In the light of Murray Bookchin
Floréal Romero
In EcoRev’ 2022/1 (No. 52)2022/1 (No. 52), pages 31 to 47
Éditions Association EcoRev’
ISSN 1628-6391
DOI 10.3917/ecorev.052.0031
- In the light of Murray Bookchin
Jérôme Baschet’s recent book on emerging worlds and desirable possibilities has stimulated the debate on the strategies to be implemented to link the many and diverse experiences already underway. Floréal Romero takes this opportunity to insist on the need to get to work on organization here and now, based on the communalist proposals of Murray Bookchin, of whom he is a specialist.
It is never easy to criticize a school of thought that is close to our own without slipping into praise. This is the case with Jérôme Baschet’s views as expressed in his book Basculements1. Nevertheless, it is good to take a step back to see in what way and to what extent we can discern the disagreements, however innocuous they may initially seem. For while recognizing the wide range of our mutual convictions, these differences will be able to broaden and enrich the debate, whereas this lack of dialogue characterizes our era all too well.
Thus, hundreds of similar thoughts circulate and cross paths without ever meeting and feeding off each other. It is different with Jérôme Baschet, with whom this issue of ÉcoRev’ brings us into dialogue.
The world we share
His analysis of capitalist society and his diagnosis of its suicidal evolution echo the writings of Murray Bookchin, far from the superficial or truncated anti-capitalism that is commonplace among left-wing thinkers. By stating that “the power of the state organizes the capture of the power of the multitude”2, Baschet’s criticism of the state is also similar to that of the Zapatistas or Bookchin. According to Janet Biehl, the latter “rejected the state principle completely – for several reasons. Firstly, because the state exercises a monopoly on violence, because it regulates and controls society through legislative and executive bodies that become professionals of control, through the security forces and the bureaucracy. And, above all, because the state treats citizens like children who are incapable of governing themselves” 3.
Bookchin’s fundamental wish is for an end to the professionalization of a discredited political power that serves capital and is disconnected from citizens.
Hence his rejection of parties, which he considers to be mere machines for conquering power. In a democracy, power is not delegated, except within a very specific scope, under the condition of revocability, with an imperative mandate.
The good life, materially supported by “goods” that are messengers of the “good”, is an end in itself: the foundation of a new personality and a new way of life; a continuous learning of association, virtue and decency; a force of resistance to the social, moral and psychological corruption exerted by the market and its unbridled selfishness 4.
This imaginary, which is clearly reflected in Zapatista practices and aims, is essential to nourish hope and give meaning to our emancipatory discourse. Focusing on this objective will give us the energy, first to recognize ourselves and then to organize ourselves, to forge links in the synergy between our struggles and our alternatives, in diversity but also in a combined search for a way out of capitalism.
But for the moment, the flag of emancipation is at half-mast and “1984”, via the digital totalitarianism of China 5, casts its shadow over the whole world. The prospects for a new world, where harmony would reign between humans and between them and their natural environment, have drastically shrunk. The fashionable theories of collapse are merely a reflection of this slump.
Against collapse, the tippingovers
Faced with this prevailing despair, Jérôme Baschet takes up the challenge. To do so, he relies on the very notion of “collapse”, supported by the so-called “collapsologists”, but in order to go beyond it.
Faced with this unambiguous and fatalistic narrative, he multiplies the scenarios and develops a range of crisis factors in various areas of existence, interacting with each other and giving rise to the structural crisis of capitalism. Far from minimizing this crisis, he contrasts the closed notion of collapse with that of multiple “tipping points”. And this is where Baschet, while assuming a “trait en partie commun avec la thèse de l’effondrement” (trait partly in common with the collapse thesis), solicits our imagination and proposes an “autre conception du devenir historique” (another conception of historical becoming). Thus, he identifies, in this triumphant capitalist world “where economic determinations are becoming increasingly oppressive and invasive […] increasingly pronounced flaws that are weakening it underground” 6. And he concludes that “the opening up of possibilities is increasing” 7.
