28 September 2005The Anthropik NetworkSteve Thomas
Introduction
That we are approaching the collapse is largely beyond debate. It is unnecessary to give a detailed examination here of the factors by which the collapse may come about. My purpose, instead, is two fold:
1. To explore the form the collapse may take; that is, to speculate on what we will actually experience as global industrial civilization crumbles, and more importantly
2. To explore how we may hope to create and perpetuate egalitarianism in a state of civilizational collapse.
What to Expect
How will we know the collapse is upon us? The warning signs may be here already. We have already written of hurricanes Katrina and Rita as possibly the "opening shots" in the collapse of the oil infrastructure. We will probably learn this winter whether we are correct.
However, it is very unlikely that there is going to be a point at which we can say "Yes, civilization is collapsing." That is, it is very unlikely that there will be a sudden, thief-in-the-night disintegration of all of this society's political and economic infrastructure. What we are likely to see, in the near term, is escalation of the current spate of war and oppression, until the point at which they become untenable.
That is: we will continue to fight everywhere in the globe for oil, until we have less oil to fuel our armies than we are bringing in from the Middle East, the Caspian, South America, etc. We will continue to undergo increased political repression in the form of surveillance, law enforcement, and curtailing of dissent, until there is no more oil left to power the police cars, the check points, the GPS systems, the computers, etc. And the American economy will continue to crumble, forcing more and more people into poverty, debt, and unemployment. It will look like a recession, then like a depression, before it looks like collapse.
The pace of the collapse will probably be gradual overall, with a few puntucating events. We have already seen one such punctuation (Hurricane Katrina). However quickly or slowly events progress, there will come a point at which the knowledge that the current system for the provision of basic resources—food, water, shelter, heat—is defunct. There will be a point at which most grocery stores are empty. At which most of the lights and heaters do not turn on and most of the water faucets stop running. At this point the collapse will begin in earnest, as the majority of America's 300 million people realize that they are going to have to find a different way to live.
There may be a sudden event which triggers this--an event after which the whole of the United States finds itself in the position of New Orleans. But even with a sudden event, things may linger for quite a while, a decade or more.
The Land Grab
What we may see is a massive Land Grab, as millions of urbanites, suburbanites and townsmen struggle for every remaining bit of land they can force a crop out of. In fact, such an event is almost guaranteed to occur. It is very unlikely that this event will be nonviolent. The vast majority of the rural land in America is owned either by the state or by corporations—that is, by the powerful—who are unlikely to give it up, and will probably fight tooth and nail for the last of what they see is "theirs."
We may see an incipient feudalism appearing as police, soldiers, and vast numbers of the newly impoverished find themselves willing to fight for some wealthy landholder for the right to a meager plot of land.
Even if/where such a feudalism does not emerge, violence is likely. The North American landmass (north of the Rio Grande) is home to some 320 million people at present. It cannot support that population without modern petroleum-based agriculture. Rwanda—a genocide driven by overpopulation, as Jared Diamond convincingly demonstrated in Collapse—may provide a terrifying example of what America will look like as petroleum agriculture collapses.
Eventually the Land Grab will end, and the North America will settle into a sustainable equilibrium. The question before us is whether that equilibrium will consist of Option A: a reasonably high population of interlinked, egalitarian societies of diverse configurations (as was the case on the continent before the arrival of Europeans); or Option B: perpetual famine, endemic warfare and warlordism (as is the case in other modern examples of state collapse).
Achieving Option A
It is extremely likely—as has been written elsewhere—that we have already entered the beginning of the collapse. It may be a good idea to prolong the period of collapse as long as possible. The slower things unfold, the more time we have to educate people and "change minds." That is, the more we can see to it that as many people as possible are to building a better society, rather than fighting over the scraps of the old. Moreover, the more slowly things unfold, the more time we have to actually create sustainable infrastructure that can support human life and survive the collapse.
On the other hand, the more slowly things unfold, the more time the hierarchy has to devastate the natural infrastructure such as it exists. If the collapse hits suddenly twenty years from now, a further (great percentage) of US topsoil will be depleted and a corresponding amount of forest will be destroyed. Thus, the more carrying capacity for non-industrial humans in the US will be deteriorated.
