Anarchist Civilization.
I've been doing a lot of reading lately, and the last two books I've read contained accounts of individuals who were, more or less, anarchists; Rebels who operated against their own society, and were exiled as a result. This exile was self-imposed, in both cases.
My question is this: Is the term "Anarchist Civilization" a contradiction in terms? Is it possible to build a society without a centralized system of governmental organization, while maintaining forward technological momentum? The American Heritage Dictionary contains several definitions for the word Civilization, but I think the variation which I am referring to is this one:
My question is this: Is the term "Anarchist Civilization" a contradiction in terms? Is it possible to build a society without a centralized system of governmental organization, while maintaining forward technological momentum? The American Heritage Dictionary contains several definitions for the word Civilization, but I think the variation which I am referring to is this one:
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.If anyone has thoughts on this topic, please comment on this post. I'm better at asking questions than answering them, it seems.
posted by Q. at 9:38:00 AM
7 Comments:
I "think" the reason answering your question is difficult is because an anarchist civilization hasn't been attempted(or has, but isn't mentioned in any of my reading material).
Posit a group of humans of large enough number that family ties are not the ruling impulse within the group as a whole. If this group has goals--even a goal as simple as continued survival--then all, or at least a majority, of its members must work for the goals.
Without an external force to encourage them to work together, humans act for their own interests first, last, and always.
In current people groups, government takes the place of the external force, by providing a joint carrot/stick force to encourage cooperation.
I strongly suspect that a truely anarchist civilization would soon evolve a form of government, due to two very human drives: the desire to lead, and the desire to follow.
Two points:
First, given a large enough group of people, it would not be necessary for every person to cooperate with a given goal. Like-minded people might form disorganized cooperative groups to certain ends without interference from an outside source.
Second, I think that it is possible that the desire to lead and to follow is something which is learned, not bred, and inherent to our culture.
I'm still thinking about the anarchy and sustained technology question......we'd have to have a very different cultural mindset for it to work, but I'm not sure what that would be.
I think you raised an interesting question with the lead/follow thing. Is this biological or learned? (I'd guess its actually both, but that's getting ahead of myself.) In wolf packs there's a bell curve of aggression. (Same is true for dogs.) Few wolves are highly aggressive, few are highly timid. This is good. It means there aren't as many fights. The wolves can sort themselves out without killing each other, which would be highly unproductive. Now, wolf packs are highly social, so perhaps this is all learned. When watching pups, however, its clear that some pups really are more shy and cautious. Some are more bold. This is not a biological trait of leading/following, instead it's temperment, which does have biological components. It does, however, contribute to leading/following. Thus leading/following is not just a learned trait, but biology contributes. I'm doubtful that following and leading can be eliminated from human society. Even in smaller groups of people in an anarchic society, working for a larger goal would require some sort of agreement in delegation of labor/ideas. Even in quaker census decision making there are undoubtedly "leaders" whose opinion has more sway. I suspect similar things would happen in these smaller groups, causing a default government, not necessarily of law, but of social pressure. I sorta think that once there is a group of people working together for some common purpose some kind of rules of behavior, etc...will form, thus negating the anarchy.
--Katherine
Anarchy, eh?
Anarchy represents an absence of structure. Any organization imposes a structure, so to have anarchy you can't have a bunch of people mucking it up by trying to organize.
Individuals make anarchy simply by having the freedom and luxury to pursue life as they see fit. Freedom has a distinct absence of structure. Sure, this has its ups and downs, but it could work, right?
You just need to be self-sufficient! Need a road? Blade it yourself! Dig your own artesian well! You're a rennaisance man!
One big problem: People are stupid.
Stupid AND lazy. Someone will always come along to take advant...ahhh, organize them towards a goal.
Probably by offering them 0% APR! credit cards WITH free coupons for an ice-cream!! sundae. Just sign on the dotted line. And then you've got your structure. Poor Anarchy.
Anarchic civilizations are weak, as they rely on individualism. Haven't we learned anything from mad scientist movies? Torch-wielding mobs prevent a nice, utopian anarchy from coming true.
Sure, it starts with Joe Firebrand burning down the lab, but ENDS with local elections nominating Joe as town mayor and forming the first lobby by accepting charitable contributions from Johnny Muckracker to the town's coffers in exchange for sole rights of garbage pickup within city limits, enforced by knee-cap breaking garbage men with bats.
Organization spoils the day for the small businessman once again.
Poor Anarchy.
-MRA
(! Valid for the first 3 months. 14.99% after.)
(!! Or ice-cream substitute at the seller's discretion. Limit one-per-customer. Offer void for use with any other promotion.)
To me, it always seemed that the main hang up for anarchist civilization is that it lacks a built in form of protection when it comes to the concept of property. Basically, without something to prevent you from rolling over and taking what you want from those weaker than you, there has to be an overriding feeling that it isn't "right" to do that. So, either there needs to be a method of property protection that is difficult to get around, or we have to have a shift in how people view property. Otherwise, if I'm hungry, you have food, and I think I can take it, I'm going to. For an anarchist civilization to work, there would have to be a sense of unity without there being an enforced order. People would have to be aware of, and choose to act, on information regarding the performance of the society as a whole. It would have to take a step in the direction of everyone involved planning ahead and taking direct responsibility for their actions. Also, there would have to be some concept of working together in trying times in order to survive as a society. Though, I admit, I have no idea how you would get this kind of ideological switch to occur...
Katherine: Yes, clearly there is a biological component to the lead/follow pattern of behavior. Does that component necessitate a heirarchy of status? Does it mean that we must lead, follow or get out of the way? There is no way to tell, I'm afraid.
Mr. A: Does an act of violence inevitably lead to a structure of government? I think not, as long as there is a provably viable alternative.
Aubrey: You bring up an interesting point as well. There has to be either a cultural pattern, or a means of enforcing property rights. Property enforcement, however, does not mean central rule. Might I suggest that property enforcement is something that could be automated?
Q. Good idea on the automation. I'd actually be all for some kind of computer keeping track of things. The problem however, is that I'd only be alright with an incorruptable form of automation for the protection/record keeping invovled in property rights. Sadly, I can't think of any such system. Also, my brain has turned into a kind of late night pudding, so, I'm off to bed! More to follow later.
Post a Comment
<< Home