What's with anarcho-primativism? [Archive]

Bilan

21st May 2009, 05:35

The primitivist critique extends beyond capitalism, and includes the last 10,000 years or so of human history as inherently hierarchical and abusive, not just towards humans but also towards the planet.

Which is a useless analysis, considering it is only a moral objection (against hierarchy and 'abuse'[?]) and thus is only relevant to a subjective position. It is unable to identify why (beyond it's blind blaming on 'civilisation') this occurred, what are the fundamentals, or even the origins of hierarchy. It is thus useless, and offers no way forward but only a rose-tinted view back.

And what a lot of people call progress is in fact completely unsustainable in the long run.

That is a blanket statement which corresponds to only a few things, and not to all. It is under the presumption that things are created with the knowledge of their long-term impact (Which for many industries, was completely impossible, and is again a reflection of the Primitivists shonky analysis and inability to grasp context).
Sustainable energy and industry is as progress, just as coal and fossil fuels were progress when they were developed. The point is that things don't remain progressive forever, but relative to the context in which they were developed.

I think it's a sound critique for the most part.

How is it sound?

I think the key is finding a way for progress to happen that is sustainable.

You just negated your own claim? It's sound for the most part, but then you recognise progress does not have definitive form or impact beyond "going forward", and thus, render the critique meaningless and disassociate yourself with it.

StalinFanboy

21st May 2009, 07:32

Which is a useless analysis, considering it is only a moral objection (against hierarchy and 'abuse'[?]) and thus is only relevant to a subjective position. It is unable to identify why (beyond it's blind blaming on 'civilisation') this occurred, what are the fundamentals, or even the origins of hierarchy. It is thus useless, and offers no way forward but only a rose-tinted view back.

That is a blanket statement which corresponds to only a few things, and not to all. It is under the presumption that things are created with the knowledge of their long-term impact (Which for many industries, was completely impossible, and is again a reflection of the Primitivists shonky analysis and inability to grasp context).
Sustainable energy and industry is as progress, just as coal and fossil fuels were progress when they were developed. The point is that things don't remain progressive forever, but relative to the context in which they were developed.

How is it sound?

You just negated your own claim? It's sound for the most part, but then you recognise progress does not have definitive form or impact beyond "going forward", and thus, render the critique meaningless and disassociate yourself with it.

I said that what most would call progress is viewed as unsustainable by primitivists. And I would agree that a lot of progress has been unsustainable. I don't see how that means we can't find a way to create progress that is sustainable. Perhaps I should have clarified my post more.

Upon further thought into this, your last sentence is entirely correct. Thanks.

communard resolution

21st May 2009, 07:48

i always quite like how the primmies are banging on about saving the earth while the earth can probily take everything we trow at it.
it has been there for milions of years and i will be here long after we are gone.
so in fact primmies are just concernd about saving humanity, wich is kind of ironic concidering that they want to destroy the very things that made us us, civilication and progress

So true. Even if a nuclear holocaust of insane proportions wiped most life from the face of the earth, the earth would probably spew out new species that would feel right at home in the post-nuclear environment.

communard resolution

21st May 2009, 07:53

For a man who likes Futurama, that is a poor joke!

So many people I know seem to be in love with Turanga Leela, the one eyed alien girl from Futurama. Any admirers on here?

f-thesystem

21st May 2009, 11:41

to be in love with a cartoon character? lol, shes cool, but bender and fry are the best :D

mykittyhasaboner

21st May 2009, 17:45

So many people I know seem to be in love with Turanga Leela, the one eyed alien girl from Futurama. Any admirers on here?

Of course! Shes puurrrdy. But no where near as cool as Bender. Only Bender can be a sentient-robot primitivist.

Code

21st May 2009, 17:50

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!! We're officially off topic in an awwesome way!

mykittyhasaboner

21st May 2009, 17:54

That's because anarcho-primitivism is so worthless that its not worth talking about.

