Rewilding & Feminism

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://anarchaperspective.blogspot.com/2012/03/rewilding-feminism.html">... Perspective</a>

Green anarchism is largely critiqued for the commonly linked, controversial, theory/practice of primitivism. Primitivism, to many red anarchists, is met with apprehension and dubbed as poorly thought out, unrealistic pipe dream. This also creates a rift in basic anarchist ideology - should I stay or should I go? Staying within the confines of typical urban civilization for the benefit of others or leaving the concrete jungle for a sustainable eco-friendly community of equals with no slaves or masters?

Staying behind to make an impact on local politics and influencing others by creating sharings, radical libraries, etc. is not only noble, but in fact, necessary. Food Not Bombs, for instance, would not flourish, or exist for that matter, if there were not individuals within the web of consumer-capitalist society questioning the unquestioning participants of oppression. Anarchism would be exclusive to those already in equal communities off the radar and intellectuals - if everyone agreed with leaving civilization, there would be no presence of anarchists challenging ingrained morals and ideologies.</td><td><img title="I am all for noble and shit... as long as I can mock it" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/rainbowpanda.jpg"></td></tr...
<!--break-->
This logic is based on the belief that people are ignorant, either purposefully or against their will (or a mixture of both). The main objective of anarchism is to create a society of equals without centralized government or hierarchy, based within the premise of individualism. Keeping these two basic beliefs that are universally accepted by anarchists in mind, is it ethical to convert people to your recipe for revolution, like Christians converting folks on the street, even against their will, or for their own benefit by force? If as an anarchist, you are keeping true to individualism which is just as much practice as theory, the whole basis for decentralization of power, and a word rightly used interchangeably with freedom, how would you be able to achieve the over all objective without force?

In my personal opinion, I believe it is foolish to stay in the hornets nest, suffering and participating in the destruction of our ecosystems and deterioration of personal freedom. Having the option to actualize freedom, equality, sustainability, etc. and not utilizing the opportunity, is, again, foolish. Staying within capitalism slowly decays our planet - no matter which way you slice it, money is not sustainable. Not only that, but civilization has perverted our morals and psychological state. Not many of us know how to obtain resources without a store, or dumpster for that matter, leaving us disconnected from the environment that is supporting us. Money itself has contributed to the destruction of the nuclear family, most of us with deep Freudian complexes stemming from lack of connection with our mothers and fathers. This is why green anarchism is the only feasible solution to our economic ruin, moral deterioration and psychological abuse.

I have my qualms, of course, with some aspects of primitivism. Rewilding, as far as harmony between us and the planet is essential, but many take it too far not realizing when we were hunter gatherers, it was survival of the fittest. Keep in mind hierarchy stems from one person having more resources or strength, using it as leverage or power, people abusing the resources for their own cut, then fighting among one another out of selfishness. Strength, of course, would rank men as more useful than women, in fact, this is where basic sexism comes from and why sexism is the fundamental discrimination and not racism, for example. Government does protect you from being harmed by another, at least in theory, promoting a value system previously enforced by religion, now nonexistent in the United States. With the development of these notions, we can remove ourselves from the idea of government or hierarchy and apply it in the wild, which technically, in the correct use of the term, is civilized. So a successful primitive society would have to be a gender-neutral society, which in turn, must be a society that will not value one character trait over another, for instance physical strength over gardening, this fundamental thinking is what creates hierarchy. This would automatically deem children, seniors and people with physical or mental disabilities inadequate. In short, I don't think we should be de-evolving but re-evolving, apart from this gender-ized evolution that is dependent on greed to survive. It would take work to make sure a successful primitive society does not degenerate into hierarchy within a few generations, but feasible within the realm of feminism.

Comments

Social war or gtfo. No more of this 'stuck in 2003' stuff pleez

Full. Communism.

Who is the anonymous tool who keeps saying that anarcho-primitivism
ended in 2003? Sorry, leftoid, the shift is underway, as you probably know.
"social war"+equals dead leftism....Zerzan

Primitivism is another dead leftist ideology. It's 2012, we off that.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I must disagree.
The author af the article notes...

> Keep in mind hierarchy stems from one person
> having more resources or strength

...yet regardless states:

> In my personal opinion, I believe it is foolish
> to stay in the hornets nest,

My point: an industrial civilization is a method of granting
its participants more power (whether to neutrally accomplish things,
to serve their own material interest or greed, or to conquer others
or oppositely, resist attempts of conquest).

As such, up until the very point where it's possible
to leave civilization without experiencing diminished capability,
every anarchist-minded person leaving, amounts to a loss of
a well-connected, well-equipped and potentially quite capable comrade,
in exchange for a mere probability of gaining back a
difficult-to-reach, poorly equipped, less capable comrade.

To that I say: how on earth am I supposed to effectively oppose
centralized power, by disempowering myself?

I am an autonomist as much as I'm an anarchist. The core principle
of anarchy is: power over others is harmful. Meanwhile, the core
principle of autonomism is: power over yourself is good.

Adopting a lifestyle with less tools, less resources,
less options, amounts to giving up power over yourself.
I cannot do that. On the contrary, I want more power over myself,
and increased ability to produce my own technology,
instead of depending on others.

I am an anti-civ, anarcha-feminist and while I appreciate the time and effort and thought the author put into this piece, I have got to say it is just downright bad at many points. At first I thought the author was anti-primi, but towards the end it seems they are in favor of primitivism? Plus the main point seems to be "primitivism cannot be truly anarchist without feminism" which I think could be a really interesting and valuable subject, but the author did such a lazy job at explaining WHY in fact that would be so, it just makes the whole article seem superfluous.

Love the tone of the article!

In response to Whether Fortunately... there is lots of writing that questions the cost of being "well equipped" even to the one being equipped. Its like having the discipline required to work as a programmer, but then getting caught in the daily grind of programming work. Or having the amazing tool of a computer but then spending one's best hours in front of a two-foot screen, the body decays etc. I guess it depends which battles you want to fight. (See Virilio or Baudrillard).

I've yet to hear anyone speak of a back-and-forth movement necessary between the hornet's nest (Chicago?) and a primitivist place. For instance, many technologies find enormous value 'misused' in the hands of non-specialists, such as metallurgy, building tech, RC et.al. At the same time, a breath of fresh air in a primitive site gives a chance to hear one's thoughts and feelings in ways not possible in the hornet's nest.

Without insurrection, the hornets nest is a necessary evil for providing resources, but how not to self destruct? At the same time, Exxon wants to fuck up the last primitive boreal forest refuge.

There are so many bad things to say about our present social system its really indefensible. I like the sense in the article of a diversity of tactics. It seems like we're on a time-line and need to step it up if at all possible. Train wreck ahead. Two cents.

I would tend to agree. This article is all over the place.

I have my own quibbles with the piece:

"Keeping these two basic beliefs that are universally accepted by anarchists in mind, is it ethical to convert people to your recipe for revolution, like Christians converting folks on the street, even against their will, or for their own benefit by force? how would you be able to achieve the over all objective without force?"

