Desiring Anarchist Primitivism?

(continued.)

The argument about population is clearly not the only reason for collapse to possibly occur. Other catalysts are necessary. Scarcity and how to overcome this problem could be argued and at present, we might not have a workable solution offered by the dominant order. However, my use of population is more a vehicle to move the discussion forward, to show that anarchist primitivism's use of collapse as an immediate threat is not a good reason to present anarchist primitivist as a viable option. If collapse is a more distant problem, a problem that goes into the realm of the unknowable, we still have many other problems with the present order that make the destruction of the present order a more immediate desire.

The threat of collapse may paralyze people that might otherwise find reason to attack. It served and perhaps still serves a good vehicle to learn more about how to become like a gatherer hunter and challenge the domesticated mindset that keeps society tied to civilization. But with it having less of a logical foundation, we can have other discussions. There are other lifeways besides gathering and hunting that can be discussed that don't necessarily continue the web of control technology has become, should its totality end.

There are ways of life that can be desired that can end present civilization and open avenues for a move towards gather hunter life through a generational approach. There are also ways of living that might not return society to pure gathering and hunting as it was practiced for thousands of years, but can still co-exist in a relative amounts of peace. This document isn't about presenting these alternatives (at least not at this moment), but rather it is an attempt to expose an attempt to move anarchist primitivism in a direction that is less scientist-founded and perhaps more desire/will-founded.

It isn't because gathering and hunting is the answer to our existence that we seek to destroy the present order, but it can be one of the many ways of living that can be sought should we destroy the present order. Rewilding and challenging domesticated ways of life is a path that is enjoyable. Removing human control over the wild is a process that must be wanted. Not because humanity is sacred, but because convincing humanity is possible should seek to free ourselves from systems of domination.

If we seek to destroy how society is controlled and create new relationships in this process, the need to control the wild to maintain undesirable ways of life may also end. People won't need to crawl around in mines and chop down forests to produce commodities. People can become open to discussions on how to interact with the world and aim to live life in sync rather than in control.

(perhaps to be continued?)

Towards Gatherer-Hunter: Early Generation - The Commune and the Nomad

It seems that in the process of challenging out domesticated lives we run into the wall of control that shows the vast number of limitations that prevents us from moving completely into the world we desire. Even in a world free of work, commodities and markets, we are still left with the after effects of the previous society. Nuclear power plants that need to be slowly ran down as to prevent melt down. Establishing a new infrastructure for human waste to prevent the continued poisoning of water and to remove the rationale of it already being poisoned, thus justifying other wastes to be dumped into lakes, oceans, rivers, streams.

Much of the green technology movement may have thought of and considered these possibilities, but their concept is more on alternative rather than reduction of these features. Without coercive labor, we recognize that much of this change in life would have to be grappled with. Technological infrastructure that relies on interdependent resources, like rare minerals, would slowly fall apart in a matter of years. Power plants, substations, water treatment plants, roads, sewers, these too may fall into disrepair. So we may be left with the idea that we may need to feel compelled to maintain these things to keep urban life going or we would feel compelled to abandon the large cities and find another way of doing things.

We can begin doing this now and for some, this is already occurring. I present the idea that the gather-hunter can be realized through the sharing of the commune and the nomad.

(to be continued.)

(break)

Source

Nomadic people (Greek: νομάδες, nomádes, "those who let pasture herds"), commonly known as itinerants in modern-day contexts, are communities of people who move from one place to another, rather than settling permanently in one location. There are an estimated 30-40 million nomads in the world.[2]

Many cultures have traditionally been nomadic, but traditional nomadic behavior is increasingly rare in industrialized countries. Nomadic cultures are discussed in three categories according to economic specialization: hunter-gatherers, pastoral nomads, and "peripatetic nomads".

Nomadic hunting and gathering, following seasonally available wild plants and game, is by far the oldest human subsistence method. Pastoralists raise herds, driving them or moving with them, in patterns that normally avoid depleting pastures beyond their ability to recover. Peripatetic nomads, who offer the skills of a craft or trade to those with whom they travel, are most common in industrialized nations.

---------

Many groups of 'nomadic' hunter-gatherers (also known as foragers) moved from campsite to campsite, following game and wild fruits and vegetables. Hunting and gathering was the ancestral subsistence mode of Homo, and all modern humans were hunter-gatherers until around 10,000 years ago.

Following the development of agriculture, hunter-gatherers were displaced by farming or pastoralist groups in most parts of the world. Only a few contemporary societies are classified as hunter-gatherers, and many supplement, sometimes extensively, their foraging activity with farming and/or keeping animals.

