Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq OP wrote

anything i missed? any ideas for improvements?

5

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Some thoughts:

This is pretty long. I think it would help readability to break it up into distinct sections with titles.
I don’t think this one is as tight as most of your other writing - a person reading it would have to have read more of your stuff to engage it because you deal with certain concepts quickly in a kind of hand-wavey way or without enough detail to make the reader have something concrete to work with.

I think it would be preferable to call green anarchism it a lifeway rather than a lifestyle. Beyond its meaning in anti-anarchist circles, for me it at least partially implies all aesthetic and no substance generally.

I don’t usually say that anti-civ has the same foundations and principles as AP, because AP is more of a positive project/program than anti-civ which I understand as primarily a set of critiques. Or have APs moved away from having political programs?

I would say Kaczynski is an influence on green anarchists, even though we find him later in the section when you talk about non-anarchists who have made problems for green anarchy.

I would add extractivism to the list here “These interrelated philosophies together form a strong critique of”, since for me it’s possibly the most compelling way to frame anticiv arguments.

You say that light greens’ “attempts to appropriate the green label from anti-civs have no real desire to address the devastating consequences […]” It would be useful to add something that demonstrates that, because readers aren’t working with much that is concrete at this stage. Similarly, concrete examples of how they are managery and programmistic would be helpful when you bring them up.

Some people reading will not know that “Individuals Tending Towards the Wild” is the same as ITS.

For my reference, I stopped at ‘brainworms’ because I’m out of energy for tonight, but if this was useful for you I could try to continue later.

11

ziq OP wrote (edited )

titles

added

without enough detail to make the reader have something concrete to work with

wouldn't that make it even longer through? it's already longer than i'd like

I think it would be preferable to call green anarchism it a lifeway rather than a lifestyle

i've never used that word before but i'll trust your instinct and change it

I don’t usually say that anti-civ has the same foundations and principles as AP, because AP is more of a positive project/program than anti-civ which I understand as primarily a set of critiques. Or have APs moved away from having political programs?

the primitivist primer seems to make clear that it's a critique and not a program and moore heavily bases that text on perlman's initial text. do you have quotes that contradict that?

I would say Kaczynski is an influence on green anarchists, even though we find him later in the section when you talk about non-anarchists who have made problems for green anarchy.

i guess i can add a line saying some anti-civs are influenced by him since when he was the anonymous unabomber at least one of his notes claimed he was an anarchist (even though i don't think he knew what anarchy was at that point in his life)

edit: "While it’s true some anti-civ anarchists have been influenced by a select few of his better ideas, that’s not enough to weigh us down with all his bad ones."

I would add extractivism to the list here “These interrelated philosophies together form a strong critique of”, since for me it’s possibly the most compelling way to frame anticiv arguments.

ok will add

You say that light greens’ “attempts to appropriate the green label from anti-civs have no real desire to address the devastating consequences […]” It would be useful to add something that demonstrates that, because readers aren’t working with much that is concrete at this stage. Similarly, concrete examples of how they are managery and programmistic would be helpful when you bring them up.

ugh, that's something that would add a whole new chapter. i'll try to think of a way to do that in just a few words

Some people reading will not know that “Individuals Tending Towards the Wild” is the same as ITS.

fixed

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Green anarchy embodies an unapologetic critique of all forms of authority. “Solar-punk”, “social ecology”, “post-scarcity anarchism” and related attempts to appropriate the green label from anti-civs have no real desire to address the devastating consequences of the debilitating industrial system that rules us. Their wistful notions that “green technology” such as solar cells, undefined “clean energy”, modular computing, 3D printers and electric vehicles will solve this unprecedented crisis are incredibly shortsighted.

They fail to understand just how destructive and polluting those technologies are to extract from the earth, manufacture and transport. They always fail to address the mountains of toxic waste that’s produced during these processes and dumped in some third world peasant’s backyard. All these high-tech goods require global supply chains, extractivism, imperialism and laborer-exploitation because they’re made up of rare minerals and other resources that can only be sourced in certain parts of the world.

