Add new comment

"Back to the land" was already happening. It didn't need the external pressure of systemic implosion of large-scale resource exploitation (which, aside from a partial agricultural collapse, is still NOT happening).

The problem in Sing Chew's marxist (maoist?) theory lies in the very same old determinist scheme classic marxism. Here's this excerpt from a book review that expresses it well:

Some of the more intricate details of Chew's explanation raise questions, however, such as the parallel drawn between the polis and the medieval manor and monastery. We are to view these as "simplified and self sustaining'' institutions that took shape during periods of system restoration and recovery. Medieval monasteries, Chew notes, appear to have had much in common with late-twentieth-century bioregional communities, "organized around self-sustaining organized principles of living within the contours and limits of the landscape" (p. 165, n. 5). Religion as a shaping force of early medieval monasticism-or alternatively, spirituality or devotion-is not addressed here at all; rather, medieval monks are described as members of communes whose primary concern was to live a sustainable existence in their natural environments. While it is true that early Benedictines sought to avoid secular influences, this had less to do with nature, or a commitment to sustainable living (whether driven by necessity or spiritual inclination) than it did with the belief that worldliness inhibited man from becoming closer to God. In addition, the secular influences Benedictine monks sought to avoid proved unavoidable, and early on.
Donations of land and other items were accepted by monasteries, and labor in various forms was required to manage an expanding monastic economy. To characterize medieval monasteries as "islands surrounded by seas of socioeconomic changes" (p. 165, n. 5) is to disregard some of these critical connections between the monastery and the secular world outside. Thus, while the medieval manor indeed served as an effective unit of local government, the emergence and proliferation of monasteries during this period cannot be adequately explained within confines of this ecological model.

Communities obviously aren't driven by external ecological/economic factors, but their perception of the latter might be a major component of their driving narratives. People are either driven by ideas or in the failure/absence of these narratives, by economic necessities to whatever works out of the box.

I have seen many cults around here that weren't far remote from Medieval monasteries. The thing is that these cults never really evolved into being more than just the "Monastery", and also their politics were more a factor in keeping the "seculars" away than driving them in. In a Mad Max kinda of collapsing world (let's NEVER underestimate the Mad Max films -the first and last one, especially- a cinematic postmodern take on our world!), that would be like Chew's new Dark Age, these cults when still around, would perhaps appear as last resorts for sustaining life, at the high expenses of submitting to their terrible arbitrary rules, especially to their alpha males in charge...

So I can't see these resorts as any good option for those like anarchists who want a better world out of themselves and others. And that's why anarchists should better understand the importance of starting their own "monasteries" that seek autonomy from the dominant system, and trust each other into it. Collapse or not, you don't want actual NeoFeudal barbaric CHUD communes to be your remaining solution.