1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
|
<html>
<head>
<title>Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?</h1>
<p>
This section of the FAQ expands upon section D.4 (<a href="secD4.html">"What is the
relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis?"</a>) in
which we indicated that since capitalism is based upon the principle
of "grow or die," a "green" capitalism is impossible. By its very
nature capitalism must expand, creating new markets, increasing
production and consumption, and so invading more ecosystems, using
more resources, and upsetting the interrelations and delicate balances
that exist with ecosystems. We have decided to include a separate
section on this to stress how important green issues are to
anarchism and what a central place ecology has in modern anarchism.
</p><p>
Anarchists have been at the forefront of ecological thinking and
the green movement for decades. This is unsurprisingly, as many
key concepts of anarchism are also key concepts in ecological
thought. In addition, the ecological implications of many anarchist
ideas (such as decentralisation, integration of industry and
agriculture, and so forth) has meant that anarchists have quickly
recognised the importance of ecological movements and ideas.
</p><p>
Murray Bookchin in particular has placed anarchist ideas at the
centre of green debate as well as bringing out the links anarchism
has with ecological thinking. His eco-anarchism (which he called
<b>social ecology</b>) was based on emphasising the <b>social</b> nature
of the ecological problems we face. In such classic works as
<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, <b>Toward an Ecological Society</b> and
<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b> he has consistently argued that
humanity's domination of nature is the result of domination
<b>within</b> humanity itself.
</p><p>
However, anarchism has always had an ecological dimension. As
Peter Marshall notes in his extensive overview of ecological
thought, ecologists <i>"find in Proudhon two of their most cherished
social principles: federalism and decentralisation."</i> He <i>"stands
as an important forerunner of the modern ecological movement
for his stress on the close communion between humanity and
nature, for his belief in natural justice, for his doctrine of
federalism and for his insight that liberty is the mother and
not the daughter of order."</i> [<b>Nature's Web</b>, p. 307 and p. 308]
For Proudhon, a key problem was that people viewed the land
as <i>"something which enables them to levy a certain revenue
each year. Gone is the deep feeling for nature."</i> People <i>"no
longer love the soil. Landowners sell it, lease it, divide it
into shares, prostitute it, bargain with it and treat it as
an object of speculation. Farmers torture it, violate it, exhaust
it and sacrifice it to their impatient desire for gain. They
never become one with it."</i> We <i>"have lost our feeling for nature."</i>
[<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 261]
</p><p>
Other precursors of eco-anarchism can be found in Peter Kropotkin's
writings. For example, in his classic work <b>Fields, Factories
and Workshops</b>, Kropotkin argued the case for <i>"small is beautiful"</i>
70 years before E. F. Schumacher coined the phase, advocating <i>"a
harmonious balance between agriculture and industry. Instead of the
concentration of large factories in cities, he called for economic
as well as social decentralisation, believing that diversity is
the best way to organise production by mutual co-operation. He
favoured the scattering of industry throughout the country and the
integration of industry and agriculture at the local level."</i> His
vision of a decentralised commonwealth based on an integration of
agriculture and industry as well as manual and intellectual work has
obvious parallels with much modern green thought, as does his stress
on the need for <b>appropriate</b> levels of technology and his recognition
that the capitalist market distorts the development, size and operation
of technology and industry. Through his investigations in geography and
biology, Kropotkin discovered species to be interconnected with each
other and with their environment. <b>Mutual Aid</b> is the classic source
book on the survival value of co-operation within species which
Kropotkin regarded as an important factor of evolution, arguing that
those who claim competition within and between species is the chief
or only factor have distorted Darwin's work. All this ensures that
Kropotkin is <i>"a great inspiration to the modern ecological movement."</i>
[Marshall, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 311 and p. 312]
</p><p>
As well as Kropotkin's work, special note must be made of French
anarchist Elisee Reclus. As Clark and Martin note, Reclus introduced
<i>"a strongly ecological dimension into the tradition of anarchist and
libertarian social theory".</i> He made <i>"a powerful contribution to
introducing this more ecological perspective into anarchist thought,"</i>
of <i>"looking beyond the project of planetary domination and attempting
to restore humanity to its rightful place within, rather than above,
nature."</i> Reclus, <i>"much more than Kropotkin, introduced into anarchist
theory themes that were later developed in social ecology and
eco-anarchism."</i> [John P. Clark and Camille Martin (ed.), <b>Anarchy,
Geography, Modernity</b>, p. 19] For example, in 1866 Reclus argued as follows:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Wild nature is so beautiful. Is it really necessary for man, in seizing
it, to proceed with mathematical precision in exploiting each new conquered
domain and then mark his possession with vulgar constructions and perfectly
straight boundaries? If this continues to occur, the harmonious contrasts
that are one of the beauties of the earth will soon give way to depressing
uniformity . . .
