Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[77]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[78]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[77]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-14 17:46:34.43
	1	+2017-03-14 17:46:34.0

Caselist.CitesClass[78]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
	1	+Turn- the state of nature is fucking great but it doesn’t really exist anyway- paradoxally, it only became bad when made into an imperialist war machine to eradicate the state of nature
	2	+Also, you should be skeptical of their claims, hobbs is 1. Unscientific 2. Operating from a place in civilization that WAS very violent, his social location impacted his theories, and 3. Doesn’t account for the empirical multiplicity of natural societies
	3	+Kevin Tucker, http://www.blackandgreenpress.org/2015/01/the-forest-beyond-field-consequences-of.html, Friday, January 16, 2015 The Forest Beyond the Field: The Consequences of Domestication - Kevin Tucker This is my primary essay from Species Traitor no. 4, 2005 and also in my book, For Wildness and Anarchy (BandG, 2009). For some reason no easily readable or printable version of it seems to have made it online. So here it is. The Forest Beyond the Field the Consequences of Domestication
	4	+
	5	+. Some societies changed, some societies grew, some stayed in a particular form, but some other kept growing. To feed that growth, they developed more tools and technologies designed to kill more people and cut more forests and dig more soil quickly. There was no Hand of God in this nor any act of evolution. And never was there an origin of ‘society’ as such. No matter what we are now or have been, we have been social first and foremost. Even the most archaic form of human society flowed organically from the way our bodies and minds have evolved. This is where our ‘human nature’ stems from. It flows from our needs as social animals that must think, eat, drink and sleep, our need for companionship and community (both human and non-human), our need for autonomy and the fulfillment of simply being. For over 99.99 of human history, that has looked like small and open bands of about 15-25 people who live in temporary camps throughout a given bioregion with loosely defined and larger affiliations to each other. Food was hunted, gathered, scavenged, or fished. In some people could make fire, others would keep coals, and some had none at all. Cultural knowledge was shared and all had equal access to what domesticated peoples refer to as ‘resources’.
	6	+
	7	+Giving people houses is just an extension of the capital of the state and civil society- giving poor people property doesn’t make private property go away. This is especially bad because you give sedentary property in land ownership, which makes you an active participant in civilization, leading to the total neoliberal commodification of the natural world
	8	+Black and Green Press no date, What is Green Anarchy?, http://www.blackandgreenpress.org/p/what-is-green-anarchy.html
	9	+This has given the leftists reason to criticize green anarchists for not being 'organized' and having only loose visions. However, we feel that this is an important step if we are to again be full beings. Anarchy is NOT Democracy Despite the efforts on behalf of aspiring populists to prove otherwise, anarchy is, by definition, not democracy (whether one calls it direct or social democracy). Needing to point towards this seems rather petty, but it’s hard to look at the huge amounts of anarchist literature without seeing the bulk of it as any more than ‘radical democracy,’ dressed up in anarchist rhetoric. Let’s look at the word anarchy, stemming from the Greek an-, meaning without, and arkhos, meaning ruler. Put them together and you have without ruler, or more commonly, absence of any form of political authority. Democracy, believe it or not, is a form of government. The suffix, –cracy, following the Latin –cratia, to the Greek –kratia meaning strength, power, translated to government, or rule (Greek: demokratia meaning people + government dictatorship of the people or dictatorship of the proletariat for Marx). And to step down one more notch here, a government is a governing organization, or the mediator of all social, economic, and political activities of a certain people. So, as we can see, anarchy, by definition, is not democracy. Anarchists are for a complete rejection of all authoritarian institutions/structures on principle. All governments impose themselves on the Earth and all life on it. So long as they exist, autonomy cannot. This being established, we can move on. Green Anarchies? There is no single strand of 'green anarchy' and there are surely as many divisions between ourselves as there are in anything. The unifying principle between green anarchists is an ecologically oriented understanding of power relations. Differences primarily arise from the extents to which we feel the initial terms this domestication can, or should, be overturned. We lack the capabilities and want to list all different strands of 'green anarchism'. We want to emphasize that these categories are given not of want, but of simplicity. We have no interest in ideological restrictions and have no absolute faith in such abstracts. The distinctions point to specific critiques and are used for conventional reasons only!! Here are some of the primary strands; Anarcho-Primitivism: This critique looks to the millions of years of human wild co-existence within the community of life as a look at 'human nature' and capability. What is gathered from this is that contrary to the myths of the civilized, humans, given the chance, are not evil, although we feel that power corrupts absolutely. The critique looks to domestication as the beginning of a process that has brought us to where we lie now. Our understanding is that not only are capitalist relations oppresive, but that sedentary, agriculture gave way to property and thus power. This