6 ms·

The Ecology of Freedom (1982)

68 points by greenie_beans 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago
> My use of the word hierarchy in the subtitle of this work is meant to be provocative. There is a strong theoretical need to contrast hierarchy with the more widespread use of the words class and State; careless use of these terms can produce a dangerous simplification of social reality. To use the words hierarchy, class, and State interchangeably, as many social theorists do, is insidious and obscurantist. This practice, in the name of a "classless" or "libertarian" society, could easily conceal the existence of hierarchical relationships and a hierarchical sensibility, both of which — even in the absence of economic exploitation or political coercion — would serve to perpetuate unfreedom. > By hierarchy, I mean the cultural, traditional and psychological systems of obedience and command, not merely the economic and political systems to which the terms class and State most appropriately refer. Accordingly, hierarchy and domination could easily continue to exist in a "classless" or "Stateless" society. I refer to the domination of the young by the old, of women by men, of one ethnic group by another, of "masses" by bureaucrats who profess to speak in their "higher social interests," of countryside by town, and in a more subtle psychological sense, of body by mind, of spirit by a shallow instrumental rationality, and of nature by society and technology. Indeed, classless but hierarchical societies exist today (and they existed more covertly in the past); yet the people who live in them neither enjoy freedom, nor do they exercise control over their lives. No one's going to have time to read this whole thing to comment here, but I skimmed some of it and I get the impression that this guy wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." That kind of thing strikes me as one of those perhaps philosophically satisfying but completely impractical ideas. I really doubt humans were built to implement such a radical vision (maybe something very far in that direction is possible, but not so complete as implied here).
- int_19h 5y ago
  I would suggest looking more into it, then, because what Bookchin actually proposed in the end - what he called "libertarian municipalism" - is not "completely impractical", and nowhere as radical as what most anarchists propose. As far as practicality goes, well... the political system in AANES (Autonomous Administration of North-East Syria, aka Rojava) is organized largely along the same lines, except that they call it "democratic federalism" - and it seems to be working pretty well so far, 10+ years in. For another, even longer-running example, look at the Zapatista autonomous regions in Mexico, and some municipalities that went down the same route afterwards (e.g. Cheran).
  - igorkraw 5y ago
    I always wonder about those communities though, AANES seems to (looking in from the outside) rely heavily on ethnocentric and cult of personality (Occallan) dynamics, as well as the unifying pressure of Daesh/Turkey? And the Zapatista regions had the same things with the Subcommandante (although they seem to have avoided a full on cult of personality with him stepping out of the limelight now) and seem to rely on the unifying threat of Mexico/Narcos? Or am I missinformed (and if yes, where can I get reliable information about this)?
    - int_19h 5y ago
      This is their current social contract (i.e. constitution) - it might help answer some questions: https://pdfhost.io/v/Hrr2IgtuS_SocialContractoftheDemocraticFederationofNorthernSyria.pdf https://pdfhost.io/v/Hrr2IgtuS_SocialContractoftheDemocratic... (Note that this is the 2016 edition, which replaced an earlier one from 2014, and is itself in the process of getting updated at the moment. They seem to subscribe to the notion that such things are supposed to be living documents.) AANES is not majority Kurdish at this point, and several cantons are politically Arab-dominated. They did have some tensions in areas that they took over from Daesh, specifically with the more conservative rural Arab populations there pushing back against the feminist agenda that PYD brings; those are often perceived as being along ethnic lines from the outside, but I think it would be more accurate to call it an ideological dispute that happens to align with cultural (and hence ethnic) boundaries. In some cases they actually had to dial things back to reach compromise; for example, the 2014 social contract stipulated that elected assemblies must have no less than 40% members representing each gender (defined as male or female; there's little trans awareness there). The new Arab cantons basically had a hard time even finding enough women candidates willing to run to fulfill that quota, so it was dropped in the 2016 contract. But they still kept the co-executive system with the informal expectation of at least one of those going to a woman. For another example, the very name AANES (and before it DFNS) was a compromise to avoid "Rojava" - the latter literally means "West" in Kurdish, as in Western Kurdistan, and thus has some Kurdish nationalist implications that other ethnicities weren't happy about. PYD is also explicitly in opposition to KNC (in Syria) and KDP (in Iraq), and other nationalist Kurdish groups who explicitly seek an independent ethnically Kurdish sovereign nation-state. There was some collaboration between them early on in the civil war, when the focus was on resisting the Syrian government; but once it withdrew its forces from the region, the ideological differences were in full force again, to the point where there were some skirmishes between the PYD-affiliated YPG and the KDP-affiliated Peshmerga. As far as Ocalan's cult of personality - it's definitely there, and it bothers me as well, but it seems to be the case of the guy who originally built it around himself now genuinely trying to promote democracy and anti-authoritarianism by capitalizing on his ability to deliver propaganda that will definitely be listened to. I doubt they'd have as much success with the whole women liberation angle, given how conservative the society is overall, if it wasn't Ocalan endorsing it. Still, the cult remains a very dangerous thing, and it is perhaps for the best that Ocalan is still in prison and thus can't fully tap into its power. Another interesting thing is that at least the outward symbols of said cult seem to be negotiable. In particular, there were several cases where YPG splattered Ocalan posters in Arab settlements where the locals pushed back against them, seeing them as a symbol of Kurdish nationalism; the posters were then promptly taken down. Of course, it doesn't mean that the sentiment behind them is gone, but still...
- aradox66 5y ago
  That's pretty much the central principle of anarchism (the political philosophy and practice, not the colloquial slur). Dismissing it as "impractical" is a bit premature - it's a concept well grounded in ethnological examples, and there have been plenty of very cool modern social experiments. In any case, it's conceptually useful to orient vis a vis hierarchy in this more general way, even if the "full realization" is difficult to imagine achieving.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > That's pretty much the central principle of anarchism (the political philosophy and practice, not the colloquial slur). Dismissing it as "impractical" is a bit premature - it's a concept well grounded in ethnological examples, and there have been plenty of very cool modern social experiments. Would those examples entail a large reduction in social/technological complexity? The world has billions more people than would allow a return to hunter-gatherer or small-scale agriculture type societies. Also I don't think something being a "central principle" of a political philosophy necessarily means it shouldn't be dismissed. I read some article about anarcho-capitalism once, and the whole thing struck me as something that may be conceivable or even realizable in principle, like Oganesson [1], bit simultaneously so impractically unstable that it might as well be treated as impossible. > In any case, it's conceptually useful to orient vis a vis hierarchy in this more general way, even if the "full realization" is difficult to imagine achieving. Yeah, it makes more sense to me to use it as a yardstick than as a map to someplace you can actually go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson
    - Avshalom 5y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism as a phrase was basically Rothbard trolling. What ever merits it may have, it shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of anarchist philosophy. (also to be clear I think ancap has approximately zero merit)
      - imtringued 5y ago
        Anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron because capitalism is heavily based around centralization and inevitably leads to monopolies. Corporations are less democratic than the government and the competition argument doesn't work for monopolies.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  Smallpox was a god of death which one could hope to avoid and defend against, but never kill, from at least 300 BCE until 1958. Humanity finished the job in 1977 (for now). While there are many things to criticize about anarchist thought and practice, one thing I hope will never stop and we should not dismiss as "utopian" is the sheer gumption to question one of the fundamental assumption in almost all political ideologies - that someone must be in charge - and then seriously consider the implications of trying to structure a society not only without coercion, but also with positive freedoms. I.e. , at it's best, anarchist thought tries to find ways of ensuring welfare and ensuring that the "private charity and philanthropy" often cited as the solution to poverty will manifest as a feature of the system, without needing to rely on (soft) coercion, scarcity and centralization, to the point of considering ways on how to structure meetings so that the shy and slow will also be allowed to contribute their perspective and thoughts against the brash and bold. While I might not agree 100% politically, I think we should point to (and if so inclined, work on) specific problems we find in the arguments/implementation and not shy away from the ambition itself.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I think your first paragraph is a bad analogy. Because we did it in medicine doesn't say we can also do it in politics. Politics is a lot harder.
    - igorkraw 5y ago
      The point to take from it is (in my opinion) that our grasp might exceed our reach if we do not shy away tackling big projects at on some level. There is a fine line between this and "just believe and it will become true" bruhaha, but I agree with Hans Rosling on his idea of "possibilism" http://thirdways.net/factfulness-possibilists-book/ http://thirdways.net/factfulness-possibilists-book/ vs pessimism and optimism. If the only criticism people can muster is "seems a bit much", then they didn't really engage with it. You can make an argument that hierarchies seem "natural", but "naturally" I and many others should be dead (childhood diseases), basically blind (very near sighted), multiple times a father already (nearing my 30s and sexually active) so even that is not really a strong rebuttal of the anarchist project. I think it might exist, but it warrants proper ponderance (at least when discussing deep thinkers like Bookchin), not dismissal.
- _jal 5y ago
  > wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." You've come up with a workable alternate definition of anarchism.
  - waingake 5y ago
    All power must be justified.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      By that standard, "justified" power is ubiquitous. So anarchism practically devolves into bog-standard libertarian minarchism.
      - igorkraw 5y ago
        Well, yes. If you properly implement it, most utopias will look similar. Where most anarchists diverge from libertarians, minarchists or "anarcho-capitalists" (even though people might criticize me for the scare quotes) is that they go further in their demands on what counts as "justification" and place a higher focus on positive freedoms. And this is where it gets tricky and there is need for further insight, experimentation with organisation, cultural development...
        zozbot234 5y ago
        For the record, I meant to regard 'left-libertarianism' in the modern sense (which is practically libertarianism plus social insurance) as basically compatible with minarchism, in a broad sense. And ISTM that most demands for "positive freedom" are ultimately about social insurance.
        igorkraw 5y ago
        Ah, okay, the probably yes. But it's still natural, since one influenced the other heavily. Also, Social insurance, but also affirmative action and regulation of common goods, although none of these need to be state driven. One of the neat details that I think is underappreciated and underexplored about Germanies (my native country) public health care system is that it is public and democratic but not state, it functions more like a specially regulated cooperative system, which tends to work quite efficiently. So there is design space for a minimal "state" (which in anarchist circles would be expected to be much more decentralised and democratically run anyway) while still fulfilling a lot of services by "the public"
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > No one's going to have time to read this whole thing to comment here, but I skimmed some of it and I get the impression that this guy wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." Ronald Coase has examined this idea and clarified why it does not work. Voluntary hierarchies exist, and we put up with them because a hierarchy-based organization - for all its well-known drawbacks - can oftentimes be more effective than completely free association.
  - greenie_beans 5y ago
    Bookchin’s definition of freedom != whatever most people associate with anarchism. Bookchin advocates for direct democracy for decision making.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      The problem is that hierarchy-based decision making is also significantly more effective than the usual implementations of direct democracy, even on the "confederate" basis Bookchin advocates for. At best, we might consider delegative democracy with "liquid" recall, which effectively merges elements of both direct and representative democracy. Perhaps it could be enhanced by sortition, i.e. actual direct democracy among a randomly-chosen sample of the population, and forms of voluntary deliberation such as prediction/betting markets.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Authoritarian decision making can be argued to be significantly more effective than democratic one in general. The question is whether that efficiency is worth it.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        That's of course possible, but not really the common case.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
woah 5y ago
The author makes a lot of claims such as > Until this phase of history or prehistory, the elders and males rarely exercised socially dominant roles because their civil sphere was simply not very important to the community. Indeed, the civil sphere was markedly counterbalanced by the enormous significance of the woman's "domestic" sphere. Household and childbearing responsibilities were much more important in early organic societies than politics and military affairs. Early society was profoundly different from contemporary society in its structural arrangements and the roles played by different members of the community. Are these based on any kind of archeological evidence?
- kiliantics 5y ago
  From my lay understanding of anthropology, having read stuff by people like David Graeber, it does seem pretty well established that pre-agrarian societies were mostly organised non-hierarchically, or at least with very limited social stratification.
  - nwah1 5y ago
    My understanding is that it varied based on the level of local resource scarcity.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      I'm assuming that local resource scarcity leads to more social hierarchies to manage and politic over the scarce resources, while those with abundant resources tend to not have significant social stratification because there's less incentive towards infighting. Seems like all societies would eventually devolve towards resource scarcity, since abundance will almost always lead to over population.
      - nine_k 5y ago
        Since humans have invented simple and painless birth control, this is no longer the case. Birth rates are falling across the world (including poor traditional societies), and are below replacement in many countries, basically in 100% of the Western civilization.
jnmandal 5y ago
Another great work of Murray Bookchin's -- which may be more topical here -- is an essay called "Towards a Liberatory Technology". I believe much of the ideas overlap with this writing but that essay is a shorter version just on technology. I believe it was later combined into a book called Post-Scarcity Anarchism
- rektide 5y ago
  only thing i'm finding with that name is a section in "Wikipedia and Education", a 2011 text from Petar Jandric. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petar-jandric-wikipedia-and-education#toc5 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petar-jandric-wikipe...
  - ntoll 5y ago
    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-bookchin-towards-a-liberatory-technology https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-... (Lewis Herber is pseudonym of Murray Bookchin)
    - jnmandal 5y ago
      Ah yes, thanks for linking. I should have done that myself.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

