Post-Scarcity Anarchism

by Murray Bookchin

In this series of essays, Murray Bookchin balances his ecological and anarchist vision with the promising opportunities of a “post-scarcity” era. Technological advances during the 20th century have expanded production in the pursuit of corporate profit at the expense of human need and ecological sustainability. New possibilities for human freedom must combine an ecological outlook with the dissolution of hierarchical social relations, capitalism and canonical political orientation. Bookchin’s utopian vision, rooted in the realities of contemporary society, remains refreshingly pragmatic. “Book-chin makes a trenchant analysis of modern society and offers a pointed, provocative discussion of the ecological crisis.”â Library Journal

Murray Bookchin has been an active voice in the ecology and anarchist movements for more than 40 years.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Economics, Theory, History, Ecology

308 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Murray 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.

Reviews

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

I originally read this book in my younger days and thought it was a terrific book. Now, some 45 years after its publication, it's become something of a mixed bag. As with many books of this nature, it's analysis of the past has remained more relevant than its vision of the future. Bookchin's critique of Marx and the old left is pretty much spot on. Marx's conception of the way forward, according to Bookchin, was rooted in circumstances that were particular to his time and are no longer applicable to the modern world. Unfortunately for Bookchin, his own view seems to be rooted in the circumstances of the late 1960s, which are no more applicable to the 21st century than were those of the mid 19th century of Marx.

While I agree with Bookchin on some of the forms that a reconstituted society may take, his analysis on how we get there is lacking. Bookchin's model of action is the May 1968 events in France - the student protests and general strike that came tantalizingly close to radically remaking French society. But as should be apparent to modern readers, the protests withered away. DeGaulle came out stronger than ever. And the entire 1960s ultimately failed to alter the workings of the consumerist society in any substantial way.

The reason for these failings, I think, is rooted in Bookchin's conception of how a revolution ought to proceed. While Bookchin correctly critiques Marx for his insistence on seizing state power (which inevitably results in the reconstitution of state power in a new elite), his own conception of revolution also aims straight for the top through the seizure of state power via the action of the general strike. That these events are supposed to prevent the ossification of state power in a new elite by being spontaneous and decentralized in nature is only somewhat reassuring. The fact is that the actions of the general strike took France to the brink of a new society, but they couldn't seal the deal. A few chance events resulted in the entire movement withering away is short order. And the supposition that those particular set of circumstances can ever reconstitute themselves again, especially in the 21st century, is absurd.

That the events of May 1968 dissipated so rapidly is because there was nothing at the base of society to sustain the events swirling around at the top. Any revolution that aims to seize the top of society without first transforming its base is doomed to either reconstitute state power with a new elite, or to lack the nourishment to sustain itself. The Bolsheviks were of the former variety, while the French general strike was of the latter. If the French students and workers had instead put their considerable energy into the day to day task of building worker cooperatives and/or intentional communities, an interlocking and mutually sustaining network of such entities would have provided a solid base from which lasting change could have sustainably percolated up through the layers of society. Lacking such a base, though, once the height of the moment had passed, the French students and workers were left with nothing but to drift back to their ordinary jobs and activities, with nothing but bitter memories to accompany them.

[Lori · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is a very good reason why this is considered one of Murray Bookchin's best works. An absolutely fascinating collection of essays. Visionary in their insight, it talked about global warming in more radical terms in the mid 60s than we do now, with the vast majority of scientists agreeing that our situation is quite bad.

"Listen, Marxist!" is an essay that I would recommend to anyone, especially to people who understand socialism as "the government does things". It is the most concise exposition of the multitude of vibrant, and often antagonistic ways of political thought in the left.

The essay: "Towards a Liberatory Technology" is an essay that I recommend to all people who have high esteem for technology without looking at the way its used. Critics of it might point out that the proposal of technologies like the Rance Tidal Power Station as suppliers of our power needs is absurd because it only provides 0.12% of France's power consumption. Of course, there are several things wrong with this argument the foremost of which would be that the very point an ecologically minded society is to shed the shackles of over-consumption, over-production, and economic growth for economic growth's sake; in line with a society where technology is used as a catalyst to free human beings from as much of the necessary physical toil required to live. Having all sorts of nonsense commodities does not free us in any kind of way from toil, most likely the toil necessary to obtain useless commodities shackles us even more. Second, it definitely wasn't the only type of technology advocated, the essay proposes that a variegated mesh of renewable, green power production means (best suited for their specific area) permeate all occupied land in a highly decentralized manner. Third, the author acknowledges that such technologies could not possible provide for gargantuan urban areas that we have now, and was an advocate of large scale decentralization.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bookchin is an idealist, and on a certain level that hurts this book -- instead of detailed solutions there's flowery prose about affinity groups and ecological justice. Still, we need idealists in this age as much as we need realists, and there are a lot of the latter and not enough of the former. Post-Scarcity Anarchism is a curious book because in some respects it feel outdated -- the post-1968 assertion that revolution is just around the corner -- and in others it's well ahead of its time -- the concern about global warming. Bookchin assumes that we're living in a post-scarcity society, which I'm not so sure about, especially if you take a global view. However, our technology is definitely headed to post-scarcity (if the planet doesn't blow up first), and at some point we need to figure out how to change our society to deal with these advances. When machine labour eliminates jobs, this is at some level a good thing, but the current system ensures that instead of getting to live in leisure the humans it replaces will be reduced to nothing. This book is a solid, but flawed, start in that mission to envision a new world.