The manufacturing processes for microchips and silicon are so advanced that they require centralized mega-factories that cost an absolute fortune to set up and run, which is why there are only 2 or 3 companies in the world with the required infrastructure.

The microchip manufacturing process involves hundreds of steps and depends on advanced robots pushing tiny particles around massive fabrication facilities. The “clean rooms” inside these facilities require tightly controlled conditions with zero contamination from dust, humidity, heat or dirt. If one tiny impurity enters the system, an entire batch will be ruined, costing a fortune and months of wasted preparation. You’re not going to have local neighborhood microchip factories like these solarpunks seem to imagine.

Reading an incredibly shallow and uninformed text like The Solarpunk Manifesto is an exercise in frustration for anyone who has thought seriously about all the consequences of mass-production and what it takes to maintain an industrial city. It reads like a child’s proposal for saving the world. Look at some of these points:

Solarpunk provides a valuable new perspective, a paradigm and a vocabulary through which to describe one possible future. Instead of embracing retrofuturism, solarpunk looks completely to the future. Not an alternative future, but a possible future.

Solarpunk recognizes the historical influence politics and science fiction have had on each other.

Solarpunk recognizes science fiction as not just entertainment but as a form of activism.

The visual aesthetics of Solarpunk are open and evolving. As it stands, it is a mash-up of the following: 1800s age-of-sail/frontier living (but with more bicycles). Creative reuse of existing infrastructure (sometimes post-apocalyptic, sometimes present-weird). Appropriate technology. Art Nouveau. Hayao Miyazaki. Jugaad-style innovation from the non-Western world. High-tech backends with simple, elegant outputs.

In Solarpunk we’ve pulled back just in time to stop the slow destruction of our planet. We’ve learned to use science wisely, for the betterment of our life conditions as part of our planet.

It’s just silly. A style guide for drawing pretty art and writing fiction with a certain aesthetic. It’s a fun and creative pastime, sure, but it doesn’t engage in any real way with the ongoing global ecocide beyond proposing “green tech” and even more ridiculously, “sustainable civilization”.

The more “serious” philosophies like Bookchin’s social ecology and post-scarcity anarchism essentially make the same naive assumptions and proposals as solar-punk, but use bigger words to do it, while also repeatedly tarnishing anti-civs for not having faith in futurist science, technological progress, democracy and workerism.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

In fairness the more reasonable solar punk plan is just to get really good and reusing microchips. Still silly but that seems to be the solution to high tech

3

ziq OP wrote

any society that depends on microchips is never going to stop being alienated and so is never going to stop demanding mass industry

unless it's like the walking dead and most of the people are dead so there are no factories and scavenging is the only way to survive

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Like I said it's sikky idea but idk at least they understand that anarchists prob can't make microchips. Which isn't much.

Tho in fairness most of these solarpunk types are populists so it's just a furthering of their democratic naivete

3

ziq OP wrote

at least they understand that anarchists prob can't make microchips

idk about that. i think they're just imagining the world at large, 8+ billion people just voluntarily decide to close down all the factories and adopt a solarpunk civilization to preserve the ecosphere. not that people wouldn't be able to make chips because of a lack of specialization and resource accumulation, but that they'd make the collective decision to stop.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think there's a bit of repetition you do that you might be able to exchange for doing the thing once with more detail. If I can I'll point some out later.

the primitivist primer seems to make clear that it's a critique and not a program and moore heavily bases that text on perlman's initial text. do you have quotes that contradict that?

for me people like Zerzan are more representative of AP and though it's been a while since I've engaged him I'm left with the distinct impression he had a very positive project for returning to his idea/model of hunter-gatherer society. Unforutnately that's all I can say, it was almost a decade a go I last engaged this stuff outside of Bellamy's taking a shit on it in Corrosive Consciousness. That might be an interesting thing for you to engage because Bellamy does make stark distinctions between AP and his egoist/insurrectionary anti-civ thing, iirc.

