Submitted by polpotisevil2 in anarcho_primitivism (edited )

EDIT: I may have been incorrect in my interpretation of my original post. Read the comment below if you want more detail. Anyway, I'm going to change the direction of this thread. In regards to why I made the hasty determination I did.

People seem to have infinite hatred for the writers of books such as Atassa and even for those who sell those books (thinking about what happened at the bookfair I initially mentioned) some context here:

https://abeautifulresistance.org/site/2020/2/16/death-of-an-anarchist

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/789gla/la_anarchist_book_fair_rejects_anarchist/

They hate the idea of reducing population by force and attacking civilization itself. My opinion is that reducing population is a futile goal and not only futile but incredibly (pardon the terminology) pyschopathic and stupid. Seriously, who would bomb a public transit bus full of brainwashed people? To be blunt, a piece of shit. If you really want to do something about civilization and overpopulation, the means and infrastructure of civilization itself should be targeted. Such as power lines, internet infrastructure, cell towers and research locations. People have previously targeted these to great effect.

But alas, should they be censored? That is an obvious question to me, and the answer is no. But opinions may differ. So I simply ask, if you are against bombing people on a public transit bus, are you also against bombing the infrastructure of society? The answer is often yes, coming from anarchists or communists who have zero issues with society and civilization and who espouse morality like it isn't a hierarchy. Anyway, discuss this in the comments if you like. Disagree with me or whatever.

Original post:

I recently read an interview with Kevin Tucker. Here's the link

https://antifascistnews.net/2019/09/09/colonialism-green-resistance-and-fighting-eco-fascism-an-interview-with-eco-anarchist-kevin-tucker/

What struck me is his opinion on "eco-fascism"

Now, before you go and call me a piece of shit, a fascist, etc. hear me out because I am not going to say what you think I'm about to. I'll quote Kevin Tucker:

Are the problems that civilizations have created because of humans or because of systems? A primal anarchist or anarcho-primitivist critique lands squarely on systems, eco-fascism lurks in a shallower reply and saying that population itself is the issue. If you think that’s all it is, then reducing or controlling the population is a freakishly clear answer. But that’s such a shallow mess. There’s literally no way to control populations en masse without fascistic practice.

This is extremely ridiculous to me. I'll start at the end and work my way up. He concludes that "there is no way to control populations in mass...". I have no clue who told him that is the only outcome of a view that human population is a problem, but it certaintly isn't. Working up, we see that he says that all anarcho-primitivist critiques (in actuality this is also false, and it is only HIS critique and his foolish belief in being an authority and judge on the whole critique) land on systems being the issue. This is incredibly short-sighted and limiting.

Why is it that he blows off an entire RESULT of the SYSTEMS he is against? Rather than use the RESULT to add to the criticism of the SYSTEM, he entirely blows off the result and labels anyone concerned by it a potential "eco-fascist". Oh, and also don't give me a platform. If I show up at your book fair, beat me up too!

Not to mention my alternate beliefs that it is not solely SYSTEMS that causes it. A single person who consistently "innovates" is not a system by themself, but believers of the innovation surely will become one.

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Majrelende wrote (edited )

No longer relevant

There is one thing I would like to mention:

A primal anarchist or anarcho-primitivist critique lands squarely on systems, eco-fascism lurks in a shallower reply and saying that population itself is the issue. If you think that’s all it is, then reducing or controlling the population is a freakishly clear answer.

Why is it that he blows off an entire RESULT of the SYSTEMS he is against? Rather than use the RESULT to add to the criticism of the SYSTEM, he entirely blows off the result and labels anyone concerned by it a potential "eco-fascist".

I do not believe this was what was said; rather, Tucker seems to have been saying that “eco”fascists shallowly believe that population is the root issue and not a symptom. There is a great difference between this and concern about a symptom. I myself am concerned about population, specifically about how a high population density can be sustained or slowly shrunken through the following decades. It might be improbable, but perhaps there are answers hidden in many places. For one, I think Masanobu Fukuoka was thinking at least somewhat in the right direction. But I do not believe that population is the root problem of the world’s woes; this is analogous to the rather ridiculous (and ridiculously popular) belief that the climate emergency is due to a shortage of solar panels and windmills rather than a toxic and exploitative (and fifty million other adjectives) society and culture.

I am a little confused by the last paragraph— I have no idea what you mean by “it” nor what the example you mentioned relates to. Would you mind elaborating?

5

polpotisevil2 OP wrote

I can see that interpretation now. I may have been hasty considering recent events and tendencies among anarchists toward primitivists. I was more focused on the word "squarely" and I assumed the question he asked was one he was taking more or less literally, but I may be incorrect.

The last paragraph was just me explaining that I disagree with the fact that systems are the SOLE cause of the woes being discussed. Systems stem from individual acts, beliefs, etc, therefore individual humans are at fault and it is not a system specifically that should be fought. Although this may boil down to mere semantics if I were to argue this to the "end" (the end of our patience anyway). The statement resulted more from my egoistic beliefs I suppose.

Anyway, I will edit the main thread to reflect this and also to alter the discussion to the subject in general. (The one I thought Tucker was talking about anyway)

2