this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
13 points (81.0% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1398 readers
1 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
mambabasa
Five
punkisundead
13
Mass Protests and the Danger of Social Media (theluddite.org)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/anarchism
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Crossposted because I think it's an interesting take, but I don't fully agree with the part about protests having no quantifiable goal.

Not all protests for Gaza were meant to gain engagement, many were organized to cause direct economic disruption to those that profit from the war, that is a goal.

https://www.a15action.com/

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh hey I wrote that lol.

Not all protests for Gaza were meant to gain engagement, many were organized to cause direct economic disruption to those that profit from the war, that is a goal.

I actually totally agree with you. I should've been more careful in the text to distinguish between those two very different kinds of actions. I actually really, really like things that disrupt those that profit, but those are not nearly as common as going to the local park or whatever. I might throw in a footnote to clarify.

[–] poVoq 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I discussed the original text that this is a reaction to with a Brazilian who claims to be well connected to the original core cell that started the protests and they said that Bevin's reading is a complete misinterpretation of what happened. I think some other Brazilian here on Lemmy also commented something similar.

Personally I know a bit more about the protests in Egypt, and for these I would also but to a lesser extend say that Bevin's description of them is very flawed. At the very least some of the people involved are on record stating that the "Twitter revolution" moniker is a complete western media fabrication and social media played only a very small role in organising the protests.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's kind of a weird critique, because it's actually consistent with the book. He spends a lot of time talking about how wildly different every person's interpretation of the event is, and that's kind of the problem. It's part of why these movements are illegible to power. He's very clear that this is his interpretation, based on his own contacts, experience, and extensive research, but that it's not going to be the same as everyone else's.

Same is true with the moniker. Whether or not the people on the ground felt that way about it or not, that story, fabricated without input from those on the ground, is what ended up creating meaning out of the movement, at least insomuch as power is concerned. That's like the core thesis of the book: The problem with that wave of protests was not being able to assert their own meaning over their actions. The meaning was created for them by people like western media, and they weren't able to organize their own narrative, choose their own representatives, etc.

edit to add: IIRC, he even specifically discusses how the different people in the core group of Brazilian organizers disagree on what happened.

[–] poVoq 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think its wired to critique someone for having a widely different interpretation of what happened than multiple others that were directly involved and then taking this very peculiar subjective interpretation to make wide sweeping (and IMHO wrong) conclusions about what we should learn from it.

My impression is that Bevin started out with a preconsived notion and then kinda made up a retrospective narrative of these protests to fit to that.

Many of his conclusions as a result are so much besides the point that they are not even wrong.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t think its wired to critique someone for having a widely different interpretation of what happened than multiple others that were directly involved and then taking this very peculiar subjective interpretation to make wide sweeping (and IMHO wrong) conclusions about what we should learn from it.

It is because that's literally what the book is about. The book is addressing that very phenomenon as its core thesis. That's exactly what he is talking about when he says that the protests are illegible. If someone says "people disagree a lot about what happened and that's a problem" responding to that by saying "i disagree about what happened" isn't really engaging with the argument.

My impression is that Bevin started out with a preconsived notion and then kinda made up a retrospective narrative of these protests to fit to that.

I'm sorry but I don't think that anyone who has actually read the book in good faith can come to that conclusion.

edit: added more explanation

[–] poVoq 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ok I guess I need to start from the basics 😒

His core thesis is exactly what I meant with preconceived notion. These protests might have been illegible to him and government authorities, but that is exactly why they worked. The entire premise that protests need to be legible and that these protest failed to achieve what they set out to do is IMHO false.

Maybe the Brazilian ones had a certain aspect of appealing to Rusoff, but from what I gathered most people involved in the core did not consider that aspect especially important and I suspect Bevin failed to understand their point and summarized it as "they didn't know either" or something along those lines to fit it in his grand narrative of these protests failing somehow to articulate specific demands.

Anyway, maybe I am wrong about the Brazilian protests, but the Egyptian (and Tunisian) ones certainly did not want to appeal to the dictators in power, they wanted to get rid of them, and that worked very well. Being illegible to the state apparatus was a successful tactic for them and they mostly used social media to spread disinformation to intentionally confuse the state apparatus. Bevin completely fails to see that and just parrots the western media narrative that social media was somehow instrumental in mobilizing the masses.

Now you can argue that the successes of the protest in Egypt (and to a lesser extend Tunisia) where later rolled back, but that is muddling a multi year struggle with very different actors and a shift in public opinion. The initial protests where a resounding success in achieving what they set out to do, but later after the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power through democratic elections, many of the original urban liberal supporters turned back to the military as the lesser evil. In Tunesia it played out slightly different, but it is also wrong there to say that the initial protests failed to achieve what they set out to do.

Similarly for Brazil I think Bevin is muddling the initial protests with ones that happened many months later and which ultimately helped Bolsenaro to be elected as the president. But that is a bit like how MLs like to muddle the original soviet revolution with the later brutal take-over by the Bolshevik.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, again, I take pretty strong issue with your characterization of Bevins's stance. Have you actually read the book? I think that this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion, but I also don't want to go in circles if you haven't...

When he says that they're illegible to state power, he doesn't mean that they want to appeal to the people currently in power (and maybe this is a conflation that I accidentally invite in my own write-up). He means that they cannot participate in state power as an institutional apparatus, be it as reformists or revolutionaries.

I get what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it (but not all of it), but you're just not responding to an argument that Bevins makes, at least in how I read him. You are responding to one that many in western media did in fact make, and I agree with you in that context, but that was just not my reading of Bevins at all.

[–] poVoq 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He means that they cannot participate in state power as an institutional apparatus, be it as reformists or revolutionaries.

You realize how funny it is that you post this in an Anarchist community?

Anyway, I do get that point by Bevin, but it is the typical false argument MLs like to make, which is why I stopped reading the book when it became clear that this is really all he has to say.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I once again disagree with your characterization of the book.

You realize how funny it is that you post this in an Anarchist community?

That's stupid. Anarchist revolutionary theory and historical practice are full of ideas that are perfectly compatible with this analysis, even if Bevins himself is clearly not an anarchist. There is no more legible act to the state than organized violence, for example.

I'm not sure why you've taken this unpleasant posture towards me. I'm genuinely here for a discussion, but this is my last response if you keep acting like I'm some sort of uncultured idiot that needs you "to start from the basics 😒"

[–] poVoq 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ok sorry, I did get a bit carried away, because usually here on Lemmy you get to discuss with hardened MLs that really do deserve all the ridicule they can get.

That said, sorry but no. That analysis is completely incompatible with Anarchist thought. Participating in "state power as an institutional apparatus" is exactly what Anarchist warn against, because as soon as you do that you have lost. The state apparatus, regardless of the ideological paintjob is gives itself, has one primary goal, that is perpetuating its own existence no matter the cost.

And that there "is no more legible act to the state than organized violence" is exactly why it is so easy for states to instrumentalize violent protests and turn them against themselves. Violence and the threat of it can be a necessary tool, but it needs to be done in a way that makes it illegible to the state, otherwise it will not work as the state is the master of violence and will always win in an open confrontation.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To be clear, I wasn't advocating for organized violence as a good tactic. I was just picking a simple example.

I still think that Bevins's history and analysis has merit, even if you disagree with his conclusions. I've read at least two books by anarchists that put forth similar concepts of legibility: Graeber's "Utopia of Rules" and James Scott's "Seeing like a State" (which I actually read to write this post and have a bajillion opinions about, but that's a post for another day). Regardless of your stance on whether your movement should or shouldn't be legible, you have to understand legibility, both to the state, and to other capitalist powers like, say, social media (to pick one at random 😉 ).

[–] poVoq 2 points 7 months ago

Indeed understanding legibility is important to become illegible. Which is exactly why Bevin's interpretation is so incomplete and misguided. He genuinely seems to believe that this was a problem for these protests when in fact it was a defining feature that led to their (relative) success.