The idea of Progress was central to the modern Western paradigm and the presumption that the entire world was moving ever onwards to a better future was dominant. The idea of the inevitability or possibility of a global libertarian future originates from that belief.
In many ways Anarchism was/is the libertarian extreme of the European Enlightenment — against god and the state. In some countries such as turn of the Twentieth Century Spain it was the Enlightenment — its militantly pro-science anti-clericism being as much an attraction as its anti-capitalism. Yet the rubbish of history is not so easily discarded and ‘progressive’ revolutionary movements have often been, in essence, form and aim, the continuation of religion by other means. As an example, the belief that universal peace and beauty would be reached through apocalyptic tumults of blood and fire (revolution/the millennium/the collapse) indicates firmly that as an enlightenment ideology, Anarchism has been heavily burdened by its Euro-Christian origins. John Gray was talking about Marxism when he said it was a “…a radical version of the enlightenment belief in progress — itself a mutation of Christian hopes… [Following] Judaism and Christianity in seeing history as a moral drama, that’s last act is salvation.” While some anarchists never fell for such bunkum, many did, and some still do. These days Progress itself is increasingly questioned both by anarchists and across society. I have yet to meet anyone today who still believes in the inevitability of a global anarchist future. However the idea of a global movement, confronting a global present and creating a global future has many apostles. Some of these are even libertarians and look hopefully to the possibility of global anarchist revolution.
The illusory triumph of capitalism following the destruction of the Berlin Wall lead to the proclamation — more utopian than real — of a New World Order — a global capitalist system. The reaction of many to globalisation was to posit one from below, and this was only re-enforced by the near simultaneous public emergence of the Zapatistas and the invention of the Web. The subsequent international action days, often coinciding with summits, became the focus for the supposedly global anti-capitalist ‘movement of movements’. The excitement on the streets enabled many to forestall seeing the spectre by looking in the direction of the ‘global movement’. But there never was a global movement against capitalism, then, or ever, just as capitalism itself was never truly global. There are many, many places where capitalist relations are not the dominant practice, and even more where anti-capitalist (nevermind anarchist) movements simply don’t exist.
Amidst the jolly unreality of this period of ‘Global Resistance’ some could get really carried away: “We have no interest in reforming the World Bank or the IMF; we want it abolished as part of an international anarchist revolution.” Such statements are understandable if written in the drunk-like exuberance one can sometimes feel on having defeated the police, but they are found more commonly. The self-description of one Anarchist Federation reads: “As the capitalist system rules the whole world, its destruction must be complete and worldwide”.
The illusion of a singular world capitalist present is mirrored by the illusion of a singular world anarchist future.
Neither we, nor anyone else, can create a libertarian and ecological global future society by expanding social movements. Further, there is no reason to think that in the absence of such a vast expansion, a global social transformation congruent with our desires will ever happen. As anarchists we are not the seed of the future society in the shell of the old, but merely one ofmany elements from which the future is forming. That’s ok; when faced with such scale and complexity, there is a value in non-servile humility — even for insurgents.
To give up hope for global anarchist revolution is not to resign oneself to anarchy remaining an eternal protest. Seaweed puts it well:
Revolution is not everywhere or nowhere. Any bioregion can be liberated through a succession of events and strategies based on the conditions unique to it, mostly as the grip of civilisation in that area weakens through its own volition or through the efforts of its inhabitants… Civilisation didn’t succeed everywhere at once, and so it’s undoing might only occur to varying degrees in different places at different times.
[T]he reality both within ecosystems generally and peoples stomachs in particular is that there is no global singular future and no imaginary community, either of states or ‘multitudes’ (or both a la Cochabamba) can stop climate change. Given our obvious inability to re-make the entire world the way we might like it to be, some replace the myth of ‘global revolution’ with a belief in imminent ‘global collapse’ — these days usually some mix of climate change and peak oil. As we shall see later (both in the next chapters and our future years) global heating will severely challenge civilisation in some areas and prob- ably vanquish it in others. Yet in some regions it will likely open up possibilities for the spread of civilisations rule. Some lands may remain (relatively) temperate — climatically and socially. As for civilisation, so for anarchy and anarchists — severely challenged, sometimes vanquished; possibilities for liberty and wildness opening up, possibilities for liberty and wildness closing. The unevenness of the present will be made more so. There is no global future.
readdesert.org
ziq wrote (edited )
This is only true to an extent. Eventually, the damage to the climate will destroy all above ground human habitats. Humans and other mammals simply can't survive the temperature / humidity combo we're going to reach; eventually even in the arctic (which is already on fire every summer).
Even before then, the mass immigration to the pockets of the Earth that will still be habitable will stretch those ecosystems beyond their ability to sustain their populations. Which will lead to further warming, and mass starvation.
The latest science points to a warming chain reaction already set off that we won't be able to stop even if we ended all industrial activity. Right now we're only feeling the effects of industrial activity from 40 years ago - back when industry wasn't nearly as large scale as today.
The planet will do what it's always done and save itself by wiping out the lifeform that did the damage (us).
There have been periods on Earth where the temperatures / carbon in the atmosphere were higher than they are now, and the life that lived here then was much different - mainly reptilian. The planet will go on, but life as we know it won't.
Historically collapse can indeed be worldwide, which every ice age we've had proves. But in the short term, the collapses will happen in hot climates first, while the cold climates will become the new hot climates, and then eventually they'll become so hot that they'll collapse too.
The science that's been coming out in the last few years is far worse than anything we could have expected just 10 years ago