Well, I could be sarcastic and quote a certain line by Stalin about omelettes and eggs. Or I could remind the author that since no one's behavior is actually and truely neutral, those 'other' people I may or may not wish to 'convert' are already affecting society (and therefore my life) in some way, positively or negatively. And capitalists aren't going to give up their control without a fight (i.e. force). Honestly, I don't see how anarchists could, even if they wanted to, feasibly carry out a total tranformation of society with force, given present initial conditions. They would be crushed.

"In my personal opinion, I believe it is foolish to stay in the hornets nest"

Unfortunately, the 'hornet's nest' now comprises the whole planet. There is no longer any place to escape to.

"Rewilding, as far as harmony between us and the planet is essential, but many take it too far not realizing when we were hunter gatherers, it was survival of the fittest"

It was not the survival of the fittest, that is a myth; life could at times be harsh, but the weak and sick and old were taken care of.

"This also creates a rift in basic anarchist ideology - should I stay or should I go? Staying within the confines of typical urban civilization for the benefit of others or leaving the concrete jungle for a sustainable eco-friendly community of equals with no slaves or masters?"

this analysis is the same bullshit false dichotomy thrown onto anti-civ folks all the time, it is a farce. The basis by which we understand our position in society is antithetical to this idea. just as the good citizen tells us to move somewhere else if we dont like it here, it is equally laughable to pose to people resisting civilization from within to just "leave". also, fuck the stupid vanguardist thought that informs the idea of "staying within the confines...for the benefit of others."

yup. we gotta create the social rupture that will allow re-wilding to take place within a zone of freedom.

how do you propose we do that?

occupy shit. defend it. expand.

Its so SIMPLE! OF COURSE! Thanks Hakim Zerzan for your invaluable insights.

transhumanism does more for feminism then anarcho-primitivism ever could.

lol

there are some excellent texts out there written by anarcho primitivists, "elements of refusal" by zerzan and "against his-story, against leviathan," by perlman, for example. then there is the green anarchy journal. all of the concerns that the author raises have been addressed more or less, maybe not to everyone's liking. anyway, a little more reading prior to criticism would be good.

An article, that I don't totally disagree with, but haven't I read this analysis before? I don't see this article adding anything new to a point that has been rehashed over and over again, year after year, far too many times.

Hello!

Green Anarchism! Way to go! Zerzan! Yeah! "re-wilding!" its a hit!

lets see now, where are the truly, actually, authentic wild places on earth...hmmmmmm....well, the DMZ. The area surrounding Chernobyl. The northern Yukon, Northern Alaska. The Mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And what is the Green Anarchist population of those areas?

Re-wilding! YAY! Anti-Civ! Derek Jensen! wait, Green Anarchists, i have a BRILLIANT idea! instead of polluting the only wild places left on earth with the filthy waste of European/American homo sapiens, why dont you instead infest leftist social movements and criticize them for grassroots orginizing and radical theory!!!

oh wait, you already do that....

Zerzan, that one was for you buddy. Hope Portland is wild enough for yah! And for you other "green anarchists," enjoy whatever fully devolped, fully integrated part of civilization YOU live in! Im going to "re-wild" in the shrubbery below the powerlines in my suburban home-town, there were too many hippies in th park in Portland. See Yuh!

hope the economy you live in is anti-capitalist for you, wherever you are. i dont understand how you dont know how easy it is to just leave capitalism. also JZ lives in eugene

I think the fundamental sexism is that men have to sit at desks for the first 18 years of our lives, and then the next forty and pretend we are weak. That's socialism.

this is the dumbest thing ever

seriously, how does green anarchism even still exist?

Seriously, how does syndicalism even still exist? or any other idea that hasn't won out?

Anyway, I would recommend the writer of this article read Coming Home to the Pleistocene by Paul Shepard, Hierarchy in the Forest by Christopher Boehm, and Nisa by Marjorie Shostak for a ton of info that disputes the idea that indigenous cultures are sexist/hierarchical, or anything like "survival of the fittest". Sexism and hierarchy originate with civilized cultures, over and over again.

are you really suggesting syndicalism is the only other take on anti-authoritarianism other than primitivism? seriously?

no i dont think they are. perhaps you didnt read correctly.

i guess not. explain pls

slow-motion replay with expert commentator notes:

anon 1: seriously, how does green anarchism even still exist? [weak attack on GA based on snark and 2nd-grade-level insult ("pump-up sneakers are SOOOO last year!")]

anon 2: how does syndicalism even still exist? or any other idea that hasn't won out? [revealing the weakness of the insult through pointed example]

anon 1: are you really suggesting syndicalism is the only other take on anti-authoritarianism other than primitivism? seriously? [revealing own stupidity]

anon 2: no i dont think they are. perhaps you didnt read correctly. [1 step short of facepalming]

anon 1: i guess not. explain pls [too lazy or stupid to think for itself]

anon 2: *facepalm*

anon 3: *gives slow-motion replay with expert commentator notes*

i wasn't suggesting that at all, just pointing out that it is a stupid question.

its not civilization, its agriculture. Even Zerzan says that. Agriculture leads to division of labor, which leads to hierarchy

um, hierarchies existed before the division of labor and agriculture. lrn2anthro

yeah, and he *does* say civilization is the problem, he said it not long ago on his radio show, even... he also criticizes Jensen for getting off of the topic of anti-civ.

Sexism =/= hierarchy

>Sexism and hierarchy originate with civilized cultures, over and over again.
Someone's never read Evans-Pritchard's ethnography of the Nuer.

Yeah, you're right. Now shush.

And I write that someone who hate civilisation.
All of this just reflects the poverty of primitivism when compared to nihilist anti-civ.
http://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/elsewhere/barbaric-thoughts

It appeals to white settler frontier sentiment and guilty glorification of Native Americans that's why. It's the anarchist equivalent of the trailer park grandma with Native knockoff knick knacks in her living room.

If you've ever read some of Kevin Tucker's works, for example, he does not "glorify" Native Americans any more than he would another culture (he even reserves cautious criticism towards certain hunter-gatherers who practice domestication, despite being a strong advocate of HG ways of living). Despite what gets smeared around by other anarchists, most green anarchists and A.P.'s are not romanticizing anything. It has less to do with ideology and more to do with anthropology, e.g. real, living examples.

That's great, but you cannot reduce an ideology with hundred, possibly thousands of followers to one writer. The intellectuals of movements are usually more nuanced.

So what's the point being made? That some green anarchists might romanticize primitive warfare? That some might lambast attempts at worker-control as completely useless? I don't claim to know what MOST green anarchists believe. What I can say for sure is that a lot of GA's are a.) Interested in a deeper anarchist critique beyond capitalism/the state (e.g., industrialism, domestication, etc) and b.) draw inspiration from actual cultural examples that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, as is the basis of ALL humanity before 10,000 years ago.

It's not a part of anarchism you can write off so easily.

Oh yes it is, atavistic bullshit.

If you were driving in a car and after 99% of the time driving in the correct lane, you suddenly veered into the wrong lane into oncoming traffic, would your response to my understandable panic be "Oh, but we can't go BACK to what we were doing before!"?

To claim atavism would be to claim that contemporary hunter-gatherer societies are "backwards" or "undeveloped", which is the nice, convenient racism underlying some of the anti-anti-civ arguments.

