Anarcho-Primitivism ... thoughts? opinions? views? [Archive]

apathy maybe

18th February 2009, 16:21

People continually conflate two sorts of primitivism. There are those people in it for the environment, who may well be "misanthropic" and "genocidal". And there are "anarcho-primitivists" who just think that technology is responsible for hierarchy, and that anarchism is only possible without technology.

Both sorts are wrong, and both fail to see that humans will always build technology, 'cause it makes lives easier.

But at least the "anarcho-primitivists" have their "hearts in the right places", and are just confused. (Particularly, they can't answer "how to get there", unlike some (but not all) of the other sort who desire the quick death of 6.1 billion people, by whatever means.)

No primitives are ****s.
Please don't post shit like this. Four words is not a substantive post, if you don't have anything better to say, it is better to not say anything at all.

RaÃºl Duke

18th February 2009, 16:45

But could one be an Anarcho-Primitivist-Marxist ?

No.
As far as I know, Marx was for the progression of human society and technology. Actually, to Marx the idea of going "backwards" in historical stages was either insane, unlikely, or impossible to him.

Dimentio

18th February 2009, 17:14

I'm interested in the views of posters here on this topic. The romantic in me finds some appeal in the ethos, however I realize it is incompatible with most of Marxism.

But could one be an Anarcho-Primitivist-Marxist ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Green_and_Black_flag.svg/176px-Green_and_Black_flag.svg.png

Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism and anti-civilisationism - criticism
http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism

Visual Wikipedia
http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Anarcho-primitivism

No. Anarcho-primitivism would, if ever implemented, result in mass deaths and the destruction of human civilisation. It is impossible to be progressive and an anarcho-primitivist.

John Lenin

18th February 2009, 17:25

So I assume we don't have any Luddite fans in the house?

The Luddites and the Combination Acts from Marxist.org

http://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/index.htm

Excerpts from the Australian Marxist Review:

Hence, one of the earliest revolts against capitalism was machine wrecking. In the early 1800s, the British Parliament adopted a law making it a capital offence, following riots in the Nottingham hosiery industry. Thirty knitting frames were destroyed, mainly by hand knitters who could no longer make a living competing with the cheaper products of machinery.

Luddism is no longer with us, but today we seem to be overtaken by its opposite, the inevitability of technological change coupled with the blind belief in capitalism's ability to provide us with all we need.

This new utopia, this technologically-based illusion, is conjured up by International Monetary Fund spokespeople, by conservative governments, by electioneering social democrats, and by the media in its constant attempts to mesmerise the working people.

http://www.cpa.org.au/amrarch/39ec.html

thinkerOFthoughts

18th February 2009, 17:28

No. Anarcho-primitivism would, if ever implemented, result in mass deaths and the destruction of human civilisation. It is impossible to be progressive and an anarcho-primitivist.

So would that of been what Pol-Pot was trying to do? is it possible that he was a form of Anarcho-Primitivist?

to the OP. I view it all this way, its impossible to uninvent something (like lets say lightbulbs) as soon as we create something and put it in practice their is no getting rid of it. I view times such as the 1800's (revolutionary war time period... so that would be 1700's lol) I enjoy it, I like the idea of a simple life style :) if I want something like that in a statless classless society I can go live in the woods :) no reason to get rid of technology cuz like others have said technology helps mankind. It's what is used to save lives, without the kidn of technology we have our medical proffessionals could hardely be considered proffessional. Also we can all look forward to a day where mostly machines do the work and we just sit happy;)

apathy maybe

18th February 2009, 17:40

On Luddites, they were (in the Marxist jargon) fighting for their class, not against technology per se. They just wanted to keep their jobs.

To everyone, please take heed of my first post, there is a massive difference between "anarcho-primitivists" and other sorts. Pol Pot could not have been an "anarcho-primitivist" 'cause he wanted to force everyone to do stuff, something that is against anarchism.

Please remember to make the distinction.

John Lenin

18th February 2009, 17:41

I like the idea of a simple life style if I want something like that in a statless classless society I can go live in the woods no reason to get rid of technology
Not if your "Thoreau-cabin" is within 50 miles off the nuclear fallout from worldwide attacks. Or if the air is no longer safe to breath, water safe to drink, soil safe to grow in etc.

technology helps mankind. It's what is used to save lives
I agree partially, but it is also used to kill many lives as well. The same technology that created nuclear power, also lead to nuclear bombs. The same medicine that can cure ailments, can also cause disastrous side effects. Is it really a zero sum game?

we can all look forward to a day where mostly machines do the work and we just sit happy
Would we really be happy though?
I subscribe to Che Guevara's ideal that only through work are men/women truly internally fulfilled. I wouldn't want to live in a world where a robot does everything for me, would you?

Sometimes I like to walk rather than drive, hand write letters instead of email, catch my own fish rather than buy one from the supermarket etc. However, what if technology leads to an unsustainable and unliveable world for EVERYONE?

John Lenin

18th February 2009, 17:48

Dimentio

18th February 2009, 18:13

"The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death. From Shiloh to Dachau, from Antietam to Stalingrad, from Hiroshima to Vietnam and Afghanistan, the great specialty of industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses."

~ Edward Abbey

"The primitive way of life leads to the primitive way of death. From the famines in medieval Europe to the human sacrifices in Mesoamerica. From Assyria to Macedonia, from the Qin Dynasty to Attila and Genghis Khan, the great speciality of primitive civilisations has been torture, mutiliation, death and chaos."

~ Serpent

What we need is more technology and automatisation, not less. What has improved the human condition is after all technology. And new technologies would inevitably lead to a better life for a higher percentage of humanity.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th February 2009, 18:14

I agree partially, but it is also used to kill many lives as well. The same technology that created nuclear power, also lead to nuclear bombs. The same medicine that can cure ailments, can also cause disastrous side effects. Is it really a zero sum game?

You can't have your cake and eat it when it comes to technological civilisation. We can wreak terrible destruction and suffering as well as build great wonders and perform marvelous works - they are two sides of the same coin. Is the price worth it? Ultimately only history solve the matter, but my money's on "yes".

Would we really be happy though?
I subscribe to Che Guevara's ideal that only through work are men/women truly internally fulfilled. I wouldn't want to live in a world where a robot does everything for me, would you?

Sometimes I like to walk rather than drive, hand write letters instead of email, catch my own fish rather than buy one from the supermarket etc.Abolishing drudgery is not the same thing as abolishing purposeful activity. The two may overlap, but they are far from the same thing. Walking down to the corner shop may be pleasant on a fine day, but you can't say the same thing about being forced to walk everywhere in all weathers simply by virtue of the fact that one was born before the age of mass transit.

However, what if technology leads to an unsustainable and unliveable world for EVERYONE?Then we're screwed, and we can simply forget about attempting to build an egalitarian society.

Dimentio

18th February 2009, 18:18

Not if your "Thoreau-cabin" is within 50 miles off the nuclear fallout from worldwide attacks. Or if the air is no longer safe to breath, water safe to drink, soil safe to grow in etc.

I agree partially, but it is also used to kill many lives as well. The same technology that created nuclear power, also lead to nuclear bombs. The same medicine that can cure ailments, can also cause disastrous side effects. Is it really a zero sum game?

Would we really be happy though?
I subscribe to Che Guevara's ideal that only through work are men/women truly internally fulfilled. I wouldn't want to live in a world where a robot does everything for me, would you?

Sometimes I like to walk rather than drive, hand write letters instead of email, catch my own fish rather than buy one from the supermarket etc. However, what if technology leads to an unsustainable and unliveable world for EVERYONE?

It is not technology which leads to a slow suffocation for everyone, but the freaking waste of capitalist exploitation. I really dislike anarcho-primitivists, because you people believe that everyone will hug and just live like a hippie collective if all industry was abolished.

The result would be the reemergence of cannibalism, human sacrifices, gender mutiliation, tribal warfare, eternal famine and such shit. It will not be love, but darkness, no matter how much you say that you love love.

I prefer eco-fascists like Pentti Linkola. He is at least open with that he hates humanity, and has proposed a way to reach primitivism (a Pol Pot-style totalitarian fascist dictatorship which has one goal, to erradicate humans).

Pentti Linkola also lives on eating fish in a small cabin without electricity, and refuses to touch anything he has'nt hunted down or produced. He is at least walking the walk.

http://www.kyy.fi/stimulus/arkisto/09_04/arviot/linkola_09_04.jpg

But I am in agreement with Noxion and Roxanne Meadows. It is not the technology in itself which causes the problems, but the usage of the technologies at the hands which are using it. You should probably abolish fire because you could be burnt by it.