But in my opinion, this is more of an act of faith than a demonstration because how can a cause-and-effect relationship be established between these flaws, however great they may be, and the accentuation of the opening up of possibilities?
It is possible that these repeated crises may encourage anti-systemic reactions and nurture hope in ’emerging worlds’ and ‘desirable possibilities’. But for the time being, when the house is on fire, it is the arsonists who send in their firemen. However, we must recognize our inability to face the coming collapse by initiating another type of shift of an emancipatory nature.
The very ambiguity of the term “tipping point” as a credible source of hope comes from the fact that it ignores everything that precedes it, first and foremost the prior construction of an organized movement. Unlike the tipping point, this last task requires time, which the latter ignores because, logically, it is at the end of the process.
How can we exploit these weaknesses and turn them to our advantage? What strengths do we have? Not potentially but effectively? We have to admit that the balance of power is far from being in our favor, not only because of the lack of support for our proposals but also because of the lack of even the most basic organization. And that is where the problem lies, and it is this lack that our strategy must first and foremost address. Only when we have succeeded in creating a sense of emotional support for our proposals can we hope for them to become effective.
A strategic perspective is therefore essential, the number one common concern on which we should focus and unite our efforts. Strategy, a word certainly associated with war, but it has been a long time since capital declared war on us humans, but also on the whole earth.
Revisiting strategies to tip the balance to the good side
History as the first strategic issue
Struck by the importance that the Zapatistas attached to reflection on history, defining their struggle “as a rebellion for history and against oblivion”, Jérôme Bachet devotes himself to a pertinent and uncompromising critique of the neoliberal “perpetual present” neoliberal 8 and which echoes Guy Debord’s analysis in The Society of the Spectacle for whom “the time of production, commodity time, is an infinite accumulation of equivalent intervals” 9. Thus, we are caught up in a standstill of human history, its confiscation by market logic and its realized ideology. But Baschet seems to go along with this because he believes that history is no longer with us and that we are no longer the messengers of some sense of history that would lead us inexorably to salvation. Taking ourselves for the heralds of salvation is no more incumbent on us than considering history as an externality, a tutelary power. That is why we will continue to think like Marx: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it arbitrarily, under conditions chosen by them, but under conditions directly given and inherited from the past” 10. The challenge remains to set history in motion again, to disengage it from political economy.
Admittedly, we find historical references in Baschet, to the Paris Commune for example or to other revolutionary events and if he claims the necessity of knowing the past, curiously, he rarely visits the revolutionary past and in fact his perception of history remains in my opinion superficial. Hence this strange reference to Olin Wright’s strategies, which, after all, remain limited to an undoubtedly presentist approach. A truly historical vision would have allowed Baschet to avoid having to mention again the perennial mistake of collaborating with state institutions. Beyond strategy itself, an understanding of history as conceived by Bookchin allows us to go much further and, therefore, to address other important topics that Baschet sometimes deals with, but in a way that seems too rapid to us. Thus for Bookchin:
History is as important as form or structure. To a very large extent, the history of a phenomenon constitutes the phenomenon itself.
We really are everything that has existed before us, and we can in turn become infinitely more than we are […] Evolution inhabits us (just as it inhabits the world around us) in the form of elements that constitute our very nature 11.
We will return to the relationship between history and strategy as such, but first let us review these approaches which also seem to me to be part of strategy in that they will help to give meaning to our actions and reinforce our convictions.
From dialectical naturalism to universalism
Bookchin’s humanist dialectical naturalism is opposed to the misanthropic conception of humans as destructive beings. Thus, refusing to mythologize humanity as much as nature, human beings are in his eyes biological and social beings.
