A great review of the book Enemies of Society here:
The book is a collection of pieces that highlight “the
egoist side” of the anarchist “family tree.”
I haven’t read the anthology. And frankly, after reading
the review, I’m not sure that I really want to. But the collectivist/egoist
distinction is an interesting one.
I have always had a problem with the whole idea of old-school
collectivist anarchism. The more socialistic versions seem to be an attempt to
have and eat the same cake, to have voluntary and egalitarian participation
while simultaneously retaining the ability to systematically structure human
activity, as if it would be possible to equally partition the benefits of industrial
technology and at the same time maintain the essential inequality of the
industrial process itself. Anarchistic collectivism is possible, perhaps, but
not without abandoning all technology more complex than simple craft.
As for those folks on the egoist side of the anarchist family
tree: I strongly suggest giving them a blood test. I think for the most part you’ll
find a bunch of illegitimate Hobbesian red-in-tooth-and-claw bastards. The kind
of self-serving individualism being offered by most of these “egoists” as a mode
of social (dis)organization is a pathological reaction to the isolating effects of
civilization, and in no way consistent with our evolved human design as social
primates.
The low-tech lifestyles of our egalitarian foraging
ancestors and our still extant but rapidly disappearing hunter-gatherer brothers
and sisters seem to be ideal models of collectivist modes of living that also qualify
as anarchistic. No bosses. No arbitrary social hierarchy. Free and voluntary
association.
No comments:
Post a Comment