            E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?

   The dangers associated with environmental damage have become better
   known over the last few decades. In fact, awareness of the crisis we
   face has entered into the mainstream of politics. Those who assert that
   environmental problems are minor or non-existent have, thankfully,
   become marginalised (effectively, a few cranks and so-called
   "scientists" funded by corporations and right-wing think tanks). Both
   politicians and corporations have been keen to announce their "green"
   credentials. Which is ironic, as anarchists would argue that both the
   state and capitalism are key causes for the environmental problems we
   are facing.

   In other words, anarchists argue that pollution and the other
   environmental problems we face are symptoms. The disease itself is
   deeply imbedded in the system we live under and need to be addressed
   alongside treating the more obvious results of that deeper cause.
   Otherwise, to try and eliminate the symptoms by themselves can be
   little more than a minor palliative and, fundamentally, pointless as
   they will simply keep reappearing until their root causes are
   eliminated.

   For anarchists, as we noted in [1]section A.3.3, the root causes for
   our ecological problems lie in social problems. Bookchin uses the terms
   "first nature" and "second nature" to express this idea. First nature
   is the environment while second nature is humanity. The latter can
   shape and influence the former, for the worse or for the better. How it
   does so depends on how it treats itself. A decent, sane and egalitarian
   society will treat the environment it inhabits in a decent, sane and
   respective way. A society marked by inequality, hierarchies and
   exploitation will trend its environment as its members treat each
   other. Thus "all our notions of dominating nature stem from the very
   real domination of human by human." The "domination of human by human
   preceded the notion of dominating nature. Indeed, human domination of
   human gave rise to the very idea of dominating nature." This means,
   obviously, that "it is not until we eliminate domination in all its
   forms . . . that we will really create a rational, ecological society."
   [Remaking Society, p. 44]

   By degrading ourselves, we create the potential for degrading our
   environment. This means that anarchists "emphasise that ecological
   degradation is, in great part, a product of the degradation of human
   beings by hunger, material insecurity, class rule, hierarchical
   domination, patriarchy, ethnic discrimination, and competition."
   [Bookchin, "The Future of the Ecology Movement," pp. 1-20, Which Way
   for the Ecology Movement?, p. 17] This is unsurprising, for "nature, as
   every materialist knows, is not something merely external to humanity.
   We are a part of nature. Consequently, in dominating nature we not only
   dominate an 'external world' -- we also dominate ourselves." [John
   Clark, The Anarchist Moment, p. 114]

   We cannot stress how important this analysis is. We cannot ignore "the
   deep-seated division in society that came into existence with
   hierarchies and classes." To do so means placing "young people and old,
   women and men, poor and rich, exploited and exploiters, people of
   colour and whites all on a par that stands completely at odds with
   social reality. Everyone, in turn, despite the different burdens he or
   she is obliged to bear, is given the same responsibility for the ills
   of our planet. Be they starving Ethiopian children or corporate barons,
   all people are held to be equally culpable in producing present
   ecological problems." These become "de-socialised" and so this
   perspective "side-step[s] the profoundly social roots of present-day
   ecological dislocations" and "deflects innumerable people from engaging
   in a practice that could yield effective social change." It "easily
   plays into the hands of a privileged stratum who are only too eager to
   blame all the human victims of an exploitative society for the social
   and ecological ills of our time." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 33]

   Thus, for eco-anarchists, hierarchy is the fundamental root cause of
   our ecological problems. Hierarchy, notes Bookchin includes economic
   class "and even gives rise to class society historically" but it "goes
   beyond this limited meaning imputed to a largely economic form of
   stratification." It refers to a system of "command and obedience in
   which elites enjoy varying degrees of control over their subordinates
   without necessarily exploiting them." [Ecology of Freedom, p. 68]
   Anarchism, he stressed, "anchored ecological problems for the first
   time in hierarchy, not simply in economic classes." [Remaking Society,
   p. 155]