Dr Mindbender

18th February 2009, 18:35

Pentti Linkola also lives on eating fish in a small cabin without electricity, and refuses to touch anything he has'nt hunted down or produced. He is at least walking the walk.

http://www.kyy.fi/stimulus/arkisto/09_04/arviot/linkola_09_04.jpg

Did he produce that shirt himself then?

I doubt it. What a hypocrite. :D

Cumannach

18th February 2009, 19:07

If you look at the twentieth century and you take any hundred years before the invention of agriculture, I wonder which period had more human suffering per capita?

I remember reading something about this, I think it was in one of Steven Pinkers book it was referred to. It was about anthropological studies done on the indigenous tribes of the Amazon rainforest, and it was comparing things like homicide and so on. Well apparently the first studies were in a kind of 'Noble Savage' vein, painting an idyllic picture of pre-contact life, but then there was controversies about these studies and claims of fraud and misrepresentation and so on. I think it was Pinker who described then that other studies proved there was a much higher 'homicide' rate in these communities. However I don't know if this homicide rate ignored the wars and genocides and famines of the outside world...I wonder.

thejambo1

18th February 2009, 19:38

they live in a different world to all class based people,groups etc. its not feasible and a most of it is just talk. they have nothing in common with me nor ever will.

Potemkin

18th February 2009, 19:44

I think there are some important issues missing from this discussion. Most importantly:

1) Technology is neutral -- it is not inherently good or bad. The primitivists have their analysis upside down when they say that technology (and civilization) alienates. These are abstractions. Capitalism alienates, and it only stands to reason that technology built under capitalism, through capitalist social relations, would reflect the interests of capitalism. That is why we have all this technology but no one is any freer. However, in a free society, technology would be a reflection of those social relations.

2) Technology (and most of the other things primitivists condemn -- language, art, reason, etc.) is the result of natural human evolution. The mind and our consciousness is an extremely complex and specialized evolutionary adaptation. There's nothing inherently unnatural about any of it. It's all in how it is used.

Primitivism can also be critiqued from many other angles. How about their despise of humans and their obsession with pre-agricultural lifeways? It's almost biblical. Replace Eve with humans and the apple with agriculture and you get the same result: we are bad and unnatural, and must purify ourselves to be able to return to the garden.

Or how primitivism is a nihilistic and negative philosophy? The end result of their argument is that we need to "rewild" and wait for the inevitable collapse of civilization. Not very empowering.

How about the critique that their theories are just absurd and shouldn't be given any attention at all? If you mentioned these ideas to 99.9999% of humanity, they would simply laugh at you. Why is it that "revolutionary" circles are the only ones seriously entertaining this rubbish?

That's not to say that we can't learn much and have respect for earlier lifeways.

There's also the critique that it's founded on really sketchy "science." The anthropology of Richard Lee around the !Kung that is constantly touted has been shown to be inaccurate. Also, that there was no "primitive" society that possessed all the characteristics primitivists give to them. Their "primitive man" is a composite of many different societies. Hierarchy and domination still occurred within these societies.

Or how about my personal favorite... doesn't anyone see something condescending in white people adopting the lifeways of "indigenous" peoples? So white people said, "Get off this land or we're going to kill you" (and they killed them anyway). Five hundred years later they say, "We see something of value in your lifeway. Now we're going to coopt it. It's not like you were using it anymore, anyway."

And don't you think that many indigenous people would be insulted at the idea that they are "primitive"? They're just doing what they do. Why can't we let them do that and handle the problems that capitalism has created?

Much more could be said, but I'll let others expand from here.

Regards!

Ben Chaser

18th February 2009, 19:57

cenv

18th February 2009, 20:00

I'm interested in the views of posters here on this topic. The romantic in me finds some appeal in the ethos, however I realize it is incompatible with most of Marxism.

But could one be an Anarcho-Primitivist-Marxist ?

Marxism is rooted in the idea that technological development is a driving force in history. Technological development is what makes socialism both possible and necessary. If you think about it, a classless society requires advanced technology for production and communication. Otherwise, scarcity and isolation will bring about another era of class society.

Plus, it would be kind of hard to have a primitivist revolution. How exactly do you revolt against people with guns and missiles and computers if you are anti-technology? :tt2:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th February 2009, 20:28

Who invented the nation state, division of labor, bullshit religion, standing armies, taxation, and all the other shit that leftists fight against?

It is possible to oppose those particular things without opposing technological civilisation as a whole.

I don't think primitivists are out to kill mass amounts of people, but realize that if we continue on the path we are going down mass amounts of people will die, and we had better not make the same mistakes that led to these deaths.Their "solution" seems to be "let almost everyone die off anyway, so that the survivors can live as savages".

No thanks!

It is a myth propagated by the ruling elite that life before civ was nasty brutish and short. There is abundant evidence that hunter gatherers lived long lives and were more able to be fulfilled. It's a simple thought experiment: imagine food is plentiful, religion is tied to your land and your people, and you make the decisions that effect your life.1) Food was not plentiful, people had to range far and wide in order to gather enough to eat. Agriculture enabled the creation of static dwellings because people could get enough food out of the adjacent land to stay there on a permanent basis.

2) Religion is bullshit. Our forebears were extremely ignorant in this regard. You have no excuse.

3) You're free in a primitive society to die of a preventable disease, be eaten by predators, die of exposure, lose extremities to frostbite, live in agonising pain because nobody's invented anaesthetics or painkillers, be trampled by your erstwhile prey, and so on. Life without technological civilisation is survivable but tough. But that's not good enough.

This was the case for 99% of human history. This is my anarchist utopia. You can call me a **** if you want to, but that's bullshit ad hominem attacks which belong in high school locker rooms. Read Derrick Jensen's Endgame and get back to me.Derrick Jensen's central premise - that technological civilisation is unsustainable - has yet to be proven.

Dimentio

18th February 2009, 20:44

If you look at the twentieth century and you take any hundred years before the invention of agriculture, I wonder which period had more human suffering per capita?

Oh Great Tesla...

During that time, there was only ten million people on Earth. Sure as hell that there was smaller human suffering per capita.

I remember reading something about this, I think it was in one of Steven Pinkers book it was referred to. It was about anthropological studies done on the indigenous tribes of the Amazon rainforest, and it was comparing things like homicide and so on. Well apparently the first studies were in a kind of 'Noble Savage' vein, painting an idyllic picture of pre-contact life, but then there was controversies about these studies and claims of fraud and misrepresentation and so on. I think it was Pinker who described then that other studies proved there was a much higher 'homicide' rate in these communities. However I don't know if this homicide rate ignored the wars and genocides and famines of the outside world...I wonder.

The important thing is that post-hunter & gatherer-societies have allowed for a growing minority of people to live their lives autonomously from the need to sustain themselves. In communism, which only could be realised as a high-tech society, people will not create and produce because they must, but because they think it is fun.

Dimentio

18th February 2009, 21:00

Who invented the nation state, division of labor, bullshit religion, standing armies, taxation, and all the other shit that leftists fight against? I don't think primitivists are out to kill mass amounts of people, but realize that if we continue on the path we are going down mass amounts of people will die, and we had better not make the same mistakes that led to these deaths. It is a myth propagated by the ruling elite that life before civ was nasty brutish and short. There is abundant evidence that hunter gatherers lived long lives and were more able to be fulfilled. It's a simple thought experiment: imagine food is plentiful, religion is tied to your land and your people, and you make the decisions that effect your life. This was the case for 99% of human history. This is my anarchist utopia. You can call me a **** if you want to, but that's bullshit ad hominem attacks which belong in high school locker rooms. Read Derrick Jensen's Endgame and get back to me.

Primitivists don't have the guts to kill a lot of people since they are huggy and believes in free love. But their thoughts will lead to the death of many billions of people if ever implemented, as well as the reduction of our species to that of an animal which always faces the threat of starvation.

My personal experience from most primitivists and pseudo-primitivists is that they generally are very meek and unsecure males who would'nt last one day in their dream society.

From my experience, the primitivists (there were quite few of them in my city a few years ago) are generally from a middle class to an upper middle-class background. All primitivists I have met also have little to no experience of real nature, as most of them have grown up in cities.

Thus, what we have is:

A: Little personal experience of how capitalism works.

B: Little personal experience of how nature works.

Thus, they afford time to romantise and idealise conditions which do not exist without confronting them with reality. Primitivism seems to be an emotional response against a sense of alienation. Similar tendencies exist within various leftist organisations, some of which are entirely filled with cadres sprouting out platitudes and trying to worship particular marxist-leninist contributors.

