#Ecotopia

[chromaticramblings]

book review - ecotopia by ernest callenbach

Ecotopia, written by ernest callenbach in the 1970s, describes a world in which the land regions previously known as northern california, washington, and oregon secede from the rest of the united states and create their own nation, the nation of Ecotopia. the principles of sustainability and circular economy are central to this new nation.

here are my thoughts on some things covered in the book, i hope that this reaches someone else who's read it and we can share thoughts!

(this will include spoilers. however, the nature of the book is not a narrative, and is rather a presentation of ideas. therefore reading this post will not ruin the book for you if you choose to read it)

one of the greatest thought experiments Ecotopia undertakes is that of ideal urban planning. in that respect, the book is pretty cool! they hypothetical nation of Ecotopia describes San Francisco as a central city hub, from which spokes of public transport emerge and run to smaller city towns. these towns take the place of suburbs, which were razed during the country’s Independence / reconstruction era. (wooooo!!) public transport abounds and runs at a high speed of 30 mph, which is all you really need since the urban centers are so densely built and multi use. Between city towns are managed forests (actual forests! not monocultures) as well as natural land which has been allowed to restore itself.

people live in flexible communes that typically work together to produce something, whether that be a farming commune, fishing commune, artist communes, or business / science communes that invent things. everyone has a universal base income that is just minimal enough to reasonably get by, allowing people to pursue art or a risky startup without fear of dying. which i think is really cool! necessity breeds innovation yes but you need security too. work culture in Ecotopia is also vastly different, as the boundary between work and leisure and personal time is eroded, which may seem like a bad thing but the consequence of the UBI system means that most Ecotopians actually Like their work and choose to do it of their own free will. crazy huh.

houses are typically made of wood, which to me raised a suspicion flag, cause this is the Bay Area we’re talking about, which is Humid as Shit, and the Ecotopians have phased out paint due to it containing heavy metals. which good for them i guess but those houses are gonna rot lmfao. i took the liberty of imagining they are proofed with sealant made from the biodegradable, non petroleum based plastic the Ecotopians had developed and manufactured. while wood is the building material of choice, houses are also built from large tubes of insulated bioplastic, which are joined at the whim of the family or commune creating the house. (there are no architects, everyone builds their own houses themselves to suit their needs.) these houses are cheap and accessible, and zoning laws seem to be nonexistent, making homelessness a nonissue.

in terms of materials, everything in Ecotopia is renewable and has a full zero waste lifecycle. wood is the material of choice. the only metal Ecotopians use comes from scavenged cars and machinery of the pre seccession era. Ecotopians still manufacture plastic, but most kinds of it are fully biodegradable in a few days. when a lasting material is needed, a different type of plastic is used; this kind will not degrade until it is in full contact with soil. given how important disposable plastic is for applications such as research, i'm glad this was considered and accounted for in this book instead of throwing it off as a "we don't need plastic anymore kumbaya" kinda vibe.

culture wise, there is a lack of emotional restraint which the book’s narrator, a visitor from NYC, frequently comments on. hugs and physical affection between all relationships and genders are normalized. there also seems to be an insistence on small talk as a way to humanize those working “lesser skilled” jobs. honestly i found this a bit annoying, as i don’t think small talk is necessarily indicative of human connection, and that a truly emotionally attuned people would be okay with giving space when necessary. but i thought it was nice to acknowledge that all people are people, even while working “subservient” jobs.

ok so those were the things i liked.

criticism #1.

WILLIAM WESTON STOP BEING A FUCKING MISOGYNIST CHALLENGE

alternatively:

ERNEST CALLENBACH WRITE ONE (1) WOMAN WHO ISN’T A SEX OBJECT CHALLENGE

NO, THE WOMAN WHO YOU DESCRIBED AS UNATTRACTIVE WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE IN A POSITION OF POWER DOES NOT COUNT

god jesus christ

over the course of his adventures, journalist William Weston encounters many fellows (men) and new friends whom he talks around the fire with (men). he also encounters Marissa, a beautiful wild woman, exotic and mysterious who runs through the forest, cares deeply for trees, stares into his soul with her plain face and round dark eyes, and has sex with him twenty four hours three hundred sixty five days a year.

he also encounters Linda, an attractively sarcastic yet caring nurse, who nurses his injuries, jacks him off, and consumes him with thoughts of when he “will be healed enough to fuck her properly”. (direct quote)

in addition to the misogyny, there appears to be a fair amount of gender essentialism in Ecotopian society, something I found disappointing. Ecotopian clothes are sharply gendered. (from my understanding of Ecotopian values, i’d expect everyone to be wearing skirts due to the ease of manufacture and resulting ease of movement.) women are described to have an “air of fertility” (yes, actually). the governing party is made up of women, due to womens’ “natural competency regarding cooperation and diplomacy rather than competition”. the only sport in the country, the ritual war games, is barred to women. (it’s actually remarked later in the book that in Ecotopian psychology offices, it is often women who come in with issues of untamed aggression, and attributes it to their exclusion from the games. i wonder what a solution could be 🤔) thankfully work is not gendered, but it appears the social spheres of men and women rarely intersect, as Weston socializes and discusses ideas with a fair amount of men, and no women. perhaps for the better, as he’d be too distracted trying to fuck them to have a discussion of any substance.