In this approach, history is revealed as a starting point for revisiting the concept of naturalism. A naturalism from which Baschet invites us to break free, as he rightly does with individualism and the totalizing universalism of modernity, countering the latter with the “universalism of multiplicity”. But just as with universalism, the author would benefit from putting things into perspective and not lumping all naturalist approaches together (“a set of representations that dissociate humanity from nature and place it above it” 12) without taking note of Murray Bookchin’s and his rich conceptual complexity. Indeed, the dialectical naturalism forged by the latter is far beyond crude dualistic naturalisms. Dialectical naturalism is at the heart of social ecology, being neither “biocentric” nor “anthropocentric” because it “reinforces the deep roots of humanity and society in its natural evolution” 13. Bookchin’s humanist dialectical naturalism is opposed to the misanthropic conception of humans as fundamentally destructive beings. Thus, refusing to mythologize humanity as much as nature, human beings are in his eyes biological and social beings. A naturalism that also opposes any supernatural (mystical) approach to nature 14. From this, he will forge the concept of first nature, the biological, and second nature, society as the result of the natural evolution of the first. An in-depth study of “pre-literate” and pre-capitalist societies will confirm his conviction that the two natures have not always been opposed, and that, on the contrary, they are rather complementary. In fact, the divide occurred with the emergence of domination within societies, starting with that of men over women. Here we have material to fulfill Baschet’s wishes to “make room for other emerging anthropologies” as constituent elements of our strategy, since they will be able to prepare our imagination for a “new world containing many worlds”. And it is the whole world that is concerned, which sums up well what Murray Bookchin meant by universalism.
As a result, his historical research and the proposals that stem from it are far from being part, as Baschet says, “of a very Western genealogy”. On this level, Bookchin could have replied that his interest in democratic institutions was not specific to the cultures where they were born 15 and that it is important to resonate with the tradition of emancipation of each country. And even beyond that, since, for example, the revolution in Rojava of democratic confederalism, inspired by the communalism of Bookchin, is a country where assembly democracy is not rooted in Kurdish history and geography 16. As he explains very well in the video “Les formes de la liberté”, he wants to address people with references that speak to them, that are part of their history, but starting from everyday problems. Moreover, the United States, where he lived, had to be privileged as the most favorable place for his action, but also, strategically, as the target as the nerve center of global capitalism.
The story that inhabits us
“Know the enemy and, most importantly, know yourself, and you will be unbeatable” (Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century BC).
But for the challenge to take shape, it must be even more ambitious for us. Taking the measure of what is, not only in front of us but also in the depths of our being, then becomes one of the priority objectives and in any case concomitant with our emancipatory approach. Gustav Landauer already affirmed it: “There is no liberation except for those who put themselves internally and externally in a position to leave capitalism, who cease to play a role and begin to be human” 17. Stemming from the very ancient logic of domination, while accentuating their oligarchic forms, capitalism and its “modernity”, with their preachers and their theologians, in order to distinguish themselves from the old religions, considered it essential to give political economy all the appearances of a science.
But unlike all other religions, the capitalist paradise is not located in an afterlife, but in an immediacy that everyone is called upon to seize: money. And it is in the obligatory practice of this daily dependence that domination/submission, the every man for himself attitude in separation and competition, are perpetuated. “If we do not explore this history, which actively lives in us, as the previous phases of our individual life, we will never be freed from its grip,” says Bookchin 18. Making it a priority in our activist groups is not an aesthetic approach, but a strategic one to defeat the inner enemy that parasitizes our relationships 19. In this approach and the desire to dissolve these psychic obstacles, dialectical naturalism presents itself as a major ally: conviction through knowledge of our creative potential, inherent in our biological nature, as a historical fact. But embarking on this process of working together in a genuine culture of dialogue only makes sense if we are firmly convinced of where we are heading together and which paths we need to take and map out, and especially which ones to avoid.
