#decivilizing

With that we finally arrive at the topic of healing and medicine and start off with a Fun Fact: an essential part of modern western medicine is based on the botanical knowledge of Indigenous peoples, which people appropriated in the course of colonialism and later synthesized. Indigenous cultures often utilized methods which modern science only barely understands, if at all. In fact, Indigenous groups as well as uncivilized/precivilized people have at their disposal not only a deep knowledge of nature, but also discoveries which have been lost to city-dwellers.

The majority of modern medicine doesn’t even heal but only relieves the symptoms. Take for instance medicines for the Diseases of Civilization like thyroid disease or diabetes, which as a rule must be taken for a lifetime in order to “manage” the illness. In decivilization, the cure itself stands in focus. Healing of the fissures which have grown inside the individual, between people, and between humans and nature. The fissures made by civilization, by power. Our modern medical progress is also anything but innocent – stop romanticizing it. Colonialism, imperialism, and horrific medical experiments largely on the African continent (as well as in the animal world) were always a part of this so-called progress. They remain to this day. My ancestors were tortured and killed so that today a pill can manage your illness brought about by the modern way of life.

Ask yourself: do I want to stand for the continued existence of this world, in which my children will be plagued by the same (and new) ills as me? Or do I want to take this destructive world and destroy it and renew it so that future generations can be spared from these ills? In the end, the best medicine is not fighting symptoms. In so doing, new symptoms often emerge and you end up taking Pill B against Pill A. Instead, you fight the underlying causes wherever possible. Here, at least, civilization is honest when it admits that it has created the worst illnesses and itself speaks of “Diseases of Civilization.”

We have and will all be mutilated in one way or another. Our psyche is damaged and we are destroyed physically by illness and disease. As Diseases of Civilization and other infectious diseases withdraw from life, the need for complex medicine will steadily decrease. A world which places healing at the center would energetically strive to heal ills. For the few modern medicines which could possibly be brought into a decivilized world, people will find non-civilized and anti-colonial ways to produce them. Today’s science also won’t suddenly disappear into thin air. (This also shouldn’t be taken to mean that you should suddenly throw out all your pills just because they have a colonial history behind them. We must recognize that the ills and destruction of our bodies brought on by civilization will not be undone overnight. It means to fight so that future generations will be spared these ills and destruction by tackling the root causes. Some will be corrected quicker than others – a change in lifestyle and diet, the abolition of work, letting wild the surviving specks of the Earth, all can have a quick and not insignificant impact. On the other hand, some threats will continue to harm us for a long time. The poisons which have accumulated into the soils, for instance, will remain with us for decades and centuries.)

Regarding disability, it is held here that it is civilization that is ableist. Not only are people in civilization reduced to their bodies and transformed into goods, meaning that only able-bodied people are valued because they perform the necessary work, but civilization is also directly responsible for most disabilities. For example: victims of transportation and work accidents, Thalidomide babies, wartime invalids, disabilities caused by other illnesses, and, not to forget, the epidemic of mental illness.

The situation is no different for common illnesses: Diabetes, allergies, cancer, acne, heart disease, thyroid sickness, and so much more. Why do you think these are sometimes called “western diseases” or “Diseases of Civilization?” They are illnesses brought about through our way of life and do not occur in many primitive peoples, not just hunter-gatherers. There have been voluminous studies and research on that topic for many decades. These also show how fast primitive people can “catch” these when they come in contact with civilization. Lifeways change and people come in contact with the poisonous environment in industrial societies. The original diet is replaced with grain, dairy products, industrial byproducts, and yet more grain – the result: the previously unknown diseases of civilization break out.

Uncivilized people universally have exceptional health. Diseases are rare. What few sick and disabled people there are are lovingly cared for, not left behind. Even the Neanderthals cared for their disabled. Thus in a decivilized world diseases and disabilities would recede over the course of time. Not because these will have killed so many people but because their direct causes will be confronted.

As early as 1844, Max Stirner attacked the concept of society in his work The Ego and its Own, and as an alternative to society proposed the “union of egoists.” According to Stirner, this association is something mundane, but also an unbelievably mighty tool for the individual. The union is something that we experience and build over the course of our lives. In contrast to society, the union of egoists cannot be regarded as a static relationship between individuals, but rather as shared activities of life by self-interested individuals. These are felt, experienced, and lived in the moment.

