Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BOOKCHIN. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BOOKCHIN. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, August 04, 2006

Murray Bookchin RIP


It is with great sadness that I have found out that anarchist theoritician, the author of Listen Marxist, The Limits of the City, etc. Founder of the Social Ecology Movement and anti-Lifestylist/Anti-Post Leftist Anarchism, and general curmodgen of the anarchist movement, Murray Bookchin has passed away.I agreed with Bookchin more than I disagreed with him.

For instance he dared to challenge the tree huggers with this idea; strip mining is better than deep mining. Mining is a horrible experience for workers as we can tell from the amount of mine accidents that occur. Far safer is strip mining. While it looks awful, the fact is that for the workers who mine, it is far more effective and safe. And the land can be reclaimed. While a mine can never be reclaimed. Those who talk about strip mining raping the earth should think about the miles of deep mines that dig into the earth never to be used again for anything expect perhaps for dumping toxic and nuclear waste. Brilliant.

A toast to Murray who will be with us still in his volumous writings. And I hope will continue to influence our movement with his thoughts. Because he remains a real alternative to the dweebs like the Chuck O , Jason McQuinn and the Green Anarchists. They are intellectual fleas and woe betide our movement with them as the next generation of anarchists. Ok everyone back to the books, lets read our Bookchin to get a good grounding in modern anarchist thought.


Here is a biography/eulogy on Murray.


Murray Bookchin, visionary social theorist, dies at 85
Murray Bookchin, the visionary social theorist and activist, died
this Sunday, July 30.
By Brian Tokar
Murray Bookchin, the visionary social theorist and activist, died
during the early morning of Sunday, July 30th in his home in Burlington,
Vermont. During a prolific career of writing, teaching and political
activism that spanned half a century, Bookchin forged a new
anti-authoritarian outlook rooted in ecology, dialectical philosophy and
left libertarianism.


Keywords: Analysis, Global, Political Theory,

Murray Bookchin

Murray Bookchin, the visionary social theorist and activist, died
during the early morning of Sunday, July 30th in his home in Burlington,
Vermont. During a prolific career of writing, teaching and political
activism that spanned half a century, Bookchin forged a new
anti-authoritarian outlook rooted in ecology, dialectical philosophy and
left libertarianism.

During the 1950s and ‘60s, Bookchin built upon the legacies of utopian
social philosophy and critical theory, challenging the primacy of
Marxism on the left and linking contemporary ecological and urban crises
to problems of capital and social hierarchy in general. Beginning in the
mid-sixties, he pioneered a new political and philosophical
synthesis*termed social ecology*that sought to reclaim local
political power, by means of direct popular democracy, against the
consolidation and increasing centralization of the nation state.

From the 1960s to the present, the utopian dimension of Bookchin’s
social ecology inspired several generations of social and ecological
activists, from the pioneering urban ecology movements of the sixties,
to the 1970s’ back-to-the-land, antinuclear, and sustainable technology
movements, the beginnings of Green politics and organic agriculture in
the early 1980s, and the anti-authoritarian global justice movement that
came of age in 1999 in the streets of Seattle. His influence was often
cited by prominent political and social activists throughout the US,
Europe, South America, Turkey, Japan, and beyond.

Even as numerous social movements drew on his ideas, however, Bookchin
remained a relentless critic of the currents in those movements that he
found deeply disturbing, including the New Left’s drift toward
Marxism-Leninism in the late 1960s, tendencies toward mysticism and
misanthropy in the radical environmental movement, and the growing focus
on individualism and personal lifestyles among 1990s anarchists. In the
late 1990s, Bookchin broke with anarchism, the political tradition he
had been most identified with for over 30 years and articulated a new
political vision that he called communalism.

Bookchin was raised in a leftist family in the Bronx during the 1920s
and ‘30s. He enjoyed retelling the story of his expulsion from the Young
Communist League at age 18 for openly criticizing Stalin, his brief
flirtation with Trotskyism as a labor organizer in the foundries of New
Jersey, and his introduction to anarchism by veterans of the immigrant
labor movement during the 1950s. In 1974, he co-founded the Institute
for Social Ecology, along with Dan Chodorkoff, then a graduate student
at Vermont’s Goddard College. For 30 years, the Institute for Social
Ecology has brought thousands of students to Vermont for intensive
educational programs focusing on the theory and praxis of social
ecology. A self-educated scholar and public intellectual, Bookchin
served as a full professor at Ramapo College of New Jersey despite his
own lack of conventional academic credentials.He published more than 20
books and many hundreds of articles during his lifetime, many of which
were
translated into Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish and other
languages.

During the 1960s - ‘80s, Bookchin emphasized his fundamental
theoretical break with Marxism, arguing that Marx’s central focus on
economics and class obscured the more profound role of social hierarchy
in the shaping of human history. His anthropological studies affirmed
the role of domination by age, gender and other manifestations of social
power as the antecedents of modern-day economic exploitation. In The
Ecology of Freedom(1982), he examined the parallel legacies of
domination and freedom in human societies, from prehistoric times to the
present, and he later published a four-volume work,The Third Revolution,
exploring anti-authoritarian currents throughout the Western
revolutionary tradition.

At the same time, he criticized the lack of philosophical rigor that
has often plagued the anarchist tradition, and drew theoretical
sustenance from dialectical philosophy*particularly the works of
Aristotle and Hegel; the Frankfurt School*of which he became
increasingly critical in later years*and even the works of Marx and
Lenin. During the past year, even while terminally ill in Burlington,
Bookchin was working toward a re-evaluation of what he perceived as the
historic failure of the 20th century left. He argued that Marxist crisis
theory failed to recognize the inherent flexibility and malleability of
capitalism, and that Marx never saw capitalism in its true contemporary
sense. Until his death, Bookchin asserted that only the ecological
problems created by modern capitalism were of sufficient magnitude to
portend the system’s demise.

Murray Bookchin was diagnosed several months ago with a fatal heart
condition. He will be remembered by his devoted family members*including
his long-time companion Janet Biehl, his former wife Bea Bookchin, his
son, daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter*as well as his friends,
colleagues and frequent correspondents throughout the world. There will
be a public memorial service in Burlington, Vermont on Sunday, August
13th. For more information, contact info(at)social-ecology.org.


Also See:

Anarchists


Anarchism

RIP/Obitruaries



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 25, 2023

SOCIAL ECOLOGY AND COMMUNALISM MURRAY BOOKCHIN




http://new-compass.net/sites/new-compass.net/files/Bookchin%27s%20Social%20Ecology%20and%20Communalism.pdf

Still, it is his treatment of ecological and political issues that has made Bookchin known to most readers, and some of his older books, notably Post-Scarcity ...

http://www.psichenatura.it/fileadmin/img/M._Bookchin_What_is_Social_Ecology.pdf

From Social Ecology and Communalism, AK Press, first printing, 2007. Social ecology is based on the conviction that nearly all of our present ecological ...

 https://we.riseup.net/assets/461284/Bookchin+Murray+1993+What+Is+Social+Ecology.pdf

Murray Bookchin has long been a major figure in anarchlst and utopian political theory, theory of technology, urbanism, and the philosophy of nature.

https://files.libcom.org/files/Social%20ecology%20after%20Bookchin%20-%20Unknown.pdf

1 his article is forthcoming in Bookchin's Anarchism, Marxism, and the ... ogy after Bookchin means a social ecology without Bookchin. Book-.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-philosophy-of-social-ecology

Murray Bookchin. The Philosophy of Social Ecology Essays on Dialectical Naturalism. Dedication. Preface to the Second Edition. Introduction:

https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/425/Bookchin,%20Social%20Ecology.pdf

His many books include Toward an Ecological Society,. The Ecology of Freedom, and The Philosophy of Social Ecology. Social ecology, which Bookchin develops in ...

Friday, October 25, 2024

 

Ostrom’s 8 Rules of the Commons for Anarchists

Ostrom’s 8 Rules of the Commons for Anarchists

From Usufruct Collective

The commons are resources self-managed by communities who need and use them. Commons are managed through dialogue, deliberation, and collective-decision-making as well as through mutual aid to meet needs. Commoning refers to the process of developing commons. Commons can include land, water-ways, fields, factories, workshops, instruments/tools, dwellings, recreational facilities, general infrastructure, miscellaneous infrastructure, fruits of re/production, mixes of all of the above, and beyond. Flourishing commons provide communities and participants with shared means of existence, production, and politics as well as access to the fruits thereof in ways that meet the needs of all. 

The commons have been under attack by the last several thousand years of hierarchy and class society as well as the last several hundred years of capitalism. Capitalism developed through multiple factors including continuous privatization of the commons enforced through state violence (Federici, 2018). Despite such systemic violence, pockets of the commons continue to exist through people developing both new and enduring commons to meet their needs and the needs of others as well as through people resisting domination and exploitation (Federici, 2018). Commoning is not only under attack by multiple entangled forms of hierarchy (institutionalized domination) such as capitalism, statecraft, patriarchy, racism, imperialism, colonialism, and nationalism; commoning is also under ideological attack through widespread propaganda and belief systems that deem various hierarchies beneficial or inevitable. 

Arguments claiming that commons inevitably lead to tragedies of overuse and collective ruin deny the history of the commons while also assuming that commons are rooted in crude competitive acquisition without the very collective rules, agreements, and practices that enable them to be functional. Such straw men of the commons reflect the norms of competitive and hierarchical societies rather than the kinds of organized cooperation to meet needs so crucial to any well-functioning-commons. Responding to sweeping critiques of the commons, Elinor Ostrom empirically and theoretically demonstrated that commons have been, are, and can be well-managed by participants when they utilize several good-enough rules and practices (Ostrom, 2021). Many communities and persons have in their own ways and words convergently evolved and articulated variations of such core-design-principles. 