[d · Rating 5 out of 5]

I only read what I could find online - the first five chapters. Bookchin's main argument in the title chapter is that technology has "created the objective, quantitative basis for a world without class rule, exploitation, toil, or material want." Bookchin's outlook is much more libertarian than his cranky reputation led me to expect. He repeatedly cites Vaneigem and Debord, for example, and he insists "the goal of revolution today must be the liberation of everyday life."
Stunningly, "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought" opens with a discussion on global warming. This was published back in 1971, and its ecological analysis was already sketched out in Our Synthetic Environment which Bookchin published in 1962 before Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
"Towards a Liberatory Technology" is noteworthy for its early and now (I believe) vindicated argument for the the ecological and decentralizing potential of wind and solar energy and electrolysis-based hydrogen energy. Jeremy Brecher wrote in a review at the time that Bookchin's technologies sounded like science fiction; Brecher argued solar energy cannot provide power for even decentralized industries, and "[h]is other proposals for energy sources are even more speculative: tidal dams...wind power, none of which are presently in use for industrial purposes." Fortunately, Bookchin turned out to be correct. For all the insights of this chapter, Bookchin's enthusiasm for factory farming was unsettling. With WWOOFing's continued popularity, I doubt there could be mass appeal today for Bookchin's proposals of mechanical crop harvesting and feeding caged animals by conveyer belts.
In "The Forms of Freedom," Bookchin sketches his direct democratic program he would later call libertarian municipalism, finding historical precedent in ancient Athens and the Paris Commune.
"Listen Marxist!" critiques Marxism's focus on the industrial proletariat as a revolutionary class, arguing that the factory system actually instills hierarchical thinking rather than breeding revolutionary class consciousness. Although it was an important intervention to political discourse at the time, this mode of thinking now creates an anti-labor sentiment among much of radical ecology, from the social ecology to primitivism. Bookchin should try telling the Argentinian workers occupying factories that industrial workers are not a revolutionary class. With picketing Hot & Crusty workers winning recognition of their union, ILWU workers blockading a grain shipment, unions endorsing immigrant legalization on May Day, Chicago teachers winning major improvements to their contract by striking, WalMart workers organizing a nationwide boycott on Black Friday, the Occupy Wall Street movement has shown industrial workers to be an essential and effective group to organize and radicalize.

[Kenghis Khan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book departs where much of the Anarchist literature lets off. That is, it deals with distinctly post-industrial, post-WWII issues facing all advanced capitalist states, especially the USA. Bookchin's faith in technology as the tool to human liberation, his environmental conscience, and his critique of authoritarian socialism (and Marxism in particular) make for a refreshing read. Moreover, he writes well and his prose flows very agreeably. Unlike other books on anarchism, he doesn't dwell endlessly on the history of the movement. Though slightly dated now (the essays are from the late '60s), this book constitutes a quick and informative read.

[Joe Xtarr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required reading for anarchists and Marxists alike. Raises a lot of valid criticisms and useful concepts, not only for analyzing the past, but for building the future we want and need.

[Joe :) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Et værk med super interessante ideer samt kritikker af Marx og hvordan hans ideer er grundet i den tid han skrev i, men er selv et biprodukt af denne tendens.

[Oli Sutton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Utopian? Perhaps. But nonetheless an interesting alternative vision of how technology and communities could work for us rather than the other way round. I think Bookchin rests a little too firmly on the idea that technology can 'redeem' us and doesn't pay any attention to how technology doesn't always have a clear master. However, I definitely agree that techno-fatalist framings have been used to obscure how our use and deployment of technology is our choice to make.

[Javier · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first reading of Bookchin; I definitely appreciate his analysis and prescriptions here. As something of a green anarchist (though not of the 'primitivist' persuasion), Bookchin, in Post-Scarcity Anarchism calls for anarchist resistance and, ultimately, revolution against the socio-politico-economic hierarchies of capitalism, which, in having introduced and maintained such inter-human hierarchies, are reproduced in humanity's relationship to nature/the environment, resulting in the ecological disaster we now see (and seemingly will continue to face). He ultimately concludes that only the realization of such an anarchist revolution will save the earth from the totally destructive exigencies of capitalism. In this sense, he seeks to liberate 'man' and nature together at once. He, like Herbert Marcuse, posits that post-revolutionary (that is, anarchist) 'man' will relate to the environment in a radically new way--one different (and, clearly, more desirable) than that which is pushed for by capitalism. He, similar to Marx, claims that the high development of technology within industrially advanced countries will allow such an anarchist 'society' to succeed where so many other similar attempts have failed (due to material scarcity--Bookchin argues that our current levels of technology render such concerns rather null and void); he finds that such technologies have rendered hierarchical socio-politico-economic relations redundant. He speaks a lot about using highly advanced alternative energy sources (eg wind and solar) that have seemingly been sidelined in our world--unsurprisingly, Bookchin would probably argue, given the reactionary interests of domination.

