this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
63 points (89.9% liked)
Anarchism and Social Ecology
1406 readers
33 users here now
A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!
Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.
Anarchism
Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.
Social Ecology
Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.
Libraries
Audiobooks
- General audiobooks
- LibriVox
Public domain book collection where you can find audiobooks from old communist, socialist, and anarchist authors.
- Anarchist audiobooks
- Socialist Audiobooks
- Social Ecology Audiobooks
Quotes
Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.
~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom
People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.
~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us
The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.
~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven
The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"
There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.
~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism
In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.
~Abdullah Öcalan
The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...
~Abdullah Öcalan
Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.
~ Murray Bookchin
Network
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If they lost their capacity for reason they'd be a lot easier to defeat than they are. You are underestimating your enemy.
Your contempt will undermine your ability to create an effective response to them.
So you want to create a bourgeois revolution.
Anarchism means creating the new world in the shell of the old. Yes, that means being capable of violence, but the bulk of the work is in building mutual aid and community self-defense, not violence.
Also, by calling it violence you are admitting that they are human. You can't do violence to an object. That's just vandalism.
You're just playing semantic games now.
Calling them "not human" is also just a semantic game, but it has real world consequences.
Like for instance, if something isn't human then it is invalid to say violence has been done against it.
So therefore, any act against it is justifiable.
Like, either you believe what you're saying or not.
Every act against a billionaire is justified, because every act is a response to the violence being perpetuated by the continued existence of that billionaire's schemes and machinations. The source of the Injustice comes from the position of power.
It's not a semantic game to say that billionaires are inhuman. It's defining humanity to exclude parasitism and include conscious thought and free will. A billionaire has neither of those things. They cannot consciously make a decision that harms their empire or they'll be destroyed by their own inner circle. If somebody else interferes with their power they have no choice but to retaliate. There is no room for humanity. They're merely a vehicle for wealth.
You're going to need to give me a source on that one, I'm afraid. If you can demonstrate that that is true then I will be amazed.
I explained that statement in the very next sentence. The only choice they have is to walk forward along the path they have set out for themselves. Any deviation will result in the collapse of their empires. Anything that makes them human has been hollowed out long ago by greed and ignorance.
There are class traitors from that stratum of society. It's not common, but the fact they can't be reasoned with is systemic in nature, not individual.
Ultimately we're all individually responsible for our own actions. There are systemic influences, yes. Those influences are what tempted these weak-minded egoic individuals, and by the time they've reached adulthood they have solidified into abominations.
I could also flip your argument over on to you and say that by defining these individuals as human beings, you are giving license to their kind of behavior. If there's no moral damnation to being a king or a billionaire, then they are role models to be emulated. In reality, they are impoverished souls who need to cling to material wealth in order to have any self worth, and they see your material poverty as an indication of your lack of inherent worth.
And it's not the traitors that can't be reasoned with. It's the establishment.
Individual responsibility is the argument of neoliberalism. If you want to change the world you need to focus on society and how it interfaces with individuals.
I have no idea what argument it is that you think you're flipping. I'm not making a moral argument, I'm simply explaining the obvious categories that exist. That informs morality, but I haven't appealed to morality at all yet.
Also, your moral argument fails immediately because it's completely the reverse of the truth. If they're not human, there's no moral judgment to be made. I don't hold a trained attack dog morally accountable for biting me. I hold its master accountable, because the dog doesn't have moral reasoning abilities.
By calling them inhuman, you are absolving them of their "sin" as you call it, and you are absolving yourself of any responsibility to do the hard work of reasoning morally or objectively about this situation.
The simple reality is that they are human, and turning to outright bloodshed as a solution will not create a better society. The guillotine is the tool of the bourgeois, liberal revolution, and it presaged the neoliberal hellscape we live in now. Look into the history of the French revolution. Look at the environment of abject terror the newly forming government existed in, because they thought the individual purity of their rulers was an important aspect of their new society, and they kept executing one another. Nobody can be expected to make a better world in such conditions. Simple violence is the solution an adolescent comes up with. It doesn't work.
All that is required to is to disarm them. They aren't demons, they're not vampires, they won't haunt us and destroy us if we let them live.
Plus, watching them attempt to adapt to a life of moderation and no power to dominate and kill their fellow humans, to face the fact that they are human after all... I think that would be incredibly interesting.
Most of your post is rubbish, but if by disarming them you mean removing their arms, I'm on board. "Individual responsibility is the argument of neoliberalism." Fucking gibberish.
Oh okay, thanks. "Fucking gibberish." Wow, what convince. Such argument.