Commons and related self-managed institutions have existed within foraging societies, agricultural societies, villages, towns, blocks, neighborhoods, cities, and mixed method non-state societies (Boehm, 2001, Kropotkin 1902, Bookchin, 2005a, Federici, 2018, Ostrom, 2021, Graeber and Wengrow, 2023). Such a rich history demonstrates that well-managed-commons are possible and that such well-managed-commons predictably contribute to social and ecological flourishing. 

While there are plenty of examples Ostrom looks at that are in harmony with her 8 rules for managing the commons as well as a non-hierarchical approach to social-organization (Ostrom, 2021), other instances of the commons she looks at utilize some methods that those from an anti-hierarchical perspective would disapprove of. Truly emancipatory commons are distinct from quasi-commons that produce commodities and/or are gated against commoners having mutual-access (Federici, 2018). Given the goals of the self-management of each and all, mutual non-domination, wellbeing for all, and ecological flourishing, Ostrom’s core-design-principles can become more coherent through being remixed with insights from anarchism. 

The following adaptation of Ostrom’s rules for managing the commons is informed by libertarian socialism/communism/communalism, organizations and revolutions influenced by libertarian socialism that utilize community assemblies related to common decisions and resources, various commons Ostrom looks at, as well as an expanded history of commoning in multiple modes of subsistence:

  1. Participants know they are part of a group and what the group is about (Wilson, 2016).
  2. Agreements for sharing and at times rotating labor/work and implementation of decisions as well as for sharing the fruits thereof (Kropotkin, 1906, Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016, Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2022). People can co-create a cornucopia where there is more than enough for all or otherwise agree to specific ways of distributing less abundant fruits of re/production according to needs.   
  3. Direct collective decision making by participants through deliberation. For there to be self-management of each and all, there must also be mutual non-domination. By extension, community assemblies related to the commons should utilize direct, participatory, and non-hierarchical forms of democracy (Bookchin, 2005b).  
  4. Organizational transparency that allows participants to mutually-monitor the commons (Atkins, Wilson, Hayes, 2019). This can happen through the process of co-managing and interacting with the commons, collective action, living in community with others, relevant accounting/calculation as needed, and availability of relevant information to participants. 
  5. Graduated defense against domination and exploitation such as: informal social disapproval, self-defense and defense of others as needed, and recourse to expelling someone from a particular collective (through deliberation, assembly, and due process) in response to the most extreme violations of the commons and freedoms of persons (Boehm, 2001, Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2023).  
  6. Good-enough conflict resolution such as: people talking directly to each other, mediation to find out how to move forward, dispute resolution to resolve disputes, restorative justice and transformative justice processes for people to repair harm and transform causes thereof, and organization-wide assembly when the conflict is in regards to organizational form and content. (Kaba, 2019, Usufruct Collective, 2023). 
  7. Communities and participants need sufficient autonomy to organize. 
  8. The use of co-federation and embedded councils. Community assemblies can co-manage inter-communal commons in a way where policy-making power is held by participants and assemblies directly (Bookchin, 1992, Ocalan, 2014). This enables self-management and mutual aid within and between communities as well as inter-communal management of the commons. Community assemblies can utilize mandated and recallable councils and rotating delegates to implement decisions within the bounds of policies made by community assemblies directly (Bookchin, 1992, 2007, 2018). 

The above should be further fleshed out, qualified, and wisely adapted to conditions, needs, and desires of communities and participants. When there are good-enough institutions and agreements for collective action, individuals benefit through the flourishing of the commons and mutually-contributing to the commons– blending self-interest with collective-interest. Although specifically related to common-economics, Ostrom’s core-design-principles and coherent adaptations thereof can be used to reflect upon and develop various self-managed collectives that have shared practices and goals (Wilson, 2016). 

The self-management of each and all on every scale requires the flourishing of the commons and related general assemblies. Developing the commons in the context of a hierarchical society requires both the reconstruction of the commons as well as opposition to domination and exploitation. Such functions can be done through self-managed community assemblies that utilize mutual aid and direct action to meet needs and solve social problems. That kind of community organizing can happen as a crucial part of a broader social movement ecosystem that includes workplace organizing, student organizing, and beyond. In addition to the commons and related general assemblies being needed for political economic freedom of each and all: developing the commons and sharing social re/production can meet needs of social movement organizations, participants thereof, and the non-ruling class while building the new world in the shell of the old and increasing capacity for people to solve social problems and oppose hierarchies.

***

PS:

Additional critique of Ostrom: 

Ostrom does want the commons to expand and increase. However, Ostrom sees the commons as a sector that should exist alongside capitalism and states. This is distinct from the anti-domination and anti-exploitation approach of libertarian socialism. While Ostrom does talk about the need to have sufficient autonomy to self-organize, Ostrom does not properly touch upon developing the commons through opposition against capitalism, statecraft, and hierarchy more broadly.   

Atkins, Paul W.B., David  Sloan Wilson, and Steven C. Hayes. Prosocial: Using evolutionary science to build productive, equitable, and collaborative groups. Context Press, 2019.

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001.

Bookchin, Murray. Urbanization without cities: The rise and decline of citizenship. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1992.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005a.

Bookchin, Murray. “Municipalization: Community Ownership of the Economy.” libcom.org. 2005b. https://libcom.org/article/municipalization-community-ownership-economy.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press, 2018.

Federici, Silvia. Re-enchanting the World Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press, 2018.

Graeber, David, and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

Kaba, Mariame, and Shira Hassan. Fumbling towards Repair: A Workbook for Community Accountability Facilitators. Chicago: Project NIA, 2019.

Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1902.

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1906.

Ocalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. Transmedia Publishing, 2014.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 

Sixth Commission of the EZLN. Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra I. Durham, NC: PaperBoat Press, 2016.

Wilson, David Sloan. “The Tragedy of the Commons: How Elinor Ostrom Solved One of Life’s Greatest Dilemmas.” Evonomics, April 5, 2016. https://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-commons-elinor-ostrom/.

Usufruct Collective. “The Conquest of Sandwiches.” Usufruct Collective, February 1, 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2022/02/01/the-conquest-of-sandwiches/.

Usufruct Collective. “Kick the Cops off Your Block.” Usufruct Collective, June 14, 2023. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2023/06/04/kick-the-cops-off-your-block-2/.

Sunday, October 16, 2022

Debbie Bookchin: Turkey is actually engaged in a grotesque example of ethnic cleansing in Rojava

Debbie Bookchin underlined that Turkish President Erdogan sees the democratic, feminist and ecological system in Rojava as a threat to himself.

EREM KANSOY
LONDON
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2022,


Debbie Bookchin, Secretary General of the Rojava Emergency Committee in the US, spoke to ANF. Debbie Bookchin, who noted that Erdogan's picture of a war against the PKK is actually a war waged against the entire Kurdish people, said that it is in fact another grotesque example of ethnic cleansing.

Stating that as long as NATO membership continues, the Coalition will not take a step towards closing the airspace to Turkey in Rojava, Bookchin said: “Of course, we can put serious pressure on Erdogan to impose some sanctions. With these pressures, Erdogan can take a step back in military operations and approach peace talks with the PKK again. At the moment, we clearly see that the Turkish state is carrying out heavy massacres in the region. It is trying to de-Kurdishize the region and resettle the 'refugees' in Turkey as they did in Afrin.”


The system in Rojava seen as a threat by Turkey

Underlining that Erdogan sees the democratic, feminist, ecological system in Rojava as a threat to himself, Bookchin said: “We clearly see that Erdogan has trampled on human rights. Western state leaders should today be ashamed to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while at the same time remaining silent about Erdogan's attacks on the Kurdish people and Rojava. We will continue to fight. We hope that we will succeed in the coming period in order to change the political approach of the West to the region.”


Swiss Climate Strike Initiative calls for closure of Rojava airspace

The Swiss Climate Strike Initiative has announced that they support the call for the closure of Rojava’s airspace.

ANF
LUCERNE
 
Saturday, 15 Oct 2022, In a statement, the Swiss Climate Strike (Klimastreik Schweiz), emphasized that the people living in Northern Eastern Syria have been building a self-governing region based on grassroots democracy, women's freedom and social ecology values for the for last 10 years.

The statement said: "The gains of the Rojava Revolution have been under pressure from the very beginning. Rojava, which has been fighting against the Islamic State, is being invaded by Turkey today. There is an economic boycott against the region.

Since its last major military operation in 2019, Turkey's war strategy against Rojava has changed. Regular attacks are carried out by drones and artillery to give way to ground operations. The main purpose is to evacuate the region by wearing down the population of the region.”

The statement continued: “These attacks on Rojava have dire consequences for the civilian population. On 18 August this year, 5 children died as a result of the attack by a Turkish drone on a training center for girls supported by the United Nations.

The United States condemned the attack but also has air sovereignty over the region. That's why these attacks are allowed. There is a demand for a no-fly zone over Rojava against these attacks. And we support this demand."

