GREEN PERSPECTIVES $ r .00

A Social Ecology PublicationNumber 33 October 1995

One ofthe most dangerous aspects ofthe present culturaland social counterrwolution is the widespread belief thatcapitalism is here to stay, that it is a "natural" social order,and that attempts to change its basic structure are futile andirrelevant at best and perrucious at worst. This belief, theconventional wisdom ofthe present generation, is nowdeeply rooted in lhe "children ofthe sixties," the hell-raisersof 1968, who upon reaching middle age have found newpathways back to the society that they once denounced withinsurrectionary theatrics, Nothing is more distasteful than1960s anarchists and socialists who, roaring with"revolutionary" declamations a generation ago, have nowensconced themselves in the academy, professions, andbusiness--and are currently waging an unrelenting criticismofpositions that radically challenge the present social orderasttsectarian."

We have already encountered this message fromformer socialists who have transformed themselves into so-called "radical democrats" and from former anarchists whohave transformed themselves into what Deleuze andGuattari have called (in all seriousness!) "desiringmachines," focused on a Yup'pie pursuit of seH+xpressionand a fulfilled "personhood." If, as refurbished "radicals"now tell us, socialism in all its forms is a lost cause; ifliberal capitalism is the best outcome we can expect fromhumanity's long journey out of animality; then any hope thatpeople can ever share this planet with one another in abenigr, caring, and ecological way-indeed" that reason canshape social development to achieve the historic aim ofanethical society-has been mindlessly jettisoned. Humanity,we must suppose, can no longer attempt of its own free willto produce a cooperative society, and its future must befounded on a variant of the Hobbesian notions of a war of allagainst all.

P O . Box 111Burlington, Vermont05402 U.S.A.

When "Realism" Becomes CapitulationAction from principle, the perception and the performance of right,

changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary,and does not consist wholly with anything which was.

--Thoreau

No one, to be sure, can deny the right of 1960ssocialists and anarchists to embrace the status quo in theirvarious ways or adop restfrrl ideologres that threatennothing in the established social order. But the diffrcultythat former radicals face, alas, is that capitalism will notleave them in peace. Society will not allow them to enjoythe economic and political quietude so necessary for stasis.Llke natural evolution, social evolution goes on, and no"end of history" has produced the ideological andpsychological certitudes on which to create a world ofadaptation and self-satisfaction. Wrong as Marx was aboutthe hegemonic role of the proletariat in transformingsociety, he was brilliantly insightfrrl in delineating theexplosive contradictions within capitalism-to which wetoday can add the inevitable contradiction betweencapitalist society and the natural world.

The great tradition, born from past rwolutionsboth of society and of the mind, must be preserved if we areto retain our own humanity and a sense of hope. We holdthe conviction that a truly communistic society is not onlypossible but necessary as the outcome of humanity'spotential for freedom and selfrconsciousness; that reasoncan gurde human affairs within society as well as ourdealings with the natural world; that the hovenng shadowsof a dismal, fearfrrl, and antirational past, with its mysticalaprpeals to and denigration of the human spirit, can beeffaced by enlightenment, secularity, and a commitment toprogress.

If libertarian socialism in some form is not to bepart of humanity's destiny, and if reason is to be merely acontrivance for adapting to the status quo or its basicallybourgeois permutations, then what passes for consciousnesstoday is adaptive rather than innovative and moreanimalistic than potentially human. In the face of today's

massive surrender of erstwhile leftists, one is tempted to cry,"If you cannot challenge the foundations of this malignantsocial order, then have the decency to refrain from callingthose who still do 'sectarian' and'dogmatic.' Pray, do notlecture those who are still trying to carry on the revolutionarytradition, the centuries-long struggle for a cooperative societyand a truly democratic politics, on the need for a new 'realism'

and'pragmatism"'--least of all at a time when social andecological collision threatens to attain apocalJptic proportions.

To "radical democrats" and lifestyle anarchists, wewould like to suggest that they find what niche they can in thisincreasingly constrictive andbarbarous world and lu.xunate init with all the fantasies they please. But have the moral probityto recognize that in the present time, nothing could be moreindecent that to condemn the revolutionary tradition, its

Social ecology developed out ofimportant social andtheoretical problems that faced the Left in the post-WorldWar II period. The historical realities of the 1940s and the1950s completely invalidated the perspectives of a proletarianrevolution, of a "chronic economic crisis" that would bringcapitalism to its knees, and of commitment to a centralisticworkers'party that would seize state power and, by dictatorialmeans, initiate a transition to socialism and communism. Itbecame painfully evident in time that no such general2edcrisis was in the ofting; indeed, that the proletariat and anyparty--or labor confederation--that spoke in the name of theworking class could not be regarded as a hegemonic force insocial transformation.