queer pairings are also mentioned offhand, but they serve the purpose of emphasizing the Ecotopian's open attitudes towards sex and intimacy. queerness is treated as a sexual quirk rather than as an orientation.

in addition to the disappointing sexism / heterosexism, there's a good amount of racism. different races live segregated. although this is a conscious choice by the inhabitants, it still strikes as somewhat odd that there wouldn't be a way for humans to maintain their culture while living in an integrated society. many of the barriers to race equality in our current system are abolished in Ecotopia; the cheapness of the bioplastic houses makes it accessible for anyone to own a house anywhere, and the ease with which people can start their own enterprises reduces employment barriers significantly. therefore i'd expect integration between races to be a significant achievement of the Ecotopians. the writing itself is also racist. callenbach makes distinctions while describing the cultures of the nonwhite populations that make it clear that white is the default of Ecotopia, and all other cultures are side notes. also, callenbach makes no mention of an Ecotopian prison system (an aspect of society that no doubt merits analysis) until he mentions the Black community. sir what is up with that 🤨

there's also a lot to be said of callenbach's treatment of Indigenous ideas. the Ecotopians take a lot of inspiration from classic Indigenous principles, such as living in balance with the earth's natural resources and respecting nonhuman life, and Indigenous clothing styles. however, this feels rather appropriative rather than appreciative, and there are no actual Indigenous characters in the book. i would expect that such an empathetic society which takes direct principles from Indigenous culture would appreciate and honor the Indigenous people within that society rather than just shamelessly taking their culture, especially given the context that Ecotopians are ex citizens of the united states, the country which caused the Indigenous communities in that area so much harm.

overall, i think this book's strengths lie in its rethinking of what society could be like without work as its central focus. i love the UBI system, the reduced work week, and the attitude of work as something to enjoy rather than something to get over with. i also love that the nation's economic fall wasn't skipped over. i think its important to realize that many policies which would improve human health and quality of life would also lower our GDP, and that maybe that's perfectly fine. maybe human lives matter more than how rich a nation is. despite all these strengths, however, the sexism and racism cannot be overlooked; they made me almost put the book down several times. this book is clearly a product of its time, written by a white man. in keeping with good critical thinking practices, its important to recognize what ideas are good to keep and what needs to be thrown out.

tldr: great ideas about an alternative structure for society, unfortunately sexist and racist as well. 6/10

[darenrabinovitch]

I’ve just released limited edition prints!

These were designs from my sketchbook. Plans for a real-life forest farm where I lived and a movie we were writing called D.I.Y.

https://linktr.ee/darenrabinovitch click on *artworks*

[usaranker]

Step into The Rike and find your muse in our selection of herbal teas, seeds, and handcrafted products. Infused with innovation and tradition, each item is a testament to sustainable agriculture and creativity. Discover how inspiration can strike with every sip of tea and turn of craftsmanship. Join The Rike in cultivating a more inspired and green future.

[arthurdrakoni]

Flag of Ecotopia

This is the flag of Ecotopia.  It comes from a world where man-made climate change were not reversed.  Rising sea levels and changing weather patterns took their toll on many nations, but in particular the United States.  Climate change, resource wars, civil unrest and general strife strained America's resources to their limits.  Eventually, it got to the point where various regions began to declare independence, with the federal government being powerless to stop them.  A rump United States still exists, and some regions still claim to recognize its authority.  However, these regions are mostly self-governing and are independent in all but name.  

That brings us to Ecotopia.  It was one of the first nations to declare independence.  It comprises Northern California, Oregon, Washington state, British Columbia and the Alaskan panhandle.  As its name would suggest, it was founded to be a more sustainable and environmentally minded society.  Almost all of Ecotopia's energy is produced by sustainable and renewable resources; such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-electric.  It's capital city, also named Ecotopia, was built to serve as an example of the sustainable cities of tomorrow.  

Ecotopians eat a largely pescatarian diet, with meat being reserved as more of a luxury and treat.  Insects are also a staple of the Ecotopian cuisine.  Hunting is allowed, though tightly regulated, and cattle drives have made something of a comeback.  Most buildings have rooftop gardens and poultry roosts built into them.  Those that don't usually have solar panels or wind turbines instead.  Most cities have plenty of parks and other green spaces.  The prevailing architectural philosophy is to work with nature, not against it.  Most Ecotopians drive electric cars, though most cities have plenty of public transportation options.  Cities are also built with walkability and biking in mind.

