Black Seed Submission Deadline Pushed Back to February 8th

The submission deadline for the publication Black Seed has been pushed back one week to February 8th. We have received a healthy handful of submissions, yet wanted to give a reminder to those who may have considered submitting content as well as some buffer time for those still working on their submissions.

From our original callout for submissions:

"It has been almost 6 years since the last issue of Green Anarchy. During its 25-issue run, the magazine brought green anarchist ideas to North America and the world. It succeeded as an incubator of ideas and a real provocation for those both inside and outside of the anarchist milieu.

We intend to reintroduce this green anarchist provocation.The new project will have a different orientation than Green Anarchy did. Rather than framing our theory and practice in the abstract world of historical and anthropological perspectives on civilization (or in a fetishization of primitive cultures), we begin in conversation and with our own personal experiences.

We are a collective comprised of former contributors to Green Anarchy magazine, recent propagandists of a green anarchist persuasion, and other rabble-rousers. This publication will be editorially controlled by us and produced and distributed by Little Black Cart. We intend to release a biannual publication and we are asking for your help.

We want to hear about your experiences. Please send us stories of ecological struggle, anti-authoritarian earth-based coalitions, non-materialist anarchist practice, allied prisoners, and signs of the system's meltdown. We are interested in developing critiques of civilization, the state, and technology; as methods of social control evolve and adapt, so must our understandings of them. We are also interested in a mixed medium of submissions such as original artwork, photography, poetry, etc."

It is our hope that the first issue of this publication will be available at the Bay Area Bookfair on Saturday, March 22nd. We also hate domestication so may not make this deadline.

Submissions may be emailed to:

Or snail-mailed to:
PO Box 68271
Grand Rapids, MI 49516



| non-materialist anarchist practice

so stock, such cant be miss from what is do this you even liberal and gay materialism, you know?

Stock petition for a magazine like this.

| So with SAE people the philosophic "substance" and "matter" are also the naive idea; they are instantly acceptable,
| "common sense". It is so through linguistic habit.

can anyone explain what non-materialist means here? do they just mean they're not marxists?

I think materialist is what marxist call everyone they dont like so, obviously, these are green marxists we're dealing with johnson. The communist threat must be destroyed!

"I think materialist is what marxist call everyone they dont like so"

are you for real? read a fucking book you clown

Today I rubbed a crystal for four hours to kill police.

A crystal... you sure it wasn't that strange living thing between your legs?

Today I had a conversation with a motherfucking oak tree

Well if Materialism is the theory that ideas and consciousness emerge, somehow, from the physical world, and Idealism is the idea that ideas and consciousness produce the physical world...

"Idealism is the idea that ideas and consciousness produce the physical world..."

Because that makes sense. Hippies.


What really is materialism, huh

`physical'... `Having to do with the material world'

``Our language patterns often require us to name a physical thing by a binomial that splits the reference into a formless item plus a form.''

. . .

``From the form-plus-substance dichotomy the philosophical views most traditionally characteristic of the "Western world" have derived huge support. Here belong materialism, psychophysical parallelism, physics—at least in its traditional Newtonian form—and dualistic views of the universe in general. Indeed here belongs almost everything that is "hard, practical common sense."

I'm not gonna post a wall of text, but you can read Benjamin Whorf's discussion of this in his article The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language

I may just read this, thanks.

I'm not a materialist, per se. I only meant to be naming what materialist was because I felt it could drive the conversation forward which I think it now has.

When many people call themselves "Materialists", they mean it in a Marxist way. They mean they subscribe to some form of historical (or maybe dialectical) materialism. This idea basically involves the theory that the productive forces (the tools and instruments used to produce the conditions of livelihood and economy) configure all social relations and ideas about those relations.
Productive forces = Base
Ideology = Superstructure.