Sunday, May 09, 2021

An Editorial Flop Revisited: Rethinking the Impact of M. Bookchin’s Our Synthetic Environment on its Golden Anniversary

January 2013
Global Environment 6(12):250-273
DOI:10.3197/ge.2013.061211
Authors:

Juan D. Pérez-Cebada
Universidad de Huelva

Download full-text PDFRead full-text

Download citation
Copy link

Abstract

2012 is the golden anniversary of two important books in the history of the American Environmental movement: Our Synthetic Environment (OSE), written by Murray Bookchin (under the pseudonym “Lewis Herber”) and Rachel Carsons’ canonical Silent Spring, published just a few months later. Both books deal with the complex problem of chemicals in food, and have a clear objective: to achieve a popular audience. But, these books had a very different reception on the part of critics and public. While Silent Spring was a genuine bestseller, OSE seemed to fall l into oblivion. For some, even, it was a complete flop. This article however revises the reception of Bookchin’s work and shows that although Bookchin cannot certainly be considered a mass author like Carson, he was an influential thinker in selected North American and European academic circles of his time. The book had its origin in an article entitled 'The Problems of Chemicals in Food' (1952). In the first part of this article, we study this and other related articles that preceded the publication of OSE as well as their impact in the intellectual world. The second section analyzes specific bibliography and documentation from Jonathan Cape Ltd, the English publisher of the book (1963), in order to establish its reception. Jonathan Cape had hired Durrant’s, a well known press cutting firm, to prepare a complete report on references to the book in newspapers and other periodical publications both in the U.K. and the Commonwealth. Durrant´s dossier confirms that the book was favorably appraised in the United States by outstanding figures such as B. Commoner, R. Dubos or W. Vogt. However the documentation shows a better reception of the book in Europe, especially in U.K. and Germany. The final section stresses the contribution of OSE to the Environmental movement and the Green left though

by M Bookchin · Cited by 243 — Our Synthetic Environment. Murray Bookchin ... Recent changes in our synthetic environment have created new problems that are as ... preservatives, and chemical "technological aids," many of which may impair his health. His waterways and ...
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 28/03/21

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Anarchist Censorship


The Article Infoshop Does Not Want You to Read!


I emailed Chuck O the 'owner' of Infoshop, an American anarchist web site, on 14.06.2004 asking him to post my article Post-McQuinn Anarchism,(see below) on Infoshop as part of the Post-Left Anarchist debate he and Jason McQuinn, 'owner' of Anarchy 'a Magazine of Desire Armed', are foisting on the anarchist movement in North America.

I had posted it to the International Anarchist Studies website as a reply to the debate ongoing there between Peter Staudenmaier and McQuinn.

It is in the reply section under Peters article entitled:
Anarchists in Wonderland: The Topsy-Turvy World of Post-Left Anarchy

In reply to my request to the Rev. Chuck O (as he titles himself at Infoshop, clearly appointing himself as an anarchist of the 'catholic' persuasion: his way or the highway) that he publish this on Info shop he sent me the following dismissive response which I have included below. And in my own charming way asked him again to publish it. He did not reply.

That little spat did nothing, there was no posting of my article on Infoshop. So on June 18 I posted it myself under Anarchist Opinion on Infoshop. And low and behold, it still, as of this date June 22, has not appeared.

The very reverend Chuck O. as the owner of the site, in violation of the anarchist principle of free speech, has censored an opinion he does not like. I leave it to you to determine, whether you agree with me or not as Voltaire would say, whether such obvious censorship should be practiced by self proclaimed anarchists.

In true American entrepreneurial style of his libertarian predilections, Chucky has decided that ownership allows him the corporate right to determine what gets published on 'his' web site. So much for Infoshop being a voice of the anarchist movement. This is another case of Anarchism Inc. once again proving that "the only free press belongs to those that own one."(A.J. Liebling)

Now that I am on Chucks enemies list I feel I am in good company. But at least we all know now that Chuck O. is truly an American libertarian, and like his pal McQuinn, they believe they own the rights to (c) anarchism. This is the reality of their post-left-anarchism. Hey they would do Murray Rothbard proud just kidding, he at least supported free speech. McQuinn and Chuck O. are not anarchists they are members of that fraternity of American Exceptionalism known as libertarianism. Ironically they would say they are the left of that movement.

Finally I am incredulous that the Institute for Anarchist Studies has even given the Post Left Anarchism debate any academic credibility by allowing it to be seriously discussed in the Theory and Practice section of their web site. It is a chimerical debate of navel gazing proportions. It is simply an argument circulated by McQuinn and Co. as simple economic self promotion, it sells his magazine, and gets him paid speaking engagements. It has no more credibility than that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUCKO EMAIL

At 11:36 PM 6/14/04 -0700, you wrote:
>What a pile of crap and ignorant garbage!
>
>It's a good thing that anarchism has moved beyond marginal cranks such as
>yourself!
>
>Oh, by the way, as somebody in "McQuinn's circle of friends," I've long
>appreciated Bookchin andhis contribution to anarchism.
>
>Chuck0
>
Ouch you cut me to the quick I am stunned and agog at your debating skills, your Swiftian editorial pen, please, please do not pummel me oh great one.
If I am a marginal crank it must be because I belong to a marginal movement or are you in your American wisdom assuming that the anarchist movement is marginal in Canada?
Did you even bother to read my article or in fact do you even read the shit you publish on Infoshop, be it the utopian ranting of CrimeThInc. or even over the top ranting of your 'friend' McQuinn when he is challenged.
Shall we hum a few bars of Phil Ochs small circle of friends....you can barely fund raise the money you need to continue your publishing efforts, while Democrats score millions from their web sites, talk about marginal.
But I digress, I don't give a shit if you don't like my opinion, at least if you are going to debate my ideas debate them, do not dismiss them as crap or marginal, twit. Do you intend to publish it or are you the Chief Anarchist censor now?!
As for you liking Bookchin good for you, however I maintain that McQuinn is trying to posit his critique as post-bookchin, and he is not a major anarchist theorist except in his own mind, and obviously yours. I noticed you didn’t mention Dolgoff so am I to assume that like McQuinn Dolgoff is too left for you.
Yours from the margins,
Eugene Plawiuk

------------------------------------------------------
AND NOW THE ARTICLE CHUCK O. DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ:


Post-McQuinn Anarchism


Girl: What'cha rebeling against Johnny?
Johnny: What'cha got!
The Wild Ones

This in a nutshell sums up the rebellion of Jason McQuinn, and the debate on Post Left Anarchism. That this debate, which in itself is a strawdog, should appear on the web site of IAS befuddles the mind (as it clearly befuddled Mr. McQuinn from his snarky comments on your asking him to publish here).

It is strictly an American debate. It takes place in the context of the American Anarchist Milieu and that milieu alone. It does not encapsulate the rest of North America, such as Canada or Mexico, nor does it address the anarchist movement in Europe, Latin America, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, and Australia-Asia.

It is an argument that has been used to sell a magazine, and to prop up the Infoshop web site with an apparent theory they can embrace. It did not need to be placed with such prominence on the IAS site, which only gives greater credence to this little idea whose time has come and, unfortunately for its authors, gone.

It is not a new idea, as McQuinn admits, it is founded on the ranting of self-appointed theorist Bob Black. Mr. Black is very good himself at taking other peoples ideas and making $$$$ by restating them as his own. In this case his critique of work, workerism, etc. was lifted from LeFargue's The Right to Be Lazy, the proto-situationist text The Right to be Greedy, and from the writings of Wilhelm Reich and the European far left (such as Paul Cardin/Castoradis and Maurice Briton).

Mr. Black has made a tidy sum and a small reputation by attacking and denouncing those he does not like. This he believes makes him a critical thinker in critical theory, actually all it does is make him a critic.

A rebuttal of Mr. Black's post-left anarchism is the essay McAnarchism by Tim Balash.

McQuinn's essay is overly generalized, setting up strawdogs (and proceeds to berate his critics for doing to him what he does in his own essay) of some ambiguous Leninist left. Painting with broad brush strokes the workers movement, the socialist movement, and the communist movement and yes the anarchist movement as if it were all one large monolithic structure unaffected by history. This static strawdog is then knocked down with a fallacious argument that there needs to be a new theory of anarchism, that there has not been any new anarchist theory since Malatesta died.

Ah and that’s the crux of this post left anarchism. It is the new theory of the movement, brought to you by Mr. McQuinn via Mr. Black. The fact that Mr. McQuinn, supposedly a student of Paul Goodman, misses a vast school of post-Malatesta anarchist thought in his essay shows just how specious his argument is. He mentions nothing of Emma Goldman, Alexader Berkman, Elise Recluse, Victor Serge, Ward Churchill, Nicholas Walter, Stewart Christe, Albert Meltzer, Wilhelm Reich, Alex Comfort, George Woodcock, Paul Goodman, Sam Dolgoff, Murray Bookchin, etc. etc. I could go on and on. But you get the point.

That is the crux of his argument, that there has been no new anarchist theory, (which is an entirely false argument) and post left anarchism is the answer. If it is an answer what is the question? Well simply put it is what is the alternative to Murray Bookchin. Let’s call a spade a spade shall we. Stripped of its vacuous rhetoric, vast flourishes of generalizations, McQuinn is, like his mentor Bob Black, attacking Bookchin. So Post-Left Anarchism should rightly be called Post Bookchin Anarchism.

No one in the McQuinns circle of friends, those being the folks publishing and editing his little magazine, likes Bookchin. And resent his popularity, his efforts to theorize, any more than they like Sam Dolgoff, or Malatesta. Like Bob Black, they literally seethe with apoplexy against anyone who would align anarchism with class struggle.

It is the individual that is supreme, cries these radical subjectivists. Ah yes that revolutionary school of thought of Francis Dashwood, DeSade, Stirner, Nietzche, and Crowley that desire must be unleashed. The individual is king, we are all to be kings, in worlds of our own creating. Such magickal thinking is not a theory it is the musings of would be aristocrats, looking backward to some decentralized village community where hermits freely associate or lock their doors.

