Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mindforgedmanacles wrote

I really wish that leftoids could make a clean break with their devotion to the myth of Progress and techno-optimism. It's sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people fall prey to these dangerous ideals.

5

Esperaux OP wrote

Yeah preserving breakthroughs like cancer treatment and methods of producing drinkable water are totally dangerous ideals. I am convinced that I must get rid of my phone and instead live a life of picking berries and essential oils.

0

mindforgedmanacles wrote

Believe it or not, I'm actually not against cancer treatments or water treatment, despite your stereotypes about my character. I would likely be dead without SSRIs (for better or worse), and have several friends who would die without modern medicine.

What I'm moreso opposed to is an "ecological" movement that mistakes genuinely sustainable ways of living here on Earth with sprawling cityscapes teeming with glass and steel arcologies, and presumably immense mining operations and the further domestication of wild places for its energy needs.

That isn't to say that I'm even against technologies like windmills or photovoltaic panels, moreso I'm against the supply chain process by which they're mined, refined, shipped and maintained, as well as the immense sizes their arrays would need (due to the lower EROI of passive energy sources). Not everyone who criticizes these things is an anti-science hippie.

8

Kinshavo wrote

Unfortunately they are not interested in an honest debate.. and the chances are they will be one of the hegemonic tendencies in the left and anarchism bc it's an easy pill to swallow believin in bright magical solutions for clean energy and social harmony. I can see transhumanism growing with these same arguments.

It's hard to deal with the terrible idea of living this nightmare without devoting oneself to the heroic rescue of the Civilization and Humankind. And many leftists and anarchists have martyr ideations, so...

5

ziq wrote

They're not an anarchist, they're a communalist / democratic marxist who does non stop entryism in anarchist spaces.

5

Kinshavo wrote

Maybe Op already downvoted you bc my upvote is not counting xD...

Usually I don't mind the breadtube posts, I just ignore them. The Bookchin stuff? Sometimes I fancy myself going through the text just to see if they really have a new point, but I am a slow reader and have tons of other stuff to read.

Here the entryism will find almost no audience, the problem is the new anarchist from reddit they embrace this discourse better than the position we usually discuss here. Nihilism or Pessimism is not about surrender yourself, but letting go all the fantasies that don't help you and actually suck your energies to build your life

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Do you think I'm asking you to abandon your nihilism and pessimism and adopt the same outlook as others? Why do you feel so under attack by this I'm genuinely curious because you claim to want an open discussion then proceed to not allow any open discussion.

0

Kinshavo wrote

Probably we (you and me) share more views than we disagree on, but I distanced myself from any notion of organizational anarchism a long time ago (Especifismo, Platform, AnarCom blended with Marx, etc).. and I find Solarpunk a beautiful idea but a naive one. Not that this is a heavy criticism, maybe I am a big naive silly person..

I don't remember all your interactions here, overall I don't have any bad memories of any discussion here. I am saying what I said is linked to your disingenuous reply to mindforgemanacles. Maybe you think we all are unsophisticated filthy primmies.

Claiming that a critique to technoProgress myth on the left or Solarpunk optimism is ableist, or antiMedicine is a fallacy. You went out of your way to provoke a turn in the discussion.

4

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I would say I've gone the other way where I view organizational methods as extremely crucial to avoiding cooptation from authoritarian elements. Specifically platformism/especifismo which I personally see as more successful in actually concentrating and dispersing anarchist ideas in the modern age. Though I don't really claim any one form of organization or method is the only way to get things done. In the same sense you may call solarpunk naive I would say the same for anprim alternatives which tend to either rollback their stances on technology and effectively adopt a solarpunk stance without the label or simply oppose any form of technology and outright deny the needs and wants of other people in favor of a very narrow single-minded solution. However, I still respect a primitivist far more than I would a Marxist who spends their time treating Das Kapital like the bible.

I replied to that above comment in a disingenuous manner because they responded in what I assumed was a disingenuous manner if that's your concern. I saw that they cleared up the fact they are not simply saying they hate any form of technology.

It also very much isn't a fallacy if we are talking in terms of primitivism when discussing things like cancer treatment. From my understanding anticiv is not necessarily primitivist so it would be a fallacy on my part to criticize it on that basis. However, with specifically primitivism you simply can't have the facilities and treatments for something like cancer be functionally produced within such a society. If you have any point that may say otherwise in regards to primitivism I'm more than open to listen though.

1

Kinshavo wrote

All the things you said are very reasonable, and I can agree with almost everything despite my personal beliefs. The only thing is coming at Raddle and don't expect people to react to generic leftist stuff in th way we usually react.. time to time receive some trolls and etc, so understandable.

You seen to be active in reddit as well, I didn't looked deeper on all the references that ziq brought but when we react to what we perceive as entryism, there is no way we can say if the other part is being ironic, troll or disruptive. What are the motives to came here and fight a fictional version of what people think Raddle is (or ziq, bc some people don't understand the difference)... We still have different ideologies among the userbase here, not only postleft primitivism (although I doubt we really have a Anarchoprimitivist here).

