It seems like so much of social ecology is centered around Bookchin. His ideas are certainly useful, and I don't have anything major to take issue with him for. But he is still one guy, and it's pretty inconsistent with a movement growing from anarchism to uphold individual people as heroes. He's also a cis white man from Vermont.

I'd like to know a lot more about the theory, history, actions, etc. of social ecologists in the Global South. I know about Öcalan and Rojava, and their revolutionary implementation of social ecology in the Kurdish context. Modibo Kadalie was from coastal Georgia, but was involved with a lot of Pan-African organizing that included people from the Caribbean, the African continent, etc. And the EZLN, while not explicitly social ecologist, is a closely related movement greatly benefitting Indigenous people in Chiapas. Many indigenous theories like buen vivir and ubuntu are also being put into practice with great success in the regions they come from. And the social ecologist YouTuber Andrewism is from Trinidad.

If anyone else knows about other social ecology or social ecology-adjacent movements in the Global South, please mention them. There's so much more to social ecology than a white person from Vermont. We should be shifting our discourse to reflect that.

While it would be easy to dismiss this as CrimethInc [hereforth the Outlet] cautiously mitigating any potential liability if self-immolation generalizes, the rejection of the framework of martyrdom demands attention. The question is not whether Aaron qualifies as a shahid within the Palestinian context, although demonstrators in Yemen have proclaimed Aaron a “martyr of humanity” and an argument can be made for him having become an anarchist martyr in the lineage of Louis Lingg, Avalon, and Mikhail Vasilievich Zhlobitsky. The bigger issue: the Outlet’s assertion that an individual’s death, particularly in the context of the US, is the “worst of all possible certainties” reveals a deep disconnect with the context of this entire decolonial struggle. In the days following October 7th, anti-colonial anarchist thinkers such as Zoé Samudzi argued that the figure of the martyr marked a fundamental contradiction for the secular left’s ability to fully comprehend and act in solidarity with the Palestinian resistance. The martyrs constitute a force in the present for all who live and continue to struggle. Aaron framed his self-immolation as “not that extreme” compared to the ascension to martyrdom of tens of thousands in Gaza. By implying that Aaron’s choice was too extreme, the Outlet dishonors the reality of the struggle within Palestine and undercuts the potential of Aaron’s sacrifice.

We Do Not Paint Our Hopes

In the manifesto of the anarchism movement, moving towards freedom and freedom from authoritarian systems, both in the economic system and in the political system, is one of the pillars of the anarchists’ utopia. It is attention to this ideal that gathers liberators to work for a single goal and save people from the prison of capitalism and give them the ability to create freedom and decide for their own lives. The effects of the anti-capitalist and anti-apartheid struggle in Palestine today are exactly the same effects that anarchism has depicted for us. If the people of the world want to understand the meaning of apartheid and oppressive government, they should look at the behavior of the fake government of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people. Without understanding this 75-year-old cruelty and racism, you cannot claim to understand the meaning of apartheid because only people who have experienced it themselves will understand the bitter taste. With all the similarities between the Palestinian anarchism movement and the international anarchism movement, we have to point out the differences as well. Of course, these differences do not mean the weakness of international and global anarchism and are only differences that have had an effect on the paradigm of the Palestinian movement due to cultural and geographical requirements. A clear example of this difference is that the FAUDA movement never seeks to paint an ideal image on a board and put it on the historical walls of Palestine. An ideal image of the future, no matter how elegant it is and in compliance with all artistic principles, but in reality it is only an image.

What are we going to do with a pile of images from our utopia? Actors usually install their paintings and pictures in the best part of their house. Although there are many old pictures among them, there are also paintings that do not show the past and the present, but represent a picture of a vague future. What does anarchism decide for the vague picture of the future? Should Palestinian anarchism carry a lot of images of the past and present on its shoulders and look for a suitable place to install them in the old streets and alleys of Quds and Nablus or Acre and Gaza? So, what is the difference between a revolutionary and a painter? Ask yourself this question every day. Perhaps you can find the answer to this question in the crowded cemeteries of Palestine, which are full of young people. Move, move, move. This is the only reason why your anarchist and revolutionary friends are fighting fearlessly in Palestine. Palestinian anarchism does not allow young people to dream of vague paintings, but teaches them from the first day how to move, how to wake others up from slumber, how to be a perfect example of the struggle against apartheid and how to create epics. We leave the depiction of this saga and the narrative of the historical struggle of Palestinian youth against the oppressive Zionist regime to others. This important task, this depiction, is the responsibility of the friends who shed tears for Palestine outside of Palestine and want to do something and have a share in this struggle. Palestinian youth have no right to sit and dream in this full-scale war. They should rise up, fight and not think about anything else until the complete destruction of the invaders and taking back their land.

Capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative stands radically at odds with ecology’s imperative of interdependence and limit. The two imperatives can no longer coexist with each other; nor can any society founded on the myth that they can be reconciled hope to survive. Either we will establish an ecological society or society will go under for everyone, irrespective of his or her status.