Code

21st May 2009, 18:05

That's because anarcho-primitivism is so worthless that its not worth talking about.

agreed
but we could still try to convince them to anarcho-communism

21st Century Kropotkinist

21st May 2009, 18:24

I think that there are probably different degrees of primitivism. I think that there are reasonable people whom call themselves anarcho-primitivists in regards to there being a post-revolution pluralistic society, i.e., after the revolution, there will be many different kinds of societies, primitivist perhaps being one brand.

In that regard, I don't have a problem with neo-Luddites or anarcho-primitivists, who believe that it is civilization itself that is destroying the planet. Shit, if they're referring to current, capitalist civilization, then they are absolutely correct.

Now, if anarcho-primitivism means "deep ecology," i.e., humans per se will lead to the destruction of the planet, well, I feel like this critique is deeply flawed and curiously similar to that of liberal "environmentalists" who think we can veer away from ecological disaster through piecemeal reform or buying hybrid cars or something. This idea, "deep ecology," is just thoughtless. You know, those people of color and women of the third world are really just destroying the planet, says "deep ecology." "Deep ecology" says humans themselves are the problem, not .ooooooooooooo1 percent of them that are actually destroying our ecosystems.

Unfortunately, some anarcho-primitivists sound curiously similar to the ideas encapsulated in "deep ecology." My other critique is that articulated by Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin (not making an appeal to authority; i just don't want to be accused of stealing their ideas): an advocation of going back to post-industrial times, or a hunter/gatherer society is the advocation of mass-genocide. Turning back the clock now would be taking a population that is accustomed to industrialization and technology, and putting them in a setting in which they do not know how to provide for themselves, hence death en masse. And for those anarcho-primitivists who would argue that it's some kind of natural law, well that's just social-Darwinism.

Anarcho-primitivism has huge pitfalls, but I think there are people who are not without merit that identify as primitivists, or sympathetic towards primitivism like Uri Gordon and Derrick Jenson. Again, I would say that if there were revolution and post-revolution primitivist communities formed, I'd have no problem as long as it wasn't forced down my throat.

Sort It Out Frosty

21st May 2009, 21:34

My understanding of primitivism is that its not actively wanting the death of billions of people, its saying that it is inevitable because humans have alienated themselves from the planet and are living in a way that will lead to collapse. This is an accurate view but the difference between the primitivists, who are pessimists, and me, who isn't that pessimistic, is that I believe a social revolution is possible and a change to sustainable, non-alienated ways of life. We will see who is right in this generation, because its revolution or bust now what with impending peak oil and the climate change "tipping point" scientists are warning of. The die out that primitivists talk of is simply what will happen if oil, for instance, runs out and global agriculture collapses. Millions and millions of people will die.

:( Hey, if you was a bookie what odds would you give for humanities chances, eh?

SecondLife

21st May 2009, 22:06

What's there difference, primitive or not. RAF was also good punk to hear, sometimes even more louder than anarchism. No difference how to destroy old culture and start new one (or start nothing). Now, in economic crisis, workers sometimes becomes also very primitive, but angry. :D

Glenn Beck

21st May 2009, 23:27

Primitivism of a sort is somewhat sensible if you believe in 'strong' versions of such apocalyptic theories as Peak Oil and severe man-made climate change. Especially the former which essentially holds that fossil fuels are an anomaly that allow feverish short bursts of civilization that peter out.

However terming this primitivism is probably wrong, given that such a viewpoint is compatible with ideas of sustainable development or re-tooling civilization to continue in a static and stable form, perhaps at a 19th century level of technology as some writers have suggested. Primitivism I generally take to mean the view that civilization as a whole is bad for humans and the environment and that a hunter gatherer existence is ideal. Their writings tend to emphasize agricultural civilization as the defining moment when humanity developed division of labor and hierarchy and thus oppression. I have some sympathy with this perspective on an anthropological level but I think its moralistic, weak, and flawed not least because it does not offer us any practical alternative to waiting for civilization to collapse and then hope nobody reinvents agriculture. I also do think that society is progressing to a point where it will be possible to resolve the contradictions between human nature and civilization providing a more permanent and satisfactory solution to the problem than flight into the wild.

