What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism
A useful corrective to simplistic thinking about the human predicament.— Canadian Book Review Annual
"Bookchin expands upon the concept of natural evolution and delivers it from the trap of mechanistic thinking."— Imprint
"Bookchin expands upon the concept of natural evolution and delivers it from the trap of mechanistic thinking."— Imprint
183 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1990
81 people are currently reading
2894 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 - 30 of 35 reviews
Read
January 25, 2024I read it, did I *get* it though? I'm not sure, see the thing is that Bookchin's style is not very approachable and I wonder if I just need to read more of his stuff to get more comfortable with his style or if I'm just not the right audience.
No rating for the moment.
No rating for the moment.
January 17, 2024
The Philosophy of Social Ecology was a dense but valuable read. Bookchin’s central premise is that our social and ecological ills that we face as humans, whether that be climate change, a loss of personal connection with your neighbor, rising mental illness, or corrupt politics, all stem from one core problem, our relation with the natural world.
Bookchin states that hierarchy is the root cause of our disconnection with the earth. This could be a domination based hierarchy in which we see the earth as our spoils and we are able to do with it as we please, or conversely a antihumanist view which sees humans as a virus or cancer, in which we are positioned under the ecology of the world. Bookchin would argue that both of these hierarchies are false and based on soft foundations. Instead Bookchin sees the universe, nature, and humans as part of the same world inherently. Evolution produced us, and we produced society, a natural extension that was bound to play out. View us as ants that build cities.
But how do we reconcile this? Bookchin says that nature is bound in contradictions. It is not that animals, or humans, are inherently good or bad, it is just nature. However humans have the gift of thought and conscious actions. We can determine our philosophy and place within the world.
If we revert from our current ways and view nature through a dialectal lens of potentialities we can be proper stewards of the world. Step 1 is viewing ourselves as part of nature and working to preserve both humanity and the world. Abolish hierarchy and get your hands in the dirt. Realize that through technology we have the means to have abundance while regenerating the world around us. We can do this now, however capitalism obscures this capability. Focus on the community and those around you. Reform human on human bonds. Through a combination of our shared humanity, seeing the world as an extension of our own body and caring for it as such, and libratory technological potentials we can save this world.
If you are up for a challenge of reading a dense philosophical book I would HIGHLY recommend this book. 5/5
Bookchin states that hierarchy is the root cause of our disconnection with the earth. This could be a domination based hierarchy in which we see the earth as our spoils and we are able to do with it as we please, or conversely a antihumanist view which sees humans as a virus or cancer, in which we are positioned under the ecology of the world. Bookchin would argue that both of these hierarchies are false and based on soft foundations. Instead Bookchin sees the universe, nature, and humans as part of the same world inherently. Evolution produced us, and we produced society, a natural extension that was bound to play out. View us as ants that build cities.
But how do we reconcile this? Bookchin says that nature is bound in contradictions. It is not that animals, or humans, are inherently good or bad, it is just nature. However humans have the gift of thought and conscious actions. We can determine our philosophy and place within the world.
If we revert from our current ways and view nature through a dialectal lens of potentialities we can be proper stewards of the world. Step 1 is viewing ourselves as part of nature and working to preserve both humanity and the world. Abolish hierarchy and get your hands in the dirt. Realize that through technology we have the means to have abundance while regenerating the world around us. We can do this now, however capitalism obscures this capability. Focus on the community and those around you. Reform human on human bonds. Through a combination of our shared humanity, seeing the world as an extension of our own body and caring for it as such, and libratory technological potentials we can save this world.
If you are up for a challenge of reading a dense philosophical book I would HIGHLY recommend this book. 5/5
March 4, 2023
To paraphrase Chomsky, when someone says “dialectics” I have no idea what they’re talking about. This was a slog of mostly unanalyzable statements and isn’t very didactic in offer improvements for how we can better interface with ecology. And then there’s all the Hegelian nonsense, like LET THE MAN REST. If your philosophy is predicated on a statist understanding of history, why the hell do people insist on moving backwards? What is synthesis then? And Bookchin’s abandonment of anarchism just reminds me of late Huey. I swear something happens to these guys where they just start babbling about continental philosophy in their later years. This book should just be cut to the last two or three essays. Your better off just reading environmental journalists and actual activists
March 10, 2023
A unique perspective on humanity’s place within the natural world and creating a philosophical foundation for an ethics based on ecology. It felt like Bookchin is the latest iteration of leftist ideologies built off of Hegel’s dialectics but did a lot to address the shortcomings of Marx while also dispelling a lot of the naive attitudes the modern environmentalist movement has towards nature.