It is American Exceptionalism not anarchism. It's roots are in the rural artisan culture of America that harkens backwards to its past, rather than accept that America was and is part of the ascendancy of Capitalism. It is, like Proudhonism and his American proponents Tucker, Josiah Warren and Lynsander Spooner, the anarchism of small shopkeepers.

There is nothing new in this. Its clear in the wrintings of the Greenwich Village bohemian anarchist artist Hyppolite Havel, long before Mr. McQuinn or Mr. Black recuperated it for themselves.
Stripped of its rhetoric it is the theory that Anarchism is Anti-Political, and Anti-Organization. That small sect of Anarchists that would have nothing to do with any organization that would have them as a member, as Grucho Marx would say.

And again it is an attack on those who see class struggle as a crucial part of anarchism, in this case the unstated object of this attack is Bookchin, but it could just as easily be Dolgoff.

There is no class struggle in America is the crux of American Exceptionalism and it is the crux of McQuinns theory. So what is the basis of the struggle? Well as the quote says above, What'cha got. We should just revolt, because freedom is revolution. Or as Abbie Hoffman once said; Revolution for the Hell of It.

This is not a theory and it is certainly not an argument that demolishes class struggle anarchism, nor is it even an alternative to class struggle anarchism. It would like to be but it isn't. It is however an argument that is made to criticize class struggle anarchism, and to say American anarchism is an exception.
It is an attempt to say that any subjective struggle is anarchism as long as it is not organized, not permanent, and not political.

It is the anarchism of food coops, food not bombs, homes not bombs, the black block. It is the anarchism of hippie culture, and DIY. It is in a word not anarchism but reformism. McQuinn's anarchism can be summed up in the old cliche, if it feels good do it.

Shucks I just hate dating myself, by even remembering all this old stuff from the Movement days of the late sixties and early seventies, but since we are looking backwards with McQuinn and company, his argument is based in the little pamphlet still in circulation entitled Anti-Mass. Add some Bob Black school of vitrupitive caustic comments posing as a critique and there you have post left anarchism.

In fact I am surprised that McQuinn did not entitle his essay Listen Anarchist! But that would have been too obvious as to whom his comments were aimed at. After all the Bookchin debate has been going on for decades so it hardly qualifies for a "new" theory.

I certainly hope that we can move on from this navel gazing self-aggrandizing debate that exists simply to sell Mr. McQuinns magazine and assuage his ego that he his a profound thinker. His desire may be armed but his Post Left Anarchism is sightless.

June 2004
Posted on the web on Indymedia, Resist.ca, FLAG, and through email lists.
NOT posted on Infoshop by decision of the ‘owner’ Chuck Muson.











Wednesday, March 13, 2024

 

WE NEED A PLETHORA OF TACTICS

diversity of tactics

From Freedom News UK

Considering “metacrisis” and the ever greater need to re-embrace Bookchin’s social ecology.


‘Metacrisis’ is my chosen umbrella term for the escalation of multiple global crises of climate, ecology, and political economy, which have reached such a point now that all radical organising is a form of crisis response. And I know for folk on the sacrificial frontlines of capitalism, the terms ‘radical organising’ and ‘crisis response’ belie that they have to fight just to survive. The metacrisis is hidden from many of us a lot of the time. Until it isn’t.

Meanwhile, three records have been smashed on climate, as well as the continuing series of natural disasters in 2023 made worse and more likely by the climate crisis. These are average global surface air temperature, global sea temperature and Antarctic ice loss. Ecological and social tipping points are upon us.

Social ecology is an appropriate response to the metacrisis that will lead to widespread societal collapse within our lifetimes, even as some are already living through it or have been sunk by it. Murray Bookchin first developed his theory of social ecology in the 1960s. Its foundation is dialectical naturalism (Dianat), which Bookchin developed from Hegel’s dialectics and Marxian dialectical materialism. Dianat is a deceptively simple ecological philosophy that explores how the human domination of other humans leads to us also oppressing non-human nature and how to stop one we need to stop the other.

These times of crisis are fuelling the rise of the far right, who sometimes adopt “ecological” arguments for locking borders against “polluting” refugees and blame the climate crisis on China and Africa, preferring to set up World War III rather than take responsibility for fossil fuel emissions. This is nothing new. We saw it in the blood and soil doctrine of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. So, all organising in the metacrisis must be deeply ecological and explicitly anti-fascist.

Post-Covid, we also need to be explicitly anti-fantastical-conspiracist. As the planet heats even further, so will distracting narratives. As well as being anti-liberatory — we can’t organise against enemies who will be forever hidden from us — this conspiracism is often implicitly anti-Jewish.

A part of social ecology which some anarcho folk take issue with, which is not a dogma so much as Bookchin’s preferred program for introducing a stateless social ecological society, is known as libertarian municipalism. This means using existing local power structures to gradually wrest power back from the centre as a gateway to confederated, communitarian self-government. It’s unlikely that such a society would materialise just as Bookchin prescribed on any significant scale. However, in times of crisis, all efforts to draw power from the state back towards the local (whether direct democracy or consensus decision-making) are to be welcomed.

It could be using ZAD-type tactics, seizing the local means of production, sabotaging local outposts of deathly corporations out of existence, strengthening and extending mutual aid networks and localised food-growing initiatives, or indeed implementing libertarian municipalism. I love Peter Gelderloos’ perspective that “the solutions are already here” and the “build and fight” formula suggested by the Black-led Cooperation Jackson project in the US.

Whoever we are with on a given day, how can we instigate conversations about crisis organising, especially with people “not like us” who may seem to be sold on capitalism? Not easy, I know. My main job is teaching English online to students worldwide (for a terrible corporate platform which pays below UK minimum wage), and 95% of the time, any attempt at radical connection with my students is hopeless. However, 5% of the time, something special happens. You may be surprised at what revolutionary ferment is happening in some of the young minds of China, especially among women.

I like to imagine social ecology and other forms of ecological, social anarchism as a hidden potential in every quarter of human society, a kind of quantum magnet underlying everything that could draw everything else to it. Everyone can give in to that magnet, even if just a little. Aric McBay’s Full Spectrum Resistance is useful here. I have an idea of “even fuller spectrum resistance”, which means leaving no stone or member of society unturned. In a Colin Ward-esque way, what can we observe around us through “anarchism in action and escalation” in times of crisis, and how can we plug into that? Locally, this includes extending a hand to conservative-minded folk whilst being uncompromisingly anti-oppression. Online, this includes utilising resources like A Radical Guide. Even AI could be useful for organising without giving in to accelerationism. Algorithmic Justice League, Not My AI and Queer in AI signal how AI could be democratised and liberated from patriarchy, notwithstanding its ecological impact.

In times of crisis, as anarcho types, we could also build bridges with existing activist groups, even if we sometimes find them infuriating. From my own experience, I have to look at what I half-affectionately and half-frustratedly term the XR milieu, which includes Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and the Deep Adaptation / Transformative Adaptation crowds — the latter is a kind of extra urgent reiteration of the Transition Movement. I got arrested with XR in the early days, but I have taken a critical attitude towards them since then. I don’t believe in the disempowering strategic stance of pleading with an illegitimate government to create Citizens’ Assemblies, with the assumption that these assemblies would be well-advised and empowered enough to transfer the power of capital back to ecology and the people – what the metacrisis demands. Beyond the XR milieu, from the collapsitarian perspective, Just Collapse are great in that they centre marginalised groups. (I’ll be interviewing Just Collapse on my YouTube channel Epic Tomorrows in the coming months).

We need more affinity groups or study and action. Bookchin’s idea of an affinity group is not just one that does actions but one that engages in deep regular study of texts for collective liberation, including a revolutionary understanding of history that is not deterministic or statistical, that gives us plenty of options. Organising in times of crisis could even mean organising our own lives and memories into something more pointed and in a better direction.

On a more personal note, my stepdad runs Ely’s folk sing-around at a pub in Somerset. I sing there occasionally and imagine a pub-based social-ecological revolution. Many of the traditional tunes sung are very grounded in ecology and the seasons, with a deep understanding of farming (the old way) —or else they tell of tragic events that have befallen common folk through the ages, where an oppressive class system often features in the background. I reflect that all sorts congregate in pubs. What ground could we find for anti-authoritarian crisis organising, for drawing power back from the centre? The beauty of pub-based organising could be when we get it wrong; we can put it down to the drink and try again next week. AGs can meet in pubs if everyone is alright with it. Just be careful who’s watching or listening.

I don’t want to detract from what anyone is doing to fight against all forms of authoritarianism and capitalism and to fight for life and a reasonable standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, maybe the good fight is best framed as a social-ecological one, where every oppressed human is understood in the context of a damaged local ecology, and every thoughtlessly ripped up plant or killed animal is understood as the result of human hierarchies. This is a conversation that we could continue down the pub. Urgently. Mine’s a real ale or cider. Cheers.

~ Matthew Azoulay

Monday, March 20, 2023

Social Morals and Ethics of Nature: from Peter Kropotkin to Murray Bookchin


DARIO PADOVAN


Abstract: 
The aim of this paper is to take up the problem of continuity and discontinuity in Ethics in relation to the actions taken by humanity as regards transforming both the natural environment and its own, interior Nature. This issue is explored through the writings of Kropotkin, Guyau, Reclus and Bookchin. According to the ethical naturalism advanced by Kropotkin, struggles within Nature were often limited and “mutual aid” was the dominant factor. In Kropotkin’s work, special mention is made of Jean Marie Guyau who outlined a moral that could be called “ecological”. Guyau stressed that the facts of everyday life were the basis of Ethics and that a sort of natural power exists within moral duty, a natural force that came before knowledge. Also, close to Kropotkin’s work was the work of Elisée Reclus for whom “man is Nature which has become conscious of itself”—a statement which perhaps contains one of the most efficacious descriptions of the moral feelings that link man to his environment. Finally, the work of Murray Bookchin is directly linked to that of Kropotkin, Guyau and Reclus offering an important synthesis of ethical and ecological thought.

