Bookchin Was An Anarchist

Murray Bookchin labeled the “anarchism” of his opponents lifestyle anarchism. What he meant to describe by this was the general tendency among certain anarchists towards extreme individualism. Bookchin fell within the federalist and democratic camp of anarchism, in line with the views of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. The "democratic confederalism" or "libertarian municipalism" of Bookchin is identical to what Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin meant by "anarchism." Other modern thinkers within this camp are Noam Chomsky, David Graeber, and Abdullah Öcalan. From the very outset, anarchism had within it another trend, an individualistic trend, represented by Max Stirner, Josiah Warren, and Benjamin Tucker. Their modern counterparts are Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, and the C4SS crowd. Bookchin probably wouldn't consider the classical individualist anarchists to be lifestyle anarchists. Lifestyle anarchism is a modern perversion of classical individualist anarchist ideas.

In earlier times, anarchists were divided into different schools, but there was a great deal of solidarity between communalist anarchists and individualist anarchists. And I think there should still be a great deal of solidarity between communalists (Proudhonian mutualists, libertarian municipalists, etc.) and individualists (neo-Mutualists, CrimethInc., C4SS, etc.). However, I think that communalists ought to emphasize that their version of anarchism is the purest and truest form of anarchism. It is the only form of anarchism that is actually desirable and possible. Individualist anarchists are not necessarily lifestyle anarchists, but their vision of anarchism is not realistic. I personally draw a lot of inspiration from classical individualist anarchist thinkers. I incorporate a modified version of the competitive security/insurance model of Gustave de Molinari and Benjamin Tucker into my own vision of an anarchist utopia, although I want to place that individualist model of policing within the framework of a directly democratic social order. And while I want these companies to be competitive (because competition means choices), I don't want them to be private. However, I think that the definition of anarchism as direct democracy, representation by recallable delegates with an imperative mandate, and federation of communes/municipalities into large bodies for purposes of social welfare and national defense is the true essence of anarchism as envisioned by its founders. It's also the only realistic vision of anarchy. So, I see the individualistic trend, which thinks it can do without democracy or federation, as a less pure strand of anarchism. Anarchism was founded by federalist democrats, people who believed in delegative democracy and federalism. Libertarian individualism was originally put forth by Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, and Josiah Warren, but none of them ever used the term "anarchism" to describe their ideas. As far as I can tell, Anselme Bellegarrigue was the first libertarian individualist to use the term "anarchism" to describe his philosophy, but that was 10 years after Proudhon introduced the term and started advocating his version. It was Benjamin Tucker that really popularized the term "anarchism" in reference to libertarian individualism. The individualist anarchists did borrow many key concepts from the original anarchists, so their use of the term "anarchism" was somewhat legitimate. They wanted a stateless social order based around replacing governmental systems of law and security with market alternatives, similar to the way that the original anarchists wanted a stateless social order based on replacing authoritarian systems of governance with direct democracy at the local level.