   Needless to say, the forms of hierarchy have changed and evolved over
   the years. The anarchist analysis of hierarchies goes "well beyond
   economic forms of exploitation into cultural forms of domination that
   exist in the family, between generations and sexes, among ethnic
   groups, in institutions of political, economic, and social management,
   and very significantly, in the way we experience reality as a whole,
   including nature and non-human life-forms." [Op. Cit., p. 46] This
   means that anarchists recognise that ecological destruction has existed
   in most human societies and is not limited just to capitalism. It
   existed, to some degree, in all hierarchical pre-capitalist societies
   and, of course, in any hierarchical post-capitalist ones as well.
   However, as most of us live under capitalism today, anarchists
   concentrate our analysis to that system and seek to change it.
   Anarchists stress the need to end capitalism simply because of its
   inherently anti-ecological nature ("The history of 'civilisation' has
   been a steady process of estrangement from nature that has increasingly
   developed into outright antagonism."). Our society faces "a breakdown
   not only of its values and institutions, but also of its natural
   environment. This problem is not unique to our times" but previous
   environmental destruction "pales before the massive destruction of the
   environment that has occurred since the days of the Industrial
   Revolution, and especially since the end of the Second World War. The
   damage inflicted on the environment by contemporary society encompasses
   the entire world . . . The exploitation and pollution of the earth has
   damaged not only the integrity of the atmosphere, climate, water
   resources, soil, flora and fauna of specific regions, but also the
   basic natural cycles on which all living things depend." [Bookchin,
   Ecology of Freedom, p. 411 and p. 83]

   This has its roots in the "grow-or-die" nature of capitalism we
   discussed in [2]section D.4. An ever-expanding capitalism must
   inevitably come into collision with a finite planet and its fragile
   ecology. Firms whose aim is to maximise their profits in order to grow
   will happily exploit whoever and whatever they can to do so. As
   capitalism is based on exploiting people, can we doubt that it will
   also exploit nature? It is unsurprising, therefore, that this system
   results in the exploitation of the real sources of wealth, namely
   nature and people. It is as much about robbing nature as it is about
   robbing the worker. To quote Murray Bookchin:

     "Any attempt to solve the ecological crisis within a bourgeois
     framework must be dismissed as chimerical. Capitalism is inherently
     anti-ecological. Competition and accumulation constitute its very
     law of life, a law . . . summarised in the phrase, 'production for
     the sake of production.' Anything, however hallowed or rare, 'has
     its price' and is fair game for the marketplace. In a society of
     this kind, nature is necessarily treated as a mere resource to be
     plundered and exploited. The destruction of the natural world, far
     being the result of mere hubristic blunders, follows inexorably from
     the very logic of capitalist production." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism,
     pp. viii-ix]

   So, in a large part, environmental problems derive from the fact that
   capitalism is a competitive economy, guided by the maxim "grow or die."
   This is its very law of life for unless a firm expands, it will be
   driven out of business or taken over by a competitor. Hence the
   capitalist economy is based on a process of growth and production for
   their own sake. "No amount of moralising or pietising," stresses
   Bookchin, "can alter the fact that rivalry at the most molecular base
   of society is a bourgeois law of life . . . Accumulation to undermine,
   buy out, or otherwise absorb or outwit a competitor is a condition for
   existence in a capitalist economic order." This means "a capitalistic
   society based on competition and growth for its own sake must
   ultimately devour the natural world, just like an untreated cancer must
   ultimately devour its host. Personal intentions, be they good or bad,
   have little to do with this unrelenting process. An economy that is
   structured around the maxim, 'Grow or Die,' must necessarily pit itself
   against the natural world and leave ecological ruin in its wake as its
   works it way through the biosphere." [Remaking Society, p. 93 and p.
   15]

