Talk:Green anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early discussion[edit]

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


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.


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.


NPOV Dispute[edit]

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[edit]

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 and their back to basics series.

this article needs to be cleaned up.[edit] Lockeownzj00 04:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try this:[edit]

[note: i tried to be as unbiased as possible (which is impossible) but this is coming from a green anarchist]

Green anarchists compose a diverse and open movement of people who take influences from a variety of different places. These include anarchists, radical ecologists, feminists, Situationists, surrealists, Luddittes, primitivists, post- and anti-leftists, indigenous and pre-civilized people, the feral and the wild.

The green anarchist critique focuses on the institutions of domination that make up society, all grouped under the broad term “civilization”. These institutions include the state, capitalism, globalization, domestication, patriarchy, science, technology, work, etc. These institutions, according to green anarchists, are inherently destructive and exploitative (to humans and the environment) – therefore, they cannot be reformed. This movement generally rejects progress through current political lines, favoring direct and autonomous action, sabotage, insurrection, bioregionalism, and reconnecting with the wild to create meaningful change.

There are two main points of contention among green anarchists: civilization and technology.

Green anarchists can be described as anti-civilization anarchists or anarcho-primitivists (the anarchist critique of civilization), though certainly not all are anti-civilization.. Likewise, there is a strong critique of technology among green anarchists, though not all reject it entirely.

Civilization is taken to be the totality of institutions (described above) that are responsible for the destruction of human freedom and the environment. Physically, civilization is demarcated by the domestication of plants, animals, and humans (though its beginning have been traced back through time, language, art, and symbolic culture – see John Zerzan). Agriculture created a surplus and the conditions for the rise of these institutions. Before agriculture, humans often lived as autonomous bands of gatherer-hunters without any leadership, authority, division of labor, organized violence, environmental destruction, etc. Essentially, gatherer-hunters are perceived to be part of our anarchist ancestry since all humans practiced that mode of life for around two million years. Civilization is often seen as more of a paradigm then a physical thing, and one that places human beings above and outside of the natural world. This is seen as the first step towards and justification for the destruction of nature (humans included).

Technology is seen as a system rather than a specific physical tool. Technology requires the exploitation of the environment through the creation and extraction of resources, and the exploitation of people through labor, work, and slavery, industrialism, specialization and the division of labor. There is no “neutral” form of technology as things are always created in a certain context with certain aims and functions. Green technology is often rejected because it simply keeps the same exploitative system and only changes it on the surface to make it seem environmentally friendly despite the constant level of human and natural exploitation. In place of technology, green anarchists favor low- to no-tech living, using sustainable and local resources.

Green anarchists are not advocating a return to the stone age or the replication of gatherer-hunter lifeways; instead they are advocating a deep questioning of the reality we have been given, and wish to see those questions (namely the questioning of civilization) be put into effective praxis by creating new communities that exist without these institutions of domination while at the same time resisting the current ones in place.

I don't see any discussion here about this. Was there ever an attempt to or a discussion about integrating this material into the article? --Rico (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any discussion, but the above does not state which sources it is drawing from, so it has no place in the encyclopaedia at present. Regards, Skomorokh 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-industrialism=Green Anarchism ?[edit]

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:

Green Anarchy is anti-civilization anarchy[edit]

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 for clarifcation.

green anarchism is not anarcho-primitivism[edit]

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.

Discussion on end of civilization[edit]

Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I am a firm beliver in the values and traditions of being a green Anarchist. With that I would like to give some advice. STOP BEING SO PC!!!! Everyone can take a joke. Whether you're Black or White or Asian or Indian, everyone makes fun of each other. Its a fact of life. So everyone can take a lesson from this. Stop being so politicaly correct and enjoy life, celebrate and poke fun of oneanothers flaws. Because before you know it, We will all be living communaly with the differences aside.

Nick (Nitro) Angola —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Seeing as there is no such thing as green anarchism (it's "Green Anarchy"- called such because it is not an organized school of thought, therefore not an -ism), and green anarchy is quite different from eco-anarchism, there should be no merger. Furthermore, this article needs to be edited because of the inaccuracies in it, preferably by someone who knows something about the subject.

Merging with Eco-Anarchism[edit]

There's been a tag on these two articles for ages. Can we just get it done already? We can hold off on the merge with Anarcho-primitiivism, but let's get these two together into a coherent article. Green and Eco are synonymous, and all the info is about the same god damn movement. Bad enough we can't just say Anarchism. Vert et Noirtalk 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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?

EARTH FIRST! ?[edit]

I wonder why Earth First! isn't mentioned here? --Dylanfly 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sole reason that you haven't mentioned it yet! Be Bold! Vert et Noirtalk 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lee[edit]

I was just browsing the article here and found that the link to Richard Lee goes to the disambiguation page, where it's difficult to figure out which Richard Lee the article refers to. Can anyone clarify?--Pariah 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a chance that the correct person is Richard B. Lee, and that's another disambiguation page on Wikipedia Smiley.svg. I did a Google search on "Richard Lee anarchist" and got that name; however, the Richard Borshay Lee article doesn't suggest anything of the man's anarchist tendencies, so I'm not sure they are the same person.-- Mumia-w-18 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mumia--After running a similar search and reading a few articles, I am fairly certain that Richard Borshay Lee is the anthropologist mentioned in the article. From what I gather, he is not necessarily an anarchist himself, but his work seems to support a Green anarchist or anarcho-primitivist position. I'm going to change the name in the article to reflect this, and if it turns out to be wrong someone can correct me later.--Pariah 03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems to make sense. Good job Smiley.png. -- Mumia-w-18 11:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Techo-positvist Bookchin?[edit]

To my knowledge Murray Bookchin never called himself a "techno-positivist" and I think he would disagree with this label. I think it should be changed (at least in regards to Bookchin, I don't know what Alan Carter calls himself) or cited, or his ]Bookchin's] name should be removed.

