his paper to a few friends and colleagues for comment, which is what one usually doeswith essays so marked, before their publication. Instead, he seems to have distributedthis twenty-six-page single-spaced propaganda tract against libertarian municipalism toa gathering of several score people from different parts of the world. Having distributedthe essay and summarized its contents in his presentation, Clark apparently permittedthe participants to take his "restricted" criticism of libertarian municipalism back hometo their respective countries, where they would be likely to circulate it further.In short, despite his injunction against quoting from the essay, Clark clearly broughthis attack on libertarian municipalism into the public sphere and used it to try toobstruct an attempt by social ecologists to build a movement on terms with which hedisagrees. And what those terms are, Clark has recently made clear in his house organ,the
Delta Greens Quarterly:
"We need a spiritual revolution more than a political platform, and a regenerated community more than a political movement" (Clark,
p. 2).It is clear, then, that Clark is trying to immunize himself to criticism by abjuring people from explicitly quoting from his essay. Such behavior may wash at academicconferences, if you please, but it is a scandalous ploy in the political sphere. Clark should not be permitted to shield himself from criticism of his widely distributed attack on social ecology, and I have no intention whatever of honoring his grosslydishonorable abjuration. Behind his patina of uplifting spirituality, his behavior exhibitsan immorality that beggars some of the worst hypocrisies I have encountered in decadesof political life, and he should be held morally as well as intellectually accountable for his behavior.
The central component of Clark's dispute with me is his objection to libertarianmunicipalism, a view that I have long argued constitutes the politics of social ecology,notably a revolutionary effort in which freedom is given institutional form in publicassemblies that become decision-making bodies. It depends upon libertarian leftistsrunning candidates at the local municipal level, calling for the division of municipalitiesinto wards, where popular assemblies can be created that bring people into full anddirect participation in political life. Having democratized themselves, municipalitieswould confederate into a dual power to oppose the nation-state and ultimately dispensewith it and with the economic forces that underpin statism as such. Libertarianmunicipalism is thus both a historical goal and a concordant means to achieve therevolutionary "Commune of communes."Libertarian or confederal municipalism is above all a
that seeks to create avital democratic public sphere. In my
Urbanization Without Cities
as well as other works, I have made careful but crucial distinctions between three societal realms: thesocial, the political, and the state. What people do in their homes, what friendships theyform, the communal lifestyles they practice, the way they make their living, their sexual behavior, the cultural artifacts they consume, and the rapture and ecstasy theyexperience on mountaintops--all these personal as well as materially necessary activities belong to what I call the
sphere of life. Families, friends, and communal livingarrangements are part of the social realm. Apart from matters of human rights, it is the business of no one to sit in judgment of what consenting adults freely engage insexually, or of the hobbies they prefer, or the kinds of friends they adopt, or the mystical practices they may choose to perform.