We come together in this union for shared activity – not out of duty, morality, or other reasons, rather because we find mutual benefit in such a connection. Examples of everyday relationships based on reciprocity include, for instance, romantic relationships, playing games, sex, or robbing a bank. Such a union can also be formed by larger groups. A union can consist of thousands of people who join together into a labor union to fight for better working conditions. What counts is that all participants have the freedom to leave the union. If we no longer find it beneficial, no longer feel good about it, or wish to take on new activities, the union is ended.

In short: the association is transient, it lives in the moment. It is a tool of the individual. This stands in contrast to society. The individual is a tool of society. The claim of society over the individual is absolute and the individual cannot end this claim. While the union is a conscious act of your own power, society is imposed upon you. It is not based on reciprocity, and in it you are compelled to take up activities and relationships in which you find no satisfaction. Needs and longings are suppressed for empty ideas.

Another form of interpersonal relationship in Anarchist spaces is the “affinity group.” An affinity group is a group of comrades who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea behind it is that people who already know and trust each other work together, enabling them to react quickly and flexibly to new situations. Although affinity groups are designed to be small groups, they can have a powerful impact. In contrast to top-down structures they are free enough to adapt to any situation. All members of such affinity groups can react without needing to wait for orders, all while maintaining a clear idea of the expectations and ideas of the others.

As a counterpart to the classic formal organizational forms with Programs, Declarations of Principals and Congresses there exist informal organizations in which the representatives argue that giant federations are a relic of the past, as proven by the fact that they have failed. Small, autonomous and agile groups are preferred instead. Without giving up the ever-important spreading of anarchist ideas, it is not a matter these days of collecting as many people as possible around anarchism at any price. It could be argued that no strong anarchist organization is necessary to give the signal for the revolution or the insurrection when the time is ripe. When it is no longer about how one can organize people for the struggle, the new question becomes how one can organize the struggle. Informal affinity groups, independent from each other but with a shared perspective on the struggle, are the best way to go directly on the offensive. This offers the most autonomy and the widest spectrum of possible action.

To return once more to “societal forms” in an anarchy, I think it makes sense to finally give an example of interpersonal relationships in a lived anarchy: the tribal or band model of hunter-gatherers, which was replaced some 10,000 years ago by authoritarian interpersonal relationships in the course of the spread of civilizations. In some parts of the world there still live small groups of hunter gathers who hold to their anti-authoritarian model of interpersonal relationships, such as the Hadza in Tanzania, East Africa. Many Anthropologists and Sociologists have and continue to characterize hunter-gatherers as “egalitarian cultures” or “acephalous societies,” but only a few use the word “Anarchy” – a remarkable attempt at ideological sabotage, if you ask me. (Acephalous, by the way, means “free of domination”).

Many hunter-gatherers stand (or stood) out through an exceptional degree of equality, of individual autonomy, of mutual aid, and of anti-authoritarian educational methods. They always live in small groups of 20 to 50 people, very rarely up to 100. We thus find here a similarity to today’s concept of affinity groups, which are commonly made up of 5 to 25 people. It would not be absurd to characterize a band as the first Affinity Group in the world. The small size of a band effectively hinders – along with its other characteristics – the formation of hierarchies. A comparison to Stirner’s model of the union of egoists can also be made. Sometimes different bands come (or came) together on a voluntary, mutual basis to, for instance, help with constructing temporary homes or to repel intruders. Afterwards the union was ended and the bands separated themselves.

In bands there exists an “egalitarian ethos.” If a member of a band violates this, they will be shunned by the other members. Either the shunned person changes their behavior or they leave the band and join another (free association).

One practice stands out in particular. Something which is paid far too little attention in Anarchist discourses: the anti-authoritarian methods of child rearing, which ensure that feelings of trust, egalitarian principals, and the rejection of authority are passed on to every generation.

The parenting style of hunter-gatherers would be characterized in the civilized world as “permissive.” Children could decide freely when they wanted to be fed or not, and they educated themselves through their own self-determined play and inquiry. Corporal punishments were non-existent. As described for instance by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, who studied the Ju/'hoansi in Africa’s Kalahari Desert: “Ju/wa children very rarely cried, probably because they had little to cry about. No child was ever yelled at or slapped or physically punished, and few were even scolded. Most never heard a discouraging word until they were approaching adolescence, and even then the reprimand, if it really was a reprimand, was delivered in a soft voice… We are sometimes told that children who are treated so kindly become spoiled, but this is because those who hold that opinion have no idea how successful such measures can be. Free from frustration or anxiety, sunny and cooperative, and usually without close siblings as competitors, the Ju/wa children were every parent’s dream. No culture can ever have raised better, more intelligent, more likable, more confident children.”