For Marx, the struggle between human labor and private appropriation of value (sometimes, foolishly, simplified as "conflict between workers and bosses" or, less foolishly, as between "labor and capital") is the motor of history because it is what transforms the productive forces. The idea is that as humanity rises up against capitalist accumulation it will take control over it and use it to liberate human relations from scarcity (the basis for economic life in the first place). This is why, for Marx, socialism can only follow from capitalism which is the stage of productivity in which it is possible to conceive of overcoming material scarcity.

There are also other materialisms which are revolutionary and non-Marxist. They have not been as formally articulated but I do believe that most anarchists accept some soft materialist ideology as the basis for action. For instance, when we engage in struggles with the police rather then merely focusing on a world without them, it is because we have accepted a certain set of ideas about the world which, frankly, are partially indebted to the materialist tradition.

Asking for stories of `non-materialist anarchist practice' is kind of like asking for stories of `irrational anarchist practice'.

Ahahaha, physical defined as having to do with the material world. What is this `material'? It comes from `matter'. `Having to do with matter; consisting of matter.' `The substance that something is made or composed of.'

`Substance' defined as `Physical matter; material.'

And `matter' of course, `The basic structural component of the universe.'

``In the obvious case this relator denotes contents. In the inobvious one it "suggests" contents. Hence the 'lumps, chunks, blocks, pieces,' etc., seem to contain something, a "stuff", "substance", or "matter" that answers to the 'water,' 'coffee,' or 'flour' in the container formulas. So with SAE people the philosophic "substance" and "matter" are also the naive idea; they are instantly acceptable, "common sense." It is so through linguistic habit.''

Fucking mass nouns man.

For instance, when we engage in struggles with the police rather then merely focusing on a world without them, it is because we have accepted a certain set of ideas about the world which, frankly, are partially indebted to the materialist tradition.

or, you know, because we hate cops.

No, dot. If we hated them we could imagine that they were being harmed. We could focus on their catching fire until it became real. Instead, we do something else. This is because we believe we have act in a particular way through space and time in order for them to catch fire. We can't just think about it angrily

materialism is not the same as matter-being-a-thing, any more than science is the same as thinking-rigorously-about-the-world.
also, acting in one way usually doesn't preclude acting in other ways too. more options are better, right?

(ps: maybe *you* can't just think about it angrily. don't generalize!)

dot, can you explain what the magazine means when it says it is non-materialist? i asked above and i'm being sincere. i have gotten responses explaining to me what materialism is, what idealism is, and what marxism is, but not what the statement means when it says "non-materialist." what materialist content are they against? are they idealists? why don't they say "idealist" instead of "non-materialist"? what is non-materialism?

i would also appreciate an answer from anyone involved in the project or i would be satisfied to read an essay if a link could be provided, or if there will be one explaining the issue in the magazine.

i know that historically anarchists have been maligned by marxists for being "idealists," but i think that that critique of anarchists is wrong. it seems to me that materialism/idealism is an issue usually left to philosophers, and anarchists usually occupy political thinking more, but i also know that every non-anarchist philosopher that has influenced anarchists recently that i can think of was a materialist: nietzsche, bataille, foucault, deleuze, agamben,tiqqun...all materialists. pf course this doesn't mean all anarchists need to be materialists, but if a split is being made i would like to read about why and what it means. the witherburo book advocated idealism but couldn't really explain why and seemed to understand materialism as only crude marxism. the explanation was really half-baked there. i'm hoping that isn't the case again.

that sight is worst than reddit

thank you, but that is less of an answer than has been offered here already. thanks anyway though

I'm the one who was posting the stuff about what materialism/idealism and marxism mean, roughly stated.

I appreciate your sincerity and would like to offer up that Tiqqun are most certainly not Materialists in a philosophical sense. They are influenced by the materialist tradition, like I claimed most anarchists are, but they are also influenced by the mystic traditions (hence the name which is a reference to the Kabbala principle of tikkun). Deleuze was an empiricist but could only be called a materialist by a bit of a stretch, same with Agamben. As for Bataille, he was somewhat straightforwardly a mystic who did not have many concerns for the "material world" as it is often conceived (or much other than drugs and the occult, it seems.)