Not necessarily, modern hunter-gatherer societies are in some ways more stable than ours, but I would find such a lifestyle to be outright undesirable and a death sentence for a large portion of civilization. We should utilize the technology which we have developed that has been beneficial to humans, and cease to use that which is not. Capitalism for one is highly inefficient in its use of resources and is able to exist through domination by means of the state, so I really don't feel that to at least somewhat mitigate our ecological impact and abolish hierarchy that we need to disband society and start hunting and foraging. That's not my revolution, and as someone you may be familiar with stated it 'primmies can go fuck off to the woods.'

Nothing racist about it, strawman.

"Not necessarily, modern hunter-gatherer societies are in some ways more stable than ours, but I would find such a lifestyle to be outright undesirable and a death sentence for a large portion of civilization"

In some ways? That's underplaying it significantly. Instead of trying to create an anarchist society where it can't be formed, maybe you should look for actual living examples of anarchy in practice instead of having the cadavers pop out of your mouth every time someone speaks of the 'state of nature'. You seem quite concerned with the large portion of civilization which you apparently represent, tell me, did they elect you to speak for them? Do you speak for the Congolese who are dealing with the genocide from the Coltan for your technologies? What about for the Chinese who are dealing with the toxicity from the processing of the rare earths? Or the other third world people that have to deal with the consequences of this shit? And what about the nature based cultures that are being destroyed by your technology? What about the Native Americans who have to deal with the toxins in high amounts because of your fucking technology? If you speak for the majority of anyone, it's for the majority of the addicts that benefit from your civilization and colonialism, not from those outside of the first world that actually have to deal with this shit.

And the death sentence thing? Lame and so overplayed. I know it's hard for the leftist, I do, but humyns are animals, and carrying capacity does apply to us, so does overshoot and collapse. If civilization continues to further reduce the permanent carrying capacity on this planet, and continues to intensify the problem by having more people and making it so those peoples effect on this planet is increasingly more destructive, then it is that systems death sentence, and it is the fault of that system, and you cannot put the blame on those of us who are pointing out how completely fucked we are as long as we continue on. Try reading Catton for some enlightenment.

"We should utilize the technology which we have developed that has been beneficial to humans, and cease to use that which is not. "

That is such leftist bullshit, get with it and go beyond a simplistic view of technology. All technology is built upon all other forms of technology, you can't just get rid of one piece that you don't like. You can't have solar power without the toxic mining process associated with it, nor can you ignore the social costs associated with it as far as people who are producing it, nor the oil that has to be used for it, nor all of the other toxic by-products which come from producing them. And that's just an example. Ignoring the social and environmental costs doesn't make them go away. Technology is based upon hyper-alienated ways of interacting with each other, and with the Earth, that has serious consequences as people like Chellis Glendinning and Paul Shepard both have pointed out, but apparently you've failed to notice since they dont' come AK press recommended.

"Capitalism for one is highly inefficient in its use of resources and is able to exist through domination by means of the state, so I really don't feel that to at least somewhat mitigate our ecological impact and abolish hierarchy that we need to disband society and start hunting and foraging. "

Somewhat mitigate? Seriously? So what, if we're killing off a few less species per day and cutting down a few less trees every day everything is all groovy and fine? What bullshit. And the very nature of resource extraction is unsustainable, but you dumb shits always ignore that. It's easy to sit in front of your computer and travel around in the city and never actually have to see the impacts of mining, deforestation, agriculture, climate change, urban sprawl, habitat destruction, etc, it makes it a lot easier to talk all this theoretical bullshit and ignore the practical need to abandon this way of life. Hierarchy originates with certain social conditions, what about that is so hard to understand? As long as you have those conditions, you're going to have hierarchy. But, again, I know, the cadavers are popping out at the mere thought of the state of nature. One must wonder where all of your theoretical bullshit will land you when you realize that despite the nonsensical critique that is primitivism and green anarchy in your opinion, this system ends up collapsing under its own weight and we're more fucked than we would have been if we would have taken care of matter ourselves earlier on.

so... you got a nice plan for swinging the wheel back into the 'proper' lane? how is driving on a highway a suitable metaphor for primitivism anyway? sorry but your comment is based on an incredibly bad metaphor.

oh no, the wheel is stuck! the car is going to fly off the highway and crash in a fireball! and all the poor people are locked in the trunk! and the rich people can hit the eject buttons on their seats and golden parachute to a soft landing!

^that shit is an accurate representation of the future of humankind. note it.

dude what the fuck are you talking about!!!!!!!!
Green Anarchism is the rascist, objectifing philosophy! Green anarchists are so bad at self-critique. First of all, hunter gatherers ARE 'undeveloped'!!! thats not racist, even you would say that 'undevelopement' is a good thing. Second of all, contmeporary hunter-gathers are just as misunderstood as ancient ones, the best thing to do for them is leave them alone, and stop super-imposing your little radical fantasy onto their way of life! if you were serious, you'd join the Indians in Bolivia and Brazil and Peru and help with anti-road/mining/logging operations, not sit here all comfy in America and whine and cry about how lame the left is.

this is why chomsky said "you would need genocide to realize the world" green anarchists envision. We've blanketed the planet, we're vermin! There is no way out of this infestation except total extinction, which Mother Earths new-onset fever will eventually burn out.

The car analogy is bullshit. A better one is to say: this apartment complex is full of cockroaches, it was so much nicer living here before they came! lets just move out, and when no one lives here anymore, they will go away!!! If you've ever lived in a low-income urban area you know, people live alongside the cockroaches for a looooooooong time

To say that HG's are "undeveloped" is to use the language of evolution in the context of cultural mutation. It implies that the "development" is natural and/or desirable. I sort of regret using the racist aspect of it; you could strike that from my above post. But the argument still stands. You could just as easily say we're "overdeveloped" if you can consider mass industrial society to be too big to handle itself.

I don't know how I'm "superimposing" anything and I don't know how living HG's or uncontacted tribes are "misunderstood". Anthropologists, both living and dead, understand them very well. Some have even had the chance to speak for themselves. And if I had the means of travel and the connections, I would stand with tribes on anti-development initiatives in a heartbeat. I would also say that to destroy logging equipment, both here or elsewhere, is an anti-civ action, not just anti-capitalist.

You're conflating me with other people you've encountered. I haven't dissed the left in any of my posts. I might, and probably would on some occasions, but I haven't.

The car analogy works as for as the scope of the problem, when dealing with the arguments based on "going back". No, I don't have a cast-iron plan for "swerving the car back", nor does anyone, really. But that doesn't negate the argument that we're heading for serious danger.

Can we, PLEASE, just put the "genocide" argument to bed? Please? Green anarchists wouldn't need the whole world to be uncivilized if they could live the lifestyle they wanted. But civilization has never allowed anything to exist but itself. It has always conquered, which is why the "why don't you go run off in the woods" argument is moot, because no one CAN. It's ILLEGAL in most circumstances. This way of life is leading billions of people closer and closer to a grizzly death while it inches closer to collapse. People starve now. People are rioting over food NOW. If you could give some arguments as to why and how syndicalism will be able to stave off some of the catastrophe that's coming (and that's already here) as a stepping stone to the most sustainable way of living (HG), I'd like to discuss it. But to pretend like this way of life can be managed and sustained at the "level of technology we choose" is dooming more people than you accuse GA's of doing.