Secularism is rather prevalent, but Buddhism remains the most practiced religion.  However, Ecotopian Buddhism tends to place more emphasis on environmentalism than it does on breaking free from the cycle of reincarnation.  There's also a rapidly growing neopagan movement underway.  In fact, all religions are legal in Ecotopia...within reason, that is. For example, Christianity is legal, but the Bible has been banned due to promoting violence and bigotry.  Recently, the Koran has also been put on the list of banned books.  

Ecotopia has a thriving art scene, but all works of art and literature must be submitted to government boards for approval.  After all, wouldn't want any "problematic" themes infiltrating the artistic world and corrupting the youths.  Hate speech is considered a serious crime, and there are harsh penalties for any caught perpetuating bigoted opinions.  There have been grumbling about the definitions of hate speech getting broader and broader.  Though, officially, the Ecotopian government maintains that it supports free speech...within certain boundaries.  

It's not all fun and games, however.  Ecotopia has a large standing army, and they're certainly not afraid to use it.  In their early days, they got into quite a few skirmished with the Mormon Republic of Deseret.  These days, both nations have something of an uneasy truce with each other.  Ecotopia's biggest foreign intervention, however, hardly required any military action.  The Republic of SoCal gets most of its water from North California.  Therefore, whenever SoCal gives them trouble, Ecotopia just has to turn off the tap until they come around.  SoCal, much to its chagrin, is also quite dependent on Ecotopia to supplement its food supply.  This has, effectively, turned SoCal into an Ecotopian colony. 

The SoCalians are splits about what to do.  Some favor formally joining Ecotopia, while others suggest going to war over the former Northern California.  Still others suggest slowly working to find solutions, such as desalinization plants, that would reduce their need for Ecotopia.  In more friendly relations, the Republic of Hawaii is quite close diplomatically with Ecotopia.  The two nations share similar philosophies, and there is talk of a possible merger of the two nations.  Admittedly, many are skeptical that it will get off the ground, but hope springs eternal. 

Despite these problems, Ecotopia is looking towards a brighter future.  Despite their isolationist beginnings, in more recent times Ecotopia has begun to open itself to the wider world.  Trade relations have been established with several nations of East Asia.  Ecotopia is quickly become a hub of trade, bringing to goods of Asia to the North American continent.  A sea wall project is currently underway to reclaim coastal lands lost to rising sea levels.  Ecotopia hopes to learn from the mistakes of the past to build a better tomorrow.  Let's just hope they don't become the monsters they seek to fight.  

The flag reflects Ecotopia's environmentalist philosophy.  The brown stands for earth, the blue stands for water and the green stand for plant life and sustainability.  The phoenix represents Ecotopia rising out of the ashes of the old world to build a better tomorrow.  

Link to the original flag on my blog: https://drakoniandgriffalco.blogspot.com/2017/10/flag-of-ecotopia.html?m=1

[nancyrezendes]

Step into The Rike and find your muse in our selection of herbal teas, seeds, and handcrafted products. Infused with innovation and tradition, each item is a testament to sustainable agriculture and creativity. Discover how inspiration can strike with every sip of tea and turn of craftsmanship. Join The Rike in cultivating a more inspired and green future.

[xyca]

[sansfeargaldin]

4x06 Distopías

Buenas, volvemos con la literatura y sus géneros, encauzaremos una nueva serie para aquellos a los que os guste leer y escribir. Esperamos que os guste y os esperamos en Twitch; saga_galdin, donde grabamos el podcast en directo. Síguenos en instagram @sagagaldin para enterarte de cuándo y qué estamos preparando. Saludos. Podéis acceder a este contenido en nuestra sección de Podcast o…

[thewildshrike]

Where, in all of the corners of this world, are humans truly superior to nature? Have we forgotten the genesis from which we came? We were forged by nature, *nurtured* by nature, we owe our lives to her. So who exactly are we to say that we are above her? That we have some divine right to pillage this cradle she has made for us for oil, and minerals, and food?

[elsolarpunk]

Also keep feeling I have gotten stuck on vacation in the country. Partly it's all the trees, and maybe dthe dark knights (which still make me feel a power blackout must have struck), and also it's hard toget used to the quiet. Must be doing something to my New York paranoia system, geared to respond to honking, screeching, buzzing, bangs, knocks, not to mention a shot or a scream now and then. You expect silence in the country. But here I am in a metropolitan area of several million, constantly surrounded by people-and the only really loud noises are human shouts or babies crying. There's no "New Man" bullshit in Ecotopia, but how do they stand the quiet?

Ecotopia, 1975; Ernest Callenbach

[cognitivejustice]

By accepting as inevitable humanity’s demise by its own hand, post-apocalyptic fiction places no responsibility on the living to course correct.

Solarpunk looks towards a post-capitalist future of renewable energy. It rejects climate “doomerism” and shows what our collective future could look like if we heal our relationship with the natural world.

