it happens to the best of us
(midwest.social)
lumpenproletariat
Memes of ProductionI've never understand this critic of industrialism adressed to anarcho-communists. Every people I know taking care of ecological struggle are anarcho-communists. I'm in a thousands people anarcho-communists organization, and I've never find anyone pro-industrialization there; it's may be a true where you are, and I'm curious to know from where you're speaking (or if you have an organization in mind). However here, "anti-civ" people are crypto-leninist that talk about self-organization to bait people to do their dirty work (if not put them in danger). This is mainly people that read books from the US and are convince their have understood the history of ecological struggle. And their are transphobic, and not antifascist.
But maybe I'm the one confused, because I'm kind of nihilist, and I don't see any opposition with anarcho-communism
Except for the nihilist part, I'm pretty much onboard.
Nihilism is great, it means accepting nothing matters and instead choosing your own things that matter to you and disregarding the rest.
I disagree with nihilism. I think juggling matters. I think looking up to to heaven filled with glowing stars matters. I believe feeling seen matters. I believe playing chess with a friend matters. I believe dancing silly matters.
Our existance is a meaningful existance.
Sure we die, but we continue to live in others, physically and mentally. Our physical selves become earth, and earth becomes a tree, and the tree falls to feed insects and the insects gets eaten by birds. We continue to stay in the cycle of life. Our mental selves are transferred through stories, through our attitudes, through a guiding hand. We give meaning to the people around us, and when you die, they want to bring forth your energy. You do not simply vanish.
None of the stuff we’re told matters matters, there is no default state of what matters and what doesn’t. The universe doesn’t care what we do, only people do, there is no grand plan set for us.
Nihilism frees us to decide our own things that matter for us. For you it’s what you’ve listed, for others it’s other things. That’s nihilistic.
Exactly. When nothing matters then we are free to choose for ourselves instead of having it imposed on us.
I put my force on democratic confederalism at the moment. Feel like that's good anti civilization.
But you do understand that would lead to the death of about 90% of all people?
I’m getting tired of these uninformed lib takes.
It would not, because it’s not advocating for anarcho-primitivism. You can have green agriculture without starving the world’s population. You can produce medication without duplicating factories competing and millions others pushing out consumerist crap.
We do not need the levels of industry or destructive agriculture we have today.
But how are you going to organise the extremely complex supply change that are needed to maintain modern society? Do you seriously believe that would be possible without overarching organisational structures?
Through an extremely complex system of horizontal organizing between mutually federated collectives of workers where authority comes from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Yes. I do believe alternative systems of organization are indeed possible. There are no material necessities for hierarchy.
It will be something that workers of those industries will have to figure out for themselves. It will take time and effort but there is nothing to suggest that it is impossible.
No, which is why anarchists advocate for horizontal organisation instead of vertical.
Compare a mesh to a chain, a chain loses a link and it collapses. A mesh loses a connection and it’s still supported by the surrounding connections.
This sort of organisation is anti-hierarchical, adaptable and flexible to change. We don’t need monolithic foundational organisational structures but small adhoc organisation that meets its needs and can end when needed.
You really have no idea how the world works.
And this is why I generally ban libs instead of engaging with them respectfully. Welcome to the pile.
I mean I'm definitely biased as an engineering student, but I basically wanna do stateless anarchist industrial society, lmao. I think industrial technology can be incredibly liberatory if developed and used in horizontal, sustainable, ecologically respectful, and optional ways. E.g., precision medical devices, drug development, public mass transit, safe, reliable, and clean electrical power, electronic libraries, comfortable housing, the Internet, weather prediction, precision ecology, etc., under conditions of free association, equality, and worker-owned means of production.
I think that the "dirty" character of industry is a better reflection of the STEMlords that dominate the field than the real possibilities that industrial society can give us. Similarly its capitalist character is a consequence of who was in power (the capitalist class) when humanity figured out industrial technologies.
You can have technology and environment. We don’t need millions of factories across the planet spewing countless shit into the ecosystem.
Anti-Civ/Green Anarchy isn’t AnPrim where we go live as cave men with nothing, it’s reassessing our relationship with production and choosing sensible uses focused on minimising harm.
We don’t need millions of factories across the planet spewing countless shit into the ecosystem.
I mean the italicized portion, 1000% agree. And honestly, we can definitely cut down the number of factories by cannibalizing defense factories (i.e., rip them apart for useful stuff and burn the rest), although I honestly don't know what number of factories is reasonable, or if the number of factories is even a helpful metric.
Anti-Civ/Green Anarchy isn’t AnPrim where we go live as cave men with nothing, it’s reassessing our relationship with production and choosing sensible uses focused on minimising harm.
That's awesome and I agree we should do that, and thank you for making the distinction explicit. Honestly, I just want to see more anarchists in my engineering courses. Like I 1000% recognize that the big problems today (capitalism, racism, the State, colonialism, climate change) are social problems that don't have pure technological fixes...but technology is certainly gonna be a part of the social solutions.
Searching 'anti-civ' gives anprim results, and "Green Anarchy" gives a wiki page which largely associates the term with Deep Ecology (which shares most of the unpleasant implications of anprims) and... anprim ideology.
You can always lie down and RETVRN to the nitrogen cycle
Or you can fertilise the soil with CEOs and politicians.
Not the biggest fan of dying, personally.
Funny I don’t see any mention of that on there.
But don’t fret the pollution, microplastics, and global warming have all but guaranteed an early death for billions.
Funny I don’t see any mention of that on there.
Anti-civ implies it weakly, Desert, which advocates for primitivism and accelerationism, implies it strongly.
But don’t fret the pollution, microplastics, and global warming have all but guaranteed an early death for billions.
I might be of the controversial opinion that those are also bad.
The question is, which is worse? The average life expectancy being reduced from ~75 to ~60 by unaddressed industrial concerns, assuming we continue to fail to address them (admittedly not an unfair position, considering that we haven't addressed them adequately so far)? Or the average life expectancy being reduced from ~70 to ~30 by the complete collapse of all modern technology and the regression to a subsistence lifestyle?
That is, of course, assuming we aren't including the necessary initial population collapse from ~8 billion or so people to less than 1 billion. That death toll might skew the averages a little lower.
Opposing one disaster does not require embracing another.
. . . Desert doesn’t advocate for primitivism or accelerationism? No offence, but it’s clear you’ve not read it.
There is no primitivism, the world is too damaged for such a life and there is no accelerating what it already happening. If anything it argues for the slow crash, where humans desperately clutch at survival and try to hold onto normal as long as possible.
Desert is about what happens during and after ecological collapse from climate change. It’s about the formation of hubs of holdout and people living in the edges of authority and dead ecology.
It’s about understanding that there is no global revolution to save us, that we won’t invent the super technology to undo the damage, and instead gives a hypothetical look at how people might survive and adapt to a new world from an anarchist and historical perspective.
… Desert doesn’t advocate for primitivism or accelerationism? No offence, but it’s clear you’ve not read it.
Man, I can literally quote Desert on both points.
There is no primitivism, the world is too damaged for such a life
A major point of several chapters in Desert is that primitivism is desirable because it prevent states, and inevitable because of the climate crisis.
and there is no accelerating what it already happening.
-
That... that is literally the point of acceleration. To make something that is already happening go faster.
-
The book literally advocates for rolling back environmental protections.
It’s about understanding that there is no global revolution to save us, that we won’t invent the super technology to undo the damage, and instead gives a hypothetical look at how people might survive and adapt to a new world from an anarchist and historical perspective.
It does more than propose a hypothetical, it also moralizes and advocates for surrender to the inevitable.
