Anarchism and Social Ecology
!anarchism@slrpnk.net
A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!
Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.
Anarchism
Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.
Social Ecology
Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.
Libraries
Audiobooks
- General audiobooks
- LibriVox Public domain book collection where you can find audiobooks from old communist, socialist, and anarchist authors.
- Anarchist audiobooks
- Socialist Audiobooks
- Social Ecology Audiobooks
Quotes
Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.
~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom
People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.
~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us
The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.
~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven
The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"
There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.
~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism
In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.
The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...
~Abdullah Öcalan
Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.
~ Murray Bookchin
Network
view the rest of the comments
I think they're drawing some fairly speculative conclusions here. There is good evidence that the social system differed from other contemporary civilizations, but its still quite speculative to draw the conclusion that it was truly egalitarian or lacking in powerful elites. They may have simply exercised their authority and power in such a way that is not obvious to us from the archeological record.
More importantly, the idea that such a system, if it did exist in the way that we imagine, contributed to the city's success, is entirely without basis. Considering the lack of similar examples in the archeological record, it seems more likely that this particular city would have succeeded in spite of its more egalitarian social hierarchy, rather than because of it. It's not exactly an uplifting interpretation, but academics don't get paid to be uplifting, they get paid to be accurate.
All of that being said, my conclusions are also speculative, so it doesn't entirely rule out the possibility that they were egalitarian and successful because of it. If we imagine that was the case, the next question becomes; was that a sustainable and stable arrangement, or was it a fragile system such that external actors or changing environmental conditions could easily disrupt and ultimately destroy it?
Shouldn't it be that we need evidence that there were powerful elites in order to conclude that it was not/less egalitarian? If at this point we have no evidence of elites, we shouldn't simply assume they exist. The weight of existing evidence in M-D so far indicates little concentration of wealth and more public works projects. Maybe they were blessed with the most benevolent, publicly-minded and progressive rulers and elites in the ancient world, but we can't say that until we have evidence of them.
I'm no archeologist, but there are other examples. Harappa is another Indus valley civilization characterized as egalitarian. Catalhoyuk in Turkey has also been interpreted as a more egalitarian society.
Well, we know that elites existed in the vast majority of social systems throughout human history. And we only have a small amount of evidence in general, we are studying piles of rocks from about 4000 years ago and trying to draw as many conclusions as possible from the small bits that survived. So the absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate an evidence of absence in this case. If that makes sense.
Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were both part of the same Indus Valley civilization. Although they were possibly fairly independent city states they were part of the same cultural group.
Catalhoyuk is interesting, but dates from a much earlier phase of civilizational development. It predates the Indus valley civilization by a similar span of time as the Indus valley civilization predates us. As you go back further in time, societies inevitably become more egalitarian, because they were less specialized and ultimately less civilized. So Catalhoyuk may have been fairly egalitarian, but it would still be a far less relevant piece of evidence than if a more modern city such Mohenjo Daro was egalitarian.
And of course, this line of thinking naturally leads to the conclusion that even if Mohenjo Daro were what we would like it to have been, it would still be entirely valid to argue that such an egalitarian system wouldn't translate at all to the modern era, given the vast differences in technology and human populations that have unfolded over the intervening millennia.
So I am no academic but the fact two cities are of the same culture group with confirmed traits of egalitarianism sounds like a potential lead of the civilization being itself an egalitarian society.
Not saying this as a definite, but I am noticing the clue
Sure, that seems valid. Still leaves plenty more to unpack though, some of which I already hinted at in my previous comments.
For instance, let's imagine that we only had the archeological records of Roman civilization to go on. Due to their extensive infrastructure works, it might seem to indicate that they were a more egalitarian society than comparable historical civilizations. After all, they had a vast road network, they built aqueducts, bridges, walls, and amphitheaters that were inevitably utilized by a much larger segment of the population than just the elites. They also built monumental architecture, but on a smaller scale than say, Ancient Egypt. However, they weren't anything close to an egalitarian society, as we know from the historical record.
So I just feel like even if Indus Valley civilization was more egalitarian than comparable societies, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever for us talking about egalitarianism in the 21st century, because they were almost certainly still extremely hierarchical compared to our current standards. As per the title of the post "Mohenjo-Daro as a counternarrative to the 'need' for hierarchy", this is the interpretation of the data that I am pushing back on, because its a complete exaggeration of what the data is actually able to support. And for the record, I'm not blaming OP, as this was very clearly what the authors of the study were implying with their unsubstantiated conclusions. "A 4,000-year-old city became richer by sharing prosperity instead of concentrating it." No, that interpretation is completely speculative and not supported by the evidence.
we don't have a complete absence of evidence, we have some evidence and it leans in an egalitarian direction.