5

ziq OP wrote

Read Corrosive Consciousness part 1 and it's making the argument that anprim isn't critical enough, that it takes certain things for granted and romanticises other things. It hasn't really made the argument that anprim is a program, just that it should go further in its critique (towards nihilism).

5

NeoliberalismKills wrote

I tend to agree with you, Tequila. I think primitivism started as purely a critique and Tucker and Zerzan have turned it into a program relatively recently. In one of Tucker's podcasts (don't remember which episode) he mentions he (maybe Zerzan too) thinks the work of critique is done and it's time to start saying what needs to be done. Part of the reason I use anti-civ rather than primitivist myself. But I'd be glad to hear arguments that say otherwise.

5

ziq OP wrote

eh that's not worth completely rewriting the essay to accommodate stuff said by someone on a podcast

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

added a bit:

Because voter bodies would never use democracy to vote the future away to preserve their privileges. Coal miners would never vote to keep the mines open. Farm workers would never vote to use pesticides to make their jobs easier. Factory workers would never vote to outsource their industrial waste somewhere out of sight.


The same goes for Ted Kaczynski, the former Unabomber, who doesn't claim to be an anarchist and in fact frequently lambasts anarchy and anarcho-primitivism for not being authoritarian like him. He calls anarcho-primitivism “a romanticized vision” and rejects it for being too socially progressive.

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Yes. The denial of your own phallocracy. Expressed and displayed here and abroad by your tiresome quest for domination over online anarchyland, ridiculously asserting yourself as the Pope of Anarchy, as if you even had anything original to bring.

And Patreon trust funds, lol

−5

subrosa wrote

Fire-breathing as always. I guess I was gonna skip on the praise and say some shit about how it seems unfocused, and about how your tendency to position yourself and define terms (X is inherently Y, green is this, red is that, here's a list of things you associate with authority, etc.) can get tiresome. But maybe that's too harsh. After some edits it's shaping up to something.

5

ziq OP wrote

i'm still not happy with it so if there's specific parts i should slice out, quote them

5

subrosa wrote

Just read it again. The new intro is much better, I can see what you're going for now. Transitions like "the last ingredient" ties arguments together, making it seem less all over the place.

Because voter bodies would never use democracy to vote the future away to preserve their privileges. Coal miners would never vote to keep the mines open. Farm workers would never vote to use pesticides to make their jobs easier. Factory workers would never vote to outsource their industrial waste somewhere out of sight.

Odd, unmentioned transition from a sarcastic "never" to an actual list of "nevers"?

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I don't really follow. Every sentence is sarcastic. According to the left, if they had democracy in the workplace, they'd use it to protect the planet. But in reality they'll just continue to do what capitalists do to keep their workplace going. They won't shut down their coal mine or factory because of the carbon and waste they produce because their whole lives revolve around their workplace and the privileges it grants them. Can you rephrase the quoted paragraph in a way that would make more sense to you?

5

subrosa wrote

Oh, nevermind, I misinterpreted. I struggled with the idea of workers voting to keep their workplaces running, it's so alien to me.

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

see the coal mine strike documentary on raddletube

it's probably the biggest expression of leftism, striking to keep mines open

and they have little choice

they all bought their houses in the mining community and then when thatcher closed the mines, their houses became worthless, but they had to keep paying the mortgage for the next 20-30 years even though they no longer had a job

the mining towns quickly became ghettos with no jobs and no way to get out after thatcher won the war (by spending billions of tax payer money to pay cops 3-5 times their usual salary to beat the shit out of miners everyday)

5

kore wrote

Given that you mention thoreau (and tolstoy, laozi in passing) you have an opportunity to directly mention the tendency in anti-civ anarchy to also critique how someone conceives of the world which I think is an important aspect that leftists often do not pay attention to.