This seemed to oscillate between really readable and insightful - and exceptionally dense and repetitive.
While I agree with most of the main principles Bookchin laid out, there are still a few things I take issue with.
His emphasis on the overstating of relativism… which often felt like an overstatement on his part. Again, I agree that the modern environmental movement can often take a mystical approach, there are legitimate benefits being in proximity to more natural areas provides, which Bookchin doesn’t address. But I think my biggest issue (and honestly this is mostly me projecting what I was hoping was going to be in the book) is Bookchin does little to actually discuss what an ecologically ethical society based on rationality would actually look like.
In a lot of ways, I feel like this did what Marx did, but better. However, it has the same pitfall of being a much more sound critique of capitalism than being a text to guide the construction of a new civilization. Luckily for me Bookchin has written plenty more where he does go more into this question!
This seemed to oscillate between really readable and insightful - and exceptionally dense and repetitive.
While I agree with most of the main principles Bookchin laid out, there are still a few things I take issue with.
His emphasis on the overstating of relativism… which often felt like an overstatement on his part. Again, I agree that the modern environmental movement can often take a mystical approach, there are legitimate benefits being in proximity to more natural areas provides, which Bookchin doesn’t address. But I think my biggest issue (and honestly this is mostly me projecting what I was hoping was going to be in the book) is Bookchin does little to actually discuss what an ecologically ethical society based on rationality would actually look like.
In a lot of ways, I feel like this did what Marx did, but better. However, it has the same pitfall of being a much more sound critique of capitalism than being a text to guide the construction of a new civilization. Luckily for me Bookchin has written plenty more where he does go more into this question!
March 4, 2023
Why Hegel??? On gods I don't understand the fascination with philosophy that so few can understand. He does say in the footnotes at the end he's not a Hegelian, as he doesn't buy into the Geist part, but is a dialectician. I suppose there is something to how opposites shape each other, but reading this just solidified a growing sense for me that ideals and philosophies are meaningless. Just language trying to pin down the world we live in and worse, they adapt poorly. In the case of philosophy, I worry that many become too focused on books and lectures and not on the world itself. He was apparently quite an activist, but activists, though deeply involved in the world, can be more mindless about their dogma than anyone.
His libertarian socialism, like so many ambitious ideologies, sounds nice but looks horribly unachievable and neglects the bloody history of similar utopian goals, or the banal history of revolutions that never got off the ground. Recall that previous revolutions either happened by accident, we didn't choose "capitalism" it chose us. The changes we did choose haven't turned out well except for painfully incremental democratic ones. Anyway, I really liked his discarding of the naive romanticism of nature. I love nature to death, but it is really fucking brutal. There's no harmony or balance, just constant warfare. He doesn't go too hard that direction either, in fact he's quite balanced here. Middle ground almost. He points out that everything evolved together, not just side by side but depending on the evolution of everything else. And since this mostly artificial division of human civilization and nature, both problematic terms according to him, is an extension of that, it too must evolve in greater sync with everything else. If I correctly understand this as his main point, it was a good book. I just shouldn't have to suffer for it so much.
I also began to feel at the beginning where he cites Aristotle's rule of identity, A=A. What was the point of that phrase? Why would A not be A? I mean people do misidentify things, but that's more of a mistaken belief of what both As are, not that A is something else. Also not sure I'm on board with the addition, A is A, and -A. It's understood that this is the negative space around A. Just as I am me, but when you see me you also see the space around me that is not me. But the negative space isn't me, it just follows me. I suppose it exists definitionally, but here we get into that language again. Here we have to let philosophy sometimes just be mind games, puzzles for intellectuals. That's fine, even if spending tons of money on it. I'm just not sure the purpose of this book by an author that wants a revolution and yet can't seem to write in a way that will cause one.
This was a real slog, I found maybe three gems and not very insightful ones at that. Was also annoyed at his frequent passing shots. Not uncommon for him to make a one sentence reference to a philosopher as if they were obviously wrong about x, needing no further argumentation. He bulldozes about that way, it kind of distracted from the point he was making as I had a hard time recalling if he was arguing against them or to some obscure point I'd forgotten in his sea of word vomit. Anyway, get out of your intellectual bubble and see what the world actually is.