Bookchin also lays into Marxist (Leninist) revolutionaries and Marxism more generally, taking issue with Marxists' historical (and, it seems, ideological and structural) proclivity to engage in hierarchy (ie, the 'vanguard,' 'democratic centralism) as a means toward socialism/liberation. He claims (rightly, I think) that humans cannot be 'led' to emancipation--freedom cannot be dictated or legislated, Bookchin argues, as Marxist-Leninists seem to think. He uses as his main example here the Russian 'revolution' of 1917 and afterward, focusing on the Bolsheviks' increasingly authoritarian means--Lenin's suppression of 'factionalism'; the violent repression of the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, when soldiers called on the 'revolution' to realize the progressive promises it had made; and the eventual descent into murderous Stalinism. He finds these tragic consequences unsurprising, as he posits that the means and ends of revolution must be harmonized--the use of hierarchy and centralism to effect revolution (which, in my view, the Bolsheviks never achieved), claims Bookchin, unsurprisingly results in hierarchy and centralism in 'post-revolutionary' society. His argument here, in a sense, reminds me Albert Camus' objections to Marxism in The Rebel.

What worries me most, though, about this type of analysis (one relevant as well to Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse) is how it seems to legitimize the course of human history--that is, the claim that hierarchical, oppressive social relations in feudalism, capitalism, etc., have brought us to this point wherein revolution and human emancipation is made possible... Bookchin certainly makes it clear that he considers historical forms of hierarchy irrelevant. But what, then, can we say about the billions of humans who live outside of technologically advanced countries? Must they, too, suffer the brutalities of 'primitive capitalist/socialist accumulation' to achieve freedom?

[Rog Harrison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book in Manchester on 4 March 1978 so it clearly took me a long time to get round to reading it! Unfortunately I appear to have lost it.

[Vasilis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected eco-anarchist thought. What I got was anarchism with just a light sprinkling of green thought...

[Basil · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have long felt some sort of unspoken and shifting affinity with certain anarchist tendencies and critiques, and yet I struggled tremendously with this text and felt super turned off by it. It’s one thing that many of his basic points are practically non-starters for me (the absolutist orientation towards any and all hierarchy, the whole “post-scarcity” claim that has no real analytical weight to back it up, and what feels like willful caricatures of productive Marxist analytical and organizational tools), but it’s another thing entirely that the writing style is as indulgent, self-aggrandizing, and unreflective on a personal level as many of the most obnoxious anarchists I’ve met in my life all these years later. But I will give Bookchin a few things: the creative orientation towards ecology, the fact that many helpful contemporary organizing tools can be traced back to some of this writing (affinity groups, DAs, etc), and the fact that the man was undeniably audacious and daringly utopian in a way I struggle to relate to in any way at this point in my life but nevertheless stimulates my thinking.

[Sami Eerola · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best works on modern Anarchist thought that i have read. This book is a collection of articles written in th4ee 60´s, but the themes and arguments are today more relevant than in their first publication date.

The beginning of this book is a bit slow and extremely boring, but after the first chapter the actual "meat" of the argument is presented in a clear and eloquent style.

The basic idea if this book is that only a decentralized and locally self sustainable socialist economies based in open source high tech can create social well being and be ecologically stable.

[Jozie · Rating 5 out of 5]

bookchin is always good and fresh tbh. im not too sure about"""" liberatory technolongy"""" and like what that would mean for 2018 but it is a concept. I really liked the in depth discussions about specific revolutions because usually people are critical of them from a "communism is bad" perspective, or they worship lenin. anyway this is a hot take

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inspirational and rounded arguments that encourage consideration from the reader. From the potential for humans to be either liberated or subordinated by technology to the possibility for managing and encouraging abundant environmental fertility. A great many topics are discussed in the essays within, but Bookchin's sense of optimism pervades each text and is a liberating read when placed next to (the far more common) deconstruction and critique that makes up the majority of modern political and social theory. One for the hopeful among us.

[Abigail Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bookchin is pretty interesting. Wish I had actually gone to class when this book was being discussed.

[Scott Christensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a banger

[Dayton Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Based on what I knew of Bookchin, I had at least entertained the possibility that I would read this book and be swept away, doling out a 5-star endorsement to (who I thought would be) the political thinker whose thought I most closely identified with. (Though the "post-scarcity" title had made me somewhat skeptical.) It is perhaps more valuable that I *didn't* agree with everything, but instead had to iron out some of my own beliefs in realms that aren't usually challenged.

