So anarchism is a pretty broad semantic term. I wanted to go through a few varying concepts real quick and discuss a couple currents.
The way occupied societies, including our own, are taught to view it is chaos and disorder, in an obvious attempt to maintain /perpetuate the illusion that individuals are naturally meant to rule over and make decisions for vast amounts of others.
But in it’s most consistently used political form it has been considered both a practice of critiquing what are seen by it’s practitioners as illegitimate hierarchies, or often hierarchy altogether, and promoting an organizational structure which is horizontal in both living and working spaces.
When the system shifts toward progression or regression, the human psyche shifts toward varying conditioning those societies produce.
As such as technology changes our modes of labor (through automation or 3D printing for instance) we also change the way we understand worker liberation.
If labor is that which we do in return for that which we do not have from those who do have that they may make more than they spend, then what we do not have is what we would need to be able to decide how our labor is spent. This is the means of production.
Anarchosyndacalists believe the workers should own production, and workers counsels and labor counsels made up of all workers should come to forms of consensus to decide how things are run. This is the type of anarchism we see loosely in catalonia and as liberterian municipalism in Rojava, promoted by Noam Chomsky as liberterian socialism.
This is far from what rothbard coined as liberterianism in the united states, which is a pro property owner version of crypto fascism parading as anarchism, which is antisocialism even of the stateless variety, in that it allows for the maintaining of institutions of hierarchy such as bosses.
So the questions becomes “who owns the robots? and ” who produces the labor” and if 3d printing is the mode to build robots, and it’s affordable even under capitalist system, we may be able to own those means without the need for outside labor.
This presents a new paradigm outside the realm of current discussion by the left. This is often called Post Left Anarchy, or what might be called, Post Jobs Anarchy.
This ideology promotes that we could get rid of labor entirely and only do that which we desired with our freed energies. It supposes that these things would be far more beneficial to all if driven by the passions of each indiviual. This is, it seems, a stream that flows from the such thinkers as Max Stirner.
The question still remains as to whether or not we have time given many scientists are claiming we have untill 2100 before we go extinct. If we do colonize the moon and mars in that time, terraform both planets, switch to all renewable non oil based resources, begin farming and hyper local agro sustainability, with hydroponics, etc., it all would sound quite wonderful, but the energy to sustain this new way of living and move toward it still requires a lot of horrible practices on the back end, unless we find mostly recylced scrap, which a lot of peoples’ sensibilities won’t handle. Processes that we should have stopped yesterday if we want to stop the destruction of ecosystems which turn all sorts of dials on our planet that have Domino effects we can’t see and don’t pay for. These externalities are paid for by our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and… all other living beings on this planet.
So that brings me to green anarchism, which seems to be the other side of this discussion. One of it’s main proponents is John Zerzan. There is a slight difference between this ideology and primitivism, in that many green anarchist’s believe this will be a halt caused by collapse whereas primitivist believe we must maintain and promote this collapse and promote maintaining a pre agriculture, anti-civilization, and nonhuman centric mindset.
So some say this comes down to two mindsets, much like conservative and liberal, and for the purposes of this, let’s call them primitivist and trans-humanists. One group believes that certain levels of technology are inherently destructive and dominant and should be not be used as they are asserting hierarchy upon nonhuman life. Others believe we will reach a singularity with technology wherein it makes all our lives better and eliminates the desire for hierarchy.
Hope that spurs some research and discussion
So in that vein I wanted to promote these ten questions as the next part of our dynamic perspectives series that Eric Scott and myself came up with:
What is your definition of civilization and is it inherently positive or negative?
What is your definition of technology and is it inherently positive or negative?
Do you believe in an approaching ‘singularity’ is this inherently negative or positive?
What are you thoughts on overpopulation and is mass die off necessary for humans to be sustainable?
How do you believe the fight to end ecocide mirrors the fight for women’s liberation from patriarchy?
What is your definition of sustainability?
Is agriculture sustainable?
Do we live in a post scarcity society?
What do you see as the most effective tactic at ending ecocide?
Would robots have rights, under your ideological framework?
What are your thoughts on the long term ramifications of cloning and genetic modifications?