Quite the the contrary: capitalism emerged from thewar stronger and more stable than it had been at any time inits history. A generalzed cnsis could be managed to onedegree or another within a strictly bourgeois framework, letalone the many limited and cyclical crises normal tocapitalism. The proletariat, in turn, ceased to play thehegemonic role that the Left had assigned to it for more thana century, and Leninist forms of orgamzation were evidentlylulnerable to bureaucratic degeneration,

Moreover, capitalism, following the logic of its ownnature as a competitive market economy, was creating socialand cultural issues that had not been adequately encompassedby the traditional Left of the interwar eru (1917-1939). To besure, the traditional Left's theoretical cornerstone, notably,the class struggle between wage labor and capital, had notdisappeared; nor had economic exploitation ceased to exist.But the issues that had defined the traditional Left-moreprecisely, "proletarian socialism" in all its forms-had

Green Perspectives I October 1995

visions ofa free, cooperative, and ecological society, and itsadherents commrtted to serious social action in a lived publicsphere as "sectarians" and "dogmatists."

If the persistence of radical commitment is troublingbecause it recalls former ideals worn down by three decadesof defeat, and now replacedby an ugly cynicism, then by allmeans shed these ideals completely, without diluting theminto reforms that provide a patina for modern capitalism.But should a future generation emerge that knows nothing ofthe revolutionary tradltion because it has been removed fromacademic and public "discourse," the phase "human spirit"will be a euphemism for cultural barbarism, spiritual death,and a self-indulgent narcissism.

-The Social Ecologt Project

broadened immensely, expanding both the nature ofoppression andthe meaning of freedom. Hierarchy, whilenot supplanting the issue of class struggle, began to move tothe foreground of at least Euro-American radical concerns,in the widespread challenges raised loy the sixlies "New Left"and youth culture to authority as such, not only to the State.Domination, while not supplanting exploitation, became thetarget of radical critique and practice, in the early civil rightsmovement in the United States, in attempts to removeconventional constraints on serual behavior, dress, lifestyle,and values, and later, in the rise of feminist movements,ecological movements that challenged the mlth of"dominating" the natural world, and movements for gay andlesbian liberation.

It is unlikely that any of these movements wouldhave emerged had capitalism at midcentury not created allthe indispensable technological preconditions for alibertarian communist society-prospects that are consistentwith Enlightenment ideals and the progressive dimensions ofmodernity. One must return to the great debates that beganin the late 1950s over the prospects for free time andmaterial abundance to understand the ideologicalatmosphere that new technologies such as automationcreated and the extent to which they were absorbed lry the"New Left" of the 1960s. The prospect of a post-scarcitysociety, free of material want and demanding toil, opened anew horizon of potentiality and hope-ironically, reiteratingthe prescient demands of the Berlin Dadaists of 1919 for"universal unemployment," which stood in marked contrastto the traditional Left's demand for "full employment."

Theses on Social Ecology in a Period of Reaction

by Munay Bookchin

II

Social ecolory, as developed in the United States in the earlysixlies (long after the expression had fallen into disuse as avariant of "human ecolory"), tried to advance a coherent,developmental, and socially practical outlook to deal with thechanges in radicalism and capitalism that were in the offrng.Indee4 in great pa( it actually anticipated them. Longbefore an ecolory movement emerged" social ecolorydelineated the scope of the ecologcal crisis that capitalismmust necessarily produce, tracing its roots back tohierarchical domination, and emphasizing that a competitivecapitalist economy must unavoidably give rise tounprecedented contradictions with the nonhuman naturalworld. None of these perspectives, it should be notd werein the air in the early 1960s-Rachel Carson's Silent Springwith its emphasis on pesticides notwithstanding. Indeed, asearly as 1962, social ecology projected the alternative of solarenerry, wind power, and water power, among other newecotechnologies, and alternatives to existing productivefacilities that were to become axiomatic to a later generationof ecologists, It also advanced the vision of newecocommunities based on direct democracy andnonhierarchical forms of human relations. These factsshould be emphasized in view of deep ecolory's attempt torewrite the history of the ecology movement in terms of itsown quasi-religious and scarcity-oriented outlook. Norshould we overlook the fact that social ecolory'santihierarchical analyses laid the theoretical basis for earlyfeminism, various community movements, the antinuclearmovement, and in varying degrees, Green movements, beforethey turned ftom "nonparty parties" into conventionalelectoral machines.