   This means that good intentions and ideals have no bearing on the
   survival of a capitalist enterprise. There is a very simple way to be
   "moral" in the capitalist economy: namely, to commit economic suicide.
   This helps explain another key anti-ecological tendency within
   capitalism, namely the drive to externalise costs of production (i.e.,
   pass them on to the community at large) in order to minimise private
   costs and so maximise profits and so growth. As we will discuss in more
   detail in [3]section E.3, capitalism has an in-built tendency to
   externalise costs in the form of pollution as it rewards the kind of
   short-term perspective that pollutes the planet in order to maximise
   the profits of the capitalist. This is also driven by the fact that
   capitalism's need to expand also reduces decision making from the
   quantitative to the qualitative. In other words, whether something
   produces a short-term profit is the guiding maxim of decision making
   and the price mechanism itself suppresses the kind of information
   required to make ecologically informed decisions.

   As Bookchin summarises, capitalism "has made social evolution
   hopelessly incompatible with ecological evolution." [Ecology of
   Freedom, p. 14] It lacks a sustainable relation to nature not due to
   chance, ignorance or bad intentions but due to its very nature and
   workings.

   Fortunately, as we discussed in [4]section D.1, capitalism has rarely
   been allowed to operate for long entirely on its own logic. When it
   does, counter-tendencies develop to stop society being destroyed by
   market forces and the need to accumulate money. Opposition forces
   always emerge, whether these are in the form of state intervention or
   in social movements aiming for reforms or more radical social change
   (the former tends to be the result of the latter, but not always). Both
   force capitalism to moderate its worst tendencies.

   However, state intervention is, at best, a short-term. This is because
   the state is just as much a system of social domination, oppression and
   exploitation as capitalism. Which brings us to the next key institution
   which anarchists argue needs to be eliminated in order to create an
   ecological society: the state. If, as anarchists argue, the oppression
   of people is the fundamental reason for our ecological problems then it
   logically follows that the state cannot be used to either create and
   manage an ecological society. It is a hierarchical, centralised,
   top-down organisation based on the use of coercion to maintain elite
   rule. It is, as we stressed in [5]section B.2, premised on the
   monopolisation of power in the hands of a few. In other words, it is
   the opposite of commonly agreed ecological principles such as freedom
   to develop, decentralisation and diversity.

   As Bookchin put it, the "notion that human freedom can be achieved,
   much less perpetuated, through a state of any kind is monstrously
   oxymoronic -- a contradiction in terms." This is because "statist
   forms" are based on "centralisation, bureaucratisation, and the
   professionalisation of power in the hands of elite bodies." This flows
   from its nature for one of its "essential functions is to confine,
   restrict, and essentially suppress local democratic institutions and
   initiatives." It has been organised to reduce public participation and
   control, even scrutiny. ["The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and the
   need to remake society," pp. 1-10, Society and Nature, vol. 2, no. 3,
   p. 8 and p. 9] If the creation of an ecological society requires
   individual freedom and social participation (and it does) then the
   state by its very nature and function excludes both.

   The state's centralised nature is such that it cannot handle the
   complexities and diversity of life. "No administrative system is
   capable of representing" a community or, for that matter, an eco-system
   argues James C. Scott "except through a heroic and greatly schematised
   process of abstraction and simplification. It is not simply a question
   of capacity . . . It is also a question of purpose. State agents have
   no interest -- nor should they -- in describing an entire social
   reality . . . Their abstractions and simplifications are disciplined by
   a small number of objectives." This means that the state is unable to
   effectively handle the needs of ecological systems, including human
   ones. Scott analyses various large-scale state schemes aiming at social
   improvement and indicates their utter failure. This failure was rooted
   in the nature of centralised systems. He urges us "to consider the kind
   of human subject for whom all these benefits were being provided. This
   subject was singularly abstract." The state was planning "for generic
   subjects who needed so many square feet of housing space, acres of
   farmland, litres of clean water, and units of transportation and so
   much food, fresh air, and recreational space. Standardised citizens
   were uniform in their needs and even interchangeable. What is striking,
   of course, is that such subjects . . . have, for purposes of the
   planning exercise, no gender; no tastes; no history; no values; no
   opinions or original ideas, no traditions, and no distinctive
   personalities to contribute to the enterprise . . . The lack of context
   and particularity is not an oversight; it is the necessary first
   premise of any large-scale planning exercise. To the degree that the
   subjects can be treated as standardised units, the power of resolution
   in the planning exercise is enhanced . . . The same logic applies to
   the transformation of the natural world." [Seeing like a State, pp.
   22-3 and p. 346]