It is easy to understand that children who are trusted and well-treated from the start grow up to trust in others and treat them well, feeling little or no need to dominate and oppress others to fulfill their own needs. (On the theme of parenting I recommend reading the essay “Childhood & the Psychological Dimension of Revolution” by Ashanti Alston – more than once.)

Today, the Hadza are one of the last still-existing examples of lived anarchy and anti-authoritarian interpersonal relationships. And they have been doing so for at least 100,000 years. But the ever-expanding agricultural industry embodies the destruction of this last bit of anarchy.

The Hadza lived the great majority of their lives untroubled by the civilized world. As the Mesopotamian Empire experimented with agriculture (which led to desertification and flooding, which are still the consequences today), as slaves in Egypt were building the pyramids, as the roman empire rose and fell, as Europeans colonized the world, as Indigenous peoples on the American continent were slaughtered, as African people were kidnapped from their homelands to build the “New World,” the Hadza lived in complete ignorance of colonialism and agro-imperialism. Until the First World War that is, when the British colonial government tried to settle the Hadza and make them practice agriculture. If at first the Hadza profited from the new foods, they quickly saw no sense in doing heavy work in the fields when adequate food was freely available in the bush. Another reason why they left the settlements was the outbreak of infectious diseases which thrive in sedentary communities, such as measles.

Illnesses are rare among the Hadza. There exists equality between the sexes and youths can freely explore their sexuality. Women enjoy a high level of sexual autonomy, in complete contrast to the civilized world. The Hadza are also completely free from the suffocation of time. Their sense of time depends entirely on the migrating animals and the changing appearances of the flowering plants.

Pre-civilized lifeways in Africa had such a precise and deep understanding of the exact nature of their relationships and their impacts on individual quality of life as well as our collective fate, as did similar nomadic lifeways throughout the whole world. These groups managed to lead a peaceful, egalitarian life free from all authority and oppression, before pastoralism and settlement and finally civilization was established. For at least 500,000 years – it was probably more like two million years – our ancestors found a way to live in lasting harmony with nature. This changed with the arrival of agriculture and civilization around 10,000 years ago.

In nomadic lifeways there is no place for the accumulation of property and therefore there is also no great difference in material possessions. As a rule nomads only own what they can carry. The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins coined the term “Original Affluence” to describe the lifestyle of hunter gatherers. This concept of affluence means: “having enough of everything necessary to satisfy ones needs and a lot of free time to enjoy life.” Hunter-gatherers reach affluence in the sense that they want little and don’t produce much, that is they are free of greed. Nomads live in groups in which there is as good as no material wealth, but in exchange true wealth: lots of free time to truly enjoy life. The generally high level of satisfaction, happiness, and love of art, music, dance, and social games is well documented among many original peoples like the forest peoples in Central Africa, Aboriginal Australians, and the various Indigenous Peoples of the Americas.

This original way of life, enjoyed by our ancestors throughout the great majority of humanity’s time on this earth, has survived even to this day, though it has retreated sharply and almost died out. In Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia, in the Amazon regions of South America, and scattered over all of Africa there remain fully functioning nomadic micro-cultures, which are similar or completely identical to the life of “Original Affluence.” Although there are differences between these surviving groups, they have many commonalities. The best documented present hunter-gatherers are the Hadza in Tanzania, East Africa, and the Dobe Ju/'hoansi of Southern Africa who live in and around the Kalahari desert.

A short summary of the most important characteristics of hunter-gatherers:

-Work (mostly the procurement of food) requires less than half the time that civilized people spend in factories, offices, and other workplaces. The absolute majority of food is gathered, while the hunt composes only a small portion. Work and play are identical.

-Everyone has enough to eat and there is no hunger – by comparison, over 30% of the population in industrial societies go hungry.

-There is no concept of private property.

-Children are raised “permissively.” They educate themselves through their own self-determined play and exploration. Corporal punishment is non-existent.

-Outstanding health. Sickness is very rare. When one person is sick or disabled, they are lovingly cared for by the rest of the group.