68 points by greenie_beans 5y ago

> My use of the word hierarchy in the subtitle of this work is meant to be provocative. There is a strong theoretical need to contrast hierarchy with the more widespread use of the words class and State; careless use of these terms can produce a dangerous simplification of social reality. To use the words hierarchy, class, and State interchangeably, as many social theorists do, is insidious and obscurantist. This practice, in the name of a "classless" or "libertarian" society, could easily conceal the existence of hierarchical relationships and a hierarchical sensibility, both of which — even in the absence of economic exploitation or political coercion — would serve to perpetuate unfreedom. > By hierarchy, I mean the cultural, traditional and psychological systems of obedience and command, not merely the economic and political systems to which the terms class and State most appropriately refer. Accordingly, hierarchy and domination could easily continue to exist in a "classless" or "Stateless" society. I refer to the domination of the young by the old, of women by men, of one ethnic group by another, of "masses" by bureaucrats who profess to speak in their "higher social interests," of countryside by town, and in a more subtle psychological sense, of body by mind, of spirit by a shallow instrumental rationality, and of nature by society and technology. Indeed, classless but hierarchical societies exist today (and they existed more covertly in the past); yet the people who live in them neither enjoy freedom, nor do they exercise control over their lives. No one's going to have time to read this whole thing to comment here, but I skimmed some of it and I get the impression that this guy wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." That kind of thing strikes me as one of those perhaps philosophically satisfying but completely impractical ideas. I really doubt humans were built to implement such a radical vision (maybe something very far in that direction is possible, but not so complete as implied here).