We are simply in different camps, you think organization is crucial to develop any meaningful strong movement and I don't wanna here about it, and I have my motives, they don't make my position any less bc of it, just make this my position. I am sorry if you felt disrespected bc of this.

My critiques about the current solarpunk is what I perceive that permeates breadtube and reddit, I could be wrong tho. And possibly there are lots of liberals already co-opting the idea, leaving only this empty shell devoid of meaningful proposals (like the two manifestos that I see circulating are very empty besides the abstractions around the aesthetics). And another thing is how solarpunk is posed as an alternative to a more pessimistic view about the degradation of the environment to sustain human life, and obviously we are treated as defeatists in this point bc we disagree in a "solution" for this problem could be attained through political methods. Here comes the postleft and nihilist critique to any of the old leftist myth of revolution, or salvation in the future (not in the now).

From all the accusations thrown at anprims, maybe this medical one is the one most repeated. The thing here is just a difference of moral values, probably the people who say stuff like that expect the progress of medicine to eradicate all diseases (including aging?). We treat this argument as if the world already have full medical treatment available for all, the only thing preventing it is Capitalism. From my perspective what primitivism tries to do an u turn in the current scenario, even if the argument that modern civilization is the root of many diseases holds, the ethical frame of primitivism is not the same as what leftism thinks it should be. There are differences regarding death, life, ability, health and etc. Primitivism deals with the current industrial nightmare, expecting any other optic from them is creating a distorted factoid to be interpreted in bad faith.

Personally (probably a very unpopular opinion) I expect a reconciliation of any anprim idea of primitivism and biohacking, but this is an idea from someone that don't understand any of those two sides.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

Well I appreciate that you do seem to actually desire an honest and open discussion along with giving a healthy critique from your own perspective. I'd say my main confusion is that I am still unsure if there are different anticivs besides anprims or if all anticivs are technically primitivism. Since I tend to also see a lot of anprims advocate luddism and cite Ted Kazynski who last I checked disagreed with the idea of work being able to be abolished under a primitivist lifestyle. The main two anprims I tend to run into either embrace the use and production of certain technologies such as medical treatment just not under the capitalist mode of production which is very onboard with a lot of solarpunk perspectives and the type that outright reject any technology who tend to support shaky alternative medicines. Obviously this factors into what I'm trying to say with individuals being much more complex than labels given since no single person will really have the same exact views on a subject.

I do definitely agree with the outlook however that capitalism prevents everyone from actually having available treatment. Though I would say a case can be made that medical technology does improve overtime or at least become better refined. Constant research in the field of cancer treatment has been able to better increase our understanding of cancer and how to deal with it. Improvements in earlier detection and treatment has led to an improvement in five-year survival rates. Or for example Brain surgery as well has definitely seen useful improvements leading to it being less invasive and with better methods that can spare more healthy tissue. I don't think things just naturally progress but I do think people overtime are capable of learning and sharing new things. Now obviously for anprims that are not opposed to these types of treatments and technologies I have no problem with. Though at least for me to visualize how a primitivist society would produce and utilize such technologies it seems like they'd operate under the same mode of production that solarpunk types tend to advocate.

Solar punk types aren't simply advocating collectivized industrialism either which I assume is the main impression given when they say the word technology. Again I'd say there is a lot of agreement to be found with issues like how our current society is structured and how that does indeed factor into how we get so many diseases and health problems. Any liberal assuming that something like solar punk or social ecology entails just replacing their roofs with solar panels and placing more plants in skyscrapers is severely mistaken. In order to be sustainable we have to completely rethink the economic side of production, the very way cities/buildings are designed, how technology is designed/utilized, or how we can best meet the immediate needs of our local regions from a diversity of methods for energy production or simply reducing our use of energy altogether in favor of better sustainable methods. LIke primitivism too though you will find different individuals who will have their own perspectives and views as well though.

Obivously there's a lot more to discuss because I personally do see similarities between a lot of these ideas. Usually when I see communities only looking at and repeating their own sources it reminds me of how in leftcom communities they tend to regurgitate and recycle every little piece of text or quote from Marx they can find in an endless feedback loop. This is why despite my stance on the need for more specific organizations on the ground there still needs to be more open discussion and willingness to incorporate and learn from other perspectives. This is also important too since many people I have worked with in reality tend to not even hold any specific ideology or fall under any specific label. Most people are simply tired and struggling who are first and foremost interested in fulfilling their immediate situation before anything else. Which is why I personally think it is so easy for some people to turn to the comfort and security of totalitarian types who take advantage of these people's very dissatisfaction and issues.

2

Kinshavo wrote

I am still unsure if there are different anticivs besides anprims or if all anticivs are technically primitivism.