</p><p>
"The question of knowing which of the works of man serves to beautify and
which contributes to the degradation of external nature can seem pointless
to so-called practical minds; nevertheless, it is a matter of the greatest
importance. Humanity's development is most intimately connected with the
nature that surrounds it. A secret harmony exists between the earth and the
peoples whom it nourishes, and when reckless societies allow themselves to
meddle with that which creates the beauty of their domain, they always
end up regretting it."</i> [quoted by Clark and Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 125-6]
</p><p></blockquote>
<i>"Man,"</i> Reclus says, can find beauty in <i>"the intimate and deeply seated
harmony of his work with that of nature."</i> Like the eco-anarchists a century
later, he stressed the social roots of our environmental problems arguing
that a <i>"complete union of Man with Nature can only be effected by the
destruction of the frontiers between castes as well as between peoples."</i>
He also indicated that the exploitation of nature is part and parcel of
capitalism, for <i>"it matters little to the industrialist . . . whether
he blackens the atmosphere with fumes . . . or contaminates it with
foul-smelling vapours."</i> <i>"Since nature is so often desecrated by
speculators precisely because of its beauty,"</i> Reclus argued, <i>"it
is not surprising that farmers and industrialists, in their own
exploitative endeavours, fail to consider whether they contribute
to defacing the land."</i> The capitalist is <i>"concerned not with
making his work harmonious with the landscape."</i> [quoted by Clark and
Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 28,
p. 30, p. 124 and p. 125] Few modern day eco-anarchists would
disagree.
</p><p>
So, while a specifically ecological anarchism did not develop until the
revolutionary work done by Murray Bookchin from the 1950's onwards,
anarchist theory has had a significant "proto-green" content since at
least the 1860s. What Bookchin and writers like him did was to make
anarchism's implicit ecological aspects explicit, a work which has
immensely enriched anarchist theory and practice.
</p><p>
In addition to pointing out the key role ecology plays within anarchism,
this section is required to refute some commonly proposed solutions to
the ecological problems we face. While it is wonderful that green ideas
have becoming increasingly commonplace, the sad fact is that many people
have jumped on the green bandwagon whose basic assumptions and practices
are deeply anti-ecological. Thus we find fascists expounding on their
environmental vision or defenders of capitalism proposing "ecological"
solutions based on expanding private property rights. Similarly, we find
the notion of green consumerism raised as viable means of greening the
planet (rather than as an addition to social struggle) or a focus on
symptoms (such as population growth) rather than root causes. This
section refutes many such flawed suggestions.
</p><p>
A key concept to remember in our discussion is that between environmentalism
and ecology. Following Bookchin, eco-anarchists contrast their ideas with
those who seek to reform capitalism and make it more green (a position they
term <i>"environmentalism"</i> rather than ecology). The latter <i>"focus on specific
issues like air and water pollution"</i> while ignoring the social roots of the
problems they are trying to solve. In other words, their outlook <i>"rest[s] on
an instrumental, almost engineering approach to solving ecological dislocations.
To all appearances, they wanted to adapt the natural world to the needs of the
existing society and its exploitative, capitalist imperatives by way of reforms
that minimise harm to human health and well-being. The much-needed goals of
formulating a project for radical social change and for cultivating a new
sensibility toward the natural world tended to fall outside the orbit of
their practical concerns."</i> Eco-anarchists, while supporting such partial
struggles, stress that <i>"these problems originate in a hierarchical, class,
and today, competitive capitalist system that nourishes a view of the
natural world as a mere agglomeration of 'resources' for human production
and consumption."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, pp. 15-6] This means that while
some kind of environmentalism may be possible under capitalism or some other
authoritarian system, an ecological approach is impossible. Simply put, the
concerns of ecology cannot be squeezed into a hierarchical perspective or
private property. Just as an eco-system cannot be commanded, divided and
enclosed, nor can a truly ecological vision. Attempts to do so will
impoverish both.
</p><p>
As we discuss in the <a href="secE1.html">next section</a>, for anarchists the root cause of
our ecological problems is hierarchy in society compounded by a capitalist
economy. For anarchists, the notion of an ecological capitalism is, literally,
impossible. Libertarian socialist Takis Fotopoulous has argued that the main
reason why the project of "greening" capitalism is just a utopian dream
<i>"lies in a fundamental contradiction that exists between the logic and
dynamic of the growth economy, on the one hand, and the attempt to condition
this dynamic with qualitative interests"</i> on the other. [<i>"Development or
Democracy?"</i>, pp. 57-92, <b>Society and Nature</b>, No. 7, p. 82] Green issues,
like social ones, are inherently qualitative in nature and, as such, it
is unsurprising that a system based on profit would ignore them.
