đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș john-warwick-desert-a-review-essay.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:37:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Desert: a review essay Author: John Warwick Date: 10/09/19 Language: en Topics: ecology, climate change, review, UK, Anarchist Federation Source: https://organisemagazine.org.uk/2019/10/03/desert-review/ Notes: Desert, a warning. A review essay originally published in Organise!, the magazine of the UK Anarchist Federation.
In the summer drought of 2018, rivers across Europe hit record low
levels, revealing âhunger stonesâ, warnings from past generations that
if the water level gets this low, pain is coming. One stone in the River
Elbe read âWenn du mich siehst, dann weinâ translating to âIf you see
me, weepâ.
As I write this, large areas of the arctic are on fire.
In Siberia, a new trade is booming in selling the bones of woolly
mammoths as they are being revealed by the thawing permafrost.
Within this context, Desert, now republished by Active Distribution, is
looking worryingly prophetic.
---
Desert has become something of an online sensation since publication by
an anonymous author in 2011. It starts from the quite plausible premise
that we will not be able to limit climate change in any meaningful
sense; that runaway heating is inevitable, that large sections of the
globe will become uninhabitable. As this happens, human populations will
shrink rapidly due to wars, malnutrition and the vulnerability to
disease that these bring. It is not an optimistic view of the future.
Humanity will not be able to pull itself together to do anything about
it. Unsurprisingly, it has developed a cult following amongst Nihilists
and anarcho-individualists.
As well as some worrying predictions about the future of the climate,
Desert also has some home-truths for the anarchist movement, our
capacity and what we can hope to achieve. In this it calls out the
Anarchist Federation, and other groups, for proposing that an anarchist
revolution will be complete and worldwide; suggesting this is
unrealistic and that ultimately, weâre selling a fantasy not unlike the
priests and politicians.
There are some valuable points to consider, and certainly there is some
truth in this, however I feel this is a slight misreading of our
message.
We do not believe there will be an âanarchist revolutionâ, we believe
revolutions are spontaneous events and that ultimately all we can do is
try to push them in a more libertarian and communist direction. We must
try to build new structures which are effective against the inevitable
counter revolution and which mitigates against the prospect of a single
group seizing power again over the working class. What (I think) we
meant, was not that we would ever have enough anarchists to take over
the whole world at once, but that we will never be able to co-exist
peacefully with capitalism. Ultimately, if capitalism still exists
anywhere in the world it will always try to expand and regain control of
our lives. Whether we will be successful in eradicating it remains to be
seen.
The author also tries to put to bed the misconception that there will be
a âsingular anarchist futureâ, however this is not an assumption I was
labouring under. In revolutionary Spain, a small part of a relatively
small country, there was not one system of doing things. Some villages
banned money, some kept it, whereas some issued work tokens. We have
never claimed to have the perfect system; there is no set programme;
there is no end goal. The beauty of anarchism is that it is constantly
evolving, that is adapts to new localities and conditions.
---
While I feel these points need clarification, ultimately the message of
Desert is one that needs to be heard. There is a naivety amongst the
anarchist movement that if we can come up with the perfect
organisational structures or blue-print for the future, the working
class will arise. The fact is that we are at a low ebb and unfortunately
the climate isnât going to wait until we regain our strength. We must
accept that the revolution is unlikely to come about from positive
action on our own part, from some glorious moment, more likely it will
be due to the collapse of states as they are no longer able to provide
for their citizens. We need to accept this, and we need to start
planning for it.
Thatâs not to say that imagining futures together is not valuable.
Understanding together what a utopia might look like can help us to get
there. These ideas can break the spell of capitalist realism and help
people begin to think of new relations between each other and new
relations to the rest of nature. This is where Desert brings an
important message. Whilst talking of these utopias we must also be
realistic about we can achieve in the here and now. We must not preach
these utopias as if they are just around the corner or they will be easy
to achieve. Anarchist ways of organising have a lot to offer but we as a
movement are a long way from being able to build alternative power
structures, from being able to provide for communities. This is where
our true weaknesses lie: we are not the CNT in 1930s Spain. We do have
the structures in place to be able to take over or defend our gains if a
revolution happened tomorrow.
Somewhere along the line this sense of realism has been lost amid
hopeful speeches aiming to inspire people to anarchist ways of thinking.