No, not all AntiCiv critique or theory is Primitivist or Anarchoprimitivist, Actually I think that the minority of the current Anticiv and even what some call PostCiv critique (speaking for myself, I found no real differences between post and anti despite of the people who uses PostCiv want to distance themselves from "Primitivism influence"). And like I said earlier, I doubt any of the users here are AnpRims. Maybe the forest dweller user that leave their cabin every six months.

But maybe you won't find the other AntiCiv stuff appealing since they reject many ideas cherished by social anarchism.

A short text can be found at @library: "The Rising of the Barbarians: A Non-Primitivist Revolt Against Civilization" .

Uncle Ted and Luddites are not an unanimity. If I am not mistaken he is more close to Maoism now ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Many people here (including myself) will adopt a Luddite instance over the obvious problems technology can pose, not all the time we will be 100% considerate of the implications of such statements. I doubt anyone here stopped using phones or computers after engaging in some Luddite circle jerk. And that's ok, like other spaces we have our moments, this is a space for conviviality not hard praxis, and so on. Uncle Ted himself got much from Jacques Ellul a french Anarcho Christian philosopher.

I am not against Solarpunk as a movement, but I fear that it can be easily coopted by liberals and whitewashed into a big PR stunt for big Kapital. And I don't see Solarpunk as opposing Primitivism, I see Solarpunk being the opposite of Nihilism and the Nihilistic approach to Insurection.

The problem of medicine and Primitivism is tricky, people assume that Primitivism is inherently transphobic (for denying the opportunity of meds for people) and ableist (for a perceived non consideration of the diverse needs that people have). I can say this is not the case, but then we will go to a different discussion where we will question trans and queer core values and ability and human bodies/biology. This is not a settled issue even from a Primitivist perspective.

And to be honest, internet is not the best medium to have a good talk for opposing views. We don't have eye to eye, face expressions, word intonation etc.

I probably have more friends like you IRL than I have AntiCiv people in my entire life, and when we come to discuss these issues I find that we have more in common than differences, but we do have different views on important topics, this is not a reason for me to stop supporting them IRL and vice versa. With organizations and groups this became a different issue.

4

Esperaux OP wrote

Thanks for the suggested source. I think my main information on anticiv mainly comes from "Take What You Need and Compost The Rest" which at many points seems to be very much in line with solarpunk perspectives. I genuinely think the so called divide between solarpunk and anticiv mainly comes through miscommunications and a clash of optimistic and pessimistic personalities. I think the above video is actually a very good introductory into this.

Also Ted started leaning towards Maoism now? I think last I heard through someone having mail correspondence with them that they became more vocally critical of eco nationalists at least.

I think it is fair to say solarpunk has its risks with cooptation just as much as anticiv or any other nature movement can in regards to more unhelpful movements.

Also on the transphobia and ablelism accusations on primitivism I think folk like Zerzan came out in opposition to transphobia. With a lot of the discussion being more around the overall abolition of gender. Though I have noticed in my own interactions there are indeed people who use the disguise of primitivism to mask the fact they simply embrace the return to tradition narrative.

Also yes I agree internet is extremely horrible for discussing opposing views. On the ground discussion is definitely a lot more productive or at least voice discussions. It's hard for me to read people through online discussion so I could very much be misunderstanding the overall intentions people may have. I would like to specifically state however my intention overall is not to attack anticivs. A lot of terminology I use may also give off the wrong impression but to try and be as specific as possible my overall stance is that I think solarpunk and anticiv are not as different as they are made out to be, that primitivism would exist under the communist mode of production with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and that simply collectivizing the means of production is collectivist not communist. I also think social ecology is indeed a valuable concept to apply to anarchistic principles since it highlights the importance of how we structure ourselves and how that reflects onto how we interpret and treat the environment around us.

2

ziq wrote

my main information on anticiv mainly comes from "Take What You Need and Compost The Rest"

That's postciv

4

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Oh I didn't know that. I actually just checked and funnily enough saw you provided a previous explanation on the difference between the two too. So would it be safe to describe post civ as the non-primitivist anticiv approach? If that is the case too would post civ not be similar to solarpunk types advocating not just simply current society but with solar panels but actively rethinking how we view ourselves in terms of things like production, consumption, and organization? I apologize in advance if I have been bugging you on about this I don't mean to just hassle you for every little thing but I am trying to do better to listen and learn from others when possible.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

btw if you're looking at old threads from 3-4 years ago where i (ziq) talked about postciv, you should know my defasher user account was a lot more honest about my actual politics at that time. the ziq account was my nice welcome to raddle fluffy admin account (so it promoted postciv) while defasher was more unrestrained and unapologetically anticiv.

when raddle was new i tried to be nice to leftists and even tankies so they wouldn't shun me (and by extension, raddle) for being a green nihilist, but i no longer care to cater to people who would march me to the wall at the first opportunity

4

Esperaux OP wrote

Understandable. I don't think anything good really comes from aligning with or making Stalinist/Maoist types feel welcome. Often it just leads to any critique of their idols becoming a controversial topic.