Given that, a lot of the primitivists I know are actually quite ardent in their beliefs. They do rarely if ever change clothes, are living in tents or cars, and are eating what they are finding in containers.

The problem is of course that they think C: that is a feasible strategy against capitalism, and D: that everyone could live in that way.

Diagoras

18th February 2009, 22:35

A simple answer to the OP is no. Most of the pertinent points have already been addressed as to why. If most anarchists shun primitivists as not being compatible with something as largely diffuse and flexible as anarchism, it should seem quite a stretch to make it work with a system like Marxism, that generally has more entailed specifics associated with it (not to mention Marx's appreciation for technology up front).

Who invented the nation state, division of labor, bullshit religion, standing armies, taxation, and all the other shit that leftists fight against? I don't think primitivists are out to kill mass amounts of people, but realize that if we continue on the path we are going down mass amounts of people will die, and we had better not make the same mistakes that led to these deaths. It is a myth propagated by the ruling elite that life before civ was nasty brutish and short. There is abundant evidence that hunter gatherers lived long lives and were more able to be fulfilled. It's a simple thought experiment: imagine food is plentiful, religion is tied to your land and your people, and you make the decisions that effect your life. This was the case for 99% of human history. This is my anarchist utopia. You can call me a **** if you want to, but that's bullshit ad hominem attacks which belong in high school locker rooms. Read Derrick Jensen's Endgame and get back to me.

One thing that should be noted is that, simply for the sake of science and understanding our history, we should not romanticize our pre-historic past as people like Zerzen and Jensen often do. As Noxion mentioned already, humanity lived very short and brutal lives in this period. That is not an advocation of the Hobbesian defense of the state as the solution, but a simple recognition of fact. The average life span of humans in this period was in the 20s to early 30s. There was no real medicine to speak of. The irrational celebration of shamanism, and other such crockery is simply an extention of the rather "post-modern" (if the term can be said to mean anything) rejection of reason that has latched itself to the primitivist movement (and some of anarchism as well, it is sad to say). Again, as was said, food was not plentiful pre-agricultural revolution. Nomads didn't keep moving around across hundreds or thousands of square miles for fun. They did it because they had to in order to maintain base caloric subsistence. The popularity of the ideas transmitted from the agricultural revolution did not spread quickly just by chance, but from being sought out and utilized as a means of easing lives and feeding families more efficiently.

... and yes, religion is nonsense.

Cumannach

18th February 2009, 22:44

Oh Great Tesla...

During that time, there was only ten million people on Earth. Sure as hell that there was smaller human suffering per capita.

No, per capita meaning proportionally. As in divided by population.

Hyacinth

19th February 2009, 04:18

I personally have no problem with primitivists, if they want to go live on their own somewhere in the wilderness away from civilization, so long as they leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the comforts of technology. If they want to forage for food and sleep in shrubs, fine, I much rather prefer processing, preservatives, etc. and nice comfy beds.

thinkerOFthoughts

19th February 2009, 04:43

To everyone, please take heed of my first post, there is a massive difference between "anarcho-primitivists" and other sorts. Pol Pot could not have been an "anarcho-primitivist" 'cause he wanted to force everyone to do stuff, something that is against anarchism.

Please remember to make the distinction.

But was Pol-Pot some sort of primitivist? after all he really tried hard to send Cambodia into the dark ages.

Itis

19th February 2009, 10:30

I always wondered how a anarcho-primitivist world could maintain its primitivity - wouldn't civilization simply eventually emerge again?

Revy

19th February 2009, 11:36

Few people would want to live in a primitivist society. If this were a primitivist society, we would not be having this discussion. They have a prejudice toward technology. Yes, technology has brought up some evils, but a lot of good. It's all how you use technology. I don't want to go back to having a lifespan of 40 or whatever.

Plagueround

19th February 2009, 11:57

Hey everyone, just thought I'd stop by and use millions of digital logic transistor circuits to formulate a coded message using a device that translates my keystrokes into words that display on my cathode ray tube monitor which I then send across thousands upon thousands of miles of electronic and light based transmission cables to another computer sitting in a country half way across the globe that then publishes everything I typed almost instantly and allows others to view it from their computers so I could advocate the destruction of all technology.

apathy maybe

19th February 2009, 12:23

But was Pol-Pot some sort of primitivist? after all he really tried hard to send Cambodia into the dark ages.

Whether he was a primitivist or not is beside the point, he was not an "anarcho-primitivist", and that is the point.

Dimentio

19th February 2009, 13:02

Whether he was a primitivist or not is beside the point, he was not an "anarcho-primitivist", and that is the point.

Is there any difference? Most primitivists associate themselves with anarchism. Those who usually not do that call themselves deep ecologists or ecofascists.

apathy maybe

20th February 2009, 14:19

Is there any difference? Most primitivists associate themselves with anarchism. Those who usually not do that call themselves deep ecologists or ecofascists.

Yes, if you go and read my first post again...

No matter what Pol Pot was, he was not in any way an anarchist. If you start calling people like him "anarcho", then it looses all meaning. Anarchist-primitivists object to civilisation because they think that it is the cause of all hierarchy etc. They object to the same things that other anarchists object to (hierarchy, lack of freedom etc.), but just see a different cause for the problems.

They aren't going to go around killing people, forcing them to do without technology etc. though, because to do so is to go against their basic principles (the anarchistic principles).

---

Regarding Pol Pot, Wikipedia says:

During his time in power, Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero".
Which suggests that he wasn't any sort of primitivist at all, just a fucking crazy nut bag.

Dimentio

20th February 2009, 14:51

I would'nt call Pol-Pot a primitivist though. His goal was just to rewind and start from the beginning again.

Rosa Provokateur

20th February 2009, 15:45

Anarcho-Primitivism is fun to toy with, its got interesting ideas and makes you rethink things kinda. Damn good literature too.

Dimentio

20th February 2009, 16:58

Anarcho-Primitivism is fun to toy with, its got interesting ideas and makes you rethink things kinda. Damn good literature too.

The same accounts for archeo-futurism but I don't see any leftists toying with it.

Sentinel

20th February 2009, 17:04

Anarcho-Primitivism is fun to toy with, its got interesting ideas and makes you rethink things kinda. Damn good literature too.

Interesting comment. :unsure: As long as one realises that it's practical application would inevitably lead to a tragedy of misery and mass deaths of a huge percentage of humanity in starvation and diseases, I suppose there is no harm in 'toying with' the idea of primitivism..

But what would be the point? Luckily these ideas are shunned as misanthropy and madness by the serious left.

apathy maybe

20th February 2009, 17:29

Well, I am certainly no primitivist (technology is way to fun), but I do think that some criticisms made of "civilisation" are accurate. I also think that it is fun to think about primitivst ideas, even though I realise that they are impractical. So, it's fun to toy with, but as an environmentalist, I don't see primitivism being at all useful for preserving the environment (not to mention the problem of "how to get there").

John Lenin

20th February 2009, 22:04

Unfortunately many of the same attacks

(Upper class pansies, hippie softies, they would never want to live in the society they advocate, they don't understand how Capitalism works, might as well be Pol Pot, they want us to live like savages, I like my comfy bed thank you etc)

... are all arguments that I commonly hear right-wingers cast against those on the left towards "Communists", "Marxists" etc. Nearly all of the responses here could be copy and pasted on a right-wing forum against the left (which I don't agree with) but stereotypes are interesting that way.

To display this fact I am going to replace "Primitivists" with "Commies" in the below response ...

Commies don't have the guts to kill a lot of people since they are huggy and believes in free love. But their thoughts will lead to the death of many billions of people if ever implemented, as well as the reduction of our species to that of an animal which always faces the threat of starvation.

Commies are very meek and unsecure males who would'nt last one day in their dream society.

From my experience, Commies are generally from a middle class to an upper middle-class background. All Commies I have met also have little to no experience of real nature, as most of them have grown up in cities.

Thus, what we have is:
A: Little personal experience of how capitalism works.
B: Little personal experience of how nature works.

Thus, they afford time to romantise and idealise conditions which do not exist without confronting them with reality. Communism seems to be an emotional response against a sense of alienation. Similar tendencies exist within various leftist organisations, some of which are entirely filled with cadres sprouting out platitudes and trying to worship particular marxist-leninist contributors.