Far from Star Trek’s “full luxury space communism,” where humans race across galaxies via endless sources of energy, the technology in solarpunk is imminently achievable. In the anthology Future Primitive: The New Ecotopias, science fiction writer and democratic socialist Kim Stanley Robinson describes this genre as rejecting “the inevitability of the machine future.”

Instead [solarpunk] asks, “What is the healthiest way to live? What is the most beautiful?”

Rather than Elon Musk’s tent cities on Mars, these fictional worlds “cobble together aspects of the postmodern and the paleolithic, asserting that we might for very good reasons choose to live in ways that resemble in part the ways of our ancestors.” 

[chromaticramblings]

obsessed w the idea of main streets as a third space. having ample greenspace and room to meet up and socialize and take a walk without having to purchase something. imagine taking a liminal space and giving it soul. every location in a neighborhood full of meaning instead of having large stretches of living space being nothing but a means to an end. idk

[quasi-normalcy]

(Deliberately leaving out Star Trek because I know that way more people have seen it than read any of these books)

[usaranker]

Step into The Rike and find your muse in our selection of herbal teas, seeds, and handcrafted products. Infused with innovation and tradition, each item is a testament to sustainable agriculture and creativity. Discover how inspiration can strike with every sip of tea and turn of craftsmanship. Join The Rike in cultivating a more inspired and green future.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Despite the heterogeneity of categories of ‘city’ and ‘country’, there still exists a strong rural bias within ecological discourse. For example, a generic description of ‘ecotopia’ is primarily located within a rural environment. The inhabitants of that imagined ecotopia are usually wholesome, able-bodied, white, and heterosexual. These taken-for-granted associations latent within popular consciousness are often shared particularly by European descendants raised within industrialized capitalist societies that define ‘nature’ in opposition to society and the evil town in opposition to the wholesome country. Rarely would one imagine the ‘ecological subject’ to be a Puerto Rican lesbian in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, a poor disabled man of color in Chicago, or a Jew in Brooklyn, for ecology is primarily defined in opposition to the urban subject. The predominantly urban identity of such progressive movements such as feminism, lesbian and gay liberation, civil rights, and labor movements, renders feminists, queers, Jews, people of color, and urban workers as incongruent with white middle-class ‘wholesome’ understandings of ‘ecology’.

Chaia Heller, Ecology of Everyday Life: Rethinking the Desire for Nature

[thoughtportal]

In this episode we explore a relatively new subgenre of science fiction called Solarpunk, which aims to imagine better, more ecologically harmonious, futures on earth. In many ways Solarpunk is a reaction to both the real-world climate crisis and to the many apocalyptic visions of collapse filling our screens. Andrew Sage from the YouTube channel Andrewism joins host Jonathan McIntosh and friend of the show Carl Williams for this conversation.

References & Links • The Andrewism YouTube Channel • Walkaway by Cory Doctorow • Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach • Sunvault: Stories of Solarpunk and Eco-Speculation • Fighting for the Future edited by Phoebe Wagner  • Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler • Princess Mononoke from Studio Ghibli • The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin • Emergency Skin by N. K. Jemisin • Monk and Robot book series by Becky Chambers • Dear Alice from THE LINE • Dear Alice’ Decommodified Edition by Waffle To The Left • Our History Is the Future by Nick Estes • 3000-Year-Old Solutions to Modern Problems by Lyla June  • Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher

[dailyanarchistposts]

E.2 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism?

Given what eco-anarchists consider to be the root cause of our ecological problems (as discussed in the last section), it should come as no surprise that they think that the current ecological crisis can only be really solved by eliminating those root causes, namely by ending domination within humanity and creating an anarchist society. So here we will summarise the vision of the free society eco-anarchists advocate before discussing the limitations of various non-anarchist proposals to solve environmental problems in subsequent sections.

However, before so doing it is important to stress that eco-anarchists consider it important to fight against ecological and social problems today. Like all anarchists, they argue for direct action and solidarity to struggle for improvements and reforms under the current system. This means that eco-anarchism “supports every effort to conserve the environment” in the here and now. The key difference between them and environmentalists is that eco-anarchists place such partial struggles within a larger context of changing society as a whole. The former is part of “waging a delaying action against the rampant destruction of the environment” the other is “a create movement to totally revolutionise the social relations of humans to each other and of humanity to nature.” [Murray Bookchin, Toward an Ecological Society, p. 43] This is one of the key differences between an ecological perspective and an environmental one (a difference discussed in section E.1.2). Finding ways to resist capitalism’s reduction of the living world to resources and commodities and its plunder of the planet, our resistance to specific aspects of an eco-cidal system, are merely a starting point in the critique of the whole system and of a wider struggle for a better society. As such, our outline of an ecological society (or ecotopia) is not meant to suggest an indifference to partial struggles and reforms within capitalism. It is simply to indicate why anarchists are confident that ending capitalism and the state will create the necessary preconditions for a free and ecologically viable society.