Hello, i appreciate your tone and regret mine. I was too dismissive and confrontational. I am the one who mentioned Chomsky.

I want to say you are correct, I did conflate you with other GA's, in fact I always lump you/them together, and dont really have a problem doing so because of your core arguments. not the part about civilization being unsustainable, that is clearly true.

its more the "solutions" i have a problem with, or the ideological baggage some GA's attatch to them. For example, I once attended a GA presentation in which they advocated composting toilets, which is fine. But it in no way addresses urban poor or suburban consumerism, two ways of life that never would, or never could, apply composting toilets to their lifestyle. And i know an inner-city dweller who DID have an operating composting toilet and the city condemned his building (it was condemned for other reasons, but they found the toilet and fined him for it)

One small example. Another thing, the term "developement" does unfortunately have culturally attatched positives to it, which is to say the implication IS that development is better than underdevelopement. We DO have an overdeveloped society, which is a bad thing, and Hunter Gatherers DO have an underdeveloped society, which is a good thing. However, if you were to read Fukuyama or something in the mainstream press (NYT) they always use the term "underdevelopement" as a bad thing, and it applies both to infrastructure and political sophistication. In either instnace, HG societies ARE underdeveloped, which is a good thing, burt rarely ever presented as such. I want to say that GA would learn a lot from a book like Guns, Germs, and Steel, in which some HG cannablalize each other, and others live off of tree bark.

I think it is very misguided to advocate incorporating HG ways of life into any sort of vision for a more sustainable, egalitarian future. Are you familiar with the hunter/gatherer subculture in Finland? They have state sanctioned "wild areas" where it is every Fins right to go and gather mushrooms and other flora, which was instituted as a result of the survival of many Fins who escaped the Russians by fleeing into the woods and living off the land. This is very nice and is the best hope Western Democracies have of incorporating HG ideology into their daily lives, but it requires no anarchist or anti-capitalist critique to implement.

Im not trying to co-opt this thread, forgive me for going on so long. I DO understand and admire your metaphore AS A METAPHORE. I do not agree with the point.

I could go on and on but wont for now. We are vermin. Even the cockroaches who survive by eating the dead cockroaches and never leave the confines of the drywall are still vermin. The rats who dont carry fleas are still vermin.

"But civilization has never allowed anything to exist but itself."

That is because of people in it who *advocated* for *possible futures* based on *interpretive evidence* applied in *viewing and treating the present.* (think empires, nazis)

So....

"Can we, PLEASE, just put the "genocide" argument to bed? Please?"

No.

So, one way or another, by intention or misfire, publicly advocating for a possible primitive future based on how we interpret history/anthropology as applied in the present... is the type of formula that explains the genocide "argument" continually surfacing, whether or not primitivist critics put it in their arguments, observations, or persuasive writings. Which brings us to...

"This way of life is leading billions of people closer and closer to a grizzly death while it inches closer to collapse. People starve now. People are rioting over food NOW. If you could give some arguments as to why and how syndicalism will be able to stave off some of the catastrophe that's coming (and that's already here) as a stepping stone to the most sustainable way of living (HG), I'd like to discuss it. But to pretend like this way of life can be managed and sustained at the "level of technology we choose" is dooming more people"

Grizzly death for billions, people rioting and starving, can't stave off catastrophe, life way can't be sustained or managed, what we choose dooms more people... So, why not just commit genocide of modern people and conditions, if they're all going to die anyway in a way that makes it too late for the catastrophy-survivors to live naturally on the planet?

You katz don't argue for genocide, but you have a recipe for it. Like National Socialism isn't contingent upon white supremacy, and at least for the "Nation", social conditions are meant to be equalizing, but it's still a recipe for Nazi organizing. The Constitution stressed freedom and equal inalienable whites, but it didn't apply to those who stood in the way of ensuring it would be implemented, and even then resulted in bullshit, and even then had to be amended when trying to remedy various problems with it... various problems that arose because it wasn't seen as a recipe for anything that wasn't overtly argued for.

Little bitta Jensen passages, little bitta Zerzan critique, little bitta Uncle Ted, and a whole lotta stupid stupid modern motherfuckers, and you can't imagine why the genocide argument would keep coming up when you're incessant about impending unsolvable doom?

The only thing I can value in the prim/anticiv proclamations of impending, practically unstoppable doom is letting it chill me the fuck out and embrace death as a part of life as primitive cultures did, without illusions that it was wrong or worthy of incessant worry or panic, or for attempts at prevention. For spending so much energy on perspectives of primitive cultures, the lot of you sure is fucking modern as shit when it comes to how it manifests psychologically. Trying to save the planet at this point is equivalent to attempting complex multiple surgery 10,000 years ago in a hunter-gatherer tribe.

"You katz don't argue for genocide, but you have a recipe for it. Like National Socialism isn't contingent upon white supremacy, and at least for the "Nation", social conditions are meant to be equalizing, but it's still a recipe for Nazi organizing. The Constitution stressed freedom and equal inalienable whites, but it didn't apply to those who stood in the way of ensuring it would be implemented, and even then resulted in bullshit, and even then had to be amended when trying to remedy various problems with it... various problems that arose because it wasn't seen as a recipe for anything that wasn't overtly argued for."

What amazes me is how someone can point out so much that relates so well to industrialism and civilization and yet apply it to something so completely opposite.

Are you saying that being anti-civ is inherently unrelated to things I was discussing?

"If you were driving in a car and after 99% of the time driving in the correct lane, you suddenly veered into the wrong lane into oncoming traffic, would your response to my understandable panic be "Oh, but we can't go BACK to what we were doing before!"?"

No. But...

You veer and crash because you can't see what's coming, and mistakes are inevitable.

So you would take veering and crashing to imply that your next path is as likely to veer and crash as the last.

Usually, you should look back to see what you did wrong to keep moving forward, even if you are damaged.

You can't undo the damage or change what happened, only clean up the debris and repair and work with what you can.

So, you can't see what's coming and you're likely to veer and crash regardless of the path and you must keep going with what still works to repair and work with what's left.

The answer is not *exactly* that you "can't go back," but that it wouldn't be the same if you did despite what you learn, and doesn't guarantee that you won't veer and crash in the same or new ways.

Sticking with this terrible metaphor...

If someone was driving fine 99% of the time and suddenly veered in to traffic and lost both of their arms... would you tell them that they should just go back to having arms so they could drive 99% effectively again until their next crash?

At any rate, if Civ. is shown to be a problem because it's only 1% of our history, that's really just an argument that even 99% accuracy isn't a social guarantee that shit won't go terrible. In fact, the truth is, there is a 100% guarantee that everything in the universe will end in destruction. We have 99% of our DNA in common with chimps, and 99% of our history was spent living differently than now. You can put shuttles in to space by getting mechanics within 99% accuracy, but some will still explode and crash.

Your critique ignores significance of what 1% can make in life, and exaggerates the importance of "99%" in life.

Okay, let's dispense with metaphors.

