Review of Desert

The text Desert is a much needed intervention to the traditional assumption that Civilization (Domesticator logic) is on the brink of collapse. Or, at least, it demonstrates that it is probably not the case that this will happen in the way that it is often projected. 

Green Anarchism is revolutionary in the sense that it supposes that only after this projected moment in time, the Revolution will have commenced. Green anarchy gestures at a different position, a whatever becoming, fully nihilist; and the text is more in line with this trajectory: predictably it is not that Civilization will of necessity crumble, as though this is written in stone--a point that parallels the awkwardness of presuming that the Revolution is likely if only mass expropriation were to come into play; it is in part that Civilization's leave geographical deserts in their wake; and that these places permit the possibility of anarchies outside the shitty city walls.--Obviously with little surplus to extract, capitalists move on to extract elsewhere. 

The other part is that many will not feel the call of wild insurrection because many do not dislike domestication, just as many will not feel the call of zero work because they like their things and are willing to work to forestall boredom. 

So, it is not impossible that the general argument is enthymemic. The conclusion is to give up hope in a full scale collapse, to Desert this myth; to forget trying to save the earth because 1]: it is in the interests of civilization to move--that is, it uses everything until there is nothing left that it can use without losing reasonable surplus, and because 2]: there are many individual responses to domestication logic (some like it, for fucks sake). 

It seems clear that 2] undermines the view that insurrection is inevitable--a healthy tonic for deluded anarchists. The qualification here is that sometimes this will come about. Hence, the suggestion from the author is for strategic solidarity with indigenous communities because, in those contexts, there are far fewer contradictions for green anarchy. The memories of times past are likely all that can wake the sick to health; and as proximate one is to these moments, one is ready to become resistant (Desert, 42). In other words, indigenous communities (warrior societies especially) are already resisting because they see domesticator logic as problematic, as contradictory--just as we do. 

To support the first premise it is important to see that states are not subjects, but fully intertwined in our ways of being (Desert: 47-8): Work-Consumption-Repeat-Reproduce. This is the machine logic that we must break out from under, and failure to address its operation(s), which do not fail to include a data-collecting apparatus by which we already snitch on ourselves, is part of what it means to fail to understand (Deleuzian) post-structuralism. The state is an apparatus (a pervading function) that contains us by making us desire containment, by making containment seem safe, seem lovely. It is not something that we negotiate with, but is rather, already fully embodied (and emboldened) in the very idea of negotiation, et cetera.

It is important to fully understand the scope of this argument, which has everything to do with (1) and (2), and in particular, the question of hope. While the future looks bleak, (1) suggests that it is not completely impossible that anarchy would arise where civilization retracts. Therefore, the author is not advocating giving up totally, despite the rhetoric; but is suggesting, rather, an understanding, a wisdom about how one is to proceed. Be skeptical of mythmakers! It is suggested that our desires, say, for land defense, would be most strategic, most promising, if it is largely piecemeal, in small affinity groups (Desert, 52-3), and coupled with the goal of winning, as opposed to negotiating for a future possibility. It is not fighting for the future, some distant time, but opening doors that lead to better possibilities, that thereby constitute the future already. If one desires a better world, one must eschew myths of a future kind, and focus on the present reality: in finding each other, and (so) ways to resist, while being somewhat invisible; in finding others already in the thick of it, and seeing where these desires might carry. In technical terms, this is a deflationary argument that lops the head off the empty promise of a glorious future and focuses on how one can build the present. It is pragmatic, therefore; even to the point of accepting that some unifying myths might be ok... they just need to be the right, useful, kind (Desert, 43). And if it is still believed that the author is completely without hope, consider the small section 'Nature bats last' where the author admits that even though those that are extinct and becoming extinct, are no more and will not come back, there is still "solace" in the view that the wild will recover (Desert, 44). It is important to note that the quality of recovery may not be premised on the idea of Relics (Desert, 37ff)  being saved. Whatever is to come, which will not meet our hopes for pristine nature (pr)eserves, will nevertheless be not us (undomesticated Weeds) (Desert, 39).

Perhaps it would be suggested that this is defeatist. But I think it is important to realize that we are weak; that we still have to build power against a powerful enemy. Given (1) it is not only that we haven't the might to make right, but also, further, that we cannot even localize the enemy, and further (because also), often it is already mirrored in ourselves. This is best pointed out in the section on defending the Relics, which seems likely only if state-power is leveraged--which is obviously contradictory for green anarchists. Again, to repeat, one best hope for land defense, is indigenous solidarity. But even if we stave off domestication (whatever this means in this context), it doesn't follow that everyone will see this as desirable (given (2)). 

To accept individual liberty means that many will resist our utopia; to not be stupid about power is to see that many will find it easier to fall in line. Given remote memories of uncolonized living, for many of us, it is likely that so long as there are things to ruin, and the sky is the limit (literally), there will be civilization. Having exposed this emperor as having no clothes, the author suggests that we go about carving out spaces for ourselves, for our desires; we can go about building lives worth living.

What is lovely about this text is that it reveals itself as honest and burdened. In the end, however, the text seems rather trivial, hardly new--and the author notes this (Desert 55). Most importantly, however, this text helps clarify a concept in use, and therefore detached from its author (John Zerzan). This concept is "active nihilism", originally defined in 'the nihilist's dictionary' (Future Primitive or Future Primitive Revisited), and then recently redescribed by the same author in his popular "On Hope". It is suggested that Desert be read with an eye on what active nihilism might mean, within (or outside) these boundaries.