Concrete utopias and strategic determinations
We agree with Jérôme Baschet in identifying capitalism as the enemy, but also its objective allies, namely the truncated anti-capitalists from the far right to the left of the “neo” with their “L point”. Whether this “L” refers to liberalism (or neoliberalism) for the soft left and its reformism or to Lenin (Leninism) for the so-called revolutionaries who support the Great Evening. Indeed, taming capitalism is no more realistic than trying to break it. Just as the bourgeoisie was able to do with the aristocracy, we must, little by little, create a dynamic capable of eroding it. Eroding it in the political sense of the term by creating, in tension and against the State, a communalist power 20, a power capable of bringing about truly alternative social achievements capable of turning its back on the dominant economic logic. In other words, this “molecular movement strongly rooted in each community and in each neighborhood” will make it possible to build autonomy, starting with food sovereignty. This is the sine qua non condition for the whole world to be able to escape from the highly destructive sphere of the “world of the economy” and from everything in “this society that is organized around and for market production”.
This sets out part of the horizon, the objective of our approach. An imaginary that is growing and taking shape with as many social organizational methods and revolutionary experiences, past and present, as those of Rojava, the Zapatistas, the ZADs, etc. On the condition of becoming politicized, it is indeed all of these tangible alternative experiences here and now, those that are redesigning this possible and imaginable world where a society reconciled with itself is able to replenish the natural world from which it emerged. These interstices, these cracks, these breaches, are nevertheless minimized, not to say seen in an anecdotal way, by certain authors such as Frédéric Lordon. They are labeled “islands” or, at best, “archipelagos” that seem to float without consistency in the restless ocean of capitalism. It would be to prove them right to remain with projects such as the communes of 1960s and 1970s America, which, by fleeing the city, flout communalism as a project of political organization. A fact that is repeated in many contemporary projects 21.
Living in an enclave within a capitalist environment remains a form of “collective individualism” that ignores social struggle and gives the illusion of being free and living in an environmentally friendly way. But that’s not all. Apart from the fact that they could potentially embrace the spectre of “survivalism”, these self-managed alternatives, whether they be cooperatives 22 or companies operating in the market arena, can only fall into the game of competition. What’s more, many communities seem unable to extricate themselves from the management schemes woven into the very heart of capitalism by its most sinister tendencies.
Thus, under the pretext of cooperation, of distancing egos, etc., the Colibris, for example, have come to adopt management techniques from this lineage, such as “holacracy”. In the unlikely event that the bosses are eliminated, the market will be the only one in charge. This summarizes the danger of these islands which, far from representing breaches or cracks, divert social struggles and act as safety valves for the system by channeling fears and concerns.
Strategy and missing link
Jérôme Baschet hints at a genuine revolution when he evokes the possibility of “blockades and uprisings” or the hypothesis of “freed spaces [which] could well reinforce the difficulties of reproduction of the circuits of capital”, or even bring about the emergence of “a good life for all in a rethought relationship with the living [which] can only intensify, giving rise to a real war of the worlds” 23. We could give many more examples where victory seems within reach: “A decisive leap is made when the assembly shifts from coordinating the struggle to organizing collective life, in a context of paralysis of the economic world and the destitution of the powers that be” 24.
While this was the case with the ZAD of Notre Dame des Landes, it is far from being a general rule. Recognizing the need for the networking of these “liberated spaces”, he admits that this “struggles to materialize”, and for good reason. We have seen before how long the road ahead is for us to conceive of them as “liberated spaces”.
It seems to me that, in general, Baschet is getting a bit ahead of himself, as his analysis lacks a significant development between the current situation and the revolutionary scenarios he evokes. While the proposed strategy appeals to us with its lively style of writing, ultimately it relies more on spontaneity than on a concern for organization. This is not to condemn spontaneity; it arises when we least expect it and it “excludes neither organization nor structure. On the contrary, it usually generates forms of non-hierarchical organization that are authentically organic, self-created and voluntary. The only serious question raised by spontaneity is whether or not it is based on knowledge, whether or not it is informed” 25. Hence the need for the existence of even the seed of organization. Of course, organization cannot be decreed, any more than communalism can. It must respond to a need, and that is where the energies necessary to satisfy that need are born and spread with determination. But this need will be felt as soon as we set out on the path to autonomy.
