Post by Walker on Jul 12, 2012 12:23:41 GMT
I must say that this is another speculation on the future and not a prescription for how society should be.
Once we abolish work and people begin the great migration to where their desires take them, we will probably realize that an agricultural society with limited industrialism would be the primary way of life. Itinerant communities may fall into serving several secondary roles. Urban centers might only continue for the purpose of specialized roles.
Both the itinerant and the sedentary farmer family structures would become the center of these ways of life. A division of labor is rather likely, as people are all different and have different desires. The point is to challenge the hierarchies of the older ways of life so an anarchist expression of these ways of life can occur.
When we look at how civilization existed before industrialism, most of society was made of farming communities, but subservient to a warrior class. The warriors, allied with the other specialists: priests, politicians, philosophers, merchants, craftspeople and so on, made up the urban centers. The farmers, typically considered peasants or serfs, would work the land giving sizable portions of their goods to the urban center as tribute. This was buying protection from the urban center first, as not paying tribute could result in being stomped on by the warriors. After this, it was protection from rival warriors and bandits who may pillage the farmers.
The farmers were not defenseless, but usually weren't equipped or trained well enough to fend off marauders, so this role fell to the warriors they paid tribute to. Often times, the loyalty of the farmers might shift, marauders might offer better conditions such as less sizable tribute or perhaps handling necessities voluntarily. The marauders, if they were rival warriors (roving warrior bands or from another urban center) might desire to conquer the land and seize the monopoly of violence from the local warriors. If they were bandits, they were typically disaffected farmers and their aims were typically more focused on robbing urban centers rather than the farmers. The motives of bandits was to avoid rather than challenge the monopoly of violence of the local warriors.
In an anarchist society, it is assumed that the monopoly of violence will have ended. Without having to pay tribute to the urban centers, the farmers' yield would be abundant enough to support a comfortable existence. Yet, if industrialism is continued, the urban centers would have to continue and raw materials would still need to be gathered and sent to urban centers.
If the narrative of the anarchist society is on de-civilizing, there would also be the desire for farm lands to reduce and the control over the land to be ended. The problem with this is mass society, which is why an agricultural existence seems the most likely. People will probably want to cover their necessities and maintain society, though much of industrialism would rapidly end in a society that doesn't coerce labor.
The family of the farmer and itinerant would have differing divisions of labor. Though pastoralism may be desired, barbed wire fences still might be used by farms, thus making the free roaming of herds less a possibility. The cowboy is merely a pastoralist itinerant subservient to ranchers, to farmers, which disappeared because of barbed wire fences. Pastoral farming has replaced this role in much of the world. This could change, but seems debatable as the creation of barbed wire fences would require less labor than most industrial technologies.
The family role of raising children and maintaining the farm would still have various roles and also vary greatly due to environmental conditions and specialty. If there is no control over the land, no feeling of territory, a family leader would not necessarily be created. Roles would be determined by desire, so the mothers of children might also not be tied to raising the children and the farming family might instead opt to have this role fall to those that want to teach children or not be specialized at all, with all of the farm raising the children collectively.
Anyways, this was more of a stream of thought, there really is so many ways that society could go. Commune farms might have many smaller units within it. A democratic farm would create a new patriarchy with the collective acting in the stead of the single patriarch while a farm founded on individual initiative might have various relationships that would intertwine organically. I'll ponder on this more.
Once we abolish work and people begin the great migration to where their desires take them, we will probably realize that an agricultural society with limited industrialism would be the primary way of life. Itinerant communities may fall into serving several secondary roles. Urban centers might only continue for the purpose of specialized roles.
Both the itinerant and the sedentary farmer family structures would become the center of these ways of life. A division of labor is rather likely, as people are all different and have different desires. The point is to challenge the hierarchies of the older ways of life so an anarchist expression of these ways of life can occur.
When we look at how civilization existed before industrialism, most of society was made of farming communities, but subservient to a warrior class. The warriors, allied with the other specialists: priests, politicians, philosophers, merchants, craftspeople and so on, made up the urban centers. The farmers, typically considered peasants or serfs, would work the land giving sizable portions of their goods to the urban center as tribute. This was buying protection from the urban center first, as not paying tribute could result in being stomped on by the warriors. After this, it was protection from rival warriors and bandits who may pillage the farmers.
The farmers were not defenseless, but usually weren't equipped or trained well enough to fend off marauders, so this role fell to the warriors they paid tribute to. Often times, the loyalty of the farmers might shift, marauders might offer better conditions such as less sizable tribute or perhaps handling necessities voluntarily. The marauders, if they were rival warriors (roving warrior bands or from another urban center) might desire to conquer the land and seize the monopoly of violence from the local warriors. If they were bandits, they were typically disaffected farmers and their aims were typically more focused on robbing urban centers rather than the farmers. The motives of bandits was to avoid rather than challenge the monopoly of violence of the local warriors.
In an anarchist society, it is assumed that the monopoly of violence will have ended. Without having to pay tribute to the urban centers, the farmers' yield would be abundant enough to support a comfortable existence. Yet, if industrialism is continued, the urban centers would have to continue and raw materials would still need to be gathered and sent to urban centers.
If the narrative of the anarchist society is on de-civilizing, there would also be the desire for farm lands to reduce and the control over the land to be ended. The problem with this is mass society, which is why an agricultural existence seems the most likely. People will probably want to cover their necessities and maintain society, though much of industrialism would rapidly end in a society that doesn't coerce labor.
The family of the farmer and itinerant would have differing divisions of labor. Though pastoralism may be desired, barbed wire fences still might be used by farms, thus making the free roaming of herds less a possibility. The cowboy is merely a pastoralist itinerant subservient to ranchers, to farmers, which disappeared because of barbed wire fences. Pastoral farming has replaced this role in much of the world. This could change, but seems debatable as the creation of barbed wire fences would require less labor than most industrial technologies.
The family role of raising children and maintaining the farm would still have various roles and also vary greatly due to environmental conditions and specialty. If there is no control over the land, no feeling of territory, a family leader would not necessarily be created. Roles would be determined by desire, so the mothers of children might also not be tied to raising the children and the farming family might instead opt to have this role fall to those that want to teach children or not be specialized at all, with all of the farm raising the children collectively.
Anyways, this was more of a stream of thought, there really is so many ways that society could go. Commune farms might have many smaller units within it. A democratic farm would create a new patriarchy with the collective acting in the stead of the single patriarch while a farm founded on individual initiative might have various relationships that would intertwine organically. I'll ponder on this more.