• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Ecological and anarchical worldviews

Migrated topic.
hummus

hummus

Rising Star
I'm just interested to gauge what level of support for these views there is on the nexus, leading on from dmt which seems to open up people's minds a lot more to possibilities, just interested what people see as an overall worldview (or quite importantly a lack of)
I tend to be very apolitical, but definitely have philosophical and practical views of the world, and I'll work to try and further those aims.
Namely, rewilding, the rebuilding of ecological, social and psychospiritual communities, person-to-person sharing of resources as a standard - in general sharing economies, with each person just doing what they're best at and simply doing what's necessary to live a happy life. Rewilding and getting in touch with our natural spirits and bioregions, acknowledging and becoming directly a part of the natural cycle of energy and life, living in sustainable and replicable ways, living without any form of hierarchy as far is practically possible.
I say 'anarchy' but generally mean it as a very loose form, but an ideal to work towards, it may not be a full practicality in the world we live in today but we can damn well try and get closer to it, if not, we'll at least be making the society we are in more sustainable and 'sharing the love'.
To me this has a very deep spiritual connection to me as well, part of which is definitely a result of dmt use but through simple common sense and actually communing with nature as much as possible and living around great people and natural spirits. I'd say I spend at least half of my time living outdoors, if not more and seeing the natural beauty in these things and the contrast between that and industrial civilisation, capitalism and consumerism, it's a simple and very powerful choice to make as to follow paths that do not contribute to them and in the end taking action to prevent these natural ecosystems being destroyed.
A random link for anyone interested, there's a lot more out there:
 
when using such a largy misunderstood term like "anarchy" I think its important to first take a look at it's roots. The idea of what anarchy is to most youth today is a perversion of what anarchy origionally was..I would recomend anyone interested to do some studying into the life of Emma Goldman.


When the term "anarchy" comes up these days..there is usually connotations of violence etc..angry punk rock kids who want to destory everything..But that is not classical anarchy at all. If you understand the origional roots of anarchy, I think that in many ways it's a movement that needs to extend intself into the ecological movement..and that the modern day connotations of violence and destruction that seem to have attached themselves to the idea of anarchy need to go.
 
There are so many different types of anarchy across the political spectrum that I avoid use of the word. There's loads on Wikipedia alone and the warren is bound to go far deeper.

I don't know if there is a particular definition of the term 'green anarchy' but I do know that there are many different permutations of anarchic environmentalism- deep green, light green, etc- people who are pro-technology vs fruitarian luddites in yurts. I wonder if some geoengineers count as green anarchists, sort of the equivalent of the dreaded anarcho-capitalists in regular anarchy. 'Green anarchy' emerged in the 60s I think, following Bookchin's "Post-Scarcity Anarchism". The architect Brenda Vale wrote a untopian novel where everyone leaves the cities and squats land in self-built autonomous houses. You have to get into the autonomy movement if you want to be an acting green anarchist. I made a booklist in another thread some time ago. I expect some Native American cultures qualified as 'green anarchist' societies, scattering seeds whenever they harvest a wild plant etc and erasing evidence of their presence when they decamp.

Personally I don't have enough faith in humanity to be an anarchist, so I see some form of government as a necessary evil. For me the emphasis is on limiting government power, potential for corruption, and prohibiting infringements of human rights. I don't count decentralised government as anarchy really, that seems like a cheat to me, personally I count that as a form of minarchy though I may be 'wrong' to do so, I don't know.

Personally I don't really see what anarchy has to do with climate change, nor how it would help counter it. It's governments that have forced most of the population to to insulate their houses, recycle etc (however slowly)- only 3% of Western people are ethical consumers... and very few of this 3% live carbon neutral or carbon sequestering lifestyles. The developing world is a lot better at living that way... with the aid of extreme poverty to keep them green!
 
Maybe I shouldn't use the word 'anarchy' as it implies too much and tbh is a small part of what I'm talking about, although being a valid descriptor for 'no hierarchy no government'. I view communities as the essential way of living and through community values of pretty much respect and care for everything that laws will be needed very little, and when people do things out of hand then people and communities can decide for themselves how to deal with that, whether it means directly stopping them doing things, asking them to leave etc etc. I just view dealing with 'bad' things that people do an essential thing that humans do and it's unnecessary delegating that responsibility to a higher force.
But why I'm saying I use the term 'anarchy' loosely is because it means a lot of different things to different people. I'm not talking about very individualist anarchy where it's everyone for themselves and mostly alone, I'm talking about sustainable communities built on a connection to the land so that they can be self sufficient in everything and having the values built in of respect for others, the local ecology and environment, no hierarchy etc etc etc.
I view rewilding as a personal journey for us all to undertake in getting back in a connection to the land and living outside of 'the system'.
I also view opposing the current system as an important thing that needs doing, but it simply needs the backing of sustainable loving places for people to return to otherwise it just won't sustain itsself and gain momentum. Every part of the opposition is just as important as building alternatives but it all needs to be done in unison.
 
Back
Top Bottom