Also worth noting is that while much of this is dated (particularly the essay on technology), it is forward thinking enough to mostly still apply (particularly impressive, for the 1960s, is his two warnings about the warming potential of fossil fuels). I most appreciated him when he dealt with the practicalities of social change ("The Forms of Freedom" and the two essays on France 1968). He is clearly well-studied in the successes and failures of various past revolutionary moments, and his histories are intriguing and insightful. I also was impressed with his critique of Marxism and the more boring, narrow-minded, overly dogmatic tendencies within the Left ("Listen, Marxist!" and the discussion thereof, and also "Desire and Need"). His utopian vision in the titular "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" actually more or less lines up with my own.

But where I differed was in some of his core theoretical premises (though if I agree with most of the practical implications, does this really matter?). Namely, that the domination of nature by man stems from the domination of man (and woman) by man. This intuitively feels off to me--I'd think at the very least they coevolved, or if anything it goes the other way around. (Apparently much of his other writing elaborates on this point so maybe I'll be convinced). In "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought," which has a legacy and influence I whole-heartedly endorse, I feel he at times over-relied on metaphors about ecosystems to function as practical moral laws. The essay (like the technology one) is a breath of fresh air in its synthesis of libertarian, communist ideals with ecological interdependence and respect for the nonhuman world; however, it's a synthesis that sometimes feels simplistic or at least incomplete. (Not to mention, especially in retrospect, too optimistic about "ecotechnology"--though he's on the right track.)

[Scarlett]

It's kinda funny the degree to which Bookchin praises the exact lifestylism which we now associate him with disavowing. I guess watching this counterculture get re-absorbed by bourgeois society must've been exactly what pushed him in that direction. Just a guess, I need to actually read later stuff.

There's a lot of brilliant attempts in here to sort traditional socialist dogma into two piles: the genuine theoretical core worth keeping and the reactions to specific historical moments which have nevertheless been uncritically accepted. This is a worthwhile read for any leftist, anyone invested in social revolution, or anyone interested in a somewhat more modern look at the revolutions and attempts at true democracy of the past.

Look, don't read this and take it to heart too much. Recognize that it came from a time where youth movements might have become something, when it seemed like a new revolutionary group entirely separate from the class system could be formed from outcasts all over the social ladder rejecting the norms and expectations of their time. Let yourself slip into that mindset and that optimism, and you'll come out of this with something worthwhile. You'll at least probably have a better understanding of how previously revolutionary forms of organization like leftist parties and unions have become kinds of capitalist internal self-regulation which keep capitalism from reaching a tipping point and angering the people enough to spring us to action.

You'll end up understanding why even in times like right now in 2020 when everyone is rightfully pissed off, there doesn't seem to be any fuel for that spark to catch.

[Vilija · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A century ago, scarcity had to be endured; today, it has to be enforced"

Bookchin was an environmentalist way before it was cool. He envisioned a future in which society goes beyond consumption for the sake of consumption in order to achieve a more equal and prosperous life for all. He argues that capitalism is inherently anti-ecological, plundering nature with no regard for the long-term effects on the ecosystem of our planet. He was right about the devastating consequences of mindless production of goods back in the 60's, when global warming hadn't even been named yet.

As is often the case in leftist writing, the technological details take up a large chunk of Bookchin's texts. Needless to say, the technology he's praising as the possible means of liberation has grown exponentially since the 60's while the overall wellbeing of humanity has not improved but, in many respects, gone drastically down. Most prominently, we have managed to run the environment into the ground. There seems to be no end to the overproduction and overconsumption that defines our existence in the 21st century.

Echoing the dadaist slogan "Unemployment for all!" Bookchin aptly notes: "When modern industry can provide abundance for all, nothing is more vicious to poor people than a lifetime of poverty." As a poor person who's painfully aware that the problems we, the poor, are facing stem not from scarcity of resources but from humanity's inability to share equally and consume sensibly, I am neither angry nor disappointed. I'm just done.

[Neil Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book laid out some important criticisms of capitalism, as I had expected it would. One of the criticisms of the current system which I found the most interesting was the alienation which our society creates. I also really enjoyed the critiques of socialism which did not only limit themselves to the chapter "Listen Marxist". I have previously had the tendency to defend socialism as it is constantly attacked by the media, conservatives and capitalist. So the criticisms of socialism and Marxism, in particular, in this book were very helpful, giving me a different perspective on the subject, that challenged my beliefs. It was refreshing to hear the Anarchist perspective on Socialism, rather than the usually narrow and polarized rhetoric of Socialism VS Capitalism.
I also enjoyed the talk about what is important for a revolution, which was reiterated many times, mostly being that the revolution must embody the aspects and non-hierarchical forms that the society we wish to create will have. I think this is an important point and like many things in this book, I will be thinking about for some time, contemplating them, incorporating them into my activism. I am also going to be thinking about how the wisdom in this book translates to my involvement with The Zeitgeist Movement, because I feel there are so many similarities, and yet, Post-Scarcity Anarchism has some important contributions which TZM could definitely learn from.