The problem is of course that they think C: that is a feasible strategy against capitalism, and D: that everyone could live in that way.
... * Of note I don't agree with the above either

new technologies would inevitably lead to a better life for a higher percentage of humanity.
I would wager that most of the people in Sub Saharan Africa live WORSE now, than they did 500 years ago ... in terms of misery, lack of food etc. Current day Haitians literally eat dirt cookies ... 3 billion people live on 2 $ a day, and now those 2 $ don't even buy what an American slave in 1830 was fed ... and now most people have no idea how to survive off the land to boot.

Their "solution" seems to be "let almost everyone die off anyway, so that the survivors can live as savages".
You don't find it partially racist to denote people as "Savages"? This was the view of Columbus, Most Pilgrims, American Westward expansionists, etc. Those on the left should know better that to use such vernacular, shouldn't they?

was Pol-Pot some sort of primitivist? after all he really tried hard to send Cambodia into the dark ages.
Pol Pot wanted to implement agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero".

Hey everyone, just thought I'd stop by and use millions of digital logic transistor circuits to formulate a coded message using a device that translates my keystrokes into words that display on my cathode ray tube monitor which I then send across thousands upon thousands of miles of electronic and light based transmission cables to another computer sitting in a country half way across the globe that then publishes everything I typed almost instantly and allows others to view it from their computers so I could advocate the destruction of all technology.
Sardonic, tongue-in-cheek, witty, a partial straw-man, and well played. :cool:

However the same supposed "hypocrisy" could be used with nearly everyone.

For instance a right-winger could claim ...

"Hey everyone, I just thought I would use my Capitalist cell phone company to organize a pro-communist protest, while driving to the protest in my Capitalist company made car etc etc etc"

... Unless the posters here are wearing state issued shoes, driving yugos, and working on communes ... most here would be just as "guilty" of such contradictions. As is life. You can only operate in the current, but that doesn't mean you can't advocate for the past (1917 anyone?) and a transformation to it.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th February 2009, 23:51

Rosa Provokateur

21st February 2009, 05:15

Interesting comment. :unsure: As long as one realises that it's practical application would inevitably lead to a tragedy of misery and mass deaths of a huge percentage of humanity in starvation and diseases, I suppose there is no harm in 'toying with' the idea of primitivism..

But what would be the point? Luckily these ideas are shunned as misanthropy and madness by the serious left.

I could say the same for Stalin's Russia lol. I dont know, I was a Green-Anarchist when I first showed up here and I've got a soft-spot for them. Their re-wilding classes are really good too and I'm honestly captivated by the idea of a post-civilization chaotic world.

John Lenin

21st February 2009, 05:44

"The production of too many useful things ... results in too many useless people." ~ Karl Marx :marx:

Qayin

21st February 2009, 05:49

Well would a anarcho-primitivist society have the internet? Medical technology?

I think right now we have the technology to be completely green and not hurt the environment,but the bourgeoisie refuse to update their systems of production to be biodegradable, clean-energy,and so forth.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st February 2009, 07:34

"The production of too many useful things ... results in too many useless people." ~ Karl Marx :marx:

Yes, even Karl Marx said some stupid things. He was only human after all.

Also, Leninist-Primitivist? :lol::laugh:

ZeroNowhere

21st February 2009, 08:19

"The production of too many useful things ... results in too many useless people." ~ Karl Marx :marx:

What was the context?

As for primitivism, under primitivism there could be no heavy metal, punk, or most other good music. Add to that most people dying, and you have a general dystopia.

Qayin

21st February 2009, 09:31

LENINIST-Primitivis

What the fuck is that?:laugh:

Dimentio

21st February 2009, 14:19

This thread became weird

Diagoras

23rd February 2009, 09:22

Became?:lol:

Dimentio

23rd February 2009, 13:38

Weirder.

Mean, leninism-primitivism sounds like such a word combination as national anarchism, monarcho syndicalism or why not femi-nazism or archeo-futurism?

Plagueround

24th February 2009, 06:27

Sardonic, tongue-in-cheek, witty, a partial straw-man, and well played. :cool:

However the same supposed "hypocrisy" could be used with nearly everyone.

For instance a right-winger could claim ...

"Hey everyone, I just thought I would use my Capitalist cell phone company to organize a pro-communist protest, while driving to the protest in my Capitalist company made car etc etc etc"

... Unless the posters here are wearing state issued shoes, driving yugos, and working on communes ... most here would be just as "guilty" of such contradictions. As is life. You can only operate in the current, but that doesn't mean you can't advocate for the past (1917 anyone?) and a transformation to it.

I realize this, and it's a criticism I've dealt with. The difference is, of course, that communists do not seek to abolish what this mode of production has brought us and start over. Rather, we seek to appropriate what we have already created and take it back from those who monopolize it...we don't wish to revert to something simpler but progress on from this point. We have no problems with the computer, only with how it is distributed, sold, and profited from. The primitivist, on the other hand, wishes to turn the clock back on humanity and destroy what we have developed. They don't want the computer to exist.

Also, I don't wish to advocate much of anything that happened in 1917, but to imply that we're using the past in the same way a primitivist is incorrect.

jake williams

24th February 2009, 06:53

People continually conflate two sorts of primitivism. There are those people in it for the environment, who may well be "misanthropic" and "genocidal". And there are "anarcho-primitivists" who just think that technology is responsible for hierarchy, and that anarchism is only possible without technology.
I think there are basically two types, but I wouldn't quite formulate it like this.

I think there's one kind which sincerely believes industrial society isn't an option because there's no way to make it sustainable, to keep it going. I think they're factually wrong - probably, because these things are very difficult to make absolute statements with any certainty about. There's plenty that makes industrial civilization look very very dangerous.

On the other hand, there's sort of a line that posits a very hypothetical "natural" world, says it was perfect and anything that deviates form it is bad. I think that's just ludicrous mysticism. This is sort of connected with a belief that technological development historically led to hierarchy, which I think is basically a well-intended belief, but I don't think there's much sense in it.

Trystan

24th February 2009, 07:16

The primitivists are an interesting bunch . . . They have made a fascinating critique of civilization and technology and I personally wouldn't mind living a cave-man existence, if only experimentally. But they lose all credibility when they call for the destruction of civilization (and the lives of billions of people). Besides, I don't think they're all that serious about their ideology (will their books have any place in this primitive paradise of theirs?).

Dimentio

24th February 2009, 16:25

I think there are basically two types, but I wouldn't quite formulate it like this.

I think there's one kind which sincerely believes industrial society isn't an option because there's no way to make it sustainable, to keep it going. I think they're factually wrong - probably, because these things are very difficult to make absolute statements with any certainty about. There's plenty that makes industrial civilization look very very dangerous.

On the other hand, there's sort of a line that posits a very hypothetical "natural" world, says it was perfect and anything that deviates form it is bad. I think that's just ludicrous mysticism. This is sort of connected with a belief that technological development historically led to hierarchy, which I think is basically a well-intended belief, but I don't think there's much sense in it.

Then we have the right-wing primitivists. They know what a return to a pre-industrial society will mean, and they are happy with it.

http://www.penttilinkola.com/

John Lenin

25th February 2009, 13:34

under primitivism there could be no heavy metal, punk, ... a general dystopia.
I can't imagine how Da Vinci survived without Black Sabbath?

leninism-primitivism sounds like such a word combination as national anarchism, monarcho syndicalism or
anti capital punishment-communist

which this site seems to oddly be full of.

;)

ZeroNowhere

25th February 2009, 14:22

I can't imagine how did Da Vinci survived without Black Sabbath?
Me neither. Poor fellow.

anti capital punishment-communist
Yes, it's very possible. What about it?

John Lenin

25th February 2009, 15:55

Yes, it's very possible. What about it?
Well I guess there is vegetarian-meatloaf

Dimentio

25th February 2009, 21:37

Primitivism makes communism impossible. But I think that you are merely playing.

Vahanian

25th February 2009, 22:41

Anarcho Primitivism seems stupid to me. the death of millions of people because of famine to go back to a hunter gather society would just be dammed impossible and horribly ignorant ,also capitalism may suck badly, but at least im able to chill out after a crappy low paying job to watch tv and grab a burger from the fridge. not grab my bow and arrow and go hunt for that before mentioned burger.

[quote=John Lenin;1364575] I would wager that most of the people in Sub Saharan Africa live WORSE now, than they did 500 years ago ... in terms of misery, lack of food etc. Current day Haitians literally eat dirt cookies ... 3 billion people live on 2 $ a day, and now those 2 $ don't even buy what an American slave in 1830 was fed ... and now most people have no idea how to survive off the land to boot.

