Written by Wayne Price and first published at
Anarkismo.net
The Re-Development of Anarchism in the Ecology/Climate
Justice Movement
Theorists of the climate-justice movement have been raising
decentralist ideas as part of their programs for an ecologically-balanced
society. This ecological program means more local democracy, workers’
management of industry, consumer coops, and federations of radically-democratic
institutions. Such ideas revive the decentralist ideas of anarchism.
From conservatives and liberals to Marxists, there is faith
in big machines, big industries, big corporations, big cities, big countries,
big buildings, and big government—a belief in the necessity of centralized,
bureaucratic, top-down, socially-alienated, institutions. This is not to say
that most people like giant cities, big business, or big government; but they
do not see any alternative.
Instead, anarchists
have advocated localism, face-to-face direct democracy, self-governing
agricultural-industrial communes, workers’ self-management of industry,
consumer cooperatives, appropriate technology, and federations and networks of
such radically-democratic institutions. Many people reject anarchism because
they believe such decentralism to be unrealistic.
However, in our time
there is a new development: writers and theorists of the
ecology/environmental/climate-justice movement have been raising decentralist
concepts as part of their programs. They include moderate liberals, radical
ecologists, and even Marxists. Mostly they have no idea that they are
redeveloping anarchism. I will examine this phenomenon.
Anarchist Decentralism
Of a cooperative, socialist (or communist), society, the
anarchist Peter Kropotkin wrote in 1905, “True progress lies in the direction
of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the
spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple
to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the center to the periphery.”
(Kropotkin 2002; 286)
Paul Goodman put it
this way: “Decentralization is not lack of order or planning, but a kind of
coordination that relies on different motives from top-down direction….It is
not ‘anarchy.’ [Meaning: it is not ‘chaos.’—WP]…Most anarchists, like the
anarcho-syndicalists or the community-anarchists, have not been ‘anarchists’
either, but decentralists.” (Goodman 1965; 6)
Capitalism by its
nature is centralized. A tiny minority of the population dominates the whole
society and all its institutions. The production system is one of exploitation;
the minority of owners, and their managers, make all decisions, while the
workers follow orders. The workers produce society’s wealth but receive only a
fraction of it in payment, because the capitalists own the means of production
(capital).
Under the pressure of
competition, capitalist enterprises grow ever larger. They are under the
imperative to grow or die. The economy becomes dominated by semi-monopolies,
which now span the world market. The giant corporations justify themselves by
claiming to be more efficient in producing and distributing commodities.
Sometimes this is true, but often it is not. Capitalism is motivated to produce
greater profit (surplus value), not more useful goods (use value). Often the
corporations grow for financial reasons which have nothing to do with
productive efficiency. They may grow in order to better control the work force
or for increased access to markets. Both to serve them and to control them (in
the overall interests of the capitalist class), giant corporations require
giant bureaucratic-military states.
Revolutionary
anarchist-socialists seek to abolish all rule by minorities, all exploitation,
and all forms of oppression. They want a classless, oppressionless, society of
participatory democracy. They want everyone to be involved in managing their
own society, politically, economically, and culturally, at every level and in
every way. This requires that institutions, at the daily, lived, level, be
small enough for working people to understand and control them. It requires
that small groups meet face-to-face to discuss and decide how they will deal
with most issues—in the workplace or the neighborhood. It requires
directly-democratic assemblies, in the work shop and the community. There
ordinary people will decide on overall concerns, and—where necessary—elect
people to do specialized tasks or to go to meetings with elected people from
other assemblies (elected officials being subject to immediate recall, rotation
in office, and the same standard of living as everyone else). Radical democracy
requires reorganizing our cities, our industries, and our technology, to create
a world without order-givers and order-takers.
Anarchists recognize
the need for a certain amount of centralization and big institutions. They
believe that self-managing industries and communities should be embedded within
regional, national, and international federations—associations of associations.
Such bottom-up federations can coordinate exchanges of goods and can make
decisions on world-wide concerns. But no matter how large they grow, they are
still rooted in the face-to-face self-government of people’s daily lives. (This
is different from today where people vote every few years for someone to go far
away to “be political” for them—and then the voters return to their daily lives
of taking orders from their bosses.)
