Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

Lenski wrote “Power and Privilege” (BOOK or ARTICLE?) in 1966, stating that the
technological history of humanity can be viewed through the opposites of subsistence and
surplus. As a new technology comes along to a stable, subsistence economy/society, it
allows for greater surplus. Subsistence is based upon altruism (Kropotkin might have
called it “mutual aid”), while surplus is based upon power—who controls the surplus.
Lenski argues that as surplus increases, so does inequality. The ecology movement, and
especially the anarchist influenced wings (such as deep ecology, social ecology, even
primitivism) have advocated a more sustainable society, in balance with the natural world
(upon which surplus is extracted), and the reduction of surplus for this very reason. Some
“anarchists”, such as “Miss Ann Thrope”, asserted in an early issue of the Earth First!
Journal (May 1, 1987) that things like the AIDS virus would in fact be good for the earth,
because it would wipe out large numbers of humans, thus lessening humankind's
ecological imprint upon the planet. Bufe (year?) in “Listen Anarchist!” attacks this
notion, just as Bookchin does with his theory of social ecology (which says neither
humans nor the earth need be sacrificed to preserve the planet, and that hierarchy is
actually at the root of both natural and human exploitation).
Lenski sees a decrease in relative inequality since industrialization—which anarchists
would likely argue is true in a certain sense. More people do own property than during
feudalism and standards of living are higher (at least in the West). One view anarchists
have is that this represents the continual throwing-off of oppressions (feudalism, slavery,
etc.) and that hopefully society is being compelled towards a great equilibrium. 19 Other
views may agree with Lenski's explanation of this phenomenon as resulting from the
democratic revolutions, technological advances that aid in sharing, technological
specialization forcing greater wealth sharing, and the exploitation of non-industrial
society. Obviously, this “reduction” in inequality in the West is a mixed-bag. Regardless,
anarchist still criticize the gaps within the privileged countries and the gaps between
privileged and non-privileged nations as scandalous and view State-capitalism as the
primary economic engine of maintaining this relationship.
Wallerstein proposes a theory of capitalism in his series The Modern World System
(1975). He takes a more Marxist (and more geographical) approach to explaining why
certain countries were able to amass power over others. Core countries are the
economically dominant ones (which geographically-speaking are not really the center of
anything, but rather at the periphery of others). Periphery countries are those who are
exploited by the core countries. The periphery finds itself often in the midst of
geographically hostile locations, such as the Middle East. Inner-European countries did
not excel as much in industrial capitalism (initially, at least) as much as England or the
US did, because they have many shared borders and hostile neighbors (especially each
other). The conflict between core and periphery countries is essentially as class conflict of
countries—something that anarchists would whole-heartedly agree with. The core
countries today could be viewed as the G8 states, while the periphery would include
much of the underdeveloped or developing world, i.e. a neo-colonialist relationship.
Modern anarchists have clearly understood this, as evidenced by the large number of
those who work on anti-corporate globalization efforts against international economic
institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, and the
19 See the Appendix's “Historical Tendency” model.
[ Williams 20 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]