who's your audience? leftists might stop reading it given the choice words for them. no problem in of itself but you make some good arguments later in the paper regarding "critique not program" and "the leftist drift" but it comes after some polemic.

final suggestion, i think it may benefit from a more focused intro. the first paragraph is a borderline footnote, starting with the third paragraph that begins "Green anarchy, regardless of the offshoot, is still a philosophy, a critique, and a lifeway that emphasizes the most pronounced anarchist principles." followed by something along the lines of "this essay examines the history of green anarchy and some of the ways in which it has been misinterpreted and attacked by the left" would imo be a much stronger opening.

good stuff overall though, like i said the critique not program and leftist drift sections are highlights for me.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

yea the intro is shit, i just haven't figured out how to open it yet. i'll try to work with your idea

i'm generally the audience for anything I write which is to say I expect everyone else to be alienated by it. but this one i've been struggling to find interesting

Given that you mention thoreau (and tolstoy, laozi in passing) you have an opportunity to directly mention the tendency in anti-civ anarchy to also critique how someone conceives of the world which I think is an important aspect that leftists often do not pay attention to.

say more about this

4

Fool wrote

I think that the tendency of Anti-Civ (at least for those writing about it) is primarily the domain for people that have understood the Creative Nothing / the Tao / etc.

As such, critique and understanding of self has broken down the walls of domestication within a person's mind; in order for one to let go of the "logic" of progress.

I'll just add, it just occurred to me, how much Bellamy Fitzpatrick - "What does the World Desire?" - had on my acceptance of Anti-Civ. Do I now believe in the consciousness of the Earth? I don't know, probably not... but it makes as much sense as bacterias in our gut controlling our personality - which is a real thing with research backing it up...

Now I'm just rambling. I forgot what I was saying.

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I'm going to try my best with this but I've always struggled with spirituality. Someone asked me to write a spiritual piece for a collection they're putting together and it's been in the back of my mind, but I'm not sure if I have it in me. I seem to have such a materialist view of things.

Anyway this is what I have so far for you and kore's suggestion, so help me make it better if you can:


The supposed divinity of “progress” has consumed the left since the dawn of the industrial age.

Elisée Reclus summed it up well in 1905:

“Progress,” in the strictest sense of the word, is meaningless, for the world is infinite, and in its unlimited vastness, one is always as distant from the beginning as from the end. The movement of society ultimately reduces to the movements of the individuals who are its constitutive elements. In view of this fact, we must ask what progress in itself can be determined for each of these beings whose total life span from birth to death is only a few years. Is it no more than that of a spark of light glancing off a pebble and vanishing instantly into the cold air? [...]

The missionaries who encounter magnificent savages moving about freely in their nakedness believe that they will bring them “progress” by giving them dresses and shirts, shoes and hats, catechisms and Bibles, and by teaching them to chant psalms in English or Latin. And what triumphant songs in honor of progress have not been sung at the opening ceremonies of all the industrial plants with their adjoining taverns and hospitals! Certainly, industry brought real progress in its wake, but it is important to analyze scrupulously the details of this great evolution! The wretched populations of Lancashire and Silesia demonstrate that their histories were not a record of unadulterated progress. It is not enough to change one’s circumstances and enter a new class in order to acquire a greater share of happiness. There are now millions of industrial workers, seamstresses, and servants who tearfully remember the thatched cottages of their childhoods, the outdoor dances under the ancestral tree, and the evening visits around the hearth. And what kind of “progress” is it for the people of Cameroon and of Togo to have henceforth the honor of being protected by the German flag, or for the Algerian Arabs to drink aperitifs and express themselves elegantly in Parisian slang?

In the spirit of Tao, Green anarchy goes further than merely critiquing material structures of domestication and domination, it also critiques our conceptions of what the world is, how we place ourselves in it, the purpose of self, and indeed the very idea of a fixed reality.