Very few humans on earth have the means to live as all humans being used to for 99% of their history. The way of life that distracted humans this thoroughly is violent and undesirable. The dependency on this way of life is total and it's coming to a violent close, probably sooner than we'd like. Should the primitivist critique be ignored completely, the only humans left would be those who already know how to live without civilization (i.e., a number somewhere in the thousands).

The anti-civ mode of thought is critical. If it can be argued that it's the most egalitarian, sustainable and adaptable way of life humans have ever had, it would be able to withstand collapse. Syndicalism and "degrowth"/"slow landing" plans will be as they may, but this first part has to be part of the picture.

"Very few humans on earth have the means to live as all humans being used to for 99% of their history."

Zero species that exist on earth right now do so in the same way that they have for 99% of their existence and 99% of all species that have ever existed *are extinct.*

"The way of life that distracted humans this thoroughly is violent and undesirable."

Reasonable or not, minimal or not, how to fix the violent and undesirable aspects of "the" previous way of life was the "distraction" that developed that "dependence."

"Should the primitivist critique be ignored completely, the only humans left would be those who already know how to live without civilization (i.e., a number somewhere in the thousands)."

Those who think they know how (if them or their ideas aren't killed/extinct BEFORE or DURING) can not presume the outcome of the collapse will suit their knowledge, and there is no reason to assume that remaining post-civilized people will not enslave them for their knowledge with remnants of tech. or sheer numbers (since they're already only thousands). Think early-civ slave-based societies (like egypt). These types of speculations are not only baseless, but useless, both ways.

"If it can be argued that it's the most egalitarian, sustainable and adaptable way of life humans have ever had, it would be able to withstand collapse."

History shows that a small minority of people in a short time (1% of history) can "win" that "argument" whether or not it's the "most" of anything, so (A) it *can't* be argued but (B) even if it's *persuasive,* you might instead find those ideas the new mandatory basic required curriculum for the first post-civ slave empire in history.

"Syndicalism and "degrowth"/"slow landing" plans will be as they may, but this first part has to be part of the picture."

I don't care for those plans, but they are actually plans for tangible results of various kinds, regardless of impending collapse.

I'd summarize, but line for line (sorry some were longer) seems fair/interesting.

i just went and read Kevin Tucker on Anarchist Library. It was a serious waste of my time.

"he does not "glorify" Native Americans any more than he would another culture (he even reserves cautious criticism towards certain hunter-gatherers who practice domestication)"

The parenthetical addition implies a reduction, then, to an even *more* glorified ideal culture; non-domesticating hunter-gatherer. So, when you say he doesn't glorify Native Americans "any more than he would another," you defend a false lack of glorification by insinuating what would be his more precise and preferred culture to glorify. Plus, "native americans" are tribes/bands of many different peoples that comprise many different nations of their own, so it could even be that a particular nation of "native americans" were non-domesticating hunter-gatherer based... making the accusation of glorifying "native americans" an accurate one.

"most green anarchists and A.P.'s are not romanticizing anything. It has less to do with ideology and more to do with anthropology, e.g. real, living examples"

Can you use complex "anthropology" to be a "strong advocate" of very specific and exceptional "living examples" of "ways of living" without either romanticizing or ideology?

How could I advocate for something abstract and nuanced like a "way of living" without it being ideology? (especially since the abstract and nuanced concept of "ways of life" to advocate for is selected by studying sources still subject to bias, falsity and misinterpretation of both the original source and the interpreting advocate...)

If these questions are at least somehow answered without the ideology part sticking, to be a "strong advocate" with all the other specifics must make romanticizing unavoidable.

I'm not really saying romanticizing is even damaging the merit of what's being romanticized... but given your description of criticism of certain h.g. groups and appraisal of others offered as a critique of modernity from a modern person's perspective... that sounds like poison.

"It appeals to white settler frontier sentiment and guilty glorification of Native Americans that's why. It's the anarchist equivalent of the trailer park grandma with Native knockoff knick knacks in her living room."

Best comment on here

i am anti-civ and i loled.

also, i don't see a divide between green and red: if syndicalists somehow won, we'd be in control of our destiny collectively (at least way moreso than now) and i think a good amount of de-industrialization would occur since people won't want shit like oil refineries of mines in their towns....

the red can lead to the green as long as we have egalitarian control.

but i don't think the syndicalists will ever win because we live in post-industrial precarity.
social insurrection leading to communization leading to re-wilding, collective self-sufficiency, and sustainability.

oh, also: ANARCHYYYYYYYY!

Social Ecology, Permaculture and Open Source Technology anyone?

yes please

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouTHANK YOU!

Intellectualism, Hippie Escapism and Free-Market Libertarianism anyone?

Yes

oh yes yes yes yes can i please suck on your big beautiful long capitalized words please!

cavewomen are kule i guess, if they share the survival chores

no cockroaches in my cave dude

Would you just go away, I am trying to get stoned.

I have sympathies with the g@/primitivist critique. It seems to me that this socio-cultural/anthropological critique has three basic elements;
1. it attempts to describe the creation and perfection of the socially alienating forces within civilization,
2. it is attempts to describe the creation and perfection of the ecologically destructive nature of civilization,
3. it attempts to show a path toward over coming this alienation and toward healing the ecological damage caused by civilization.

Yet, in that many that share and promote this point of view come to it by way of the left-liberal tradition, there is a tendency to bring in the critique that is identity politics; that intellectual culdesac that killed the New Left and allowed the rise of the neo-liberal hyper-civ of the last 40 years. But I digress. I think this is mistaken. Feminism, anti-racism, and the material dialectic are all the product of civilization. In that they speak to conditions inherent to civilization they can not and would not have come into existence if it had not been for a way of life that generated the oppression in the first place. To speak of a post-civ way of life that embodies these analytical critiques and attempts to create an inorganic life-way which is perpetually engaged in a meta discussion of some Ivory Tower vision of equality is the epitome of forcing an ideology and thus defining a dominate norm. Thus, its just camping.

Rather, a g@/prim community would necessarily function organically with all members coming to celebrate their differences (I know that sounds corny) and encouraging the diversity of strengths amongst the population whether those be in the realm of gender/sex or mental ability.

The strength of the g@/prim vision is that it seems to speak to the heart of the problem of class, gender/sex, and racial discrimination; civilization. Syndicalism, Marxism, and the left-liberal reformers all want to stay within the arms of civilization and thus, become or inherit the problem which is domination, ecocide, and unfreedom.

The fundamental problem with the g@/prim vision is that due to the over-population generated by the fossil fuel economy, the Malthusian Correction that would necessarily come with the death of civilization is an absolute requirement for "re wilding" to occur. Nevertheless, I fail to see how this Malthusian Correction can be blamed on anyone but the civilization mongers of the Herculean Force.

Peace.

