First, this is a gorgeous piece of writing. I love and admire it and all the agonizing work that went into it.
And by work, I don’t (OF COURSE!) simply mean the effort and time to arrange one’s thoughts and put them into such accessible and persuasive language. I mean the work of reading, writing, thinking, and processing of experience that made it possible for such a piece to be written. I mean the spirit, the modesty, and the CARE that allows the writer to know that this is an introduction to many chains of thought and paradox. It is a knock on the door to something crucial which, if doesn’t hit against what is a major force driving “history”, still touches upon some deep (and disturbing) “truths” about humanity.
Most importantly:
“…while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others.”
First of all, this is a statement that rings true ESPECIALLY if one replaces the word “people” with “adults.” Now, of course, a loving parent or a loving care taker of an aged parent or of ANYONE sick or wounded, is better described as “loving” than as “reasonable or considerate.” But all kinds of child abuse and elder abuse do take place in what we today call “nuclear” families… Of course, another key word here is “can”.
Any serious interrogation or unpacking of the clause quoted above ALSO requires an investigation of the key term “human nature.” And any serious and honest approach here requires that we admit there is something (perhaps many “things”) about human nature which will probably always remain, not only unknowable, but also open to change and possibility. (We can argue about how rapidly we are “evolving” biologically, but such arguments also must take into account how we are “evolving” culturally—and how each of those two different “processes of change” affect the other.)
“Human nature” surely contains the potential for us to be reasonable and considerate with “equals” who are not known to us, never mind seen as “kin”, to us. It also contains the potential to not only be violent, not only to refuse to recognize “kinship”, and not only to “JUSTIFIABLY” deceive or swindle others (seen as “equal” or not) if that would benefit our kin, our tribe, or help feed our children. (No one needs to peruse the patriarchal bits of the Hebrew Bible to “feel” this, they only need to interrogate common everyday contemporary cultural discourse.)
We humans are “darn tricky”. And we often admire the “trickiness” we see in crafty toddlers, cute pets, and wily animals in the wild when we observe them non violently manipulate others or even ourselves whether the ruses involve skillful (or awkward) attempts to deceive and/OR ploys that play upon our affection and innate desire to indulge them.
We are tricky AND therefore we know we can be tricked.
Now, another claim made here seems to be that before there were complex hierarchical societies, humans were much less murderous to each other. Well, before there were complex societies, there were fewer material technologies for mass destruction or intimate violence (although rocks, hand held blades, and spears have long been “handy”). And, before there were complex hierarchical societies, there were certainly fewer material and CULTURAL technologies for murder, manipulation, command, and control. Interestingly, two of the major motives for “murder” that (to my pitifully limited knowledge) anthropologists have documented among hunting and foraging societies are conflict over access to women and attempts to dominate. In the latter case, it is not that the murderers are the “Big Men” who attempt to dominate a group. The murderers are generally the group itself who resort to violence when the “Big Man” fails to respond to social pressures that begin with laughter and ridicule. We humans do HATE to be dominated!
We humans do hate to be dominated. This is something profound in us that is easily manipulated, but even when no shaman/sorcerer/necromancer is manipulating this quality in us to thwart the tiresome, COMPLEX, often frustrating, and sometimes misguided deliberations of a local communal participatory process, it CAN rear up in any (or many) of us individually to throw down additional “stumbling blocks” to processes that might be essential for a community’s physical or cultural survival. Sometimes just this alone (without subterfuge, manipulation or threats of violence) can lead to someone being granted “dictatorial” powers (Cincinnatus, throw down your plow and don your toga! Your city needs you!) for a “spell”.
We CAN be reasonable and considerate much more often than we ARE. But that requires very careful and fortuitous cultivation. That requires a culture that “properly” values reasonableness. And that requires an understanding (which we do not yet have in any collectively meaningful sense) of the limits of reason along with the limits of other darker aspects of human nature. It also requires an understanding (which we do not yet have in any collectively meaningful sense) of how those “limits” are also thresholds and supportive forces for so many avenues of potential change which may seem to occur spontaneously in certain individuals but which almost certainly will require many secular cycles of human history (tragic as well as inspirational) to manifest themselves.