In any case the dependence of these perspectives on empirical predictions to be approached with dread encourages a kind of "doomsday prophet" mentality and inherently weakens the claims given that they depend on facts to be confirmed in the future rather than arguments for the present. More relevantly most individuals with this sort of analysis do not have a properly political analysis that asks "Given what we know (or think we know) about the unsustainability of our current technological society what should we do with our current society that would make us most likely to come out the other end of a catastrophe with the least suffering and the most humane and desirable future society?". Rather so much emphasis is placed on the "doomsday prophecy" and survivalism that it primarily appeals to a demographic that I wouldn't hesitate to call "middle class".

Zazaban

22nd May 2009, 03:00

It is a piece of ill-conceived nonsense that would have interesting consequences when the nuclear plants stop being manned.

Saullos

22nd May 2009, 13:47

Primitive anarchists incorrectly blame technology as the culprit. It's misplaced fault.

Not really.

The only way people can forcefully exert power over others is through the use of technology. Get rid of technology, and we revert back to life the way our ancestors lived. Without agriculture, without division of labor, without forceful control.

communard resolution

22nd May 2009, 14:51

Not really.

The only way people can forcefully exert power over others is through the use of technology. Get rid of technology, and we revert back to life the way our ancestors lived. Without agriculture, without division of labor, without forceful control.

Nonsense. I can forcefully extert power over you by simply kicking your head in. Technology equals tools equals means to an end - there is nothing instrinsically bad in an instrument.

ZeroNowhere

22nd May 2009, 15:03

Not really.

The only way people can forcefully exert power over others is through the use of technology. Get rid of technology, and we revert back to life the way our ancestors lived. Without agriculture, without division of labor, without forceful control.
Are you trying to assert that before agriculture there was no hierarchal authority?
Either way, anarchy would be crap without a good soundtrack.

Saullos

22nd May 2009, 22:59

Nonsense. I can forcefully extert power over you by simply kicking your head in.

I hope that's not a serious refutation.

Sure, there is nothing intrinsically bad with technology, but the existent of technology allows for division of labor and collection of power, which seems to be a natural part of humans. With the advent of agriculture populations soared, and specialization and division of labor and inequalities arose. None of these things existed with hunter-gatherers.

Are you trying to assert that before agriculture there was no hierarchal authority?For the most part, yes. See, "Hierarchy in the Forest" and "World Civilizations: The Global Experience" amongst many other anthropological works.

Avery Lane

22nd May 2009, 23:47

but we could still try to convince them to anarcho-communism

Ah yes, you've convinced me, I would love to be in a community with someone like you, who condemns my ideas as "stupid". Since that's the way to bring people over to your side, which is based community and support of others.

But hell, anarcho-primitivism is pretty similar to anarcho-communism, just with less technology and with smaller communities. It seems to please everyone, as well - if you dislike our current system because of the way it's shredding the environment, primitivism is arguably the most ecologically stable system possible - it is a true return to nature. If you dislike our current system because of the corruption and greed, primitivism provides a way for us to live without extortion and general capitalist bullshit (we can just hunt as a small group, share the food, and live in small communities; lemme know if you want more explication).

Daniel Quinn compared our current situation to living at the top of a very tall brick building. For some time now, we've been taking bricks from the bottom and building up at the top. It's stable now, but won't be for long. I think of primitivism as going to the bottom of the building.

revolution inaction

23rd May 2009, 01:12

But hell, anarcho-primitivism is pretty similar to anarcho-communism, just with less technology and with smaller communities.

no its not

It seems to please everyone, as well - if you dislike our current system because of the way it's shredding the environment, primitivism is arguably the most ecologically stable system possible - it is a true return to nature. If you dislike our current system because of the corruption and greed, primitivism provides a way for us to live without extortion and general capitalist bullshit (we can just hunt as a small group, share the food, and live in small communities; lemme know if you want more explication).
It doesn't please me. I dislike the current system because it is unjust, people do not get paid the full value of there work and they do not have control over there lives, people who could work are prevented from doing so because it is more profitable for them to be unemployed, people are divided into different nations and races because it benefits the ruling class.
I don't see how returning to a more basic level of technology would fix any of this.
And i like technology.
There is loads of awesome technology right now and i can't have most of it because i have almost no money.
The problems with the world are not caused by technology there are caused by how our society is structured.