This perspective flows from the basic insight of eco-anarchism, namely that ecological problems are not separate from social ones. As we are part of nature, it means that how we interact and shape with it will be influenced by how we interact and shape ourselves. As Reclus put it “every people gives, so to speak, new clothing to the surrounding nature. By means of its fields and roads, by its dwelling and every manner of construction, by the way it arranges the trees and the landscape in general, the populace expresses the character of its own ideals. If it really has a feeling for beauty, it will make nature more beautiful. If, on the other hand, the great mass of humanity should remain as it is today, crude, egoistic and inauthentic, it will continue to mark the face of the earth with its wretched traces. Thus will the poet’s cry of desperation become a reality: ‘Where can I flee? Nature itself has become hideous.’” In order to transform how we interact with nature, we need to transform how we interact with each other. “Fortunately,” Reclus notes, “a complete alliance of the beautiful and the useful is possible.” [quoted by Clark and Martin (eds.) , Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 125 and p. 28]

Over a century later, Murray Bookchin echoed this insight:

“The views advanced by anarchists were deliberately called social ecology to emphasise that major ecological problems have their roots in social problems — problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric culture itself. The rise of capitalism, with a law of life based on competition, capital accumulation, and limitless growth, brought these problems — ecological and social — to an acute point; indeed, one that was unprecedented in any prior epoch of human development. Capitalist society, by recycling the organise world into an increasingly inanimate, inorganic assemblage of commodities, was destined to simplify the biosphere, thereby cutting across the grain of natural evolution with its ages-long thrust towards differentiation and diversity. “To reverse this trend, capitalism had to be replaced by an ecological society based on non-hierarchical relationships, decentralised communities, eco-technologies like solar power, organic agriculture, and humanly scaled industries — in short, by face-to-face democratic forms of settlement economically and structurally tailored to the ecosystems in which they were located.” [Remaking Society, pp. 154–5]

The vision of an ecological society rests on the obvious fact that people can have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. In current society, there are vast differences and antagonisms between privileged whites and people of colour, men and women, rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. Remove those differences and antagonisms and our interactions with ourselves and nature change radically. In other words, there is a vast difference between free, non-hierarchical, class, and stateless societies on the one hand, and hierarchical, class-ridden, statist, and authoritarian ones and how they interact with the environment.

Given the nature of ecology, it should come as no surprise that social anarchists have been at the forefront of eco-anarchist theory and activism. It would be fair to say that most eco-anarchists, like most anarchists in general, envision an ecotopia based on communist-anarchist principles. This does not mean that individualist anarchists are indifferent to environmental issues, simply that most anarchists are unconvinced that such solutions will actually end the ecological crisis we face. Certain of the proposals in this section are applicable to individualist anarchism (for example, the arguments that co-operatives will produce less growth and be less likely to pollute). However, others are not. Most obviously, arguments in favour of common ownership and against the price mechanism are not applicable to the market based solutions of individualist anarchism. It should also be pointed out, that much of the eco-anarchist critique of capitalist approaches to ecological problems are also applicable to individualist and mutualist anarchism as well (particularly the former, as the latter does recognise the need to regulate the market). While certain aspects of capitalism would be removed in an individualist anarchism (such as massive inequalities of wealth, capitalist property rights as well as direct and indirect subsidies to big business), it is still has the informational problems associated with markets as well as a growth orientation.

Here we discuss the typical eco-anarchist view of a free ecological society, namely one rooted in social anarchist principles. Eco-anarchists, like all consistent anarchists advocate workers’ self-management of the economy as a necessary component of an ecologically sustainable society. This usually means society-wide ownership of the means of production and all productive enterprises self-managed by their workers (as described further in section I.3). This is a key aspect of making a truly ecological society. Most greens, even if they are not anarchists, recognise the pernicious ecological effects of the capitalist “grow or die” principle; but unless they are also anarchists, they usually fail to make the connection between that principle and the hierarchical form of the typical capitalist corporation. The capitalist firm, like the state, is centralised, top-down and autocratic. These are the opposite of what an ecological ethos would suggest. In contrast, eco-anarchists emphasise the need for socially owned and worker self-managed firms.

This vision of co-operative rather than hierarchical production is a common position for almost all anarchists. Communist and non-communist social anarchists, like mutualists and collectivists, propose co-operative workplaces but differ in how best to distribute the products produced. The former urge the abolition of money and sharing according to need while the latter see income related to work and surpluses are shared equally among all members. Both of these systems would produce workplaces which would be under far less pressure toward rapid expansion than the traditional capitalist firm (as individualist anarchism aims for the abolition of rent, profit and interest it, too, will have less expansive workplaces).