At the beginning of this century Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist geographer and philosopher, highlighted the “modern need” to elaborate the conceptual basis for a new moral. In Kropotkin’s view, the progress achieved in the fields of the natural, social and historical sciences and, also, in technology had, for the first time, placed humanity in the position of being able to go beyond the realms of necessity and scarcity and enter a period of well-being, justice and freedom. With his optimistic, positivist spirit, he convinced himself that humanity’s actions should be marked by responsible and modest behaviour:


Modern science has thus achieved a double aim. On the one side it has given to man a very valuable lesson of modesty. It has taught him to consider himself as but an infinitesimally small particle of the universe. It has driven him out of his narrow, egotistical seclusion, and has dissipated the self-conceit under which he considered himself the centre of the universe and the object of the special attention of the Creator. It has taught him that without the whole the 'ego' is nothing; that our 'I' cannot even come to a self-definition without the 'thou'. But, at the same time science has taught man how powerful mankind is in its progressive march, if it skilfully utilises the unlimited energies of Nature[1].

Almost a century later, Hans Jonas introduced an analogous principle of responsibility into his writings, but his reflections reveal a very concerned and pessimistic view of modern developments in science and technology. The new moral, which must be identified and outlined, in this case serves to keep a check on the negative effects of scientific progress:

The Prometheus which has been uncontrollably unbound, to which science attributes a power without precedents and on which the economy imprints an unceasing impulse, demands an ethic that, through self-limitation, stops its power becoming a misadventure for man. The knowledge that the promises of modern technology have been transformed into threats, or that this threat has been indissolubly linked to the promises, is the hypothesis that underlies this reflection. [...] Dominating Nature with the aim of nurturing human happiness, with its extraordinary success which now involves the nature of humans themselves, has launched the greatest challenge to human beings regarding their own behaviour that has ever been launched. [...] The virgin terrain of collective practices, which we have entered with the advent of high technology is still, for Ethics, a no man’s land[2].

In less than one century, attitudes towards science, technology and progress had changed radically. This paper intends to take up the problem of continuity and discontinuity in thought on Ethics in relation to the actions taken by humanity as regards transforming both the natural environment and its own, interior Nature.

Ambivalence of moral feelings

Although he shared the philosophical and scientific positivism of his times, Kropotkin believed that the advance of technological and scientific knowledge would either have left unchanged or even damaged the field of Ethics, the “science of the foundations of morals”. The dilemma Kropotkin highlighted concerns the tragic ambivalence contained within the development of scientific positivism which, although it is able to offer an objective basis for social morals, is closed against any ethical interpretation The study and understanding of Nature, of the evolution of living beings, of the laws of psychic life and of the evolution of society, cannot but offer a natural explanation of the birth of moral feelings. Given these general scientific conditions, the science of morals would, undoubtedly have shown “where the forces are which are able to carry this moral feeling ever higher, thus rendering it more and more pure”.

Kropotkin identified three great moral systems: Comte’s positivism, Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism and the altruistic evolutionism of Darwin, Spencer and Guyau. None of them were entirely able to satisfy the social and political needs of the period-- needs (and dissatisfaction) which were, at that time, expressed through the resurgence and spread of a “new mystic-religious idealism”, by Kantian intuition and even by neo-Platonism.

But it was, above all, the incoherencies and difficulties within evolutionist thought that weakened any moral reasoning which was based on real life and not on something that would transcend it.

When Darwin formulated his theory of the “struggle for existence” presenting it as the main factor in evolution, he once more raised the tricky problem of morality, or potential immorality, within Nature. Darwin’s followers considered Nature as a vast battlefield where the weakest were exterminated by the strongest, the most skilled and the cleverest. Under these conditions, as Kropotkin rightly observed, Nature could only teach human beings about hand-to-hand fighting.

On the basis of this natural philosophy, Kropotkin argued that it was impossible for human beings to have a precise idea of good and that, consequently, they would never be able to think that good could triumph over evil. A bloodstained Nature, red in tooth and claw, would never be able to give birth to any individual and social morals, thus the code of Ethics could never prescribe rules of subordination and domination otherwise it would disappear under the blows of an all-out war with everyone against everyone else.

The naturalism advanced by Kropotkin on the basis of which a new ethic could be founded, was radically different from the Darwinist concept, even though it did recapitulate the more important elements of Darwin’s theory. He was convinced that struggles within Nature were “often circumscribed, restricted to a struggle between different species, whereas within the group formed either by one species, or by more than one species cohabiting, the general rule was that of mutual help. Mutual aid is the dominant factor in Nature”.

The sheer simplicity of this statement, which today is almost risible, posited entirely different parameters for evaluating moral behaviour. The fact that mutual aid was considered crucial for the prosperity, development and preservation of each species or eco-community, indeed so crucial that it had become a permanent active instinct in all social animals (humans included), offered new principles to moral conscience. Even though such principles could be considered to be only rudimentary, the instinct of mutual support lay at the origins of all feelings of benevolence, justice, equity and equality. Thus, in Kropotkin’s view, Nature did not automatically offer lessons in amoralism, rather it offered a much more precise notion of good and evil, clear reasoning on the supreme good that every code of Ethics should have followed up.

Quite rightly, Kropotkin pointed out that the study of Nature and history showed that two tendencies exist: “on the one hand, the tendency towards sociality and, on the other, the desire to lead a more intense life, from which springs the idea of the greatest happiness for the individual”. The proof of this dual and contradictory aspiration within individual and moral life is not far removed from recent statements regarding the ambivalent nature of human beings. Kropotkin hoped that modern Ethics would be able to find a common ground between feelings of “domination” and feelings of “mutual collaboration”. These two groups of feelings must necessarily be in conflict, therefore, some synthesis was necessary if one did not want to pay the price of that relativism which, today, seems to dominate.

Kropotkin divided the feelings and actions that Comte described as “altruistic” into two categories. On the one hand lay those actions which were necessary in order to live in society: these cannot possibly be defined as being altruistic because they are characterised by reciprocity and are carried out by an individual in his or her own interest, as is any act which is inspired by the instinct for self-preservation. On the other hand, there were those acts which did not presuppose that any type of reciprocity would be involved. Whoever carried out such acts offered their strength, force, energy and enthusiasm, without expecting to receive anything in exchange, without presuming that there would be some reward. These acts, which permit moral perfection, are defined as obligatory.

Undoubtedly, this analytical distinction between types of moral feelings was, in his time, innovative and were adjuncts to an analytical position which had only recently been studied and articulated. The absence, in the relationship between I and the Other, of any form of reciprocity, expectation, or calculation of gain or reward, that is, the subject’s indifference to the fact that there is no “rational” reason for the exchange, renders Kropotkin’s moral unique and close to the pre-ontological moral impulse described by Emmanuel Levinas and by Zigmunt Bauman[3]. However, this conceptual analogy concerns the pre-social dimension morals, which belongs more to sociability than to socialisation, and to unconditional responsibility towards the Other rather than to rationally based decisions and duties.

Moral obligation towards the other based on responsibility and lacking in any expectation of reciprocity makes it possible to distinguish between the moral domain and the legislative domain. In Kropotkin’s view, moral was beyond rules and laws. Thus the task of Ethics was not to stress the defects of human beings, admonishing them for their shortcomings or “sins”, but rather Ethics should play a positive role, focussing on humanity’s best instincts and on that moral impulse which came before any social order. Ethics could explain the fundamental principles on whose basis both animals and human beings were able to live in a society. Furthermore, such principles would appeal to higher feelings, such as love, courage, brotherhood and sisterhood and respect for oneself, characteristics which fill the pre-ontological space of moral relations. Within the study of humanity’s nature and past, Ethics, by describing the harmony between I and the Other, could indicate the truth through which the moral space could be understood. Hence, in Kropotkin’s opinion, the reason why human beings behaved in a manner which could be described as moral, lay in Nature or in history.

The way in which Kropotkin outlined the idea of a private Ethic which contained no elements of coercion or imposition is surprising, and distances him from his contemporaries who saw rules and state legislation as the way in which personal interests could be protected and the moral relationship between I and the Other codified. In Kropotkin’s opinion, Ethics did not and could not offer any fixed rules of conduct, because the individual must weigh up for him/herself the value of different ethical arguments. The main purpose of Ethics was not to offer counsel to individuals rather:


it tends to offer all men a supreme end, an ideal that will guide and encourage them to act instinctively in the desired direction. [Its aim] is to create a social climate which is able to make the majority of men understand, in a completely natural, habitual way, that is without hesitation, which acts will contribute to the everyone’s well-being.

The moral theory Kropotkin was criticising was that which had isolated the individual from his/her neighbour shutting him/her up in asocial and monadological solitude. Hobbes, Locke, and other theorists imagined an individual linked to society only for his/her own ends; they believed that social institutions existed only in order to preserve, protect and defend the personal interests of the individual. Hobbes was furthermore convinced that there was a need for an authority, the Leviathan, able to create a social moral and impose it through disciplinary procedures. In this way, the individual was exempted from any obligations towards other human beings. The rights of the individual were, in reality, only defended in the economic sphere, the limits to which spontaneous economic activity could be interfered with were prescribed by the state and political, intellectual and artistic activities were subject to state control. The resulting inadequate development of the individual could not but lead to a “gregarious mentality”, marked by the lack of personal initiative and creativity. Economic individualism and ownership had failed clamourously to achieve its aims as it did not lead to “the abundant flowering of the personality”.