[Evan Lemire · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely incredible. This section of "Listen Marxist!" is one of the most moving and important things on socialism that I've ever read.

"In the midst of all the confusing ideological crosscurrents of our time, one question must always remain in the foreground: what the hell are we trying to make a revolution for? Are we trying to make a revolution to recreate hierarchy, dangling a shadowy dream of future freedom before the eyes of humanity? Is it to promote further technological advance, to create an even greater abundance of goods than exists today? Is it to "get even" with the bourgeoisie? Is it to bring PL to power? Or the Communist Party? Or the Socialist Workers Party? Is it to emancipate abstractions such as "The Proletariat," "The People," "History," "Society"?

Or is it finally to dissolve hierarchy, class rule and coercion—to make it possible for each individual to gain control of his everyday life? Is it to make each moment as marvelous as it could be and the life span of each individual an utterly fulfilling experience? If the true purpose of revolution is to bring the neanderthal men of PL to power, it is not worth making. We need hardly argue the inane questions of whether individual development can be severed from social and communal development; obviously the two go together. The basis for a whole human being is a rounded society; the basis for a free human being is a free society."

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SERIES OF PROPOSALS FOR A CONTEMPORARY ANARCHIST SOCIETY

Author and prominent Anarchist Murray Bookchin wrote in the Introduction to this 1971 book, “Until very recently, human society developed around the brute issues posed by undeniable material scarcity and their subjective counterpart in denial, renunciation and guilt… Material scarcity provided the historic rationale for the development of the patriarchal family, private property, class domination and the state; it nourished the great divisions in hierarchical society that pitted town against country, mind against sensuousness, work against play, individual against society, and, finally, the individual against himself.” (Pg. 9)

He continues, “We of this century have finally opened the prospect of material abundance for all to enjoy---a sufficiency in the means of life without the need for grinding, day-to-day toil. We have discovered resources, both for man and industry, that were totally unknown a generation ago…. Supported by this qualitatively new technology, we can begin to provide food, shelter, garments, and a broad spectrum of luxuries without devouring the precious time of humanity and without dissipating its invaluable reservoir of creative energy in mindless labor. In short, for the first time in history we stand on the threshold of a post-scarcity society.” (Pg. 10) He continues, “the word ‘post-scarcity’ means fundamentally more than a mere abundance of the means of life: it decidedly includes the KIND of life these means support. The human relationships and psyche of the individual in a post-scarcity society must fully reflect the freedom, security and self-expression that this abundance makes possible. Post-scarcity society, in short, is the fulfillment of the social and cultural potentialities latent in a technology of abundance.” (Pg. 11)

He explains, “The absolute negation of the state is anarchism---a situation in which men liberate not only ‘history,’ but all the immediate circumstances of their everyday life. The absolute negation of the city is the community---a community in which the social environment is decentralized into rounded ecologically balanced communes. The absolute negations of bureaucracy is … mediated relations… The absolute negation of the centralized economy is regional ecotechnology---a situation in which the instruments of production are molded to the resources of an ecosystem. The absolute negation of the patriarchal family is liberated sexuality---in which all forms of sexual regulation are transcended by the spontaneous, untrammeled expression of eroticism among equals. The absolute negation of the marketplace is communism---in which collective abundance and cooperation transform labor into play and need into desire.” (Pg. 41)

He contends, “Whatever may have been the validity of libertarian and non-libertarian views a few years ago, historical development has rendered virtually all objections to anarchist thought meaningless today. The modern city and state… systems of mass production… the state and its bureaucratic apparatus---all have reached their limits. Whatever progressive or liberatory role they may have possessed, they have now become entirely regressive and oppressive.” (Pg. 69)

He suggests, “I submit that an anarchist community would approximate a clearly definable ecosystem; it would be diversified, balanced and harmonious. It is arguable whether such an ecosystem would acquire the configuration of an urban entity with a distinct center, such as we find in the Greek polis or the medieval commune, or whether… society would consist of widely dispersed communities without a distinct center.” (Pg. 80)

He observes, “it is worth emphasizing that Athens founded Western philosophy, mathematics… historiography and art, and that revolutionary Paris contributed more than its share to the culture of the time and the political thought of the Western world. The arena for these achievements was not the traditional state, structured around a bureaucratic apparatus, but a system of unmediated relations, a face-to-face democracy organized into public assemblies.” (Pg. 164-165)

He notes, “We shall argue that in a more advanced stage of capitalism … than Marx could have clearly anticipated, a new critique is necessary, which in turn yields new modes of struggle, of organization, or propaganda and of lifestyle. Call these new modes whatever you will, even ‘Marxism’ is you wish. We have chosen to call this new approach ‘post-scarcity anarchism,’ for a number of compelling reasons…” (Pg. 177)

