Some Green Anarchy Points

- Green Pessimism: No alternative technology can be created that will maintain the current system and create freedom. The logic of progress makes people feel like we just jump from one alternative to another, each one getting better. This is a very short sighted position. Capitalism will not pull us out of the energy crisis without massive barbarism. The green washing of technology alternatives, like solar and wind, ignores the massive destruction necessary to create, from the mining of rare earths to create the technology, to the logistics needed to pull the materials together and create to the exhaust and waste created in the creation of this technology, to the energy sources needed to develop these technologies, the move to green technology largely fails to have the "green" label attached if it is to mean anything good for the environment.

- No Point of Origin (Original sin): The grand narrative of origin or original sin in these crisis is largely a distraction. One can create a dozen theories about the origin, but ultimately we have to decide our approach today. We must use the master's tools and largely our criticism is that we are prevented from creating real alternatives because of present existing conditions. We can go as green as we define the term rather than how the term is defined.

- Rejection of Mass: Socialist, anarchist and communist rebellions are largely focused on control of mass institutions or seeing a massive rebellion play out. The industrial scale of how they want society to be organized has largely sat unchallenged, seeing the need to build on top of the advances of capitalism to create a new world. We see reason to challenge the old traditions of rebellion and to assert we can do more than react to the latest horrors from the system.

- Autonomous Communal Living: For us, with the failure in green technology, we see reason to reconceive of how we are organized and to change the scale of how we are organized. To start a social revolution, the very organization of society must be challenged. By suggesting a scale of autonomous communal living units, as opposed to atomized consumer units tied into a web of institutions, we suggest a new way of living that can impose values and remain flexible and resilient in the face of constantly changing conditions. When we do a direct action, when we protest, when we riot, when we have an insurrection, it is from our living units we spring and continue to spring forth. Because we are anarchists we see reason to build our lives together and because we want a free society we want more than buy consume die with a slight chance of cancer.

- We are animals on a planet spinning through space: We don't know what the future holds. Science is limited by the scientific method. While we have reason to trust the method, the desired conclusions, the framing of direction and how science is used to impact our future needs to be challenged. Our mission as humans may not be the one implicit in how science is narrated. Space travel, cyborgs, AI robots, computers inside of everything. Yet this is how we keep translating technology, which is justified in how we do scientific research. We want to know if the sci-fi can become science fact. And damn the world for the consequences of blinded research, which uses the scientific method to discover how to do horrible things, but when these things are created, their consequences are mitigated. To see our desire to know as separate from how we act on those desires is foolhardy. While the answer isn't to close the book on science, it should be seen for what it is: An aid to power.

Yeah, I'd like a more pragmatic conversation to happen on these topics.

If we avoid the trap of origins but rather consider the possibilities we have presently. As such, any action will be an exploration. Where you live (climate, different eco systems) will dictate your mode of subsistence and methods of organizing. There is not a one size fit all available.

Not to be an alarmist, but I'd also argue that as we are living through something of a collapse there needs to be a serious shift of attention to happen. The @'s still clinging to the myth of progress and by extension civilization are creating an unnecessary impasse in theory and action. By that I mean that a schism is created which serves more to create a conversation where we continually rehash the same entrenched positions. I'm not sure, but perhaps it is just symptomatic for an empire which is collapsing.

Still, I don't see how the one excludes the other. There are still methods which are useful from the past, but increasingly these are only temporary tools, not a means to an end. I think the problem arises when we keep insisting on methods and ideology which does not seek to break with the tradition in which they came to be. Which is to say that I do not know what can be, but I know (at least to a degree) that which stands against any potential freedom. Even a cursory analysis of the present system should reveal that there are no liberatory potential in it. Its fundamental structure and the social relations it rest on are clearly antithetical to any substantial freedom.

I think that in addition to a critical analysis there needs to be a practical component: An anarchist ecology if you will. Land restoration, subsistence and a social organizing within a anarchist trajectory. How do we go about living, and what in our explorations are in accordance with an anarchist perspective? And perhaps in so doing that we try to avoid a prescriptive discourse, but rather try to center it around mutuality.

About animals - true. I've just finished the part on it:
On the other hand, the symbolic meaning of movements, posture, gestures and even looks within different cultures has different, sometimes, even opposite interpretation, as “ the emotional language” is formed historically, is constantly changing and in the process of communication becomes largely conventional, signaled, and of social character. Regardless of cultural differences, people can express anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise the same way, but all learn rules (cultural display rules) – unwritten guidelines on how to manage and modify these universal expression depending on the social circumstances.
Thus, the non-verbal expression of emotions is both a universal and a cultural phenomenon. Functions of the non-verbal components of emotional response are more pragmatic than semantic: these non-verbal components of communication express emotions, reflecting person's relation to phenomena, creating psychological contact between partners, enriching meanings of words.
1. Burgoon J. Nonverbal Communication ( The unspoken dialogue / J. Burgoon, D. B. Buller, W. G. Woodall. – [2nd ed.]. – New York : The Mcgraw-Hill Companies, 1996. – 522 p.
2. Dewaele J.-M. Emotions in Multiple Languages Initiative: Cmmunication styles by / J.-M. Dewaele. – New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. – 260 c.