When everyone
participates in governing, then there is no “government” (no
bureaucratic-military state organization separate from and above the rest of
society). There is just the self-organization of the people—of the (formerly)
working class and oppressed people.
The anarchist rule
is: As much decentralization as is practically possible; and only as much
centralization as is necessary. “We are in a period of excessive
centralization….In many functions this style is economically inefficient,
technologically unnecessary, and humanly damaging. Therefore we might adopt a
political maxim: to decentralize where, how, and how much [as] is expedient.
But where, how, and how much are empirical questions.” (Goodman 1965; 27)
Anarchists claim that
productive technology could be used decentrally to create a society with
sufficient goods for everyone and plenty of leisure for all. There is a great
deal of evidence that technology can be modified and re-created to be
consistent with a creative, self-managing, and decentralized socialist
economy.—which does not deny that there would still be some large machines and
factories, as well as networks of smaller devices—such as the Internet. (For
decentralizing technology, see Carson 2010; McRobie 1981; Sclove1995.)
Other Decentralists
There have also been non-anarchist and non-socialist
decentralists, such as Catholic distributivists, students of Ralph Borsodi,
cooperators, New Age theorists, “small-is-beautiful” technologists, and others.
(See Loomis 1982.) Some were inspired by the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.
Impressed by the New England town meetings, he wanted to promote a federation
of local community “wards.”
“Where every man is a
sharer in the direction of his ward-republic…and feels that he is a
participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in
the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will
not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the
heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a
Caesar or a Bonaparte.” (Jefferson 1957; 54)
Unfortunately, the
concept of decentralized democracy has been abandoned by modern day liberals
(John Dewey was one exception). Instead, the language of “state’s rights,”
“federalism,” and “small government” have been monopolized by the right. They
use it to justify oppression of People of Color, opposition to regulation of
big business, and the cutting of government support for the working class and
the environment. Meanwhile these supposed advocates of “small government”
advocate expansion of the military, more power to the police, and laws limiting
women’s reproductive rights. It is difficult for modern liberals to counter
these false claims due to liberal statism and centralism.
In this period, there
has been an explosion of advocacy of worker-managed enterprises (producers’
cooperatives). This has been promoted by a range of theorists, from liberals to
revolutionary Marxists. It has been experimented with—largely successfully.
(For the discussions about worker-managed enterprises, see Price 2014.)
There were
decentralist elements in Marxism (the Marxism of Marx and Engels, anyway).
Mostly these reflected the influence of pre-Marxist “utopian” socialists. These
elements included positive comments about worker-run cooperatives; discussion
of the radical democracy of the 1871 Paris Commune; prediction of the end,
under communism, of the division between town and country—industry and
agriculture—due to the widespread distribution of towns; and prediction of the
end of the division between mental and manual labor (order giving and order
carrying out). (See Engels 1954; Marx & Engels 1971.) However, such
elements of decentralization were buried in other aspects of Marx’s program,
such as advocating a new state which would nationalize and centralize all
industry. Utopian, decentralist, aspects dropped out of post-Marx Marxism.
Decentralism in Current Ecological Politics
Bill McKibben has long been a leader of the climate justice
movement. Politically he is a left-liberal, an endorser of Sanders for
President. One of his books (2007) is subtitled, “The Wealth of Communities and
the Durable Future.” He reviews the dangers of “nitrogen runoff, mercury
contamination, rainforest destruction, species extinction, water shortage…[and]
the overarching one: climate change.” (19) His main solution to these (and
other) ills is decentralization: “more local economies, shorter supply lines,
and reduced growth.” (180) “…Development…should look to the local far more than
to the global. It should concentrate on creating and sustaining strong
communities….” (197) “…The increased sense of community and heightened skill at
democratic decision-making that a more local economy implies will not simply
increase our levels of satisfaction with our lives, but will also increase our
chances of survival….” (231)
A more extreme
ecological perspective is raised by James H. Kunstler (2006)—although the author
describes.himself as “a registered Democrat.” (324) In “The Long Emergency,” he
advances evidence that our society will run out of fossil-fuel—although not
necessarily in time to avoid climate change. (He would regard the current oil
glut as temporary.) “…There will still be plenty of oil left in the ground…but
it will be…deeper down, harder and costlier to extract, sitting under harsh and
remote parts of the world…[and] contested by everyone.” (65) This will end
globalized industrialism as we know it.