Could I offer that you do some cursory Wikipedia'ing and YouTubing about Henri Bergson? His writing can be a bit difficult at times but his ideas aren't too difficult when presented by others. His metaphysics are more influential to some of the thinkers you listed and so is Baruch Spinoza (who is most known to us for his thoughts on Immanence vs. Transcendence - what flows from within the situation vs. what sails above it).

I'd also like to hear from some comrades who consider themselves adamantly "non-materialist" what they see as the preferred method for thinking and the preferred practice that follows from this.

You must be kidding me saying Deleuze and Bataille ar not materialists. I mean you cannot have read them and think that. They are literally explicit about it. Try anti oedipus an the accursed share volume 1. Tiqqun follow deleuze in being into materialist metaphysics.

Sorry, I am sincere and not trying to be nasty here, but I am familiar with Bergson and Spinoza, and I have also read Delezue's writings on them and Nietzsche, all of whom Deleuze at least places in the materialist camp alongside himself. I think a confusio arises in that many non marxist materialists also explored metaphysics.

Sorry I am a little drunk, I know Bergson is not materialist, but I meant it about the rest. I really doubt Bergson is an influence on this journal tho

ok I am more than a lil drunk but I am serious

It's "critical metaphysics", and the ties of the Tiqqun people with Deleuze are as tight as Deleuze's contact with real-life struggles and event. They actually got more to do with the situatinists. I hear so many people dissing Marcuse, but at least the guy always cared about the feedback of his ideas within the social reality of his time, and vice versa.

Beyond him, fuck all 20th century philosophers... my hatred for them is endless.

yeah the CIA was very liberal, intelluctual, academic,bookish during that time fasnating huh, cia was all about networking and throwing sophiscated parties

it's interesting how alot of the "radical theory"/new left/radical liberlism was so anti-soviet, fraknfort schools peeps etc, foucault, i don't know... frankfort school explictly stated they perferred america to the soviet union... alot of current anarchist talk is directed towards that fashion too, china and former soviet union the most evil places on earth etc... hmmmmm

i had a theory once, but it seems a little "marxist" and traditionilist (liberilism has always been anarchies greatest enenmy, all the cultural deveolpments and theory of the new left where merely to prevent "the rupture", horizontilism, direct democrazy, identity equality, the concept of freedom all designed to act as a capturing alternative to anarchy, to critque china and russia is most of the time to merely reproduce american proganda) so i'll just leave it at what i said and put forth this former theory at a distance, parthentically.

"Marcuse was literally a cop"

Do you even fuckong read your own sources!? He's been working for the OSS against the Nazis, and stepped out of the CIA in 1952... precisely the year of the agency's involvement in the coup against Mossadeq, and in times when recyled Nazi officers were starting to build up neonazi anti-communist undercover groups in Europe, on the orders of Dulles/Gehlen.

What does this has anything to do with being a "cop"!?

I recently finished an excellent book by Micheal Hardt :Gilles Deleuze, An apprenticeship in Philosophy.
He discusses the influence of Bergson's Ontology, Nietzschean Ethics and Spinozian Practice on Deleuze's
philosophy which is clearly based on Materialism, though decidedly Not the dialectical -historical materialism of Marx.I highly recommend it. It is a short but with a little effort readable, enlightening, and inspiring. It serves as a basis to the concepts
outlined in Deleuze,s Anti-Oedipus , and A Thousand Plateaus. Enjoy!

Can you elaborate about these 'materialist concepts' concerning ethics in layman's terms so that ontology can be expressed and advanced to the masses by example!!