His libertarian socialism, like so many ambitious ideologies, sounds nice but looks horribly unachievable and neglects the bloody history of similar utopian goals, or the banal history of revolutions that never got off the ground. Recall that previous revolutions either happened by accident, we didn't choose "capitalism" it chose us. The changes we did choose haven't turned out well except for painfully incremental democratic ones. Anyway, I really liked his discarding of the naive romanticism of nature. I love nature to death, but it is really fucking brutal. There's no harmony or balance, just constant warfare. He doesn't go too hard that direction either, in fact he's quite balanced here. Middle ground almost. He points out that everything evolved together, not just side by side but depending on the evolution of everything else. And since this mostly artificial division of human civilization and nature, both problematic terms according to him, is an extension of that, it too must evolve in greater sync with everything else. If I correctly understand this as his main point, it was a good book. I just shouldn't have to suffer for it so much.
I also began to feel at the beginning where he cites Aristotle's rule of identity, A=A. What was the point of that phrase? Why would A not be A? I mean people do misidentify things, but that's more of a mistaken belief of what both As are, not that A is something else. Also not sure I'm on board with the addition, A is A, and -A. It's understood that this is the negative space around A. Just as I am me, but when you see me you also see the space around me that is not me. But the negative space isn't me, it just follows me. I suppose it exists definitionally, but here we get into that language again. Here we have to let philosophy sometimes just be mind games, puzzles for intellectuals. That's fine, even if spending tons of money on it. I'm just not sure the purpose of this book by an author that wants a revolution and yet can't seem to write in a way that will cause one.
This was a real slog, I found maybe three gems and not very insightful ones at that. Was also annoyed at his frequent passing shots. Not uncommon for him to make a one sentence reference to a philosopher as if they were obviously wrong about x, needing no further argumentation. He bulldozes about that way, it kind of distracted from the point he was making as I had a hard time recalling if he was arguing against them or to some obscure point I'd forgotten in his sea of word vomit. Anyway, get out of your intellectual bubble and see what the world actually is.
September 4, 2008
pretentiously and pompously written sally into philosophy, replete with caricatures of those (like Marx) Bookchin wants to attack, and generally worthless when it comes to philosophy or politics
August 23, 2019
Good book I guess, but I feel like I need to take some philosophy courses and read a couple hundred classics before understanding most of what he's saying.
January 2, 2014
Bookchin has found a way to mesh ecological ethics into a purely Western tradition. The modern American environmental/ecological movement has applied chunks of Eastern and Quasi-Eastern spirituality into the philosophy where it doesn't fit. He claims that it is due to intellectual laziness. I would argue that it is also due to a void of spirituality from the backlash of denouncing Christianity's dominion theory.
Compared to "What's Next for the Ecology Movement?" this book was really informative. It concentrated less on bitching about Biocentrists, Ecomystics and Deep Ecology, and more on creating a good argument FOR Social Ecology on a basic philosophical basis.
Sometimes its hard to swallow some of the biocentric criticism, due to almost 20 years of putting myself into that category, but I have never seen eye-to-eye with American Greens and valued a more traditional Euro-Green approach infused with a more social Libertarian bias.
Bookchin didn't have to sway me by being critical of other views within the modern enviro movement, but simply laying out the theoretical argument for Social Ecology was persuasive.
Compared to "What's Next for the Ecology Movement?" this book was really informative. It concentrated less on bitching about Biocentrists, Ecomystics and Deep Ecology, and more on creating a good argument FOR Social Ecology on a basic philosophical basis.
Sometimes its hard to swallow some of the biocentric criticism, due to almost 20 years of putting myself into that category, but I have never seen eye-to-eye with American Greens and valued a more traditional Euro-Green approach infused with a more social Libertarian bias.
Bookchin didn't have to sway me by being critical of other views within the modern enviro movement, but simply laying out the theoretical argument for Social Ecology was persuasive.
March 23, 2020
I found this to be the most coherent of Bookchin's works that I've read thus far. Perhaps I've gotten used to his style at this point, but it felt like the rambly, convoluted nature of his other works was less present in this collection of essays. It's still there, alongside the philosophical jargon, but subdued to a point where I don't find myself at the end of a long rant wondering how I got there.
All in all, a cogent set of critiques of other philosophical traditions and arguments for an ethical framework grounded in and evolving from the natural world, which is used to argue for a left libertarian world. Would recommend for those interested.
All in all, a cogent set of critiques of other philosophical traditions and arguments for an ethical framework grounded in and evolving from the natural world, which is used to argue for a left libertarian world. Would recommend for those interested.