   A central power reduces the participation and diversity required to
   create an ecological society and tailor humanity's interaction with the
   environment in a way which respects local conditions and eco-systems.
   In fact, it helps creates ecological problems by centralising power at
   the top of society, limiting and repressing the freedom of individuals
   communities and peoples as well as standardising and so degrading
   complex societies and eco-systems. As such, the state is just as
   anti-ecological as capitalism is as it shares many of the same
   features. As Scott stresses, capitalism "is just as much an agency of
   homogenisation, uniformity, grids, and heroic simplification as the
   state is, with the difference being that, for capitalists,
   simplification must pay. A market necessarily reduces quality to
   quantity via the price mechanism and promotes standardisation; in
   markets, money talks, not people . . . the conclusions that can be
   drawn from the failures of modern projects of social engineering are as
   applicable to market-driven standardisation as they are to bureaucratic
   homogeneity." [Op. Cit., p. 8]

   In the short term, the state may be able to restrict some of the worse
   excesses of capitalism (this can be seen from the desire of capitalists
   to fund parties which promise to deregulate an economy, regardless of
   the social and environmental impact of so doing). However, the
   interactions between these two anti-ecological institutions are
   unlikely to produce long term environmental solutions. This is because
   while state intervention can result in beneficial constraints on the
   anti-ecological and anti-social dynamics of capitalism, it is always
   limited by the nature of the state itself. As we noted in [6]section
   B.2.1, the state is an instrument of class rule and, consequently,
   extremely unlikely to impose changes that may harm or destroy the
   system itself. This means that any reform movement will have to fight
   hard for even the most basic and common-sense changes while constantly
   having to stop capitalists ignoring or undermining any reforms actually
   passed which threaten their profits and the accumulation of capital as
   a whole. This means that counterforces are always set into motion by
   ruling class and even sensible reforms (such as anti-pollution laws)
   will be overturned in the name of "deregulation" and profits.

   Unsurprisingly, eco-anarchists, like all anarchists, reject appeals to
   state power as this "invariably legitimates and strengthens the State,
   with the result that it disempowers the people." They note that ecology
   movements "that enter into parliamentary activities not only legitimate
   State power at the expense of popular power," they also are "obligated
   to function within the State" and "must 'play the game,' which means
   that they must shape their priorities according to predetermined rules
   over which they have no control." This results in "an ongoing process
   of degeneration, a steady devolution of ideals, practices, and party
   structures" in order to achieve "very little" in "arrest[ing]
   environmental decay." [Remaking Society, p. 161, p. 162 and p. 163] The
   fate of numerous green parties across the world supports that analysis.

   That is why anarchists stress the importance of creating social
   movements based on direct action and solidarity as the means of
   enacting reforms under a hierarchical society. Only when we take a keen
   interest and act to create and enforce reforms will they stand any
   chance of being applied successfully. If such social pressure does not
   exist, then any reform will remain a dead-letter and ignored by those
   seeking to maximise their profits at the expense of both people and
   planet. As we discuss in [7]section J, this involves creating
   alternative forms of organisation like federations of community
   assemblies (see [8]section J.5.1) and industrial unions (see [9]section
   J.5.2). Given the nature of both a capitalist economy and the state,
   this makes perfect sense.

   In summary, the root cause of our ecological problems likes in
   hierarchy within humanity, particularly in the form of the state and
   capitalism. Capitalism is a "grow-or-die" system which cannot help
   destroy the environment while the state is a centralised system which
   destroys the freedom and participation required to interact with
   eco-systems. Based on this analysis, anarchists reject the notion that
   all we need do is get the state to regulate the economy as the state is
   part of the problem as well as being an instrument of minority rule.
   Instead, we aim to create an ecological society and end capitalism, the
   state and other forms of hierarchy. This is done by encouraging social
   movements which fight for improvements in the short term by means
   direct action, solidarity and the creation of popular libertarian
   organisations.