[quote=NoXion;1364670] The current situation may not be doing the people of sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere many favours, but neither would a worldwide descent into primitivism.

adding to this, America and other countries at least trys to help these people by send food for them using a technologically advanced plane or boat. once you manage to figure out how to send some of that food to them using canoe ill think about it.;)

John Lenin

26th February 2009, 22:36

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/49/l_4dba756b7a7077180d0b863ebdb0c33b.gif

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th February 2009, 22:46

...your point being?

Vahanian

26th February 2009, 22:47

cool pic man, but you know add some text to it:thumbdown:

(i thought primitivist were restricted?)

John Lenin

26th February 2009, 22:54

...your point being?
... The beauty of art is interpretation

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th February 2009, 22:55

... The beauty of art is interpretation

Very well, but what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

John Lenin

26th February 2009, 22:58

cool pic man, but you know add some text to it
To me it symbolizes how now most men/women in industrialized societies are helpless to take care of themselves. Most can't hunt, scavange, or survive without modern ammenities. If the grocery stores all closed, civilization as we know it in the "first world" would last about 4 days.

(i thought primitivist were restricted?)
I didn't see a policy for LENINIST-primitivists (note the caps, the lower case is a romantic ideal) :)

Vahanian

26th February 2009, 23:03

John Lenin

26th February 2009, 23:13

Thus another reason why going cave man wouldn't be beneficial to anyone.
Well obviously there would need to be a transition phase.

Perhaps it will occur post nuclear fallout ... when Man cuts the population by 99 % himself.

;)

WhitemageofDOOM

1st March 2009, 21:54

To me it symbolizes how now most men/women in industrialized societies are helpless to take care of themselves. Most can't hunt, scavange, or survive without modern ammenities. If the grocery stores all closed, civilization as we know it in the "first world" would last about 4 days.

Nor can ants. Your point being?

Well obviously there would need to be a transition phase.

Perhaps it will occur post nuclear fallout ... when Man cuts the population by 99 % himself.

So you admit to wanting to kill billions of people?

Ahem, 10million humans were unsustainable before the invention of agriculture. 60 million far less so. And without technology we would rapidly reach the point where the environment can no longer sustain our ever growing population, either we redevelop agriculture and technological society from scratch or we consume the entire biosphere within a few thousand years if we were nuked back to the stone age.

Vahanian

1st March 2009, 22:11

Well obviously there would need to be a transition phase.

Perhaps it will occur post nuclear fallout ... when Man cuts the population by 99 % himself.

;)

Yeah including wiping out 99% of the population you would wipe out the animals that you would hunt and the resources that you would need to make your weapons. but hey, think theres one positive thing. you wont need fire because you'll be glowing in the dark from the radiation.

thejambo1

2nd March 2009, 06:06

99% of the population being wiped out!! great ideas to support,and what makes you think you will be on of them. primitivists are total mentalists,its all just wind and piss.

John Lenin

2nd March 2009, 19:02

How did my hypothesis that post nuclear fallout would precipitate Primitivism, mean thant I desire such an outcome ??? :confused:

I do not.

Ideally, I would favor an agrarian communal system inspired by the tenants of Marx/Lenin that came voluntarily. However with this a near impossibility currently, the option is there for small groups to live in such a way, or for isolated/underdeveloped societites to adopt the practice.

President Julius Nyerere In Tanzania attempted a similar "African Socialist" system in Tanzania called Ujamaa or "familyhood" from the 1960-1980's.

ex_next_worker

3rd March 2009, 14:35

Let me get this straight: can someone explain to me how exactly will technology solve the crisis of this planet, i.e. a population of 7 billion people inhabiting it?

revolution inaction

3rd March 2009, 14:58

Let me get this straight: can someone explain to me how exactly will technology solve the crisis of this planet, i.e. a population of 7 billion people inhabiting it?

Can you explain how that is a crisis?

ex_next_worker

3rd March 2009, 15:05

I'm sorry, but obviously we're living on two separate planets. Or you're just ignorant.

Dimentio

3rd March 2009, 15:38

Let me get this straight: can someone explain to me how exactly will technology solve the crisis of this planet, i.e. a population of 7 billion people inhabiting it?

www.transfuture.net

Btw, there is enough with food produced each year to feed 12 billion people on a Swedish level of nutrition.

Led Zeppelin

3rd March 2009, 15:45

Let me get this straight: can someone explain to me how exactly will technology solve the crisis of this planet, i.e. a population of 7 billion people inhabiting it?

I wouldn't say that a certain number of population defines a crisis of this planet. Do you have any evidence which suggests that the planet can only be inhabited by a certain amount of human beings before it is in a state of crisis? I'm not sure how you could even calculate that.

Anyway, to answer your question; I don't believe there is a crisis due to the population number, but I do believe there is an impending crisis due to the lack of technology we have today. Fossil fuels were used as a result of technological advancements, however it turns out that its widespread use is harmful. Does this mean that we should attempt to go back in time, to when we did not use fossil fuels, or does it mean that we should overcome the technological hurdle and advance beyond our current means?

I believe the vast majority of humanity is aiming for the latter. If we were to aim for the former, it would mean that a large number of people would have to perish, something which human beings aren't really fond of doing en masse when there's another solution just around the corner.

Bilan

4th March 2009, 10:13

"The production of too many useful things ... results in too many useless people." ~ Karl Marx :marx:

A/ Stop posting quotes without any thing of substance within your post.
B/ Where did he say that?

Bilan

4th March 2009, 10:18

Let me get this straight: can someone explain to me how exactly will technology solve the crisis of this planet, i.e. a population of 7 billion people inhabiting it?

It doesn't solve in itself.

Technology doesn't have "good", "bad" or any inherent directional characteristic within it. It's how its used, and within the context of the economic mode of the society.
Technological advancements create the possibility, through their ability to create a better understanding of the internal mechanics of the world and to be able to create industry which does not have a detrimental effect on the earth, whilst also benefiting humanity.

That doesn't mean, however, technology is only able to be created in this way. The atom bomb demonstrates that, and how technology can be used as a method of destruction.
The basic point being that it doesn't have any inherent characteristics which define whether it can be used to benefit humanity, or destroy it, but that it provides both.

Pogue

4th March 2009, 10:32

Primitivism is a fetish for people who enjoy camping a bit too much.

Funny that this guy is typing about this on a computer.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 08:43

Funny that this guy is typing about this on a computer.

Funny that you buy commodities at the supermarket with money.

Technology doesn't have "good", "bad" or any inherent directional characteristic within it.

Technology means dependence, every social order that wants to go beyond the tyranny of technological sustainance and advancement will ultimately have to deal with catastrophic results which it created itself. Technology makes possible certain forms of life because it creates them itself.

It is slavery to a reified system and for (most) Leftists this is impossible to cope with. I suppose that's why all this technojunkie rhetoric is around.

Hyacinth

5th March 2009, 09:03

Funny that you buy commodities at the supermarket with money.
Yes, that is what people do under a capitalist mode of production, I suppose you go out and forage for roadkill? Or hunt squirrels?

Technology means dependence, every social order that wants to go beyond the tyranny of technological sustainance and advancement will ultimately have to deal with catastrophic results which it created itself. Technology makes possible certain forms of life because it creates them itself.
Yes we depend upon technology to do certain things, but dependence in such a way is in no sense tyrannical or oppressive, you're equivocating. Most people would much rather depend upon modern agricultural methods than the whims of nature, which is what you seem to be suggesting we should depend upon for our sustenance, which would condemn us to a rather unpleasant life, one that is nasty, brutish, and short.

I suppose the Primitivist slogan should be "Forward to Feudalism!" Fortunately this infantile ideology cannot turn back the wheels of history or the tides of progress; it is, apart from being confused and false, politically irrelevant.

Plagueround

5th March 2009, 09:09

Funny that you buy commodities at the supermarket with money.

This strawman has already been addressed in this thread.

Technology means dependence, every social order that wants to go beyond the tyranny of technological sustainance and advancement will ultimately have to deal with catastrophic results which it created itself. Technology makes possible certain forms of life because it creates them itself.

It is slavery to a reified system and for (most) Leftists this is impossible to cope with. I suppose that's why all this technojunkie rhetoric is around.

Unlike communists, who seeks to transform the world around themselves for the benefit of all and thus must accept the current mode of production, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from living as a primitivist. May I ask why you haven't done it yet?

Hyacinth

5th March 2009, 09:13

...there is absolutely nothing stopping you from living as a primitivist.
Indeed. This is something that has always puzzled me about Primitivism—and which really exposes its authoritarian tendencies—why is it that Primitivists seek to impose upon everyone something that clearly most people do not want? No one is forcing you to use technology, and certainly no one who is a communist would do so, you are free to go off and frolic in the forest if you wish. Why can't you grant the rest of us the right to enjoy our technology?