Also thanks for the more in depth explanation on postciv and anticiv. I think a majority of so-called socialists also tend to preserve aspects of capitalism which is why when I refer to communism I mean in terms of the mode of production which I feel helps more inclusively describes a way of living that anprims also describe. Production merely being collectivized I think best describes things like Marxist-leninism or anarcho collectivism which don't actually address systemic factors that lead to the exploitation of individuals and nature. Such solutions merely place the hell of capitalism on the boss and not the existence of the firm itself. Which if I'm not mistaken anprims better describe this relation as simply collectivized industrialism? Again that's just the terminology that I use from my own influences it also doesn't help that my previous influences do partly come from leftcoms who I've come to heavily disagree with.

1

ziq wrote

postciv is green anarchy for people who feel the need to kowtow to reds. it's like demsoc vs communism or communalism vs anarchy. it's non-offensive, watered down and unprincipled. but at least they won't be called primmies by commies

primitivism is one form of anticiv among many

yes postciv is like solarpunk

3

Kinshavo wrote

I am sorry, I will come back to you with the attention your point require.

Maybe I react out of emotion when I saw your response to Mindforgemanacles, it's hard to deal out all the bulshit they say about primitivism and AntiCiv here in Raddle where we supposed to have a better environment for this kindof discussion.

Sorry to call you a troll and everything

2

Esperaux OP wrote

I've repeatedly said Marx retains and promotes authoritarian and centralizing tendencies. I don't know why you're so keen on trying to mislabel or misrepresent me.

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

https://old.reddit.com/r/LibertarianMarxist/comments/q2b54b/we_are_fearful_indigenous_mexicans_dread_new/

so that's not you?

https://old.reddit.com/r/TOTALCOMMUNALISM/comments/q2abaw/calvin_says/

https://old.reddit.com/r/Communalists/comments/omm4zn/a_peoples_guide_to_capitalism_hadas_thier_with/

https://old.reddit.com/r/Communalists/comments/osxqoo/history_of_ethics/

and that?

https://old.reddit.com/r/AnarchoBooks/comments/pahddr/murray_bookchins_the_ecology_of_freedom_with/ha4yhfc/

or here where you specifically acknowledge bookchin's marxist elements?

Bookchin and libertarian municipalism is incorporated with him mixing with more Marxist aspects. The result being neither anarchist nor Marxist

or further in that thread where you claim marxism and anarchy are compatible after someone points out Bookchin wasn't an anarchist?

Murray Bookchin didn't necessarily stop being anarchist but decided to try and retain his Marxist views alongside anarchism

marxism-bookchinism isn't anarchy, he very openly promoted authority

he states time and time again that he wasn't an anarchist and didn't support anarchy

which makes you an entryist for claiming otherwise

4

Esperaux OP wrote

My perspective on this is that ideas never stay in the same permanent state. Yes absolutely there are parts of Marxism and what Murray Bookchin espouses not compatible with other anarchist perspectives. However, that doesn't mean you just discard absolutely everything said by any group. It's important to learn from all different elements and perspectives in order to build your own worldview as an individual. I don't think it's constructive to place any one individual under a simple label and just make assumptions of their entire worldview based on that label. For example we can look at how Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives. Both pointing towards how the issue of nature extends into social relationships such as how we structure ourselves and treat other people. Obviously his works aren't flawless but that doesn't mean it's worthless. When it comes to Marx, it's very obvious his own outlooks come from that of someone who supports centralization and authoritarianism. However we can look at key parts such as what Marx describes as commodity production and from there what drives the logic of growth for the sake of growth under capitalism. This is especially useful I think you of all people would agree with since it serves to critique the market socialist perspective of us simply adopting a worker cooperative society where the means of production are merely collectivized. I think we can both agree however this doesn't actually bring any meaningful changes however to issues like the coercion of work itself and the drive for constant extraction and exploitation of resources. Obviously I should do a better job describing my own views better however if I present myself otherwise. I simply think it's worthwhile to read from the works of others and see what can be compatible and what is not compatible instead of narrowly focusing on one single ideological solution and convincing myself it is the only perspective.

−1

ziq wrote

Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives.

You don't understand anticiv. Bookchin's ideas are not anticiv in any way when his solutions all come down to "more civ". If anything, he's demonized and smeared anticiv ideas more than any single individual in history.

But this continued doublespeak is why you're an entryist. No better than Leninists telling us Lenin is extremely compatible with anarchy, as they do.

5

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? What parts do you see as specifically advocating more civilization in this sense? When I hear the word civilization it seems to be used in two ways. Civilization is either simply just used synonymously with technological society or used as a term to create an outgroup of uncivilized people who are then subjected to brutal conditions until they fall in line with the lifestyle of their oppressors. I personally think civilization tends to be a pretty vague label overall since it's either used broadly or simply in a more racist manner.