int_19h 5y ago
I would suggest looking more into it, then, because what Bookchin actually proposed in the end - what he called "libertarian municipalism" - is not "completely impractical", and nowhere as radical as what most anarchists propose. As far as practicality goes, well... the political system in AANES (Autonomous Administration of North-East Syria, aka Rojava) is organized largely along the same lines, except that they call it "democratic federalism" - and it seems to be working pretty well so far, 10+ years in. For another, even longer-running example, look at the Zapatista autonomous regions in Mexico, and some municipalities that went down the same route afterwards (e.g. Cheran).
- igorkraw 5y ago
  I always wonder about those communities though, AANES seems to (looking in from the outside) rely heavily on ethnocentric and cult of personality (Occallan) dynamics, as well as the unifying pressure of Daesh/Turkey? And the Zapatista regions had the same things with the Subcommandante (although they seem to have avoided a full on cult of personality with him stepping out of the limelight now) and seem to rely on the unifying threat of Mexico/Narcos? Or am I missinformed (and if yes, where can I get reliable information about this)?
  - int_19h 5y ago
    This is their current social contract (i.e. constitution) - it might help answer some questions: https://pdfhost.io/v/Hrr2IgtuS_SocialContractoftheDemocraticFederationofNorthernSyria.pdf https://pdfhost.io/v/Hrr2IgtuS_SocialContractoftheDemocratic... (Note that this is the 2016 edition, which replaced an earlier one from 2014, and is itself in the process of getting updated at the moment. They seem to subscribe to the notion that such things are supposed to be living documents.) AANES is not majority Kurdish at this point, and several cantons are politically Arab-dominated. They did have some tensions in areas that they took over from Daesh, specifically with the more conservative rural Arab populations there pushing back against the feminist agenda that PYD brings; those are often perceived as being along ethnic lines from the outside, but I think it would be more accurate to call it an ideological dispute that happens to align with cultural (and hence ethnic) boundaries. In some cases they actually had to dial things back to reach compromise; for example, the 2014 social contract stipulated that elected assemblies must have no less than 40% members representing each gender (defined as male or female; there's little trans awareness there). The new Arab cantons basically had a hard time even finding enough women candidates willing to run to fulfill that quota, so it was dropped in the 2016 contract. But they still kept the co-executive system with the informal expectation of at least one of those going to a woman. For another example, the very name AANES (and before it DFNS) was a compromise to avoid "Rojava" - the latter literally means "West" in Kurdish, as in Western Kurdistan, and thus has some Kurdish nationalist implications that other ethnicities weren't happy about. PYD is also explicitly in opposition to KNC (in Syria) and KDP (in Iraq), and other nationalist Kurdish groups who explicitly seek an independent ethnically Kurdish sovereign nation-state. There was some collaboration between them early on in the civil war, when the focus was on resisting the Syrian government; but once it withdrew its forces from the region, the ideological differences were in full force again, to the point where there were some skirmishes between the PYD-affiliated YPG and the KDP-affiliated Peshmerga. As far as Ocalan's cult of personality - it's definitely there, and it bothers me as well, but it seems to be the case of the guy who originally built it around himself now genuinely trying to promote democracy and anti-authoritarianism by capitalizing on his ability to deliver propaganda that will definitely be listened to. I doubt they'd have as much success with the whole women liberation angle, given how conservative the society is overall, if it wasn't Ocalan endorsing it. Still, the cult remains a very dangerous thing, and it is perhaps for the best that Ocalan is still in prison and thus can't fully tap into its power. Another interesting thing is that at least the outward symbols of said cult seem to be negotiable. In particular, there were several cases where YPG splattered Ocalan posters in Arab settlements where the locals pushed back against them, seeing them as a symbol of Kurdish nationalism; the posters were then promptly taken down. Of course, it doesn't mean that the sentiment behind them is gone, but still...
aradox66 5y ago
That's pretty much the central principle of anarchism (the political philosophy and practice, not the colloquial slur). Dismissing it as "impractical" is a bit premature - it's a concept well grounded in ethnological examples, and there have been plenty of very cool modern social experiments. In any case, it's conceptually useful to orient vis a vis hierarchy in this more general way, even if the "full realization" is difficult to imagine achieving.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > That's pretty much the central principle of anarchism (the political philosophy and practice, not the colloquial slur). Dismissing it as "impractical" is a bit premature - it's a concept well grounded in ethnological examples, and there have been plenty of very cool modern social experiments. Would those examples entail a large reduction in social/technological complexity? The world has billions more people than would allow a return to hunter-gatherer or small-scale agriculture type societies. Also I don't think something being a "central principle" of a political philosophy necessarily means it shouldn't be dismissed. I read some article about anarcho-capitalism once, and the whole thing struck me as something that may be conceivable or even realizable in principle, like Oganesson [1], bit simultaneously so impractically unstable that it might as well be treated as impossible. > In any case, it's conceptually useful to orient vis a vis hierarchy in this more general way, even if the "full realization" is difficult to imagine achieving. Yeah, it makes more sense to me to use it as a yardstick than as a map to someplace you can actually go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson
  - Avshalom 5y ago
