Talk:Green anarchism

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;

See also: alpha, beta, foo

--mav

Green Anarchism is defined as "Green anarchists practise an underground resistance based... ". Is the "underground" requisite, or merely typical? If not requisite, then this should be reworded.

Thanks: Greenfyre (who is not logged in)

All anarchist movements exhibit a high range of diversity (as do most movements, I suppose). This article struck me as a little odd, because I can't imagine any self-respecting anarchist joining the Green Party. Perhaps this is a regional thing. I live in the US. I want to change the article some, but I don't want to remove what someone else feels is correct from their perspective.

manchineel

The reason for an anarchist joining a green party, as I have done myself, is clearly because many anarchists believe that electoral politics are a useful vehicle for futhering the green anarchist agenda. Keep in mind that Murray Bookchin, who more or less invented the idea of green anarchism, or at least the euphemism "Libertarian Municipalism", was a vocal member of the American Green Party for a good number of years.

Begebies

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.

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.

this article needs to be cleaned up.
https://www.facebook.com/560701240692778/photos/a.561473853948850.1073741828.560701240692778/596496100446625/?type=1&theater Lockeownzj00 04:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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.

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.

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?

Restructuring desperately needed
This article is in desperate need of a restructuring because, right now, it's little more than a list of article summaries, many of which have dubious connections to green anarchism. In its current state, this article provides nothing in the way of explaining what green anarchism actually is beyond scattered back-and-forth references to random, disconnected individuals and movements. Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean this genuinely, but is that necessarily unreflective of green anarchism? AllenY99 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This statement is likely wrong, and certainly needs some support
The statement is almost certainly incorrect, and as it serves as a founding sentence to the background, needs to be addressed. "Before the Industrial Revolution, the only occurrences of ecological crisis were small-scale, localised to areas affected by natural disasters, overproduction or war." First, this is not referenced. Secondly, of the information that I am peripherally aware, it's factually wrong: (a) high lead levels have been found in Antarctic ice cores dating from the 16th century, and as early as 1200 AD, caused by mining activities in South America. (b)Large declines in megafaunal abundance (large land animals in this case) are best correlated with human range expansion rather than climate variability over the period between 38,000 and 72,000 years ago - with severe ecological ramifications

I'd like some additional consensus on wading into this particular argument, however, as I don't dispute that vast ecological changes, typically not improving ecological function, have occurred since, and as a direct result of, industrialization. Jed (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jedgold: It is referenced, see Parson 2018, p. 220. As for factual correctness, you're definitely right that it's not entirely accurate. How would you recommend we reword this sentence? This section needs to communicate the great ecological changes that happened post-industrialisation, but we definitely shouldn't be implying that no great ecological damage has been done before then. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)