Actually, the changes in an individual that appear to be “sudden” are generally the results of long periods of effort and seeking: the kind reflected in the piece we are commenting upon. But those “sudden changes” have so many potential directions. How many fascists started out as star struck socialists, left libertarians, anarcho-syndicalists, or communitarian idealists? (My definition of “fascist” involves the renunciation of all —or most— values except those related to accumulation and holding of power. If cultivation is only “self cultivation,” in the context of too much trauma caused by betrayal and abandonment, than a turn to fascism is much more likely than a turn to the kind of left libertarianism that understands that “freedom” depends of “self control” supported by a decent society in which all of us have a stake in creating, maintaining, and/or destroying.
I like to write fiction about a girl prone to throw books at people.
To the person who wrote “I never consented to be ‘governed’” I might gently lob a copy of Timothy Snyder’s new book (I’m only about 50 pages or so into this very well written and accessible text, but he has tons of YouTube’s too) “On Freedom.”
I wish I could take credit for the writing this time - I’ve been a way and wanted to share one of my favourite articles by David Graeber - one that helped me early in my own journey. I’m really glad you like it.
I like the term “peaceful revolutionary”. I prefer what I call myself (whenever the opportunity arises) which is “rule-of-law Communist” because the term “rule-of-law” takes into account the long, tragic, and opportunity-rife HISTORY of the concept and practice of law which emerged from primeval tradition and the trauma of confronting what seems to be our multifarious “human nature” that forces us (eventually) to confront the treachery and violence within each of us. The term “communist” (of course) also has its tragic history involving as much self betrayal as atrocious resistance.
I suppose I could also be called a “patriarchal parasitic anarchist” because I’m too impatient, too bumptious, and too rebellious to be a good party member (or a good member of anything that requires a lot of circular interpersonal deliberation which is what you get with localized participatory processes). The “patriarchal” bit is actually a pretty obnoxious (even to me) and LAME attempt to comically rationalize foisting my responsibility onto those who have been traditionally burdened with “women’s work” but I guess it might “kinda” slide with some current (generally well meaning?) efforts to “put a woman in charge.”
And as the dearly departed “Der Binger” crooned to me when I was in knee pants, “You could be better than you are. (You *could* be swinging on a star.)” but I have so much mule, pig, fish, and monkey in me all clamoring for their time in the driver’s seat. I don’t know how that would work out without the current iteration of the rule-of-law (as frustrating, disappointing, and unjust as it remains) impinging on me. (The global rise of fascism and its trumpy manifestation here in the land o the free also evokes a dose of gentle conservatism in me.)
Thanks for this article, I too have the same gripes about the usury and predatory domination of the government/economy that characterizes humanity’s condition. I think being able to reach decisions on a daily basis with fellow humans without mini wars breaking out amongst family/friends/neighbors makes us think “well why can’t we just keep doing it like this on all levels of society?” I do think that the continued amassing of humans is what makes the ability to keep things that civil more and more tenuous.
In an anarchist society, from what I gathered from the article, it’s based more on a true popular vote to make decisions. As the population of the community increases, is it practical to call for a 100% participation vote on every step of the way? I feel like at some point, representatives or governing bodies will be appointed, and now we have people who have been given a measure of power. Ideally, they strictly do the will of the people though. But what is their incentive for shouldering a heavier responsibility than those who aren’t in that position, more pay/distinct privileges? A class starts to form.
In any case, given that things will be held to a true popular vote, when heavy decisions are given in favor of the majority, the minority are going to have to deal with it. Will they be able to? I hope so. Will some folks be frustrated enough with not getting their way and start doing what they want anyway? Will someone rise up to fight the cause of the minority, perhaps “campaign” for a representative position? Will folks somehow find a commonality in their views, clumping up as a separate identity distinct from the rest?
I would waaay prefer folks to be decent enough to make the anarchist way work, because there’s no doubt that these governments are self serving and abusive. But I have a hard time seeing how good-natured humans will continue to be as the numbers of a community rise, especially since the abusive governments we have today all originate with these same good natured humans.
These are great questions, and there are different possible answers that have worked well in real non-hierarchal societies. I’d like to share more of those examples in my future articles, but you can find some in books like Anarchy In Action & Anarchy Works in the meantime.
But I always think it is important to realise that Anarchism doesn’t rely on people being angels to function successful, it focuses on removing people having power over others so that if they have far less potential to do damage. Whereas our current systems allow rulers to do a great deal of evil in the name of maintaining power.
As for the question of numbers I agree that a community is most cohesive when people all know each other, so the important thing is to not lose this, for this to form the basis of society, from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
First, this is a gorgeous piece of writing. I love and admire it and all the agonizing work that went into it.