</p><p>
Under capitalism, ethics, nature and humanity all have a price tag. And
that price tag is god. This is understandable as every hierarchical social
system requires a belief-system. Under feudalism, the belief-system came
from the Church, whereas under capitalism, it pretends to come from science,
whose biased practitioners (usually funded by the state and capital) are
the new priesthood. Like the old priesthoods, only those members who
produce "objective research" become famous and influential -- "objective
research" being that which accepts the status quo as "natural" and produces
what the elite want to hear (i.e. apologetics for capitalism and elite
rule will always be praised as "objective" and "scientific" regardless of
its actual scientific and factual content, the infamous "bell curve" and
Malthus's "Law of Population" being classic examples). More importantly,
capitalism needs science to be able to measure and quantify everything
in order to sell it. This mathematical faith is reflected in its politics
and economics, where quantity is more important than quality, where 5
votes are better than 2 votes, where $5 is better than $2. And like all
religions, capitalism needs sacrifice. In the name of "free enterprise,"
"economic efficiency," "stability" and "growth" it sacrifices individuality,
freedom, humanity, and nature for the power and profits of the few.
</p><p>
Understanding the social roots of the problems we face is the key. Many
greens attack what they consider the "wrong ideas" of modern society,
its "materialistic values" and counter-pose <b>new</b> ideas, more in tune
with a green society. This approach, however, misses the point. Ideas
and values do not "just happen", but are the <b>product</b> of a given set
of social relationships and the struggles they produce. This means that
it is not just a matter of changing our values in a way that places
humanity in harmony with nature (important though that is), but also
of understanding the <b>social</b> and <b>structural</b> origins of the ecological
crisis. Ideas and values <b>do</b> need to be challenged, but unless the
authoritarian social relationships, hierarchy and inequalities in power
(i.e. what produces these values and ideas) are also challenged and, more
importantly, <b>changed</b> an ecological society is impossible. So unless
other Greens recognise that this crisis did not develop in a social vacuum
and is not the "fault" of people as <b>people</b> (as opposed to people in a
hierarchical society), little can be done root out the systemic causes
of the problems that we and the planet face.
</p><p>
Besides its alliance with the ecology movement, eco-anarchism also finds
allies in the feminist and peace movements, which it regards, like the
ecology movement, as implying the need for anarchist principles. Thus
eco-anarchists think that global competition between nation-states is
responsible not only for the devouring of nature but is also the primary
cause of international military tensions, as nations seek to dominate each
other by military force or the threat thereof. As international
competition becomes more intense and weapons of mass destruction spread,
the seeds are being sown for catastrophic global warfare involving
nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons. Because such warfare would
be the ultimate ecological disaster, eco-anarchism and the peace movement
are but two aspects of the same basic project. Similarly, eco-anarchists
recognise that domination of nature and male domination of women have
historically gone hand in hand, so that eco-feminism is yet another aspect
of eco-anarchism. Since feminism, ecology, and peace are key issues
of the Green movement, anarchists believe that many Greens are implicitly
committed to anarchism, whether they realise it or not, and hence that
they should adopt anarchist principles of direct action rather than
getting bogged down in trying to elect people to state offices.
</p><p>
Here we discuss some of the main themes of eco-anarchism and consider a
few suggestions by non-anarchists about how to protect the environment.
In <a href="secE1.html">section E.1</a>, we summarise why anarchists consider why a green society
cannot be a capitalist one (and vice versa). <a href="secE2.html">Section E.2</a>
presents a short
overview of what an ecological society would be like.
<a href="secE3.html">Section E.3</a> refutes
the false capitalist claim that the answer to the ecological
crisis is to privatise everything while <a href="secE4.html">section E.4</a>
discusses why capitalism
is anti-ecological and its defenders, invariably, anti-green. Then
we indicate why green consumerism is doomed to failure
in <a href="secE5.html">section E.5</a>
before, in <a href="secE6.html">section E.6</a>,
refuting the myth that population growth is a
<b>cause</b> of ecological problems rather than the <b>effect</b> of deeper issues.
</p><p>
Obviously, these are hardly the end of the matter. Some tactics popular
in the green movement are shared by others and we discuss these elsewhere.
For example, the issue of electing Green Parties to power will be addressed
in section J.2.4 (<a href="secJ2.html#secj24">"Surely voting for radical
parties will be effective?"</a>)
and so will be ignored here. The question of "single-issue" campaigns
(like C.N.D. and Friends of the Earth) will be discussed in
<a href="secJ1.html#secj14">section J.1.4</a>.
Remember that eco-anarchists, like all anarchists, take a keen interest
in many other issues and struggles and just because we do not discuss
something here does not mean we are indifferent to it.
</p><p>
For anarchists, unless we resolve the underlying contradictions within
society, which stem from domination, hierarchy and a capitalist economy,
ecological disruption will continue and grow, putting our Earth in
increasing danger. We need to resist the system and create new values
based on quality, not quantity. We must return the human factor to our
alienated society before we alienate ourselves completely off the planet.
</p><p>
Peter Marshall's <b>Nature's Web</b> presents a good overview of all aspects
of green thought over human history from a libertarian perspective, including
excellent summaries of such anarchists as Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bookchin
(as well as libertarian socialist William Morris and his ecologically balanced
utopia <b>News from Nowhere</b>).</p>
</body>
</html>
|
