💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bobby-whittenberg-james-anarchy-against-civilization.gm… captured on 2023-01-29 at 22:36:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchy Against Civilization! Author: Bobby Whittenberg-James Language: en Source: Retrieved on July 7, 2011 from http://veteranarchy.blogspot.com/2011/01/anarchy-against-civilization.html
Far too many times, we as anarchists can get locked into ideology and
blueprint making rather than thinking critically and acting to meet
current challenges. The idea of challenging capitalism and the state was
one that was relatively new to western civilization when the first
people to be called anarchists in a political sense first put forth
their ideas. We should not be satisfied to stop there. They didn’t face
issues such as climate change, neo-liberal globalization, or peak
production. That doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore those issues. Most
early anarchists didn’t challenge extraction, economics, technology,
domestication, agriculture, mass society, or civilization but that
should not bar us from doing so.
Civilization can be defined as a way of life based around growing
urbanization and the social relationships that result. Urban areas, also
known as cities, are defined as populations so dense as to require the
importation of the means to sustain the city itself and its population.
Upon an initial landbase, a city is built, including houses, businesses,
government buildings, infrastructure, etc. This gives people a place to
live, but not the means. Because of this, the civilization must seek out
external landbases to exploit in order to harvest the resources to keep
it going, to build and maintain houses, bridges, roads, sewer lines,
water lines, electrical lines, public transportation, food for
restaurants, clothing for the stores, luxury items for the civilized,
personal transportation, entertainment, and so on ad infinitum.
Eventually, as cities grow and populations increase and the civilization
requires more and more external land to provide the civilized with
goods, the civilization will run into land with people on it, usually
people whose way of life depends on that land. When the civilized
encounter such people, they usually have the option (if they aren’t
killed outright) of working highly exploitative jobs to provide goods or
services for the civilized on their traditional lands, moving to the
cities to find work, or fighting back.
Because most civilized people do not grow their own food or make their
own clothing or build their own houses, access their own water...
because the civilized pass these responsibilities on to others, some
kind of exchange must take place. As the demands of civilization
increase, more and more land is needed to produce goods and services for
the civilized. Eventually this means that the civilized will run into
traditional communities or other civilizations sitting on top of the
land they wish to exploit...
Civilization always views the natural world as “natural resources.”
Organized warfare and systemic violence are hallmarks of civilization.
Without violence as a form of social control at home and conquest
abroad, the hierarchy necessary for the maintenance of mass society
could not be maintained. When comparing hunter-gatherers to their
agrarian or civilized neighbors, we find that while hunter-gatherers
show little or no sexual division of labor, the agrarians and the
civilized and those engaged in domestication are more likely to be
highly warlike and patriarchal. The tendency seems to be that with
increased complexity and increased domestication and planting come
increases in the amount of organized violence, hierarchy, and dominance.
The wars and occupations in which the United States are engaged today
are not an anomaly. They are the natural extension of a war that began
long ago, even before the Christ Bearer Colonizer plagued the Arawaks,
even before civilization touched Europe... the war waged against the
wild and the primitive by the civilized and the domesticated.
As radicals (from the latin radix-root) we seek to examine and challenge
root causes. The anarchist tradition has historically identified
capitalism as a root cause. Fortunately, we as anarchists are not bound
to tradition. Certainly capitalism is odious and something to be
abolished, but it is not a root problem. Capitalism is rooted in
civilization. Social stratification and hierarchy are necessary for the
operation and maintenance of mass society. There is no way to take all
of the tasks necessary to maintain civilization and equalize them and
divide them up among people equally. Because of its complexity,
civilization requires specialization and hierarchy.
Anarchy can’t simply pick a set of tenants and require adherence
regardless of new information. As we challenge institutions and break
them down further and further, we will likely need to challenge some
things that our fore bearers might not have. This doesn’t imply a break
from anarchy, but rather a break from doctrine and ideology.
Long before capitalism, civilization was destroying the natural world,
ecosystems, and species and it was dispossessing communities of their
landbases. By what standard do we say that capitalism is a root cause?
We see that hierarchy and dominance came out of the neolithic revolution
and that much of the middle east was deforested by the first
civilization. Where was capitalism in all of this? Can capitalism be
blamed for the slavery that built the pyramids at Giza? The Roman
Empire? Certainly we see authority and civilization wreaked havoc on
humanity long before capitalism was in the picture. Capitalism is just
another manifestation of civilization. It is not a root cause.
Why is it that we as anarchists are so timid to ask new questions and
tread upon new ground? Why are economics, civilization, technology,
domestication, mass society, and extraction sacrosanct?
Left anarchists and so called green capitalists and eco-socialists have
begun using the words “sustainable” or “sustainability” extremely
loosely. Living sustainably means living in symbiosis with the earth and
its inhabitants. For something to be sustainable means that it must be
able to be continued at the same rate indefinitely. In other words,
sustainability means an end to extraction and the use of non-renewable
“resources.” To refer to something that is less exploitative as
“sustainable” is simply dishonest.
No civilization has ever been sustainable.