The way we conceive of the world and of our existence on a metaphysical level is as important to the green anarchist tradition as our understanding of the manufactured systems erected to domesticate us. These systems restrain both body and mind, in order to maintain the constant forward march of civilization, keeping Leviathan fat and powerful and everything else in a state of perpetual spiritual starvation. Without a keen understanding of the self, the constraining "logic" of progress will forever linger in our minds, and blunt all the provocative, stimulating possibilities we could be exploring, hindering us from living a life of joy rather than the tragic loop of suffering and sacrifice we eternalize in service of Leviathan's monstrous appetite. Only by breaking down the imposing walls of domestication within our minds can we hope to truly progress beyond our compulsion to feed the gluttonous serpent.

3

kore wrote

yeah pretty good also what fool said

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Though these anti-green crusaders are almost exclusively white North American men with high paying jobs in academia or the tech sector, they work tirelessly to harness the identity of actually marginalized people to use as weapons in their tedious war against anyone who has strayed from the threadbare leftist program.

They present themselves as morally pure knights in shining armor, sent by Murray's ghost to cleanse anarchist spaces of the reactionary green menace – to preserve the forward-momentum of Western-civilization – to safeguard progress, democracy and the Western way of life.

Their sworn mission statement is to save poor, innocent marginalized people from the cold, cruel clutches of green anarchy. But their allegiance to this performative social justice dance crumbles to pieces when they react to the indigenous ways of life that are such an integral part of the green anarchist philosophy. They speak of indigenous lifeways with barely restrained disgust. To them, anything and anyone that isn't wholly dedicated to preserving the industrial monolith is dirty, backwards, savage.

Their tireless mission to punish and purge anyone who dares think beyond the realm of ponderous and feeble leftist solutions is the biggest hindrance to the development of the beautiful idea.

Pushing us into dark, damp rooms – the walls lined with moldy little red books. They lock the door shut and barricade it. The left works so hard to hold us down, to shackle us with their stale 19th century nostalgia because they know – they know this is the only place they have power over us. This dark room with the peeling red walls that only they have the key to.

4

kore wrote

cool yeah i think this gets into the intellectualism of the left which was also something that thoreau, laozi etc questioned in a sense so that can tie together nicely

2

Fool wrote

I've always struggled with spirituality

I think the bigger thing I was talking about was questioning the narratives assumed a solid facts by society.

I really get this though - that's sort of why I lead with the "Creative Nothing", because it's essentially the same thing, but not "Spiritual".

I've basically been learning about spiritual things to link them back to the mundane realities that were likely the original basis.

Most spiritual things seem to be rooted in breaking down your thoughts and questioning them in order to overcome ideology, trauma, etc.

The techniques they teach still work if you don't believe in the fancy back story.

I bet that's literally what they were, teaching aids that people started taking literally.

What this all has to do with Anti-Civ? Well mostly I guess in the consolidation of power through authority over idols and storytelling.

2

ziq OP wrote

Green anarchy, regardless of the offshoot, is a philosophy, a critique, and a lifeway that emphasizes the most pronounced anarchist principles. Green anarchists are ready and willing to dismantle all structures of domination, starting with a deep-rooted analysis of ecology, which means the relationship between all living things and the physical environment we all depend on to survive.

I'm going to examine the origins and gradual evolution of green anarchy, explore how these ideas are perceived by people on the outside looking in, and try to understand why green anarchy is so detested by leftists who, more and more, have been slandering us as “eco-fascists”.

Green anarchists take the critique of authority as far as it will go – not stubbornly stopping at government and capital as many anarchists will do...

3

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.

4

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

6

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.

4

ChaosAnarchy wrote (edited )

I've read the current version and thought it was.. ahem enlighting.

Okay to be more serious I really thought it was great, I thought about translating it to German but apparently you want to fix more of it so I'll wait.