"Civilized" is moral and political judgment, not a scientific one. there are plenty of reasons to judge our current society as "uncivilized". This hints at a desire to discount egalitarian societies rather than to construct a nuanced vision of the time.
We can choose relevant time periods if we like, but I'm making a simple, broad argument that there were egalitarian societies we can point to to undermine the argument that hierarchy is "natural" or "necessary" in society. I'd count Catalhoyuk for that.
Ok, sure.
Civilization is not a moral judgment, or at least it shouldn't be, although people have historically used it in such a way. In reality, civilization is a political and economic condition or state of development. Morality doesn't come into the picture at all. Neolithic societies were objectively less civilized than bronze age societies, because their economic and political structures were more rudimentary.
Unfortunately, although I don't necessarily want to, I have to disagree that hierarchy is not natural or necessary in human societies. I've always wanted to believe in egalitarianism and fight against hierarchy, but the vast majority of evidence indicates that human societies have always been hierarchical to some extent, and indeed that they cannot function without some form of hierarchy. Hierarchical societies likely predate civilization and the human species entirely. Chimpanzee troops, and the societies of nearly any given social mammalian species, are hierarchical as well, although obviously on a much smaller scale than civilized human societies.
It's perhaps possible to make the argument that hierarchies are not necessary under certain conditions, but to argue that they are not natural is clearly and obviously wrong.
Well, that's both demobilising and sad. I know honesty, realism and all that but somehow can't stop thinking - there are forces building myths about glorious past, great golden ages of ancestors where the small listened and worshipped the GOOD elites and perfect prophets/sons of god. And they are very successful. Can't we have A LITTLE hope?
The relationship between elites and non-elites doesn't necessarily need to be exploitative. There should be a give and take that is currently lacking in our society. Nor does the discrepancy need to be so stark; in reality there is always a spectrum of capabilities and responsibilities in society. For instance, who are the elites of the 21st century? Is it only the politicians and billionaires? Doesn't it also include the educated class of first world countries? Doctors, lawyers, corporate bureaucrats, academics, engineers, IT specialists, journalists, etc? All of those groups are crucial parts in implementing the oppressive systems that the elites preside over. You could go even further if you'd like and include anybody who has a job, or anybody who resides in a developed country without actively trying to revolt against the system. From the perspective of the global poor, that's an entirely valid position to take.
When we reduce our understanding of society to a simple dichotomy of elites exploiting the rest of us, we fail to comprehend the problem, and thus we fail to produce adequate solutions. We are all more a part of the problem than we would like to admit, but the counterpart to that fact is that we are all more capable of being a part of the solution that we realize. The people sitting at the very top would not have the ability to exploit people as they do without utilizing the vast number of educated professionals and skilled workers who make their schemes possible. This is linked to the fact that simply removing the worst and most powerful elites never seems to get us anywhere, because there are always people sitting directly beneath them in the vast sociopolitical hierarchy who have already been groomed to take their place.
tangent
But as I was saying initially about the give and take. Historically, there have been some pretty major downsides to being part of an elite class, namely that if your tribe/kingdom/empire gets defeated, whether by internal or external forces, you get killed. Whereas the common people would be able to survive under the new regime. New boss, same as the old boss kinda deal. In hereditary systems of power exchange, the aristocracy often exists under tremendous pressure, where they lack the freedom to even marry the person they love, let alone follow their dreams or anything of the sort. The heir to the throne would rarely have a choice to avoid their fate, because to renounce the throne would likely to result in their death, as the new dynasty would prefer to tie up any loose ends and prevent any future rebellions or restorations. Your family and peers could rarely be your friends, because you could never be sure if they were plotting against you to gain an advantage. The elite classes of modern society also have burdens that they must bear in order to maintain their status, although not so apparently as the monarchs of old.I've gotten onto some major tangets here and haven't really responded to your comment. To attempt to answer your question, I'd say that the hope lies not in eliminating hierarchies in general, but in reducing them to a manageable level. For instance, the hierarchy of a small town, or a small business, or a sports team, or even a family. People have their roles to play, and some are more crucial than others, but there is a necessity for everyone to work together and it's possible for people to understand and appreciate other roles and even move between them fairly seamlessly. Obviously that doesn't mean that smaller hierarchies always function that way, but its possible for them to, and we could theoretically figure out how to optimize them with our current level of knowledge and technology.
It's the scale and interconnectivity of modern society, and civilization in general, that's responsible for producing the massively expanded hierarchies that create so much suffering and conflict. Human beings aren't equipped to deal with such complex arrangements, and thus our inherent instincts for compassion and cooperation are overwhelmed and bypassed.
If one has an elite class that means the society has a higharchy, and last I checked Elites refer to those at the top of a higharchy.