You must log in or register to comment.

theblackcat wrote (edited )

Green anarchism is all about resisting industry and living a simpler life with a smaller footprint. It's a way to remove yourself from the crushing machine to pursue a more sustainable lifestyle, and encourage others to follow the example you set. Everything we do in life, we do with intention and while thinking of the effects our actions have on everything else, right down to the micro-organisms in the soil. We avoid doing harm to things with no ability to defend themselves, while working to destroy the institutions and systems that power the machine that crushes the life out of our planet.


tusk OP wrote

Interesting. How is green anarchism different from other political beliefs? Doesn't everyone stand against harming the planet in theory since it would be like stabbing yourself in the foot?


An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Are you talking about us as a whole? We all have different beliefs, even among those of us who are anarchists. I'll have a shot at this but I imagine that other anarchists here will have better things to say because my focus is not obviously on green issues.

I suspect that most of us draw from a range of different sources, but anarchists can generally be divided into a handful of groups on the green issue I think (and I encourage others to correct me if I'm wrong).

All anarchists wholly reject state captalism and see it as a major source of environmental degradation, for many reasons including its need to continuously expand and consume resources on this finite planet.

Probably the most well-known of those who are primarily capitalism-critiquers is Murray Bookchin; His argument, that human domination and destruction of nature follows from social domination between humans, was a breakthrough position in the growing field of ecology. You can google him.

Beyond that, most anarchists with a green perspective also have a critique of civilisation beyond just critiquing state-capitalism and other hierarchical structures. Perhaps the most reasonable of these is post-civilisation anarchism. Take What You Need And Compost The Rest: An Introduction to Post-Civilised Theory is possibly useful there. But there's a lot of reading around various other anti-civilisation anarchism that will help this all make sense.

There's a nihilist view also, which is against everything, including state capitalism and civilisation, that has produced an interesting and worthwhile classic that assumes that we will not 'save' the world in time, and works to explore what liberation looks like when you do that. You can read Desert.

All of these will probably require at least a basic understanding of what anarchism is about, and so I've probably jumped the gun in explaining things to you if you aren't even familiar with that. Hopefully this is helpful though.


ziq wrote (edited )

I don't think so. Almost all political ideologies revolve around the idea of exploiting the Earth for profit, to 'better' the lives of people through mass industry.

Even socialism, which came about at the birth of the industrial age to give workers a bigger share of the pie is very industry-minded. Industrial growth is at the epicenter of capitalism, fascism and socialism.

To find a politic that doesn't put industrial workers above the Earth and the ever-shrinking list of people who live in harmony with it, you need to go past economics, past markets, past the perverse constructed concepts of hierarchy and work and pretty much throw out the entire concept of political ideology.

Anarchy is the opposition to authority. All authority is used against the Earth and its inhabitants to benefit those that brandish it.

The only way to truly protect the Earth's ecosystems from destruction is to condemn any attempt to legitimize authority. When an authority gains acceptance as being legitimate, the authority is free to excuse almost any atrocity it commits as being justified.

Green anarchy sees civilization as the root of all authority.

When humans adopted agricultural practices at the dawn of civilization, it forced us into a box that we've struggled to escape from ever since. It led to land being seen as something that needed to be possessed. To people and other animals being seen as laborers that needed to be coerced into working the land for the benefit of the land 'owners' and their immense wealth.

The concept of private property began with agriculture, with the most fertile lands being highly sought after by the most powerful; who would send entire armies into battle to conquer them as their possessions.

They'd then enslave the former inhabitants and force them to work the land and export the food to their Kingdom.

Civilization largely depends on the violent act of dominating and controlling the land and everything on it for the benefit of the rich. To 'civilize' a 'savage' (free person) was to enslave them. Sometimes literally, and sometimes figuratively (via exporting industrial capitalism around the world and forcing people to stop roaming free as hunter-gatherers and instead settle down on privately owned land to labor for others).

Green anarchy opposes all authority starting from the very concept of civilization and it makes no excuses for it.


videl wrote

Well no better way to stop ecological catastrophe than to be rid of production altogether.


PerfectSociety wrote

How do you think your political belief can help with the ecological catastrophe we are facing?

Using ecologically sustainable food-growing practices such as permaculture rather than industrial agriculture is one important way.


throwaway wrote

Conforming to society would involve cutting off all the parts of myself that I value in order to fit in and devoting what is left of my life to the collection of money I don't need for the purpose of self-soothing by purchasing products I don't want.

The first rule of fight club is: you do not talk about fight club.


undersc0rezer0 wrote (edited )

My political belief means absolutely nothing as does yours and everyone else's political 'belief'.

Real change requires global cooperation, maybe humans can learn to stop killing and exploiting each other for wealth before we as a species can coordinate something as large as avoiding the Earth's response to industrialization.

From my high chair though, not likely. Even if you removed propaganda and trending narcissism from nearly every outlet of consumerism, you are still faced with the reality that some people don't care if the world burns if their life is more comfortable than their friends.