point shows the beginning of the process of removing ourselves from the 'other' into an 'thingified' relation to the world, where all things are seen as objects for our use/manipulation. Some major points of contention as far as this critique lie in its implications. John Zerzan contends that to overturn civilization would require abolition of symbolic thought, whereas others would say that symbolic culture is a bigger and more realizable issue. Both agree on the need to turning back from agricultural sedentism. Anti-Civilization: This critique is similar in it's understanding to anarcho-primitivism, but it's constituents tend to feel that anarcho-primitivism over idealizes a certain peoples/time. The convention of this strand is to remove itself from the baggage that anarcho-primitivists tend to carry. Green Anarchism: This is used as a general term for those who don't use either of the above categories and this definately has no pure consistency, and the broad title is not intended to group these folks entirely. Distinctions within this category lie primarily in questions of how far back to look for understanding the destructiveness of civilization. Some would say that domestication and agriculture can be ecologically 'sustainable' and preferrable. Others would contend that technology itself is not an inherent problem. The unifying principle lies in an ecological basis and understanding of the megatechnological State as destructive. The above mentioned philosophical strands tend to be accompanied by another factor (although not necessarily as divisive or particular). That lies in; Revolutionary Green Anarchists: Those seeking a mass movement and revolution as means to an anarchistic world. and, Insurrectionary Green Anarchists: Those who seek revolt here and now as a means to abolish the system on a more individual basis. There is rarely a genuine split here, but the distinction tends to have a larger impact on the approaches one takes to destroying the totality of civilized existence. A large contention remains that the two are not inseparable and that any act of revolt strikes a blow to the civilized order. Some would point that insurrection is the breeding ground of revolution. For an example of debate between the two strands, see Ted Kaczynski's 'Hit Where it Hurts' (Green Anarchy #8) and Primal Rage's 'Hit Where it Hurts, but in the Meantime' (Green Anarchy #9). A Note on Social Ecology Social ecology, generally related to Murray Bookchin and his Institute for Social Ecology has typically been held as one constituent within green anarchy. The Black and Green Network, Coalition Against Civilization, 'Bring on the Ruckus' Society, and Green Anarchy magazine have both publically denounced that this strand has no relation to anarchy. Bob Black's Anarchy After Leftism (Columbia: C.A.L., 1998) further draws on the authoritarian principles that underlie this strand. Social ecology, or libertarian municipalities, are inherently authoritarian, democractic utopias that seek only to make a green civilization. We have no interest in relations with those who actively seek to reform and carry on such a mundane, destructive reality. ******* The following sections are from the Black and Green/Green Anarchy "Back to Basics" Primer from Green Anarchy No. 9 (2002) CIVILIZATION We’re now seeing the end-point of civilization: for one thing, the complete domination-and soon to be destruction-of nature. And, as Freud predicted, a nearing state of universal neurosis. In spades. Paul Shepard said that the step to genetic engineering, including human cloning, is implicit in the first step: domestication. The urge to control and dominate is the cornerstone of civilization. The inner logic of this orientation toward the world and the life upon it is reaching its completion. The founding spirit of civilization begins, most likely, in a gradually developing division of labor or specialization. Inequities of influence come about via the affective power of various kinds of experts.
	10	+The “right to housing” and it’s establishment has led to demolition of previously functional public housing in favor of profitable, minimum effort communities. We are isolating a gentrification link, individualism link, market link and a state link
	11	+Edward Goetz, 2011 (“Gentrification in Black and White: The Racial Impact of Public Housing Demolition in American Cities”, http://usj.sagepub.com/content/48/8/1581.full.pdf)
	12	+In the US, the centrepiece of state-led efforts to deconcentrate poverty and transform inner-city neighbourhoods is the HOPE 6 programme. This programme has been used in dozens of cities to demolish public housing developments and to create new mixed-income communities in their place. The programme thus redefines public housing policy and serves as the main vehicle through which the state has triggered innercity revitalisation (Newman, 2004; Wyly and Hammel, 1999). The major transformation of public housing, in fact, reflects several dimensions of neo-liberal urban policy in the US over the past 20 years. While the elimination of the physical structures of public housing eliminates visual references to New Deal and welfare state policies no longer dominant, the removal of concentrations of very-low income people of colour allows a reimaging of urban spaces critical to the national and international competition for private investment (Newman and Ashton, 2004). Further, the policy prescriptions imposed upon former public housing residents, both relocation

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-14 17:46:35.252

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Laurence, Arun, Mconway

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Richard Cook

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+65

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quarters

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5- State of Nature K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+TFA