------------

Pastoral nomads are nomads moving between pastures. Nomadic pastoralism is thought to have developed in three stages that accompanied population growth and an increase in the complexity of social organization. Karim Sadr has proposed the following stages:

Pastoralism: This is a mixed economy with a symbiosis within the family.
Agropastoralism: This is when symbiosis is between segments or clans within an ethnic group.
True Nomadism: This is when symbiosis is at the regional level, generally between specialized nomadic and agricultural populations.

The pastoralists are sedentary to a certain area, as they move between the permanent spring, summer, autumn and winter (or dry and wet season) pastures for their livestock. The nomads moved depending on the availability of resources.[4]

---------

Nomadic pastoralism seems to have developed as a part of the secondary products revolution proposed by Andrew Sherratt, in which early pre-pottery Neolithic cultures that had used animals as live meat ("on the hoof") also began using animals for their secondary products, for example, milk and its associated dairy products, wool and other animal hair, hides and consequently leather, manure for fuel and fertilizer, and traction.

The first nomadic pastoral society developed in the period from 8500-6500 BC in the area of the southern Levant.[citation needed] There, during a period of increasing aridity, PPNB cultures in the Sinai were replaced by a nomadic, pastoral pottery-using culture, which seems to have been a cultural fusion between a newly arrived Mesolithic people from Egypt (the Harifian culture), adopting their nomadic hunting lifestyle to the raising of stock.[5]

This lifestyle quickly developed into what Jaris Yurins has called the circum-Arabian nomadic pastoral techno-complex and is possibly associated with the appearance of Semitic languages in the region of the Ancient Near East. The rapid spread of such nomadic pastoralism was typical of such later developments as of the Yamnaya culture of the horse and cattle nomads of the Eurasian steppe, or of the Mongol spread of the later Middle Ages.[6]

------------

One of the results of the break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent political independence and economic collapse of its Central Asian republics has been the resurgence of pastoral nomadism.[7] Taking the Kyrgyz people as a representative example nomadism was the centre of their economy prior to Russian colonization at the turn of the C19/C20, when they were settled into agricultural villages. The population became increasingly urbanized after World War II, but some people continued to take their herds of horses and cows to the high pasture (jailoo) every summer, i.e. a pattern of transhumance.

Since the 1990s, as the cash economy shrank, unemployed relatives were absorbed back on the family farm, and the importance of this form of nomadism has increased. The symbols of nomadism, specifically the crown of the grey felt tent known as the yurt, appears on the national flag, emphasizing the centrality of their nomadic history and past in the creation of the modern nation of Kyrgyzstan.

---------

By 1920; nomadic pastoral tribes represented over a quarter of Iran's population.[8] Tribal pastures were nationalized during the 1960s. The National Commission of UNESCO registered the population of Iran at 21 million in 1963, of whom two million (9.5%) were nomads.[9] Although the nomadic population of Iran has dramatically decreased in the 20th century, Iran still has one of the largest nomadic populations in the world, an estimated 1.5 million in a country of about 70 million.[10]

In Kazakhstan where the major agricultural activity was nomadic herding,[11] forced collectivization under Joseph Stalin’s rule met with massive resistance and major losses and confiscation of livestock.[12] Livestock in Kazakhstan fell from 7 million cattle to 1.6 million and from 22 million sheep to 1.7 million. The resulting famine of 1931-1934 caused some 1.5 million deaths: this represents more than 40% of the total Kazakh population at that time.[13]

In the 1950s as well as the 1960s, large numbers of Bedouin throughout the Middle East started to leave the traditional, nomadic life to settle in the cities of the Middle East, especially as home ranges have shrunk and population levels have grown. Government policies in Egypt and Israel, oil production in Libya and the Persian Gulf, as well as a desire for improved standards of living, effectively led most Bedouin to become settled citizens of various nations, rather than stateless nomadic herders. A century ago nomadic Bedouin still made up some 10% of the total Arab population. Today they account for some 1% of the total.[14]

At independence in 1960, Mauritania was essentially a nomadic society. The great Sahel droughts of the early 1970s caused massive problems in a country where 85% of its inhabitants were nomadic herders. Today only 15% remain nomads.[15]

As many as 2 million nomadic Kuchis wandered over Afghanistan in the years before the Soviet invasion, and most experts agreed that by 2000 the number had fallen dramatically, perhaps by half. The severe drought had destroyed 80% of the livestock in some areas.[16]

Niger experienced a serious food crisis in 2005 following erratic rainfall and desert locust invasions. Nomads such as the Tuareg and Fulani, who make up about 20% of Niger's 12.9 million population, had been so badly hit by the Niger food crisis that their already fragile way of life is at risk.[17] Nomads in Mali were also affected.[18]

-----------

"Peripatetic minorities" are mobile populations moving among settled populations offering a craft or trade.

Each existing community is primarily endogamous, and subsists traditionally on a variety of commercial and/or service activities. Formerly, all or a majority of their members were itinerant, and this largely holds true today. Migration generally takes place within the political boundaries of a single state these days.