The slower growth rate of co-operatives has been documented in a number of studies, which show that in the traditional capitalist firm, owners’ and executives’ percentage share of profits greatly increases as more employees are added to the payroll. This is because the corporate hierarchy is designed to facilitate exploitation by funnelling a disproportionate share of the surplus value produced by workers to those at the top of the pyramid (see section C.2) Such a design gives ownership and management a very strong incentive to expand, since, other things being equal, their income rises with every new employee hired. [David Schweickart, Against Capitalism, pp. 153–4] Hence the hierarchical form of the capitalist corporation is one of the main causes of runaway growth as well as social inequality and the rise of big business and oligopoly in the so-called “free” market.

By contrast, in an equal-share worker co-operative, the addition of more members simply means more people with whom the available pie will have to be equally divided — a situation that immensely reduces the incentive to expand. Thus a libertarian-socialist economy will not be under the same pressure to grow. Moreover, when introducing technological innovations or facing declining decline for goods, a self-managed workplace would be more likely to increase leisure time among producers rather than increase workloads or reduce numbers of staff.

This means that rather than produce a few big firms, a worker-controlled economy would tend to create an economy with more small and medium sized workplaces. This would make integrating them into local communities and eco-systems far easier as well as making them more easily dependent on green sources of energy. Then there are the other ecological advantages to workers’ self-management beyond the relative lack of expansion of specific workplaces and the decentralisation this implies. These are explained well by market socialist David Schweickart:

“To the extent that emissions affect the workers directly on the job (as they often do), we can expect a self-managed firm to pollute less. Workers will control the technology; it will not be imposed on them from without. “To the extent that emissions affect the local community, they are likely to be less severe, for two reasons. Firstly, workers (unlike capitalist owners) will necessarily live nearby, and so the decision-makers will bear more of the environmental costs directly. Second … a self-managed firm will not be able to avoid local regulation by running away (or threatening to do so). The great stick that a capitalist firm holds over the head of a local community will be absent. Hence absent will be the macrophenomenon of various regions of the country trying to compete for firms by offering a ‘better business climate’ (i.e. fewer environmental restrictions).” [Op. Cit., p. 145]

For an ecological society to work, it requires the active participation of those doing productive activity. They are often the first to be affected by industrial pollution and have the best knowledge of how to stop it happening. As such, workplace self-management is an essential requirement for a society which aims to life in harmony with its surrounds (and with itself, as a key aspect of social unfreedom would be eliminated in the form of wage slavery).

For these reasons, libertarian socialism based on producer co-operatives is essential for the type of economy necessary to solve the ecological crisis. These all feed directly into the green vision as “ecology points to the necessity of decentralisation, diversity in natural and social systems, human-scale technology, and an end to the exploitation of nature.” [John Clark, The Anarchist Moment, p. 115] This can only be achieved on a society which bases itself on workers’ self-management as this would facilitate the decentralisation of industries in ways which are harmonious with nature.

So far, all forms of social anarchism are in agreement. However, eco-anarchists tend to be communist-anarchists and oppose both mutualism and collectivism. This is because workers’ ownership and self-management places the workers of an enterprise in a position where they can become a particularistic interest within their community. This may lead to these firms acting purely in their own narrow interests and against the local community. They would be, in other words, outside of community input and be solely accountable to themselves. This could lead to a situation where they become “collective capitalists” with a common interest in expanding their enterprises, increasing their “profits” and even subjecting themselves to irrational practices to survive in the market (i.e., harming their own wider and long-term interests as market pressures have a distinct tendency to produce a race to the bottom — see section I.1.3 for more discussion). This leads most eco-anarchists to call for a confederal economy and society in which communities will be decentralised and freely give of their resources without the use of money.

As a natural compliment to workplace self-management, eco-anarchists propose communal self-management. So, although it may have appeared that we focus our attention on the economic aspects of the ecological crisis and its solution, this is not the case. It should always be kept in mind that all anarchists see that a complete solution to our many ecological and social problems must be multi-dimensional, addressing all aspects of the total system of hierarchy and domination. This means that only anarchism, with its emphasis on the elimination of authority in all areas of life, goes to the fundamental root of the ecological crisis.

The eco-anarchist argument for direct (participatory) democracy is that effective protection of the planet’s ecosystems requires that all people are able to take part at the grassroots level in decision-making that affects their environment, since they are more aware of their immediate eco-systems and more likely to favour stringent environmental safeguards than politicians, state bureaucrats and the large, polluting special interests that now dominate the “representative” system of government. Moreover, real change must come from below, not from above as this is the very source of the social and ecological problems that we face as it divests individuals, communities and society as a whole of their power, indeed right, to shape their own destinies as well as draining them of their material and “spiritual” resources (i.e., the thoughts, hopes and dreams of people).