E.1.1 Is industry the cause of environmental problems?

   Some environmentalists argue that the root cause of our ecological
   crisis lies in industry and technology. This leads them to stress that
   "industrialism" is the problem and that needs to be eliminated. An
   extreme example of this is primitivism (see [10]section A.3.9),
   although it does appear in the works of "deep ecologists" and liberal
   greens. However, most anarchists are unconvinced and agree with
   Bookchin when he noted that "cries against 'technology' and 'industrial
   society' [are] two very safe, socially natural targets against which
   even the bourgeoisie can inveigh in Earth Day celebrations, as long as
   minimal attention is paid to the social relations in which the
   mechanisation of society is rooted."
   Instead, ecology needs "a confrontational stance toward capitalism and
   hierarchical society" in order to be effective and fix the root causes
   of our problems. [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 54]

   Claiming that "industrialism" rather than "capitalism" is the cause of
   our ecological problems allowed greens to point to both the west and
   the so-called "socialist" countries and draw out what was common to
   both (i.e. terrible environmental records and a growth mentality). In
   addition, it allowed green parties and thinkers to portray themselves
   as being "above" the "old" conflicts between socialism and capitalism
   (hence the slogan "Neither Right nor Left, but in front"). Yet this
   position rarely convinced anyone as any serious green thinker soon
   notes that the social roots of our environmental problems need to be
   addressed and that brings green ideas into conflict with the status quo
   (it is no coincidence that many on the right dismiss green issues as
   nothing more than a form of socialism or, in America, "liberalism").
   However, by refusing to clearly indicate opposition to capitalism this
   position allowed many reactionary ideas (and people!) to be smuggled
   into the green movement (the population myth being a prime example). As
   for "industrialism" exposing the similarities between capitalism and
   Stalinism, it would have been far better to do as anarchists had done
   since 1918 and call the USSR and related regimes what they actually
   were, namely "state capitalism."

   Some greens (like many defenders of capitalism) point to the terrible
   ecological legacy of the Stalinist countries of Eastern Europe and
   elsewhere. For supporters of capitalism, this was due to the lack of
   private property in these systems while, for greens, it showed that
   environmental concerns where above both capitalism and "socialism."
   Needless to say, by "capitalism" anarchists mean both private and state
   forms of that system. As we argued in [11]section B.3.5, under
   Stalinism the state bureaucracy controlled and so effectively owned the
   means of production. As under private capitalism, an elite monopolised
   decision making and aimed to maximise their income by oppressing and
   exploiting the working class. Unsurprisingly, they had as little
   consideration "first nature" (the environment) as they had for "second
   nature" (humanity) and dominated, oppressed and exploited both (just as
   private capitalism does).

   As Bookchin emphasised the ecological crisis stems not only from
   private property but from the principle of domination itself -- a
   principle embodied in institutional hierarchies and relations of
   command and obedience which pervade society at many different levels.
   Thus, "[w]ithout changing the most molecular relationships in society
   -- notably, those between men and women, adults and children, whites
   and other ethnic groups, heterosexuals and gays (the list, in fact, is
   considerable) -- society will be riddled by domination even in a
   socialistic 'classless' and 'non-exploitative' form. It would be
   infused by hierarchy even as it celebrated the dubious virtues of
   'people's democracies,' 'socialism' and the 'public ownership' of
   'natural resources,' And as long as hierarchy persists, as long as
   domination organises humanity around a system of elites, the project of
   dominating nature will continue to exist and inevitably lead our planet
   to ecological extinction." [Toward an Ecological Society, p. 76]

   Given this, the real reasons for why the environmental record of
   Stalinist regimes were worse that private capitalism can easily be
   found. Firstly, any opposition was more easily silenced by the police
   state and so the ruling bureaucrats had far more lee-way to pollute
   than in most western countries. In other words, a sound environment
   requires freedom, the freedom of people to participate and protest.
   Secondly, such dictatorships can implement centralised, top-down
   planning which renders their ecological impact more systematic and
   widespread (James C. Scott explores this at great length in his
   excellent book Seeing like a State).