One of the popular myths is that personal consumer choices can move us
towards sustainability. Before buying in, we should be asking ourselves
who benefits from this. While I wouldn’t say there is anything “bad”
about trying to make consumer choices that are less exploitative or less
cruel (if that is possible) we need to understand that this only mildly
alters the details of the existing system without challenging the
paradigm itself. Alternative energies are similar in that they attempt
to operate only within the context of industrial society and extraction
culture. They simply seek to alter details, not to facilitate a paradigm
shift.
If someone wants a computer then naturally it should come from their
landbase. This person finds some people who want to make computers. It
is already irresponsible to take from the earth more than one can
return, but we will say that this group or community has decided that
they want computers and machine production more than they want a healthy
landbase. They begin mining for the metals required for the task. Of
course we also need more than metals. We need petroleum and large
amounts of water. So the group manufacturing the computers is mining
their landbase, drilling for oil, and using water far exceeding the
amount available to them in their area and the water used in the
production becomes polluted...
Where does the pollution go? Who absorbs the costs? Who is responsible
for growing food for the people who use their landbase to produce
computers? What landbase will be used for producing the machines that
will produce computers? Who will work with the hazardous materials? Who
produces the hazardous material gear they will wear while making these
computers? Where does all the excess water needed for production come
from? On whose landbase/food source do we put the factories? Where do
the pollutants from the factories go? What happens when you can’t push
the costs of your lifestyle onto someone else? What happens when you
have to pay for your own toys?
Something that I rarely hear discussed in left/progressive circles is
the issue of indigenous claim to land. A leftist civilization would be
no different than any other civilization in that it would require the
same extraction, production, and consumption process, meaning constant
growth and expansion. I am highly disinclined to believe that this time
the civilized would not dispossess traditional communities of their land
to turn it into commodities for consumption by the civilized.
Why should indigenous voices not be the first heard after the fall of
civilization? Why do we presume a eurocentric model, based upon the
dominant culture rather than developing a way of life more similar to
that of the original human inhabitants of the land, those who know it
best?
Anarchy, statelessness, freedom, a world without authority, has long
been the goal of anarchists. Not all anarchists ideas, however, result
in anarchy. When following anarchist ideas to their natural conclusion,
we find that the structures necessary to coordinate and maintain
civilization and mass society are necessarily authoritarian and
stratified. Once face to face accountability is lost, personal power and
personal responsibility are abdicated.
Civilization and complex society, necessarily result in social
stratification or hierarchy. To adequately fulfill all the functions
needed to maintain civilization and mass society authority and
submission, division of labor, specialization, etc emerge.
Primitive anarchists are not simply positing that “our way is better”
but pointing to a mountain of evidence that shows that stateless,
egalitarian societies have existed for thousands of years and still
exist today in the form or hunter-gatherer tribes and bands, and that to
date there has never been a long term, sustained stateless, egalitarian
civilization. This is no coincidence.
Can there be a long term, industrial, egalitarian, stateless mass
society? If history is any indicator the answer is “no.” The burden of
proof is certainly upon the claimant. Mass society is so complex and
requires so many moving parts and particular duties that specialization
and division of labor arise not out of preference or choice but out of
their necessity to mass society.
Primitivist anarchists can point to most of human existence prior to
10,000 years ago and hunter-gatherers today such as the Mbuti, the San,
or Aboriginal Australians [1] as proof of hunter-gatherers creating
sustained, stateless, egalitarian social arrangements. This is, of
course, not to idealize or objectify any of these people in any way. No
social network or social arrangement is ever perfect or without fault or
flaw. However, this does not mean that some methods can’t be better than
others. As primitivist anarchists, we believe that the social
arrangements of hunter-gatherers are overall preferable to those of
civilization.
It is erroneous to assume that everything that exists now was an
inevitability. In fact, it’s much more accurate to consider all things
that are now to be the result of many improbabilities. The times in
which we live are not the result of a predetermined, single narrative.
They are a conglomeration of actions, deliberate and non-deliberate.
They result from choices, coercion, coincidence.
For example, your existence was not inevitable, but the result of a
series of improbable events, that caused your grandparents to meet, and
then your parents, that particular egg, that particular sperm... In the
same way, all that exists now is the sum of a series of highly
improbably events. The present was not inevitable and the future is
unwritten.
We are in an unprecedented era. Neo-liberalism has created a global
economy, a global civilization. History tells us that when civilizations
fall, the result is usually a return to more decentralized ways of
living. There is no reason to believe this is not a likely outcome of
the fall of global civilization as well.
Breaking with civilization, economics, and domestication has nothing to
do with “going backwards” or “turning back the clock.” Correcting
mistakes is not a matter of reversing a preset trajectory. Civilization
is constantly and rapidly destroying species, ecosystems, communities,
and people. Whether it crashes on its own or whether we take
responsibility and bring it down ourselves, the sooner civilization
comes down, the less devastation there will be when it does.
If anarchy is to be relevant in today’s world it must be green, that is,
it must be focused on bringing down civilization and finding a way of
living in which we acknowledge ourselves as a part of the natural world,
rather than a force at odds with it.
Fighting For Anarchy,
Bobby Whittenberg-James
Â
[1] Retraction: After publishing this I discovered that the Australian
Aborigines have a very sexist feeding hierarchy and therefore should not
be described as “egalitarian.”