/s for anyone that doesn't get it.

Same title as the article posted earlier but I think this was a very moving and important message not just relating to recent events with Aaron Bushnell and Gaza but also more broadly.

I wasn't sure where to post this specifically. But I believe this history lesson to be of some value presently.

Edit: if this isn't a good fit for the c/ feel free to remove it. If there's a better space on slrpnk for it, please do recommend it.

On February 25, Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire at the gate of the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC as an act of protest against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Hostile critics have attempted to shrug off Aaron’s action as the consequence of mental illness. On the contrary, Aaron’s choice was a political action arising from his deeply held anarchist convictions. In the following collection, we share Aaron’s own summary of his politics, followed by testimony from three of Aaron’s close friends.

I don't have any words for this. The man is a hero.

On Sunday, February 25, we received an email from a person who signed himself Aaron Bushnell.

It read,

Today, I am planning to engage in an extreme act of protest against the genocide of the Palestinian people. The below links should take you to a livestream and recorded footage of the event, which will be highly disturbing. I ask that you make sure that the footage is preserved and reported on.

We consulted the Twitch account. The username displayed was “LillyAnarKitty,” and the user icon was a circle A, the universal signifier for anarchism—the movement against all forms of domination and oppression.

In the video, Aaron begins by introducing himself. “My name is Aaron Bushnell. I am an active-duty member of the US Air Force and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest—but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.”

I often see mentions of the disunity in the left and it being a real show stopper for achieving anything meaningful. Whats your take on that and also do you have any reasons(experiences, arguments etc) for that?

The problem is precisely that authoritarians play by the formal rules of liberal democracy.

But the problem is not the purported stupidity of voters, which is an ableist and classist notion. The problem is democracy itself and the passivity it engenders. Democracy makes it seem that voters can wield power through the ballot, but this is illusionary. Because people are separated from real agency, the image of agency afforded by the ballot leaves them choosing between images. Ultimately, if a political system distributes power via a popularity contest, the winners will be those who throw everything they have into becoming popular, all else be damned. Marcos, like Duterte, promised voters heaven and earth, however fantastical and impossible. By contrast, the Robredo campaign promised merely good governance and the continuation of the EDSA consensus. Filipinos are tired of meek liberalism and the liberals and National Democrats did not get the memo.

How would an anarchist society compare to statist and capitalist societies? It is apparent that hierarchical societies work well according to certain criteria. They tend to be extremely effective at conquering their neighbors and securing vast fortunes for their rulers. On the other hand, as climate change, food and water shortages, market instability, and other global crises intensify, hierarchical models are not proving to be particularly sustainable. The histories in this book show that an anarchist society can do much better at enabling all its members to meet their needs and desires.

The many stories, past and present, that demonstrate how anarchy works have been suppressed and distorted because of the revolutionary conclusions we might draw from them. We can live in a society with no bosses, masters, politicians, or bureaucrats; a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals, no rich or poor; a society free of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia; a society in which the wounds from centuries of enslavement, colonialism, and genocide are finally allowed to heal. The only things stopping us are the prisons, programming, and paychecks of the powerful, as well as our own lack of faith in ourselves.

In this essay, we intend to analyze the connections between some fundamental anarchist principles — such as direct action, mutual support, self-determination, revolutionary violence — and initiatives in trans movements to depathologize transsexuality and oppose institutional violence. Far from assuming essentialisms regarding “being trans” or “being an anarchist”, we have identified similarities between the political strategies of trans movements and the aforementioned libertarian concepts. Our inclination, given this assimilation, is to elaborate on tranarchism as a way of illustrating the practical proximity between the libertarian claim for self-determination, self-government and the indivisibility of freedom, and the trans arguments for depathologization, for a rupture with the State’s institutional policies and for an affront to academically legitimized knowledge about transsexuality.

Furthermore, we point to negative receptions of anarchist movements to ofter considered ‘identitarian’ issues (JEPPESEN & NAZAR, 2012) — such as gender issues — and claim that such receptions are not consistent with anarchist principles that oppose any imposition of authority. Despite common disagreements within the movements, there are libertarian tendencies in trans movements, especially when it comes to confronting the oppressive forces of the State and confronting intellectual oppression (BAKUNIN, 1975). So, using an anarchist theoretical framework, we present certain intersections between anarchism and trans movements, with the concept of tranarchism, as stated by Herman (2015).

If you could change anything, what would you change? Would you go on vacation for the rest of your life? Make fossil fuels stop causing climate change? Ask for ethical banks and politicians? Surely nothing could be more unrealistic than to keep everything the way it is and expect different results.

Our private financial and emotional struggles mirror global upheaval and disaster. We could spend the rest of our days trying to douse these fires one by one, but they stem from the same source. No piecemeal solution will serve; we need to rethink everything according to a different logic.

Anarchist historian Spencer Beswick looks back on the intersection of queerness and anarchism within the past 40 years.

Archived Version