March 6, 2024
Este es un libro de cuatro ensayos que tienen como denominador común utilizar la dialéctica de Hegel para crear una filosofía de la ecología social (como su título lo dice). Esta acompañado de un epilogo escrito por Todd McGowan por su re-edición en 2022, ya que se escribió originalmente en 1990.
Es importante señalar que Hegel no desarrolló una dialéctica sobre la naturaleza, pues los de desarrollos de Darwin sobre la evolución fueron posteriores. Bookchin así propone la creación de un naturalismo dialéctico que incorpore la evolución. Esto lo hace como una contestación y una crítica a las filosofías new age y del ecologismo profundo, que tienden a ser antihumanistas o nihilistas, y que representan un ataque a la razón. Lo cual impide acciones políticas de mayor alcance.
Bookchin parte de la idea de que hay evolución porque las cosas nunca son idénticas a sí mismas, por lo que hace así la autodivisión el motor de la evolución. La evolución sucede porque las entidades naturales siempre están en proceso de convertirse en sus potencialidades. Esto lo propone retomando la idea de Hegel de que cualquier identidad incluye su no-identidad, o que el ser siempre es contradictorio, y esto es un proceso que siempre lo hace cambiante.
Del mismo modo, desarrolla una defensa sobre la razón (y la humanidad) para plantear un futuro diferente. McGowan en su epilogó señala que en contraposición a la escuela de Frankfurt o diversas visiones de izquierda, Bookchin recupera la idea de que la razón es la habilidad de comprender la necesidad de la contradicción. De que la subjetividad es un ser natural que deriva de la autoalienación de la naturaleza. Esto es algo que sólo la razón permite, lo que implica que no podemos pensar a los sujetos fuera de la naturaleza, ni a la naturaleza fuera del sujeto. En otras palabras, las contradicciones del sujeto generan al sujeto, pero las contradicciones de la subjetividad permite acceder y comprender la naturaleza. Y es esto lo que permite la posibilidad de intervención política.
Un libro corto y altamente recomendado para los interesados en filosofía y ecologismo.
Es importante señalar que Hegel no desarrolló una dialéctica sobre la naturaleza, pues los de desarrollos de Darwin sobre la evolución fueron posteriores. Bookchin así propone la creación de un naturalismo dialéctico que incorpore la evolución. Esto lo hace como una contestación y una crítica a las filosofías new age y del ecologismo profundo, que tienden a ser antihumanistas o nihilistas, y que representan un ataque a la razón. Lo cual impide acciones políticas de mayor alcance.
Bookchin parte de la idea de que hay evolución porque las cosas nunca son idénticas a sí mismas, por lo que hace así la autodivisión el motor de la evolución. La evolución sucede porque las entidades naturales siempre están en proceso de convertirse en sus potencialidades. Esto lo propone retomando la idea de Hegel de que cualquier identidad incluye su no-identidad, o que el ser siempre es contradictorio, y esto es un proceso que siempre lo hace cambiante.
Del mismo modo, desarrolla una defensa sobre la razón (y la humanidad) para plantear un futuro diferente. McGowan en su epilogó señala que en contraposición a la escuela de Frankfurt o diversas visiones de izquierda, Bookchin recupera la idea de que la razón es la habilidad de comprender la necesidad de la contradicción. De que la subjetividad es un ser natural que deriva de la autoalienación de la naturaleza. Esto es algo que sólo la razón permite, lo que implica que no podemos pensar a los sujetos fuera de la naturaleza, ni a la naturaleza fuera del sujeto. En otras palabras, las contradicciones del sujeto generan al sujeto, pero las contradicciones de la subjetividad permite acceder y comprender la naturaleza. Y es esto lo que permite la posibilidad de intervención política.
Un libro corto y altamente recomendado para los interesados en filosofía y ecologismo.
February 26, 2023
There are books that should be evaluated together with the author. So much so that these books can become a trend and affect the world of thought of humanity and cause devastating destruction in person. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Simone De Beauvoir and Rosa Luxemburg are the names considered at this point. I think that Murray Bookchin should be added to these names. Because this work he wrote has a very valuable approach in the world of thought in the 21st century and also has a serious attitude towards reuniting humans with animals and nature ideologically.
Bookchin is an anarchist thinker. Therefore, many of his analyzes may disturb 'many' authorities. Anarchism is an ideology that includes many different intellectual movements and theories. Although they have very different currents, they agree on some basic theories and main issues. At the core of anarchist philosophy; certain idea about human nature, present
there lies a critique of the system, the ideal of creating an emancipated people, and a method for reaching the people.
