Talk:Green anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (major traditions):
	Anarchism

1 Early discussion
2 NPOV Dispute
3 some things wrong with article
4 this article needs to be cleaned up.
5 Try this:
6 Anti-industrialism=Green Anarchism ?
7 Green Anarchy is anti-civilization anarchy
8 green anarchism is not anarcho-primitivism
9 Discussion on end of civilization
10 Racism
11 Merging with Eco-Anarchism
12 References?
13 EARTH FIRST! ?
14 Richard Lee

[edit] Early discussion

I changed this from a redirect to primitivism because they are not the same thing. See talk page -- Sam

Nice one- thanks Sam quercus robur

But I don't know a lot about green anarchism in particular, so elaborate away, friend. -- Sam

wasn't really on my 'to do' list, but, I'lll do me best :-) quercus robur

It doesn't reallly bother me either way, but I thought the wiki standard for 'see also' was

==See also==

Cheers quercus robur

Actually "see also" is very simple and doesn't need headings (in fact I change this each time I see it). Simply state;

[edit] NPOV Dispute

It seems to me that this article has been written with the purported superiority of this particular political philosophy firmly in mind. Therefore, effort must be made to neutralise the point of view.

Statements such as "as opposed to obsolete isms such as socialism or liberalism" are particularily glaring, offensive and POV (not to mention that "ism" is a suffix, not a noun). Falcon 17:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, see ism. "The word ism was first used in 1680 and can be found in the works of such well-known writers as Thomas Carlyle, Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw." Livajo 14:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- That still doesn't change the fact that the statement was very POV and extremely offensive. Especialy to socialists and liberals. And, it is not backed up correctly or encyclopædic in the least. Falcon 01:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am beginning a complete rewrite of the article, in hopes to resolve this problem. I will not delete the NPOV flag.
My editting is now complete. Most of the information is from the original article, however it has been reworked into (what I hope is) NPOV phrasing.

[edit] some things wrong with article

I read this article and feel that there a few problems with it:

-Green anarchists are hold diverse views, and many are in fact anti-technology, however this article paints it as though all green anarchists are pro-green technology.

-For some (anarcho) primitivism and green anarchy are the same; for others, anarcho-primitivism is the part of green anarchy concerned with the origins of civlization.

-There is a strong rejection of the term ideology among anarchists, espeically green anarchists. Ideology is seen as a rigid framework of thought, usually external to the individual. Many anarchists hold very fluid and personal ideas connected by some common beliefs.

-There is no mention of the green anarchists who are also anti-civilization green anarchists, which is probably the major line of green anarchy in the world.

I don't know the rules for changing articles, but if someone wants to rewrite this, please see www.greenanarchy.org and their back to basics series.

[edit] this article needs to be cleaned up.

i'll definitely move it along, but it needs to be neatly divied up like the other articles. Lockeownzj00 04:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Try this:

[note: i tried to be as unbiased as possible (which is impossible) but this is coming from a green anarchist]

Green anarchists compose a diverse and open movement of people who take influences from a variety of different places. These include anarchists, radical ecologists, feminists, Situationists, surrealists, Luddittes, primitivists, post- and anti-leftists, indigenous and pre-civilized people, the feral and the wild.

The green anarchist critique focuses on the institutions of domination that make up society, all grouped under the broad term “civilization”. These institutions include the state, capitalism, globalization, domestication, patriarchy, science, technology, work, etc. These institutions, according to green anarchists, are inherently destructive and exploitative (to humans and the environment) – therefore, they cannot be reformed. This movement generally rejects progress through current political lines, favoring direct and autonomous action, sabotage, insurrection, bioregionalism, and reconnecting with the wild to create meaningful change.

There are two main points of contention among green anarchists: civilization and technology.

Green anarchists can be described as anti-civilization anarchists or anarcho-primitivists (the anarchist critique of civilization), though certainly not all are anti-civilization.. Likewise, there is a strong critique of technology among green anarchists, though not all reject it entirely.

Civilization is taken to be the totality of institutions (described above) that are responsible for the destruction of human freedom and the environment. Physically, civilization is demarcated by the domestication of plants, animals, and humans (though its beginning have been traced back through time, language, art, and symbolic culture – see John Zerzan). Agriculture created a surplus and the conditions for the rise of these institutions. Before agriculture, humans often lived as autonomous bands of gatherer-hunters without any leadership, authority, division of labor, organized violence, environmental destruction, etc. Essentially, gatherer-hunters are perceived to be part of our anarchist ancestry since all humans practiced that mode of life for around two million years. Civilization is often seen as more of a paradigm then a physical thing, and one that places human beings above and outside of the natural world. This is seen as the first step towards and justification for the destruction of nature (humans included).