Sure , but only briefly:
Bergson's idea of Élan Vitale
Describes the primordial force
Of material being from the get-go:
No dialectic here.
Nietzsche focuses on the primordial
Will to Power as an ethics to fulfil
Our selves in a totally positive
Striving for a full life : No Dialectic
Here either ;Our nature reflects the
Current concepts of a cosmological
Ever expanding Universe,
Spinoza speaks to the immanent
Fullness of Being with a common
Originary substance a singularity
That is "expressed" as the multiplicity
Of true difference, without recourse
To Hegelian / Marxian concept
Of the negation necessary to reconciling
Thesis and antithises into a synthesis that recuperates
Both in a fake resolution of Sameness.
Spinoza sees a fullness of Being
Without any source of negativity
Or " Nothingness " . This all inspired
Deleuze's concepts of our being
"Desiring machines "striving
For fullfment, as individuals and collectively;
And Hardt and Negri 's concept
Of the Multitude and it's struggle
To assert its pure being: again no
Lame Dialectic here either .
All of this propell us to Mutual Aid ,
cooperative strivings, Mutual respect
For one another in dignity as we
Directly confront the organized ,
Top down, stifling Power Structure.
The indignatos , the indigenous
Uprising , Seattle type social
Movements, Occupy, Etc: we never stop,
We never regret ." We've come too far to
give up who we are : Let's Get Lucky!!
( Thanx Daft Punk, emile )

in the forming of concepts, gestures emerge first as ‘gestures for myself’ (i am aware that reaching provides a means of obtaining something to eat or drink) then as ‘gestures for others’ (i reach or point to something as a signal for others to fetch it), and then as ‘gestures in themselves’ (gestures as sign language that can tell a story, share an experience or feeling) {e.g. Vygotsky, ‘Thought and Language’)

language uses utterances as gestures-in-themselves to construct ‘histories’ that give people a sense of identity, of who they are and where they are coming from. As Howard Zinn showed in ‘A People’s History of the United States’, histories portrayed in yang terms of ‘what things do’ can give representation to dynamics in the same place at the same time as either ‘positive’ [constructive] or ‘negative’ [destructive]. This is the nature of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which invokes absolute space and absolute time as the ‘operating theatre’; i.e. it constructs a non-relational-spatial reality that projects over the top of, and obscures relational-spatial reality.

our real-life physical, sensory experience informs us that it is impossible to ‘construct a house’ without ‘destroying some forest’. in other words, our experience informs us that we live in a relational space, not in an absolute space, but the hallmark of Western civilization is Western peoples’ choice of elevating ‘reason’ into an unnatural primacy over ‘experience’. This gives the ‘economy of thought’ of constructing a pseudo-reality that portrays dynamics in terms of ‘what independent things-in-themselves do [in absolute space and absolute time] instead of, as our experience is informing us, transformation of spatial relations.

actual BELIEF in this pseudo-reality; i.e. operating on the basis that the world really is an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre populated by independently existing material objects/systems which interact over time is the source of sovereigntism, capitalism and retributive justice that locks us into this degenerating mess aka Western civilization.

as far as ‘ego’ goes, in the relational space view, it is not ‘reason-based’. the identity of the self derives from the transforming relational space we are situationally included in; “the need that is calling out to be satisfied is the ‘me’ that is rising to the occasion to fulfill it”. the ego discussed in the article assumes that men are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that operate in an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre. without bringing such alternative assumptions [non-dualism, dualism] to the surface, discussions that ride on top of them are spinning their wheels.

where you say;

“My experiences in the field indicate that social order and the exchange of mutual needs is in no way effected by any linguistic structure or lack there of.”

this suggests that you are taking too small a view of ‘social order’. in our natural family and community mode, we all pitch in; i.e. we rise to the occasion as needs develops, the child’s fall brings sister and brother running to assist, the coming storm/season orchestrates the behaviours of the collective from the outside inward. the development of language is as a support tool for this natural relational organizing. that is, as in indigenous anarchism, the continually transforming relational space is understood not only the orchestrator of relational forms (people etc.) but also their engenderer.

the studies of whorf, sapir et al are to do with how different language architectures deliver ‘different realities’ to their users. the flow-based language of aboriginals does not put their ‘language-and-thought’ reality at odds with real-life sensory experience as is the case with Indo-European languages.

