A friendly reminder not to get lost down the eco-purist rabbit hole!

Submitted by Ishkah in anticiv (edited )

I have nothing against green anarchism as the promotion of a style of critique not often seen, like black anarchism and anarchafeminism, as it can simply help identify you as someone who has been able to have the time to research the ways expertise in building democratic institutions, green architecture and rewilding will help get us to a better world.

This is just a friendly warning against travelling down the eco-purist rabbit hole of more and more rigidly dogmatic political theory, where you begin to believe it's only worth reading the way a few authors view the world.

And obviously I don't think the revolution would end at worker control, but I do see anarchists as part of a big tent libertarian socialist movement, where securing workplace democracy would be a massive improvement in society.

Further reading:

Edit:

The diagram text is not meant to be a perfectly summarized version of each ideology. It's an analogy for how some people will take a bunch of contradictory twists and turns down a list of more and more fringe ideologies, in pursuit of the most rigidly simplistic way of viewing the world so they can say they have the answers to almost all life's questions.

I made clear that I'm an anarchist, but I used the analogy that someone could go from desiring a 'libertarian socialist revolution' to a 'vulgar anarchist insurrection' because people can buy into anarchist ideology for all the wrong reasons the same way an anorexic person can just be using veganism as a way to restrict their diet on the way to raw veganism, etc.

People move over to the far-right for contradictory reasons, like first being convinced that the civil war was just about less taxes on cotton, to second that black Americans are lucky to be in the US, then third that the civil war was about white people keeping slaves to pick cotton and they had a right to protect their interests.

With green anarchists, it could be first being convinced that giving up various direct action campaigns for thinking solely being against technology is necessary for the most amount of people to get a clear message, reducing the amount of people they're trying to coalition build with. Then secondly that killing and terrorizing people is a necessary evil to showing the direction society needs to be heading in. To thirdly hope for changing people's minds is pointless, we need to just take pleasure in embracing our violent hatred for all things 'unnatural'.

−11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

A friendly reminder to get lost with the democracy shit!

I have nothing against red anarchism as the promotion of a style of critique very often seen, like libertarian socialism and Marxism, as it can simply help identify you as someone who wastes their time to research the ways expertise in building democratic institutions, red architecture and unwilding will help get us to a world.

This is just a friendly warning against cluttering anarchist spaces with more and more rigidly dogmatic political theory, where you begin to believe in the desirability of a civilized mass-society.

And obviously I don't think civilization ends with worker control, but I don't see anarchists as part of a big tent libertarian socialist, where securing workplace democracy would be a massive improvement in society, anyway.

heh

19

subrosa wrote

Now that there's plenty comments and downvotes, this probably comes off more hostile than intended.

5

ziq wrote

If you went to a communist forum and told communists not to be communist-purists because they're getting in the way of the big tent project to destroy the factory, the reaction would be a lot less kind.

9

subrosa wrote

No doubt. It's just, it seems a bit too easy, if not unnecessary on raddle. (I'm reminded of this discussion: Why is it that, generally, there is much more of a focus in discussions arguing against common banal positions, as opposed to more thought provoking, less discussed topics?)

5

monday wrote

Well, I feel we lost some users that were more wonderful on this kind of provoking topic with a certain quality, and many more of other great users seems to be less active too so I miss the more thought provoking discussion too (well I am trying to push a covid response for while now, I am not satisfied with the current answers

5

ziq wrote (edited )

building democratic institutions, green architecture

This is f/anticiv, not buildmoreciv.

Libertarian socialism has zero to do with anticiv.

Also everything written on that chart other than 'libertarian socialist revolution' is a weird strawman obviously written by someone who knows nothing about green anarchy.

And William Gillis is a smarmy privileged douchebag. A transhumanist saying anticiv isn't practical is all kinds of ridiculous. It's the critique of civilization, not a manifesto.

12

Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

It's not meant to be a perfectly summarized version of each ideology. It's an analogy for how some people will take a bunch of contradictory twists and turns down a list of more and more fringe ideologies, in pursuit of the most rigidly simplistic way of viewing the world so they can say they have the answers to almost all life's questions.

I made clear that I'm an anarchist, but I used the analogy that someone could go from desiring a 'libertarian socialist revolution' to a 'vulgar anarchist insurrection' because people can buy into anarchist ideology for all the wrong reasons the same way an anorexic person can just be using veganism as a way to restrict their diet on the way to raw veganism, etc.

People move over to the far-right for contradictory reasons, like first being convinced that the civil war was just about less taxes on cotton, to second that black Americans are lucky to be in the US, then third that the civil war was about white people keeping slaves to pick cotton and they had a right to protect their interests.

