Is Anarchism an Idea Whose Time Has Come?

[marmar]

Is Anarchism an Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Anarchist thinking appears to be gaining relevance and acceptance among a larger audience.

October 13, 2012 |


It seems that everywhere, these days, people are talking about anarchism. Now Dmitry Orlov joins the discussion with a 3-part series, “In Praise of Anarchy.” Utilizing primarily the work of the 19th century Russian anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, Orlov argues that anarchy, rather than hierarchy, is the dominant pattern in nature, that hierarchical organizations ultimately end in collapse, and that the impending collapse of the capitalist industrial system presents an opportunity for the emergence of anarchism.

Orlov,(aka kollapsnik at Club Orlov ), is probably best-known for his book, Reinventing Collapse , in which he compares the collapse of the Soviet Union with the imminent collapse of the United States. Russian-born Orlov is in a unique position to make such comparisons. He immigrated to the USA when he was twelve years old, and, as an adult, made numerous trips back to the former USSR in the years immediately following the collapse of its political and economic system.

With a wry Russian wit I find immensely attractive, Orlov describes in Reinventing Collapse how people in the USSR were better positioned than are Americans for economic collapse. For example, most Soviet citizens did not own their homes; instead they lived in state-owned dwellings. When the USSR collapsed, they simply remained where they were and nobody evicted them. Compare that with the United States, where people were seduced into signing questionable mortgage agreements for outrageously priced homes, and where, since the economic crisis of 2008, 3 million have been foreclosed upon.

Similarly, few Soviet citizens owned cars, but they could take advantage of a highly developed public transportation system. Most Americans, on the other hand, are car dependent, burdened with the expense car ownership and operation entails. In the USSR, citizens used to inefficient, centrally-planned agricultural policies were already in the habit of growing some of their own food. In recent years, some Americans have wised up to this necessity, but not nearly enough. I’m constantly amazed by the number of people I meet who can’t identify common garden vegetables by their leaves. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/visions/anarchism-idea-whose-time-has-come

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Where have you been? Nt

[marmar]

10. Hey xchrom, I'm actually in Europe on vacation ........

..... I'm typing this from a cybercafe in London (strange keyboards over here).....I started in Amsterdam, then Paris, now London. It SUCKS to be coming home this week.

[xchrom]

11. Dude! I'm so glad you're traveling!

And jealous as Hell.

[Livluvgrow]

2. Maybe not a good idea

Anarchy is a state of nature according to Locke. If we fell into a state of nature we will only stay there briefly before a new hierarchy of order is born usually by the most powerful among the group, oligarchs of Russia for example. In my view that is the very reason my the repugs want to shrink government so they could drown it in a bathtub then they could take us briefly to a state of nature, ya know rugged individualism where we will be weakened and they could then through their power of wealth restructure a society in their own authoritarian fascist view which would then very quickly take us as far away from a state of nature as possible. I think on the other hand we should have a government that keeps us as close to a state of nature while not letting us fall into that anarchy trap.

[tama]

4. You sound bit like Jefferson :)

Who is sometimes called "philosophical anarchist". Locke (and Rand) start from idea of atomistic individual and divide between culture and nature, which is very myopic way to think about social beings like humans and the whole of the web of interdependencies we call "nature".

Current hierarchic system has roots that go furthest to birth of agriculture and what we call "civilizations", history of collapses, new centers of powers and new imperial phases. On the other hand we know that there are anarchic cultures with tens of thousands or years with unbroken cultural continuity - and language that does not have the word for "war".

Everybody is free to define and understand anarchism as they like, Zapatistas call their anarchic self-governance "Good Government" in contrast to the "Bad Government" of State of Mexico. It is clear that Jefferson et alii sought "Good Government" of as anarchic self-governance as possible with US Constitution, and it is clear that the project failed and US Government has become "Bad Government" - what Jefferson would call Despotism and Tyranny.

I've been lately looking into what is happening in Detroit and similar places largely abandoned by capitalist hierarchy and fallen into anarchy to large extent. There are now 16 000 community gardens in Detroit, created by people most of whom don't self-identify as anarchists, but behave in natural anarchic way. Take initiative and responsibility of their lives and communities and ecosystems - and build gardens, as members of horticultural species. Building self sufficient communities based on social and natural capital and producing healthy local food in places that were food deserts and centers of capitalistic exploitation and pollution.

Compare that with Middle-West industrial monoculture farmland powered by fossile fuels pumping up water from Ogallala aquifier, which will last only 25 years, if it is not spoiled before that by keystone pipe-line and fracturing, and how it poisons the soil and food with pestisides.

Guys like Dmitry Orlov are talking about anarchy because it works, as proven by countless examples. Because when power hierarchy stops chaining people and destroying the ecosystem, people return naturally our horticulturist natural state and niche in the ecosystem. And that does not mean anti-technology, but that what technological systems grow naturally and organically from the grass roots level don't seek to destroy the base they rely on, but are servants to the whole and well being of all of us.

[bemildred]

3. I think it's more like imperialism is an idea whose time has gone.

We need a new name for what comes after, anarchism has become too polluted with reactionary visions of violence and chaos.

[tama]

5. Just a word

and TPTB afraid of losing their power over others have succeeded in polluting many minds with the memes you mention. And most people who behave anarchically and live in anarchic communities don't use that word or identify as "anarchists". Those who live it, don't need the word to remind them of what else is possible.

[bemildred]

6. Yes. What it really is is the end of the authoritarian state and social darwinism as state policy.

Society as an organism, a network, in which we all share, rather than an authoritarian hierarchy of power controlled from the top.

[tama]

7. Darwin had good comprehension of nature

building his theory of evolution on the principle of populations adapting to the whole of the environment. Hence "social darwinism" is misnomer for Hobbesian and/or Spencerian predatory ideology:

Orlov writes that “when most people say ‘Darwinian’ it turns out that they actually mean to say ‘Hobbesian.’” It is probably more accurate to say that the commonly-held notion of social Darwinism is “Spencerian” rather than “Hobbesian,” after the 19th century English social theorist Herbert Spencer, who is credited with coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Spencer was a contemporary of Kropotkin and highly influential in his time. Spencer borrowed heavily from evolutionary biology to develop his social theories; for example, his notion that if government intervened in the economy to provide aid for the poor, public education, and so on, it would undermine the ability of individuals to develop adaptive traits, and thus would be a disservice to such individuals and their offspring. Kropotkin’s work on mutual aid was likely a response to these kinds of ideas.

[bemildred]

8. Correct.

Social Darwinism is the fatuous idea that Hobbesian societies (an oxymoron there all by itself, the usual preferred euphemism is "competition&quot "work best", the whole "weeding out the unfit" idea as applied to your fellow citizens, but of course not to you.

[tama]

9. It's the ideology

of the upper "intellectual" parasite classes of the hierarchy both dependent from and trying to "weed out" the grass roots classes of primary producers. Hunger for power makes you blind and insane.

But as we see in Detroit and elsewhere, when the hobbesian parasite classes self-delete to a certain point, people return to working with nature instead of against it.

[limpyhobbler]

12. kick. Liberals should look into the ideas of anarchism more. nt