And by work, I don’t (OF COURSE!) simply mean the effort and time to arrange one’s thoughts and put them into such accessible and persuasive language. I mean the work of reading, writing, thinking, and processing of experience that made it possible for such a piece to be written. I mean the spirit, the modesty, and the CARE that allows the writer to know that this is an introduction to many chains of thought and paradox. It is a knock on the door to something crucial which, if doesn’t hit against what is a major force driving “history”, still touches upon some deep (and disturbing) “truths” about humanity.
Most importantly:
“…while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others.”
First of all, this is a statement that rings true ESPECIALLY if one replaces the word “people” with “adults.” Now, of course, a loving parent or a loving care taker of an aged parent or of ANYONE sick or wounded, is better described as “loving” than as “reasonable or considerate.” But all kinds of child abuse and elder abuse do take place in what we today call “nuclear” families… Of course, another key word here is “can”.
Any serious interrogation or unpacking of the clause quoted above ALSO requires an investigation of the key term “human nature.” And any serious and honest approach here requires that we admit there is something (perhaps many “things”) about human nature which will probably always remain, not only unknowable, but also open to change and possibility. (We can argue about how rapidly we are “evolving” biologically, but such arguments also must take into account how we are “evolving” culturally—and how each of those two different “processes of change” affect the other.)
“Human nature” surely contains the potential for us to be reasonable and considerate with “equals” who are not known to us, never mind seen as “kin”, to us. It also contains the potential to not only be violent, not only to refuse to recognize “kinship”, and not only to “JUSTIFIABLY” deceive or swindle others (seen as “equal” or not) if that would benefit our kin, our tribe, or help feed our children. (No one needs to peruse the patriarchal bits of the Hebrew Bible to “feel” this, they only need to interrogate common everyday contemporary cultural discourse.)
We humans are “darn tricky”. And we often admire the “trickiness” we see in crafty toddlers, cute pets, and wily animals in the wild when we observe them non violently manipulate others or even ourselves whether the ruses involve skillful (or awkward) attempts to deceive and/OR ploys that play upon our affection and innate desire to indulge them.
We are tricky AND therefore we know we can be tricked.
Now, another claim made here seems to be that before there were complex hierarchical societies, humans were much less murderous to each other. Well, before there were complex societies, there were fewer material technologies for mass destruction or intimate violence (although rocks, hand held blades, and spears have long been “handy”). And, before there were complex hierarchical societies, there were certainly fewer material and CULTURAL technologies for murder, manipulation, command, and control. Interestingly, two of the major motives for “murder” that (to my pitifully limited knowledge) anthropologists have documented among hunting and foraging societies are conflict over access to women and attempts to dominate. In the latter case, it is not that the murderers are the “Big Men” who attempt to dominate a group. The murderers are generally the group itself who resort to violence when the “Big Man” fails to respond to social pressures that begin with laughter and ridicule. We humans do HATE to be dominated!
We humans do hate to be dominated. This is something profound in us that is easily manipulated, but even when no shaman/sorcerer/necromancer is manipulating this quality in us to thwart the tiresome, COMPLEX, often frustrating, and sometimes misguided deliberations of a local communal participatory process, it CAN rear up in any (or many) of us individually to throw down additional “stumbling blocks” to processes that might be essential for a community’s physical or cultural survival. Sometimes just this alone (without subterfuge, manipulation or threats of violence) can lead to someone being granted “dictatorial” powers (Cincinnatus, throw down your plow and don your toga! Your city needs you!) for a “spell”.
We CAN be reasonable and considerate much more often than we ARE. But that requires very careful and fortuitous cultivation. That requires a culture that “properly” values reasonableness. And that requires an understanding (which we do not yet have in any collectively meaningful sense) of the limits of reason along with the limits of other darker aspects of human nature. It also requires an understanding (which we do not yet have in any collectively meaningful sense) of how those “limits” are also thresholds and supportive forces for so many avenues of potential change which may seem to occur spontaneously in certain individuals but which almost certainly will require many secular cycles of human history (tragic as well as inspirational) to manifest themselves.
Actually, the changes in an individual that appear to be “sudden” are generally the results of long periods of effort and seeking: the kind reflected in the piece we are commenting upon. But those “sudden changes” have so many potential directions. How many fascists started out as star struck socialists, left libertarians, anarcho-syndicalists, or communitarian idealists? (My definition of “fascist” involves the renunciation of all —or most— values except those related to accumulation and holding of power. If cultivation is only “self cultivation,” in the context of too much trauma caused by betrayal and abandonment, than a turn to fascism is much more likely than a turn to the kind of left libertarianism that understands that “freedom” depends of “self control” supported by a decent society in which all of us have a stake in creating, maintaining, and/or destroying.
