Jump to content

Talk:Green anarchism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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.

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 Noirtalk 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Noirtalk 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

I don't see any discussion here about this. Was there ever an attempt to or a discussion about integrating this material into the article? --Rico (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any discussion, but the above does not state which sources it is drawing from, so it has no place in the encyclopaedia at present. Regards, Skomorokh 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Techo-positvist Bookchin?

To my knowledge Murray Bookchin never called himself a "techno-positivist" and I think he would disagree with this label. I think it should be changed (at least in regards to Bookchin, I don't know what Alan Carter calls himself) or cited, or his ]Bookchin's] name should be removed.

Also, it is possible that some "techno-positive" green anarchists call themselves "techno-positive green anarchists", but no "techno-negative" green anarchist agrees with this label. In this case, we would have to present this perspective on green anarchism as such, and not an universal criterion within the movement. Maziotis (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Green anarchism and the summary on scholar sources

I am not against the addition of new information based on scholary sources, or against the removal on lack of those. But the fact that you have scholary sources doesn't present us with a justification to remove any other form of content and to replace it with such. Please see my summary. Maziotis (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Technology

The "technology" section is a complete joke. There are NO citations WHATSOEVER. It's like something someone would come out with in a pub as to what he thinks green anarchists are about. It is all inaccurate and just ridiculous. I would remove it but I'd be afraid it might all magically reappear. Anonywiki (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Green anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Green anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Historytoday":

  • From Brotherhood Church: Charlotte Alston (2010). "Tolstoy's Guiding Light". History Today.
  • From Tolstoyan movement: Charlotte Alston (2010). "Tolstoy's Guiding Light". History Today.

Reference named "almeralia.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction

I rewrote some of the introduction, primarily because it did not previously seem to say very much at all about what green anarchism actually is. I added a couple of sentences hoping to remedy this.

I also rewrote some of the text that followed, and made a start by shortening the unequal depth regarding the influence of Henry David Thoreau. His influence on green anarchism is questionable, especially seeing as it is hardly straight forward that he is even an anarchist, and dedicating the greatest word to him in the introduction seemed to me to be unreasonable.

I also included a slightly more detailed explanation of the three primary contemporary strands of green anarchism, namely primitivism, veganarchism and social ecology. My hope was to further remedy the previously mentioned problem, and provide the introduction with a concise explanation of the most important contemporary currents of green anarchism.

- Leosylvester / 11:22 10 November 2014

The main complaint i had about what you wrote is the lack of sources supporting it and in wikipedia we work with sources in order for an affirmation to stay within an article. This especially as far as affirmations in the introduction of an article. But also, i alongside other users have taken the task to maintain a good quality standard for anarchism-related articles. The following particular affirmation that you added in the introduction still does not have support and so it can be taken out: "This often culminates in an anarchist revolutionary praxis that is not merely dedicated to human liberation, but also to some form of ecological liberation."--Eduen (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your point Eduen, I have attempted to remedy what you said. I will continue to look for references in order to strengthen the introduction as much as possible. It pretty much goes without saying that I attempted to provide a concise description of what green anarchism is, whilst also including content that went beyond the very obvious. I hope to have achieved that, but of course also welcome criticism.
- Leosylvester / 14:01 11 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosylvester (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Green anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Derrik Jensen? Really?...

Whilst Jensen is no doubt supported by many green anarchists, he has personally distanced himself from the anarchist movement (see http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/05/17/deep-green-transphobia-iii-derrick-jensens-hateful-tirade/). I am thereby proposing that we remove the section on him from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongarmbill (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Green anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Green anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-naturism

Many of the references in this section are to deadlinks, these should either be fixed or removed. At this point, the claims made simply cannot be verified. In the case of many of the others, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified because they are in French, Spanish, Portugese, etc. I for one have a lot of doubts about many of these sources, which come from websites which I doubt meet the standard for reliable sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The doubts of User RepublicanJacobite were already responded to as far as the links that support information about anarcho-naturism in the article individualist anarchism. Here anyone can see my response [1].

User RepublicanJacobite accepts this source Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 and so the existence of that published work should be a good sing on the reliability on Diez as a source with enough specific expertise on the subject of individualist anarchism. The essay "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" Xavier Díez has been reproduced even in blogs and so doubts as far as reliability if it was something published in a blog are understandable. This is not the case of this essay by Xavier Diez which happens to be a smaller version of the published book El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938.

This essay was published first in what has to be one of the most reliable publications out there on anarchism. Germinal (revista de análisis) which includes among its scientific council the following people "Maurizio Antonioli (Università di Milano), Gianpietro Berti (Università di Padova), Richard Cleminson (University of Leeds), Joel Delhom (Université de Bretagne-Sud), Alejandro Díez Torre (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares), Luis Dorrego (New York University in Madrid), Isabel Escudero Ríos (UNED), Christian Ferrer (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Agustín García Calvo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Roberto Giulianelli (Università Politecnica delle Marche), José Luis Gutiérrez Molina (Universidad de Cádiz), Luigi di Lembo (Università di Firenze), Nelson Méndez (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Teresa Oñate Zubía (UNED), Philippe Pelletier (Université Lyon 2), Pablo M. Pérez (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Paul Preston (London School Economics), Giorgio Sacchetti (Università di Siena), Eugenio Trías (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Salvo Vaccaro (Università di Palermo), Gianni Vattimo (Università di Torino), Alfredo Vallota (Universidad Simón Bolívar de Caracas)" as can be seen here. I don´t know how you can make something more reliable from an academic point of view but if there are more doubts here is the article by Diez shown in the index of the specific issue of the Magazine Germinal in which it appeared and more importantly here is the article "La insumision voluntaria" in PDF from within the magazine´s website.

But i could as well also put as source the book by Xavier Diez El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 since this book just expands on what the article "La insumision voluntaria" deals with. As far as the contents of the article "La insumision voluntaria" as can be seen in the article itself it could be smummarized as follows: 1. A consideration on when and how "individualist anarchism" appeared in Spain. 2. The philosophical base of spanish individualist anarchism considering it it thus a good summarization of its influences and it includes Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, the americans Thoreau, Warren and Tucker and french individualist anarchists like Emile Armand and Han Ryner. 3. the practice of spanish individualist anarchism 4. the main publications in it. 4. a decription of the discourse of spanish individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC) ..............

sources do not have to be in English to be verified. This biased view is not appropriate for wikipedia. If there is no English source or a much better non-English source, then that one should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

London Demonstrations 2019

The London demonstrations in April 2019 was an anarchist movement (Known as the Extinction Rebellion) fighting to put focus on climate change. It was a major series of demonstrations, with hundreds arrested, and though not usually labeled as such, do seem to be fulfill all criteria of green anarchism. There is however few credible sources other than newspapers covering the demonstrations (partially due to the little time since their occurrence), and newspapers aren't a valid source for a wikipedia page. Thoughts? Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think its slightly stretching thing to class Extinction Rebellion as a Green anachist group. Whilst many members might share ideas in common with green anachism, the movement itself has been pretty clear to make sure it sticks to its key messages and not get classed as party political or endorse ideas beyond its mission. I've been follow internal communications quite a bit and I've hardly heard the them anachism mentioned at all.--Salix alba (talk): 16:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_anarchism/Archive_1&oldid=1136947653"