Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.

Categories

+3 votes
it may look like a stupid question, but no one in this world knows everything.

I mean, anarchy can be applied in nowadays society with internet, electricity, and modern technology?
by
"I mean, anarchy can be applied in nowadays society with internet, electricity, and modern technology?"

My answer is yes to this secondary question, as I think I'm applying it in many ways - and I'm constantly looking for more ways to live it and to find others who are willing to live creatively and against the systems of domination and authority.

It is certainly a struggle, however, and often I feel hypocritical as I still use so many "products" and conventions of hierarchical society. But if I didn't think it was possible, I wouldn't be here writing about it.

1 Answer

+1 vote
Alfredo Bonanno defined anarchy as a tension to be lived every day in conflict with the established, non-anarchist order. That, at least, is how I read his writings.

I don't know if 7 billion people can live in a state of total anarchy. I believe that such a phenomenon will indeed require decivilization, and probably generations of healing from the toxic culture, as well as rotting of and forgetting how to use the physical infrastructure carved out of the landscape by civilization.

When Rome fell, Western civilization survived because the husk of the empire that it left was eventually re-used, and a large enough portion of humanity was domesticated enough where civilization could keep on turning. (Oversimplication, I know. Historians put me in my place please if I'm getting this wrong) The situation could easily be the same with our global civilization.

But I do think that it's possible for enough people to live anarchy where states are forced out of territories, cultures are infected with anti-authoritarianism, and such. So no, anarchy doesn't require decivilization, but I do think that it can more easily flourish in it and helps the process along.

edited to fix grammar
by (4.0k points)
I gotta jump on this answer because, while it is totally in sync with the outdated approach of most historians, it is completely obsolete according to the anthropological approach. A lot of your answer relies on an outdated theory of culture known as "diffusionism," the idea that "civilization" originates in specific areas and diffuses to other areas. It was used to justify a lot of racism back in the day ("Timbuktu must have been created by white people somehow, because Africans wouldn't have been capable of building it.") I know that is not exactly what you are arguing, and I'm not calling you a racist, but the fact is that although cultures do influence each other, "civilization" is an arbitrary label and no culture holds a monopoly on invention. Western civilization would have very likely survived regardless of Roman influence for a number of reasons: The geography of Europe is very conducive to trade and centralization of trade centers, state-level societies had existed in the Mediterrean long before the Romans, and even the Greeks, and the so-called "barbarians" weren't cultureless, or "without civilization" as the history books like to portray them (No humans are, really).

Finally, although I am sympathic toward anarcho-primitivists, I believe that it is "civilization" and its way of creating large societies of people who can easily share ideas that has led to much of the most important thinking throughout history. We would not be discussing anarchy at all if we were living as uneducated feudal peasants. As a result, though I think that some aspects of American civilization, like our excessive materialism and consumption HAVE to be destroyed, or they will destroy the world, other aspects of civilization, like the ability to share ideas online as we are doing now, are vitally important to human thought and the development of ideas.
"Finally, although I am sympathic toward anarcho-primitivists, I believe that it is "civilization" and its way of creating large societies of people who can easily share ideas that has led to much of the most important thinking throughout history. We would not be discussing anarchy at all if we were living as uneducated feudal peasants."

Ok...so how are 'primitive' peoples, peasants? It seems that the latter *are* a product of civilization, being farmers and all.
Well, first, "primitive" is a dumb term, and I would only ever use it in reference to anarcho-primitivists, who are operating on a false, way over-simplified idea of indigenous life. Anarcho-primitivism is an interesting lifestyle, but it will never be a valid system of anarchy on any kind of real scale.

You are right that peasants are a product of civilization, and a bad example (it was midnight). But that's my point. EVERY culture has some form of "civilization." Civilization, like primitive, is really a dumb term, because people mainly just arbitrarily lump those people who have certain inventions into the "civilized group" while leaving out other people with other inventions out. But every culture has inventions. Hunter-gatherers would have made a good example to serve the same point, but people don't often appreciate just how complicated (or "civilized") their societies and technologies are, so I hate to associate them as "primitive" and reinforce the stereotype.
lantz: " Civilization, like primitive, is really a dumb term, because people mainly just arbitrarily lump those people who have certain inventions into the "civilized group" while leaving out other people with other inventions out. "

Arbitrarily? Really? I don't know, even ol' Wikipedia seems to cast doubt on your idiosyncratic use of the term 'civilization' in the very first paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Cast in this light, civilization seems to pretty much an archic, rather than anarchic, phenomenon.
That wikipedia article is a perfect example of arbitrary. For example, social dependence on agriculture is an often listed criterion for "civilization." However, many indigenous tribes on the west coast of the United States lived in an area with plentiful food and so they managed to create very complex societies without ever relying on agriculture. Were they not "civilized"?

Wikipedia's definition of civilization is an entirely historical definition, rather than an anthropological one, meaning that it considers civilization from an ethnocentric, stage model, traditional view, rather than as a product of individual cultures in response to their environments. That being said, if you choose to define civilization as "the development of a centralized state," then obviously your idea of "civilization" and anarchy are incompatible.
lantz: "That wikipedia article is a perfect example of arbitrary.  For example, social dependence on agriculture is an often listed criterion for "civilization."

Then: "very complex societies without ever relying on agriculture. Were they not "civilized"?

So, complex societies = civilization? Sounds pretty arbitrary. From what I've read most h-g societies were/are very complex.

Also, I have no reason to believe west coast tribes of NA were 'created,' but evolved. 'Creation' in this context sounds better suited to those top-down models we call 'civilization.'
Again, that's my point. ARE complex societies civilization? My argument is that "civilization" really doesn't exist, except as an arbitrary, inherently inaccurate, means of broad categorization.

And yes, you are right, societies are very much evolved. "Create" was a poorly chosen word.
Does the word 'civil' and/or 'citizen' have any relevance outside settled, agriculturally-based, centralized and hierarchical power structures? Given the terms' Latin roots and narrowed usage by the Romans and onward in the west, I'm inclined to think not.

Again, as I think Lawrence pointed out in another thread, your idiosyncratic usage of terminology is more a hindrance than a refinement.
I'm not arguing for a new definition of civilization, I'm arguing that by it's old definition, it's a poor concept.

 "Civil" is one of those words that really means whatever you apply it to. "Citizen" is the word for a person living under the authority of a centralized state. Though they share roots, they aren't really directly comparable to the idea of "civilization", though  I don't know why they would be compared anyway, I never used either of those words.
Huh?

When we use the term 'civil' we usually mean by it, 'polite,' which strictly means to be a recognized unit of a polity, of the 'polis,' the city, and as such, a *citizen.* A 'polite' person is a civilized person, a politically-recognized 'person,' a citizen. Thereby they are recognized as belonging (or not) according to the Power that have created, built, and maintain the city through its moral code set in law; civilization.

Catching the drift?
Sure. But that still doesn't really address the fact that "civilization" isn't a useful term. If you define it as a moral code set in law, then sure, you can define those other words by that, but really those other words aren't that useful either. Lots of societies that are considered "uncivilized" have strict rules that could be considered "laws".
...