Nonetheless, social ecolory makes no claim that itemerged ab novo. It was--and it remains-deeply rooted inEnlightenment ideals and the rwolutionary tradition of thepast two centuries. Its analyses and goals have nwer beendetached from the understandably less dweloped theoreticalanalyses of Karl Marx and the classical anarchists(particularly Peter Kropo&in), or from the great revolutionsthat culminated in the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1937. Iteschews any attempt to defame the historic traditions of theLeft in favor a neoliberal patchwork ofideas or a queasypolitical centrism that parades as "postmodernism" and "post-industrialism,u not to speak of the "postmaterialist"spiritualism fostered loy ecofeminists, lifestyle anarchists,deep ecologists, and sorcalled "social deep ecologists" or"deep social ecologists. "

Quite to the contrary: social ecology seeks tocountervail attempts to denature the Enlightenment andrevolutionary project by emphasizing the need for theoreticalcoherence, no less today than it did in the 1960s, when theuNew Left" drifted from a healthy libertarian populism into aquagmire of Leninist, Maoist, and Trotskyist tendencies.Social ecology retains its filiations with the Enlightenmentand the revolutionary tradition all the more emphatically inopposition to the quasimystical and expressly mystical trends

that are thoroughly sweeping up the privileged pettybourgeoisie of North America and Europe, with theirgoulash of antirational, spiritualistic, and atavisticideologies. Social ecology is only too mindfrrl thatcapitalism today has a nearly infinite capacity to coopt,indeed commodi$, self-styled "oppositional trendsu thatremain as the detritus of the uNew I eftu and the oldcounterculture. Even anarchism, once a formidabletradition, has been repackagedby Hakim Bey, Bob Black,David Watson, and Jason McQuinn into a merchandisableboutique ideology that panders to petty-bourgeois tastes fornaughtiness and eccentricity.

Ecology, too, has been packaged and repackagedinto a variety of "deep ecologies" tlnt generally emphasizean ammalistic reductionism, a neo-Malthusian "hungerpolitics," antihumanism, and bio- or "eco-"centrism--inshort, a pastiche that renders it equally palatable to membersof the British royal family at the summit of the socialhierarchy and to lumpenized anarchoids at its base.Feminism, initially a universalized challenge to hierarchy assuch, has dwolved into parochial, often self-serving, andeven materially rewarding species of ecofeminism andexpress theisms that pander to a myth of gender superiority(no less ugly when it concerns women than when it concernsmen) in one form or another--not to speak ofthe outrightwealth-oriented "feminism" promotedby Naomi WoHet al.

Capitalism, in effect, has not only rendered thehuman condition more and more irrational, but it hasabsorbed into its orbit, to one degree or another, the veryconsciousness that once professed to oppose it. IfFourierinsightfully declared that the way a society treats its womencan be regarded as a mea$ue of its status as a cMhzation, sotoday we can add that the extent to which a society devolvesinto mysticism and eclecticism can be regarded as me:lsweofits cultural decline. By these standards, no society hasmore thoroughly denatured its once-radical opponents thancapitalism in the closing years of the twentieth century.

m

This devolution of consciousness is by no means solely theproduct of our century's new global media, as even radicaltheorists of popular culture tend to beliwe. Absolutism andmedievalism, no less than capitalism, had their own"media," the Church, that reached as ubiquitously into weryvillage as television reaches into the modern living room.The roots of modern cultural devolution are as deepseatedas the ecological crisis itself. Capitalism, today, is openlyflaunted not only as a system of social relationships but asthe "end of history," indeed as a natural society thatexpresses the most intrinsic qualities of "human nature"--itsostensible "drive" to compete, win, and grow. Thistransmutation of means into ends, vicious as the means maybe, is not merely "the American way"; it is the bourgeoisway.

The commodity has now colonized every aspect oflife, rendering what was once a capitalist economy into a

Green Perspectives I October 1995

capitalist culture. It has produced literally a "markeplace ofideas," in which the coin for exchanging inchoate notionsand intuitions is validated by the academy, the comrpter parexcellence ofthe "best andbrightest" in modern society andthe eviscerator of all that is coherent and clearly delineable.Indee4 never has "high culture," once guarded by academicmandarins, been so scandalously debased by academic pressesthat have become the pornogtaphers of ideology.