I'm going to let a few other GA/AP writers speak on my behalf about the supposed "genocide argument", because they are better at it then me:

"When I say I want to live as a nomadic gatherer-hunter, the most common reaction is that it's simply not doable at this point. The biggest issue is population. The only thing six billion people can do is die. My hope is that the planet doesn't go with us. But assuming we take some agency and bring the collapse while working to bring people back into their own wildness, then the much talked about 'die-off' might be avoidable. Honestly though, I don't see the massive die-off being as much of an issue unless the civilizers have their way and take their empires to the logical conclusion: complete destruction of all life.
Most likely, I think we're going to see a larger decrease in births than the often proposed number of deaths. But there is no question that a lot of people will die in the process. As any challenge to carrying capacity, this is an unfortunate matter of inevitability and the impact of which we can only work to lessen. Most people take this as an argument for reforming civilization, but even then if that were possible, it only makes a larger die-off inevitable.
How civilization collapses isn't the topic right here, what life might be like after collapse is. We can expect that the population over the first few hundred years will drop drastically and likely stabilize. So the question is how people might live. The life way of the nomadic gatherer-hunter is no doubt the most sustainable way of living. As we've seen, it is the most sustainable way of living; as we've seen, it is the most adaptive way of being. For both social and ecological reasons, it is iimportant. The idea that there isn't enough wildness left for this way of living is actually more of an argument for it. If wildness is running thin, then it is all the more important to adapt a nomadic way of life. That keeps any particular area from being overrun even further and requires more social fluidity to challenge the social hold-overs of our own civilization. The more active effort we take now to help rewild palces or let them grow back over, the better things look for human societies in the future"

-Kevin Tucker, excerpt from "Forest Beyond the Field"

It is undeniably true that the world’s population cannot be sustained without modern civilization. Of course, it is abundantly clear that modern civilization is not sustainable, either. Given those two facts, then some kind of massive die-off is inevitable. It might be through genocide, but since primitvists are a fringe of a fringe (and will always be so) it’s unlikely to come from us. There are many other parties with a much greater interest in genocide for its own sake, who are far closer to power than we will ever be. Ultimately, genocide might be the kindest method, just as it is kind to deliver a coup de grace to a dying animal. The alternative is to waste away by hunger or disease. But ultimately, genocide on such a scale would be nigh impossible, and though die-off is guaranteed, it is almost as guaranteed not to come by way of genocide.
Rather, collapse is more likely to occur as it always has. The diminishing returns of complexity lead to the breakdown of civilization, until some minor turbulence that might have been easily overcome in a former time, instead ends our civilization — the way an AIDS victim dies not of AIDS, but of some minor disease a healthy person would have easily shrugged off. Perhaps Peak Oil, perhaps global warming, whatever the proximate cause, our ability to produce food will be cut off. Starvation will lead to food riots, until, in the end, the survivors will turn to cannibalism. The cities will be killing fields, but those who can look at the wilderness and call it home, those who can find their food without having someone grow it for them — those who are rewilded — will have access to vast resources that no others will even think to exploit.
This is the way evolution has always worked. The “oxygen holocaust” was caused by the abundance of microbes that breathed carbon dioxide, and exhaled oxygen. Eventually, they changed the very composition of the atmosphere, and began to choke and die in the toxic environment. But those microbes that were adapted and could actually breathe the toxic oxygen emerged and proliferated, striking a balance with their forebears, the carbon dioxide breathing microbes, and beginning the oxygen cycle that regulates our atmosphere today. So, too, the collapse will permanently end civilization, and with it the dehumanizing domestication and captivity of Homo sapiens, leaving only rewilded humans to inherit the earth.
The fanciful genocide scenario is embraced by some primitivists, but this is quite patently madness — and unspeakably wicked. As I said, for those who die, dying quickly of a gunshot may be preferable to dying slowly of hunger and disease, or living to see their cities torn apart by warring gangs of cannibals. However, there is an evolutionary elegance to the collapse that such an alternative violates. Every individual on earth will have a choice. They will be free to choose to remain part of their culture to the bitter end, and die with it; or, they wll have the choice to embrace a new culture, embrace their own humanity, and survive into a new world. An act of active genocide violates that. The one who perpetrates such an act elevates himself to the status of a god (as the progressivists would do, only without their silly, illogical, anthropocentric qualms distinguishing between humans and all other life on the planet), to dictate who should live and who should die. This is why I believe Ted Kazcinski is evil: besides the complete counter-effectiveness of his campaign of terror, he committed the ultimate sin, the sin of civilization itself. He placed himself in the role of a god, dictating life and death."

-Jason Godesky (who, I know I know, is NOT an anarchist), excerpt "Five Assumptions About Primitivism and Why They're Wrong"

"OK. What if we spent a couple generations of sharply negative population growth? No, I don’t know how, practically speaking, it would be possible to convince 7 billion people to severely curtail their reproductive activities. But, then, a few generations ago, I would not have known how, practically speaking, it would be possible to get 7 billion people to relinquish what little remained of their personal freedom and acquiesce to the permanent defacement of the natural world for the benefit of multinational corporations. Every five-year-old eventually learns that just because you personally can’t think of an answer doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

And then, of course, the “massive die-off” cliché assumes that there would be less of a massive die-off, less starvation and suffering, if civilization continues. If we end civilization today, almost seven billion people will die. If civilization is allowed to continue for another three or four generations, that number rises to over 10 billion. Our inaction today sentences an additional three billion people to starvation and suffering—and that doesn’t include the billions who will suffer and starve anyway, as a function of the grossly unequal access to resources that is a defining feature of all civilization."

-Old Dog, excerpt from "Anti-Primitivist Memes That Never Die"

"Our inaction today sentences an additional three billion people to starvation and suffering—and that doesn’t include the billions who will suffer and starve anyway, as a function of the grossly unequal access to resources that is a defining feature of all civilization."

If "our inaction today" sentences three billion to death, that means those deaths are the collective fault of those who don't try to end civilization.

If the collective fault that "civilization is allowed" by "our inaction today" means that others have a responsibility to act to stop it to prevent deaths, then we have the collective responsibility to cause the (less) deaths that result from the end of civ.

That means both holding pro-civ and anti-civ positions necessitates collective responsibility for the unwilling deaths of others on a mass scale.

That means the argument to end civilization based on the fact that it will ensure the death and suffering of millions is fallacious, because, like you accuse civilization, you are suggesting undertaking actions that will result in mass-death against the collective will of others.

If allowing civ creates a collective responsibility for unwilling deaths, then ending civ also makes a collective responsibility for unwilling deaths.

Further, the "amount of people" argument, if accepted, means that technically, civilization ALSO allowed MORE PEOPLE to LIVE AT ALL, so saying that you value life so you want less people to die precludes the adverse that in order for less people to die, less even get to live. So, again, like you accuse civilization, you are saying that preserving life is good, and should be a priority by any means, including ending life you claim to want to preserve.

Both positions, by presuming collective responsibility for death and suffering, blur the distinctions between suicide and homicide. Both positions, in arguing why life should be preserved, blur the meaning of valuing life by saying it necessitates death.

The fallacious conclusion offered, therefor, is:

All human death is suicide, because knowing that living results in death makes us collectively responsible for all human death because we are collectively responsible for all human life.

All human life is murder, because valuing life enough to prevent death makes us responsible for restricting it for limiting life's spread and spreading life we value makes us responsible for not preventing more death.

Murder is suicide, and suicide is murder.