He recounts, “The anarchists of the last century were deeply preoccupied with the question of achieving industrialization without crushing the revolutionary spirit of the ‘masses’ and rearing new obstacles to emancipation. They feared that centralization would reinforce the ability of a bourgeoisie to resist the revolution and instill in the workers a sense of obedience… Hence they emphasized the need for decentralization even under capitalism.” (Pg. 213)

He clarifies, “Anarchists, or at least anarcho-communists, accept the need for organization. It should be as absurd to have to repeat this point as to argue over whether Marx accepted the need for social revolution. The real question at issue here is not organization versus non-organization, but rather what KIND of organization the anarcho-communists try to establish.” (Pg. 214)

He acknowledges, “[Herbert] Marcuse is the most original of the thinkers who still call themselves Marxists, and I must confess that even on those points where I may have disagreements with him, I am stimulated by what he has to say.” (Pg. 240)

He concludes, “For the first time in history, object and subject can be joined in the revolutionary collectivity of sisters and brothers. Theory and praxis can be united in the purposive revolutionary deed. Thought and intuition can be merged in the new revolutionary vision. Conscious and unconscious can be integrated in the revolutionary revel. Liberation may not be complete… but it can be totalistic, involving every facet of life and experience. It fulfillment may be beyond our wildest visions, but we can move toward what we can see and imagine. Our Being is Becoming, not stasis. Our Science is Utopia, our Reality is Eros, our Desire is Revolution.” (Pg. 286)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying contemporary Anarchist thought.

[Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ecological Anarchy - studies in the historical revolutionary project and the pressing issues of a post-industrialized age that fosters a material abundance. Bookchin believed the straw that broke Marxism's back has its roots in the fact it was constructed in an age of (material) scarcity. His urge for revolutionary thought to take ecological factors into consideration are of importance, although his thoughts on historical events are generally accepted as reactionary, at best.

It's worth noting his own historical position, as the product of an age of scarcity (1930s), and that towards the end of his life, he increasingly attempted to reconcile his views with Marxism, as well as no longer labelling himself as an Anarchist. That being said, his criticism of various Communist sects in responding to the May '68 events are not without some truth.

[Cole Curtiss · Rating 3 out of 5]

*Read the essays "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" and "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought." Fully realize this official title may include more essays than these.*

As my first introduction to Bookchin, this was promising though not entirely attention-grabbing. I have a large soft spot for anarchism through an ecological lens, and was happy to see this developed here. I did my best to temper all my reading with the reality that these are decades-old texts, but alas some of the ideas here are really hard to locate within a modern framework. While his critiques of Marxism were new to me and definitely valid, I did find myself with more questions than answers a lot of the time; I would love to be able to ask these to Bookchin as I read. My toes are officially dipped in anarchist theory, and hope to fully submerge myself as I grow.

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book literally changed my life. Only one other book in my undergraduate education moved me as this one did.

[lili]

I DNF-d this at the 82% mark.

I have spent the past two months SUFFERING through this book. Only managed to get this far through sheer force of will. I'd get a physical headache every time I'd try reading this because so little actually made sense.

The book itself was not well-written at all. You know how in essays you are taught of the PEEL (point, evidence, example and link) method? This is so that everyone argument you make is substantiated by facts and evidence. Bookchin's book was a series of PE's - just baseless claims, with no logical links, no evidence and examples that do nothing to bolster up his points. I cannot count the amount of times I just said there and asked "But how did you come to this conclusion?" outloud.

His critique of Marxism has to be the weakest I have ever seen. Again, no basis, no logic, just vibes. He did this annoying thing where he attributed characteristics that are markedly not socialist to critique socialism. For instance, he kept critiquing socialism (itself!) for being a centralist and hierarchical political ideology... as if that's not the point??? (I haven't read enough communist literature yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what socialism is about right?)

Reading this felt like a special kind of gaslighting. It felt like I was being attacked for not understanding how he came to his conclusions.

He also kept repeating the same points over and over and over again. I guess this could be because this is just a series of pamphlets, but I found that he would keep saying the same thing in the same way to emphasis the same point in one pamphlet. He would also use a point that he came to as the substantiating for yet another point that he made. That's not - that's not how you write sir 😭

I saw a couple of reviews that critiqued him for not predicting the future properly, which I don't think is fair. Very few people can predict what's going to happen properly. So, how can we expect a guy who can't even analyse what was happening in the past and his own present to be able to predict the future? He literally said that Stalinism paved the way for fascism and world war two.

My guy, are you thinking or is your brain just a decoration?

His analysis of how the youth in his time was rejecting authority was laughable to me. It is a testamet of how illogical his writing (and, at this point I believe, anarchism as a whole) is that he saw that youth culture as the beginnings of anarchism. These people didn't read anarchist literature and were just liberals rejecting authority for their own hedonism. They were just peace sign no war and I want to be able to do whatever I want with no repercussions folks. Why would they be interested in partaking in revolutionary action (which is inherently communal and requires that you do something not just for yourself, but for the good of everyone, amongst other things)? But I guess I understand why he would look to these people for inspiration, considering the contents of his writing.
Just like most anarchist texts that I have read so far, he spends more time critiquing Marxism then explaining how anarchism functions.