Bourgeois society qua culture, especially itsacademic purveyors, abhors a principled stand, particularly acombative one that is prepared to clearly articulate a body ofcoherent principles and thrust it into opposition against thecapitalist system as a whole. Theoretically and practically,serious opposition takes its point of departure from the needto understand the logic of an ideolory, not its euphemrsticmetaphors and dnfting inconsistencies. Capitalism hasnothing to fear from an ecological, feminist, anarchist, orsocialist hash ofhazy ideas (often fatuouslyjustified as"pluralistic" or "relativistic") that leaves its social premisesuntouched. It is all the better for the prevailing order thatreason be denounced as "logocentrism," that bourgeois socialrelations be concealed under the rubric of "industrial society,"that the social need for an oppositional movement be brushedaside in favor ofa personal need for spiritual redemption,that the political be reduced to the personal, that the projectof social rwolution be erased by hopeless communitarianendeavors to create "alternative" enterprises.

Except where its profits and "growth opportunities"are concerned, capitalism now delights in avowals ofthe needto "compromise," to seek a "common ground"--the languageof its professoriat no less than its political establishment-which invariably turns out to be its own terrain in a mystifiedform. Hence the popularity of "market socialism" in self-styled "leftist" periodicals; or possibly "social deep ecolory"in deep ecolory periodicals llke The Trumpeter; or morebrazenly, accolades to Gramsci by the Nouvelle Droite inFrance, or to a "Green Adolf in Germany. A RobynEckersley has no difficulty juggling the ideas of the FranldrrtSchool with deep ecolory while comparing in truly biocentricfashion the 'navigational skills" of birds with the workings of

Ever since the debate between social ecolory and deepecolory broke out in the summer of 1987, variousindividuals have taken it upon themselves to attempt toreconcile the two approaches and produce what they feel is ahigher rynthesis. Social ecolory and deep ecology, however,are incommensurable, for several basic reasons. Deepecologists differ among themselves as to the content of theirapproach, which often renders deep ecolory itselfself-

the human mind. The wisdom of making friends witheveryone that underpins this academic "discourse" can onlylead to a blurring of latent and serious differences--andultimately to the compromise of all principles and the loss ofpolitical direction.

The social and cultural decomposition produced bycapitalism can be resisted only by taking the most principledstand against the corrosion ofnearly all seH-professedoppositional ideas. More than at any time in the past, socialecologists should abandon the illusion that a shared use ofthe word "social" renders all ofus into socialists; or"anarchy," into anarchists; or "ecolory," into radicalecologists. The measure of social ecolory's relevance andtheoretical integrrty consists ofits ability to be rational,ethical, coherent, and true to the ideal of the Enlightenmentand the revolutionary tradition--not ofany ability to earnplaudits from the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, or GarySnyder, still less from academics, spiritualists, and mystics.In this darkening age when capitalism-the mystified socialorder par excellence--threatens to globalize the world withcapital, commodities, and a facile spirit of "negotiation" and"compromise," it is necessary to keep alive the very idea ofuncompromising critique.

It is not dogmatic to insist on consistenry, to inferand contest the logic of a given body of premises, to demandclarity in a time of cultural twilight. Indeed, quite to thecontrary, eclecticism andtheoretical chaos, not to speak ofpractices that are more theatrical than threatening and thatconsist more of posturing than convincing, will only dim thelight of truth and critique. Until social forces emerge thatcan provide a voice for basic social change rather thansprritual redemption, social ecolory must take upon itselfthe task of preserving and extending the geat traditionsfrom which it has emerged. Should the darkness ofcapitalist barbarism tlucken to the point where thisenterprise is no longer possible, history as the rationaldwelopment of humanity's potentialitles for freedom andconsciousness will indeed reach its definitive end,

-August 9, 1995

contradictory and amorphous. Nevertheless, based on thewritings of its major theorists, its basic areas of disagreementwith social ecolory maybe identified.

I

Social ecologr argues that the idea of dominating natureresulted from the domination of human by human, rather

Theses on Social Ecology and Deep Ecologyby Janet Biehl

Green Perspectives October 1995

than the reverse. That is, the causes ofthe ecologicalcrisis are ultimately and fundamentally social in nature.The lustorical emergence of hierarchies, classes, states,and finally the market economy and capitalism itself arethe social forces that have, both ideologically andmaterially, produced the present despoliation of thebiosphere.