Bookchin's earlier writings especially tend to be more centered around his departure from Trotskyism and centered around the discussion of how hierarchical relationships develop and how they factor into our treatment of nature. Mainly through the theme of the domination of nature by human coming from the domination of human by human. He did incorporate many perspectives from folk such as Bakunin, Malatesta, and Kropotkin for example though.

Bookchin later on however did eventually distance himself from anarchism due to his bickering mainly with people like Bob Black who I think also has very good points as well especially with what he had to say in regards to the abolition of work. Bookchin eventually reincorporated Marxist elements with anarchist elements leading to communalism which isn't really either Marxist or anarchist. Though people who call themselves communalist tend to be much more open to critiquing structures of power and embracing decentralization.

I think Bookchin was far from flawless though there are elements I think that are worthwhile to read into. I don't think reading a book means someone has to adopt all the positions involved I think people should think for themselves and see what elements apply in their current lives and issues. I don't exclusively read or take influence from Bookchin I try to look into various other works and how they can relate to each other. Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism. At least again in his earlier works it seems as if his main hostility was aimed more towards people who inform their treatment of nature through mysticism. My present concern though is mainly seeing what variety of ideas may seem compatible or touch on similar points which can also help when trying to find common ground with people irl I'm not interested in proving if he belongs in some anarchist hall of fame or not.

0

ziq wrote

Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism

Uh he literally called us fascists. Maybe you need to read more Bookchin.

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? 

Don't pretend civilization isn't already clearly defined in anarchist theory in thousands of texts. My definition doesn't stray from the standard definition. Your wanting to pretend these simple words with crystal clear definitions are somehow up in the air and that maybe red and green and hierarchy and anarchy are the same thing is again, entryism.

Of all the places to do entryism, this is the one place where you won't succeed because I'll call it what it is every time.

2

Esperaux OP wrote

Yeah I would very much like to see where Bookchin specifically called anti civs fascists. Maybe I didn't read that portion. I do know however he early on argued against neo malthusian outlooks which he saw as eco fascist. Also a lot of times many of the people lobbing accusations of eco fascism towards anti civ types tend to specifically mean groups like ITS or types who take influence from books like Atassa which I personally do understand that these do not represent anticiv views even though they are often confused as such.

Also I'm asking you to give me your definition of civilization so that I'm not misunderstanding your own position or what you are specifically critiquing. I provided my own explanation for what I personally view and see as what civilization may mean. Last I checked theorists like Malatesta, Goldman, or Berkman didn't really discuss civilization or some like Kropotkin gave a pretty loose usage of the term civilization. I don't think I've even seen it clearly defined in works like Desert then again it's been awhile which is again why I am asking you to tell me how you define civilization.

Also entryism tends to refer to the encouragement of members to join larger groups to expand influence. I don't encourage any specific group to interact in this community. I interact with different online and offline groups on my own time I guess but I've repeatedly stated I think there needs to be groups specifically geared towards and unified around a set of goals and ideas instead of simply being spread out and made to work within other organizations. I just go online every now and then and share content I think is interesting or that I am personally exploring.

1

ziq wrote

You're seriously going to make me quote your guy to you? k, i've got time to kill.

this is all from his prototypical attack on all 'individualists', but especially anticivs ("primitivists") who he mentions more than any other current in the essay

First he establishes that the 'lifestyle anarchists' he's writing the essay to smear are anti civilization and individualistic:

More recent works on lifestyle anarchism generally sidestep Stirner’s sovereign, all-encompassing ‘I,’ albeit retaining its egocentric emphasis, and tend toward existentialism, recycled Situationism, Buddhism, Taoism, antirationalism, and primitivism — or, quite ecumenically, all of them in various permutations. Their commonalities, as we shall see, are redolent of a prelapsarian return to an original, often diffuse, and even petulantly infantile ego that ostensibly precedes history, civilization, and a sophisticated technology — possibly language itself — and they have nourished more than one reactionary political ideology over the past century. [...]

He continues to strawman us all through the essay, again very specifically singling out anticivs, nihilists, egoists and insurrectionists:

...the shift among Euro-American anarchists away from social anarchism and toward individualist or lifestyle anarchism. Indeed, lifestyle anarchism today is finding its principal expression in spray-can graffiti, post-modernist nihilism, antirationalism, neoprimitivism, anti-technologism, neo-Situationist ‘cultural terrorism,’ mysticism, and a ‘practice’ of staging Foucauldian ‘personal insurrections.’[...]

He goes on to equate our individualism with hierarchy and fascism:

In its amoralism, this elitism easily lends itself to the unfreedom of the ‘masses’ by ultimately placing them in the custody of the ‘unique ones,’ a logic that may yield a leadership principle characteristic of fascist ideology

He again equates us with fascists:

Social anarchism is radically at odds with anarchism focused on lifestyle, neo-Situationist paeans to ecstasy, and the sovereignty of the ever-shriveling petty-bourgeois ego. The two diverge completely in their defining principles — socialism or individualism. Between a committed revolutionary body of ideas and practice, on the one hand, and a vagrant yearning for privatistic ecstasy and self-realization on the other, there can be no commonality. Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents.

