💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › kim-stanley-robinson-anarchism-s-possibilities.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:54:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism’s Possibilities
Author: Kim Stanley Robinson
Date: November 4, 2019
Language: en
Topics: fiction, introductory
Source: Retrieved on 2020-08-16 from https://anarchiststudies.org/10685-2/

Kim Stanley Robinson

Anarchism’s Possibilities

The Perspectives collective is committed to making anarchist ideas

accessible and widely understood. As part of this we aspire to include a

brief “What is Anarchism?” type essay in future print issues. We

approached Kim Stanley Robinson about writing one for us, and he

referred us to a piece he wrote for a book called Myths and Lawbreakers:

Anarchist Writers on Fiction for AK Press. He told us that if he “were

to write anything more about anarchism (doubtful) it would only be to

reiterate the points in this intro.” He gave us permission to share it

with you and we think it beautifully illustrates not only the terms of

anarchism, but also its current challenges and possibilities. It also

nicely fits with our current theme of “Imaginations,” which the

forthcoming print issue of Perspectives is all about. Enjoy.

---

This book collects fifteen interviews with writers who have either

described themselves as anarchists, written about anarchists in

historical or contemporary settings, or invented fictional cultures that

they or others have called anarchist. Each person’s story is different,

naturally, and the definitions they have given for anarchism are not the

same either. An-archy: absence of rulers, or absence of law? The

original Greek suggests the former, common English usage since the

seventeenth century, the latter; and it makes quite a difference which

definition you use. So we find those interviewed here circling

repeatedly around questions of definition, both of what the concept

means, and how it can be applied to writing and to life, not only the

lives of those included here, but the lives of everyone. These are

knotty problems, and it’s no surprise that the questions and answers

here keep pulling and prodding at them, hoping for some clarity.

Another problem the interviews return to again and again is how to

reconcile anarchist beliefs with actual life in the globalized

capitalist system. Some of the writers here live by anarchist beliefs to

a certain extent, publishing or distributing their writing outside the

conventional publishing world, or living in alternative arrangements of

one kind or another. Others live more outwardly conventional lives,

while writing about anarchism and supporting it in their political

action, of which writing is one part. No one can escape a certain amount

of contradiction here; the world economy is almost entirely capitalist

in structure, and state rule is an overarching reality in human affairs.

So the interest in anarchism expressed by these writers, and the effect

this complex of ideas has on their lives, has necessarily to involve

various compromises and what might be called symbolic actions—as long as

one remembers that symbolic actions are also real actions, not at all to

be dismissed. Voting is a symbolic action, going to church is a symbolic

action, speaking and writing and talking are symbolic actions; all are

also real actions, and have real effects in the real world—partly by

themselves, and partly by what they suggest symbolically we should do in

all the rest of our actions.

Here therefore we are talking about ideology. I mean this in the way

defined by Louis Althusser, which is roughly that an ideology is an

imaginary relationship to a real situation. Both parts of the definition

exist: there is a real situation, and by necessity our relationship to

it is partly an imaginary one. So we all have an ideology, and in fact

would be disabled or overwhelmed without one. The question then becomes,

can we improve our ideology, in terms of both individual and collective

function, and if so, how?

Here is where anarchist ideas come strongly into play. We live in a

destructive and unjust system, which is nevertheless so massively

entrenched, so protected by money, law, and armed force, as to seem

unchangeable, even nature itself; it strives to seem natural, so much so

that it would be very difficult to imagine a way out or a way forward

from the current state. Given this reality of our moment in history,

what should we do? What can we do, right now, that would change the

situation?

One of the first and most obvious answers is: resist the current system

in every way that is likely to do some good. That answer might rule out

certain responses: people have been resisting capitalism for well over a

century now, and many of the first methods to occur to people have been

tried and have failed. Spontaneous mass revolt has been tried and has

usually failed. Organized insurrection has sometimes done better, but

over the long haul has often rebounded in ways that worsened the

situation. Labor action and legal reform often seem possible and

sometimes have achieved tangible success, but again, ultimately, despite

what they have achieved, we find ourselves in the situation we are in

now, so obviously labor action and legal reform are not as effective as

one would hope. Mass political education has for a long time been a goal

of those interested in promoting change, and again successes can be

pointed to, but the overall impact has not yet been effective enough to

avoid the danger we find ourselves in. What then should we do?

