stagn2

stagn2 wrote (edited )

Fuck family!!! but unfortunately sometimes theory does not coincide well with reality I'd love to fuck off my family and never see them again, but I've realized that for now it's not good for me, I don't like them and they are not related and often create problems but despite all the problems and contradictions, I'm realizing that FOR NOW I'm better off taking advantage of what little support they give me. I have to admit that my future prospects are relatively better now "with family" than when I lived in a squat whit comrade. Obviously I still want to get rid of the family but when it is advantageous for me to do so. Ideals are nice but....

3

stagn2 wrote

Reply to Question by ziq

When anarchy comes, there will be no more capitalists to impose a system of irrational production based on exploitation and pollution . So anarcho-scientists will invent a way to build space bicycles, which can be produced by small communities with only local products (wood, iron) without pollution in a short time and without division of labor. So I will stop exploring the woods with my capitalist mtb and start exploring space with OUR new anarcho-space-bike.

This is to cool now i am an anarcho-space-cyclist

3

stagn2 wrote

I meant between a hybrid between insurrectional/nihilist and green.

Anti-civ is a very broad term for all those anarchist perspectives hostile to civilization and I do not consider them homogeneous, but I also do not consider them separate monoliths, in fact they influence each other and there is no line separating them. To bring an example of "perfect mixture," I cited flower bomb.

Ther are some who are anti-civ but not primitivists.
But the fact that Henry David Thoreau and Renzo Novatore are both anti-civ does not mean that Novatore can be called a primitivist anarchist, Or that Thoreau cannot be considered anti-civ because he is a pacifist.

While being both anarcho primitivism and anarcho nihilism anti-civ both would not make sense to call "blessed is the flame" an anarcho primitivist book.

4

stagn2 wrote (edited )

I liked it very much so I don't want to denigrate but add some considerations, and I state that I may have misunderstood something.

I think the distinction between green anarchy and anti-civ still makes sense. Within anti-civ there is not only green anarchy but there are some "individualist\ insurrectionalist".
Despite the points of contact and well successful "hybrids" (look at flower bomb) the distinction for me still makes sense.

To take an extreme but significant example subversive anti-civilization groups like the "Informal Anarchist Federation" don't have much to do "anarcho-primitivism" or rewilding, but they are clearly anti-civ, for when I distance myself strongly from their actions, they should be not ignored or excluded! https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-cospito-from-the-belly-of-the-leviathan

In Europe I think the dynamics are a little different . Here most of the anti-left, anti-technology and anti-civilization criticism comes from the insurrectionist\individualist perspective.
Furthermore the Anarcho-leftists have always had this hostility towards not-leftists. (regardless of Bookchin)
And let's not deny that this "hostility" is mutual, in fact the anti-civ anarchist would hate the anarcho-leftists regardless.

4

stagn2 wrote (edited )

But both reject leftist values, indeed in some cases anarcho primitivists tend to be more "peaceful" toward humanist values, technology, and general society focusing on personal choices, trying to reconnect with nature, reducing their dependence on civilization...
Whereas anarcho nihilists focus much more on "total" destruction.

I pose two extreme examples between them, which do not rapresent an overall view of all existing subgroups, but they serve me to make the point:

So too does anarcho-nihilism understand the existing order of today as without potential for a positive agenda. Whatever we build within its bounds will be co-opted, destroyed, or turned against us: “We understand that only when all that remains of the dominant techno-industrial-capitalist system is smouldering ruins, is it feasible to ask what next?”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/serafinski-blessed-is-the-flame

To anticipate the anarchist critic: desertion does not necessarily imply that all forms of attentat are to be rejected outright; but it does mean a profound reevaluation of what some anarchists have vaguely taken to calling “attack,” which I feel has been greatly exaggerated in importance, often very misguidedly conducted, commonly easily recuperated by the parasitic social classes, and woefully overshadowing what ought to be the primary goals of desertion, autarky, and reinhabitation. It is only an empty bluff, or a suicidal and mass homicidal impulse, to prioritize attacking civilization when oneself and one’s kin totally depend on its infrastructure and social relations for their survival.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bellamy-fitzpatrick-an-invitation-to-desertion

edit: I read the comment on reddit and many dont have any idea of what anarcho-nihilism means:

It's an interesting association. I took it to mean Transhumanism is inherently ideology agnostic and gels well with nihilism on that most of the things we value lose the same value in the face of big T transhumanism where we become post-human.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/wafssx/comment/ii0t7iz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

2

stagn2 wrote

I must be missing something.
To my knowledge anarcho-nihilism is very hostile to the left and civilisation, and tend towards the total destruction.
For me there is nothing wrong with that, they are very nice. But why would a leftist consider anarcho-nihilists true anarchists and anprim fake anarchists?

6

stagn2 OP wrote

Thank you, I really like your comment and it is very encouraging

Some concepts I cut from my post because they were too long and confusing, I found them in your comment exposed in such a way as to clarify my ideas and make me understand several things

the latter is a knowledge that cannot be found in any book, but can only be passed, it seems, by teaching people directly and physically, or through experience and direct communication with Nature

A problem is that there usually aren't any people of the sort, or viable ones

This matches my experience, the only thing well documented and useful in books are the deadly plants in the area, for example some very promising roots that I have discovered are not even found in books.
Sometimes you can even find interesting information, but then practical application is a whole other thing, ther is need of years of contact with the nature, intuition and experimentation.

At one of the few courses on wild plants organized in the area I did not go because it was too expensive. At random day I met the expert who organized the course, and she started giving talks about roots full of negative and dark energies and flowers full of solar energy...

I did not clearly understand this part:

When the prefrontal cortex drags along everything else to their displeasure, that still is rule, just internal.

3

stagn2 OP wrote

I dropped out of school very early lmao I decided to continue studying on my own in a more "anarchic" way, without following school programs.
Studying computer science critically and in my own small way trying to use technology in the "wildest" way helped me understand the bullshit of solarpunk techno-utopias. Maybe "studying" helped me to have a clearer view of the world and to embrace more radical anti-civ positions, but maybe now it's time to move on

4