    Anarcho-capitalism as a phrase was basically Rothbard trolling. What ever merits it may have, it shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of anarchist philosophy. (also to be clear I think ancap has approximately zero merit)
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron because capitalism is heavily based around centralization and inevitably leads to monopolies. Corporations are less democratic than the government and the competition argument doesn't work for monopolies.
igorkraw 5y ago
Smallpox was a god of death which one could hope to avoid and defend against, but never kill, from at least 300 BCE until 1958. Humanity finished the job in 1977 (for now). While there are many things to criticize about anarchist thought and practice, one thing I hope will never stop and we should not dismiss as "utopian" is the sheer gumption to question one of the fundamental assumption in almost all political ideologies - that someone must be in charge - and then seriously consider the implications of trying to structure a society not only without coercion, but also with positive freedoms. I.e. , at it's best, anarchist thought tries to find ways of ensuring welfare and ensuring that the "private charity and philanthropy" often cited as the solution to poverty will manifest as a feature of the system, without needing to rely on (soft) coercion, scarcity and centralization, to the point of considering ways on how to structure meetings so that the shy and slow will also be allowed to contribute their perspective and thoughts against the brash and bold. While I might not agree 100% politically, I think we should point to (and if so inclined, work on) specific problems we find in the arguments/implementation and not shy away from the ambition itself.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think your first paragraph is a bad analogy. Because we did it in medicine doesn't say we can also do it in politics. Politics is a lot harder.
  - igorkraw 5y ago
    The point to take from it is (in my opinion) that our grasp might exceed our reach if we do not shy away tackling big projects at on some level. There is a fine line between this and "just believe and it will become true" bruhaha, but I agree with Hans Rosling on his idea of "possibilism" http://thirdways.net/factfulness-possibilists-book/ http://thirdways.net/factfulness-possibilists-book/ vs pessimism and optimism. If the only criticism people can muster is "seems a bit much", then they didn't really engage with it. You can make an argument that hierarchies seem "natural", but "naturally" I and many others should be dead (childhood diseases), basically blind (very near sighted), multiple times a father already (nearing my 30s and sexually active) so even that is not really a strong rebuttal of the anarchist project. I think it might exist, but it warrants proper ponderance (at least when discussing deep thinkers like Bookchin), not dismissal.
_jal 5y ago
> wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." You've come up with a workable alternate definition of anarchism.
- waingake 5y ago
  All power must be justified.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    By that standard, "justified" power is ubiquitous. So anarchism practically devolves into bog-standard libertarian minarchism.
    - igorkraw 5y ago
      Well, yes. If you properly implement it, most utopias will look similar. Where most anarchists diverge from libertarians, minarchists or "anarcho-capitalists" (even though people might criticize me for the scare quotes) is that they go further in their demands on what counts as "justification" and place a higher focus on positive freedoms. And this is where it gets tricky and there is need for further insight, experimentation with organisation, cultural development...
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        For the record, I meant to regard 'left-libertarianism' in the modern sense (which is practically libertarianism plus social insurance) as basically compatible with minarchism, in a broad sense. And ISTM that most demands for "positive freedom" are ultimately about social insurance.
        igorkraw 5y ago
        Ah, okay, the probably yes. But it's still natural, since one influenced the other heavily. Also, Social insurance, but also affirmative action and regulation of common goods, although none of these need to be state driven. One of the neat details that I think is underappreciated and underexplored about Germanies (my native country) public health care system is that it is public and democratic but not state, it functions more like a specially regulated cooperative system, which tends to work quite efficiently. So there is design space for a minimal "state" (which in anarchist circles would be expected to be much more decentralised and democratically run anyway) while still fulfilling a lot of services by "the public"
zozbot234 5y ago
> No one's going to have time to read this whole thing to comment here, but I skimmed some of it and I get the impression that this guy wants to comprehensively eliminate "hierarchy" in favor of "freedom." Ronald Coase has examined this idea and clarified why it does not work. Voluntary hierarchies exist, and we put up with them because a hierarchy-based organization - for all its well-known drawbacks - can oftentimes be more effective than completely free association.
- greenie_beans 5y ago
  Bookchin’s definition of freedom != whatever most people associate with anarchism. Bookchin advocates for direct democracy for decision making.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    The problem is that hierarchy-based decision making is also significantly more effective than the usual implementations of direct democracy, even on the "confederate" basis Bookchin advocates for. At best, we might consider delegative democracy with "liquid" recall, which effectively merges elements of both direct and representative democracy. Perhaps it could be enhanced by sortition, i.e. actual direct democracy among a randomly-chosen sample of the population, and forms of voluntary deliberation such as prediction/betting markets.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Authoritarian decision making can be argued to be significantly more effective than democratic one in general. The question is whether that efficiency is worth it.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        That's of course possible, but not really the common case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

