(Charles Burchfield, The Builders (House Wreckers in June), 1931)
If the idea of “Revolution” is to retain any meaning, it needs to be situational in orientation, rooted in the personal desires for liberation, and also be relating to the context in which it resides. It is a living and breathing phenomenon and it is never complete. In general, it is good to avoid flattening situations, or standardizing responses. Flexibility is the key to avoiding stagnation of ideas and activities. Whether ideological or physical, it is important to think outside of our (or their) boxes, however radical we think our ideas are; it is the only way we may grow. Yes, there are times to draw lines, to place limitations or borders around things, but these should be temporary and consensual black and white directions and activities in a larger sea of gray. The gray line is what holds us together, and at the same time, respects individuality and the moment.
A reflection on means and ends, theory and practice, by A. Morefus, from Green Anarchy and the Anarchist Library …









The swelling of leeches
Over the course of the lifetime of Green Anarchy, the collective behind it elaborated a intense criticism of “civilisation”, and it is above all the passion that they brought to this task that we wish to celebrate in sharing the article below.
Green Anarchy’s condemnation of “civilisation” and parallel defense of “primitivism” and “wilding” raises unavoidable questions for any serious contemporary anarchism (and beyond). However, the conceptual framework of its critique is equally open to question. Are concepts such as “civilisation”, “primitivism” and “wilding” sufficiently clear and robust to serve as the basis for an adequate criticism of contemporary forms of oppression? Do they not obfuscate as much as they illuminate? Do they not pass over historical differences in social and political organisation that cannot be ignored for the theory and practice of anti-authoritarian/autonomous anti-capitalism? And these questions would be just the beginning of any meaningful evaluation.
None of these questions are offered up as refutations or dismissals; they are instead invitations for reflection.
(For earlier and rich reflections on these questions, and more, with a focus on the work of John Zerzan, see the series of the entries under John Zerzan and primitivism in the Anarchist Library, as well as the site johnzerzan.net).
Continue reading →