To cope with this
change ”…. Life…will become increasingly and intensely local and smaller in
scale… All human enterprises will contract with the energy supply.” (238-9) “We
will have to reestablish those local webs of economic relations and occupations
that existed all over America until the last several decades of the both
century, meaning local and regional distribution networks….” (259)
One of the most
influential texts on global warming is Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything.”
She declares, “There is a clear and essential role for national plans and
policies….But…the actual implementation of a great many of these plans [should]
be as decentralized as possible. Communities should be given new tools and
powers….Worker-run co-ops have the capacity to play a huge role in an
industrial transformation…. Neighborhoods [should be] planned democratically by
their residents….Farming…can also become an expanded sector of decentralized
self-sufficiency and poverty reduction.” (Klein, 2014; 133-134)
To refer to another
authority: Pope Francis, in his 2015 “Encyclical on Climate Change and
Inequality,” cites “the principle of subsidiarity.” (120) That is the principle
that social functions should be as decentralized and localized as much as is
realistically possible. “Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt
clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated
production.” (79-80) “In some places, cooperatives are being developed to
exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency….”
(109) “New forms of cooperation and community organization can be encouraged in
order to defend the interests of small producers and preserve local ecosystems
from destruction.” (111)
Writers for the
Marxist journal Monthly Review have argued that only an international socialist
revolution will make it possible to prevent climate catastrophe. This much
anarchists can agree with, but the Monthly Review’s trend has historically
identified “socialism” with centralized Stalinism. Over the years, its editors
and writers have supported Stalin’s Soviet Union, Maoist China, and (still)
Castroite Cuba.
However, one of their
main writers is Fred Magdoff (a professor of plant and soil science). He wrote
a visionary essay presenting “An Ecologically Sound and Socially Just Economy.”
“Each community and region should strive, within reason, to be as
self-sufficient as possible with respect to basic needs such as water, energy,
food, and housing. This is not a call for absolute self-sufficiency but rather
for an attempt to…lessen the need for long distance transport….Energy…[should
be] used near where it was produced….Ecologically sound and productive
agriculture…will take more people working smaller farms…to produce high yields
per hectare….People will be encouraged to live near where they work….”
(Magdoff, 2014; 30—31) Also, “Workplaces (including farms) will be controlled
and managed by the workers and communities in which they are based.” (29)
Why Decentralism?
I could cite many more ecologically-minded activists and
scholars. These theorists are not anarchists and (except for Magdoff) not
socialists or revolutionaries. They come out of traditions of liberalism and/or
Marxism which have historically been centralistic and statist. In the past, a
frequent response to environmental and ecological problems was to advocate
economic planning and state intervention. (Nor would anarchists deny the need
for some degree of federalized economic coordination—but not by these
bureaucratic-military-capitalist national states!) Yet here they are arguing
for increased decentralization, localism, direct democracy, and worker
management of industry! Without knowing it apparently, they are recreating
anarchism (or aspects of anarchism) for ecological reasons. (For more on
ecology and anarchism see Bookchin, 1980; Purchase 1994.)
These are
ecological-environmental reasons for decentralism. If we are to cut back on
energy consumption (and end carbon-based fuel use altogether), we need to
decrease transpiration and travel. That in itself speaks to the need for local
industry, consumption near production, and workplaces near housing—not
necessarily in the immediate community, but at least in the region. Renewable
energy sources tend to come in small packets, when using wind, solar power,
geothermal, and water.
Therefore small and local production and consumption
makes sense, as opposed to giant factories and mega-cities. The same is true
when using natural resources with the least side effects of destruction or
pollution, so these effects may be easily cleaned up. Democratic economic
planning is also easier to do on a local or regional level, if we want
widespread participation. At the same time, the Internet and other media make
coordination-from-below among vast regions easier than ever before.
However, there is
another reason for the spread of decentralist ideas (that is, essentially
anarchism). The radical alternative to our capitalist society used to be
Marxism. But Marxism has been discredited in the eyes of many people, with the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the transformation of Maoist China. All of the
quoted writers, except Magdoff, reject “socialism.” They identify it with
government-owned, centralized, and top-down planned economies. (Historically,
Magdoff’s co-thinkers have also identified “socialism” in this way—except that
they were for it.) Yet today, the idea that we could solve fundamental problems
by increased state action, centralization of industry, and totalitarian
politics, does not appeal. But capitalism is barreling down the highway to its
own destruction, and the destruction of humanity and the living world. So
people are looking for a different approach.
