"Critics often argue that anti-civ anarchism necessarily implies the destruction of healthcare, food systems, infrastructure, and other essential services."
then shortly afterwards:
"When such a collapse occurs, regardless of the economic system in place, healthcare systems reliant on global supply chains, advanced manufacturing, and complex technological infrastructure would be severely disrupted or cease to function."
So, yes, anti-civ anarchism DOES necessarily implies the destruction of healthcare, food systems, infrastructure, and other essential services...
The objection is that critics assume "that green anarchy advocates a revolutionary program to dismantle these systems" rather than simply waiting (hoping?) for its "eventual collapse due to its extractive foundations." A fine distinction...
As for a social revolution being difficult, well, yes -- but there is a vast difference between a social revolution in which the masses organise themselves and transform society and simply talking about how bad "mass society" is and awaiting its (inevitable) collapse. That the "anti-civ" anarchists cannot see the difference shows how pointless and non-revolutionary their politics actually are.
No comments:
Post a Comment