woah 5y ago

The author makes a lot of claims such as > Until this phase of history or prehistory, the elders and males rarely exercised socially dominant roles because their civil sphere was simply not very important to the community. Indeed, the civil sphere was markedly counterbalanced by the enormous significance of the woman's "domestic" sphere. Household and childbearing responsibilities were much more important in early organic societies than politics and military affairs. Early society was profoundly different from contemporary society in its structural arrangements and the roles played by different members of the community. Are these based on any kind of archeological evidence?

kiliantics 5y ago
From my lay understanding of anthropology, having read stuff by people like David Graeber, it does seem pretty well established that pre-agrarian societies were mostly organised non-hierarchically, or at least with very limited social stratification.
- nwah1 5y ago
  My understanding is that it varied based on the level of local resource scarcity.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    I'm assuming that local resource scarcity leads to more social hierarchies to manage and politic over the scarce resources, while those with abundant resources tend to not have significant social stratification because there's less incentive towards infighting. Seems like all societies would eventually devolve towards resource scarcity, since abundance will almost always lead to over population.
    - nine_k 5y ago
      Since humans have invented simple and painless birth control, this is no longer the case. Birth rates are falling across the world (including poor traditional societies), and are below replacement in many countries, basically in 100% of the Western civilization.

jnmandal 5y ago

Another great work of Murray Bookchin's -- which may be more topical here -- is an essay called "Towards a Liberatory Technology". I believe much of the ideas overlap with this writing but that essay is a shorter version just on technology. I believe it was later combined into a book called Post-Scarcity Anarchism

rektide 5y ago
only thing i'm finding with that name is a section in "Wikipedia and Education", a 2011 text from Petar Jandric. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petar-jandric-wikipedia-and-education#toc5 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petar-jandric-wikipe...
- ntoll 5y ago
  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-bookchin-towards-a-liberatory-technology https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-... (Lewis Herber is pseudonym of Murray Bookchin)
  - jnmandal 5y ago
    Ah yes, thanks for linking. I should have done that myself.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]