Deep ecology, by contrast, locates the ongin ofthe ecological crisis in belief-systems, be they religions orphilosophies. Most particularly, deep ecologists identi$ancient near eastern religions, including those ofMesopotamia and Judea; Christianity; and the scientificworldview as fostering a mindset that seeks to "dominatenature." It is by "asking deeper questions," as Arne Naessputs it, that these origins are identified, so that the socialcauses ofthe ecological crisis are somehow relegated to thecategory "shallow."

II

Social ecology views the natural world as a process--andnotjust any process, but a development toward increasingcomplexity and subjectivity. This development was notpredetermined from the outset and need not have occurred,but retrospectively the increasing complexity of naturalevolution and the development of increasing subjectivityare impossible to miss. With the emergence of humanbeings, biological evolutionary processes (first nature)have continued in and been sublated by social and culturalevolutionary processes (second nature). Unlikesociobiology, which reduces the social to the biological,social ecology emphasizes the gradations between first andsecond nature: second natue emerged out of first nature.Yet the boundary between human and nonhuman nature isreal and articulated.

Deep ecology, by contrast, views first nature, inthe abstract, as a "cosmic oneness," which bears strikingsimilarities to otherworldly concepts common to Asianreligions. In concrete terms, it views first nature as"wilderness," a concept that by definition means natureessentially separated from human beings and hence urvild.u

Both notions are notable for their static andanticivilizational character. (Deep ecologists sometimeshighlight the evolution of large animals strategically, as arationale for expanding wrlderness areas.) Deep ecologistsemphasize an ungraded, nonevolutionary continuitybetween human and nonhuman nature, to the point ofoutright denial of a boundary between adaptive animalityand innovative humaniw.

m

Social ecology aims to reintegrate human socialdevelopment with biological development, and humancommunities with ecocommunities, producing a rationalandecological society. The merebiological presence of

humans in large numtrers does not determine the type ofsociety they will form. Even large numbers of humanbeings are capable of organizing society along lines that arenot only not destructive of first nature but wen enhance it. Asensitive combination of ecotechrucs and exstingtechnologies prudent$ applied constitutes the technologicalbasis for post-scarcity, affording humans the free time tomanage their social, political, and economic affairs alongrational lines and fostering and restoring the ecologicalcomplexity of first nature.

Deep ecology, by contrast, does not aim to integratehumans wrth first nature. It regards the mere biologicalpresence of human beings in any large numbers asintrinsically harmful to first nature, and sometimes even thebasic means of human sustenance as damaging. Instead,deep ecology seeks to preserve and expand wilderness areas,excluding human beings from ever-larger tracts of land andforest. "Subsistence agriculture," writes George Sessions,"which destroys tropical forests, cannot be considered long-term economic progress for the poor. The severeoverpopulation in Third World countries requires that mostof the poor will live in urban areas in the near future." Ofparamount importance to deep ecology is a radical andpotentially ruthless scaling-down of the human population-indee4 population reduction as an issue has been named the"litmus test" of deep ecology. Maximizing wilderness andminimizing human population, some deep ecologists lookupon even farming as such with disfavor, views that haverightfully given rise to charges that deep ecology ismisanthropic.

IV

Social ecology openly asserts that human beings arepotentially the most advanced life-form that naturalevolution has produced" in crucial respects of intelligence,moral capacity, and dexterrty-which in no way provides alicense for humans to wantonly destroy first nature. Indeed,in a rational society, humanbeings couldbe nature renderedself-conscious. Clearly it is part oftheir evolutionarymakeup to intervene in the natural world; what is notdetermrned is whether that intervention will be ecologicallybenign or malign, a problem that is resolved by what kind ofsociety thsy create.

Deep ecology, by contrast, regards human-centeredness or anthropocentrism as the fatal featurecommon to hlief-systems generative of the ecological crisis.It advances instead a concept ofbiocentrism or"ecocentrism," which attributes equal intrinsic moral worthto human and nonhuman life-forms and even to ecosystems.It regards various striking capacities of particular creaturesas "skills" of equal value to human capacities. In makingdecisions about whether humans should engage ln apotentially ecologically damaging project, deep ecologyupholds the "vital needs" of life-forms against the "nonvitalneeds" of humans. Which needs are vital, however, remainsundefined. Invoking the "land ethic" of Aldo Leopold, deep

Green Perspectives October 1995

6

ecolory is biased against human intervention in first natureand often appears to regard human intervention as inherentlydestructive. Yet insofar as deep ecology calls upon humanbeings to alter their behavior in the light ofthe ecologicalcrisis, it tacitly acknowledges that the behallor of humanbeings is decisive. Thus deep ecolory is inherently self-contradictory.