In early 20^(th) century Italy, Malatesta discussed with other
anarchists how they would provide for the people after an uprising in
the city- âWeâll feed ourselves from the warehousesâ was the reply. But
how much food was actually in the warehouses? Malatesta checked and was
surprised to find barely any. He realised the city could not survive
without help from food brought in by railroad, the same railroad which
would also bring reinforcements for the army if it was kept it open. He
surmised: âwe must face the cannons if we want the cornâ. This is a
useful story of realism meeting revolutionary exuberance. It will not be
easy and Desert acknowledges that. We can achieve a lot, just look at
anarchist disaster relief efforts across the globe, but we should also
be aware we may not be the only force trying to consolidate ourselves as
the capitalist order collapses.
---
Desert paints a future in which capitalist civilisation crumbles as it
becomes unable to provide for its citizens in any meaningful way. Many
will die in the global south (the author seems slightly blasé about this
fact) but humans will expand north into the previously uninhabited
zones. What will remain are pockets of societies, some more anarchist
that others and some more successful than others. However, this is not
the only way a society ravaged by global heating could evolve. Let me
discuss two other possible dystopias.
First, as global warming accelerates the state realises the threat this
presents and that it must step in to manage the crisis. The
industrialised countries in the temperate north close their borders to
keep out climate refuges and foster an increasing nationalism, an us vs
them narrative over access to resources. The land purchased by US and
European corporations in Africa is used to maintain our standard of
living. How many disruptions to supply will the US tolerate before it
sends in its army to subdue the locals and manage food production? In
this dystopia, society continues in the temperate zones, albeit under
strong state control and rationing of resources. Those outside these
zones become client states, forced into production to service Europe and
the US with food. In reality, this is simply an acceleration of the
current dynamic between the industrialised nations and their former
colonies.
Second, as climate breakdown becomes increasingly obvious with drought
and famine in the less temperate zones, the potential rewards for
technologies like direct air capture of CO2 become huge. States are
deeply indebted trying to manage extreme weather events and the
upgrading of infrastructure, meaning the development of these
technologies is in corporate hands. Will Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos be
kind to us when they have the power to save humanity, or will they
extract as much as possible for their empires? Already they have
international operations which flaunt local laws and are developing
their own currencies to do this further. In this future the corporations
are the ones who build alternative power structures outside the state.
For those who can afford it, or who can sell their skills, the climate
crisis will be managed. For everyone else, the future is less rosy.
---
In planning theory, when dealing with uncertain futures, one approach is
to map out the possible scenarios and try to pick a strategy which works
with each one. This is often termed âno regretsâ decision making. While
the solution might not be optimal in any given scenario, it will allow
you to survive whichever possible future turns out to be true.
Essentially, youâre not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Desert has offered one possible scenario and I have given a further two
here. What strategies can we develop which benefit us no matter which
turns out to be true? I would like to suggest as a start that in each of
these scenarios, being able to provide for ourselves would be incredibly
beneficial. The less dependence we have on the state or corporations,
the less likely they are to be able to enslave us further.
Unfortunately, taking back the land has proved somewhat tricky despite
our best efforts, but perhaps this isnât the only way we can view this
problem. Providing for ourselves could mean engaging with the local
council to build community-scale solar schemes. When the time comes we
disconnect from the grid and have an energy system which we can manage
ourselves. Community growing projects increase knowledge of farming
practices, build community networks and show mutual aid in action. Group
therapy sessions build our capacity for self-care and international
networks grow our knowledge of how other communities have faced similar
problems and won. Our unions offer an alternative structure which
connects knowledge in different industries with regional-scale
understanding of production and distribution systems.
Each of these projects would improve our chances if any of the possible
future scenarios of state collapse, state domination or corporatism came
true. These, and probably many more, are the âno regrets decisionsâ we
can be making to increase our chance of surviving and thriving in the
future. Perhaps Desertâs greatest strength is making us realise the
urgency of taking these steps and being realistic about where the
movement is today.
Desert is a welcome addition to anarchist ideas about what the future
may hold for us. There has been a debate in the climate movement for
years about the best way to frame the problem to increase awareness and
action. Do we give messages of hope about what the future could hold if
we act now or visions of doom if we get it wrong? Ultimately I think
both are necessary, people need to be aware of the risks if we donât get
this right and Desert injects a healthy dose of doom into the debate.
Just donât lose hope, another future is possible.