We are on the edge of a knife. If collapse occurs too suddenly, we will not be ready, and we will find ourselves overwhelmed and destroyed with the rest of the desperate refugees. If it occurs too gradually, even if we have built our own sustainable habitats, the rest of the continent will be so depleted that the hundreds of millions of new refugees will have no way to make their living. There will be very, very little viable land left—and we will be sitting upon most of it. In such a scenario we will be subjected to constant attack; we will be overwhelmed and destroyed.
It is worth noting that we probably will not have any say in this. The best strategy we can pursue is to 1. continue to create our tribes, communes, church groups, ecovillages, and community organizations and continue to link these disparate groups together, and at the same time continue to create the ecological infrastructure/habitat to support them; 2. to continue to recruit as many people as will possibly want to join us; 3. to continue to struggle against the destruction of extant ecological infrastructure with all of our resources.
Maintaining and Perpetuating Egalitarianism
Food is the foundation of culture. All upper-level cultural organization—social organization, politics, religion, law, war, art, everything—follows from the basic infrastructure of how a society provisions its members. This fact is critical if we are to maintain and create egalitarianism once the industrial infrastructure has disappeared.
Before going on I suppose I should define what I mean by egalitarianism. First, I take it to be the goal of most of us in the broad, linked movement that encompasses anarchists, tribalists, permaculture, ecovillages, culture change theorists, etc. I define "egalitarianism" as a condition, pervading every aspect of cultural life—economic, familial, social, political, religious—in which no individual has the power to command any other; in which the needs (biological and psychological) of every individual are met, or at least are met to the exact same extent to which the needs of every other individual are met; and in which hierarchies that do arise are temporary, based on necessity, and based on individual merit and in no way on ascribed status of any sort.
Now, egalitarianism must (in my view) be coupled with autonomy. If a neighboring Christian group wishes to survive the oil crash, but also wishes to maintain their church-mandated hierarchies, we should not seek to oppose them in this (although given the proselytizing nature of Christianity, it's probably smart to steer clear of church groups).
So, how can we create and maintain this condition when society is collapsing around us, and when we are likely to be in a state of at least sporadic warfare with people who are very much interested in maintaining and perpetuating the hierarchy?
Let's return to food. How we get our food will form the basis for how we create the rest of our society. In the following section I will explore the nature of various subsistence strategies; how they will permit practitioners to deal with the chaotic conditions of the Land Grab; and how they relate to issues of egalitarianism.
Hunting and Gathering
Historically, hunter-gatherers have been the best example of human egalitarianism. This makes sense, since until recently they were the only examples of humanity, and humans are naturally egalitarian. The hunter-gatherer band follows the rhizome pattern described by Jeff Vail.
Characteristics of the band include:
1. Small size. The whole of a group which can be considered part of the same band is never more than a few hundred.
2. Fluid composition and mobility. The band consists of subgroups and sub-subgroups linked in a weak network. Membership in smaller groups is always subject to change. This is one of the factors leading to the band's egalitarianism. If Group A becomes dominated by a murderous despot, Group A's members can simply leave and join Group B, C, or D. This is different from an agricultural society, in which Group A is fixed upon Farm A, and cannot leave.
3. A fission-fusion pattern of residency whereby small groups (5-15) seasonally combine to form larger (30-70) groups and then disperse again, often with composition rearranged.
4. Reciprocity. The great advantage of the band is that it simply cannot afford hierarchy. With its small numbers, fluctuating food supply, and at least partial dependency upon game animals (the hunting of which is never successful every time), the band must make sure it provides for every one of its individual members, because it is dependant upon all of them.
During the Land Grab:
Band societies will have advantages and disadvantages in the post-Peak world. If I am correct in that there will be fighting (possibly very heavy fighting, genocidal fighting) over the remaining land, hunter-gatherers will in some respects be in a very good position. Unlike the gardener or farmer or permaculturist, tied to a given piece of land, the hunter-gatherer can simply go somewhere else when things get bad. The hunter-gatherer band also has the following tremendous advantage: its structure is exactly the same as the ideal structure for guerilla warfare. As John Robb writes,
"This leads us to optimal group size, which according to Chris Allen's online group analysis, can be seen at two levels: both small and medium sized. Small, viable (in that they can be effective at tasks) groups (or cells) are optimized at 7-8 members. A lower boundary can be seen at 5 (with groups less than 5 not having sufficient resources to be effective) and an upper boundary at 9. Medium sized groups are optimal at 45-50 members, with a lower limit of 25 and an upper limit of 80."