I could keep quoting all night but..

keep sealioning, entryist.

5

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from and thanks for providing the proper context. This definitely reads out in a manner that can be used as ammunition to strawman anprim and anticiv positions. I don't really see individualism and collectivism as natural opposites personally. Though this seems to come out of an already existing argument between the so called "social"anarchist current and the "individualist" anarchist current. Such as earlier debates that arose during Malatesta's time between organizationalists and anti organizationalists.

I notice in the quoted paragraphs you provided Bookchin reference his disdain for things like Taoism which I find has many interesting influences to learn from. Though this is definitely consistent with his earlier hostility towards anything he saw as "mysticism". His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things. Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist? Also in terms of anti technologism it's clear that not all anticivs see all forms of technology as needing to be destroyed. I don't agree with Murray Bookchin's overall critique of what he calls lifestyle anarchism but I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

"Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents."

For example this part sticks out the most to me because this seems to be fairly descriptive of things like the modern libertarian movement in the United States. They promote themselves on this hyper individualistic outlook going on to rebrand capitalism as a form of individualism. Yet rightwing libertarian communities tend to hold a strange relationship with white nationalist or even outright fascists.

Again I don't personally agree with Bookchin's framing of anarchism either being only organization or lifestyle. I also agree a number of these points are indeed used to strawman anticivs who are lumped in with this critique. Though I don't think this is here to specifically call anticivs fascists but rather influences that come out in relation to these currents. Again this can be seen with groups like ITS or readings like Atassa which again I understand are not anticiv representative even though many people use these as representation of their positions.

0

ziq wrote

His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things.

everything that doesn't fall in line with his democratic Marxism is reactionary if the essay didn't make that clear. egoists, nihilists, anticivs, taoists, anyone who isn't a 'social anarchist', which he later expanded to anyone who isn't a bookchinist (communalist)

Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist?

rationalism, much like centrism, humanism and dialectical materialism, is just a handy tool for pseudo intellectual authoritarians and crypto-authoritarians (like bookchinists) to shame people who don't immediately fall in line with the safe status quo they're working hard to uphold

rationality is whatever most benefits the ideological worldview of the person who is dictating to others what is and isn't rational

see: bookchin's disgust for any spirituality, ideology or way of life that conflicts with his own

I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

repeatedly comparing 'lifestyle' anarchists to fascists, saying they end up embracing fascist and reactionary ideology is fash jacketing 101 and the only reason you won't admit it is because you're taken by his authoritative, scientific-sounding pratterings, while heavily internalizing his spiteful disdain for anarchy and then repeating it at every opportunity because it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways

anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best

3

Esperaux OP wrote

"anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best"

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

I've made my own personal views and nuances on this clear.I already said I don't agree entirely with Bookchin's positions. You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture. Also there's a difference between calling anprims inherently eco fascist and pointing out that there is indeed an issue where some inadvertently align with neo malthusian outlooks. Multiple times I have spoken with anprims who effectively embraced the ideology because of what they see as a moral decline in the West which they blame on any movement focused on improvements for minority groups within the current dominant system. Their interest is not liberation. Again however they are not representative of anticivs.

Also rationalism is a little more complex than simply dictating to other people what is right and wrong. It's one of many different manners of which people inform their own personal decisions. You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments when advocating anticiv positions yourself. Pointing towards issues like mass production and mass extraction. Weighing the odds of preserving a capitalist system to the necessities of embracing a post capitalist system. It also served as an influence in critiques of establishments like the churches. Prominently featured in Bakunin's earlier critiques of religion from an anarchistic perspective. Then again you aren't obligated to be a rationalist though I don't see where you're going with this. Communalists don't support the status quo. Social ecology as well which is apart from communalism doesn't support the status quo either.

"it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways"

Why do you keep trying to impose your own views and biases onto others? For someone so passionate about anarchism you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent. It's not one camp or the other when it comes to all these traits. Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits. When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you. I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen. DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something? You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state. If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have. It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

1

ziq wrote

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

My issue with Bookchin is that he's an authoritarian entryist who did more damage to anarchy in the 90s and 00s than any single individual. His ideology is hierarchical af as I outlined in my essay about communalism. The fash jacketing of anarchists was just a small part of his entryist project to convert ancoms to Marxist-Bookchinism.

People who read Bookchin and decide his ideas are good are not anarchists because his ideas are not anarchist. They're authoritarian. An involuntary hierarchical crypto-statist social system whose citizens are forbidden from breaking with it is authoritarian. People who adhere to communalism are thus authoritarians.

There is no nuance involved - either you embrace anarchy or you embrace authority. There is no in between. Anarchy isn't a pick and choose proposition. It's all or nothing. But you know that, all entryists know exactly what they're doing when they pretend anarchy is nuanced, debatable, undefined, open to interpretation.

You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture.

You can read all the books you want and no one said otherwise, stop strawmanning.

