TOTW: Survival

In the story "Night on the Galactic Railroad," a character relates a story of choosing death rather than living at the expense of others. Aboard a sinking ship and faced with the choice of shoving others out of the way to get to the lifeboats, he chooses to retreat from the crowd with the children he’s escorting rather than living a life having survived instead of others. To him, the life they would be living after having made that decision wouldn’t bring true happiness.

This ethics of survival - that living at the expense of others should be avoided (perhaps at our expense) - informs lots of decisions made by anarchists. Decisions such as not calling the cops and trying to engage with each other in ways different than normal when we do something fucked up often incorporate the recognition that, even if we get what we want, the harm caused by us to others will diminish the outcomes of those decisions. Laying flat in "poses resembling rest, sleep, sickness, and death" (Tangping) or retreating from the crowd shoving for the lifeboats this world has to offer us rather than expropriating them as the People's lifeboats are also instances of refusing to survive as we've been told we must.

So given that we’re all on this sinking ship of many names, how do we survive as anarchists? Do you attempt to minimize harm to others as you survive in this world? Is there an anarchist ethics of survival?

There are 13 Comments

The question of minimizing harm to others is a bit layered. On one hand, there is how I survive, and whether and to what extent I harm others in doing so. Then there is harm being done to others that is not directly related to my survival, but which I can potentially impact with my actions. Also, of course, is the question of defining "others"; non-human life?

1. "How do we survive as anarchists?"

We survive like all others survive while striving for anarchy.

2. "Do you attempt to minimize harm to others as you survive in this world?"

Yes. I'm an anarchist.

3. "Is there an anarchist ethics of survival?"

Yes. Anarchism.

^this

except when I try to maximize harm, cuz I decide arbitrarily that I hate somebody's face

also cuz anarchist! but it's principled tho, don't worry, they always deserve it and i'm never wrong

is a movie about a similar/different kind of choice - where the nazis force a mother to choose between her children. i always thought that forced to that kind of choice i would not choose (easy enough to say, of course, but still). so i would doom both my children and myself to death rather than accept the nazi frame.

not sure if other people see how that relates to the totw, but it's connected to me.

The phrase "living at the expense of others" makes me think of the distinction between interdependent, dependent and co-dependent. A person "Laying flat in "poses resembling rest, sleep, sickness, and death" makes me think of temporarily or chronically bedridden people in someone's care or even hospice. The part about "retreating from the crowd shoving for the lifeboats this world has to offer us rather than expropriating them as the People's lifeboats" makes me think of prepping, and how different ideological orientations shape the approach to that, as well as mutual aid disaster relief efforts. How some people take SHTF situation as the opportunity to say "I'm the boss now, since I've prepared (read fantasized and I'm more excited about, particularly the part about bossing) for this moment more than you."

If the basics of anarchist ethics if "don't boss, don't obey", then there is not a clear thumb rule with regards to the issue of survival as posed in the questions in this TOTW. The phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is a communist sentiment that addresses that question more directly and is a principle in communism and communalism.

The typical narrative is that anarchists often disdain the rat-race and drop-out when surviving entails bowing down or complying to undesireable arrangements, while everyone else takes for granted the undesirable aspects of subservience and social hierarchy in the workplace and in society, that are part of surviving in this world. Most people are dependent in many ways on global supply chains that are not based on any anarchist or even communist ethics, everyone relies on and is complicit with the current mode of production and distribution, and this causes harm to many life-forms and ecosystems (including people).

Like many, I've found myself in situations where it required extra effort that usual to acquire basic resources for daily survival, due to temporary scarcity caused by natural disasters. Instead of waking up extra early, or trying to be the first in line, or to try to cut in line, or bribe, menace or steal, I stayed at home resting. Is this due to an anarchist ethic? Maybe I disliked queuing up with the mass, maybe I had some moral qualms, maybe I was just lazy, but in truth it was more due to life being such a bore that I would not place more effort than usual into preserving it. If all those people loved living so much they'd be willing to fight to the death for the last scrap of whatever or drop of water, let them have it. But can you blame them? No one chose to live, life is this irrational urge that propel people forward, automatic breathing and heart pumping, strong urge to procreate, hungers and thirsts to feed etc.

How many lives would you be willing to take to preserve yours? Yet this is often not the dilemma (since factory farms and armies do that in an almost fully automatic manner for the rest of the population, armies' not preserving lives, but resources like oil used in supply chains that serve their nations), but rather are you willing to put up with the people who put up with you in your daily life, and the answer is usually yes.

So after thinking about that, to answer the questions at the end: 1. Anarchists survive and die like anything else survives and dies. 2. I think a lot of anarchists try very hard to minimize harm but a lot of it is illusory, probably net harm remains the same, so in the end it's all about their own perception and feelings and those of their immediate social circle. 3. Anarchism allows for a broad range of ethics of survival and gives little guidance except perhaps notions of fairness, equity and freedom

I was here before they changed the picture.

this topic makes me think of the difference between thriving and merely surviving, of discussions of luxury, opulence and excess vs austerity. it also makes me think that those that prioritize safety and survival have much incentive to not be anarchists. many would forgo that hassle mere for the sake of comfort and privilege, and would even question what they stand to grain from such a standpoint that might even interfere with their own straightforward survival. the question about the calling the cops scenario supposes a principled anarchist who once besieged falters and breaks under pressure, going against their principles in order to survive. the contrary is far more common, an everyday life that could hardly be distinguished as anarchist with seldom acts that could be highlighted to make a case for it.

so true!

other side of the coin but when I was younger, due to my influences and generalized rage and despair and all that, some of what I now recognize as death cult/martyrdom rhetoric appealed strongly to me.

this tendency has been studied in the social sciences, always questionable "science" but i think it's fair to say that material conditions are a large factor for angry young radicals, regardless of politics. I dodged the worst of the consequences but some of my peers weren't as lucky. then I aged out of that nonsense and now it's about the real moments where principles make a lot of sense, even if there's some self destruction required. just like how survival requires a lot of compromise, so too should your principled throw downs be done in a thoughtful way.

oops! I shoulded everybody! I'll should you all!

i can understand an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to survive, and i can understand an anarchist standing by their principles at a risk for their survival. what i don’t understand is an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to risk their life

"i can understand an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to survive, and i can understand an anarchist standing by their principles at a risk for their survival. what i don’t understand is an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to risk their life"

THIS IS BRILLIANT! thank you for condensing the topic into the most concise manner! you rock!

I pay no heed to this anthropocentric survivalist vanity and drama, from the moment of birth that's just life, if one is living to the fullest in the moment. Surviving has become this humungous virtue signalling exercise by the likes of smug oligarchs like Elon Musk and those privileged and narcissistic enough to perpetuate safety bubble culture on Mars.

I "survived" by just shutting the fuck up about my anarchism and instead do things and take positions that are affluent

It is firmly my belief nowadays that contemporary anarchism should have developed as a secret society, with a limited level of "public outreach" activity that don't compromise its secrecy (like Anews, for instance). We're now witnessing the consequences of decades of mostly wrong-headed feel-good above-ground "anarchism" (i.e. civil anarchism), which has been a terrible mistake.

You seem very intelligent and affluent with a lot to say I would like to read more of your thoughts where can I find them? Thank you.

Add new comment