Anarchism and Social Ecology
!anarchism@slrpnk.net
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.
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
view the rest of the comments
This is a subject I've done a significant turn-around on in the past couple years after seeing how fascism took hold in the past, and doing a fairly deep dive on the differences in policies between the 'bad and less bad' parties, and the practical outcomes of those policies in people's lives and ability to organize.
Like you, I was completely disillusioned with the system, and thought of voting in said system to be a pointless exercise. However, sometimes it can make drastic differences that can impact millions of people's lives to various degrees. To be clear, I'm not advocating for putting extreme amounts of effort into campaigning, but the critical votes (For the US, the Local State Midterms and Presidential Elections) are absolutely worth putting a vote in. If your country's votes are not completely rigged such as it is in Russia, then I would advocate participating in the vote.
So why do I think that now?
First, let's address the idea of Trump and Biden being one and the same:
While I would never defend Biden to the point of saying he's a 'good' man (he's still a neoliberal at heart, and as you say, he supports genocide), he is allowing some positive things to pass that would not happen under a Trump presidency, and some of those things can be fairly significant.
Lastly, for all of Joe Biden's many, many faults, he is not a full on fascist dictator. And now comes my biggest reason for voting (not just in the US, but everywhere).
Fascist's rely on passivity to gain power.
I made a larger post about this topic here, but the short version is: When someone trying to get into office is openly fascistic, history has shown that they will do what they say when they get into power, and they will do everything possible to secure that power permanently, and expand it.
Trump is the first openly 'strongman' style fascist that has a very high chance of getting into office. He wasn't quite this fascistic in his first term, but now, especially after January 6th, there is a very real possibility of the US descending into a genuine jackboot dictatorship. And traditionally, fascist regimes help other fascist regimes around the world (And Trump has a hard-on for Putin, so Ukraine would be fucked if he wins).
Yes, Biden is committing genocide, the US is still is an imperialistic government, the prisons are still full of slaves, and he is ultimately a neoliberal that will not enact truly meaningful change on a wide scale. But even with how bad things are, they could absolutely get, way, WAY worse. We've already seen some pretty massive regressions in rights due to republicans, as other comments have mentioned.
I do understand your frustration though, especially as you're living in a country that is fucked over either way by US politics.
Bruh I don't care about US jobs and inflation. I care about US imperialism. That will never be on the ballot, neither in my country or in yours.
Second, your analysis on fascism is upside down. Fascists do not rely on passivity, no the exact opposite: fascism relies on proletarian mobilization mobilized for reaction. Fascism makes proletarians identify with their power. Donald Trump lost the popular vote; passivity wasn't the problem—he was broadly rejected! Liberals had their victory but the game was rigged. In my country, both Duterte and Marcos got people to identify with their power and proletarians mobilized under and for this image of power. Fascism formost relies not on mass passivity but mass activity. It relies on mass politics albeit one turned upside down.
The Inflation Reduction Act doesn't really do anything to combat inflation, it's a poor name. I linked a video about it that goes into greater detail of what it practically entails. And with the Jobs act, I tried to highlight how significant of a role that legislation will have in getting the US off fossil fuels, which, like I get it, that seems inconsequential when your country and others like yours are being subjected to imperialism RIGHT NOW, but I emphasize it because climate change is something that affects us all, and to demonstrate that who wins this stupid election does have downstream effects that matter for everyone for a long time to come, climate wise.
We collectively do not have a lot of time to fuck around with getting off fossil fuels, so any big step in that direction is, IMO, critical. But that's just my 2 cents.
I mean... Yes, for the most part that is true with the electoral college, and @Five@slrpnk.net's post here about how the swing states are the only votes that matter is mostly true (though I still would argue it's good to vote even in the more 'secure' states just to be on the safe side).
However, I'm not sure that was the case with Hitler's rise, and as my linked post shows, he didn't win the popular vote, the less bad option could've been chosen had the Germans 'defensively' voted back then.
But, yeah, I'm not going to defend the US's electoral system, it is absolutely a joke, I agree, but the result is not set in stone, it's still absolutely worth fighting, because it's going to be very close.
That's certainly much harder to fight against if the majority are already down for it, especially when things were pretty dire. It sounds like it was very similar to Italy during the rise of Mussolini, where seemingly it was inevitable due to him having a significant majority vote.
I think my voting suggestions only work if the fascist party isn't already going to win the majority vote by a landslide (But even then, it's best to vote anyway, just in case polls were misleading).
Also, I was only bringing up US politics because I'm already familiar with the historical ramifications of 'less bad' voting here, which has shown a trajectory of when 'full bad' wins, things get way worse, which for me just highlights that a passive stance toward voting doesn't really bring any sort of tangible benefits, whereas defensively voting (at least historically in the US), has shown to be worth the effort to vote.
I don't know if that's the case for your country, or for others, but I would guess that it may apply there as well. You said yourself that when Durerte won, hundreds of thousands died. If you believe that those lives wouldn't have died if the less-bad guy had won, then your vote was worth making, even if it ultimately didn't work, because there wasn't a zero-sum chance that it wouldn't have worked.
I guess I advocate for voting for 'less bad' because game-theory and history has shown to a sufficient degree that the harm reduction is worthwhile.