Technology is seen as a system rather than a specific physical tool. Technology requires the exploitation of the environment through the creation and extraction of resources, and the exploitation of people through labor, work, and slavery, industrialism, specialization and the division of labor. There is no “neutral” form of technology as things are always created in a certain context with certain aims and functions. Green technology is often rejected because it simply keeps the same exploitative system and only changes it on the surface to make it seem environmentally friendly despite the constant level of human and natural exploitation. In place of technology, green anarchists favor low- to no-tech living, using sustainable and local resources.

Green anarchists are not advocating a return to the stone age or the replication of gatherer-hunter lifeways; instead they are advocating a deep questioning of the reality we have been given, and wish to see those questions (namely the questioning of civilization) be put into effective praxis by creating new communities that exist without these institutions of domination while at the same time resisting the current ones in place.

[edit] Anti-industrialism=Green Anarchism ?

It's mentioned above that Green Anarchism is fundamentally different from Primitivism, but this article basically presents the primitivist position. Would it not be more precise to say that Green Anarchism is equivalent to anarchist anti-industrialism? This would include most social ecologists, post left anarchists, and others who identify as green anarchists but not as primitivists

I think this article should resemble this: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Green_anarchism

[edit] Green Anarchy is anti-civilization anarchy

The current momentum of the green anarchist movement is very similar to the anarcho-primitivist movement, sometimes indistinguishable except that AP's usually discuss theory more than praxis, but to many the words are interchangable. The article referenced is old, out of date, and just seems plain wrong as a description for the GA movement. Check out greenanarchy.info for clarifcation.

[edit] green anarchism is not anarcho-primitivism

I think that it is important to keep a clear distinction between green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism. It is not the same thing. anarcho-primitivism is a part of green anarchism. Not all green anarchists are against technology, while all primitivists are against technology.

[edit] Discussion on end of civilization

Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

I am a firm beliver in the values and traditions of being a green Anarchist. With that I would like to give some advice. STOP BEING SO PC!!!! Everyone can take a joke. Whether you're Black or White or Asian or Indian, everyone makes fun of each other. Its a fact of life. So everyone can take a lesson from this. Stop being so politicaly correct and enjoy life, celebrate and poke fun of oneanothers flaws. Because before you know it, We will all be living communaly with the differences aside.

Nick (Nitro) Angola —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.26.3 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Seeing as there is no such thing as green anarchism (it's "Green Anarchy"- called such because it is not an organized school of thought, therefore not an -ism), and green anarchy is quite different from eco-anarchism, there should be no merger. Furthermore, this article needs to be edited because of the inaccuracies in it, preferably by someone who knows something about the subject.

[edit] Merging with Eco-Anarchism

There's been a tag on these two articles for ages. Can we just get it done already? We can hold off on the merge with Anarcho-primitiivism, but let's get these two together into a coherent article. Green and Eco are synonymous, and all the info is about the same god damn movement. Bad enough we can't just say Anarchism. Vert et Noir^talk 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References?

Please consider the following quote: "Before agriculture, humans often lived as autonomous bands of gatherer-hunters without any leadership, authority, division of labor, organized violence, environmental destruction, etc." Are we to take this as meaning that this is the view of proponents of green-anarchism or that this is an established fact. Either way, where are the footnotes supporting this?

[edit] EARTH FIRST! ?

I wonder why Earth First! isn't mentioned here? --Dylanfly 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sole reason that you haven't mentioned it yet! Be Bold! Vert et Noir^talk 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Lee

I was just browsing the article here and found that the link to Richard Lee goes to the disambiguation page, where it's difficult to figure out which Richard Lee the article refers to. Can anyone clarify?--Pariah 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a chance that the correct person is Richard B. Lee, and that's another disambiguation page on Wikipedia

. I did a Google search on "Richard Lee anarchist" and got that name; however, the Richard Borshay Lee article doesn't suggest anything of the man's anarchist tendencies, so I'm not sure they are the same person.-- Mumia-w-18 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mumia--After running a similar search and reading a few articles, I am fairly certain that Richard Borshay Lee is the anthropologist mentioned in the article. From what I gather, he is not necessarily an anarchist himself, but his work seems to support a Green anarchist or anarcho-primitivist position. I'm going to change the name in the article to reflect this, and if it turns out to be wrong someone can correct me later.--Pariah 03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to make sense. Good job

. -- Mumia-w-18 11:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)