Before continuing, we must emphasize a key passage from Basculements that should have been developed at length, otherwise “tipping” runs the risk of evoking only haste: In order to transform itself into a shift, the insurrectional moment needs a pre-existing power, made up of practices of collective self-organization, well-honed technical capacities, cooperative subjectivities experienced in the art of working together. In short, the experimentation, even if only partial, of an already communal existence 26.
A concrete strategy for the here and now
The need to organize
This is where we join Jérôme Baschet, but he glosses over this crucial aspect too quickly and remains a little evasive about how to achieve it, yet this is the first step in initiating a real strategy, starting with the need to create these spaces, preserve our achievements and prevent the repression against which we are powerless. At present, the need for organization does not appear. To take only the most recent French cases, we see what the State can do: to the Yellow Vests demanding to live with dignity, it responds by gouging out their eyes and tearing off their hands. How can we imagine that the State will allow autonomous communes to be set up on its territory, without crushing them like the first ZAD that comes along?
Because these characteristics are written in the genes of capitalism, liberal or authoritarian, as it suits it. We must take this subject seriously; it cannot be dealt with briefly and superficially. We have had too many deaths in the history of emancipation.
In addition to hurting, defeats weigh us down for years, so it is better to adopt an incessant but prudent strategic gradualism. And it is precisely this dynamic of construction that we must prioritize and that will enable us to access a real popular counter-power. Öcalan puts it this way: “The concept of self-defense does not refer to an armed organization or a military status but to an organization of society: something that allows it to protect itself, in all areas by mobilizing all organizations” 27. This echoes Bookchin, who advocates the creation of “categorically new” democratic institutions, whether legal or illegal, capable of providing the educational resources and vital ideas necessary for the realization of municipal communist and libertarian objectives.
In view of the difficulties of all kinds that we have mentioned, going back to the past is an urgent and vital necessity because many communalist experiments, as a movement, are in the past. They are in their own right, an accumulation of experiences that will be studied, filtered, selected, contextualized and finally used as a stepping stone prior to any strategy built with major axes while remaining diversified and flexible, the path being made by walking.
The colonization of the present by the future passes through history
The first part of Bookchin’s historical investigation, as an analysis of the causes of the disaster, as we have seen, runs through the whole of social ecology. The second part of his historical investigation, which deals with how to overcome this crisis, leads him to fully integrate ecology into the revolutionary socialist tradition, and even more so into the communalist tradition. This implies dusting off the latter, ridding it of its myths such as that of the Great Evening and preferring an organization of the struggle here and now, pursuing the objectives set and creating alternative institutions in tension with those of the State. And since class societies find their germ in hierarchical societies, dissolving all domination – including patriarchy and that of society over nature – remains one of the objectives of this policy.
By encouraging interaction between human beings and the elements of the ecosystems to which they all belong, Bookchin’s communalism places the social bond at the heart of its organization, the foundation of an ecocommunity based on the principle of “unity in diversity”.
Bookchin revisits his predecessors, from Gustave Lefrançais to Ernst Bloch, via Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and many others. Implicitly, their message was that social systems based on state power and control were in some way against nature, human and non-human.
Thus Bookchin, drawing on the study of thinkers who preceded him in extremely varied fields, but also thanks to the accumulated experience of past revolutions, combed through and analyzed in detail, ended up updating 19th-century communalism by integrating ecology into it, not as an addition – the need to “preserve the environment” – but as something deeply rooted in his ecological problematization of politics. Drawing on anarchist and Marxist thought, he goes further by embracing ecology as a science, to make communalism a synthesis of these three theoretical foundations.