In Kropotkin’s opinion, sociality and mutual aid were the elements that could build a new social moral. Even as these spontaneous moral attributes developed among individuals and became social custom so they would lead to the development of the sense of justice and of its necessary corollary: the sense of equality and equity. Kropotkin was, however, well aware that the new moral would not be established without radical social transformations. His moral theory quite deliberately avoided formulating a class or party moral: it transcended all social divisions, denied that “inequality was a natural law” and could only become a reality in the context of a society of equals. The idea that the rights of the individual were as inviolable as were the natural rights of all the others would only develop with the progressive disappearance of class distinctions and with the transformation of social institutions.

Kropotkin argued that thanks to the establishment of social relations marked by the principles of equality and justice, individuals would learn to understand and evaluate the repercussions of their actions on the whole society, starting from avoiding causing any harm to others even when it meant that he/she would have to restrict their own needs. The concepts of limits and responsibility appear in this description of the phenomenology of the new moral, concepts which reappear in the work of Hans Jonas. The subject identifies his/her feelings with those of the Others who show that they are ready to offer the subject their own energy without asking for anything in return.

For Kropotkin, the combination of responsibility and limits ― usually, though imprecisely, defined as altruism and abnegation ― was the moral itself. The moral, which was freed from social and institutional conditioning that sprang from sociality rather than from socialisation, from the anti-structure rather than from the structure; the moral which went beyond the morally adiaphorous social action of the socialised individual who has been deprived of responsibility for the Other. But the aporia in this combination ―which seeks to find the difficult equilibrium between “looking after” and “exercising power”, between responsibility and oppression, between encouragement and constriction― could not be resolved, even by Kropotkin, except by founding the origins of moral law within the moral instincts which naturally reside in humans, in those more lasting social instincts which prevail over less enduring instincts.

Thus, Mutual help, justice and morals, the ascending steps of psychic states, discovered through study of the animal and the human world, were an organic necessity.

The natural foundations of Kropotkin’s Ethics


Through his study and interpretation of Nature, Kropotkin sought to offer a solution to the problem of the foundations of the moral actions of individuals. These foundations lay in Nature and could be experienced and rendered intelligible by means of the natural and social sciences: after all, wasn’t society just one consequence of Nature? Similar convictions distanced him from the moral theory that argued that moral behaviour was the outcome of the influence of state institutions. In order to escape from the moral dilemma of his time, he identified an objective foundation for Ethics within the evolution of Nature and of humanity.

Kropotkin did not conceal the fact that he was strongly influenced by Darwin’s works. Indeed, he recognised that Darwin had opened up a new path for moral sciences and had founded a school of Ethics in the same way as had Hume, Hobbes and Kant. He also agreed with Darwin’s explanation of the origins of moral feelings: that they derived from an innate, instinctive sociality that existed in both humans and animals. For Darwin, the basis of all moral sentiments lay in that social instinct that “made men find pleasure in the company of others like himself, could make him like them and want to render them some service ”[4]. Furthermore, Darwin believed that all species of animals had developed the same social instinct as had man, and when this instinct was not satisfied that its lack would generate a feeling of discontent and suffering in the individual, especially when it was revealed that, in some cases, the social instinct had given way to another more transitory and superficial instinct. In Darwin’s opinion, moral anxiety, uncertainty about the moral judgements of his/her behaviour, the sense of incompleteness within his/her actions characterised the biological nature of the subject.

However, Darwin rejected Kant’s belief that moral sentiments were a mystic gift of unknown and mysterious origin. As Kant had said, the individual could always, at a certain point, declare “I will not permit the human dignity of my person to be violated”, but Darwin felt that this statement was none other than the expression of natural instincts, such as sociability and liking, which were reinforced by reason, experience, imitation and by the desire to gain the approval of others[5].

Basing his arguments on Darwin’s statements, Kropotkin even contested the conviction held by many theorists that the most powerful of all human instincts, and even more so among animals, was the instinct for preservation, which was wrongly identified as egotism. Under the heading of “the instinct for preservation” the moral preachers brought together, on the one hand, primordial impulses, such as defence, preservation and hunger and, on the other, derived feelings, such as passion for domination, cupidity, hate and revenge. Contemporary moral thought identified the nature of man as this chaotic mixture of instincts and feelings which had hardened into an omnipotent force that had penetrated, without meeting any resistance, into both humans and animals.

This “inconvenient” statement could not but provoke those moralists who sought to legitimise their theories of a world that fell outside or beyond Nature, suspended in a supernatural dimension. The triumph of the moral element thus appeared as the triumph of man over Nature and over his/her intrinsic egotistical and evil nature, a victory that he/she could not obtain without outside help, help from the state and intelligent legislators[6].

Kropotkin, however, shifted the interpretation of Nature diametrically. He identified mutual support within the species as the predominant factor, as the most powerful agent of social and cultural development. Nature became humanity’s first teacher, teaching Ethics and moral principles to human beings. The social instinct, innate in humans, lies at the origins of all notions of Ethics and all subsequent evolutions in morals. The altruistic social instinct, referring to the definition offered by both Comte and Spencer, in the context of natural and social evolution, can only prevail over egotistical and transitory instincts. The compromise, sought by Spencer, between the laws of aggression and of friendship, between inequality and equality, could never emerge.

The moral without obligations of Jean-Marie Guyau


In Kropotkin’s work, special mention is made of Jean Marie Guyau (1854-1888). A brilliant, young sociologist and moral philosopher, Guyau’s work was ignored for a long time, even though he had founded an original system of Ethics, and it has only recently been re-evaluated and begun to receive the attention it merits.

Guyau sought on the one hand to free moral thinking from any sort of mystic or supernatural presuppositions, those that mark the religious conception of Ethics. That is, he sought to free it from any duty imposed from outside. On the other hand, he also sought to eliminate, from the moral domain, both any personal interest of a material nature and, consequently, the hopes and aspirations for happiness of this type, that on which the Utilitarians had founded their moral theories.

Guyau posited the facts of everyday life as the basis of his system of Ethics, and rejected both Kant’s metaphysics and the intuitions of Bergson and others like him. He argued that a positive moral, based on facts, could not pretend that good or the generosity of society was its first (prime) impulse, because what is good for society is often not good for the individual. The positive moral must, therefore, be individualist, concerned about the fate of society only to the extent that it involves the fate of the individual as well.

In Guyau’s view, an exclusively scientific moral must accept that the ends and the natural cause of human action coincide, and that this provokes the instinctive effort to maintain and nurture life:


the end that, really, determines all conscious action is also the cause that produces the entire unconscious action: hence, it is life itself, life at its most intense and most varied in all its forms[7].

Guyau argued that all the movement of being has its cause in life and its evolution, but, from another point of view, this universal cause of our actions is also the constant effect and the end of those actions. Thus, individual and social action has life itself in all its manifestations as both cause and ends. The tendency to persevere in life is the law that is necessary for life itself not only for human beings but for all living things and, perhaps, even for the “last atom of ether”, because the power inherent in life is merely an abstraction of life itself.

For Guyau, Ethics was none other than “the science whose subject is all the means for preserving and nurturing material and intellectual life”. The individual enhances the intensity of life by widening the domain of all forms of activity; the aim of the culture of human activity is action. To act is to live, which means increasing the focus of inner life. Thus, in Guyau’s eyes, the moral ideal was “activity in all the variety of its multiplicity of manifestations” to the extent that is compatible with recuperating any power dispersed in social activities.

In Guyau’s opinion Ethics should stand on the nebulous border between the sphere of rational action and that of irrational action creating a comprehensible link between the two:


Since, on the one hand, there is the unconscious sphere of instincts, habits and blind perceptions and, on the other, the conscious sphere of reasoning and the will to react, then morals must be found on the border between these two spheres: thus moral science is the only one which has neither purely conscious nor purely unconscious facts as its subject. It must therefore seek a common ground for these two categories of facts in order to be able to link the two spheres[8].

Guyau criticised the presupposition on the basis of which the “conscious” was considered to be separate from the “unconscious”: on the contrary, he argued that scientific moral should demonstrate how action, produced by the effort to act, arises from the depths of the unconscious of the individual in order to emerge within the conscious domain. Such action must find the locus where instinct and reason meet and, interacting, transform each other.

The problems posed by Guyau were one of the main conundrums that faced sociologists in that period. Some years later, Vilfredo Pareto constructed an entire sociological system based on the life-giving centrality of non-logical action from which, fundamentally, all rational arguments elaborated both by social and moral science and by individuals derived.

Unlike Pareto, for whom the best way to push human beings to act was the myth, Guyau argued that individual and social action were the result of a moral fecundity that existed in each individual, of a surplus of life-force that should be directed towards the Other. Hence, fecundity was the basis of social life, or better, five types of fecundity: intellectual, emotional, sensitivity, will-power, and, lastly, that fecundity which could transform the environment. Because of this excess of life-force, which each individual would generously offer to Others, the ideal of individual life becomes life together: “at the heart of individual life there is an evolution which corresponds to the evolution of social life and which makes the latter possible, which is the cause rather than the result”[9].

The passage that brought the moral theory advanced by Guyau closer to a definition of a natural duty and, consequently, to a Moral that could be termed “ecological”, is clearly outlined in his criticism of Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s “duty” was, in Guyau’s opinion, artfully held to lack explanation. Rather, he argued, a sort of natural power/force existed within moral duty, a natural power/force that came before knowledge, a power/force that could constrain individuals to act and to produce. Thus, the fact that this “power/force” existed could offer a concrete answer to the mystery of moral duty. Natural tendencies, habits and customs, argued Guyau, were manifest proof of the fact that they themselves could oblige the individual to act without offering any further explanations. Moral obligation could thus be linked to a certain inner power/force. It could not be referred to feelings of need or of constriction: moral obligation was, above all, inner power/force, an overabundance of life that asked to be dedicated to social life, a natural inner force that permeated society even as it created that society.