in particular, aboriginal languages do not deliver a reality that sees ‘man’, ‘organism’ and ‘organization’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’.

natural ‘organizing’, in our family dynamics, our informal community dynamics IS NOT REASON-DRIVEN, it is outside-inward orchestrated by the transforming relational spatial flow we are situationally included in.

the mechanistic ‘reality’ constructed from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, mistaken/confused for the relational world of our sensory experience, is what has us substitute REASON-DRIVEN ORGANIZING for natural organizing. this reduction of organizing, from the conjugate relation of outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting action, to the one-sided [all-yang-no-yin] terms of 'what independent reason-driven systems do', gives birth to sovereigntism, capitalism and retributive justice.

We get it. Emile is a bot. HAHAHAHA GOOD ONE. You are not clever. Stop wasting your time shitting up threads. Emile is bad enough.


Even improper nouns get capitalized at the beginning of sentences.

Every form of life is archistic”.
All growing life-forms are aggressive: “aggressive is what growing means. Each fights for its own place, and to enlarge it, and enlarging it is a growth.
The world falls to him who can take it, if instinctive action can tell us anything.”
“The living unit is an organism of embodied wants;
The distinction between the lifeless and the living is comprised under an inability to be other than a victim to conditions. That of which the latter can be said, possesses life; that of which the former, is inanimate. It is to this doministic instinct to which we have applied the label archistic.”

* * *

This view of the world that sees ‘man’, ‘organism’ and ‘organization’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ operating in an absolute space is the source of the dysfunction that permeates Western civilization.

‘Archism’ is not simply an action strategy in the physical world, it derives from [Western] man’s view of himself as an ‘independent reason-driven machine’ that operates in an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre.

There is no such thing as absolute space and absolute time.

As a tool for economy of thought, no problem, but to actually believe in the above ‘anthropomorphisms’ and confuse them for physical reality is the equivalent of ‘religious belief’.

The yang view that the author employs denies relational space. In giving an economy of thought, such a one-sided non-relational view does not interpret the physical world of our experience but is the back-projection of our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs that, when people MIStake them for physical reality, gives rise to the Western institutions of sovereign states, corporations and retributive justice, all of which ‘incorporate’ the anthropomorphist archetype for man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven system’ that operates in an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame [MIStaken to be the physical ‘operating theatre’]

No doubt he would also MIS-interpret Nietzsche's 'will to power' as egoism, as he would oblige himself to do, so long as he persists in assuming absolute space and absolute time, the necessary foundations that support seeing man, organism and organization as 'independent reason-driven machines'.

^ sad one trick pony

in the relational space of non-dualist quantum reality, the form of the changing landscape and the various features and forms are what schroedinger calls ‘appearances’ [‘schaumkommen’], ‘variations in the structure of space’. These visible forms are not ‘real in themselves’ but are continually reforming from the conjugate relating of outside-inward, many-to-one, converging energy-flow ‘sink’ and inside-outward, one-to-many, diverging energy-flow ‘source’. physical reality is the continual transforming of relational space. the visible forms are secondary derivatives. however, noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar ‘converts’ the visible forms to primary reality, a reality that is then in terms of ‘independently-existing material objects/systems’ and ‘what these things do’, as if in absolute three-dimensional space and in absolute time.

this reduction to the secondary derivative of ‘visual space’ takes out of the primary reality of ‘acoustic space’, a purely relational space which is ‘everywhere-at-the-same-time’ (McLuhan) where ‘the transforming medium is the message’.

thus, our use of this ‘secondary reality’ does not make it into a dam since we do not impute first order reality to it. this is the worldview of the indigenous anarchist, which acknowledges the physical primacy of relational spatial transformation, and the secondary nature of the visual imagery, of relational spatial forms and features.