I like to write fiction about a girl prone to throw books at people.
To the person who wrote “I never consented to be ‘governed’” I might gently lob a copy of Timothy Snyder’s new book (I’m only about 50 pages or so into this very well written and accessible text, but he has tons of YouTube’s too) “On Freedom.”
I wish I could take credit for the writing this time - I’ve been a way and wanted to share one of my favourite articles by David Graeber - one that helped me early in my own journey. I’m really glad you like it.
It’s definitely worth sharing.
I like the term “peaceful revolutionary”. I prefer what I call myself (whenever the opportunity arises) which is “rule-of-law Communist” because the term “rule-of-law” takes into account the long, tragic, and opportunity-rife HISTORY of the concept and practice of law which emerged from primeval tradition and the trauma of confronting what seems to be our multifarious “human nature” that forces us (eventually) to confront the treachery and violence within each of us. The term “communist” (of course) also has its tragic history involving as much self betrayal as atrocious resistance.
I suppose I could also be called a “patriarchal parasitic anarchist” because I’m too impatient, too bumptious, and too rebellious to be a good party member (or a good member of anything that requires a lot of circular interpersonal deliberation which is what you get with localized participatory processes). The “patriarchal” bit is actually a pretty obnoxious (even to me) and LAME attempt to comically rationalize foisting my responsibility onto those who have been traditionally burdened with “women’s work” but I guess it might “kinda” slide with some current (generally well meaning?) efforts to “put a woman in charge.”
And as the dearly departed “Der Binger” crooned to me when I was in knee pants, “You could be better than you are. (You *could* be swinging on a star.)” but I have so much mule, pig, fish, and monkey in me all clamoring for their time in the driver’s seat. I don’t know how that would work out without the current iteration of the rule-of-law (as frustrating, disappointing, and unjust as it remains) impinging on me. (The global rise of fascism and its trumpy manifestation here in the land o the free also evokes a dose of gentle conservatism in me.)
I certainly am. I never consented to be "governed."
One of my favorite zines in my collection 😃 thank you for sharing!
Excellent explainer! It frustrates me that the word anarchy is used interchangably with chaos - feels very intentional.
Thank you. You have summed up concisely what I have been suspecting of late—that everyone is a bit of an anarchist.
Thanks for this article, I too have the same gripes about the usury and predatory domination of the government/economy that characterizes humanity’s condition. I think being able to reach decisions on a daily basis with fellow humans without mini wars breaking out amongst family/friends/neighbors makes us think “well why can’t we just keep doing it like this on all levels of society?” I do think that the continued amassing of humans is what makes the ability to keep things that civil more and more tenuous.
In an anarchist society, from what I gathered from the article, it’s based more on a true popular vote to make decisions. As the population of the community increases, is it practical to call for a 100% participation vote on every step of the way? I feel like at some point, representatives or governing bodies will be appointed, and now we have people who have been given a measure of power. Ideally, they strictly do the will of the people though. But what is their incentive for shouldering a heavier responsibility than those who aren’t in that position, more pay/distinct privileges? A class starts to form.
In any case, given that things will be held to a true popular vote, when heavy decisions are given in favor of the majority, the minority are going to have to deal with it. Will they be able to? I hope so. Will some folks be frustrated enough with not getting their way and start doing what they want anyway? Will someone rise up to fight the cause of the minority, perhaps “campaign” for a representative position? Will folks somehow find a commonality in their views, clumping up as a separate identity distinct from the rest?
I would waaay prefer folks to be decent enough to make the anarchist way work, because there’s no doubt that these governments are self serving and abusive. But I have a hard time seeing how good-natured humans will continue to be as the numbers of a community rise, especially since the abusive governments we have today all originate with these same good natured humans.
These are great questions, and there are different possible answers that have worked well in real non-hierarchal societies. I’d like to share more of those examples in my future articles, but you can find some in books like Anarchy In Action & Anarchy Works in the meantime.
But I always think it is important to realise that Anarchism doesn’t rely on people being angels to function successful, it focuses on removing people having power over others so that if they have far less potential to do damage. Whereas our current systems allow rulers to do a great deal of evil in the name of maintaining power.
As for the question of numbers I agree that a community is most cohesive when people all know each other, so the important thing is to not lose this, for this to form the basis of society, from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
I look forward to the articles yet to come, thank you