“The dawn of everything”, the “always turn the other cheek” Christian commandment, the Anarchic International and immersive fiction

In their The dawn of everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow prove with archaeological evidence that, in a relatively distant past, there were big cities where people already knew and practiced agriculture, and where, in some cases for more than one millennium, decisions and rules about the commons were taken in open assemblies; thus, they also had good levels of equality in distribution of wealth and resources.

At some point in the book they ask themselves, and obviously their readers too, why, at least now, there is no archaeological evidence of later examples of such big societies which worked that way, and they make an hypothesis: that when three issues or “traits” of centralized accumulation of power and wealth and resources, which i won’t summarize here (read the book! 🙂), intertwine in a given society (like our present societies, since very long time), it’s very difficult to get back, or forward, to equality in distribution of power, work, wealth and resources.

They also emphasize that it is an hypothesis, and that more studies should be done to prove it more, or modify it, or extend it.

Anyway, i have an hypothesis about something that has probably worsened the situation: the Christian commandment to “always turn the other cheek” when anyone treats you bad: although i guess nobody can sincerely tell to really always behave like that, i think it’s a commandment which worked and still works a lot as a moral condemnation of some of the most effective actions any oppressed people can implement against their oppressors, and as a self-justification of fear of implementing it or, sometimes, even of thinking about it.

This bugs me a lot, also because i think that today it would be much easier to build equal societies, after an Anarchic International like this, i.e. after taking the lands to cultivate them without polluting, and the industrial facilities to shut down the polluting ones and build the sustainable alternatives while consuming less and better, which would also save our species and many others from the already ongoing decimation and the otherwise very probable future extinction caused by the current ecological catastrophe and-or the equally severe risks of the ongoing and future wars that the ecological catastrophe itself is very intertwined with: after an Anarchic International like this, in the liberated context it could foster (i.e. a global context of many federated little-to-medium sized communities where decisions and rules about the commons would be defined and refined in open assemblies, and thus we would have very good levels of equality in distribution of work, wealth and resources too, and where two or more communities would settle about exchanges of resources and products with inter-communal assemblies which could be made through the internet), tomorrow we would also have a hugely wider possibility to access and share all knowledge, and to build fictional worlds, with or without fictional stories, using open hardware and software produced by the communities, and to virtually live some time there, and to play and fight and love and build there, with or without other avatars of others’ selves, thus sublimating our dark sides in creativity and lashing them out in almost or totally harmless ways to an extent and with an immersivity that we, as a whole, never had before.

This is what arts have always been about, and tomorrow it would be just freely accessible for all.

For an anarchic International (a very approximate and sketchy proposal)

This proposal, as the title says, is considerably sketchy and approximate, and deliberately and a bit ironically so (that’s why, for example, i used the 42 number throughout it), and obviously very open to discussions and modifications, should anyone like to, although i don’t think i’ll personally change my mind about that which for me is its central point: the necessity to take the cultivated lands and all the means of material production into everybody’s hands.

The pandemic of covid and its variations, that as of today directly caused more than 6 millions deaths in the world, and indirectly caused more than 15 millions, is for the most part a consequence of the environmental devastation caused by capitalist exploitation of the whole living [1] [2] [3], and of the material and cultural misery it determines and pursues.

The onset of new pandemics and their increasing frequency were foreseen by many scientists (see the previous links). Nonetheless, even in the richest countries, the pandemic stroke after a long period during which nothing was done by those who could do the most to reduce the risk that those predictions foresaw; instead, they weakened further the public health systems (the italian one, for example, had undergone massive cuts during the previous ten years, which were made by institutional right, center, left parties to almost identical extents: see [1] and [2]).

The anti-covid vaccines which are currently disposable in the richest countries do work: they are statistically very effective in preserving people who accept to get vaccinated from getting ill, although they provide a rather brief cover. But, despite the fact their development was financed to a great extent by rich states with money from tax payers, these same states in developed countries buy them at a price per dose that is up to 24 times its cost of production, while the states where the large majority of the people of the world lives can’t afford to buy them and the bosses of pharmaceutical multinationals producing them don’t remise, not even temporarily, to the related patents, and don’t publish the know-how that’s necessary to build the machines to produce them, nor are they disposable to help in building these machines and to train the people who could use them within less rich and poor countries.

This way, the covid and variants pandemic will never be defeated, and other, new pandemics will happen more and more frequently.

Continua a leggere For an anarchic International (a very approximate and sketchy proposal)

Darwinismo e anarchia

Da La concezione anarchica del vivente,
di Jean-Jacques Kupiec (elèuthera, 2021)

Capitolo sesto
Risposta ad alcune obiezioni

[…]

6.4 Il darwinismo non è anarchico

Associare il darwinismo e l’anarchia nello stesso quadro concettuale potrebbe essere fonte di malintesi che vanno evitati. Una prima precisazione si impone. Quando si fa riferimento al darwinismo per spiegare i meccanismi di embriogenesi non si tratta evidentemente di trasferire il meccanismo preciso della selezione naturale così come viene descritto da Darwin. Si tratta piuttosto di recuperare in primis l’ontologia e la specifica causalità introdotte da Darwin, le quali forniscono un nuovo quadro generale per pensare l’ontogenesi. D’altronde, il meccanismo della selezione naturale non era del tutto precisato in Darwin, dal momento che all’epoca non erano completamente note le modalità della variazione. I biologi di solito fanno riferimento al darwinismo in senso lato quando traspongono la selezione naturale al di fuori del suo originale ambito di applicazione. Che sia nella teoria clonale degli anticorpi o nel darwinismo neuronale citati in precedenza, o ancora nel modello anarchico della differenziazione cellulare, il riferimento al darwinismo indica uno schema generale comune e non un’analogia dei meccanismi in senso stretto, cosa che sarebbe assurda. In ognuno di questi casi quel che si intende esattamente con variabilità e selezione è differente. Del resto, fin dall’inizio l’utilizzo del concetto di «selezione» da parte di Darwin era metaforico.

Continua a leggere Darwinismo e anarchia