Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Breaking Bread with Uncle Ted
#1
[Image: https://thesocietydispatch.files.wordpre...=300&h=300]
source

For green anarchists, egoists and nihilists, when divorced from the larger narratives of the left, we are left with our own quests. Quests that are sometimes fraught with difficulty and conflict, just as much as they grant us the experience of adventures few get to achieve. Uncle Ted’s shadow still is cast on the ground and while his acolytes have largely  moved away from his vision and strategy of anti-industrial revolution, there still is a feeling that action for its own sake is worth pursuing.

In the age of Climate Change, the Anthropocene mass extinction event and the totalizing of society in a web so delicate to upset its balance would to destroy the integrity of our connectiveness. Seeking action in this environment is not a matter of achieving upheaval. Time and again small groups fail to rally the popular interest against nations and regimes, while vanguards move in to state power and use governing institutions to create minor political change. But no more is there a drive to dismantle the state from supposedly radical forces.

There is the rhetoric of revolution, insurrection; tough posing that that suggests rebellion, but the atmosphere created is not that of encouraging individual empowerment and activity. Rather, the dominant politic is centered on individual and group shaming, ostracism, petty ego bantering and other behaviors that are divisive in the name of unity. Only after crushing dissent can the movement roll forward, comrade.

Moving beyond this can be difficult because creating space away from these behaviors is less about physical space and more about social and virtual space. More about creating an entirely different internal dialogue that somehow both addresses the dominant politic while shifting the conversation from shame to desire. From suppressing the transgressions we don’t like to encouraging the transgressions we do. This is the most profound difference between the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

While the dominant politic complains about chains, points at them and shames those with weaker chains than others, we should be encouraging chains to be broken, to be unchained, to let our desires bloom and our wills express our drive for freedom. But how to?

Green anarchists have a long history of asking why. From many of our influences in the theories of anarcho-primitivism and deep ecology, we can understand the human at root (anarcho-primitivism), the world at root (deep ecology) and how the human impact on the world has been disastrous in one form or another.

It is not the origins of the problem we are dealing with. However, origins are part of our story, a story of why we are where we are. The importance of origins is that it exposes we aren’t rotten authoritarian savages at heart, but humans are also far less noble or neutral in how we’ve imposed control on each other and the world since before history has been recorded. Point made.

For how to, we can look far more recently. We see the actions of Freedom Club attributed to Ted Kaczynski, the actions of Earth First!, ALF, ELF and ITS. A short list in some ways, which aren’t counting the many other varieties green anarchists and related have also organized themselves. However, it is here we have been loudest and for good reason. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, deeds are still great propaganda. While we aren’t necessarily aiming to hit them where it hurts, as we see the effects of climate change capable of far more damage than we could ever hope to cause as small groups, there is still the capability to inspire others, to carry forward a message that can change the conversation on what we are capable of.

In recent green anarchist texts, a new variety of activities have been opened up, but the takers haven been few. We are perhaps still in an infancy, hindered by time consuming activities from work to media interaction. To break this spell would be to promote and grow our face to face connections and expand on our lived time space with each other.

So the first how to. How to green anarchy is to break bread with each other. To share in conversations with each other and to see reason to connect with each other despite our flaws, rather than divide because of them. How to create green anarchy? Create trust, love and attention. The impact we would like to see in the world is not necessarily born from the most alienated, but rather, perhaps from those that want more connection to ourselves and to others. Alienated by society, yes, but not to the want of the social. To act from the love of the self, the planet, friends and family. It is those forces that prevent and divide us from our will to love that deserve our spite and give us our reason to fight.
Reply
#2
Breaking bread has to happen to get anywhere. I look at this way: The system is at war with freedom. The system is providing itself with immense amounts of defense to protect itself while it reduces humanity,bit by bit, to subservient,fat robots. Freedom is not providing enough offense to the system though. Pretty soon the federal ID will be upon the people and getting anywhere will be even harder. The net is full of surveillance and infiltrators. I'm sure there's some crazy smart AI that the system uses to figure us out too. Trust can't happen on the net. Neither can organizing on any scale. Sad,but true.
The internet might be the reason we aren't getting shit done. We're all on it too much, talking.
I think our odds of hooking up with good people in our own neighborhoods is poor. But I think it is better than searching on the net.
With that said, we should unplug.
We should do it so we look closer at possible local allies.
This fucking computer was created as a weapon against us. It is an electronic leach that feeds off of our input. I say stop giving it input. Get to the people we need. Get your stuff in order.
Another reason to unplug is to know that when the system is suffering we may not be able to get news of any widespread damage. If the fight against the system is ever winning, do you think you'll get news of it all ? Online ? Hopefully it ALL goes away. You've heard it right ?: "The Revolution won't be televised." I sure hope it won't be.
Over and out. HOOT !
Reply
#3
Hoot, I think you're engaging in...like...a techno-moralism which isn't really helpful. I believe technology is an false ontological distinction. What of natural technologies, for example, naturally occuring nuclear reactors stemming from vulcanism? Aren't cells programmed with DNA? The problem isn't technology itself, it's us. If every man evaporated from the face of the Earth, tech would exist and even remain, and to no detriment to the non-human animals*. It's not the gun, it's the shooter.