Simply put, it should be hardly necessary to explore in any great depth the sound ecological and social reasons for decentralising decision making power to the grassroots of society, i.e. to the people who have to live with the decisions being reached. The decentralised nature of anarchism would mean that any new investments and proposed solutions to existing problems would be tailored to local conditions. Due to the mobility of capital, laws passed under capitalism to protect the environment have to be created and implemented by the central government to be effective. Yet the state, as discussed in section E.1, is a centralised structure unsuited to the task of collecting and processing the information and knowledge required to customise decisions to local ecological and social circumstances. This means that legislation, precisely due to its scope, cannot be finely tuned to local conditions (and so can generate local opposition, particularly if whipped up by corporate front organisations). In an eco-anarchist society, decentralisation would not have the threat of economic power hanging over it and so decisions would be reached which reflected the actual local needs of the population. As they would be unlikely to want to pollute themselves or their neighbours, eco-anarchists are confident that such local empowerment will produce a society which lives with, rather than upon, the environment.

Thus eco-communities (or eco-communes) are a key aspect of an ecotopia. Eco-communes, Bookchin argued, will be “networked confederally through ecosystems, bioregions, and biomes” and be “artistically tailored to their naturally surrounding. We can envision that their squares will be interlaced by streams, their places of assembly surrounded by groves, their physical contours respected and tastefully landscaped, their soils nurtured caringly to foster plant variety for ourselves, our domestic animals, and wherever possible the wildlife they may support on their fringes.” They would be decentralised and “scaled to human dimensions,” using recycling as well as integrating “solar, wind, hydraulic, and methane-producing installations into a highly variegated pattern for producing power. Agriculture, aquaculture, stockraising, and hunting would be regarded as crafts — an orientation that we hope would be extended as much as possible to the fabrication of use-values of nearly all kinds. The need to mass-produce goods in highly mechanised installations would be vastly diminished by the communities’ overwhelming emphasis on quality and permanence.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 444]

This means that local communities will generate social and economic policies tailored to their own unique ecological circumstances, in co-operation with others (it is important stress that eco-communes do not imply supporting local self-sufficiency and economic autarchy as values in themselves). Decisions that have regional impact are worked out by confederations of local assemblies, so that everybody affected by a decision can participate in making it. Such a system would be self-sufficient as workplace and community participation would foster creativity, spontaneity, responsibility, independence, and respect for individuality — the qualities needed for a self-management to function effectively. Just as hierarchy shapes those subject to it in negative ways, participation would shape us in positive ways which would strengthen our individuality and enrich our freedom and interaction with others and nature.

That is not all. The communal framework would also impact on how industry would develop. It would allow eco-technologies to be prioritised in terms of R&D and subsidised in terms of consumption. No more would green alternatives and eco-technologies be left unused simply because most people cannot afford to buy them nor would their development be under-funded simply because a capitalist sees little profit form it or a politician cannot see any benefit from it. It also means that the broad outlines of production are established at the community assembly level while they are implemented in practice by smaller collective bodies which also operate on an egalitarian, participatory, and democratic basis. Co-operative workplaces form an integral part of this process, having control over the production process and the best way to implement any general outlines.

It is for these reasons that anarchists argue that common ownership combined with a use-rights based system of possession is better for the environment as it allows everyone the right to take action to stop pollution, not simply those who are directly affected by it. As a framework for ecological ethics, the communal system envisioned by social anarchists would be far better than private property and markets in protecting the environment. This is because the pressures that markets exert on their members would not exist, as would the perverse incentives which reward anti-social and anti-ecological practices. Equally, the anti-ecological centralisation and hierarchy of the state would be ended and replaced with a participatory system which can take into account the needs of the local environment and utilise the local knowledge and information that both the state and capitalism suppresses.

Thus a genuine solution to the ecological crisis presupposes communes, i.e. participatory democracy in the social sphere. This is a transformation that would amount to a political revolution. However, as Bakunin continually emphasised, a political revolution of this nature cannot be envisioned without a socio-economic revolution based on workers’ self-management. This is because the daily experience of participatory decision-making, non-authoritarian modes of organisation, and personalistic human relationships would not survive if those values were denied during working hours. Moreover, as mentioned above, participatory communities would be hard pressed to survive the pressure that big business would subject them to.

Needless to say, the economic and social aspects of life cannot be considered in isolation. For example, the negative results of workplace hierarchy and its master-servant dynamic will hardly remain there. Given the amount of time that most people spend working, the political importance of turning it into a training ground for the development of libertarian values can scarcely be overstated. As history has demonstrated, political revolutions that are not based upon social changes and mass psychological transformation — that is, by a deconditioning from the master/slave attitudes absorbed from the current system — result only in the substitution of new ruling elites for the old ones (e.g. Lenin becoming the new “Tsar” and Communist Party aparatchiks becoming the new “aristocracy”). Therefore, besides having a slower growth rate, worker co-operatives with democratic self-management would lay the psychological foundations for the kind of directly democratic political system necessary to protect the biosphere. Thus “green” libertarian socialism is the only proposal radical enough to solve the ecological crisis.