Lifestyle anarchism, on the other hand, is a perversion of individualist principles. Lifestyle anarchists have a tendency towards anti-civilization, primitivism, and rebellion for rebellion's sake. Hakim Bey, for instance, wants to create little pockets of anarchy or "temporary autonomous zones" in order to allow people to live anarchistically here and now. He does not want alternative systems of governance. He does not want direct democracy, as proposed by communalists, nor does he want a system of private courts and competitive security forces, as many individualists advocate. Thus, his lifestyle anarchism appears to be a complete break with the anarchist tradition. "Anarcho-capitalism" is actually more closely related to classical anarchism than lifestyle anarchism is, since "anarcho-capitalism" actually derives a lot of ideas from American individualist anarchism. Most anarchists will tell you that "anarcho-capitalism" is a departure from genuine anarchism. If "anarcho-capitalism" cannot be regarded as genuinely anarchistic, then surely lifestyle anarchism is not anarchism at all. As far as I can tell, Hakim Bey's primary motivation for advocating "temporary autonomous zones" is because he is a pedophile and likes to do LSD. Thus, he doesn't want any social order to stand between him and his ability to molest boys. Unfortunately for Hakim Bey, true anarchism would have a system of laws and law-enforcement that would prevent him from being able to live out his sick dreams. John Zerzan, another lifestyle anarchist, wants to abolish civilization, do away with technology, and do away with the State and capitalism by sending us back to hunter-gatherer days. Well, that primitivist vision is certainly not compatible with the views of any of the classical anarchists. Some of the primitivists go so far as advocating the abolition of language itself. Then there are the Situationists, such as Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem, whom Bookchin classifies as lifestyle anarchists. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the Situationists, and I would not have chosen to lump them in with such people as Hakim Bey and John Zerzan. The Situationists criticized "the society of the spectacle" for dehumanizing and commodifying everything and called us to "the revolution of everyday life." By living anarchistically in the here and now, we can rebel against capitalism and the State. The Situationists advocated something analogous to Hakim Bey's "ontological anarchism," but for entirely different reasons. Debord introduced the concept of the dérive, telling his followers that they ought to allow themselves to "drift" through the urban landscape as they are drawn by the terrain, instead of following the beaten path. The goal of the Situationists is to construct "situations," or instances of momentary liberation in everyday life, through "experimental behavior" and "the concrete construction of momentary ambiences." (Cf. Report on the Construction of Situations)

According to Bookchin, the main concern of lifestyle anarchism is "autonomy" or "negative liberty" rather than comprehensive freedom. This is a departure from classical anarchism, which held that a person's liberty must be limited at least insofar as his liberty must end when he chooses to violate the rights or liberties of others. There is a trend towards nihilism among lifestyle anarchists too. Classical anarchists tended to follow a natural law theory of ethics. Additionally, lifestyle anarchists are not genuinely revolutionary. They tend to advocate seeking out little pockets of anarchy (like Burning Man) or doing little subversive things (like dumpster diving) within the context of the capitalistic Nation State, rather than organizing collectively against capitalism and the State. Those pockets of anarchy and little subversive acts are okay, as long as the subversive acts are compatible with universal ethical principles and the pockets of anarchy have some semblance of security to prevent people from exploiting or harming others. There might be something to learn from some of the writings of people that might be categorized as "lifestyle anarchists," but their writings must be taken with a grain of salt and must not be confused with genuine anarchism.

In the 20th Century, the term "anarchism" was appropriated by ideologies that were actually perversions of anarchism. People on the far right, who advocated laissez-faire capitalism, latched on to certain market-anarchist ideas put forth by Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker. They dropped the anarchist critique of authority and power structures, but clung to the idea of abolishing the State. Thus was born "anarcho-capitalism" in the late 1960s. This variety of pseudo-anarchism would allow for the capitalist exploitation of labor. Forms of domination and power were acceptable as long as they were predicated on property. During that same period, the "lifestyle anarchist" trend was developed and pushed into the mainstream by the hippies, the sexual revolution, and the cult of LSD and other psychedelics. After the 1960s and 70s, "lifestyle anarchism" took over the anarchist movement and drove out all the real anarchists. The two major "anarchist" movements in America were "lifestyle anarchism" on the left and "anarcho-capitalism" on the right, neither of which were truly anarchist! As early as 1962, George Woodcock had declared that anarchism as a movement had died with the defeat of the Spanish anarchists in 1939. The situation within the "anarchist movement" was so bad that Murray Bookchin rejected the "anarchist" label by 1995. He spent most of his life teaching genuine anarchism only to be rejected by pseudo-anarchists. So, he basically broke down and said, "Well, then, fuck it! I'm not an anarchist. I'm a democratic confederalist." Of course, democratic confederalism is what Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin meant by anarchism from the beginning.