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 09:24

Unlike communists, who seeks to transform the world around themselves for the benefit of all and thus must accept the current mode of production ...Excuse me? First of all, where did you pick up that primitivism is an individualistic choice, that it has meaning outside of society? No, really?

And secondly, your acceptance of the modes of production sounds biased and conformist, to say the least. Who says all communists are just sitting and waiting fpr workers to revolt in mass actions?

What about the anarchists that work for social change right now, despite that there is no huge workers' movement. Autonomous zones, social centres, fighting against precarity, etc. Are these acts that are unacceptable to you and are somehow not part of the communist 'doctrine'? I suppose Lenin would say it's reactionary, but who cares?

Why can't you grant the rest of us the right to enjoy our technology? And who is ungranting you? Did I say I'm going to shoot you in the head for using technology?

Why can't you grant the workers the right to come home, have some coffee, watch some television, have some time and NOT 'develop' a class consciousness, vote right-wing, advocate the 'right' to work? Why are you imposing your beliefs on them? How would you know better than them what they have to accept?

And don't misinterpret this sentence, it's just a way of showing how invalid your arguments on 'imposing' beliefs are.

Hyacinth

5th March 2009, 09:37

And who is ungranting you? Did I say I'm going to shoot you in the head for using technology?
You living the way you want is compatible with communism, whereas the imposition of primitivism is incompatible with many, if not most, of the ways in which people want to live. Communism seeks to expand people's choices and freedoms in all spheres, and technology is one means by which this can be brought about. Seeking to abolish it is, in effect, to constrain people's choices and, by extension, freedom. It isn't that you are threatening to shoot me, it is that you want to take my computer away. A prospect that I do not look too kindly upon.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 10:31

Communism seeks to expand people's choices and freedoms in all spheres, and technology is one means by which this can be brought about.

Logical fallacy, analogous to "capitalism is freedom, so if you attack capitalism, you attack freedom".

Seeking to impose technological progress with all its complexity, imperative of structure, imperative of quantifiaction, efficiency, ecological devastaton, endless manipulation of the latter... and pointing to those who oppose it and say they're against freedom and whatnot. Yeah, prisons and concentration camps (technologically advanced, of course) for techno-skeptics!

bcbm

5th March 2009, 10:48

there is absolutely nothing stopping you from living as a primitivist.In most of the world there isn't enough of an "untouched" land base to support individual gatherer-hunters and, I would imagine, most imagine a tribal existence not an individual one which narrows that land base even greater. Beyond that such an existence would mean moving between various land bases as resources diminish in one, so there is actually quite a bit stopping an individual with such ideas from acting them out.

Yeah, prisons and concentration camps (technologically advanced, of course) for techno-skeptics!

Who is suggesting such a thing? Nobody. Such comments don't really help your argument. We should certainly be critical of all human endeavor and evaluate them continually, and this is what I respect most about the "primitivist" critique for bringing their ideas to the table, but resorting to hysterics is unnecessary.

Plagueround

5th March 2009, 11:12

Excuse me? First of all, where did you pick up that primitivism is an individualistic choice, that it has meaning outside of society? No, really?

Maybe it's the misanthropic dismissal of the world's population.

And secondly, your acceptance of the modes of production sounds biased and conformist, to say the least. Who says all communists are just sitting and waiting fpr workers to revolt in mass actions?I don't accept it, I strive to change it. Until then, I have to work under it because no one else is going to feed my family.

What about the anarchists that work for social change right now, despite that there is no huge workers' movement. Autonomous zones, social centres, fighting against precarity, etc. Are these acts that are unacceptable to you and are somehow not part of the communist 'doctrine'? I suppose Lenin would say it's reactionary, but who cares?
Considering I'm an anarchist, it's funny you're invoking Lenin's name at me as if it's somehow relevant. Although I admire these movements, they too still have to live under the capitalist system because it's a global system...unless one runs off to the more uninhabited parts of the world.

Plagueround

5th March 2009, 11:16

In most of the world there isn't enough of an "untouched" land base to support individual gatherer-hunters and, I would imagine, most imagine a tribal existence not an individual one which narrows that land base even greater. Beyond that such an existence would mean moving between various land bases as resources diminish in one, so there is actually quite a bit stopping an individual with such ideas from acting them out.

I take it you've never lived in Montana? ;)

Although, to be fair, I suppose the primmies may run into the same problem that we have, the establishment of private property, even that which may appear to be unused and untouched.

We should certainly be critical of all human endeavor and evaluate them continually, and this is what I respect most about the "primitivist" critique for bringing their ideas to the table, but resorting to hysterics is unnecessary.

I should also mention that I do find some value in it as well. As someone who works 10 hours a day in a large enclosed facility with no natural light and is constantly wondering if the large, concentrated amounts of EMF have any long term effects, I can certainly understand the critique of technology, and certainly believe some technologies are alienating, isolating, and harmful. I do, however, disagree with the notion that technology is inherently bad and we should attempt to turn the clock back on ourselves. Personally, I'm hopeful we can eventually dig into Freeman Dyson's vision of green technologies.

P.S. Needless to say, I'm looking for a new fucking job.

bcbm

5th March 2009, 11:33

I take it you've never lived in Montana? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

I know you're being sarcastic but it is really a serious argument, especially in the context of a modern state like the US. Even in relatively unpopulated areas a great deal of land is claimed and subject to property being enforced, severely limiting the area available for roaming gatherer-hunter societies. Even if it were possible, within a few generations it would be unfeasible because of growth in the band without a real consistent check on the band's population. In the past this was dealt with primarily by constant warfare and other methods like infanticide... hardly possible today. I'm just trying to point out that it is a fallacious argument. There's enough shit to call primitivism on without resorting to such things.

I can certainly understand the critique of technology. I do, however, disagree with the notion that technology is inherently bad and we should attempt to turn the clock back on ourselves.

Likewise, and I think there are solutions possible to maintain a modern level of technology but that doesn't say primitivist critiques don't offer anything of value as some seem to suggest, which was my main point. I think examining how such a society affects us as humans is interesting and necessary. And I feel you on the job aspect... I wash dishes indoors with no windows all day and could certainly see the appeal of hunting wild game in contrast to that.

Plagueround

5th March 2009, 11:38

I know you're being sarcastic but it is really a serious argument

Yarr. I edited my post (must have been while you were replying) and it said pretty much the same thing.

Likewise, and I think there are solutions possible to maintain a modern level of technology but that doesn't say primitivist critiques don't offer anything of value as some seem to suggest, which was my main point. I think examining how such a society affects us as humans is interesting and necessary. And I feel you on the job aspect... I wash dishes indoors with no windows all day and could certainly see the appeal of hunting wild game in contrast to that.

I've washed dishes before; it's such a shit job. I'm currently trying to break out of IT grunt work and into some of the actual admin type stuff...I don't want to work in this field any longer, but it's really the only option I have at this point. I hate it, but these student loans won't go away on their own. :(

bcbm

5th March 2009, 11:43

I actually don't mind my current dishing job, as I get to work with other people in the pit and most of the ones I work with are pretty rad. We've already discussed not voting, how all politicians are motherfuckers and how we ought to overthrow the government. Beyond that, we find er... creative ways to make the workplace more interesting than it ought to be for being a mismanaged corporate dump.

Plagueround

5th March 2009, 11:45

Now that sounds cool. I always had to work by myself, but I worked for a small chain restaurant. Most jobs are 100 times better when you've got people working with you...

bcbm

5th March 2009, 11:49

Yeah I work in a swanky restaurant so we have about 4-5 people on at any given times. Definitely makes it go quicker. And less stressful when you're hungover. I've done the small-time gig before too.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 12:20

Who is suggesting such a thing? Nobody. Such comments don't really help your argument. We should certainly be critical of all human endeavor and evaluate them continually, and this is what I respect most about the "primitivist" critique for bringing their ideas to the table, but resorting to hysterics is unnecessary.

You're right.

However, the response was made due to my experience with a certain group of people on this board who refuse to take ideas any further than what they already believe from the back of their heads. And I'm sure these people here who are critical of "primitivism" have very little idea what it actually is.

Hyacinth

5th March 2009, 15:24

Logical fallacy, analogous to "capitalism is freedom, so if you attack capitalism, you attack freedom".
That's not fallacious, in fact, it is valid, it just happens to be unsound. And besides, even if it was, that isn't what I said; the claim is that technology has the capacity to make us more free by expanding our capacities and choices and by freeing us from various burdens and inconveniences which we would otherwise be subject to.