Combining anarchist thought with ecology, Bookchin's theory aimed to develop an effective view of the social sources of ecological problems, especially ecological problems caused by capitalist man, thus keeping the public in a rational stance, preventing capitalist perception and not breaking away from the main problems.
Bookchin offers us an ecoanarchist life that will make us rethink "human purpose". Free human, free thought, decentralization, spontaneity perspectives melted an ecological stance and revealed eco-anarchism, which is realistic, justified and in life for human beings. It's not even negligible.
Bookchin is an anarchist thinker. Therefore, many of his analyzes may disturb 'many' authorities. Anarchism is an ideology that includes many different intellectual movements and theories. Although they have very different currents, they agree on some basic theories and main issues. At the core of anarchist philosophy; certain idea about human nature, present
there lies a critique of the system, the ideal of creating an emancipated people, and a method for reaching the people.
Combining anarchist thought with ecology, Bookchin's theory aimed to develop an effective view of the social sources of ecological problems, especially ecological problems caused by capitalist man, thus keeping the public in a rational stance, preventing capitalist perception and not breaking away from the main problems.
Bookchin offers us an ecoanarchist life that will make us rethink "human purpose". Free human, free thought, decentralization, spontaneity perspectives melted an ecological stance and revealed eco-anarchism, which is realistic, justified and in life for human beings. It's not even negligible.
October 22, 2023
65/100
Bookchin has a little collection of essays on philosophical ecology that ebbs and flows in its enjoyment. When he talks about general ideas, I think it's a little more digestible and interesting, while his more specific and contemporary points where he dissects the issues with subcommunities of subcommunities are not really suited for the lay philosopher.
Still, there's some good nuggets here. I particular want to quote a line from his introduction where he sympathizes with those who are tired of cold empiricism, and follows that with a warning to overcompensating to a baseless "mythical" ideology:
"People in growing numbers feel betrayed by the centuries-long glorification of reason, with its icy claims to efficiency, objectivity, and freedom from ethical constraint - or the form of reason that has nourished destructive technologies like nucleonics and weaponry.
But...In our aversion to an insensitive and unfeeling form of reason, we may easily opt for a cloudy intuitionism and mysticism as an alternative. Unlike instrumental and analytical reason, after all, a surrender to emotion and mythic beliefs yields cooperative feelings of "interconnectedness" with the natural world and other perhaps even a caring attitude toward it.
But precisely because intuition and mystical beliefs are so cloudy and arbitrary, they may also "connect" us with things we really shouldn't be connected with at all - namely racism, sexism, and an abject subservience to charismatic leaders."
Bookchin has a little collection of essays on philosophical ecology that ebbs and flows in its enjoyment. When he talks about general ideas, I think it's a little more digestible and interesting, while his more specific and contemporary points where he dissects the issues with subcommunities of subcommunities are not really suited for the lay philosopher.
Still, there's some good nuggets here. I particular want to quote a line from his introduction where he sympathizes with those who are tired of cold empiricism, and follows that with a warning to overcompensating to a baseless "mythical" ideology:
"People in growing numbers feel betrayed by the centuries-long glorification of reason, with its icy claims to efficiency, objectivity, and freedom from ethical constraint - or the form of reason that has nourished destructive technologies like nucleonics and weaponry.
But...In our aversion to an insensitive and unfeeling form of reason, we may easily opt for a cloudy intuitionism and mysticism as an alternative. Unlike instrumental and analytical reason, after all, a surrender to emotion and mythic beliefs yields cooperative feelings of "interconnectedness" with the natural world and other perhaps even a caring attitude toward it.
But precisely because intuition and mystical beliefs are so cloudy and arbitrary, they may also "connect" us with things we really shouldn't be connected with at all - namely racism, sexism, and an abject subservience to charismatic leaders."
April 29, 2025
Interesting but DENSE. The central argument within this book is that by using hegalian analysis: thesis, anti-thesis, sythesis, you can develop an ecological ethic driven philosophical perspective. That the notion that man and nature are separate entities just leads to biocentrism and tyranny. This argument has a deep-rooted philosophical underpinning looking back to pre-socratic thinkers, eastern mystics, and the likes of Marx, Lecan, and Rousseau. Technology is a reflection of human ingenuity and could be used to sustainably integrate humanity into the wider environment. Similarly, going from the thesis that animals are just biological clockwork mechines to the antithesis that every living thing holds the same value is a misnomer which has the same egoic narcissism at it's heart. Humans should neither anthropomorphise nature and act as its soul representative nor act as it's God ordained master. Humans are as part of nature as ants or trees, and a truly all-encompassing ethic would demonstrate that.
