A question in this article that I feel is important. “Has social ecology been eclipsed in ecological anarchism? Should it be revived?”

Partially, yes and absolutely yes. In my honest opinion, it’s a great shame that some other anarchistic eco-currents (like anarcho-primitivism, rewilding, and now solarpunk-ish movements) have sometimes pushed Bookchin aside, finding social ecology too rationalist. Its insight, that we need communal, decentralized, directly democratic solutions to ecological collapse, is more relevant than ever. Maybe today it needs to be expanded. Maybe we make it more pluralistic, more attuned to Indigenous knowledges, more experimental. But its core spirit absolutely deserves revival.

This is very insightful. I’m really interested, are there any books or otherwise sources that helped you draw this conclusion? It makes a whole lot of sense, I guess I was kind of ignoring that possibility.

Yea, I skimmed through the comments. Yikes. Really just proves my point that they take these criticisms like a shot to the chest.

Lost me at Bezos.

Alls I’m saying folks, I’m not done until I’m six feet deep in the ground.

Yes thank you. Quick google search says your right. My bad.

It drives me crazy that there are people who think us humans are inherently lazy. It’s silly to think money is the ONLY thing that incentivizes us to work. We build shit because we want to. Did the native Americans build Tipis and expect to get payed? No! They built another Tipi because they fucking needed another Tipi. Imagine the type of shit we could build in the future if capital wasn’t a thing and budget wouldn’t be a barrier.

If you go to any old town in Europe there are a lot of roads with practically no cars. You can just walk along this wide road through the town fit for dozens of people. The problem is not that there aren’t enough pedestrian sidewalks, the problem is everything in modern infrastructure is being made for cars, and roads are seen as both meant for pedestrians AND cars.