For over 90% of Anatomically Modern Human history, our species lived, essentially, in Anarchist societies (without ideology of course). These took the form of bands/tribes which are, Anthropologically, considered to be fundamentally egalitarian and lack any real notions of authority or ownership. Any community/interaction/society which functions without stratification of authority, wealth, power, and/or coercion can be considered functionally Anarchistic. Many of our day-to-day interactions with others can be considered Anarchistic if they rely upon mutual social contracts, spoken or unspoken, subtle or not. Ideological/intentional Anarchist communities have and do exist. The Paris Commune and Spanish Revolution (Catalonia) gave rise to functional Anarchist societies (albeit in chaotic/violent conditions) and failed mainly due to outside forces (typically Fascists and/or Communists) imposing and defeating them in actual battle. On the local level, many intentional communities, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and neo-tribal communities live in functional Anarchist modes, both experimental and ongoing. What would an Anarchist world look like to me? Probably a myriad of communities/societies, spread out across the planet, taking on different cultures, styles, and practices but also different Anarchist subsets as well as unintentionally Anarchist lifestyles. They could work in syndicates, confederations of communities (like the Iroquois League), isolationist, on the grid, off the grid, but most importantly, without much or any stratification of wealth/power/governance. Many consider Anarchism to be utopian... but a realistic look at Anarchism sees no such thing. In fact, its the opposite. Anarchism embraces human imperfection, takes it as a given, but believes in the (scientifically proven) notion that humans, generally, tend to cooperate and help one another; also that we tend to harbor innate abilities of empathy for others. Once again, this is imperfect, but Anarchist viewpoints hold that our current society/civilization is grossly out of sync with most of human nature (and ecological nature), forcing humans/other species to cater to IT rather than society/civilization catering TO humans/other species. Ill conclude with a great quote: What people (aside from rulers) dont like about hierarchal societies is that they dont exist for all their members in the same way. They provide a life of unbelievable luxury and ease for the rulers and a life of poverty and toil for everyone else. The way rulers benefit from the success of the society is vastly different from the way the masses benefit, and the pyramids and the temples testify to the importance of the rulers, not to the masses who build them. And so it goes, through every phase of life in a hierarchal society. - Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:27:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015