,
,
July 28, 2024
If you read much in the area of environmental thought you'll encounter Murray Bookchin's name at some point. I was trying to consolidate and review the history of environmental thought when I came across "The Philosophy of Social Ecology." I was a little more than halfway finished when I had to return it to the library.
The most overwhelming thought I've had about "The Philosophy of Social Ecology" is 'who was the intended audience?' Despite an environmental studies degree (a social studies degree, with some science courses) I can say that the reader should have a philosophical background that includes the ancients, moderns and postmoderns. A philosopher would need a working understanding of ecology and systems theory, along with perhaps the history of science.
Bookchin had great ideas, but they've been largely ignored outside academia, likely because they're buried under a metaphorical ton of philosophical jargon.
The most overwhelming thought I've had about "The Philosophy of Social Ecology" is 'who was the intended audience?' Despite an environmental studies degree (a social studies degree, with some science courses) I can say that the reader should have a philosophical background that includes the ancients, moderns and postmoderns. A philosopher would need a working understanding of ecology and systems theory, along with perhaps the history of science.
Bookchin had great ideas, but they've been largely ignored outside academia, likely because they're buried under a metaphorical ton of philosophical jargon.
May 22, 2024
I wish I could rate this five stars. I cannot because it is written in a manner that requires concentration and focus to merely "half-get". That which I understood well enough, I loved, was well worth both thinking on, and in many cases I agreed with either beforehand unknowing, or subsequent. However. I will have to go back and go through it at least once more and possibly twice, and it isn't actually an enjoyable read despite being well worth it
February 4, 2024
I cannot say I am intelligent enough for this read. I knew I was in trouble when I realized the vast majority of the work is in conversation with Hegel’s work.
That said, the parts I was able to take away were excellent and thought provoking. A well crafted argument in a conversation I am not read up on enough to follow as much as the author more than likely intended.
Will read again
That said, the parts I was able to take away were excellent and thought provoking. A well crafted argument in a conversation I am not read up on enough to follow as much as the author more than likely intended.
Will read again
February 10, 2023
Great book, and great introduction to Bookchin’s thought. It’s definitely got me wanting to read more of his thought. I have read post-scarcity anarchism and the history of the Spanish anarchists. But now, I want to get into The ecology of freedom and what more he got to say about cybernetics.
December 19, 2023
Although sometimes hard to read (I need to catch up on classics) this book was a great read! I listened to the audiobook throughout the week and enjoyed listening to Bookchin's thoughts. I have been getting into the genre solarpunk, and this book was exactly what I needed!
August 5, 2025
such a fascinating postmodernist argument. wouldn't agree with the exact formulations specified here but yes, by and large hierarchy does lead to environmental decay. a must read for any budding anarchist/dem soc wary of the state and capital.
September 12, 2025
DNF
wtf is going on here? I approached this thinking it was about social ecology, and maybe even related to the Kurdish struggle in Rojava. I feel like I've just been told to check out this great band called The Beatles who do really catchy pop songs, and then stuck on Revolution 9
wtf is going on here? I approached this thinking it was about social ecology, and maybe even related to the Kurdish struggle in Rojava. I feel like I've just been told to check out this great band called The Beatles who do really catchy pop songs, and then stuck on Revolution 9
March 26, 2023
Approachable
February 13, 2024
Read all your classics before reading it (Hegel,Marx,Hobbes,etc). Good book if you love philosophy, not accessible for everyone.
March 27, 2024
An approachable and insightful guide to an ecological ethics and our relationship with the natural world
April 11, 2024
I've studied enough biology to understand how nonsensical his arguments are. This is a really really bad book. If you're looking for theory, look elsewhere.
Read
July 14, 2024Okay Mr Bookchin, do you want to say something or do you just want to use big words?
Interesting bits and pieces but I hate jargon and endlessly self referencing academic wankdom.
Interesting bits and pieces but I hate jargon and endlessly self referencing academic wankdom.
September 10, 2025
If you are trying to understand a series of events in human history; blink twice, snap your fingers and say “dialectical” three times and it will all become clear
October 11, 2025
worth a reread.
did-not-finish
November 30, 2025It’s problematic when scholars purposefully make themselves impossible to grasp.
April 16, 2025
Some of this admittedly went way over my head, and/or was just not accessible, I need more context for other swathes of it, but it was a stimulating read and I maybe I’ll revisit it (this time with a notebook and pen).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews