Esperaux

Esperaux OP wrote

Not Bookchin's libertarian municipalism/ communalism specifically but when discussing aspects of how the way we structure our society and treat each other reflects onto our treatment of nature. Strictly in terms of discussions regarding social ecology. That kind of stuff.

I mean there is the following below quote from Ecology of Freedom in many respects I feel hits a similar mark that the book Desert was getting at too. I'm not here to prove Bookchin was an anarchist I don't agree with every little thing he has to say though I think there are still useful elements to read from.

""Civilization" as we know it today is more mute than the nature for which it professes to speak and more blind than the elemental forces it professes to control. Indeed, "civilization" lives in hatred of the world around it and in grim hatred of itself. Its gutted cities, wasted lands, poisoned air and water, and mean-spirited greed constitute a daily indictment of its odious immorality. A world so demeaned may well be beyond redemption, at least within the terms of its own institutional and ethical framework. The flames of Ragnarok purified the world of the Norsemen. The flames that threaten to engulf our planet may leave it hopelessly hostile to life-a dead witness to cosmic failure. If only because this planet's history, including its human history, has been so full of promise, hope, and creativity, it deserves a better fate than what seems to confront it in the years ahead."

2

Esperaux OP wrote

Understandable. I don't think anything good really comes from aligning with or making Stalinist/Maoist types feel welcome. Often it just leads to any critique of their idols becoming a controversial topic.

Also thanks for the more in depth explanation on postciv and anticiv. I think a majority of so-called socialists also tend to preserve aspects of capitalism which is why when I refer to communism I mean in terms of the mode of production which I feel helps more inclusively describes a way of living that anprims also describe. Production merely being collectivized I think best describes things like Marxist-leninism or anarcho collectivism which don't actually address systemic factors that lead to the exploitation of individuals and nature. Such solutions merely place the hell of capitalism on the boss and not the existence of the firm itself. Which if I'm not mistaken anprims better describe this relation as simply collectivized industrialism? Again that's just the terminology that I use from my own influences it also doesn't help that my previous influences do partly come from leftcoms who I've come to heavily disagree with.

2

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Oh I didn't know that. I actually just checked and funnily enough saw you provided a previous explanation on the difference between the two too. So would it be safe to describe post civ as the non-primitivist anticiv approach? If that is the case too would post civ not be similar to solarpunk types advocating not just simply current society but with solar panels but actively rethinking how we view ourselves in terms of things like production, consumption, and organization? I apologize in advance if I have been bugging you on about this I don't mean to just hassle you for every little thing but I am trying to do better to listen and learn from others when possible.

4

Esperaux OP wrote

Thanks for the suggested source. I think my main information on anticiv mainly comes from "Take What You Need and Compost The Rest" which at many points seems to be very much in line with solarpunk perspectives. I genuinely think the so called divide between solarpunk and anticiv mainly comes through miscommunications and a clash of optimistic and pessimistic personalities. I think the above video is actually a very good introductory into this.

Also Ted started leaning towards Maoism now? I think last I heard through someone having mail correspondence with them that they became more vocally critical of eco nationalists at least.

I think it is fair to say solarpunk has its risks with cooptation just as much as anticiv or any other nature movement can in regards to more unhelpful movements.

Also on the transphobia and ablelism accusations on primitivism I think folk like Zerzan came out in opposition to transphobia. With a lot of the discussion being more around the overall abolition of gender. Though I have noticed in my own interactions there are indeed people who use the disguise of primitivism to mask the fact they simply embrace the return to tradition narrative.

Also yes I agree internet is extremely horrible for discussing opposing views. On the ground discussion is definitely a lot more productive or at least voice discussions. It's hard for me to read people through online discussion so I could very much be misunderstanding the overall intentions people may have. I would like to specifically state however my intention overall is not to attack anticivs. A lot of terminology I use may also give off the wrong impression but to try and be as specific as possible my overall stance is that I think solarpunk and anticiv are not as different as they are made out to be, that primitivism would exist under the communist mode of production with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and that simply collectivizing the means of production is collectivist not communist. I also think social ecology is indeed a valuable concept to apply to anarchistic principles since it highlights the importance of how we structure ourselves and how that reflects onto how we interpret and treat the environment around us.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

I'm not a marxist or a communalist lol. A lot of things I support and do would very much have Bookchin brand me a lifestylist. The only similarity to Marxism I have overall is the language I use when referring to modes of production. You repeatedly misrepresent my points and have no clue what positions I actually hold. Where have I ever said I support left unity or necessarily oppose sectarianism? I even specifically said I'm not here to defend Bookchin. I wasn't even here to attack anticiv positions. Also again there is a broad range of influences relating to Bookchin with communalism being one aspect. Social ecology is also another component that has over time evolved on its own past Bookchin. I don't deal with day to day shit just for some whiny ideologue to try and misrepresent me because god forbid I share solarpunk content that they seem to think is "greenwashing" since they've never actually done any research on it .Go do something better than being petty. We have a lot more in common overall than you think but you're repeatedly approaching this from a competitive domineering perspective and clearly not reading a single thing I type.

1

Esperaux OP wrote

"anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best"

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

I've made my own personal views and nuances on this clear.I already said I don't agree entirely with Bookchin's positions. You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture. Also there's a difference between calling anprims inherently eco fascist and pointing out that there is indeed an issue where some inadvertently align with neo malthusian outlooks. Multiple times I have spoken with anprims who effectively embraced the ideology because of what they see as a moral decline in the West which they blame on any movement focused on improvements for minority groups within the current dominant system. Their interest is not liberation. Again however they are not representative of anticivs.

Also rationalism is a little more complex than simply dictating to other people what is right and wrong. It's one of many different manners of which people inform their own personal decisions. You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments when advocating anticiv positions yourself. Pointing towards issues like mass production and mass extraction. Weighing the odds of preserving a capitalist system to the necessities of embracing a post capitalist system. It also served as an influence in critiques of establishments like the churches. Prominently featured in Bakunin's earlier critiques of religion from an anarchistic perspective. Then again you aren't obligated to be a rationalist though I don't see where you're going with this. Communalists don't support the status quo. Social ecology as well which is apart from communalism doesn't support the status quo either.

"it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways"

Why do you keep trying to impose your own views and biases onto others? For someone so passionate about anarchism you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent. It's not one camp or the other when it comes to all these traits. Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits. When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you. I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen. DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something? You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state. If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have. It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

1

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from and thanks for providing the proper context. This definitely reads out in a manner that can be used as ammunition to strawman anprim and anticiv positions. I don't really see individualism and collectivism as natural opposites personally. Though this seems to come out of an already existing argument between the so called "social"anarchist current and the "individualist" anarchist current. Such as earlier debates that arose during Malatesta's time between organizationalists and anti organizationalists.

I notice in the quoted paragraphs you provided Bookchin reference his disdain for things like Taoism which I find has many interesting influences to learn from. Though this is definitely consistent with his earlier hostility towards anything he saw as "mysticism". His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things. Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist? Also in terms of anti technologism it's clear that not all anticivs see all forms of technology as needing to be destroyed. I don't agree with Murray Bookchin's overall critique of what he calls lifestyle anarchism but I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

"Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents."

For example this part sticks out the most to me because this seems to be fairly descriptive of things like the modern libertarian movement in the United States. They promote themselves on this hyper individualistic outlook going on to rebrand capitalism as a form of individualism. Yet rightwing libertarian communities tend to hold a strange relationship with white nationalist or even outright fascists.

Again I don't personally agree with Bookchin's framing of anarchism either being only organization or lifestyle. I also agree a number of these points are indeed used to strawman anticivs who are lumped in with this critique. Though I don't think this is here to specifically call anticivs fascists but rather influences that come out in relation to these currents. Again this can be seen with groups like ITS or readings like Atassa which again I understand are not anticiv representative even though many people use these as representation of their positions.

0

Esperaux OP wrote

I mean I think it's better to find an understanding between different people regardless. I can empathize since obviously there are genuine concerns to be voiced around things like medicine and quality of living which a few vocal types may oppose while some do not though there is definitely a lot more room to be had for nuance. I'm starting to think a lot of disagreements mainly stem from different definitions being used or the impression of there being only one single solution/outlook when dealing with broad complex problems. It's more useful to still remember everyone is concerned and passionate about very real present problems first and foremost.

1

Esperaux OP wrote

Yeah I would very much like to see where Bookchin specifically called anti civs fascists. Maybe I didn't read that portion. I do know however he early on argued against neo malthusian outlooks which he saw as eco fascist. Also a lot of times many of the people lobbing accusations of eco fascism towards anti civ types tend to specifically mean groups like ITS or types who take influence from books like Atassa which I personally do understand that these do not represent anticiv views even though they are often confused as such.

Also I'm asking you to give me your definition of civilization so that I'm not misunderstanding your own position or what you are specifically critiquing. I provided my own explanation for what I personally view and see as what civilization may mean. Last I checked theorists like Malatesta, Goldman, or Berkman didn't really discuss civilization or some like Kropotkin gave a pretty loose usage of the term civilization. I don't think I've even seen it clearly defined in works like Desert then again it's been awhile which is again why I am asking you to tell me how you define civilization.

Also entryism tends to refer to the encouragement of members to join larger groups to expand influence. I don't encourage any specific group to interact in this community. I interact with different online and offline groups on my own time I guess but I've repeatedly stated I think there needs to be groups specifically geared towards and unified around a set of goals and ideas instead of simply being spread out and made to work within other organizations. I just go online every now and then and share content I think is interesting or that I am personally exploring.

1

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? What parts do you see as specifically advocating more civilization in this sense? When I hear the word civilization it seems to be used in two ways. Civilization is either simply just used synonymously with technological society or used as a term to create an outgroup of uncivilized people who are then subjected to brutal conditions until they fall in line with the lifestyle of their oppressors. I personally think civilization tends to be a pretty vague label overall since it's either used broadly or simply in a more racist manner.

Bookchin's earlier writings especially tend to be more centered around his departure from Trotskyism and centered around the discussion of how hierarchical relationships develop and how they factor into our treatment of nature. Mainly through the theme of the domination of nature by human coming from the domination of human by human. He did incorporate many perspectives from folk such as Bakunin, Malatesta, and Kropotkin for example though.

Bookchin later on however did eventually distance himself from anarchism due to his bickering mainly with people like Bob Black who I think also has very good points as well especially with what he had to say in regards to the abolition of work. Bookchin eventually reincorporated Marxist elements with anarchist elements leading to communalism which isn't really either Marxist or anarchist. Though people who call themselves communalist tend to be much more open to critiquing structures of power and embracing decentralization.

I think Bookchin was far from flawless though there are elements I think that are worthwhile to read into. I don't think reading a book means someone has to adopt all the positions involved I think people should think for themselves and see what elements apply in their current lives and issues. I don't exclusively read or take influence from Bookchin I try to look into various other works and how they can relate to each other. Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism. At least again in his earlier works it seems as if his main hostility was aimed more towards people who inform their treatment of nature through mysticism. My present concern though is mainly seeing what variety of ideas may seem compatible or touch on similar points which can also help when trying to find common ground with people irl I'm not interested in proving if he belongs in some anarchist hall of fame or not.

0

Esperaux OP wrote

Well I appreciate that you do seem to actually desire an honest and open discussion along with giving a healthy critique from your own perspective. I'd say my main confusion is that I am still unsure if there are different anticivs besides anprims or if all anticivs are technically primitivism. Since I tend to also see a lot of anprims advocate luddism and cite Ted Kazynski who last I checked disagreed with the idea of work being able to be abolished under a primitivist lifestyle. The main two anprims I tend to run into either embrace the use and production of certain technologies such as medical treatment just not under the capitalist mode of production which is very onboard with a lot of solarpunk perspectives and the type that outright reject any technology who tend to support shaky alternative medicines. Obviously this factors into what I'm trying to say with individuals being much more complex than labels given since no single person will really have the same exact views on a subject.

I do definitely agree with the outlook however that capitalism prevents everyone from actually having available treatment. Though I would say a case can be made that medical technology does improve overtime or at least become better refined. Constant research in the field of cancer treatment has been able to better increase our understanding of cancer and how to deal with it. Improvements in earlier detection and treatment has led to an improvement in five-year survival rates. Or for example Brain surgery as well has definitely seen useful improvements leading to it being less invasive and with better methods that can spare more healthy tissue. I don't think things just naturally progress but I do think people overtime are capable of learning and sharing new things. Now obviously for anprims that are not opposed to these types of treatments and technologies I have no problem with. Though at least for me to visualize how a primitivist society would produce and utilize such technologies it seems like they'd operate under the same mode of production that solarpunk types tend to advocate.

Solar punk types aren't simply advocating collectivized industrialism either which I assume is the main impression given when they say the word technology. Again I'd say there is a lot of agreement to be found with issues like how our current society is structured and how that does indeed factor into how we get so many diseases and health problems. Any liberal assuming that something like solar punk or social ecology entails just replacing their roofs with solar panels and placing more plants in skyscrapers is severely mistaken. In order to be sustainable we have to completely rethink the economic side of production, the very way cities/buildings are designed, how technology is designed/utilized, or how we can best meet the immediate needs of our local regions from a diversity of methods for energy production or simply reducing our use of energy altogether in favor of better sustainable methods. LIke primitivism too though you will find different individuals who will have their own perspectives and views as well though.

Obivously there's a lot more to discuss because I personally do see similarities between a lot of these ideas. Usually when I see communities only looking at and repeating their own sources it reminds me of how in leftcom communities they tend to regurgitate and recycle every little piece of text or quote from Marx they can find in an endless feedback loop. This is why despite my stance on the need for more specific organizations on the ground there still needs to be more open discussion and willingness to incorporate and learn from other perspectives. This is also important too since many people I have worked with in reality tend to not even hold any specific ideology or fall under any specific label. Most people are simply tired and struggling who are first and foremost interested in fulfilling their immediate situation before anything else. Which is why I personally think it is so easy for some people to turn to the comfort and security of totalitarian types who take advantage of these people's very dissatisfaction and issues.

2

Esperaux OP wrote

My perspective on this is that ideas never stay in the same permanent state. Yes absolutely there are parts of Marxism and what Murray Bookchin espouses not compatible with other anarchist perspectives. However, that doesn't mean you just discard absolutely everything said by any group. It's important to learn from all different elements and perspectives in order to build your own worldview as an individual. I don't think it's constructive to place any one individual under a simple label and just make assumptions of their entire worldview based on that label. For example we can look at how Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives. Both pointing towards how the issue of nature extends into social relationships such as how we structure ourselves and treat other people. Obviously his works aren't flawless but that doesn't mean it's worthless. When it comes to Marx, it's very obvious his own outlooks come from that of someone who supports centralization and authoritarianism. However we can look at key parts such as what Marx describes as commodity production and from there what drives the logic of growth for the sake of growth under capitalism. This is especially useful I think you of all people would agree with since it serves to critique the market socialist perspective of us simply adopting a worker cooperative society where the means of production are merely collectivized. I think we can both agree however this doesn't actually bring any meaningful changes however to issues like the coercion of work itself and the drive for constant extraction and exploitation of resources. Obviously I should do a better job describing my own views better however if I present myself otherwise. I simply think it's worthwhile to read from the works of others and see what can be compatible and what is not compatible instead of narrowly focusing on one single ideological solution and convincing myself it is the only perspective.

−1

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

"It's hard to deal with the terrible idea of living this nightmare without devoting oneself to the heroic rescue of the Civilization and Humankind. And many leftists and anarchists have martyr ideations, so..."

I was responding to this part basically but also this thread is a mess to navigate so I understand if there's also still misunderstanding. I tried responding as well to clear things up better over why I assumed the previous person was simply anti tech.

0

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I would say I've gone the other way where I view organizational methods as extremely crucial to avoiding cooptation from authoritarian elements. Specifically platformism/especifismo which I personally see as more successful in actually concentrating and dispersing anarchist ideas in the modern age. Though I don't really claim any one form of organization or method is the only way to get things done. In the same sense you may call solarpunk naive I would say the same for anprim alternatives which tend to either rollback their stances on technology and effectively adopt a solarpunk stance without the label or simply oppose any form of technology and outright deny the needs and wants of other people in favor of a very narrow single-minded solution. However, I still respect a primitivist far more than I would a Marxist who spends their time treating Das Kapital like the bible.

I replied to that above comment in a disingenuous manner because they responded in what I assumed was a disingenuous manner if that's your concern. I saw that they cleared up the fact they are not simply saying they hate any form of technology.

It also very much isn't a fallacy if we are talking in terms of primitivism when discussing things like cancer treatment. From my understanding anticiv is not necessarily primitivist so it would be a fallacy on my part to criticize it on that basis. However, with specifically primitivism you simply can't have the facilities and treatments for something like cancer be functionally produced within such a society. If you have any point that may say otherwise in regards to primitivism I'm more than open to listen though.

1

Esperaux OP wrote

I wouldn't only be happy to have an honest debate but a simple honest discussion. However you're more interested in typing up a paragraph generalizing people and talking up your own ass. There is not a single social anarchist you will find that speaks of a truly perfect world where no one gets hurt in "social harmony". People and relationships are much more complex than that. Forms of conflicts not just in terms of violence but simple relationships would exist regardless even in the most cooperative of societies. It's been repeatedly admitted that we are imperfect beings. Where do you even get this idea that I support or even acknowledge civilization? What do you even mean heroic rescue? At the end of the day, people simply desire to improve the conditions they exist within you are no different. You're human too. Humans are part of nature. Don't try and pretend your needs, wants, and desires are any less human. There's nothing you'd gain both from the most social aspect or the most individual aspect of pretending what you advocate is any different in that regards. Also did you get the martyr ideations part from Mr. Kazynski's clownish manifesto? The person who's specialty was math, not psychology? Or was it from some other random source that claims to have finally figured out the mind and behavior of a broad group of people instead of actually addressing the ideas present?

−1