I wish there was a way to combine both

I wish there was a way to combine both.

Other urls found in this thread:

lmddgtfy.net/?q=! bob black police informant
revleft.space/vb/threads/194384-Anti-ecologist-arguments
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Do you want one boot or 51 boots stamping on your face? Take your pick.

Then google BoB Black

Just put the bird in the middle of the circle, you know, overlap with the hammer and sickle, prefferably to give it some contrast turn it white.

In all honesty though why not?
I mean, Anarchism, Communism, and Ecology?
A.C.E sounds rad, you know what sounds even better, E.A.C, Ecological Anacho-Communism
Unless the bird stands for anarcho-primitivism, although I don't see how one couldn't revert to the stone age if they felt like it.

I prefer DuckDuckGo:
lmddgtfy.net/?q=! bob black police informant

(Deep) Ecology and environmentalism are reactionary.
Read Rafiq.
revleft.space/vb/threads/194384-Anti-ecologist-arguments (5th post)

More like Cop Black

So you propose we destroy and poison ourselves?

No. But ecology fetishism is spooked reactionary nonsense, and a step towards repression and totalitarianism.

But in that case, industrialization is also a spook (which it is)

Social Ecology > "Deep" Ecology

Heres what I mean. Both are technically spooks

Communalism is pretty much ecologically oriented anarcho-communism. Without the reactionary garbage that plagues deep ecology though

My thoughts on deep ecology is that we should abolish commodity production and industry, and that we should so things independently.

We should farm/cook/grow our own food, not rely on chemically processed food.

Deep ecology can also be rationalized without reactionary beliefs

By the time socialism comes along we'll probably have robots growing and cooking our food to perfection

Abolishing industry isn't possible without a massive reduction in population, as well as a massive reduction in quality of life and freedom. It's a misanthropic proposition, and should be rejected wholesale. The problem isn't industry per se, but the extent to which industry is done rationally and ecologically. I agree there's definitely problems with chemicals in our food though; Bookchin wrote an entire book about this, among other things (our synthetic environment). But as far as deep ecology being conceived of without reactionary beliefs goes, I have to disagree. This is because a fundamental principle of deep ecology is its ethics of biocentrism, which are inherently misanthropic and reactionary. Bookchin's dialectical naturalism sought to chart a third alternative to either biocentrism or anthropocentrism.

What do you mean by perfect? Being organic? Having the greatest flavor? (Having greatest flavor often indicates its unhealthy)

Also making pefected food that never spoils is never healthy because most foods that expire the quickest have the highest nutritional value, which is why most and bacteria love that stuff.

True, people are often too selfish to give up what's for the best of humanity, because they don't want to give up what's best for them personally. We can't give up fossil-fuels/automated transportation because people have become reliant on it. I think that if people became self-reliant like growing their own food and such, they wouldn't need industry, they wouldn't need cars.

My belief on ecology is that the more we try to fight natural order, the more we fight ourselves. For instance, we try to fight spoiled food by adding preservatives in it, but in the long run, this can also cause problems.

And also, self reliance means that you don't have to rely on commodities, therefore you don't need money to survive.

Deep Ecology and john Zerzan are god tier

bookchin's silly cult died out a while back