Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq OP wrote

I mean zerzan is the last surviving member of the anprim moment and hasn't had a new idea for ages. Perlman and Moore died decades ago. Anarchy has moved on. 2020s anti-civ is a lot more nuanced than 1980s anarcho-primitivism. Doesn't make sense to keep the current green anarchy sphere beholden to the dead and dying.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I agree that we should not be beholden to those things, but I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge historical problems like that. Some of your essay leaves the reader (or just me) with the sense that you think green anarchy can do no wrong, and there's a kind of sanitisation of the past there that probably has room for critique.

And in reality there are probably plenty green anarchists who are shit at green anarchy because of that historical baggage, in part because it's not fully historical yet.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

I see your point but idk that i'd want to make an essay about rejecting struggle into an essay that mounts yet another struggle against dead and dying anarchists

my perspective has always been if it's not anti authority, it's not anarchy even if it calls itself that. so if i'm not harsh on green anarchy it's because to me green anarchy isn't defined by people who may or may not be good anarchists, but by the principles of anarchy

edit: did it anyway

That being said, there are certainly some shit green anarchists out there just like there are some shit red anarchists, orange anarchists, and so on. Anarchy shouldn't ever be confused with some of the people who lay claim to the label, or we would all have to abandon the anarchist philosophy because of anarcho-capitalists. There are even some generally good anarchists who still maintain some bad ideas, like certain aging anprims who haven't managed to move past the old "noble savage" trope.

There are also some unknowledgeable people who choose to identify with green anarchy without having much of an understanding of what anarchy entails. Some of these people, feeling alienated by industrial society, were drawn to vague anti-industrial politics (usually due to Kaczynski) and now loosely identify as green anarchists, without having read enough about anarchy to realize how completely unforgiving it is when it comes to hierarchy, domination and oppression. They narrowly focus in on the anti-civ aspect of anarchy, which really has very little use without the broader anti-authority aspects. Just like baby red anarchists, baby green anarchists will soon either switch to a less demanding philosophy when realizing how high the learning curve is, or will in time develop into decent anarchists.

The reason properly-informed green anarchists don't aim to construct a program to force our principles on the world is because we fully believe in anarchy. Coercing people to live the way we live would instantly disqualify us from being anarchists.

hoping it doesn't break the flow of the essay


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I like how you explained it. I still haven't read the whole way through yet because I'm battling exhaustion but it's come together pretty well from what I've seen.