Also, it is possible that some "techno-positive" green anarchists call themselves "techno-positive green anarchists", but no "techno-negative" green anarchist agrees with this label. In this case, we would have to present this perspective on green anarchism as such, and not an universal criterion within the movement. Maziotis (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Green anarchism and the summary on scholar sources[edit]

I am not against the addition of new information based on scholary sources, or against the removal on lack of those. But the fact that you have scholary sources doesn't present us with a justification to remove any other form of content and to replace it with such. Please see my summary. Maziotis (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


The "technology" section is a complete joke. There are NO citations WHATSOEVER. It's like something someone would come out with in a pub as to what he thinks green anarchists are about. It is all inaccurate and just ridiculous. I would remove it but I'd be afraid it might all magically reappear. Anonywiki (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Many of the references in this section are to deadlinks, these should either be fixed or removed. At this point, the claims made simply cannot be verified. In the case of many of the others, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified because they are in French, Spanish, Portugese, etc. I for one have a lot of doubts about many of these sources, which come from websites which I doubt meet the standard for reliable sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The doubts of User RepublicanJacobite were already responded to as far as the links that support information about anarcho-naturism in the article individualist anarchism. Here anyone can see my response [1].

User RepublicanJacobite accepts this source Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 and so the existence of that published work should be a good sing on the reliability on Diez as a source with enough specific expertise on the subject of individualist anarchism. The essay "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" Xavier Díez has been reproduced even in blogs and so doubts as far as reliability if it was something published in a blog are understandable. This is not the case of this essay by Xavier Diez which happens to be a smaller version of the published book El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938.

This essay was published first in what has to be one of the most reliable publications out there on anarchism. Germinal (revista de análisis) which includes among its scientific council the following people "Maurizio Antonioli (Università di Milano), Gianpietro Berti (Università di Padova), Richard Cleminson (University of Leeds), Joel Delhom (Université de Bretagne-Sud), Alejandro Díez Torre (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares), Luis Dorrego (New York University in Madrid), Isabel Escudero Ríos (UNED), Christian Ferrer (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Agustín García Calvo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Roberto Giulianelli (Università Politecnica delle Marche), José Luis Gutiérrez Molina (Universidad de Cádiz), Luigi di Lembo (Università di Firenze), Nelson Méndez (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Teresa Oñate Zubía (UNED), Philippe Pelletier (Université Lyon 2), Pablo M. Pérez (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Paul Preston (London School Economics), Giorgio Sacchetti (Università di Siena), Eugenio Trías (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Salvo Vaccaro (Università di Palermo), Gianni Vattimo (Università di Torino), Alfredo Vallota (Universidad Simón Bolívar de Caracas)" as can be seen here. I don´t know how you can make something more reliable from an academic point of view but if there are more doubts here is the article by Diez shown in the index of the specific issue of the Magazine Germinal in which it appeared and more importantly here is the article "La insumision voluntaria" in PDF from within the magazine´s website.

But i could as well also put as source the book by Xavier Diez El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 since this book just expands on what the article "La insumision voluntaria" deals with. As far as the contents of the article "La insumision voluntaria" as can be seen in the article itself it could be smummarized as follows: 1. A consideration on when and how "individualist anarchism" appeared in Spain. 2. The philosophical base of spanish individualist anarchism considering it it thus a good summarization of its influences and it includes Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, the americans Thoreau, Warren and Tucker and french individualist anarchists like Emile Armand and Han Ryner. 3. the practice of spanish individualist anarchism 4. the main publications in it. 4. a decription of the discourse of spanish individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Green anarchism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Green anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Historytoday":

Reference named "":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction[edit]

I rewrote some of the introduction, primarily because it did not previously seem to say very much at all about what green anarchism actually is. I added a couple of sentences hoping to remedy this.

I also rewrote some of the text that followed, and made a start by shortening the unequal depth regarding the influence of Henry David Thoreau. His influence on green anarchism is questionable, especially seeing as it is hardly straight forward that he is even an anarchist, and dedicating the greatest word to him in the introduction seemed to me to be unreasonable.

I also included a slightly more detailed explanation of the three primary contemporary strands of green anarchism, namely primitivism, veganarchism and social ecology. My hope was to further remedy the previously mentioned problem, and provide the introduction with a concise explanation of the most important contemporary currents of green anarchism.

- Leosylvester / 11:22 10 November 2014

The main complaint i had about what you wrote is the lack of sources supporting it and in wikipedia we work with sources in order for an affirmation to stay within an article. This especially as far as affirmations in the introduction of an article. But also, i alongside other users have taken the task to maintain a good quality standard for anarchism-related articles. The following particular affirmation that you added in the introduction still does not have support and so it can be taken out: "This often culminates in an anarchist revolutionary praxis that is not merely dedicated to human liberation, but also to some form of ecological liberation."--Eduen (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your point Eduen, I have attempted to remedy what you said. I will continue to look for references in order to strengthen the introduction as much as possible. It pretty much goes without saying that I attempted to provide a concise description of what green anarchism is, whilst also including content that went beyond the very obvious. I hope to have achieved that, but of course also welcome criticism.
- Leosylvester / 14:01 11 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosylvester (talkcontribs) 14:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)