Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stagn2 wrote (edited )

I liked it very much so I don't want to denigrate but add some considerations, and I state that I may have misunderstood something.

I think the distinction between green anarchy and anti-civ still makes sense. Within anti-civ there is not only green anarchy but there are some "individualist\ insurrectionalist".
Despite the points of contact and well successful "hybrids" (look at flower bomb) the distinction for me still makes sense.

To take an extreme but significant example subversive anti-civilization groups like the "Informal Anarchist Federation" don't have much to do "anarcho-primitivism" or rewilding, but they are clearly anti-civ, for when I distance myself strongly from their actions, they should be not ignored or excluded! https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-cospito-from-the-belly-of-the-leviathan

In Europe I think the dynamics are a little different . Here most of the anti-left, anti-technology and anti-civilization criticism comes from the insurrectionist\individualist perspective.
Furthermore the Anarcho-leftists have always had this hostility towards not-leftists. (regardless of Bookchin)
And let's not deny that this "hostility" is mutual, in fact the anti-civ anarchist would hate the anarcho-leftists regardless.

5

ziq OP wrote

flower bomb is anti-civ like me, they're not trying to be a hybrid between green anarchy and red anarchy as far as i can tell.

i think all green anarchy is what you call 'individualist': anti-civ/primitivist, green nihilist and post-civ are all anti-civilization and so are anti-mass society / work / industrialism - that falls under individualist anarchy rather than social anarchism if you're going to make the distinction

Here most of the anti-left, anti-technology and anti-civilization criticism comes from the insurrectionist\individualist perspective.

it's the same everywhere, i'm not an american but american green anarchists are also insurrectionist/individualist.

Furthermore the Anarcho-leftists have always had this hostility towards not-leftists. (regardless of Bookchin)

yeah emma goldman got a lot of hate for her nihilist views and for not supporting the soviet union

And let's not deny that this "hostility" is mutual, in fact the anti-civ anarchist would hate the anarcho-leftists regardless.

anti-civs don't try to claim ancoms are fascists and seize their books / punch them at events tho

7

stagn2 wrote

I meant between a hybrid between insurrectional/nihilist and green.

Anti-civ is a very broad term for all those anarchist perspectives hostile to civilization and I do not consider them homogeneous, but I also do not consider them separate monoliths, in fact they influence each other and there is no line separating them. To bring an example of "perfect mixture," I cited flower bomb.

Ther are some who are anti-civ but not primitivists.
But the fact that Henry David Thoreau and Renzo Novatore are both anti-civ does not mean that Novatore can be called a primitivist anarchist, Or that Thoreau cannot be considered anti-civ because he is a pacifist.

While being both anarcho primitivism and anarcho nihilism anti-civ both would not make sense to call "blessed is the flame" an anarcho primitivist book.

5