*actually a lot of our tech might continue fucking things up for centuries even if we disappeared, but that's not the techs fault, it's our own
Reply
#4
Hoot, what do you think about the above?

Getting back to the article, the general purpose to me seemed to be a call to unity and radical action in defense of nature and also for our own benefits. I think that’s a great thing to desire. I think “being left with our own quests” as the author puts it is a great response to the mass organization-wanting populist mentality that’s really common today, especially among the reds.

There’s a critique of revolution within this essay which I find helpful. It might be important to briefly further develop this critique of revolution. To me they represent nothing more than periods of his-story when the state can no longer make reforms and therefore a radical shift takes place in order to restabilize everything. Revolutionists are the final guardians of the state, whether they realize it or not. Jacobinites, Blanquists, Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc. — they’re all really just militant liberals, the European enlightenments last hold-outs. Revolutions don’t happen because the local campus Trotskyist group organized some shit real good. They’re breakdowns in business caused by material conditions. And like magic the Marxists are there as an alternative to the collapse of civilization itself, which is something that should be welcomed. Revolutions are in essense just a change in management, usually brief.

Really -ists of all kinds need be avoided. “FC, the actions of Earth First!, ALF, ELF and ITS” I think are all in very distinct categories. None of them are exactly exemplary. They’re all deserving of study, analysis, but definitely not the fandom.

I disagree with the essay in that I don’t think it’s about dialogue or discussion. Everything we can know and say will be apparent on the eve of catastrophe, when the conditions set before us present us with the necessity of change, altering out daily life activities drastically. We need not wait on folks to join or convince them to, when you reach a point that bugging out into the forest seems nice, go for it. But it’s important to note sometimes small groups don't fail, contrary to the assertions of the essay, and we are aiming to hit where it hurts. We should all begin by 1) getting off-grid, 2) re-establishing nomadic lifeways without compromising any of the great modern comforts and benefits of technology, and 3) begin practice martial techniques in pairs of two, then four, then nine. In regards to point two which the prims will find controversial; we want to keep comfort. I’m not talking about Diet Dr. Pepper and SUVs. I’m talking about good medicine, good water and food, good shelter and clothing, etc. Those of us embracing the wilderness more openly of course have a more rugged approach, if we enjoy doing so. But if people have to sacrifice creature comfort they’ll breakdown and go insane. This all ties into concepts like degrowth, decolonization, weening-off, etc. We don’t want to use hard power or advocate it in terms of socio-biological change. As things get worse, people must be convinced to consume less, change habits, have one or fewer children or adopt, etc. And where technology aids us in spreading knowledge and giving experience in alternative lifeways, it should not be shunned.

The author raises something else that greatly concerns me, that is propensity and time consumed by drudgery. In a nutshell, we need to get people to stop. No more school, work, etc. It’s that simple. We have to stop reproducing the social relations of the spectacle. Stopping is thee first step. Then we can get back on the way. This relates to the notion of infancy, but once we a) quit society, b) get off-grid and comfortable, c) start chilling together, it will all proceed from there. But we have to get off our asses and get our asses off-grid first. Creating trust, love, prescience, family all comes naturally, as it were.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)