Each of the peripatetic communities is multilingual; it speaks one or more of the languages spoken by the local sedentary populations, and, additionally, within each group, a separate dialect or language is spoken.[citation needed] The latter are either of Indic or Iranian origin,[citation needed] and many are structured somewhat like an argot or secret language, with vocabularies drawn from various languages. There are indications that in northern Iran at least one community speaks Romani language, and some groups in Turkey also speak Romani.

------------

In Afghanistan, the Nausar worked as tinkers and animal dealers. Ghorbat men mainly made sieves, drums, and bird cages, and the women peddled these as well as other items of household and personal use; they also worked as moneylenders to rural women. Peddling and the sale of various goods was also practiced by men and women of various groups, such as the Jalali, the Pikraj, the Shadibaz, the Noristani, and the Vangawala. The latter and the Pikraj also worked as animal dealers. Some men among the Shadibaz and the Vangawala entertained as monkey or bear handlers and snake charmers; men and women among the Baluch were musicians and dancers, and Baluch women also practiced prostitution. Jogi men and women had diverse subsistence activities, such as dealing in horses, harvesting, fortune-telling, bloodletting, and begging.[citation needed]

In Iran the Asheq of Azerbaijan, the Challi of Baluchistan, the Luti of Kurdistan, Kermānshāh, Īlām, and Lorestān, the Mehtar in the Mamasani district, the Sazandeh of Band-i Amir and Marv-dasht, and the Toshmal among the Bakhtyari pastoral groups worked as professional musicians. The men among the Kowli worked as tinkers, smiths, musicians, and monkey and bear handlers; they also made baskets, sieves, and brooms and dealt in donkeys. Their women made a living from peddling, begging, and fortune-telling.

The Ghorbat among the Basseri were smiths and tinkers, traded in pack animals, and made sieves, reed mats, and small wooden implements. In the Fārs region, the Qarbalband, the Kuli, and Luli were reported to work as smiths and to make baskets and sieves; they also dealt in pack animals, and their women peddled various goods among pastoral nomads. In the same region, the Changi and Luti were musicians and balladeers, and their children learned these professions from the age of 7 or 8 years.[citation needed]

The nomadic groups in Turkey make and sell cradles, deal in animals, and play music. The men of the sedentary groups work in towns as scavengers and hangmen; elsewhere they are fishermen, smiths, basket makers, and singers; their women dance at feasts and tell fortunes. Abdal men played music and made sieves, brooms, and wooden spoons for a living. The Tahtacı traditionally worked as lumberers; with increased sedentarization, however, they have taken to agriculture and horticulture.[citation needed]

Little is known for certain about the past of these communities; the history of each is almost entirely contained in their oral traditions. Although some groups—such as the Vangawala—are of Indian origin, some—like the Noristani—are most probably of local origin; still others probably migrated from adjoining areas. The Ghorbat and the Shadibaz claim to have originally come from Iran and Multan, respectively, and Tahtacı traditional accounts mention either Baghdad or Khorāsān as their original home. The Baluch say they[clarification needed] were attached as a service community to the Jamshedi, after they fled Baluchistan because of feuds.[19][20]

(new thought.)

So to challenge domestication we have to be born again. Starting a new life as the self we desire. Our relationships today are not the ones we will hold tomorrow. The end of domination, the end of the dominant order, is the abolition of markets, work and commodities. The world we have is abundant. It is wealthy with all the things we need in this world.

By ridding ourselves of the people, forces and institutions that put us in our present predicament, the whole world will be ours for the taking. We can build the lives that we desire and for us, those that want to roam the world, there is much that we can experience.

Seeking new relationships, we can connect with others that feel the same as we do. We recognize that not all people want to uproot themselves and see the vastness of the world in the way we do. It may be safer to assume most are satisfied finding there needs within the boundaries already established. This is for those that want another way. This is for those that want to experience a life of adventure and mystery.

When systems fall, the nomadic way of life sees a resurgence. Much of this could be assumed by carrying historic cultures that were suppressed under the old order, then with the fall of the old order, people return to their remembered traditions. For others, the fancy of a life on the roads holds no other purpose than that of desire. And still others, curious, decide it might be worth giving up on sedentary ways of life and embarking on a quest to see where the barriers of life may begin.

It is my desire to begin pointing out how nomads are a life presented with limits, to where the expansion of agriculture forced many gatherer-hunter cultures to move from a wild way of life to a life where one foot rested in a relationship with domestication while the other rested on the open road. This in no way is a proposal that nomads are an expression of egalitarianism or absolute freedom. It is one that hopes to express that should the dominant order be ended, a nomadic life might be an approach anarchists and anarchist primitivists take in the process of rewilding themselves in the world.