Cells of 5-9 members, converging into larger groups of 25-80 members. Sound familiar?
The same factors which lead to the advantage of mobility, however, may lead to some great disadvantages. Given the devastated nature of most of this continent's ecosystems, it is likely that hunter-gatherer groups will have to depend on a very large stretch of territory. Such a large territory can be very difficult to defend, especially if it is 1. circumscribed and 2. being encroached upon from multiple points. This disadvantage may be overcome through the use of permaculture or Fukuoka seedball techniques to create good foraging habitat—but this could in turn result in the same disadvantages which will accompany permaculture (see below).
It is worth noting that the hunter-gatherers of Rwanda faired worse than the Tutsis.
Egalitarianism:
Returning again to the question of egalitarianism, hunter-gatherers historically have the best track record, however even they sometimes fail the test, particularly when it comes to gender relations. We can look to the Mbuti, the Semai, and the !Kung of examples of hunter-gatherer societies in which relations between the sexes were equal or near equal. However contrasting this we find the Yahgan (who informed a missionary, shocked at their lack of hierarchy: "Oh we have hierarchy. All men are captains and all women sailors); some Eskimo groups (in which women were routinely raped as soon as they came of age); and the aborigines of Tasmania.
How can we ensure egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies? Well, their natural gravitation toward this mode is certainly helpful. If every individual is necessary (as they are in small societies), it should be the case that every individual will be treated as if they are necessary (and groups who fail to do so will likely fail to survive, as members necessary to the group's survival die of deprivation or run off to join another group). An active, practiced ideology of egalitarianism should be put into place. Reciprocity, sharing, and nurturance should inform the way children are raised, and tendencies in children toward hierarchy and competition stifled. Even in bands, domination at the social level and alpha-maleism may persist. Alpha-type individuals should be actively suppressed. Practices such as nonviolent communication—which can be learned now—could persist and be very beneficial in post-crash hunter-gatherer societies.
It is worth noting that hunter-gatherers very, very often practice a division of labor by gender. This can lead to subjugation if women or men provide the vast majority of resources. (Women were the primary food providers among the misogynistic Tasmanians; men provided all the food among the misogynistic Eskimo). Hunting seems to naturally become a male-based activity, for reasons which are unclear. If a group is in an environment wherein hunting must provide the vast majority of food, steps should be made to make it collective (using nets, fire and the like).
All of these are concerns, but my own experience (admittedly limited) with neo-tribal foraging groups leads me to think that these societies will have little to worry about internally. It will be outsiders that will be their problem.
Horticulture and Permaculture
By horticulture I mean low-intensity farming, often involving intercropping and slash-and-burn techniques; lacking irrigation or other large-scale projects; often including the raising of domestic animals such as pigs, chickens, or sheep; and typically coupled with at least some hunting, fishing and wild-plant foraging. Permaculture is a modern concept, and refers to the application of ecological principles to agricultural design. The simplest way to describe permaculture is as a deliberately built natural ecosystem, in which every species is involved in producing human food. Since permaculture was initially put forward it has been discovered that many indigenous horticultural systems in fact anticipate it. The Kayapo and other Amazonian Indian tribes, for instance, used permacultural techniques to create vast, largely self-sustaining and sustainable forests of human food sources. (See Toby Hemenway's article Beyond Wilderness for more on this topic).
Characteristics of horticultural societies have traditionally included:
1. Permanent or semi-permanent residency. Horticulturists usually live in permanent villages, though they may disperse for hunting during a particular season in appropriate environments.
2. Far more fixed modes of sociopolitical organization. Horticulturists tend to have fixed clans, lineages, tribes and moieties. Such elaborate and permanent organization is not absent in hunter-gatherer societies (as anyone who has ever tried to comprehend the kinship system of the Central Austrlaians knows), but in most cases it is much less fixed and rigid than in horticulture. Such rigidity may necessarily entail a loss of freedom (as group fluidity is diminished)
3. Collective ownership. In horticultural societies, villages, families or clans tend to own garden land collectively (as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies, in which ownership of any sort is minimal and usually limited to individual use-rights). Whether this ownership arrangement is egalitarian or not will depend upon whether village, family, or clan organization is in fact egalitarian.