You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments

They're only rationalist if I proclaim them to be rationalist and I don't claim to be a rational person because that would create hierarchy over anyone I'd deem irrational by comparison. I don't fuse the language of authority into my opinions when I spout them because unlike Bookchin, I'm an anarchist.

Communalists don't support the status quo.

Industrialism is the status quo. Civilization and the city are the status quo. Authority and hierarchy are the status quo. Democracy is the status quo. Production and extraction are the status quo. Agriculture is the status quo. Leaders / councils / rulers are the status quo. They support the status quo.

you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner

Me telling you what I think of you is not authoritative. Me calling you an entryist is not authoritative. You trying to water down the meaning of words like authoritative by calling things authoritative that are not in any way authoritative is entryism designed to normalize and excuse actual authority by pretending that it's something else.

as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent.

You are my enemy because entryism is malicious and manipulative and ultimately sabotages anarchy. Not because you disagree with me.

Now please note that me calling you my enemy and other unkind things does not create authority because authority is not the act of voicing criticism of someone's politics on the internet. Authority is structural and coercive. I'm exerting no authority over you by voicing my objections to your politics in a public forum. Authority is not disagreement, it is not criticism, it is not cutting insults, it is authority.

Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits.

If any of those traits are willfully authority building, such as entryism, such as greenwashing, then those people are not my friends. I don't need to be friends with people who work to subvert anarchy. If you don't want me to 'impose' my views and biases on you, then stop fucking debating me.

When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you.

People who try to tell me anarchy is about building micro states and forcing the majority's will on the minority are going to get called out for their entryism whether they're irl or online. I don't pull punches.

I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen.

I've listened to your opinion and responded to it point by point, spent literal hours doing so, but keep playing.

DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something?

Once again, my problem with you is the constant entryism in anarchist spaces, not that you're a communalist. Be a communalist all you want, just don't pretend a communalist can also be an anarchist and don't present yourself as an anarchist to unsuspecting baby ancoms while advocating for authority.

You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state.

Some barely-disguised class reductionism you got going there, but you are a Bookchinist so I'm sure it's super rationalist.

If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have.

I should accept your Marxist entryism and Bookchin as my lord and savior because individuals are dehumanized? Pass. I'll stick with my 'buzzwords' or in non-entryist speak: my principles.

It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

Calling an anarcho-Marxist an entryist is divisive, sectarian and breaks left-unity. Yes.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

I'm not a marxist or a communalist lol. A lot of things I support and do would very much have Bookchin brand me a lifestylist. The only similarity to Marxism I have overall is the language I use when referring to modes of production. You repeatedly misrepresent my points and have no clue what positions I actually hold. Where have I ever said I support left unity or necessarily oppose sectarianism? I even specifically said I'm not here to defend Bookchin. I wasn't even here to attack anticiv positions. Also again there is a broad range of influences relating to Bookchin with communalism being one aspect. Social ecology is also another component that has over time evolved on its own past Bookchin. I don't deal with day to day shit just for some whiny ideologue to try and misrepresent me because god forbid I share solarpunk content that they seem to think is "greenwashing" since they've never actually done any research on it .Go do something better than being petty. We have a lot more in common overall than you think but you're repeatedly approaching this from a competitive domineering perspective and clearly not reading a single thing I type.

0

ziq wrote

I don't object to your solarpunk video, I didnt even watch it. I object to you saying bookchin and anticiv are "extremely compatible" and all the other entryist shit you say on reddit and raddle week after week. You are a marxist/communalist, your denials don't change that. The left unity jab is me mocking you for being a marxist-bookchinist who is sad that traditional marxists reject you.

4

Esperaux OP wrote

Not Bookchin's libertarian municipalism/ communalism specifically but when discussing aspects of how the way we structure our society and treat each other reflects onto our treatment of nature. Strictly in terms of discussions regarding social ecology. That kind of stuff.

I mean there is the following below quote from Ecology of Freedom in many respects I feel hits a similar mark that the book Desert was getting at too. I'm not here to prove Bookchin was an anarchist I don't agree with every little thing he has to say though I think there are still useful elements to read from.

""Civilization" as we know it today is more mute than the nature for which it professes to speak and more blind than the elemental forces it professes to control. Indeed, "civilization" lives in hatred of the world around it and in grim hatred of itself. Its gutted cities, wasted lands, poisoned air and water, and mean-spirited greed constitute a daily indictment of its odious immorality. A world so demeaned may well be beyond redemption, at least within the terms of its own institutional and ethical framework. The flames of Ragnarok purified the world of the Norsemen. The flames that threaten to engulf our planet may leave it hopelessly hostile to life-a dead witness to cosmic failure. If only because this planet's history, including its human history, has been so full of promise, hope, and creativity, it deserves a better fate than what seems to confront it in the years ahead."