This is not to say that it does so now in all instances; for example, technology can be employed in such a way as to increase everyone's leisure by decreasing working hours by increasing the productivity of the means of production (in fact, it has increased the work load by permitting many office and clerical workers to take their work home now, so they have even less reprieve from work than they used to), but it isn't used this way in a capitalist mode of production, since capitalists have little interest in anything other than maximizing profit, and so they employ the technical resources available to them for such ends. All critiques based off of these particular uses of technology and well and good, but one cannot jump from these uses of technology to the conclusion that technology is inherently oppressive.

Not to mention, to cite particular examples where technology has been misused ignores the many examples where it has, or has shown the potential, to do much good. We have, in the 20th century, wiped out diseases in the first world which have plagued humanity for all of its previous existence. What we should be seeking to do is to extend these benefits to *everyone* rather than to deprive them from those who already have them.

Aldous Huxley, of Brave New World fame, showed the oppressive potential of certain forms of technology, but he is not as well remembered for the parallel novel Island, where he outlines a society that uses technology not to pacify and control, but to enlighten and free, and some of the same, or similar, technologies as are employed in Brave New World. Illustrating well, in these two thought experiments, both the liberatory and oppressive capabilities of technology; as a tool whether we use it to do good or evil, to free or to enslave, is up to us.

For those of us who you claim have a "fetish for technology", it isn't that we do not understand it's potential for misuse, we're all too painfully aware of it, but see the much greater benefits that it can bring. Your complaints seem to us akin to the complaint that because fire burns we shouldn't use it; yes, fire might burn, but the alternative of freezing out in the cold is far worse than the prospect that we might burn ourselves. That it could be misused is not a sufficient argument to the effect that we shouldn't use it.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 16:39

the claim is that technology has the capacity to make us more free by expanding our capacities and choices and by freeing us from various burdens and inconveniences which we would otherwise be subject to.

From the internal perspective of the economy, it seems wrong to say that wants are "restricted", desires "restrained", or even that the notion of wealth is "limited". Such phrasings imply in advance an Economic Man and a struggle of the hunter against his own worse nature, which is finally then subdued by a cultural vow of poverty. The words imply the renunciation of an acquisitiveness that in reality was never developed, a suppression of desires that were never broached. Economic Man is a bourgeois construction- as Marcel Mauss said, "not behind us, but before, like the moral man". It is not that hunters and gatherers have curbed their materialistic "impulses"; they simply never made an institution of them. [Sahlins, M.: The Original Affluent Society, 2005).

We have, in the 20th century, wiped out diseases in the first world which have plagued humanity for all of its previous existence.

Diseases among hunter-gatherers certainly do exist and as humans we are not protected from disease. Yet they among hunter-gatherers they are marginal in comparison with the pathologies developed uniquely in industrial, technologically-advanced societies, and dominantly hunter-gatherers are healthy people and less prone to pathology (before encounters with Western diets, etc.). Here, I can cite studies from paleopathology and medical anthropology at large.

Vanguard1917

5th March 2009, 16:56

Diseases among hunter-gatherers certainly do exist and as humans we are not protected from disease. Yet they among hunter-gatherers they are marginal in comparison with the pathologies developed uniquely in industrial, technologically-advanced societies, and dominantly hunter-gatherers are healthy people and less prone to pathology (before encounters with Western diets, etc.). Here, I can cite studies from paleopathology and medical anthropology at large.

Life expectancy in hunter gatherer societies was less than 40 and something like half of all children died before reaching adulthood.

Today, life expectancy in industrially advanced societies is around 80 and child mortality is a fairly rare occurance.

Objectively and historically speaking, industrialisation's effects on improving human health have been nothing less than colossal. People are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. In the richest societies, longevity has more than doubled in comparison to what it was in previous periods.

So i'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Hyacinth

5th March 2009, 18:17

[Sahlins, M.: The Original Affluent Society, 2005).
Our desires are indeed shaped by our capacities and our environment; there are things which we desire which hunter-gatherers couldn't even conceive of, I fail to see how that makes the pursuit of the satisfaction of our desires illegitimate or oppressive. What you seem to be proposing is a notion of liberation akin to some sort of asceticism, where we must "free" ourselves from our desires, or at least those which are a function or product of technological or consumer society. This is a quasi-mystical conception of liberation, and one that I think politically simply irrelevant.

Diseases among hunter-gatherers certainly do exist and as humans we are not protected from disease. Yet they among hunter-gatherers they are marginal in comparison with the pathologies developed uniquely in industrial, technologically-advanced societies, and dominantly hunter-gatherers are healthy people and less prone to pathology (before encounters with Western diets, etc.). Here, I can cite studies from paleopathology and medical anthropology at large.
Is there anything about technology that prohibits us from having healthier diets? Hardly. Though, I fail to see why we should prohibit people the enjoyment of even unhealthy diets if we can discover methods of either treating the ailments brought about by such diets, or preventing them altogether.

And you are also correct that many diseases are indeed prevalent in industrial societies; cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc. are all first-world diseases, for instance, which one fails to see in non-industrial societies, but largely because people in those societies do not live long enough to develop these diseases in the first place. Again, I concede that these things are undesirable--I doubt anyone thinks diseases are good--but the solution is not to turn back the clock to a time where we didn't develop cancer because we would die before we had a chance, but rather to continue forward in the development of technology in order to create cures for these ailments.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 18:30

Objectively and historically speaking, industrialisation's effects on improving human health have been nothing less than colossal. People are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

Wrong (http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-21-civilization-makes-us-sick/).

Oh, could I get references from where you pulled this:

Life expectancy in hunter gatherer societies was less than 40 and something like half of all children died before reaching adulthood.

ex_next_worker

5th March 2009, 18:39

Our desires are indeed shaped by our capacities and our environment; there are things which we desire which hunter-gatherers couldn't even conceive of, I fail to see how that makes the pursuit of the satisfaction of our desires illegitimate or oppressive. What you seem to be proposing is a notion of liberation akin to some sort of asceticism, where we must "free" ourselves from our desires, or at least those which are a function or product of technological or consumer society. This is a quasi-mystical conception of liberation, and one that I think politically simply irrelevant.

Nope, we don't free ourselves from desire, you can't just turn off your need/desire for things that you have now. However, I don't think technological advancement is the way out or "the only way out, the revolutionary way", as you argue.

De-industralization, learning hunting and gathering skills, small-scale farming, natural medicine,... in a gradual way seem to be a much better alternative to me that would allow humans to return to an existence, which is of course incomprehensible to industrial society.

Is there anything about technology that prohibits us from having healthier diets? Hardly. Though, I fail to see why we should prohibit people the enjoyment of even unhealthy diets if we can discover methods of either treating the ailments brought about by such diets, or preventing them altogether.

... but largely because people in those societies do not live long enough to develop these diseases in the first place. Again, I concede that these things are undesirable--I doubt anyone thinks diseases are good--but the solution is not to turn back the clock to a time where we didn't develop cancer because we would die before we had a chance, but rather to continue forward in the development of technology in order to create cures for these ailments.Indeed, humans are not protected from illness. However, there seems to be a generalization here, one of sameness in terms of the spread of diseases, both physical and mental. Read my previous post and judge on these empirical evidence then.

brigadista

5th March 2009, 20:31

easy to reject when you have it..lifestylists

Dimentio

5th March 2009, 22:02

Technocracy, to give you time to be human.

While technocracy is not more or less pro-technological than communism, it has a history of advocating the rational use of technology to improve the conditions of human existence.

Our goal should be to automatise as much labour as possible, so that we could reduce needed labour hours to a minimum and then do what we want with our lives.

WhitemageofDOOM

5th March 2009, 22:04

Vanguard1917

5th March 2009, 22:23

Wrong (http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-21-civilization-makes-us-sick/).

Wrong in what way?

In industrially advanced societies, human beings are living longer and healthier lives than they ever did under any previous historical epoch. That's objective fact based on solid empirical evidence. If you want to disagree with it, you're going to need counter-evidence -- which, to save you the trouble, does not exist.

Oh, could I get references from where you pulled this:

It's the consensus. Read the studies of people like Michael Gurven or Hillard Kaplan. It's agreed that around 40% to half of all children born in hunter gatherer societies did not live to reach adulthood, which brought the average life expectancy down to around 40 and less.

For examle, see this study (http://www.soc.upenn.edu/courses/2003/spring/soc621_iliana/readings/kapl00d.pdf) by Kaplan et al (see the table on page 158).

