchin has a keen critical eye for looking backwards, I felt his looking forward was a bit lacking. In a book called "Remarking Society" I had expected a bit more concrete of a blueprint for moving forward. I appreciate his vision of the world he believes we should be striving for, even if I disagree with some of his specifics, like his rabid aversion to nuclear power, which I would hope can be explained by the near-Chernobyl era in which this book was written. But the idea that people can simply revert their own municipal level social practices to be egalitarian anarchic ecologies and the rest of the world will follow that example, I feel is a bit naive. Perhaps that seemed more realistic going into the 90s, but I would argue even then we had enough examples for how monolithic nation states treat such digression from the mean within their perceived borders. Also, for a visionary who so disparaged primitivists in the beginning of this book for their aversion to technological advances and treatment of man as though we are just like any other animal, he certainly seemed to veer into primitivism in the later pages (what few there were of them) when he actually discussed practical steps for achieving his vision.
All things said, it is definitely worth the read, and I'm probably the naive one for expecting more than vagaries which may guide us on a long trudge through the fog towards a glass castle in the sky. I just hoped for more.
Read
March 22, 2025
"Admittedly, we are substantially less than human today in view of our still unknown potential to be creative, caring, and rational. Our prevailing society serves to inhibit, rather than realize, our human potential. We still lack the imagination to know how much our finest human traits could expand with an ethical, ecological, and rational dispensation of human affairs. [...] what unites society with nature in a graded evolutionary continuum is the remarkable extent to which human beings, living in a rational, ecologically oriented society, could embody the creativity of nature this, as distinguished from a purely adaptive criterion of evolutionary success. The great achievements of human thought, art, science, and technology serve not only to monumentalize culture, they serve also to monumentalize natural evolution itself."
read only the chapter "Society and Ecology" (p1r4t3d from somewhere by my prof lol. may revise the whole volume in the future)
December 24, 2025
Absolutely essential reading for any environmentalist(or, to use Bookchin's term, ecologist) or really anyone that cares about the future of humanity and the well-being of the Earth. This book feels like it's just scratching the surface of Bookchin's thought, but both the scope and depth he achieves here in the reasoning and motivation to remake society along more ecological lines(ie. abolishing hierarchy, dismantling "grow or die" capitalism and the domineering nation-state), what the road looks like to get there(though, having been written 30+ years ago, this area could use some updating for today's social climate), and what society looks like - remade at a human scale, constructed for all - on the other side is impressive. The "utopian" vision of a society built around the principles Bookchin advances is profoundly optimistic, and truly beautiful - if you're someone who looks at the state of the world and sees climate catastrophe, rampant economic inequality, and gross social injustices and yearns for a possible brighter future, I urge you to read this book.
November 28, 2019
Das erste Kapitel hatte wirklich spannende Ansätze, den Rest fand ich eher enttäuschend (sowohl weil ich mit hohen Vor-Erwartungen reingegangen bin, dadurch, wo Bookchin so alles zitiert wird, als auch weil das erste Kapitel die Latte eben hochgelegt hat).
Was mich besonders nervt - und ich würde es nicht erwähnen, käme das nur einmal vor, aber Bookchin erwähnt das im Buch häufiger - ist, dass Bookchin feministische Diskurse nicht wirklich ernst zu nehmen scheint und immer wieder darauf verweist, dass ja auch Männer andere Männer unterdrücken und Frauen Männer. "Intersektionalität" sollte auch 1992 schon ein bekanntes Konzept gewesen sein.
Was mich besonders nervt - und ich würde es nicht erwähnen, käme das nur einmal vor, aber Bookchin erwähnt das im Buch häufiger - ist, dass Bookchin feministische Diskurse nicht wirklich ernst zu nehmen scheint und immer wieder darauf verweist, dass ja auch Männer andere Männer unterdrücken und Frauen Männer. "Intersektionalität" sollte auch 1992 schon ein bekanntes Konzept gewesen sein.
May 7, 2022
This book is not addressed at people who are not sure whether capitalism can become green or not. This book was written in the 1980s to address other radical ecologists. It mostly focuses on internal radical ecology debates. It discusses capitalism and various structures and how they destroy nature. It makes a compelling case against adopting vaguely "anti-human" narratives such as those adopted by various "deep ecologists". It does provide a vision as to what could replace the current system. But the main focus is showing how the culprit is the system and not "humanity" as a whole.
October 16, 2020
Intéressant bouquin sur l’écologie sociale, le municipalisme libertaire, le rapport qu’à l’humain dans la nature, la destruction de la pensée de la nature plus grand que l’humain ou la nature qui peut être utilisée au moindre vouloir.
August 23, 2023
An incredible book that I highly recommend. Important to note that the author is an old grump at the time he's writing this, so he's uncharitable in offhand remarks. Also worth keeping in mind is the state of the environmental movement in the 1980s when he was writing this.
April 14, 2025
First time engaging w social ecology - really valuable framework for understanding systems of power. Learned a lot. Also the early human community section (domestic vs civil life) is fascinating. Thx Bookchin xx
December 10, 2025
The contents are crucially important, but the presentation could definitely contain more historic examples. It could also stand to address more of the classic challenges towards the ideas posed by Bookchin and colleagues.
Read
March 7, 2023Review from the March 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blog...
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blog...
December 14, 2024
Marx’s historical materialism, but now its quasi-anarchistic!
Good starter to get into anthropology nevertheless.
Good starter to get into anthropology nevertheless.
October 14, 2008
I originally read this in college, but lately have returned to Bookchin's writings for a number of reasons; one, his recent death, and the impact that has had on my husband, who studied with Murray at the Institute for Social Ecology; two, a reinvigoration of my sense of urgency regarding ecological matters; and three, a desperate need to find a way to offer answers rather than anger and, simply, more questions when confronted with "the way things are."
There are many things in this book to love. Currently, I am struggling to make it to those points, as I got mired in the first chapter and grew angry and impatient with what I took to be a gross oversimplification of the development of hierarchy and the nature of pre-capitalist social organization, cross-culturally. I'll finish this review once I've returned to the thick of things, the summaries of the social ecological principles that guide so many of us, in spirit if not in explicit paths to liberation.
There are many things in this book to love. Currently, I am struggling to make it to those points, as I got mired in the first chapter and grew angry and impatient with what I took to be a gross oversimplification of the development of hierarchy and the nature of pre-capitalist social organization, cross-culturally. I'll finish this review once I've returned to the thick of things, the summaries of the social ecological principles that guide so many of us, in spirit if not in explicit paths to liberation.
August 4, 2011
Definitely dry, but interesting. This is the first thing I've read that delves into social ecology and I'm really interested in reading more, especially something more current. I liked the critiques of Marxism and eco-feminism, too.
August 30, 2016
Good introduction, but not a lot of citations where there should be citations and it's more of an introduction than an in-depth work. I rather have spent the time reading another one of his works instead of reading this.
April 10, 2017
Excellent critique of Marxism. Also really liked the part about the emergence of hierarchy in society. A lot of really good points, even though he is a bit of a curmudgeon and has some pretty strong feelings about mysticism.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews