Anarchism and Social Ecology
[email protected]
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
And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others.
If by pacifism you mean a peaceful society I agree, however if you are talking about achiving said society with no violent means whatsoever I must say that it seems like a nice utopian vison but not a practical one.
Paris Commune was well designed principle. Failed to have sufficient security, because external assholes wanted it destroyed.
Even the Nazi party had "socialist" in their name...
I started defining words and meanings whenever I am talking on the subject. It is annoying but otherwise whenever you mention anarchism people imagine indiscriminate bombings.
I was told the other day by a tankie on here that all anarchists support violent revolutions and that I wasn’t an anarchist because I didn’t 🙄
How exactly do you expect to achieve and maintain anarchy without violence? Do you expect the bourgeoisie will just go "Oh shit you're right!" and give up their power willingly?
Non violent evolution through class consciousness. Parallel counter economic systems that erode the states power. Strong co-operative networks like Proudhon envisioned.
Peace can only come from peace, not violence.
Basically what the tech fascists are trying to do without the centralisation, oligarchy and white supremacy.
States employ a very wide range of tools to neutralize movements they perceive as a threat.
How do you stop the state from using its power to stop these parallel systems from taking away its power?
True decentralisation is unstoppable. No centralised point of attack.
You don't need centralization to present points of attack. Any exchange of goods or person involved is a potential attack surface.
Look at any Food Not Bombs deals with. Or if you want to go further back, look at how the Black Panthers were neutralized.
When frameworks and tooling is sufficiently robust, one node being attacked doesn't impact the whole network.
Black Panthers weren't decentralised, not in any comparable way anyway. Food Not Bombs has attack vectors but they would be one node, not the whole network.
I am not understanding how any org can do anything without presenting something the state can use violence against, can you give an example?
Well most things will have an attack vector if you reality think about it but the trick is to have a plethora of distributed and dynamic solutions that gradually chip away at the need for a state without anyone even thinking to attack until it’s too late.
One could be a seamless intuitive app that enables a local currency, facilitating the velocity of trade, goods, and services outwith the existing monetary system, allowing us to create sustainable local economies.
I have a hard time believing it can be non-violent. Parallel power structures will be met by violence as soon as they become a threat to the establishment. It can't be built up to the capacity to rival the state's power in secret, it'll be identified and eradicated prior to reaching that point.
Defensive violence seems unavoidable, but I see your point about not needing to initiate the violent overthrow of the state.
Democracy theoretically permits voting for someone who will reduce government power. Media telling you who you are allowed to vote for is an obstacle.
Proletarian democracy, sometimes. Try to vote out a bourgeoisie democracy though?
Then stop reading about them?
I mean, look at what the conservatives call communism, wokeness, socialism, censorship... You really don't want to take their definitions seriously. You can't if you want to talk seriously about these matters.
Yeah nothing says “my political views comes only from nothing but podcasts and YouTube videos but I consider myself well read and super informed” like people who try to liken anarchism with any form of right wing ideology.
Anarcho Capitalism is an astro turfing funded (Kochs in early 2000-2010s) movement to support low taxes. Monopoly on violence replaced with mafias. NAP is recipe for war/violence more than peace.
That said, mainstream leftist anarchism is extremely dogmatic in regards to feminist/queer supremacy/purity, and purity tests for "freedom lovers".
There are centrist paths to anarchy, minarchy, and government disempowerment. UBI is the obvious personal freedom that can replace all government except for IRS. Market anarchism, socialist libertarianism is inclusive of UBI/freedom dividends, in that fair markets can be promoted, and poverty eliminated. Centrist anarchy/UBI has no "freeloader problem".
I prefer ancap as a term to avoid acknowledging any affinity with real anarchism.
That said, I don’t think they’re necessarily all fascists and there are some points of agreement between us so I’m not afraid to cooperate in limited ways when it’s appropriate. Right now there are worse enemies to reckon with.
i've never seen an ancap who doesn't want to be king of his own however-small kingdom, and most are straight up frustrated warlords. be very careful
I understand what you say and I agree. Still I would like to add something:
I have noticed that in the english speaking world when people talk about the left they often include anarchy in this term. For me, this is highly problematic too, since the left has hierarchical structures and anarchy has horizontal ones.
"The left" is nebulous but it usually means "trending towards socialism". As anarchism is a socialist movement, it makes sense.
I am not denying there is a historical reference to the use of this term. I just think it also makes sense - especially if we take into consideration the last 100 years or so - for this term to shift from its initial meaning. Or to put it differently, in other languages this shift has taken place for decades now.
"The left" is relative to the political scenario, for example in the States we can see a big right-wing advantage so even liberists are left for them, while in the historical scenario they aren't. Hierarchy is still contemplated in the left but more you go on that and less hierarchy you have in a proportional gradualism.
The term leftist is considered to come from the fact that people sitting on the "Left" in the Estates General in France. Generally, liberals, (Jacobins, Third Estate). There is very poor sourcing for this online, but Wikipedia cites some untranslated difficult to source french book.
In mainstream discourse, "left" takes on a number of meanings, but to the extent that left is meant to mean anti-capitalist, and/or, Marxist, anarchism has left wing currents, hence, left wing anarchism.
There are definitely "right-wing" anarchist currents that are popular and not as unhinged as how "anarcho-capitalism" is generally characterized, as in, anarchism that espouses the use of capitalism, but I have not really seen any genuinely "socially conservative", anarchists. Pacifism is reactionary and emboldens the status quo.