You prescribe action derived from guilt that comes from blaming paradoxes and complexity on human's inability to solve them, instead of seeing the inability to solve them as inherent to the human mind and not subject to guilt. Like Christianity. The position makes absolute problem rather than circumstantial embrace of the natural existence of negative experience of phenomena. Life is sin, instead of life just is. You are responsible for death, not death is natural.

I have yet to see an anti-civ critique and position that actually resembles the less linear and controlling perspectives that kept various populations from actually developing civilizations in the first place. Perspectives that weren't even capable of entertaining the polar, reflective logic of the "pro-civ and anti-civ" discourse. Interesting how, like usual, the relationship to the "uncivilized" by the "civilized" even cuts out the perspective when looking to them as examples and answers.

The anti-civ position is an absract, ideological conclusion disguised as tangible by its use of concrete facts.

the only real way to promote 'anti-civ' is to promote anit-consumerism. The inevitable collapse of global civilization is not going to happen for quite some time, definately not in our lifetimes. It IS going to happen, but the police state combined with the (in)justice system has made overt resistance futile. Fortunately, passive resistance is impossible to restrict. Specifically, anti-consumerism. Without the dollar of the consumer, most industry is weak, and boycotts are not something you can police. Currently, the only way i can imagine an effective anti-capitalist movement is to collectively refuse to cosume all that which is not absolutely necessary; food, and in some cases, clothing and hygeine products.

Franco Berardi's book After the Future addresses this to an extent, although i think anti-consumerism is an always lurking but never much acknowledge thread within the anarchist/socialist movements

anti-consumerism is weak
boycotts are weak

1% doesn't buy the big bad product, but the big bad product is still being produced.

struggles against civilization are taking place at the level of production
and at the level of resource extraction (actually, strongest here)
but also at the level of consumption, not only in refusal but in the destruction of commodities (one of the main forms of action we saw in the December 2008 uprising in greece) and other methods

i dont think a minority of morally-superior-feeling individuals imposing scarcity on ourselves is really that winning of a strategy.

i'm not talking about an imposed scarcity at all, in fact i went out of my way to mention food will still be consumed. The word "scarcity" should not be applied to the vast majority of consumer products, such as cell phones, automobiles, designer clothing, etc. All of them are superfluous, and im not talking about imposing anything, just anti-consumer education and encouragment

Active resistance has shown itself as a failure, we can start at the French Revolution and move onwards, focusing exclusively on the west (europe and the US)(special consideration needs to be given to resistance in South America and Africa).

What gains have been made via active resistance? Again, IN AMERICA, obviously Bolivia and Chile, etc, are completely different, although i would lump in most forms of armed resistance from any country. And i'm not speaking of something like the WTO protest in Seattle or even the G8, i'm speaking of the multiple revolutions in Europe in the 19th century and the recent ELF/EF! movements (notice the omission of Greenpeace and the ALF, two groups that i think need special consideration that is not pertinent at the moment).

I would argue that in a nation as affluent as ours, advocating active resistance will alienate enough people as to render them ineffective. And by comparative standards, we are still extremely affluent. However, lifestyle choices, such as living in urban centers, non-automobile transportation, and permaculture could grow exponentially.

"struggles against civilization...at the level of production and at the level of resource extraction" are largely ineffective, whereas the current anti-fracking campaign and the Keystone XL battle have some serious traction. Unfortunately, the mountaintops of WV and the Forests of Northern California are gone, despite pretty widespread and well orginized resistance campaigns. Just as a disclaimer, i call the anti-fracking campaign and the Keystone campaign "passive" because the majority of the resistance is legally sanctioned, and all of it culturally sanctioned.

ummm, active resistance has proved to be a failure, but passive resistance hasn't?

i loled.

no, it hasn't. It hasn't yet proven successful either, the main problem with passive resistance is that it might end up fully incorporated in to the capitalist system, as we recently saw with the MLK stature created with funding from GE and other mega-corporations. But I feel the Murray Bookchin/Bill McKibben approach is far more productive than the GA/Black Bloc approach (i cringe to bring up black bloc given the recent row over that with Chris Hedges, not sure it would deflect any potential ire if I were to say Chris Hedges is a philandering hack who wrote an ignorant smear piece that may help to divide a potentially potent movement....diversity of tactics is our only hope, im just not about to advocate or participate in certain things)

do you realize how boring you are?

"the only way i can imagine an effective anti-capitalist movement is to collectively refuse to cosume all that which is not absolutely necessary"

The problem is that it's systematically designed to where to buy food, you don't just buy food... you also buy the oil to transport it, the resources to package it, the people who produced it, the company and its other ties (often ARMS, oil, and other fucked up shit), etc etc etc. You also can't determine, nor standardize what constitutes "need" for others, either.

true, but all of this is addressed by the local food movement and permaculture. I wouldn't want to "standardize" what constitutes need either, I dont know who advocates for that, i've never heard it argued and i certainly wasn't suggesting standardization.

Either way, Green Anarchism is a farce, thats all im getting at. I dont think they have the answer to anything, and their critique is pretty weak. There are much more rational people out there like the author of "The Partys Over" (forgot his name, Richerd Hedburg I think) and Bill Mckibben who have a subdued, reasonable approach to the same issues without all the inflammatory rhetoric or mindless, labrynthine philosophizing about collapse and "rewilding." They've also outlined well thought out alternatives and lifestyles, some of which have already been implemented, that replace the empty "resist" attitude of the Green Anarchists.

I dont want to get myself caught in the trap of equating GA with Jensen, but he is a real piece of work and i am very happy to see him effectively run out of the anarchist community.

"The anti-civ position is an absract, ideological conclusion disguised as tangible by its use of concrete facts"

An assertion that floats in the air without support or grounding premise.

Elaborate. Brevity or length will suffice.

The entire premise of this article is absurd. It is only in the narrow, privileged, disconnected world view of those in wealthy countries like US, Australia, Canada etc that one can even conceive that running away to 're-wild' could in reality "actualize freedom, equality" etc. This is a bullshit hippy dream reminiscent of '60's and '70's hippy / eco communes & didn't we all learn from that?
People in countries (the rest of the world) who bear the brunt of this fucking system don't have the privilege to ran away to 're-wild' as the very violent real effects of capital have brutalized their land, and in many cases made it impossible for them to return without encampment / incarceration, severe repression and death.

The point is, you might feel like you are "free" or that you are "actualizing equality" and other anarchist principles, but in reality, all your doing is exploiting your privilege as a citizen in an advanced capitalist economy to evade the worst effects of capitalism and therefore to feel better about yourself while the rest of the world is suffering ever increasing repression and suffering at the hands of this system.

This applies to other waste of time endeavors that so many participate in in these countries, like another practice deemed significant in this article - food not bombs - really wtf? What is revolutionary about a bunch of white middle/upper class drop outs serving up bad tasting vegan bin food in an act of CHARITY to homeless people? It is like a sloppy vegan (ok, usually organic, but the taste usually cancels out this benefit) soup van. I feel embarrassed whenever i attend and see the most battered of the lumpen proletariat served food (and sometime condescended to) and then all the cool white activist kids get to pack up their van and go home feeling so good about themselves, while no real relationships of struggle or solidarity are formed.
The state has better programs for the homeless (at least they might have access to a good steak) and probably is more hygenic & better tasting.

