Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes

My question is how will civilization be maintained in some anarchist utopia? I'm using wikipedia's definition for civilization. I'm not sure how in social anarchist utopia, they'd maintain civilization while being against social hierarchies and other hierarchies, government, the state...etc. The folk with the more socially anarchisty views pretty much reject most of the stuff that make up civilization, but seem to have an aversion to anti-civ sentiments and tend to just to respond with "millions of people will die and we can't have that." It seems to me that the end conclusion wouldn't be anything that resembles a civilization.  So, the question is, how would in a hypothetical socialist anarchist utopia would civilization be maintained?

If this doesn't make sense, I'll try to clarify. I ask a lot of questions. :P

by (4.7k points)
edited by

"just to respond with "millions of people will die and we can't have that."

which is a tacit admission that civilization pretty much always exceeds what ecologists call 'carrying capacity.'

in my anarchist world, civilization would not be maintained. 

civilization goes hand in hand with mass society. they both require institutional hierarchies and (almost) everything i despise and oppose in this world. 

government, the nation/state, capitalism and private property, industrialism, organized religion, etc...  these are all a direct result of civilization, best i can tell.

i suggest reading up on some of the anti-civilization critique that exists in the anarchist realm. just as a broad-brush start, try these searches:

others will no doubt have more in-depth answers than i have time for right now.


edit: i clearly missed the real gist of this question. 

hey F@, human does actually say that they're asking people who believe in civilization to explain how it would work, although the question doesn't state that especially clearly. i thought about suggesting that they be more explicit about who the target audience is for this question, but maybe pro-civ folks will be attracted to this question regardless?
Never heard of carrying capacity before. I'll have to look it up. Thanks. :D
I probably wasn't clear. When I ask the social anarchisty folk how civilization is supposed to be maintained and stating I see it as implausible and give my reasons for why. They respond with "millions of people will die" or something about advocating genocide. I've notice this train of thought when others suggest it too. So, I was wondering if someone on here knew how it'd be maintained that don't turn to that non-answer. I guess the question is for social anarchists. There's some on here, right? I'll change the question to add social anarchists to try to make it clearer.
oops, my bad! sorry human, i obviously wasn't paying close enough attention.

dot, should i hide the answer?

edit: nevermind, i just made it a comment.

1 Answer

+2 votes
Basically, the planet becomes uninhabitable by humans, so about 5-10,000 people live in an orbiting space monastery, with vast gardens + libraries and little tea shops that have windows permanently fixed upon a view of the stars, etc. So everyone could devote themselves 24/7 to their studies. Periodically someone would suggest that a team be sent down to determine whether the earth could be re-settled, and everyone would say why bother, we haven't learnt our lesson yet.
by (8.0k points)
i like this answer: ecocide, distancing, reification, duty, the myth of progress, and more.
Your answer kinda reminds me of some Doctor Who episodes.