Ecosocialism: Decentralism is Not Enough
But decentralization is not enough. All the theorists quoted
above—with the exception of the Marxist Magdoff—are still essentially for
capitalism. They want worker-managed enterprises and consumer cooperatives—to
compete on a market with each other and with capitalist corporations. These
corporations would still exist, even if with more rights for workers and
consumers, smaller size, and more regulation by the government—but still
functioning on the competitive market.
In contrast,
anarchist-socialists oppose profit-making firms and corporations and the
market. They are eco-socialists. They advocate that self-managed, cooperative,
enterprises network and federate with each other, to create a democratically
planned economy from below.
The market is not a
democratic people-managed economy. It runs according to its own spontaneous
laws, which it imposes on enterprises though competition. To repeat: it drives
the economy toward accumulation, increasing growth, greater profits, and
continual quantitative expansion. Its law is grow-or-die.
This has at least
three important effects. For one, an economy built on continuous growth must be
in conflict with natural ecologies which require harmonious balance and dynamic
stability. Capitalism treats nature as an endless mine, with natural resources
as apparently free gifts. This is true whether the competitive enterprises are
big or small.
A second effect is
the inevitable tendency of smaller enterprises to grow into bigger ones. The
drive to accumulate more than its competitors pushes each firm to grow as big
as it can. So even if capitalism (or any other imagined competitive economy)
were to magically be returned to its original state of small firms, it would
once again grow into gigantic semi-monopolies.
Third, through its
drive to accumulate, capitalism produces a work force which must be exploited.
If the working class got back all that it produced, then there would be no
capitalist accumulation. Market-driven accumulation contradicts any goal of
worker industrial democracy.
However, the existing
system of global semi-monopoly capitalism has created a larger international
working class than ever before in history. (The relative “de-industrialization”
of the U.S. goes together with “outsourcing,” which creates more industrial
workers elsewhere.) Unfortunately, none of the authors cited above refer to the
importance and potential power of that international working class. With its
hands on the means of production and distribution and communication, the working
class is a force which could end capitalism’s drive to ecological disaster.
(Even Magdoff and his co-thinkers at Monthly Review are uncertain about the
role of the working class.)
In short, capitalism
should be replaced by a society which is decentralized but also cooperative,
producing for use rather than profit, democratically self-managed in the
workplace and the community, and federated together from the local level to
national and international levels. This is ecosocialism in the form of ecoanarchism.
References
Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society.
Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.
Carson, Kevin A.
(2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution; A Low-Overhead Manifesto.
Booksurge.
Engels, Federick
(1954). Anti-Duhring: Herr Eugen Duhring’s Revolution in Science. Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House.
(Pope) Francis
(2015). Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality; On Care for Our Common
Home. Brooklyn/London: Melville House.
Goodman, Paul (1965).
People or Personnel; Decentralizing and the Mixed System. NY: Random House.
Jefferson, Thomas
(1954). The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson (ed.: John Dewey). NY:
Fawcett/Premier Books.
Kropotkin, Peter
(2002). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (ed.: Roger Baldwin).
Mineola NY: Dover.
Kunstler, James H.
(2006). The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other
Coverging Catastrophes of the 21st Century.
NY: Grove Press.
Loomis, Mildred
(1982). Alternate Americas. NY: Universe Books/Free Life Editions.
McKibben, Bill
(2007). Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. NY:
Henry Holt/Times Books.
McRobie, George
(1981). Small is Possible. NY: Harper & Row.
Magdoff, Fred (Sept.
2014). “Building an Ecologically Sound and Socially Just Society.” Monthly
Review (v. 66; no. 4). Pp. 23—34.
Marx, Karl, &
Engels, Frederick (1971). On the Paris Commune. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Price, Wayne (April
2014). “Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises.” Anarkismo.
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/26931?search_text=wayn...price
Purchase, Graham
(1994). Anarchism and Environmental Survival. Tucson AZ: See Sharp Press.
Sclove, Richard E., (1995). Democracy and Technology.
NY/London: Guilford Press.