What we have to give as anarchists is our solidarity in struggle - not some pathetic (vegan, organic) alternative to state charity.
Yet too often, it is precisely those activities that keep us in our (in australia - often white & middle class) ghettos hanging around people we feel comfortable with because they ascribe to the same sub cultural activist aesthetics and lifestyles as we do. These activities seem so driven by the need to feel better about out lives under capital - not about solidarity and forging connections on the shared basis of struggle or opposition to the state / capital / the cops.

It's better not to have any contact with homeless people & people struggling under capitalism then to condescendingly serve them a charity bowl of your so much healthier and benevolent version of charity.

Fuck Food not Bombs, fuck eco-hippy escape routes - ANARCHIST (FEMINIST) SOCIAL WAR

yeah! fuck food not bombs! they're stupid! (you're right about everything you said about them, im just not sure why you decided to go off on Food Not Bombs....people of every philosophy partake in it, its not a GA thing, but whatever, fuck em, i i was homeless i would go to the church ladies with their meatloaf and sweet perfume)

i was pretty much with you until "feminist"

This was originally a blog post/coffee rant, but let me, the author, clear some things up:

Even if you are opposed to green anarchism, to actually effect capitalism at its core, you would need to approach it from an environmental/feminist approach. period. capitalist over-production, which is mandatory to have a business within capitalism to exceed profits year after year (also to avoid competition), can only succeed by exploiting resources and peoples.
Factory farming for instance, (number one cause of obesity, decline in health, heart disease, and CO2 emissions) have to exploit the land to (a) grow enough food for the animals for slaughter/creating bi-products (b) to have enough land to have the factory (c) to dispose of the waste from the animals and factory. also, to feed the amount of animals for production they would have to genetically alter the food so grow as much as they can without losing product and put pesticides in the ground, etc which makes the land over the course a few years unable to grow food. If people fought to limit the amount of land available to these factories, companies like Monsanto, McDonald's, Con-Agra, etc. would not be able to create enough food or have enough land to dispose of waste or to hold animals which would make these companies decline in profits therefore have less political influence, at the least. Over time they would not be able to make enough food for the demand of product and the business would most likely collapse.
Feminism plays a major role, which I did not adequately discuss, mostly because my coffee high wore off. I will use the example of factory farming again. In order to have factory farming one needs to have workers. In the fields and in the actual factories the United States exploits immigrants/migrant workers, we all should know that. In the actual factories, they use women primarily as the low level workers because as immigrants, they are less likely to complain and can be manipulated through sexual harassment and other types of physical intimidation, therefore they will not ask for raises, as immigrants aren't familiar with laws/regulations (which benefits the company) and rarely move up in the work environment unlike migrant/immigrant men. Not only that, but let's look in the corporate world, women do not receive as much pay as men, are much less likely to be put in higher positions such as CEOs, are less likely to be hired due to maternity leave, and preconceived notions of housewife responsibilities & stereotypes and gender roles give employers the impression of stress due to other responsibilities outside of work that they are not paid for. Because of all these things, women are less likely to ask for raises, so the company can manipulate women to work harder for less pay. The corporate world depends on having people work as hard as possible for as little pay as possible. THEREFORE if you attack even basic women's rights like paid maternity leave you fuck the corporation out of alot of money (not including the myriad of lawsuits that would ensue..excuse the pun) and it limits their ability to manipulate their workers, and the people on a political level.
Why radical feminism and not liberal feminism then? Well, let me explain. If you attack gender roles, which is a psychological manipulation of mass amounts of people, and change commercials, media and the overall perception of women, corporations wouldn't be able to keep women perceived as being submissive or objects for men which would fuck them out of money and they would have no support keeping women underpaid and being kept as objects of sexual desire instead of as people with a mind. So by even suggesting women should not be objectified, it is saying 'women are also of value and deserve to have equal opportunities just like men' and would limit the brainwashing of the public (i.e. gender roles) if we attacked just commercialization or the way you conduct yourself from day to day. (i.e.Personal is political). This is why green anarchism must be feminist because if you do not address gender roles, hierarchy will exist, and it will in turn, abolish hierarchy within capitalism, not just psychologically.
Not only that, but feminism and anti-green washing is the #1 way to get leftist liberals on a radical agenda. No one said green anarchists want everyone to abandon cures for cancer (which we don't have)....just the causes of these diseases due to exploitation of the environment, which is also exploitation of people & animals (see example above). limiting exploitation of women and the environment would limit the power of capitalism. so if you are just focusing on the "economy" are whatever occupy people are doing and not focusing on how for instance, single women are constantly turned down for affordable housing or how women will be most affected by not receiving welfare or how the middle and lower class are becoming more and more single mothers with children (which has obvious correlations with gender roles and the way men are perceived as being irresponsible thus men assuming that role and that its a women's responsibility to care for children) or how politicians divert tactics to focus on abortion rights which is so archaic...(this is because there is not an adequate amount of women being represented in politics.) you are being racist, sexist and are looking at a one-sided economy that is looking to benefit only middle class men. Obviously because women are more likely to take on domestic labor in jobs and unpaid work, and because women don't get paid as much as men, they are main part of the poor demographic and are less likely to own businesses and have political power, etc...
We don't all have to be hunter-gathers, that would be impossible. But it WAS the least harmful interrelation between humans and the earth. I'm just talking about people creating a sustainable community, as a model for others instead of having a fatalistic attitude of society can't change so do nothing....but more society can't change, but i'm not going to keep fighting for this same piece of land to not be developed every other month and actually make one lasting contribution to society. That would be creating an actual equal society.

Hope that cleared some things up! By the way, that doesn't mean you turn the other way to social injustice.... that is an assumption of green anarchism.

and how do you feel about trans women?

(i'm not the poster... but i wanna try... If a trans-person identifies as a woman, does the use of "woman" in that comment not address that trans-person? Same if a trans-person identifies as a man? If they identify as a third gender or solely *trans*, does not the mentioning of challenging/smashing gender roles address them?)

i consider myself gender-queer. radical feminism is more so encompassing of non-gendered/bi-gendered/transgendered/ and everything in between, i was only using one example, such as people who identify or who are identified by others as women. also, even if i identify as gender-queer, others still identify me as a woman, no matter how much i reject the label. also i specify genderqueer, because i am neither man, woman, nor third gendered. i am not gendered at all. sexual identity is much broader than that. the reality is, others box you, like the boss of a company, that is why the term "woman" not mentioning trans is used, and also because of issues like maternity leave, is specific to having the ability to give birth, which for example a trans woman who is identified by others as a male would not have the same issues as a genderqueer person who is identified by others as a woman.

I'm not sure if this was pointed somehow and I missed it, or if it was more just sharing... so, is there a way this specifically relates to the comment being addressed?

"how do you feel about trans women"

i just wanted to point out i would never specifically leave out people not included in the typical gender binary system. that i use the terms feminism/women because other people will no doubt either peg an individual as man or woman, if they are trans or not. but basically its just more sharing

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
C
j
f
C
E
3
u
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Rewilding &amp; Feminism"
society