4. Endemic warfare.
During the Land Grab:
Permaculture systems, including permaculture-based villages, are being set up across the world right now. Permaculture pracitioners will have the advantage of a reasonably abundant food supply in a small, fixed location. Entire regions may manage to switch to permaculture before the collapse is permanent--and these regions may expect their lives to continue relatively smoothly. This may become a disadvantage, however, as they arouse the jealousy of their neighbors and they are forced to defend their constricted plot of ground.
Traditional horticulture often involves grain, such as the corn-beans-squash triad planted across North America in the past. Practitioners of such systems should be advised of the detrimental effects such crops can have on group health, and of the tendency of cultivation of annuals to deplete soil and result in collapse. Numerous horticulture systems in the past have resulted in ecological damage, and this is a time when new land will be rather scarce. Permaculture, on the other hand, may prove extremely sustainable.
Egalitarianism:
Traditional horticultural societies varied widely. Most were status-egalitarian. Many had the institution of the Big Man; this is an individual who is permitted to amass a great deal of wealth and influence, but who lacks ascribed (fixed) status and the ability to command. If conditions are right this Big Man may quickly become a chief.
In horticultural societies again we find considerable variation of gender hierarchies. There are the islanders of Vanitinai, of whom the only gender-based complaints we can find are that women are much less likely to practice sorcery than men and far more likely to perform the onerous chore of shoveling pig shit; the Iroquois, who maintained a complicated system of gender checks-and-balances; and the Zuni, among whom only women could traditionally own property. On the other hand there are many Amazonian and New Guinean tribes among whom women were terrorized by men and lived in constant fear of violence and rape.
Being cultivators, practitioners of horticulture often have a need for more children. This can lead to a heavy body-burden on women. Continual pregnancy can also lead to women's inability to participate in other aspects of tribal life, further reducing their status. Being cultivators they are also subject to high population densities, which can lead to endemic warfare, which nearly always results in male supremacy.
It remains to be seen whether permaculture practices will mitigate this. To the extent that permaculture systems do not require great energy inputs, they should not encourage overpopulation. However, to the extent that they are fixed in space, horticulture and permaculture structures will need to be defended more than the wide territories of hunter-gatherers. Hence even the most sustainable permaculture societies may descend into patriarchy due to the need for constant warfare.
If male dominance of warfare is unavoidable (and history shows us that it probably is), one solution tribal villages might undertake is to alleviate patriarchy is to—simply—get as much land as possible. This is because if a tribal confederation consists twenty neighboring permaculture/horticulture villages across several hundred square miles (not an easy thing to achieve right now…), then (male) warriors will have to travel much farther to fight. This requires the creation of a system in which control of property is in the hands of stay-at-home women. Matrilineality and matrilocality may result and substantially mitigate male supremacy.
Of course, the best solution for incipient perma/horticultural villages is to make sure all their neighbors can provide for themselves, too. In the days of the Land Grab they might want to deliberately evangelize; send missionaries to everyone within several days walking distance to teach them how to grow crops without oil. This will minimize the amount of fighting they have to do and possibly nip the problem in the bud. In fact, this is a pretty good idea for all of us.
Organic Agriculture
In some regions, intensive agriculture, of the sort practiced before the arrival of petrochemicals, may still be possible. This is not advisable. Intensive agriculture by its nature depletes soil; encourages hierarchy, expansion, and statism; and always results in collapse. However, some current agricultural communes, homesteads ecovillages may persist for quit some time, especially if they take the time now to implement such techniques as biodiesel and solar energy.
Characteristics of agricultural societies have traditionally included:
1. High levels of stratification at every level of society. Patriarchy, class division, and statehood are all features of every agricultural society known to history.2. Endemic, destructive warfare, including war for conquest (impossible at the band/village level).3. A proclivity toward ecological collapse.
During the Land Grab:
At the beginning, organic farmers (such as people currently living in ecovillages) are going to do pretty well. Wth permaculturists and horticulturists they share the disadvantage of being fixed to a place (only more so), which will make them targets; but the advantage of an abundant supply of food. The high populations they are able to support will given them an advantage in warfare.