With green anarchists, it could be first being convinced that giving up various direct action campaigns for thinking solely being against technology is necessary for the most amount of people to get a clear message, reducing the amount of people they're trying to coalition build with. Then secondly that killing and terrorizing people is a necessary evil to showing the direction society needs to be heading in. To thirdly hope for changing people's minds is pointless, we need to just take pleasure in embracing our violent hatred for all things 'unnatural'.

−6

moonlune wrote

Far right and green anarchism have nothing in common lol.

One thing you need to understand about green anarchism is that they aren't building a movement and have no aim (this was hard for me to understand too at first). But there is no "direction society needs to be heading to". Hell, there's no "society", there's no future. Green anarchists live for only two things, to contemplate nature and to say "I told you so" when everything goes tits up.

For more information, check /w/green_anarchism to learn about what green anarchists really stand for and /w/postleft to learn more about non collectivist anarchists and how to imagine anarchism without imagining societies. Also /w/Anarchy101 just in case, our wiki is the best on the internet. 😎

12

Ishkah OP wrote

I wasn't saying they do, just making a comparison for how people can move through ideologies, not about the content of what they believe.

As for the rest, with what you wrote I imagine this discussion would just descend into semantics, but no I do think there are markers I could point to to say I would prefer it society was organized closer to this or that way. The obvious ones being people stopping viewing others as their objects to squeeze a profit out of at work, or justifying rape through a sexist culture.

−5

moonlune wrote

I would prefer it society was organized closer to this or that way.

That's my point. Green anarchists are not into theorizing and building societies.

Red anarchists see direct action as a step towards their end game (luxury gay space communism, or stateless classless moneyless society... whatever). Green anarchists do not have an end game.

10

Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Sure, but none of my arguments rely on green anarchists being red anarchists.

−3

ziq wrote

Anticiv isn't an ideology, it's a critique.

Green anarchists aren't trying to build any coalitions.

Green anarchists aren't killing and terrorizing people.

10

Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Didn't say anticiv or green anarchists is or are any of those things, hence 'convinced into believing idea a, b then c'.

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

You're getting an annoyed response because you're overlaying anticiv anarchy with red constructs (revolution, society, ideology, collectivism, democracy, the left, ideological purges, socialism, killing ideological enemies) that have no relation to anticiv. Whether you realize it or not, you're applying toxic prescriptive red dogma to anticiv when it's nothing more than a general critique of the primary form of authority (civilization). It's not an ideology or a set of rules or a blueprint to build a society, it's simply the willingness to think about the domination of social structures beyond capitalism.

Your experience with the Maoists you spoke to doesn't represent green anarchy.

13

Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Nothing I wrote relies on that interpretation of anticiv anarchy, I just noticed a trend among some people moving through green anarchist ideology down a rabbit hole of attempting to find a more and more rigid purist worldview. I acknowledged the route people take was often contradictory, like going from violent, to pacifist, to violent again.

1

moonlune wrote

There's only 3 arrows in that uninspired graph.

Downwards should be "Desire to have fun".

11

metocin wrote

There will never be a revolution, fuck off with the entryism

11

Ishkah OP wrote

Just as if anarchists haven't called for revolution throughout history.

−4

ziq wrote (edited )

Anticivs / green anarchists don't believe in revolution. Revolution is a constant aspect of civilization and each revolution leads to more centralized power and thus the widening of civilization's reach.

7

Ishkah OP wrote

I only ever identified as an anarchist, so I thought metocin thought most anarchists don't call for a revolution and that I was trying to pass off LibSoc ideas for anarchist ideas, which isn't true.

But yeah that's likely true of most anticivs and green anarchists, but again I never claimed I was a green anarchist or an anticiv, or that the ideas I presented were that. I just gave some advice from an anarchist about slippery slope purism, not trying to change the ideology to mean something different.

0

nulloperation wrote

There is no hope.

7

ziq wrote

Sure there is. Hold on, I'll make a chart explaining why my libsoc ideology is all that matters and (a bunch of green-scare strawmen) are just rigid dogmatic eco-purist distractions from the big tent movement of building democratic institutions in the workplace.

11

lemon_grass wrote

What was your motivation for making this?

7

Ishkah OP wrote

Getting told by Kaczynski fanboys that anyone who doesn't want to destroy all electricity grids is a reformist.

−4

Fool moderator wrote

I am a reformist I want to reform the electronic grids into a giant board game, using the grids to measure the movements of the game pieces.

🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️

7

Fool wrote

get lost purist

Fixed it for you!

5

roanoke9 wrote

Pol-comp meme that takes itself very very serious. Lmfao.

3