this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1278 readers
7 users here now

!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

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
18
Geopolitics for 2024 (petergelderloos.substack.com)
submitted 8 months ago by poVoq to c/anarchism
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] keepthepace 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Geopolitics tends to be a field of analysis for experts and journalists interested in the competing fortunes of nation-states, their alliances and institutions. They bring to it a level of strategizing similar to sports commentators at Sunday football: they understand the repertoire of plays, they can suss out strengths and weaknesses, but they will never deconstruct the history of the game

We must not read the same source of geopolitics. The common question is "how does this change the game?" "Have the rules changed?". Of particular anarchist interest is the fact that armies tend to veer towards more local autonomy rather than top down hierarchies (still a far cry from anarchism, but one can see there a vindication of our ideas). The role of UN is constantly discussed and illustrates the limits of (kinda) consensus-based non-coercive approaches. EU-Hungary politics or NATO-Turkey give a lesson on the cost of decisions by unanimity and ways to circumvent vetos. I think that is disingenuous to not interest one-self in geopolitics on the premise that country-states are undesirable. Don't get too emotionally involved, sure, but it remains interesting.

I did not go to the end of the article, disagreeing at half the sentences. Just wanted to state a strong disagreement on that statement:

Fascists are not close to taking over

In the US? They have been extremely close to take over. There is one single person that stood between them and the officials they wanted to kill: Lt. Michael Byrd. And the luck that was with us about the one well-armed insurrectionist group that got lost in the building. Nothing has been effectively done to prevent a rematch, it was extremely close.

[–] poVoq 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's hyperbole to think had the January 6th riots succeeded in doing what ever it was they attempted to do, the US would be ruled by outright fascists right now. Sure, the situation would be likely worse than it is now, but very likely not substantially different.

I think the article is correct at least in so far as to make a distinction between right wing populists like Trump and outright fascists.

[–] keepthepace 4 points 8 months ago

It is not hyperbole. They were out there to kill some high ranking officials they did not like. It would have been a real, non-hyperbole, coup. It would have been a situation of actual, non-hyperbole, civil war, with military taking sides. It would have been a suspension of US democracy. They were there to install a new regime. Had Pelosi, Pence and AOC (named targets of the assailants) been killed on that day, do you really think it would be business as usual?

I want to believe that 99% of the army would know who to support and that this would have ended in 24h but even in that case, the world would be substantially different.