-There is no hierarchy, no authority

-Everyone has the same access to resources.

-If one person shows shitty behavior, this person will be shunned until they cease their bad behavior. Otherwise this person decides for themselves to join another group, because no one lives (or survives) long on their own.

The few still-living nomadic groups were crowded out towards the least productive regions, the edge of their earlier living spaces, over the last 10,000 years in countless waves of marginalization by civilized peoples.

There is a multitude of studies on the original transition from nomadic to settled tribes. For instance, the San People in southern Africa (to which the Dobe Ju/'hoansi belong) lived peacefully and sustainably for hundreds of thousands of years before the Bantu peoples came from the north. The Bantus brought along agricultural methods and technologies, creating food surpluses and a rapid rise in population, following which massive and bloody wars between the tribes began.

There are many examples showing that inequality and the proportion of violence continued to rise after the arrival of agriculture. The isolated Enga tribe in Papua New Guinea traditionally lived on taro, yams, half-domesticated pigs, and a little wild game. But the introduction of the sweet potato, a quick and easy growing plant from South America, led to a significant rise in the food surplus. This surplus was fed to the pigs, whose population multiplied. Pigs became the means of exchange in trade. There thus arose a new political class which did no real work, instead controlling and manipulating the trade to their own advantage. In comparison to the poor farmers they became very rich. Every trace of equality disappeared from there and wars became ever bigger and more frequent.

Thus humanity traded quality for quantity and gave up freedom and autonomy for hard work and security. Life has deteriorated from many different perspectives, for instance through the reduction of our nourishment from thousands of different plants to just a few cultivated varieties, leading to the emergence of many new, modern diseases. With continuous growth and consumption have finally arisen the “Diseases of Civilization” familiar to us today: cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, broken digestive health, and much more.

Agriculture brought so many downsides to human life that the scientist Jared Diamond described it as the worst mistake in the history of humanity when he wrote: “Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions… Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life… Some bands chose [agriculture]… outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter…. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.”

With the new lifestyle there also came a new division of labor. Farmers worked much more than before to feed everyone, while others concentrated on such things as the production of weapons and technologies. The accumulation of more property brought the rich more negotiating power and led to an exponential rise in wealth, meaning that the higher class increasingly exploited the work of the lower class for their own profit. The transition also brought with it the arrival of centralized power. Social inequality rose ever higher while societies became ever larger and more complex. Technological progress enabled an even more dramatically unequal distribution of wealth.

If the history of humanity started at midnight, then we would almost be at the end of our first day. We have lived almost the entire day as hunter-gatherers, from midnight through dawn, midday, and dusk. Finally, at 11:54 PM, we started raising crops. Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and long-lasting lifestyle in human history. By contrast, we have been fighting for some 10,000 years against the chaos that agriculture and civilization has landed us in. It is unclear if we can find a solution.

While its own ideas should not be assigned to movements, anarchist decolonization nevertheless places “anarchist values” into a focus that questions the foundations of civilization. Those marginalized and racialized are not absolutely free from the dangers of coloniality. Techno-industrial progress is the art of stealing the wishes of the conquered. Supporting the sovereignty of colonized people does not mean that you must support every person, every project, and every movement. There are many Indigenous, Black, and racialized people who have internalized the values of colonization, and you do yourself no favors when you help them come to power. Fight for liberating ideas, not for nations or bloodlines.

In an anarchist anti-colonial struggle, anarchist decolonization can show its full spirit and fight for the total liberation of humans and non-humans. In doing so anarchist decolonization draws on different anarchist tendencies. Borrowing from the insurrectionary tendency, the (neo-)colonial state is identified as an occupying power carrying on a permanent war of greater or lesser intensity to control natural resources and domesticate people. The feminist and queer tendency offers an important position from which to identify and destroy the constructs of patriarchy, the gender binary, and heteronormativity. Of particular relevance to the anti-colonial struggle is finally the green tendency, where ecological themes, land defense, and the liberation of human and animal are put into focus.

The anti-civilization tendency is the most radical among the green tendencies, recognizing the mechanisms of domination and oppression inherent to the construct of civilization that first led to colonialism. It battles the world-devouring Leviathan that exploits all human and non-human resources and seeks to redirect them into the flow of capital. The recognition and rejection of overlapping processes of domination, manifesting in different forms, offers a valuable perspective for the anti-colonial struggle to make colonialism and recolonization impossible.