I was presuming you meant early Land, since later Land is incoherent at best.
Never really dealt with Deep Greens, but I do find their fundamental rejection of anthropocentrism to be ultimately self-limiting, particularly under the circumstances. We'll be lucky to get humans to decide not destroying their own ability to live is a good idea at this point.
the latter definition should be done away with as much as possible. It does not describe anything coherent or useful to radical politics. the former should be revived (if not necessarily adopted in all its particulars), because it constitutes a genuinely new theoretical tradition (however much its adherents would want to deny it). :anarchy-a-white:
The pre-2016 "post-left" was a loose grouping of nihilists, deep greens, accelerationists and primitivists.
The post-2016 "post-left" is rich contrarians who are sore losers over Bernie and decided it's time to become Tucker Carlson and oppose the vaccines
Like Land-style accelerationists? Or actual Left-Accelerationists? Because I don't think the second would agree that they are post-left.
Yes Land-style, or at least his earlier work.
I will say, they are at least interesting. Deep Greens on the other hand are the most unpleasant people I have ever encountered.
I was presuming you meant early Land, since later Land is incoherent at best.
Never really dealt with Deep Greens, but I do find their fundamental rejection of anthropocentrism to be ultimately self-limiting, particularly under the circumstances. We'll be lucky to get humans to decide not destroying their own ability to live is a good idea at this point.
the latter definition should be done away with as much as possible. It does not describe anything coherent or useful to radical politics. the former should be revived (if not necessarily adopted in all its particulars), because it constitutes a genuinely new theoretical tradition (however much its adherents would want to deny it). :anarchy-a-white:
Disagree, both should dwindle in obscurity as irrelevant