V

Social ecology, while strongly emphasizing the need for anecological sensibility, indeed an ethic of complementarity,contends that addressing the ecological crisis requiresengaging in social and political activity to confront andultimately eliminate its objective social causes: capitalism,social hierarchy, and the nation-state. Social ecology'spolitical dimension, libertarian municipalism, is a programfor establishing direct, face-to-face democracies andconfederating them into a dual power to confront theseforces. Social ecolory thus places itself in the Enlightenmentand revolutionary tradition.

Deep ecolory, lry contrast, overwhelminglyemphasizes subjective factors. Drawing on subjectivists likeLynn White, Jr., it calls upon people to develop a quasi-mystical "ecological consciousness" by which they will feelthemselves part of the natural world" as a "self-in-Self."Deep ecologists approach this consciousness through highlypersonalistic philosophies or "ecosophies" that draw on aneclectic mix of alternative worldviews: native American,Buddhist, Taoist, pagan, and "Pleistocene." Regardless ofwhether such views are accurately understood or, in somecases, are even knowable to people today, they share thecommon feature of instilling submersion to a larger "one"that, as a whole, has more value than the individual human.Deep ecolory in practice is quietistic, emphasizingcontemplation rather than intervention, to attain a state ofawareness of the alleged absence of boundaries betweenhuman consciousness and the "cosmic oneness." Some deepecologists explicitly eliminate moral imperatives from this"ecological consciousness. " Although one deep ecologistmakes the claim that attaining "ecological consciousness"will foster political actMty, deep ecolory often expresses anaversion to most political activity as such as anthropocentric,apart fiom basic consewationism and trite liberal attempts tocurtail wilderness destruction. Participation in politicalmovements is of value, however, insofar as it may contributeto personal transformation. Most often, deep ecolory urgesthat people make lifestyle changes that reduce theirconsumption.

VI

Social ecolory argues that one of humans' distinctivefeatures, their capacity to reason at a high level ofgenerality,gives them the ability to potentially understand natural

processes and potentially organize society along ecologicaland rational lines. Even as it cnticizes the ubiqurtousclaims of a "means-ends" rationalism that has historicallyinstrumentalized human and nonhuman phenomena, itadvances a dialectical reasoning that is appropriate forcomprehending human social and natural evolutionaryprocesses, In itself, it embodies this commitment torationality by upholding and demonstrating coherence insocial thought.

Deep ecolory, loy contrast, drsparages and ofteneven demonizes reason as endemic to the anthropocentricworldviews that have produced the ecological crisis.Alternatively, deep ecolory advances inturtion as an equalor even superior form of cognition. Through inturtion, deepecologists argue, the continuity between the human self andthe "cosmic one" may be apprehended and appreciated. Asan intuitional approach, however, deep ecolory is subject tothe dangers represented by earlier antirational andinturtionist worldviews that, carried over into the politicalrealm, have produced antihumanistic and wen genocidalmovements. Deep ecolory, by its very amorphousness,makes itself amenable to use by any parts of the modernsocial hierarchy, depending on how needs are defined.Indee4 it is not accidental that some deep ecolory theoristsare devotees of the "late" work of Heidegger, whose basicpremises are socially and intellectually reactionary.

-August I, 1995

Currcnt Books of Interest:

Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons fromthe German Experience (San Francisco and Edinbtrgh: A.K.Press,1995)

Mnrray Bookchtn, Re-enchanting Humanity (London: Cassell,1 995)

Mnrray Bookchin, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism?(San Francisco and Edinburgh: A.K. Press, 1995)

Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecologt, second ed.,revised (Monheal: Black Rose Books, 1995)

Green Perspectiues is published bythe Social Ecolog Projec. (formerlytheGreen Program Projed.) ofBurlington, Vermont, on an occasiqral basis.Subscriptiors are $12 for ta issues in North America; oveseas surface mail,$ 14; overseas airmail, $ I 6. Duratiors are welcome. The number on the upperrigfrt-hand comer ofyour address label refers to the final issue ofyoursubscription. Ifthis issue is your last, please resubscribe. Individual ccpiessomdimes go astray in the mail; if you are a subscriber and missed an issue,please ld us know and we will seid a replacemant.

Articles may not be republistred except with permission ofthe editors.We reserve l}re rigfrt to edit lders to the editor for langth. Please sand allinquiries and correspondanceto: The Social Ecologr Project, P.O. Box I I l,Burlington, Vermont 05402 U.S.A

@ 1995 Green Perspectives

Green Perspectives I October 1995