The moral fecundity on which every type of moral obligation depended allowed individuals to open themselves up to society, up to the point in which the individual conscience exactly reproduced the social conscience, to the point where “the individual would feel the whole society within his/her heart”[10]. The inner power/force of each individual could not but open its sphere of action to others, reducing the distance between each “I” indeed increasing the need of every other “I” to come forward and to exist. Guyau’s analysis of the relationship between the social “I” anticipated some of the more common questions concerning educating individuals in the context of social life. Not only did Guyau admit, like other sociologists of his time, that the “mind of society” was, basically, the product of the interaction of all individual minds and consciences, which contemporaneously acquired different characteristics, he also added the remarkable statement that each “I” is made up of an infinity of “other beings” and of small states of consciousness: thus society enters every mind[11].

The social construction of Nature


The attempt to find the principles of a universal ethic within Nature posits a series of questions that have to do with the social and cultural interpretation of Nature itself. The cultural interpretation of Nature is a way of interpreting both the individual and society. Kropotkin’s work, like that of Darwin, describes a Nature that behaves like society, animals that behave like human beings, species that have social characteristics. There is no doubt that discoveries in natural sciences, both before and at the time of Kropotkin had brought to light information and knowledge that had revealed a Nature that was regulated by its own laws and was no longer subject to divine laws. However, it would be realistic to think that the categories used to interpret and criticise the social orders of the time could also have been used to interpret the generic world of Nature, in a utopian key. A constructionist vision of Nature is very useful for understanding how it is possible to draw conclusions about individual and society in the human world from this vision of Nature. In this case we could say that Nature is the cognitive mirror of society itself, perhaps even a positive utopia, one which calls for a world of justice equality and freedom.

Nature simultaneously conceals and reveals a culture. Nature is a mask. It reveals its deepest meanings only to those who know how to look, after they have learned how to observe it. In reality, this would mean stating that everything is culture. Roland Barthes formulated the problem in these terms:


To say that culture is in contrast with Nature is ambiguous, because we do not know exactly where the boundaries of either lie: where is the human being’s nature? To call himself a man, a man needs a language, that is a culture. In biology? Today, in the living organism the same structures have been found as in the speaking example: life itself is constructed like a language. In short, everything is culture, from clothes to books, from food to images and culture is everywhere from one extreme to the other of society. Thus culture is a paradoxical object: it has no boundaries, no antithetical terms, no traces/residues[12].

If everything is culture then the Nature/culture contrast begins to vacillate and lose its meaning, until it is reduced to a simple operating distinction. If everything is culture, then how can one think about Nature in itself?

In reality it is very hard to accept this position entirely, because it would reduce Nature to a simple expression of the ‘cultural’, to an “apparent Nature” with no life other than that it is given by the cultural spirit. However, from the point of view adopted by the natural sciences, we have the opposite, a “causal Nature”, perceived as a system of molecules and electrons which act on the spirit in such a way as to elicit solicit the sensation of an “apparent Nature”. These theories of the duality of Nature have already been criticised by Alfred North Whitehead according to whom:


there is only one Nature, which is the Nature that stands before us within our perceptive knowledge. The characteristics that science has discerned within Nature are very difficult to discern, and certainly never at first sight: they are relations of relations and characteristics of characteristics. But notwithstanding all their subtlety, they are marked by a certain simplicity, thus one must take them into account when unravelling the more complex relations that exist between the more concrete characteristics of perception[13].

Nature is knowable in itself, even though such knowledge also depends on the cultural and social conditions in which it exists and takes develops. Nature cannot be separated from a given culture, but the culture cannot reconstruct it only as an apparent or imaginary Nature, it cannot attribute entirely new and separate characteristics to it, characteristics that are different from its perceivable concrete characteristics.

The combined action of man and Nature

In reality, between the domestication of animals, their selection and their training, between the education of human beings, their correction and their exploitation, between the use of natural resources and their over exploitation, there is, sometimes an imbalance, sometimes coercion and power, sometimes violence and this latter is indeed against Nature and anti-Nature. At this point it must be recognised that not all the process of reduction to a culture are the same and that humanity must learn to evaluate them: destruction, extinction, transformation, modifications, inventions and improvement. It does not matter either what the object or the objectives are (vegetation, the Earth, raw materials, species, human beings themselves, knowledge and values); the main thing is to know what one is doing because merely to be conscious of the action is not enough.

Thus, asking what human intervention either in favour or against Nature is worth, means positing the question of the nature of humans themselves, of humanity’s condition, its destiny and its culture, since the destiny of Nature and of natural beings lies, in part, in the hands of humanity itself.

Elisée Reclus (1830-1905), a social geographer, developed a similar line of reasoning in which he gave the question of Nature a decidedly moral flavour. For Reclus, “man is Nature which has become conscious of itself”. This phrase contains perhaps one of the most efficacious descriptions of the moral feelings that link man to his environment. It highlights the intimate link that unites the succession of human actions with the energy of the Earth and shows how the life of human populations is transformed in conjunction with environmental changes, it explains the combined actions of Nature and human beings.

The mutual “agreement” that develops between the Earth and its inhabitants is, in Reclus’ opinion, made up of both analogies and contrasts, as are all the harmonies of organised bodies. It arises out of struggle and union and does not cease to oscillate around a fulcrum in an equilibrium that is in continual movement. Today, humans continuously react against the planet that is their home. After having allowed themselves to be cradled by Nature in ancient times they have slowly become emancipated and now make every effort to appropriate the energy of the Earth, to make it their own. Indeed the history of the human species is the story of the planet acting on humanity and of humanity acting on the planet. After having, for a long period, been a simple, scarcely conscious product of Nature, human beings have become increasingly active agents in defining their own history[14].

In Reclus view, human actions can guide and improve the development of Nature, but only if humanity wants it and is conscious of it too:

The action of man, who is so powerful in draining lakes and marshes, levelling the obstacles between different countries and modifying the primitive divisions between animal and plant species, thus plays a very important role in transformations in the external appearance of the planet. Humans can make the earth more beautiful but can also make it more ugly, depending on the social status and the habits of each people: they can contribute both to the degradation of Nature or to its transfiguration. Man makes the village in which he lives in his own image: after long centuries of brutal exploitation the barbarian will have given the earth a cruel ferocious aspect just as, thanks to intelligent husbandry, a civilised man can make it glow with grace and penetrating allure, can make it human, that is to say humanise it, in such a way that a stranger passing by will feel gently welcomed by the earth and rest trustingly in its arms[15].

It smacks of banality to say that these words anticipated the current debate on ecological questions and on the problem of sustainability. Reclus’ reflections go well beyond this simple analogy. They clearly state that human beings not only have a responsibility towards Nature but also towards themselves and towards the Other, the stranger who, when looking at Nature, will understand the degree of caring and social responsibility that can be found among those who live there. Where Nature has been rendered ugly, impoverished, denuded, imagination dies out, spirits are impoverished, routine and servile behaviour dominate the souls of people and prepare them for topor and death. In this sort of environment there can be no caring or willingness to help the Other who is passing through. Just like Nature, in that place, he/she too will be subjected to indifference, if not cruelty and exploitation.

Knowing which of humanity’s actions served to embellish or to degrade Nature was crucial for Reclus, “man himself is man’s environment”. The solution to this gnosiological problem depended on humanity’s opportunity to become the “conscience of the Earth”. A process that would unfold as part and parcel of the development of humanity itself, linked in the closest possible way to Nature and creating a secret harmony between the Earth and the peoples it nurtured. But, as Reclus noted, when imprudent societies allow themselves to lay their hands on that which constitutes the beauty of their domain, they always come to regret it.

Thus Reclus considered that society was responsible both for Nature and for itself. Even though it would be science that in the future would reveal the image of Nature transformed, even though science could not carry out this enormous task alone. Progress in knowledge must, in Reclus’ view as in Kropotkin’s, be flanked by progress in the field of morals and in that of social justice. A society that is not free cannot take care either of Nature or of the Other:


So long as men are struggling to shift the boundaries of their property and the false borders between one people and another, so long as the soil which feeds us is reddened with the blood of the unfortunate who struggle for a strip of land, for reasons of so-called honour or, simply, through pure anger, so long as the starving have to seek, with no guarantee of success, both their daily bread and food for their spirit, the Earth will never be the paradise that intellectuals predict for the future. The lineaments of the planet will have no harmony unless men are first united in a chorus of peace and justice.

Elisée Reclus believed that, in his Utopia, Nature was waiting and would not become truly fertile and good until Humanity, united in society, could agree and found the “great federation of free men/human beings”.

The Ethics of freedom in Murray Bookchin


To conclude this brief survey of moral thought connected to the philosophy of Nature we will introduce the work of one of today’s most original theorists of ecology. The work of Murray Bookchin (1922-) is directly linked to that of the thinkers described above and offers an important synthesis of ethical and ecological thought.

His approach could be described as being constructionist, in that it accepts that every image of Nature can be directly deduced from the image of the society that humanity, historically, has built for itself:


The way in which we posit ourselves in relation to the World of Nature is strongly conditioned by the way in which we see the social world. To a large extent the former is derived from the latter and serves, in its turn, to reinforce social ideology. All societies extend their perceptions of themselves to Nature[16].