But Bookchin’s communalist project already foreshadows an entire strategy by taking care not to separate means and ends, as this is a problem that has always afflicted the revolutionary movement. Indeed, the concept of dual power as a means of achieving a revolutionary end and forming a rational society makes it possible to bridge the gulf between the method of achieving a new society and the institutions that would structure it. Bookchin explains:
“Without a clearly definable organization, a movement risks falling into the tyranny of lack of structure. […] In closely studying the history of past revolutions, the most important problem I encountered was precisely the question of organization. This question is crucial, particularly because in a revolutionary upheaval, the nature of the organization can make the difference between life and death. What became very clear in my mind is that revolutionaries must create a very proactive organization – a vanguard, to use a term widely used until the New Left poisoned it by associating it with the Bolsheviks – which itself has its own rigorous paideia, which creates a responsible membership of informed and dedicated citizens, which has a structure and a program and which creates its own institutions, based on a rational constitution” 28.
Acting here and now
On this basis, I would first of all advocate pooling our ideas along these lines in order to explore how to bring about a communalist movement based on our roots, our revolutionary European tradition. To understand what a libertarian movement can represent, reference to 1930s Spain is unavoidable. With its strong unions, the CNT, its libertarian athenaeums, its rationalist schools, its newspapers, its naturalist and communalist, feminist tendencies, its social urbanism, its housing and consumer cooperatives, its revolutionary gymnastics, etc., this long-term movement led to the greatest revolution of the 20th century according to Debord. There is nothing to imitate or copy, nor can we close our eyes to the rest of the world, and that is why, armed with these achievements, we must start from our current reality, here and now. Setting up an organization requires the development of a strategy adapted to the place where we are.
The Zapatista strategy is different from that of the Kurds of Rojava. The organization of the balance of power is indeed the issue of confrontation and Bookchin’s strategic proposal when he speaks of “dual power”.
If we observe the trends of various contemporary social movements, such as the Gilets jaunes, the ZADs, Nuit Debout or various municipalist currents, we see taking shape, despite their heterogeneity, a political imaginary that places the motif of the Commune at its center. While this communal imaginary is the subject of various appropriations, I propose in my book 29 the joint development of a roadmap of “unity in dissent” to highlight the richness that diversity constitutes, at the local level and then at broader levels. This charter would be addressed to all social movements whose number one objective is to move away from capitalism while building its alternative, in other words communalism. This link would constitute a founding act of an articulated and flexible organization that would also represent a first act of self-defense. It is a question of cataloguing, visiting, debating and constituting an authentic network of territories in order to weave a protective and mutual aid net from our bonds of solidarity.
But that’s not all: setting the process in motion means stacking the odds in our favor in order to sway collectives that are still undecided. Or even, at a given moment, in a favorable balance of power, to sway certain “progressive” political factions. This requires a long initial period of patience and tenacity, unlike in revolutionary times. “Once this period has been set in motion, a year, even a few months, can bring about a change in popular consciousness and state of mind that in other times would have taken decades” 30.
My book puts forward a series of proposals, including a roadmap, a charter to be presented to the various movements of struggles and alternatives, where the following arguments will be proposed to help them position themselves while receiving criticism to move forward. Striving for genuine food sovereignty is one of the priorities: local, short supply chains, AMAP. This self-management practice is a fundamental link in the transition away from capitalism and towards autonomy, starting with the food sector. This strong and pragmatic link between the farmer and the responsible consumer and citizen paves the way for a “moral economy”, as a short-circuit of the market economy. Proximity, complicity and strong bonds can melt the mediation of money. In this way, we discover through practice the virtues and the pleasure of working together in difficulty, but also in joy, a condition for opening the doors to this dimension of “buen vivir”, as a whole, this dimension that the Zapatistas live and transmit to us. Only this experience will gradually open minds to a progressive collective recovery of the means of production and a municipalization of the economy. The same will apply to all other areas of life, such as education, energy, housing, culture, crafts, industry, etc. In short, it is up to us to create this dynamic of political self-institution of these commons, capable of implementing, first and foremost, the vital solidarity between us humans, so that we can share it and extend it to all living beings and the natural environment.