De-industralization, learning hunting and gathering skills, small-scale farming, natural medicine,... in a gradual way seem to be a much better alternative to me that would allow humans to return to an existence, which is of course incomprehensible to industrial society.

If you want to return to hunter gatherer society, you also want to bring back the social consequences of that society. I.e. 4 to 5 out of every 10 children born dying before the age of 15.

Hyacinth

6th March 2009, 00:33

De-industralization, learning hunting and gathering skills, small-scale farming, natural medicine,... in a gradual way seem to be a much better alternative to me that would allow humans to return to an existence, which is of course incomprehensible to industrial society.
Yes, and? What you have failed to illustrate is why such an existence is something desirable. Technology, while it can be misused, insofar as it increases our capabilities and power allows us to satisfy our desires, is desirable as a means to these ends. What ends would primitivism allow us to achieve?

Indeed, humans are not protected from illness. However, there seems to be a generalization here, one of sameness in terms of the spread of diseases, both physical and mental. Read my previous post and judge on these empirical evidence then.
The link you provided consists of mostly a series of unfounded assertion. Yes, agricultural society and industrial society carried with it certain negative consequences. Yes, it is much easier for diseases to be transmitted when you have a large dense urban population. No one denies this, there are costs associated with an industrial way of life, or even a post-industrial way of life. But what you have failed to demonstrate is that these are inherent costs of technology itself, rather than the mode of production. Technology can either increase our work burden and displace workers of their jobs thus robbing them of their livelihood as it does under a capitalist mode of production, or it can instead reduce our work burden, and even eventually eliminate it, thus allowing us to lead lives of leisure. Yes, famine and starvation were not as prevalent in hunter-gatherer societies, but they also had far fewer people to support; as well, yet again, this is not the fault of technology, but a consequence in how we have organized society. We have the capability to create abundance of food to feed the entire world population, and then some, on a rather good diet; it is not for lack of means to end starvation that it persists, but for lack of political will among the existing ruling class.

The primitivist thesis is based upon the misguided assumption that technology is responsible for class society and all the problems that emerge therefrom, a thesis which they fail to establish. Technology is not responsible for anything, it is a tool, we are responsible for what we do with it, and in the context of a class society the full benefits of technology are extended only to the ruling class. What communism seeks to do is to extend these benefits to everyone.

To paraphrase the arthitect Adolf Loss: ''I'm a communist. The difference between myself and [primitivists] is that I want to turn everyone into an aristocrat, whereas [the primitivist] wants to turn everyone [back] into a [hunter-gatherer].''

BobKKKindle$

6th March 2009, 01:08

Funny that you buy commodities at the supermarket with money.

You see, the reason why this "argument" doesn't work is that you don't actually need to change the world in order to create the society you want to live in, as you and any other people who share your views are perfectly capable of going to the nearest area of wilderness and living there for the rest of your lives, surrounded by nature, and without any of the things you see as being oppressive and alienating - computers, medicine, and so on. In fact, if you want to make more join your cause, then what better way to do it than actually living the primmie lifestyle, so everyone can see that it need not involve starvation and dying of cold during the winter - given that this is what you claim. We, on the other hand, don't have that option - there is no place where we can go to enjoy all of the benefits of a socialist society, because the only way socialism will ever come into being is if capitalism is overthrown and we take advantage of the development that has been made possible by capitalism and preceding modes of production, or as Marx put it, "the true realm of freedom can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis". This is why it is necessary and acceptable for us to consume commodities under capitalism, even though these commodities have been produced through the exploitation of the working class, and represent the alienation of creative power, whereas you have no reason to sit here at your computer and post your views over the internet.

ex_next_worker

6th March 2009, 08:20

You see, the reason why this "argument" doesn't work is that you don't actually need to change the world in order to create the society you want to live in, as you and any other people who share your views are perfectly capable of going to the nearest area of wilderness and living there for the rest of your lives, surrounded by nature, and without any of the things you see as being oppressive and alienating - computers, medicine, and so on. In fact, if you want to make more join your cause, then what better way to do it than actually living the primmie lifestyle, so everyone can see that it need not involve starvation and dying of cold during the winter - given that this is what you claim. We, on the other hand, don't have that option - there is no place where we can go to enjoy all of the benefits of a socialist society, because the only way socialism will ever come into being is if capitalism is overthrown and we take advantage of the development that has been made possible by capitalism and preceding modes of production, or as Marx put it, "the true realm of freedom can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis". This is why it is necessary and acceptable for us to consume commodities under capitalism, even though these commodities have been produced through the exploitation of the working class, and represent the alienation of creative power, whereas you have no reason to sit here at your computer and post your views over the internet.

Again, it seems that you're stuck to dogmatic theory rather than views of your own. Zapatistas have not overthrown capitalism, not even Mexican capitalism, but they are nonetheless practicing a radical attempt at social, political and economic organization. So basically I see your argument as a perfect excuse to just let things flow as they are and capitalism comes crashing down while you pass out flyers in front of factories. It seems you've lost all touch with reality and maybe you should rethink posting stuff on internet.

I can't understand why Food & Bombs or autonomous social centres are any less of a radical attempt at radical political practice right here, right now... it just doesn't fit your dogmatic belief. I suppose if Marx wrote pieces of creating communism by demolishing capitalism from within, you'd be saluting it. But because of your own belief, you think it's best for everyone if we just wait out for the masses to revolt.

Likewise, you have not presented why anarcho-primitivists would even desire an individual, lifestyle basis of what they desire. You see, the entire logic of what you're saying seems more like advocating some Generation X drop-out stuff then actual beliefs of primitivism. People don't just walk out of civilization. It's impossible because it's everywhere and it has imposed itself on the rest of the planet. Primitivism is not a lifestyle and hunter-gatherer societies are not something you can practice with your friends over the weekend or whatever. This is basically the problem with your views that you don't see the history of hunter-gatherers and their fatal encounters with civilization, which has been the cause of their near extinction.

Klepto

8th March 2009, 09:13

I'm new here, please forgive me if what follows has been raised, debated and discredited before.

While I accept that wholesale primitivism is not desirable (Pol Pot demonstrated that) I can understand the emotional appeal it has. Many of the features of (post)modern society that I am discontented with can be traced back to the development of agriculture and to the growth in the size and density of communities that it facilitated. Human beings are evolved to live as hunter-gatherers, generally in tribal groups of under 1000 individuals. I read of a study (can't find a link, sorry) a couple of decades ago that concluded that we are only able to relate to a few hundreds of people as people. Beyond that number we can only relate to roles, or not relate at all, think of how you interact with the mass while walking down a busy street. This would seem to be the basis of formality, ritual and most importantly dehumanisation which in turn leads to all sorts of evils. In addition to the creation of new problems the growth of communities also exacerbates some of the less admirable human qualities such as greed, possessiveness and intolerance.

Furthermore, the division of labour and the development of technology restrict the freedom of the individual as he or she is no longer equipped to provide him/herself with the essentials of life, or is prevented from doing so by the concept of property rights. It becomes increasingly difficult for dissenting minorities to leave and form a new group, and this leads to internal conflict and alienation. Jean-Jacques Rousseau also postulated that it caused men to stop judging themselves against their environment and instead to judge themselves against their fellow man, resulting in envy and resentment.

I would be interested in the views of people here on 'social primitivism', that is an attempt to organise communities in such a way as to limit their size to that which is able to be comprehended by our hunter-gatherer brains. While I accept that this would lead to a loss of some economies of scale I am not advocating the abandonment of agriculture, technology, medicine or the other positive benefits of civilised society.

Hyacinth

8th March 2009, 09:20

I would be interested in the views of people here on 'social primitivism', that is an attempt to organise communities in such a way as to limit their size to that which is able to be comprehended by our hunter-gatherer brains. While I accept that this would lead to a loss of some economies of scale I am not advocating the abandonment of agriculture, technology, medicine or the other positive benefits of civilised society.
First of all, much of sociobiology is bulk, so I'd take anything that comes out of that field with a grain of salt. That being said, how exactly people choose to organize their communities in a post-revolutionary society is up to them; I'd imagine some would like your idea; I, for one, prefer large urban environments myself. The exact details of how society will be structured is something that will be decided by the post-revolutionary generations, we can only speculate as to how they will choose to do so, though I doubt that you will see one overarching model. As well, we are hardly slaves to our biology; if our brains have certain limitations, the preferable solution to this seems to me, once we attain the capabilities to do this, is to augment our intelligence and rid ourselves of the limits of our hunter-gatherer brains, rather than be slaves to it.