1

JoeK wrote

Why are you even trying to reason with these cringe-inducing reactionaries? It's absolutely clear they have no interest in bettering society, they're even admitting to being primmies for christsake. These are people who want us to return to the stone age so they can club everyone weaker than them over the head and steal their furs. Giving them this much of your time is in no way helping. You can't get through to people who hate the world and want to watch it burn.

−4

Esperaux OP wrote

I wouldn't only be happy to have an honest debate but a simple honest discussion. However you're more interested in typing up a paragraph generalizing people and talking up your own ass. There is not a single social anarchist you will find that speaks of a truly perfect world where no one gets hurt in "social harmony". People and relationships are much more complex than that. Forms of conflicts not just in terms of violence but simple relationships would exist regardless even in the most cooperative of societies. It's been repeatedly admitted that we are imperfect beings. Where do you even get this idea that I support or even acknowledge civilization? What do you even mean heroic rescue? At the end of the day, people simply desire to improve the conditions they exist within you are no different. You're human too. Humans are part of nature. Don't try and pretend your needs, wants, and desires are any less human. There's nothing you'd gain both from the most social aspect or the most individual aspect of pretending what you advocate is any different in that regards. Also did you get the martyr ideations part from Mr. Kazynski's clownish manifesto? The person who's specialty was math, not psychology? Or was it from some other random source that claims to have finally figured out the mind and behavior of a broad group of people instead of actually addressing the ideas present?

−1

Kinshavo wrote

You are goin' out of way to saying stuff about me that I never said or insinuate. Maybe your need to pick fights with Raddle is bigger than your intentions.

I don't mind people espousing your opinions here, I find healthy even they engage in entryism later. But you my friend? Your mask is off, qnd that's why we don't feed trolls

4

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

"It's hard to deal with the terrible idea of living this nightmare without devoting oneself to the heroic rescue of the Civilization and Humankind. And many leftists and anarchists have martyr ideations, so..."

I was responding to this part basically but also this thread is a mess to navigate so I understand if there's also still misunderstanding. I tried responding as well to clear things up better over why I assumed the previous person was simply anti tech.

0

Esperaux OP wrote

Well respectfully speaking in the same sense that you don't oppose cancer treatment or water treatment I'd ask that you take the time to actually listen to what is actually being advocated by those who support solarpunk or a social ecologists approach in general. It's not simply giving cities, mines, and farms a new texture. In fact it very much is compatible with what self described anti civs also advocate. It involves a radical change to the very scale and rate of consumption/extraction from what we currently are used to under capitalism. This is done mainly through an immense emphasis on decentralization, diversity of methods, and addressing key systemic driving factors such as commodity production. I actually do respect your own position on the matter but I ask that you actually take the time to understand the perspective and similarities being presented from others too.

0

Sparkle wrote

Thanks for the OP, I apparently needed reminding of how toxic this place is to anyone who doesn't have the requisite religious technophobia. It's nice sometimes but damn do they love to have a go at anyone who steps one toe out of line on any issue. I wonder if the current posse spend all their free time (between posts trashing people for not wanting to live in mud huts or whatever) trashing themselves for ever touching a piece of tEcHnOlOgY. Maybe it's okay if they're violently ill the entire time they're doing it? I wonder if they'd accept "what if we try to do better without immediately killing off seven+ billion humans but we'll be vomming hard the entire time we're doing it?"

I assume I'm gonna get trashed regardless but I'd like to point out that this is a general frustration-post and not specific to this particular context. I just feel a little better putting it here because I can pretend I'm hiding behind your post when some cultist shows up to feed me my own spine for my blasphemy.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

for not wanting to live in mud huts or whatever

reds always with the casual racism disguised as morality

what if we try to do better without immediately killing off seven+ billion humans but we'll be vomming hard the entire time we're doing it?"

speaking of cultists, u seem to be confusing civilization (ongoing slavery, incarceration, hunger, poverty, war, disease, mass death) for anti-(all those things)

4

Kinshavo wrote

I dunno why you people think this site is a circle jerk for Anarchoprimitivist Luddites... We have plenty of people here working with computers, we have lotsa technophile subforums. And we are on the internet, it's not like we communicate with hand signs and secret meetings on caves.

Sometimes you have a need to take one user opinion as the whole site... If you want to be taken seriously knock off already with all the tired jokes about "filthy anprims"

3

ziq wrote

i am pretty fucking filthy. no water for a month will do that

3

Kinshavo wrote

The well thing? Jokes aside, being without fresh water is terrifying..

3

ziq wrote

i don't care about me so much, it's watching my trees die one by one that kills me

4

Esperaux OP wrote

I mean I think it's better to find an understanding between different people regardless. I can empathize since obviously there are genuine concerns to be voiced around things like medicine and quality of living which a few vocal types may oppose while some do not though there is definitely a lot more room to be had for nuance. I'm starting to think a lot of disagreements mainly stem from different definitions being used or the impression of there being only one single solution/outlook when dealing with broad complex problems. It's more useful to still remember everyone is concerned and passionate about very real present problems first and foremost.

1