A huge problem many current organic farming groups and ecovillages will face is that they tend to be pacifists. The only historical precedent we can look to is the Amish. This is a pacifist group, and has been able to maintain its pacifism through the protection of an outside state. Without the state to shelter them, pacifist groups will crumble.
Egalitarianism:
If today's farmers adopt warfare to defend themselves, it is unlikely they will be able to maintain any kind of egalitarianism. Warfare tends to lead to male supremacy. Agriculture tends to lead to female subjugation, for the reason that in an agricultural setting, more children are always valuable. Hence women quickly become reduced to the status of breeders. Depending on their numbers, today's ecovillagers may maintain some parity among the men for a time (as do the brutally misogynistic Yanomamo of South America). However, their constantly growing population (another inherent consequence of intensive agriculture) will eventually force them to elaborate their organizational structure—i.e., develop hierarchy.
If they do not adopt warfare, they will do one of three things:
1. Die.
2. Abandon agriculture (as the presence of the warlike, and their refusal to fight, forces them to pack up and go somewhere else…and somewhere else…until they become a society of travelers; perhaps hunter-gatherers, perhaps wandering merchants; perhaps wandering ascetic beggar-monks).
3. Recruit mercenaries to defend themselves. If you can be such a mercenary, you might be in a somewhat good position. Such a solution is likely to be unstable, as mercenaries tend to either kill their employers (returning us to option 1) or be absorbed into them (returning us to option 2). Or, what is even more likely, this solution will result in a new feudalism as the mercenaries become the new noble class (those who fight), and the ecovillagers the new peasant class (those who work).
If your neighbors are agriculturists, consider finding new neighbors.
Other Strategies
The crash is going to open up a variety of new niches in North America that we have never seen before. The abundance of civilizational detritus could lead to numerous tribes of scavengers. Perhaps wandering scrap-peddlars will turn up. To the extent that exotic animals such as camels, elephants, kangaroos, and emus already exist on this continent (in zoos and on private ranches), they will continue to do so after the collapse. Some may flourish. Indeed there is currently a plan to introduce elephants and other African animals into the American plains. Who knows what hunting and herding cultures may result?
Conclusions, and What To Do
We have two questions ahead of us: What do we want, and What do we NOT want. For me, and I think for most of you, what we want is a better culture—an anarchic, tribal, egalitarian culture. What we don't want is to continue to be subjugated by civilization.
We're approaching a critical period. A point at which there will be no more middle-road—a point at which, if we survive, we will survive either as free participants in established egalitarian societies or as a new class of serfs. We must know what we want, and we must have the will and the ability to fight fiercely for it—without losing it in the process of fighting for it.
I hope this exploration of these concepts has been helpful. I'm going to continue to explore this topic here. Above all, let's continue to build our infrastructure and convert more people here and now, within the heart of the beast.
31 Responses to "Maintaining And Creating Egalitarian Social, Economic and Political Structures After the Collapse"
Jason Godesky says: September 28th, 2005 at 9:00 pmRather than derail this entirely, I've started a new thread on why I don't think we need to worry much about the war thing.
Steve Thomas says: September 28th, 2005 at 10:01 pmGod of moons I edited this poorly the first go-round. It's better now.
Jason--very well, sir, I accept.
JCamasto says: September 28th, 2005 at 10:18 pmIt's still 4000 words, though!
Giulianna Lamanna says: September 29th, 2005 at 6:53 amThat's the NaNoWriMo spirit, Jim! "Well, it may be crap, but at least it's a hell of a lot of words." (Not that Steve's article is crap - quite the opposite, actually.)
Damn, I can't wait for November!
JCamasto says: September 29th, 2005 at 1:59 pmI can appreciate the excitment of piling 50,000 words together for "National Novel Month" - and Steve's last post is almost 1/10 there...
But I was really refering to: "Holy shit,it's still 4000 words - even after editing!"
I suppose this line of thinking is not gonna fly very far with this tribe... 
Are you implying that a piece of writing can be too... long...? :::blink blink blink:::
Benjamin Shender says: September 29th, 2005 at 2:18 pmActually I'm a big believer in use 50 words rather than 500. And I readily call other people on it. But I'm a sufficently superior breed that I need not silence myself.
Devin Hammond says: September 29th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