I still don't get how anarchism will be implemented in a post-scarcity world, despite this being what the whole book was about. This is because there are constant mentions of utopias and not the dystopia that we are actually living in. It's sad because I really wanted to hear about this.

However, despite the many (MANY) shortfalls of this book, there are a few things that I really liked and agreed with.

As always, I am receptive of anarchism's critique of all forms of authority. In particular, I agree with what he said  about how centralisation can end up thwarting revolutionary movements.

On page 220 he says (paraphrased) that a revolution dies when the leaders of political parties (who are the only ones who've read the texts etc.) are jailed or killed. The movements can them be taken over by the bourgeoisie. He also speaks about how easy it is for the bourgeoisie to hijack communist movements because they were structured along bourgeoisie lines.

THIS was a valid point.

I 100% believe that any revolution where only the leaders have read (and understood!) the literature will fail. This is where the anarchist thought makes most sense to me. Everybody must know what is happening in a revolution at all times.

Which brings me to the next thing I agree with.

On page 214 he says social revolutions are made by the people not parties. He also posed some questions that communists should continuously ask themselves on page 188.

On page 253 he says a really cool thing about how scarcity in the present age I'd manufactured. This was true during his time and is even more true in this day and age.

I think this will be the last anarchist book that I'll be reading for a really long time. I just want to read things that are actually useful. I am reading for function and there is no (or at least very little) function in this ideology.

Maybe one day I'll come back to this book and finish it off.

[Rosa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I eventually got round to finishing this book, having originally found the first few chapters online for free. To be honest, I'm not sure it was worth bothering with the rest of the book - I mainly carried on with it so I wouldn't be behind on my reading challenge on here!

The book is a collection of essays, some I found interesting, others less so. It was fascinating to read a book written over 50 years talk about issues we don't seem any further forward with - melting ice caps, usage of fossil fuels. Not just issues of environmentalism but also the fact that we live in a post scarcity society, and still people are dying needlessly, as we get deeper into capitalism. It is an almost surreal mix of feeling strangely contemporary, yet also simultaneously outdated in many ways.

In this book you will find 'Listen, Marxist!', an essay where Bookchin critiques Marx's analysis of how topple state power. I don't think I'm well read on Marx enough to actually say whether it was a good faith reading of Marx or not, although it read like many arguments I have heard from many other anarchists, so I don't feel like there was a new perspective here that I hadn't already heard.

Personally I found the second half of the book much more difficult to read. I struggled immensely trying to keep interest when Bookchin goes into great detail about how powerful new computers are, or solar panels - the science and math detail he included really didn't do it for me. Of course, it doesn't help that I am reading this in 2020 not 1960's, although I will admit there is something refreshing about his excitement about these prospects. He then discusses the French general strike of 1968 in a detailed, but very idealised way. As impressive and inspiring I find the events of 1968 I think it is important to consider what went wrong and why revolution did not occur - I feel Bookchin very much idealises this event in history.  I also found his discuss on the Athenian polis extremely interesting, it is definitely something I will read more about as I know very little. I didn't, however, appreciate the one line dedicated to women being left out of the arena, or the page that was dedicated to explaining why slavery wasn't *that* bad there compared to other places, which left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth! Looking back now, it seems Bookchin had too much faith in the counterculture of the 1960's being able to overthrow the current global system, especially when you consider the devastation that Thatcherism and Reganism caused (and continue to) a decade or so later.

Reading this review back, it sounds pretty negative but I did actually enjoy this book, and I like a lot of aspects of Bookchin's ideology. I really admire his optimism, sometimes delving into idealism; it's exciting and refreshing and it makes a change to hear someone radical talk about all the *good* stuff that could be, all the exciting things that could be possible, not just how shit the current world is. As a libertarian socialist it isn't suprising I agree with Bookchin on a lot of points and I love his detailed ideas about municipal and neighbour councils - it is especially interesting as I am also ready some of the writing of Abdullah Ocalan currently too. 

It's an interesting book, and the optimism and hope you find in Bookchin is refreshing, but I don't feel like I learnt a new perspective that I hadn't already heard before in most cases and I feel these days there is more up to date work that is more relevant to the situation in 2020.

[Yoann Negre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dans ce livre, Bookchin analyse l'évolution de la société depuis qu'elle est passée dans une phase d'abondance, où tous les besoins peuvent être comblés sans difficulté, suite à l'évolution technologique de la société. Il ne voit pas la technologie comme un problème, comme le pensent les anarcho-primitivistes, mais bien comme une solution pour détruire le travail. Ainsi, les problèmes d'emplois qui disparaissent, qui sont soulevées par les médias de masse de notre époque, ne sont pas des problèmes, mais une solution à la libération de l'humanité. Le travail n'est pas une fin en soi mais un outil pour créer la subsistance.