to the indigenous anarchist, ‘the terrain is transforming’ while noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar splits out relational forms and imputes ‘being’ to them, making them, notionally, into the jumpstart source of ‘their own actions’ as in ‘the river rages’. the notion of ‘the raging river’ is ‘not real’ in the sense of primary physical reality, it is simply our subjectively isolated [and linguistically concretized] relational feature within the activity continuum of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

therefore, your view of the world in terms of ‘independently existing things that do stuff’ is not a dam that is exposed to breaking, since your primary non-dualist reality transcends this secondary dualist [‘what things do’] pseudo-reality.
i’m sure i am not saying anything that is new to you, but it is useful, it seems to me, to clarify that ‘economy of thought’ is the motivation to reduce ‘forms as agents of transformation’ to ‘forms as doers-of-deeds’.

it is useful to say ‘katrina ravages new orleans’, reducing the storm-cell from an agent of transformation to a doer-of-deeds, but one has to be sensitive, in saying ‘farmer john produces wheat’, that, for economy of thought, we are reducing ‘farmer john’ from an ‘agent of transformation’ innately included in the transforming relational spatial plenum, ... to a notional ‘independent reason-driven doer-of-deeds’ operating in a notional ‘absolute space and absolute time’ operating theatre. a three dimensional reference frame is not a physical reality. the continually transforming relational spatial plenum within which relational forms as agents-of-transformation are continually gathering and regathering is the primary reality which comprehends, at the same time, ‘inhabitants’ and ‘habitat’, as per Mach’s principle;

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”

not only wheat plants but humans are ‘agents of transformation’ within the spatial-relationally transforming activity continuum.

as soon as we reduce the human, farmer john, to a ‘doer-of-deeds’, we start seeing him as ‘an independent reason-driven machine’ that operates on the rest of the world. we say that he ‘constructs a house’ and ignore that ‘constructing a house’ is at the same time, ‘destroying some forest’; i.e. ‘constructing and destroying’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational spatial transformation.

the indigenous anarchist sees himself as an agent of transformation who, like a sailboater, derives his power and steerage from the relational spatial dynamics he is situationally included in. if he is al capone, his rapid progress in navigating passage down a crowded street is due to relational spatial accommodating as the crowd opens for him like the red seas opened for moses. if, on the other hand, al capone disguises himself and is not recognized, then his navigating passage performance is reduced to that of ordinary non-scary people.

therefore, his material dynamic performance is linked to the accommodating quality of the relational space he is asserting into, which corresponds to ‘consciousness’ [mind-matter in conjugate relation (non-duality); i.e. mind and matter are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational transformation]

hitting and fielding are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational spatial transformation. it is the consciousness of the fielders of what you, the hitter are doing, that provides the accommodating pocket for your assertive actions. if you are the son of al capone, the socket may be more accommodating for your asserting actions than for another. mainstream science only REGARDS AS REAL that which can be measured. your performance can be measured therefore it is regarded as ‘real’. no-one will ever know how much your performance derives from the conscious mind based accommodating that can double or half your performance, or more generally, outside-inwardly shape your performance. if you are an attractive female, certain passageways may open up for you which are highly accommodating, ... like vortices that you may not want to be drawn into, unless the relational space you are in has made all other passageways so disaccommodating that there is only one that leads to being clothed, fed and sheltered.

bottom line: ... the doer-deed view of humans and/or states and/or corporations [organizations] is an ‘economy of thought’. the human is an agent of transformation rather than a doer-of-deeds. the doer-deed world view is the dam that is breaking apart. the agent of transformation view gives transcendent meaning to the relational form that it is thought-economical to regard as a doer-of deeds [the individual and corporation and state]. it is not breakable as are systems composed of fixed identity doers-of-deeds that meanwhile are undergoing transformation.

All very good except for the thanx to emile you fool!

Thanks for this!

yes yes... I'll enjoy reading on the ontological nature of materialism when I'm rotting in solitary confinement for a few decades. No thank you and fuck off, phallosopher.

Thanks for the suggestion!

when did they push back the deadline for people to start being into primitivism again to? or is it the same one...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Subscribe to Comments for "Black Seed Submission Deadline Pushed Back to February 8th"