Elany, a German anarchist, used to translate quite a few anti-civ texts but since they was imprisoned it felt like they had next to a dead silence. And then an insurrectionist magazine from Munich was also raided by the police so that radical thing is gone as well.

4

ziq OP wrote

Ok, I think I've finally finished it. Hope Elany goes back to doing translations soon.

4

ziq OP wrote

addition to the post-civ section


She also falls into the trap of talking about indigenous peoples in the past tense, as if these lifeways are extinct – when indigenous cultures continue to thrive all over the world. A white settler presenting diverse indigenous peoples as "conservative" in order to dismiss and sneer at them is concerning, but it's especially frustrating to see an anarchist mar indigenous peoples for being born into the same way of life enjoyed by their predecessors.

Is Killjoy under the impression life in whatever dreary USA suburb she inhabits is unique from her parents dreary suburban existence? If life under the crumbling industrial order has so much potential for freedom compared to a life in the wilds, why is she post-civ? Why not embrace civilization and all the freedoms, experiences and opportunities for growth it supposedly offers?

4

ziq OP wrote

saw someone on reddit whining that i didn't define green anarchy so here it is


Green anarchists theorize that generations of sedentary social stratification has led to human domestication, in the same way dogs have been gradually domesticated from wild wolves. Just like with dogs, this domesticating process has had a cumulative detrimental effect on our physical and mental health and the way we interact with each other and our environment.

It's proposed by green anarchists that a sustained “rewilding” process could act to curtail this domestication and restore the health of not only ourselves, but the balance of our ecosystems. Some of the proposed ways to achieve this include regenerative land management techniques and the restoration of our social bonds with the biosphere.

These correlative bonds we had with our habitat for almost our entire existence as a species have become deeply fractured due to the various alienating processes that brought about our domestication. Until the bonds are repaired and the planet's ecology is restored, we'll continue to experience the dreadful effects of social and ecological collapse, as well as the continued processes of coercion and domination that are so ingrained in industrial mass-society.

Green anarchy addresses both social and environmental factors and understands that the two are interlinked in a holistic manner. If an ecosystem is broken, the people who live within it will continue to deteriorate until a healthy ecology is restored.

Like all anarchists, we challenge all systems of authority and seek voluntary, mutually-beneficial relationships with our neighbors in self-sustaining communities. The thing that most sets green anarchists apart from other tendencies is our dedication to extending our critique of domination to all life, not simply human life. We study anthropology and history to understand the origins of civilization and all the systems of domination that formed around it.

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I also decided to spell out a distinction between high technology and low technology because people still aren't understanding that the anti-civ critique of technology doesn't actually differ from the post-civ critique of technology.

If you prefer, it's the difference between low-tech (useful, sustainable) and high-tech (alienating, destructive).

I also added another Moore quote that more directly refutes killjoy's strawman ("It is neither possible, nor desirable, to return to a pre-civilized state of being."):

The aim is not to replicate or return to the primitive, merely to see the primitive as a source of inspiration, as exemplifying forms of anarchy. For anarcho-primitivists, civilization is the overarching context within which the multiplicity of power relations develop. Some basic power relations are present in primitive societies — and this is one reason why anarcho-primitivists do not seek to replicate these societies — but it is in civilization that power relations become pervasive and entrenched in practically all aspects of human life and human relations with the biosphere. 

2

veuzi wrote

The ending could be stronger, I think. Ending it on a tl;dr summary kinda takes away from the heft of the last few paragraphs.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Are those last few paragraphs strong enough to end with if I move the tldr up?

I could put a tldr point at the end of each section or remove them all entirely

2

veuzi wrote

The final line, "The sooner anarchists completely detach ourselves from the rotting carcass that remains of the left, the sooner we can stop being weighed down by the virulently irrational superstitions that are the basis for their reactionary green-scare campaigns." is strong on its own. But it gets somewhat lost in the tl;dr bullet points. I think it should be connected with a paragraph that moves on neatly from all that stuff about Alexander Reid Ross and a more general thought like that.