   Fundamentally, though, there is no real difference between private and
   state capitalism. That this is the case can be seen from the
   willingness of capitalist firms to invest in, say, China in order to
   take advantage of their weaker environmental laws and regulations plus
   the lack of opposition. It can also be seen from the gutting of
   environmental laws and regulation in the west in order to gain
   competitive advantages. Unsurprisingly, laws to restrict protest have
   been increasingly passed in many countries as they have embraced the
   neo-liberal agenda with the Thatcher regime in the UK and its
   successors trail-blazing this process. The centralisation of power
   which accompanies such neo-liberal experiments reduces social pressures
   on the state and ensures that business interests take precedence.

   As we argued in [12]section D.10, the way that technology is used and
   evolves will reflect the power relations within society. Given a
   hierarchical society, we would expect a given technology to be used in
   repressive ways regardless of the nature of that technology itself.
   Bookchin points to the difference between the Iroquois and the Inca.
   Both societies used the same forms of technology, but the former was a
   fairly democratic and egalitarian federation while the latter was a
   highly despotic empire. As such, technology "does not fully or even
   adequately account for the institutional differences" between
   societies. [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 331] This means that technology
   does not explain the causes for ecological harm and it is possible to
   have an anti-ecological system based on small-scale technologies:

     "Some of the most dehumanising and centralised social systems were
     fashioned out of very 'small' technologies; but bureaucracies,
     monarchies, and military forces turned these systems into
     brutalising cudgels to subdue humankind and, later, to try to subdue
     nature. To be sure, a large-scale technics will foster the
     development of an oppressively large-scale society; but every warped
     society follows the dialectic of its own pathology of domination,
     irrespective of the scale of its technics. It can organise the
     'small' into the repellent as surely as it can imprint an arrogant
     sneer on the faces of the elites who administer it . . .
     Unfortunately, a preoccupation with technical size, scale, and even
     artistry deflects our attention away from the most significant
     problems of technics -- notably, its ties with the ideals and social
     structures of freedom." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 325-6]

   In other words, "small-scale" technology will not transform an
   authoritarian society into an ecological one. Nor will applying
   ecologically friendly technology to capitalism reduce its drive to grow
   at the expense of the planet and the people who inhabit it. This means
   that technology is an aspect of a wider society rather than a socially
   neutral instrument which will always have the same (usually negative)
   results. As Bookchin stressed, a "liberatory technology presupposes
   liberatory institutions; a liberatory sensibility requires a liberatory
   society. By the same token, artistic crafts are difficult to conceive
   without an artistically crafted society, and the 'inversion of tools'
   is impossible with a radical inversion of all social and productive
   relationships." [Op. Cit., pp. 328-9]

   Finally, it should be stressed that attempts to blame technology or
   industry for our ecological problems have another negative effect than
   just obscuring the real causes of those problems and turning attention
   away from the elites who implement specific forms of technology to
   further their aims. It also means denying that technology can be
   transformed and new forms created which can help produce an
   ecologically balanced society:

     "The knowledge and physical instruments for promoting a
     harmonisation of humanity with nature and of human with human are
     largely at hand or could easily be devised. Many of the physical
     principles used to construct such patently harmful facilities as
     conventional power plants, energy-consuming vehicles, surface-mining
     equipment and the like could be directed to the construction of
     small-scale solar and wind energy devices, efficient means of
     transportation, and energy-saving shelters." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p.
     83]

   We must understand that "the very idea of dominating first nature has
   its origins in the domination of human by human" otherwise "we will
   lose what little understanding we have of the social origin of our most
   serious ecological problems." It this happens then we cannot solve
   these problems, as it "will grossly distort humanity's potentialities
   to play a creative role in non-human as well as human development." For
   "the human capacity to reason conceptually, to fashion tools and devise
   extraordinary technologies" can all "be used for the good of the
   biosphere, not simply for harming it. What is of pivotal importance in
   determining whether human beings will creatively foster the evolution
   of first nature or whether they will be highly destructive to non-human
   and human beings alike is precisely the kind of society we establish,
   not only the kind of sensibility we develop." [Op. Cit., p. 34]

E.1.2 What is the difference between environmentalism and ecology?

