Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.
But she can’t nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.
Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.
The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.
The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.
I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.
How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I’m just saying that an-prim isn’t a realistic model for the world.
Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don’t produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.
Isn’t the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?
Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.
But she can’t nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.
Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.
The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.
The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.
This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.
I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.
I think it sounds nice, but it’s hard for me to take it seriously.
They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.
How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I’m just saying that an-prim isn’t a realistic model for the world.
Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don’t produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.
Isn’t the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?
They all have support of industrialized areas. None of them are/were an-prim.
Not sure if I understand you correctly. You say that all of them are importing industrial goods? That doesn’t imply that they are not anprim.
Let me know if I misinterpret you.
We need to overhaul our ecology. Our current ecology is too dependent on extractivism
I like this analogy
thank you :)