- Jérôme Baschet, Basculements. Mondes émergents, possibles désirables, Paris, La Découverte, 2021. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 188. ↩︎
- “Janet Biehl: ‘Bookchin has been marginalized’” (interview), Ballast, October 15, 2015, at: revue-ballast.fr ↩︎
- Murray Bookchin, “Market Economy or Moral Economy,” in “Power to Destroy, Power to Create: Toward a Social and Libertarian Ecology,” Paris, L’Échappée, 2019. ↩︎
- Celia Izoard, “Le totalitarisme numérique de la Chine menace toute la planète”, Reporterre, January 6, 2021, at: reporterre.net ↩︎
- J. Baschet, Basculements, op. cit., p. 59. ↩︎
- Ibid., pp. 67-68. ↩︎
- Jérôme Baschet, Défaire la tyrannie du présent. Temporalités émergentes et futurs inédits, Paris, La Découverte, 2018. ↩︎
- Guy Debord, La société du spectacle, Paris, Éd. Champ libre, 1971, §147, p. 121. ↩︎
- Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, New York, International Publishers, 1969, p. 13. ↩︎
- Murray Bookchin, What is Social Ecology?, New York, Monthly Review Press, 2006, p. 16. ↩︎
- J. Baschet, Basculements, op. cit., p. 145. ↩︎
- Murray Bookchin, “Écologie : socialisme ou barbarie”, Ballast, March 20, 2020, at: revue-ballast.fr ↩︎
- Murray Bookchin, Ecology of Freedom, reprinted in L’écologie sociale. Penser la liberté au-delà de l’humain, Marin Schaffner (ed.), Marseille, Éd. Wildproject, 2020, p. 270-271. ↩︎
- See Murray Bookchin, in Janet Biehl, Le municipalisme libertaire. The Politics of Social Ecology, Montreal, Éd. Écosociété, 2013 [1998], p. 247. ↩︎
- Janet Biehl, “Kurdish Communalism,” New Compass, October 9, 2011, at: newcompass.net ↩︎
- Gustav Landauer, Appel au socialisme, Saint-Michel de Vax, La Lenteur, 2019, quoted by Renaud Garcia, “Gustav Landauer: un appel au socialisme”, Ballast, January 13, 2020, at: revue-ballast.fr ↩︎
- M. Bookchin, What is Social Ecology, op. cit., p. 16 17. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 43. ↩︎
- See M. Bookchin, “Ecology: Socialism or Barbarism,” op. cit. ↩︎
- See, for example, Marcel Sévigny, “La trajectoire incertaine du Projet Bâtiment 7”, Possibles, 45, 2, 2021, at: revue-possibles.ojs.umontreal.ca ↩︎
- See, for example, Nolwenn Weiler & Sophie Chapelle, “Comment les coopératives agricoles reproduisent la loi de la jungle néolibérale,” Basta!, October 12, 2021, at:
- basta.media ↩︎
- J. Baschet, Basculements, op. cit., p. 203. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 204. ↩︎
- Murray Bookchin, Spontaneity and Organization, Paris, Éd. Noir et Rouge, 1978, p. 12. ↩︎
- J. Baschet, Basculements, op. cit., p. 206. ↩︎
- Abdullah Öcalan, The Communalist Revolution: Writings from Prison, Montreuil, Éd. Libertalia, 2020, § “The Self-Defense System” ↩︎
- M. Bookchin, Spontaneity and Organization, op. cit., p. 17. ↩︎
- Floréal Romero, Agir ici et maintenant. Penser l’écologie sociale de Murray Bookchin, Rennes, Éd. du Commun, 2019. ↩︎
- M. Bookchin, Spontaneity and Organization, op. cit., p. 31. ↩︎
Basculements – Mondes émergents, possibles désirables
Rebound:
Translated by TerKo with the help of a free translation tool.