Inherent issues in Green Anarchism?

[Libertador]

It appears to me that there is a great deal of animosity towards green anarchism on the community. I've been reading a great deal of Green Anarchism literature and aside from the fringe calls for mass extermination of the human race I don't see much call for the criticism (or I mistaking green anarchism for primitivism?).

Could someone please list the issues of green anarchism and why it wouldn't work within a Marxist framework?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

'fringe calls for mass extermination' would be primitivism

green anarchism is merely living in harmony with the environment while holding true to anarchist principles. for example, not exploiting the crap out of the earth's resources through overfishing, overuse of fossil fuels, etc.

[Flying Trotsky]

If there is antipathy towards Green Anarchism, it's probably a latent reaction from Rev Left members against the term "Green". Most Green parties around the world endorse regulated Capitalism in some form, and so a lot us tend to be pretty skeptical when someone adds "Green" to a tendency.

Of course it's wrong of us, but the kick is still there.

[Tablo]

I can't think of any anarchists that take issue with Green Anarchism. Most leftists do talk shit about primitivism though.

[Libertador]

Thanks for the answers. I have another. Is Green Anarchism seen as more of a "lifestylist" form of Anarchism rather than a true political ideology or could it be both?

[The Douche]

First, no anarcho-primitivists call for any sort of mass extermination. And certainly no Green Anarchists do.

I think you'll find that "green anarchism", that anarchism which focuses primarily on the environment, but is not primitivist, is quite rare these days.

And there is really no such thing as "lifestyleism", its a baseless slur directed towards individuals who choose to live a specific lifestyle, or make certain lifestyle choices.

[Libertador]

First, no anarcho-primitivists call for any sort of mass extermination. And certainly no Green Anarchists do. I would argue that calling for the immediate elimination of civilization indirectly calls for the extermination of more than half of the human race as a result. If the transportation of food to the cities (via infrastructure, bureaucracy, and supply lines [i.e. civilization]) simply ceased to exist hundreds of millions of people would die in a matter of weeks from starvation and mass riots.


I think you'll find that "green anarchism", that anarchism which focuses primarily on the environment, but is not primitivist, is quite rare these days. Haven't most mainstream Anarchist groups accepted rational environmentalism as a philosophy anyways?


And there is really no such thing as "lifestyleism", its a baseless slur directed towards individuals who choose to live a specific lifestyle, or make certain lifestyle choices. I was wondering if there was stigma towards people who accept the Green Anarchist label and only participate in "green living." I suppose they could look like Anarchist posers.

[GPDP]

My only real issue with it is that most socialist groups already adopt a progressive stance as to the environment anyway, almost to the point that it's almost as redundant a term as "democratic socialist." If you don't believe in protecting the environment we live in, you're not much of an anarchist/socialist/whatever. As such, I see little need to add "green" as a qualifier to your political ideology. Environmentalism better damn well be a core part of left-wing politics already, just as much as opposition to war is. Wouldn't it be silly if I went around calling myself an anti-war anarchist?

That said, I'm not too sure if the environmental focus means actually advocating the protection of the environment for its own sake rather than ours. If that's what it means, then I would say there are definitely problematic issues with Green Anarchism. Again, I'm not completely versed in its politics, so I won't make that call, but if they're anything like the deep ecologist types, I'm not so sure I would call them comrades.

[The Douche]

I would argue that calling for the immediate elimination of civilization indirectly calls for the extermination of more than half of the human race as a result. If the transportation of food to the cities (via infrastructure, bureaucracy, and supply lines [i.e. civilization]) simply ceased to exist hundreds of millions of people would die in a matter of weeks from starvation and mass riots.

Most anarcho-primitivists want to see an actual struggle against civilization, there can really not be an "immediate end" to civilization. What anarchist primitivists want is a protracted struggle focusing mainly on education and dual power structure where people learn how to live in harmony with their landbase, while confront civilization. They want a movement whereby we learn how to survive without civilization as we reduce its necessity and dismantle it.


Haven't most mainstream Anarchist groups accepted rational environmentalism as a philosophy anyways?

And Green Anarchism means different things to different people. "Rational environmentalism" (a term so subjective I have to use quotes) is pretty commonly accepted by everybody from the democrats on. So green anarchism tends to mean something at least somewhat different from "anarchism that cares about the environment", also, the most infamous publication for anarchist primitivism in the states was titled "Green Anarchy".


I was wondering if there was stigma towards people who accept the Green Anarchist label and only participate in "green living." I suppose they could look like Anarchist posers.

Hang around revolutionaries long enough and you will discover that everybody has a stigma against them, depending on who you talk to.