Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

Random_Revolutionary wrote

I dont really want to throw oil on the fire, but it's not green anarchists vs anarcho-transhumanism, it's anprims vs @h+. There is much less conflict between other brands of green anarchism such as solarpunk and @h+. There may be anticiv and @h+ conflicts, but even then it depends on our definition of civilization.

In arguments such as "authority vs anarchy", "vegan vs carnist", "privileged whites vs everyone else", and all the other arguments you cite, there is clearly one ideological stance that is anarchist and studied, and the other is bigoted and a uneducated. (I say ideologically bc pragmatically we dont all have the possibility/ressources to engage in these conflicts). It's the same with @h+ vs primitivsm: one ideal implies the death of 90% of humans and the other implies total liberation, from even our bodies's natural limits. Clearly those stances do not hold the same value, at least for true anarchists™.

Ps: on individualism vs collectivism, I stand with emma goldman an believe one implies the other, so it's not like the other exampes you made.

3

Pop wrote

it's not green anarchists vs anarcho-transhumanism, it's anprims vs @h+

it is?
I don't think there are any anarcho-primitivists on this site

are there?

1

Random_Revolutionary wrote

Yeah solarpunk is green and compatible with @h+, for example.

3

Pop wrote (edited )

I have no idea what solarpunk is and I've never come across a green anarchism that wasn't against technology, agriculture, and cities
(which includes many more green anarchists than anarcho-primitivists, and I'm confused at your conflation here)

actually so far as I've understood, green anarchism is those things or it's just anarchism

I'd be interested to learn more about how solarpunk is suppose to work and in what sense it's green

4

ziq wrote

There has recently been a push by some anarchists for a 'bright green' anarchist movement (as opposed to the traditional dark green anarchism).

https://infogalactic.com/info/Bright_green_environmentalism

2

Pop wrote

I don't know why they differentiate by calling it green, if even red anarchists are like this

I've never heard of a liberal or red radical who wasn't interested in at least 'bright green' stuff

Thanks for the info! Gonna have to think about this

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

Pop wrote

This is my thought also, and your statement

Bright 'greens' are just ancoms who like tofu and teslas.

seems to sum up my general intuition here,

but since it's all new to me to consider (because how is this even a thing?) I'm going to try to ponder it for a bit

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

[deleted] wrote

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

i practically need medication to feel human most days and if it comes down primitivism vs transhumanism i'm more inclined to prefer the former over the latter. i don't really like either movements as a whole but i'll take john moore over william gillis any day.

also you really shouldn't use words like "primitives" derogatorily! that is literally the language of colonialism you're using there.

2

[deleted] wrote

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

no, not at all. while i probably don't have anything in common with the image of primitivism you've got in your head (i don't think it's desirable or even possible to "go back to the stone age") i think primitivism has a lot of untapped potential that is best evident in the work of people like john moore.

that said it's obvious primitivism hasn't lived up to this potential at all, and as you're probably aware, the quality of primitivist discourse on the internet is really bad. so i wouldn't call myself a primitivist or anything. at a pinch i might call myself post-civ.

1

Random_Revolutionary wrote

What's wrong with gillis? I've only read one text of his and I found it quite woke.

5

Dumai wrote

his transhumanist politics seem to centre on "the recognition that social liberty is inherently bound up with material liberty, and that freedom is ultimately a matter of expanding our capacity and opportunities to engage with the world around us" (his words), which historically has not been true at all, for reasons any radical should know? i mean the industrial revolution vastly expanded human productive and creative capability in material terms while also giving rise to generalised wage labour? an increase of "material liberty" doesn't necessarily provide you with a higher degree of agency, which means even isaiah berlin with his positive/negative liberty dichotomy is more useful in this regard than gillis. if a liberal has a more developed conception of liberty than an anarchist, i'd say something's gone very very wrong here.

and besides, "free human 'individuals' shaping 'nature' according to their 'will'" is like, bourgeois subjectivity 101? i don't know. gillis seems like a good guy but he's also a huge dork.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

AnPrimitivism isn't a collectivist anarchism so that's a bit of a strawman. Individualist anarchists don't have any aspirations to assert control over society.