De cet état d'abondance, Bookchin va développer deux axes de réflexions :

1. Marx ne doit plus être lu tel quel, du fait que ses textes et idées sont imprégnés d'une société de la rareté, avec des famines par exemple. Il veut transcender Marx, parlant de néo-marxisme, pour fournir une analyse qui soit plus pertinente pour comprendre la lutte des classes. Point qui m'a marqué, le fait qu'il ne faille pas viser la conscience de classe comme but de la lutte, mais par la conscience de la non-classe. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Que l'ouvrier doit comprendre sa place dans la classe ouvrière, et de ses intérêts, pour ensuite la dépasser et vouloir s'extirper de sa classe, pour produire une lutte qui supprimera les classes au lieu de les reproduire.

2. Il faut réviser nos besoins, biaisés par la société de consommation, de manière à faire correspondre nos besoins à ce que les écosystèmes peuvent régénérer.

Bookchin est ainsi très critique vis à vis du marxisme-leninisme, dont la structure autour d'une "avant-garde éclairée" et d'un parti ne fait que de reproduire les conditions dans lesquelles la bourgeoisie peut émerger (dans des relations hiérarchiques) ou détourner le parti. Il en découle une analyse du mythe de l'intérêt du parti comme organe de lutte.

C'est drôle parce que je retrouve une même critique chez Baschet dans "La rébellion Zapatiste" à deux jours d'écart de lecture, ce qui est drôle vu que Bookchin a inspiré, via son municipalisme Libertaire, la révolution kurde pour la création du Rojava (ou Kurdistan) et que Baschet est un spécialiste des Zapatistes, Marxistes-Leninistes devenus Libertaires. C'est presque à croire que dès qu'une organisation, qui faire la révolution, veut atteindre un but concret, et pas juste prendre le pouvoir pour elle, elle abandonne le marxisme-leninisme pour réussir. C'est pas Makhno et Malatesta qui vont dire le contraire j'imagine. D'ailleurs Bookchin est très élogieux vis à vis de la révolution espagnole de 36, ça me donne envie de lire "Hommage à la Catalogne" d'Orwell.

Dans une dernière partie, Bookchin développe autour de la notion d'anarcho-communisme, donc d'anarchisme libertaire, construit autour des groupes d'affinités et de l'autogestion sur tous les niveaux, avec une réciprocité en terme de responsabilité et une absence de hiérarchie structurelle. Le tout de manière décentralisée évidemment.

Murray Bookchin s'inscrit en bonne liste pour devenir un auteur dont la bibliographie va se retrouver dans ma bibliothèque. J'apprécie beaucoup ce qu'il développe et son héritage au Rojava. Est-ce que je recommande le livre ? Évidemment. Le livre est de taille moyenne, 281 pages, pour un prix de 15€, et ça développe des choses très intéressantes.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a valuable critique that uses Marx's dialectic against classical Marxism. Bookchin is primarily concerned with the hopelessly hierarchical nature of state socialism, which he argues is bound by the bourgeois constraints and mentality of domination in which it developed. He also argues that Marxism is obsolete due to developing during a time of pre-industrial scarcity. Because capitalism has achieved widespread industrialization, it is not only inappropriate but downright dangerous to focus one's analysis around continued industrialization and productivism (and, by implication, around an industrial proletariat).

While this is a compelling argument, his prescription of liberation in the form of anarcho-communism (which he prefers to call "post-scarcity anarchism"), is unsatisfyingly utopian. He gives exhilarating descriptions of decentralized food, energy and transport systems, and even decentralized cities; his working thesis is that anarchism = spontaneity = variety/heterogeneity = harmony of the natural world.

But he fails to ever describe how we would get from point A to point B, and he commits a major omission in ignoring the role of the police and military as a political reality both during and after a transition. The closest he ever gets is to describe the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement of the early 20th century, but their revolution was infamously crushed by a fascist military.

This criticism aside -- although to be sure, it's a major one -- one can see how Bookchin's vision could be viable in an ideal world. . . i.e. one without capitalist superpowers pushing back. And I do think he offers valid critiques of Marx, Marxist dogma, and hierarchy in general. It's something that has always rubbed me the wrong way about Marxist-Leninism.

Bookchin also offers some intriguing possibilities of how technology could serve to liberate instead of dominate, although he often veers into hardcore ecomodernism: the irrational belief that we could be saved if only we had more technology. I strongly disagree; the only answer as I see it is less consumption, not smarter consumption. Bookchin's reliance on decentralized technology tends to avoid questions of ecological impact. Some of the questions raised: what keeps communities from overproducing? Who monitors continental and global trends? Who coordinates ensuing local output caps? Who enforces caps and holds noncomplying communities accountable? How?

Despite my criticism I did enjoy reading it. My reading has been heavy on Marxism of late, and I'm glad to see a well-reasoned critique of him. It will help me read Marxists more critically in the future. In addition to Marxists, I'd also recommend this as just a solid introduction to anarchism, really for anyone interested in political theory.

Not Bad Reviews

@pointblaek