Ecological crises become possible only within the context of social relations which weaken people’s capacities to fight an organised defence of the planet’s ecology and their own environment. This means that the restriction of participation in decision-making processes within hierarchical organisations such as the state and capitalism firms help create environmental along with social problems by denying those most affected by a problem the means of fixing it. Needless to say, hierarchy within the workplace is a prerequisite to accumulation and so growth while hierarchy within a community is a prerequisite to defend economic and social inequality as well as minority rule as the disempowered become indifferent to community and social issues they have little or no say in. Both combine to create the basis of our current ecological crisis and both need to be ended.

Ultimately, a free nature can only begin to emerge when we live in a fully participatory society which itself is free of oppression, domination and exploitation. Only then will we be able to rid ourselves of the idea of dominating nature and fulfil our potential as individuals and be a creative force in natural as well social evolution. That means replacing the current system with one based on freedom, equality and solidarity. Once this is achieved, “social life will yield a sensitive development of human and natural diversity, falling together into a well balanced harmonious whole. Ranging from community through region to entire continents, we will see a colourful differentiation of human groups and ecosystems, each developing its unique potentialities and exposing members of the community to a wide spectrum of economic, cultural and behavioural stimuli. Falling within our purview will be an exciting, often dramatic, variety of communal forms — here marked by architectural and industrial adaptations to semi-arid ecosystems, there to grasslands, elsewhere by adaptation to forested areas. We will witness a creative interplay between individual and group, community and environment, humanity and nature.” [Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 39]

So, to conclude, in place of capitalism eco-anarchists favour ecologically responsible forms of libertarian socialism, with an economy based on the principles of complementarily with nature; decentralisation (where possible and desirable) of large-scale industries, reskilling of workers, and a return to more artisan-like modes of production; the use of eco-technologies and ecologically friendly energy sources to create green products; the use of recycled and recyclable raw materials and renewable resources; the integration of town and country, industry and agriculture; the creation of self-managed eco-communities which exist in harmony with their surroundings; and self-managed workplaces responsive to the wishes of local community assemblies and labour councils in which decisions are made by direct democracy and co-ordinated (where appropriate and applicable) from the bottom-up in a free federation. Such a society would aim to develop the individuality and freedom of all its members in order to ensure that we end the domination of nature by humanity by ending domination within humanity itself.

This is the vision of a green society put forth by Murray Bookchin. To quote him:

“We must create an ecological society — not merely because such a society is desirable but because it is direly necessary. We must begin to live in order to survive. Such a society involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society — the minute specialisation or machines and labour, the concentration of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of life, the divorce of town from country, the objectification of nature and human beings. In my view, this sweeping reversal means that we must begin to decentralise our cities and establish entirely new eco-communities that are artistically moulded to the ecosystems in which they are located … “Such an eco-community … would heal the split between town and country, indeed, between mind and body by fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agriculture in a rotation or diversification of vocational tasks. An eco-community would be supported by a new kind of technology — or eco-technology — one composed of flexible, versatile machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and quality …” [Toward an Ecological Society, pp. 68–9]

Lastly, we need to quickly sketch out how anarchists see the change to an ecological society happening as there is little point having an aim if you have no idea how to achieve it.

As noted above, eco-anarchists (like all anarchists) do not counterpoise an ideal utopia to existing society but rather participate in current ecological struggles. Moreover, we see that struggle itself as the link between what is and what could be. This implies, at minimum, a two pronged strategy of neighbourhood movements and workplace organising as a means of both fighting and abolishing capitalism. These would work together, with the former targeting, say, the disposal of toxic wastes and the latter stopping the production of toxins in the first place. Only when workers are in a position to refuse to engage in destructive practices or produce destructive goods can lasting ecological change emerge. Unsurprisingly, modern anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists have been keen to stress the need for a green syndicalism which addresses ecological as well as economical exploitation. The ideas of community and industrial unionism are discussed in more detail in section J.5 along with other anarchist tactics for social change. Needless to say, such organisations would use direct action as their means of achieving their goals (see section J.2). It should be noted that some of Bookchin’s social ecologist followers advocate, like him, greens standing in local elections as a means to create a counter-power to the state. As we discuss in section J.5.14, this strategy (called Libertarian Municipalism) finds few supporters in the wider anarchist movement.

This strategy flows, of course, into the structures of an ecological society. As we discuss in section I.2.3, anarchists argue that the framework of a free society will be created in the process of fighting the existing one. Thus the structures of an eco-anarchist society (i.e. eco-communes and self-managed workplaces) will be created by fighting the ecocidal tendencies of the current system. In other words, like all anarchists eco-anarchists seek to create the new world while fighting the old one. This means what we do now is, however imperfect, an example of what we propose instead of capitalism. That means we act in an ecological fashion today in order to ensure that we can create an ecological society tomorrow.

For more discussion of how an anarchist society would work, see section I. We will discuss the limitations of various proposed solutions to the environmental crisis in the following sections.