Sickle-A
28th April 2009, 22:30
I'm more of a lurker than I am a poster around here but I was wondering if anybody had any thought about something I've been thinking about lately:
I have never considered myself to be a primitivist, nor do I now, but I am now starting to suspect that we are all just primitivists caught up in a battle of semantics.
Now, from what I understand, anarcho-primitivists see technology as the main force behind the creation of Capitalism and the State, by creating the division of labor and the Class Struggle. Power, in the Capitalist society that we live in, is based on the amount of capital that one possesses because that capital means access to technology and to the products of labor that were created by that technology. Had we not had any technology and were still "living off the land," then power would be defined by the access to the products of the land, which cannot be restricted as easily for the simple fact that food and water come from the earth herself, and technology only produced nonessential commodities for us to fetishize.
All "leftists," be they socialists, communists, or anarchists, believe in a world in which all human beings on this earth have equal access to the means of survival. This is similar to the views of the primitivists, but that's no secret because we all know they're on "our side" anyway. But what about about if there had been pre-technology leftists? If we had all been living pre-Industrial Revolution, and advocated the overthrow of Capitalism, and had been successful, it would have been the same as being anti-technology because most of the innovations of the Industrial Revolution were created out of the desire to accumulate more capital, and not to better the living standards of mankind. Had some sort of utopian world been successfully achieved before the Industrial Revolution, and the goods of the earth were shared equally, I think it is safe to assume that there would be relatively good living standards for all and the population boom from the late 1800s-the 1900s would not have occurred, and there would have been a comfortable, sustainable World Population. So, to be anti-Capitalism in a world before technology was to be anti-technology. And yeah, I know Marx said that Capitalism was necessary to advance technology before the Revolution, but I'm from the school of "overthrow Capitalism at all costs," and I believe that Capitalism is horrendous even if its a caveman taking two stones for himself while his neighbor has none.
So, aren't we all just primitivists? If we were living in a different time period, we certainly would be. The reason that I have never considered myself a primitivist is because we do not live in a vacuum, and the new world must be built on the ruins of the old. But take a moment to stare at that computer screen and the other products around you that were created by the Evil that you hate, and see if you're not some sort of primitivist.
By the way Happy (almost) May Day everyone!
I have never considered myself to be a primitivist, nor do I now, but I am now starting to suspect that we are all just primitivists caught up in a battle of semantics.
Now, from what I understand, anarcho-primitivists see technology as the main force behind the creation of Capitalism and the State, by creating the division of labor and the Class Struggle. Power, in the Capitalist society that we live in, is based on the amount of capital that one possesses because that capital means access to technology and to the products of labor that were created by that technology. Had we not had any technology and were still "living off the land," then power would be defined by the access to the products of the land, which cannot be restricted as easily for the simple fact that food and water come from the earth herself, and technology only produced nonessential commodities for us to fetishize.
All "leftists," be they socialists, communists, or anarchists, believe in a world in which all human beings on this earth have equal access to the means of survival. This is similar to the views of the primitivists, but that's no secret because we all know they're on "our side" anyway. But what about about if there had been pre-technology leftists? If we had all been living pre-Industrial Revolution, and advocated the overthrow of Capitalism, and had been successful, it would have been the same as being anti-technology because most of the innovations of the Industrial Revolution were created out of the desire to accumulate more capital, and not to better the living standards of mankind. Had some sort of utopian world been successfully achieved before the Industrial Revolution, and the goods of the earth were shared equally, I think it is safe to assume that there would be relatively good living standards for all and the population boom from the late 1800s-the 1900s would not have occurred, and there would have been a comfortable, sustainable World Population. So, to be anti-Capitalism in a world before technology was to be anti-technology. And yeah, I know Marx said that Capitalism was necessary to advance technology before the Revolution, but I'm from the school of "overthrow Capitalism at all costs," and I believe that Capitalism is horrendous even if its a caveman taking two stones for himself while his neighbor has none.
So, aren't we all just primitivists? If we were living in a different time period, we certainly would be. The reason that I have never considered myself a primitivist is because we do not live in a vacuum, and the new world must be built on the ruins of the old. But take a moment to stare at that computer screen and the other products around you that were created by the Evil that you hate, and see if you're not some sort of primitivist.
By the way Happy (almost) May Day everyone!