Libertarian Municipalism

Today I want to throw some light on the ideas of Murray Bookchin (1921-2006), who was an anarchist, social theorist and political philosopher. Specifically, I want to examine the ideas presented in ’The Politics of Social Ecology’, which is a short book (204 pages) by Janet Biehl detailing Bookchin’s views on Communalism and Libertarian Municipalism. Communalism, basically, is a system that advocates communal ownership of highly localized independent communities (Intentional Communities and Ecovillages) which are linked together in a federation. On that score, Bookchin is in perfect alignment with Utopian Socialism. Where his views deviate, however, is with his conceptualization of Libertarian Municipalism as the means for bringing such an arrangement about. 

Bookchin argues that the arena for libertarian social change should be at the municipal level. Basically that people should try to win elections to city, town, or village councils for the purpose of making them directly democratic and for promoting the general idea of Libertarian Municipalism. The eventual goal would be to replace the state with a confederation of these directly democratic municipalities. Unfortunately, I am convinced that this is exactly the wrong way to pursue a communalist goal. The way to build directly democratic, autonomous communities is not by going through the indirect process of co-opting the political sphere. Rather, it is by actually building directly democratic, autonomous communities without any reference to the political sphere whatsoever.

Any gains that are made by co-opting the political sphere will have been built upon a foundation of sand. As those municipal groups are nestled within the larger political landscape, they are subject to a variety of influences that will act to limit and blunt the scope and scale of change that can be implemented. Plus the fickle winds of political fortune will eventually provide an opportunity for opponents to overturn any changes that actually do get made along the way. The New Deal, and its eventual unraveling, are a case in point. The prospect, therefore, of being able to chart a course of continual change via the process of Libertarian Municipalism that successfully results in the implementation of Communalism seems remote in the extreme. A Utopian Socialist program of directly building intentional Communities and Ecovillages, without reference to the political establishment whatsoever, is the way to build change that has a secure foundation. 

Intentional communities are impervious to the fickle nature of political fortune. It makes no difference to the functioning of Twin Oaks Community, for example, what the current political climate is, or who is in office. As they are wholly independent from the political system, they are unaffected by its vagaries. Building Intentional Communities thus provides the bedrock upon which lasting political change can be successfully anchored. This Utopian Socialist program seeks to directly alter the building blocks of society, rather than by indirectly influencing its alteration through the electoral process. What this means is that Bookchin’s concept of Libertarian Municipalism is completely backward. You don’t change society by changing politics, even if you start at the bottom rungs of the political system. Rather, you change politics by changing society. And the way to change society is by engaging in the direct work of rebuilding it from the ground-up, one community at a time.