by RM
There had always been resistance towards civilization particularly among the dispossessed and all others whom had been forcefully seperated from their conditions of existence. The revolting slaves and dispossessed slaves who had been captured and used for labor by the Sumerians, to that of the revolting slaves building the pyramids who turned against the Pharaoh and his priests official rights, to the rebellions by the slaves against the rulers in ancient Greece to that of the Rebellion of the Red Turbans in China, to the peasants who attacked and raided churches and monasteries in Fuedal Europe, to those in Paris who attacked the public clocks, the neoluddites, those who had resisted the imposition of the factory and the work days, all the indigenous and native peoples who resisted and are resisting colonialization etc. which is heavily noted in Freddy Perlman's "Against His-story, Against Leviathan" (1983) yet such resistance particularly in western parts of the world many were generally more or less single issue activism with the aim of keeping their old ways of life which were still dominating and hierarchial and without much questioning of their relationships with other people and the rest of their envrironment. This is not to say there were not those who questioned civilization. Rousou among others for example, as well as several anarchists at various times did also question civilization to some extent (ie. Bakunin who called for the destruction of bourgeoisie civilization and the destruction of all states or Bruno Filippi who rightly called for civilizations destruction and warning others of the coming of civilization). However, gnerally much mainstream western anarchism's particularly in the 18th century and much of the 19th centuries had accepted civilization as necessary, mostly professing an end to modern capitalism and the state without questioning other forms of institutionalized oppression such as work or the technological system etc. On the question of indigenous resistance and hunter-gatherer lifestyles in relation to such anarchist views such resistance was hardly mentioned, if it was mentioned the ladder was often an issue to be dealt with after the revolution. Recently in the past fifty years particularly in the west, more of the anarchist movement has in general began to question much more about domination of daily life leading to a more recent upsurge in green and anti-civilization publications, critiques, actions, etc. as more people are gaining a better understanding of the oppressive institutions previously unquestioned.
A common theme espoused by anarchists today is to call for the destruction of civilization. Many see civilization as all that is wrong with society; the domination and destruction of the environment, racism, the technological system, sexism, the state, modern capitalism in the west ie. the totality of the hierarchies within our current existence. Thus the basis of our attack should be civilization, which is viewed as the root of all the problems in our current existence.
However, I believe civilization is not the make up of all domination, but a result within the rule of capital. In order for capital to exist and continue, it must be reproduced through social relationships that require in general the production of surplus which is extracted from the peoples labor to the benifit of a minority. Such production of surplus labor can usually only be brought about forcefully by the existence of ruler classes. Certainly as some anarchists have pointed out, the transition from horticulutre to large scale agriculture has from its very existence caused genocide to those not living such lifeways. However where I differ from other anarchists on the subject of agriculture is that I do not see it in itself as a seperate form of domination which brought about civilization. As I see it, it is not so much the agriculture used by families to sustain themselves and their friends which is dominating but that of agriculture in which the surplus is extracted from peoples labor by a minority; that in which agriculture had been intertwined with the system of capital, which must therefore ever expand because those living off the land had surplus extracted from their labor from those who rule, producing large scale agriculture and therefore beginning to affect and destroy those around them who do not live according to such life ways. In order to understand what I mean by the term civilization I will give my definition of it. My definition of civilization is a society in which there exists imposed complex social institutions and systems made up of agriculture, the state, and the city. With such a definition certainly societies had existed with agriculture but not of cities or the state, while other societies practiced metallurgy but did not plant seeds or herd animals nor have a state, while still others had cities but did not plant or herd animals, nor exist with a state as stated in Freddy Perlman's "Against His-story Against Leviathan" (1983) pg. 16-17. Such societies existed without relationships channeled into the production of surplus which is extracted by a ruling class and therefore without the system of capital and thus without civlization. Civilization, as I see it is the formation of different forms and institutions created by the ruling classes so as to continue the flow of capital as smoothly as possible. In order for the system of capital to function, the state was rought into existence, and to flow smoother, the combinations of agriculture and the city with the state; and all the oppressive institutions which exist in civilizations that were needed or created-that of sexism, racism, and all other isms, religion, the technological system, large scale domination and destruction of the environment, patriarchial family, exchange etc. all of which exist and were created by those who rule to control the exploited and the channeling of social social relationships into the reproduction of capital. As such, to me as I see it, it is not enough to analyze civilization solely as a makeup of seperate institutions of domination, but is directly interwoven as a means of protecting and enhancing the ever growing system of capital. To me the situation must be analyzed by the social relationships which necessarily brought forth the act of combining the large scale agriculture domination and estruction of the environment through agriculture, the city and the state and thus civilization- which originated from relationships produced and maintained by capital- which must be the basis for our attack.