   As we noted in [13]section A.3.3, eco-anarchists contrast ecology with
   environmentalism. The difference is important as it suggests both a
   different analysis of where our ecological problems come from and the
   best way to solve them. As Bookchin put it:

     "By 'environmentalism' I propose to designate a mechanistic,
     instrumental outlook that sees nature as a passive habitat composed
     of 'objects' such as animals, plants, minerals, and the like that
     must merely be rendered more serviceable for human use . . . Within
     this context, very little of a social nature is spared from the
     environmentalist's vocabulary: cities become 'urban resources' and
     their inhabitants 'human resources' . . . Environmentalism . . .
     tends to view the ecological project for attaining a harmonious
     relationship between humanity and nature as a truce rather than a
     lasting equilibrium. The 'harmony' of the environmentalist centres
     around the development of new techniques for plundering the natural
     world with minimal disruption of the human 'habitat.'
     Environmentalism does not question the most basic premise of the
     present society, notably, that humanity must dominant nature;
     rather, it seeks to facilitate than notion by developing techniques
     for diminishing the hazards caused by the reckless despoliation of
     the environment." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 86]

   So eco-anarchists call the position of those who seek to reform
   capitalism and make it more green "environmentalism" rather than
   ecology. The reasons are obvious, as environmentalists "focus on
   specific issues like air and water pollution" while ignoring the social
   roots of the problems they are trying to solve. In other words, their
   outlook "rest[s] on an instrumental, almost engineering approach to
   solving ecological dislocations. To all appearances, they wanted to
   adapt the natural world to the needs of the existing society and its
   exploitative, capitalist imperatives by way of reforms that minimise
   harm to human health and well-being. The much-needed goals of
   formulating a project for radical social change and for cultivating a
   new sensibility toward the natural world tended to fall outside the
   orbit of their practical concerns." Eco-anarchists, while supporting
   such partial structures, stress that "these problems originate in a
   hierarchical, class, and today, competitive capitalist system that
   nourishes a view of the natural world as a mere agglomeration of
   'resources' for human production and consumption." [Op. Cit., pp. 15-6]

   This is the key. As environmentalism does not bring into question the
   underlying notion of the present society that man must dominate nature
   it cannot present anything other than short-term solutions for the
   various symptoms of the underlying problem. Moreover, as it does not
   question hierarchy, it simply adjusts itself to the status quo. Thus
   liberal environmentalism is so "hopelessly ineffectual" because "it
   takes the present social order for granted" and is mired in "the
   paralysing belief that a market society, privately owned property, and
   the present-day bureaucratic nation-state cannot be changed in any
   basic sense. Thus, it is the prevailing order that sets the terms of
   any 'compromise' or 'trade-off'" and so "the natural world, including
   oppressed people, always loses something piece by piece, until
   everything is lost in the end. As long as liberal environmentalism is
   structured around the social status quo, property rights always prevail
   over public rights and power always prevails over powerlessness. Be it
   a forest, wetlands, or good agricultural soil, a 'developer' who owns
   any of these 'resources' usually sets the terms on which every
   negotiation occurs and ultimately succeeds in achieving the triumph of
   wealth over ecological considerations." [Bookchin, Remaking Society, p.
   15]

