Its Me or The Dog: Anarchism versus civilization

The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.- Mikail Bakunin, anarchist

I like to compare things. So I have decided that every week, at least once, I shall contemplate and compare two things: two concepts, issues, places, persons, whatever.This exercise I will call “Its me or the dog.”

Lets start with something serious, a perplexing comparison based on notions that I bounced around my mind from time to time, in part, thanks to Powell M Trusler, hubby extraordinaire. That is, anarchism versus civilization, or nation state society.

Look around you. The world, apparently, is going to hell in a hand basket. The World Wildlife Fund announced recently that wildlife has decreased 27% since 1970. Whatever that means. The icebergs are melting. Gas costs close to $4.00 a gallon. Earthquakes in china, you get the picture. If government is so great, if the collective of nation-states if something desired, if necessary, then how is it that the condition of our planet and everything in it seems to be decaying? Is it the natural consequence of human existence? Are we like the dinosaurs, a mortal experiment destined to fail, and leave in our wake a liberated planet naturally replenished via our demise?


It is possible, that in creating an economic system and collective of nation-states, we have built a macro-structure of society that in all its intended good, simply diverts us from natural design (assuming there is one using evolutionist or creationist theory). In fact, we tend to divorce ourselves from a design that limits population growth and depend on development and existence of artificial substances or use of natural substances in an unnatural way, a design that protects the delicate balance of beings on the planet. It is possible that our society has done as much damage as it has done good.

I am assuming that the flaws inherent in society have a direct correlation to the consequences of human society, its civilizations. I am also assuming that an absence of human society would occlude certain present problems mentioned above. But I say this theoretically. Theoretically, anarchism would most likely mean the development of communes, or communal society, small bands of like people who live together and create micro-societies, the assumption being that a greater government would not exist. It would also mean, that like students in a classroom, some communes would progress more quickly and function more effectively than other. Some communes would have certain collective and inherent talents that others would lack. Inevitably, acute disparities would arise between communes in terms of quality of life, medical care, education, and subsistence (one could argue this already exists in such places as South Africa or Brazil). Those in need would either depend solely on the structure of their own group or on the charity of another (again, not so much different than it is now). But, it is possible that through the omission of macro-societies and the creation of communes or mini-societies, we as human beings might parallel a natural design, a far superior administrator of the planet and all its elements. See Mikhail Bakunin


However, this is all theory. I am a privileged person. I live in a first world country, a civilization/society, in which I am able to sustain myself well, and so far, I am able to take care of all my needs, despite any bumps in the road. I would hesitate to so quickly dismiss my circumstances that were had through such a country and its government. My ancestors fled corrupt systems, imprisoning systems, that prevented them from pursuing life, liberty and happiness. This a good thing despite everyone’s incessant complaining, America, a country of whiners. I rather enjoy paved roads and stop lights and laws regarding personal property and protection from crime. I take for granted the freedom I have had so far in expressing myself, in pursuing my goals, in getting an education. In fact, despite the existence of western civilization all of these centuries, it wasn’t until recently that women were able to have lives outside of marriage and family. They weren’t allowed to own property, to inherit money, go to school, etc… I’m not one to complain. However…well, let me use a reference from those great America icons from Star Trek:

Spock: The needs of the many... outweigh -
Kirk: The needs of the few.
Spock: Or the one.
The Wrath of Khan

The thing is, despite all these privileges that I myself have enjoyed via civilization, isn’t it better that the planet survive despite human beings? Again, assuming civilization has, depite its intented good and its good products, introduced the aforesaid modern problems and crises. Are these socities such a good thing, on the whole? Well, its food for thought. Anarchy or civilization.