One thing that would help is to have some idea of what we might be

trying to change toward; and this is where anarchism plays its part. As

such it is a utopian political vision, and this is why several of the

writers interviewed in this book are science fiction writers who have

written stories describing anarchist situations as utopian spaces, as

better systems that we should be struggling to achieve. This is my own

situation; as a leftist, interested to oppose capitalism and to change

it to something more just and sustainable, I have once or twice tried to

depict societies with anarchist aspects or roots. These, like the work

of other science fiction writers, are thought experiments, designed to

explore ideas by way of fictional scenarios. Problems can be discussed

by way of dramatizations, and the appeal of the alternative society

achieved can be evoked for people to contemplate, to wish for, to work

for. Until we have a vision of what we are working for, it is very hard

to choose what to do in the present to get there.

Here is where anarchism has its greatest appeal, as well as its greatest

danger. It is a rather pure and simple political system. It says that

left to ourselves (or educated properly), people can be trusted to be

good; that if we were not twisted by the demands of money and the state,

we would take care of each other better than we do now. In a way this is

a view that merely extends democratic thinking to its end point: if we

are all equal, if everyone together rules equally, then no one rules;

and thus you expand democracy until it ends up at anarchy. It is a

profoundly hopeful view, and hope for a different state is a crucial

component of action. Here in particular, symbolic action is also at the

same time real action.

One way of putting this, used more than once by the writers in this

book, is that society is now organized vertically, in a hierarchy of

power, privilege, prosperity and health, which is structured in almost

the same demographic pyramid as feudalism, or even the ancient

warrior-priest command states. Anarchism suggests that the great

majority of us would be far better off in a horizontal arrangement, an

association of equals. Such a horizontality in the realm of power used

to be derided as hopelessly naĂŻve and unrealistic, but the more we learn

about our human past and our primate ancestors, the more it becomes

clear that this was the norm during the entirety of our evolution; only

since the invention of agriculture, patriarchy, and the warrior-priest

power structure has verticality ruled our lives. Getting back to a

horizontal structure would be a return to the species norm and

collective sanity, and to a sense of justice that long predates humanity

itself, as can be seen clearly in the actions of our primate cousins.

From vertical to horizontal, then; but this is the work of democracy

too, and even the work of history itself, if progress in human welfare

is what we judge history by. So the more we succeed in this long work,

the closer we come to the goals of anarchism, and the goals of other

utopian endeavors: democracy, science, justice.

In the meantime, we have to constantly work; resist capitalism;

interrogate our own actions; and speak out against the current order,

for something better. That’s what these writers have been doing in their

lives and their work, and so this book too becomes part of that project.

It’s been going on for a very long time, and will presumably continue

past our moment; but our destruction of the biosphere has moved the

whole process into crisis mode, and we won’t be leaving that mode until

the crisis is resolved. So to a certain extent we can no longer take the

long view. We have to avert a biophysical catastrophe if we want to give

our children a healthy planet and civilization. In this moment of the

storm, all our political ideas need to be reconsidered, even the most

radical ones, or especially the most radical ones. And all those based

on a hopeful view of humanity, and helping to construct a utopian

project for us to fulfill as soon as possible, deserve to be brought

into the discussion. So: read on, and imagine a horizontal world, a free

association of six billion equals. And as Brecht said: If you think this

is utopian, please also consider why it is such.

---

Kim Stanley Robinson is a writer of science fiction. He has published

nineteen novels and numerous short stories and is best known for his

Mars trilogy. Robinson has won many awards, including the Hugo Award for

Best Novel.

The book this is from, Myths & Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers on Ficton,

edited by Margaret Killjoy, is available from AK Press here:

https://www.akpress.org/mythmakersandlawbreakers.html