Thus, to a large extent, a society’s image of Nature reflects the social structure of that society which has developed that image. In this, speaking sociologically, Bookchin is following in the footsteps of sociologists such as Durkheim, Weber, Mannheim and Pareto, for whom knowledge and the production of knowledge could not but be the reflection, or ideal projection, of the society itself. From the anthropological point of view he agreed with cultural anthropologists, such as Mary Douglas who argued that Nature can take on the role of a sensitive indicator of social morals, thus can be both a cruel judge and a victim of the generalised moral disorder[17]. In Bookchin’s view, societies extend their perception of themselves to Nature: such as tribal universes, built on kinship relations; feudal universes, founded on a rigid hierarchy of rights and duties; bourgeois universes, built around a market society which promote rivalry and competition between individuals; or even like techno-bureaucratic universes founded around flow diagrams and feedback systems or with hierarchies that reflect the operating systems of modern limited companies.

However, even though this image of Nature reveals community or systemic aspects, imperialist expectations regarding Nature are difficult to overcome. According to Bookchin, only a society that has found its own truth will be able to free itself from the limits posed by a hierarchical society on understanding Nature. Limits that could be summed up in that prejudice that posits Nature as the “hard kingdom of need”. A prejudice that can be found in any school of thought.

Bookchin argues that this prejudice lies behind the gnosiological dualism that has for centuries placed culture and Nature, man and woman, freedom and need and dominant and dominated in opposing positions. Within this dualism also lies the moral that has generalised a pervasive epistemology of domination, which:


classifies the difference as (the Other in all its forms) into a set or a pyramid of antagonistic relationships constructed upon command and obedience. The idea that the Other could be seen as part of the whole, whatever the degree of differentiation, lies beyond the understanding of the modern mentality which is governed by a flow of experience that only understand division in terms conflict or dissolution. Effectively, the real world is divided antagonistically: therein lies its defect[18].

Thus the division between society and Nature reflects this dualism on whose basis Nature is seen as the kingdom of necessity. In Bookchin’s opinion this ideology conceals the main feature of Nature itself, that is, the fact that it is potential freedom or liberty. Biotic evolution as well as social evolution is characterised by an increase in the internal diversity of the eco-community a process which entails not only greater stability within this eco-community, but also an increase in liberty within Nature in the shape of the number of choices for self-management and participation of life forms within their own evolution. Freedom, or liberty, and the “incremental” possibility of choices, are the central feature of participatory evolution the concept coined by Bookchin which is different both from neo-Darwinian syntheses and from Bergson’s mystical creative evolution.

Participatory evolution lays emphasis on symbiosis rather than on struggle, on participation rather than on competition. This concept of nature marks a return to that of Kropotkin, Reclus and Geddes, or to lesser known geographers such as Ernst Friedrich and Alexander Woeikof and, at the same time, rejects all socio-biological determinism, from that of the sociologists of the Chicago School, who speak of a society of competitive co-operation[19], that of the ethologists and socio-biologists who attribute most human behaviour to the genetic pre-disposition of the individual[20].

Hence, research on the foundations of Ethics must look again at the interface, the surfaces that are in contact, between nature and society. Philosophical and sociological reflection has been built on the rational research carried out on the relationship between society and Nature after the advent of utilitarian, scientific and instrumental thought. In Bookchin’s view, the task of social ecology is to place not only the incorporation of the ecological into the economic and social on the agenda, as “ecological economics” and environmental sociology claim, but also to carry out an in depth analysis of the way in which society has emerged from Nature, of the continuities and discontinuities that exist between the two, of a science and a technology which agree with these reflections and, lastly, of an Ethics whose foundations lie both in Nature and in Human Rationality.

Murray Bookchin argues that it is possible to found an objective Ethics. His task is similar to that undertaken by Kropotkin: to found an objective Ethics that can make the latent freedom in Nature a reality within Society. An ecological Ethics that can re-establish society’s responsibility towards Nature, reawaken the evolutionary continuity between Nature and culture and lay the emphasis on freedom and participation rather than that on competition and hierarchy. In Bookchin’s opinion an ecological Ethics should associate society with ecology and culture with Nature, because only in this way can society cease to be the sui generis social fact, separated from and antagonist to Nature, as described by Durkheim.

The theoretical views of Murray Bookchin are still some of the more interesting in terms of closing the gap, re-assessing the dualism, between Nature and culture. The approach espoused by environmental sociologists such as William Catton and Riley Dunlap does not offer a credible solution to this dualism even if it turns to the social biology of Robert Park or the functionalism of Talcott Parsons[21]. The social constructionism of the phenomenologists, of the ethnomethodologists or, of sociologists such as John Hannigan is weak, in terms of its recognition of the “ecological crisis”; the degeneration of the relationship between society and the environment which cannot entirely depend on the biased perceptions of the social actors themselves[22].

Bookchin offers a more rounded argument which is very close to Whitehead’s ideas:


Insofar as order does exists in reality ― hence the very possibility of science ― and is not simply imposed upon It by mind, we can say that reality has a rational dimension. More colloquial, we can find a “logic” in the development of phenomena, a general directiveness that accounts for the fact that the inorganic did become organic as a result of its implicity capacity for organicity, that the organic did become more differentiated and metabolically self-maintaining and increasingly self-aware as a result of potentialities that made for a highly developed hormonal and nervous system[23].

In this respect, Bookchin appears to be a true follower of the best ideas of positivism developed during the nineteenth century. Philosophers and sociologists such as Jean Marie Guyau, Alfred Fouillée, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, thought that evolution should increase the awareness of society about is own ends and means. In this case, evolutionism was not completely identified with natural selection, one of the possible principles of universal evolution, as said Fouillée. The darwinism was criticised because it stated the right of stronger, its despotism and aristocracies, its apology of inequality, the masses manipulation.

But this kind of evolutionist morals is not the Bookchin’s one. For him like for Fouillée the evolution selects the best qualities of humanity as intelligence, rationality, sympathy, justice, science[24]. But, and here I end these reflections, Fouillée and Haeckel stressed the danger when we brutally transfer the scientific theories in the political domain. Ernst Haeckel claimed to have the right to ask the policy makers whether they were aware of these dangers when they embarked on an effort to draw some political consequences from natural theories[25]. They, continued Haeckel, should abstain from deriving conclusions out of these theories, which are opposite to those that raison itself can draw. Only an ethics which is independent from theology and metaphysics could develop a more fruitful relationship with nature. The words of Fouillée are very interesting in this respect: “to develop all the faculties of our Nature subordinating always those which are only the means to those which are the real goals of the humanity”[26]. In modern words, it means to subjugate the instrumental reason to the ethical values founded by objective and dialectical reason.


[1] P. Kropotkin, ETHICS,ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT (Prism Press/Unwin Brothers Ltd.), p. 4; the first edition in Bulgarian, Spanish and Russian, was published in 1922. Nature Ethics is in part made up of articles published by Kropotkin, between 1894 and 1905, in the journal “Nineteenth Century”.

[2] Jonas H., Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, 1979; tr. it. Il principio responsabilità, Einaudi, Torino, 1993, p. XXVII.

[3] Bauman Z., Postmodern Ethics, Blacwell, Oxford, 1993; tr. it. Le sfide dell’etica, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1996, p. 54 and pp. 75-80.

[4] Darwin C., The Descent of Man, 1871; tr. it. L’origine dell’uomo, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 1966, p. 133.

[5] Ibidem, pp. 143-147.

[6] Kropotkin P., cit., p. 59.

[7] Guyau J. M., Esquisse d’une morale sans obligation ni sanction, Alcan, Paris, 1913, (I ed. 1884), p. 87.

[8] Ibidem, p. 92.

[9] Ibidem, p. 102.

[10] Guyau J. M., Éducation et hérédité, Alcan, Paris,1888, p. 55.

[11] Guyau, Esquisse..., cit., p. 115.

[12] Barthes R., La pace culturale, in Il brusio della lingua, Einaudi, Torino, 1988, p. 93.

[13] Whitehead A. N., The Concept of Nature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1920; tr. it. Il concetto della natura, Einaudi, Torino, 1975, p. 38.

[14] Reclus E., La Terre, 1868-1869, now in Reclus E., L’homme. Geografia sociale, (ed. Errano P. L.) Angeli, Milano, 1984, p. 56.

[15] Ibidem, p. 59.

[16] Bookchin M., Freedom and Necessity in Nature: a Problem in Ecological Ethics, in “Alternatives”, n. 4, 1986; tr. it., Libertà e necessità nel mondo naturale, in “Volontà”, n. 2/3, 1987, p. 20.

[17] Douglas M., Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, Russel Sage Foundation, London, 1985; tr. it. Come percepiamo il pericolo, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1991, pp. 77-87.

[18] Bookchin M., Freedom and Necessity in Nature: a Problem in Ecological Ethics, cit., p. 13.

[19] Park R. E., Human Ecology, in “The American Journal of Sociology”, vol. XLII, n. 1, 1936, pp. 1-15.

[20] Bookchin M., Sociobiologia o ecologia sociale?, in “Volontà”, n. 1, 1982, pp. 70-86.

[21] Catton W. e Dunlap R., A New Ecological paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology, in “American Behavioral Scientist”, vol. 24, n. 1, 1980.

[22] Hannigan J., Environmental Sociology, Routledge, London, 1995.

[23] Bookchin M., A Philosophical Naturalism, in “Society and Nature”, n. 3, 1993, pp. 82-83.

[24] Fouillée A., Critique des Systèmes de morale contemporaines, Alcan, Paris, 1893, pp. 9-15

[25] Quoted in Fouillée A., cit., p. 15.

[26] Ibidem, p. 71.


Democracy & Nature,

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY

Vol. 5, No. 3 (November 1999)