   This means that a truly ecological perspective seeks to end the
   situation where a few govern the many, not to make the few nicer. As
   Chomsky once noted on the issue of "corporate social responsibility",
   he could not discuss the issue as such because he did "not accept some
   of its presuppositions, specifically with regard to the legitimacy of
   corporate power" as he did not see any "justification for concentration
   of private power" than "in the political domain." Both would "act in a
   socially responsible way -- as benevolent despots -- when social
   strife, disorder, protest, etc., induce them to do so for their own
   benefit." He stressed that in a capitalist society "socially
   responsible behaviour would be penalised quickly in that competitors,
   lacking such social responsibility, would supplant anyone so misguided
   as to be concerned with something other than private benefit." This
   explains why real capitalist systems have always "been required to
   safeguard social existence in the face of the destructive forces of
   private capitalism" by means of "substantial state control." However,
   the "central questions . . . are not addressed, but rather begged" when
   discussing corporate social responsibility. [Language and Politics, p.
   275]

   Ultimately, the key problem with liberal environmentalism (as with
   liberalism in general) is that it tends, by definition, to ignore class
   and hierarchy. The "we are all in this together" kind of message
   ignores that most of decisions that got us into our current ecological
   and social mess were made by the rich as they have control over
   resources and power structures (both private and public). It also
   suggests that getting us out of the mess must involve taking power and
   wealth back from the elite -- if for no other reason because working
   class people do not, by themselves, have the resources to solve the
   problem.

   Moreover, the fact is the ruling class do not inhabit quite the same
   polluted planet as everyone else. Their wealth protects them, to a
   large degree, to the problems that they themselves have created and
   which, in fact, they owe so much of that wealth to (little wonder,
   then, they deny there is a serious problem). They have access to a
   better quality of life, food and local environment (no toxic dumps and
   motorways are near their homes or holiday retreats). Of course, this is
   a short term protection but the fate of the planet is a long-term
   abstraction when compared to the immediate returns on one's
   investments. So it is not true to say that all parts of the ruling
   class are in denial about the ecological problems. A few are aware but
   many more show utter hatred towards those who think the planet is more
   important than profits.

   This means that such key environmentalist activities such as education
   and lobbying are unlikely to have much effect. While these may produce
   some improvements in terms of our environmental impact, it cannot stop
   the long-term destruction of our planet as the ecological crisis is
   "systemic -- and not a matter of misinformation, spiritual
   insensitivity, or lack of moral integrity. The present social illness
   lies not only in the outlook that pervades the present society; it lies
   above all in the very structure and law of life in the system itself,
   in its imperative, which no entrepreneur or corporation can ignore
   without facing destruction: growth, more growth, and still more
   growth." [Murray Bookchin, "The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and the
   need to remake society," pp. 1-10, Society and Nature, vol. 2, no. 3,
   pp. 2-3] This can only be ended by ending capitalism, not by appeals to
   consumers to buy eco-friendly products or to capitalists to provide
   them:

     "Accumulation is determined not by the good or bad intentions of the
     individual bourgeois, but by the commodity relationship itself . . .
     It is not the perversity of the bourgeois that creates production
     for the sake of production, but the very market nexus over which he
     presides and to which he succumbs. . . . It requires a grotesque
     self-deception, or worse, an act of ideological social deception, to
     foster the belief that this society can undo its very law of life in
     response to ethical arguments or intellectual persuasion." [Toward
     an Ecological Society, p. 66]

   Sadly, much of what passes for the green movement is based on this kind
   of perspective. At worse, many environmentalists place their hopes on
   green consumerism and education. At best, they seek to create green
   parties to work within the state to pass appropriate regulations and
   laws. Neither option gets to the core of the problem, namely a system
   in which there are "oppressive human beings who literally own society
   and others who are owned by it. Until society can be reclaimed by an
   undivided humanity that will use its collective wisdom, cultural
   achievements, technological innovations, scientific knowledge, and
   innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of the natural
   world, all ecological problems will have their roots in social
   problems." [Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 39]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca33
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD4.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secE3.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html#secb21
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJcon.html
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj51
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj52
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca39
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html#secb35
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca33