Summarizing each section in place of the tl;dr is a good idea.

2

ziq OP wrote

i moved all the tldrs and integrated them into each section, one of them went between the ross stuff and the concluding paragraphs

the ending is probably still missing something tho

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

A related text that was presumably authored by Killjoy under a pseudonym goes into more detail about the post-civ view of technology:

Another absurd proposition that primitivists stand behind is that tools and technology are inherently oppressive, and we should therefore abandon them. While many tools and technologies can be applied in oppressive ways, there is nothing ingrained in tools or the development of technologies that makes them oppressive.

It seems especially foolish for primitivists to argue this position when the society they advocate returning to is replete with tools and technology. Spears, bows and arrows, stone axes, obsidian knives, cordage, hand drill fires, pottery, totem carving, body modification and jewelry, basketry, hide tanning — these are all tools and technologies employed by primitive societies. Primitivists advocate learning these skills as a part of “rewilding” ourselves and our world, and yet they continue to denounce tools and technology. Seems a little hypocritical, doesn’t it?

These points are the most obtuse of all because they're completely misrepresenting the anarcho-primitivist definition of technology and the distinction often made between high and low technology. Anprims don't reject any of the things listed in the above quote. It's pure strawman to pretend otherwise.

3

Terror_Incognita wrote

Hi everyone. Yup, im new in these parts.

I really enjoyed this. Similar to everything else I have read by Ziq, the critique of leftism is strong and bold - the way it should be since too many anarchists continue to tip-toe around leftists in the first place. Liberalism has seeped into what used to be (un)safe spaces, turning danger to safety, sterilizing anti-oppression with coerced morality and so on. All in the name of "community" and "equality" when the concept of both lay the very foundation for civilizing domestication in the first place.

I also enjoy this piece because Ziq takes on a position that refuses the same pathetic tendency for anti-civ nihilists, individualists to go on the defensive whenever leftists try to get physical. And part of the reason for that is because leftists make up the majority of those who host anarchist bookfairs and events to begin with. And so in order to circulate 'our' ideas, we have to water-down our behavior in order to secure a table. I wonder how anarchy would play out when "safe spaces" are transformed into spaces of acknowledged confrontational potential. Ideas on anarchy become just as domesticated as the lefts when leftists are allowed to materially strong-arm their worldview onto individualists and nihilists.

As Ziq beautifully illustrates in this text, anti-civ anarchy really is controversial. Not because it is "anti-civ" but because it is anarchy fully realized and taken to its logical conclusion. Anything less than anti-civ is nothing more than a communal re-arrangement of social order. But without morality and all other socially constructed "spooks" there is no "order" to re-arrange.

ITS or Wild Reaction, despite my or anyone elses critiques or opinions, is a living breathing example of ungovernables who mock any and all leftist attempts to subdue them with words, academic texts or guilt-tripping morality. These groups and individuals have demonstrated the ability to carry out attacks, evade State capture and flourish without the authoritative permission of "The Movement" or "Left Unity" etc. It behooves anarchists (and leftists) to acknowledge the reality of permanent (violent) conflict before and after civilized collapse. ITS and RW won't vanish or whither away due to any influence other than their own desire. Conversations and debates about these particular groups or individuals only serve to expose the desperation of supposed anti-authoritarians, to control and suppress those considered "undesirable" - the same way the State continues to have formal meetings on how to undermine and neutralize the radical left.

Anti-civ anarchy allows for the least social governance by critiquing the very foundation of industrial society - and even any and all mass societies, communities, communes and formal collectives. It allows individuals to reclaim individuality and recognize the distinction between society and the individual. And so within anti-civ anarchy there will be individuals of all sorts, unique and with histories and influences that shape their desires. And this is why leftists - those who attempt to group individuals together to form social order - are both terrified and staunch enemies of anti-civ anarchists.

Really happy to see this text! Thanks for sharing/writing it!

2