Well, things have changed a bit. With Occupy Wall Street and the revolution in Rojava, the democratic and federalist strain of anarchism is now in the mainstream again. Occupy introduced a lot of people to direct democracy and consensus processes, while Rojava has proven that democratic confederalism can work. There is now an anarchist federation of over 4 million people in Northern (Rojava) Kurdistan that has been successfully defending itself from ISIS for about 4 years. And this democratic confederation was self-consciously built upon the ideas of Murray Bookchin. The intellectual leader of the Kurdish anarchists is Abdullah Öcalan, a former Marxist who turned anarchist upon reading the works of Bookchin while locked away in a Turkish prison. His followers adopted his anarchist ideas and created a democratic confederation based on the principles of feminism, consensus decision-making, and liberation.

There are still some people today who think that Bookchin's ideas aren't really anarchist. CrimethInc. has a series of articles that are critical of democracy, including direct democracy and consensus democracy. William Gillis at C4SS has also been quite critical of democracy. There is certainly room for an anarchist critique of democracy and even an anarchist critique of anarchism itself, but there seems to be a tendency among some anarchists to claim that democratic anarchism is not legitimately anarchism. I've heard several anarchists say that Bookchin was no anarchist. Well, all I can say is this: if Murray Bookchin was not an anarchist, then neither were the first anarchists. If Bookchin was not an anarchist, then neither was Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. If democratic confederalism is not anarchism, then I am no anarchist!

The classical communalist anarchists, who happened, by the way, to be the first people to use the term "anarchism" to describe their own ideas, were all democratic confederalists. Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin all believed in delegative direct democracy at the level of the municipality or "commune" and the federation of municipalities into libertarian confederations for purposes of social welfare and security. Well, that's libertarian municipalism and democratic confederalism. To drive this point home, here are some quotes from the founding fathers of anarchism.

“The Republic is the organization through which all opinions and activities remain free, the People, through the very divergence of opinions and wills, thinking and acting as a single man. In the Republic, all citizens, by doing what they want and nothing more, directly participate in the legislation and the government as they participate in the production and circulation of wealth. Therefore, all citizens are kings because they all have complete power; they reign and govern. The Republic is a positive anarchy. It is neither liberty subject to order, as in the constitutional monarchy, nor liberty imprisoned in order, as the provisional government understands it, but liberty delivered from all its obstacles, superstition, prejudice, sophistry, speculation and authority; it is a reciprocal, not limited, liberty; it is the liberty that is the MOTHER, not the daughter, of order.”—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (The Solution of the Social Problem)

“In the end, we are all electors; we can choose the most worthy.
“We can do more; we can follow them step by step in their legislative acts and their votes; we shall make them transmit our arguments and our documents; we shall indicate our will to them, and when we are discontented, we shall recall and dismiss them.
“The choice of abilities, imperative mandate, permanent revocability—these are the most immediate and incontestable consequences of the electoral principle. It is the inevitable program of all democracy.”—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (The Solution of the Social Problem)

“The basic unit of all political organization in each country must be the completely autonomous commune, constituted by the majority vote of all adults of both sexes ... the province must be nothing but a free federation of autonomous communes.”— Mikhail Bakunin (Revolutionary Catechism of the International Revolutionary Society or Brotherhood)

“As regards organization of the Commune, there will be a federation of standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade, one per street or per district, these deputies being invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times.”— Mikhail Bakunin (Program and Object of the Secret Revolutionary Organization of the International Brethren)

“The question of true delegation versus representation can be better understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men, who meet each day in their work and share common concerns, who know each other thoroughly, who have discussed every aspect of the question that concerns them and have reached a decision. They then choose someone and send him to reach an agreement with other delegates of the same kind on this particular issue. On such an occasion the choice is made with full knowledge of the question, and everyone knows what is expected of his delegate. The delegate is not authorized to do more than explain to other delegates the considerations that have led his colleagues to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens when true delegation comes into being; when the communes send their delegates to other communes, they need no other kind of mandate.”—Peter Kropotkin (Representative Government)

Also, here is a quote from the most prominent modern anarchist:

“I don’t see how any complex system can avoid some sort of representative democracy…. Representatives should be accountable, recallable, subject to constant surveillance and control, and interchangeable.”—Noam Chomsky