this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
26 points (93.3% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1354 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
mambabasa
Five
punkisundead
26
Why the State Can't Compromise with the Gaza Solidarity Movement (crimethinc.com)
submitted 6 months ago by Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/anarchism
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] perestroika 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I generally agree with CrimethInc articles so extensively that I I find it hard to pick at something in them.

This time, however, I find the claim...

Palestinian liberation will only come about as the result of a full-scale political crisis in the United States

...but I don't find the evidence.

Firstly, Israel is not wholly dependent on US weapons, and according to most measures, it has already secured a military victory - at such cost in civilian lives that it's a diplomatic defeat - everyone who can count the casualties and destruction knows that Israeli politicians gave zero fucks, alienated many supporters (they had great international support when Hamas attacked them) and very likely will receive an invitation to the ICC (hopefully along with Hamas leaders, so they can be tried together - reality may differ as both will try to avoid the court).

Also, if the claim were true, and a full-scale political crisis in the US was required for Palestinian liberation, then sadly, assuming a full political crisis incapacitates the government to some degree - there would be considerable risk that Palestinian liberation and Ukrainian independece sit on opposite plates of the scale. Myself, I don't like the concept that one group's liberation and another group's freedom can be contradictory. However, it seems undeniable that the US war machine is currently supplying weapons for two main causes, one of them reasonably ethical (defending Ukraine) and the other not (bombing Gaza into a previous epoch of history).

Regarding what the US government actually does... I don't read every article and post about diplomacy (so I could be missing a lot) but it appears to me that the US government is at the moment actively dissuading Israel from going into Rafah (the remaining comparatively less damaged settlement) - both by talk and refusal to send heavy air-dropped bombs.

This could be due to international pressure (the US has Arab allies and has to present some facade to them), could be due to protests (Biden surely worries about approaching elections). It could even work - but might not, because Israel has other sources of weapons and might empty its stockpiles of some categories to make the final push. :( Still, as a long-time and reliable donor, the US government has much leverage on Israel. Especially as it recently helped mitigate the Iranian missile and drone attack, downing Iranian munitions above Jordan and Iraq and perhaps elsewhere before they reached Israel. Biden can - overly simplified - send a message of "we assisted and protected you, we have your best interest in mind, and it's in your best interest to stop now". Netanyahu might listen or ignore the message.

In the end, however, a word of caution - whatever happens, whatever the US does - if Hamas returns to power, that will not be Palestinian liberation, because the Hamas guys weren't liberating anyone. In fact, they were beating, imprisoning and killing some of their Palestinian political competitors for the old-fashioned goal of staying in power.

I literally cannot find the word "Hamas" in the article at all. It speaks of everyone except those who started the current war. That's a massive oversight - oversight to the point of blinding oneself to a serious setback right around the corner. I'm not happy to see some of my comrades blinding themselves.

If one seeks a path to liberation, it has to include some recipe of not letting Hamas recover and return to power. And somehow getting lunatics out of Israeli government. The US has a role to play, and it may even be a decisive role, but as long as one side has rulers who prefer shooting civilians, and the other side has rulers who prefer to obliterate urban centers with bombardment... local political leadership must change, and no liberation will come unless it changes.

[–] MercurySunrise 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is an awesome information resource! Also, free Palestine, and THE STATE CANNOT ERASE THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE WILL ERASE THE STATE! THE PEOPLE MUST ERASE THE STATE! YOU WANT WAR? YOU'LL GET WAR, MOTHERFUCKERS! Ahem. This is a very important subject that shouldn't be ignored. The military industrial complex and their relationship to silencing protests has to be dealt with by the people. It's completely unacceptable. The government (the state) won't, because they're fucking weak and greedy. It's been going on for so long now. Always the time for the people to use that second amendment. Equalize American weaponry or the weaponry must be destroyed, and it has to stop being sent to murder people in unrelated countries. The state can't keep doing this to people, It has to be stopped if it won't stop itself.

[–] MercurySunrise 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother's day. Damn.

The second amendment: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA", which is quite specifically a citizen's army. I'm literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn't actually be controversial. If you can't regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to "well regulate" is by destruction. "Arms" isn't exclusive to guns just as it isn't exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to "bear arms". The people can find equality in arms that aren't totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying "well regulated". They designated the military as not an official part of "the people" (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government's job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.

The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government's money isn't the government's money, it's the people's money, distributed. If they're going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won't change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn't even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).

The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they'll be, in a sense, fired. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn't an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, "WELL REGULATED".