FreeFocus

23rd May 2009, 03:42

Humans can have a technologically advanced society without hierarchy, coercion, and oppressive apparatuses. Anarcho-primitivism is not necessary, and while it may have a handful of useful ideas, it surely should not be the norm throughout the world. Of course, people should be free to live that way if they choose.

Anarchia

24th May 2009, 03:39

Any political position that tells me I have to die will never get even an ounce of respect from me. Due to medical conditions, I wouldn't last 2 weeks in a primitivist society.

Primitivism requires genocide, regardless of whether primmies want it or not (I've talked to / read stuff from primmies that actively seek it, and also from those who don't). In addition to the other flaws people have mentioned here, this one puts the nail in the coffin of the stupid fucking idea that is primitivism (which has nothing to do with anarchism, so doesn't deserve the anarcho prefix).

Avery Lane

24th May 2009, 13:30

no its not
I don't suppose you're going to back that up?

I dislike the current system because it is unjust, people do not get paid the full value of there work and they do not have control over there lives, people who could work are prevented from doing so because it is more profitable for them to be unemployed, people are divided into different nations and races because it benefits the ruling class.

Hot damn, you did a better job of summarizing the arguments for anarcho-primitivism than I did.

1. People do not get paid the full value of their work: In a primitive society, the only real work you would do would be hunting, gathering, or building homes, all of which you would see the direct benefits of.

2. People do not have control over their lives: This is why anarcho-primitivism has (and deserves) the "anarcho" prefix - no one is controlling you. I suppose it would be possible for an oppressive primitive society, but that's why I want an anarchist primitive society.

3. People who could work can't because their unemployment is more profitable: In a primitive society, the unemployed would hunt or gather.

4. People divided into different nations and races because it benefits the ruling class: First off, the only divisions in a primitive society would be those of your particular community or tribe. And second, there would be no ruling class.

Any political position that tells me I have to die will never get even an ounce of respect from me. Due to medical conditions, I wouldn't last 2 weeks in a primitivist society.

Primitivism requires genocide, regardless of whether primmies want it or not (I've talked to / read stuff from primmies that actively seek it, and also from those who don't). In addition to the other flaws people have mentioned here, this one puts the nail in the coffin of the stupid fucking idea that is primitivism (which has nothing to do with anarchism, so doesn't deserve the anarcho prefix).

Ok, on to the "genocide" argument. Someone addressed this before, but no one seemed to pay attention. Primitivists are (Or at least I am) not saying that we need to go killing people. The fact of the matter is, earth is seriously overpopulated, and there is going to be a lot of death even without the aid of humans. So yeah, if you would classify death by starvation brought on by overpopulation as "genocide", then I think genocide is going to happen (which doesn't mean I support it). Primitivists are not saying a bunch of people should die, we're saying a bunch of people are going to die.

FreeFocus

24th May 2009, 14:09

The Earth itself is certainly not overpopulated, there are areas that are perfectly habitable that are sparsely populated, in fact. Specific areas or regions may be overpopulated, but if free to move, without borders and outside coercion, I think humans would spread out.

Avery Lane

24th May 2009, 18:22

piet11111

24th May 2009, 18:44

Well, we could get to overpopulation, but that's neither here nor there. In any case, we'll be seeing if we're overpopulated in the future.

I have a quick question: Can you give me a few ways you're oppressed that don't involve technology? Or, if you prefer, a way people have been oppressed historically without technology?

well thats tricky because we know very little from our pre-historic past due to there not being any writing.
but you are counting on that are you not ?

what is clear is that true equality can only be achieved through the aplication of technology allowing us to have free time to better ourselves through study and to enjoy our lives instead of having to spend sunrise to sundown up to our ankles in mud to farm our own food like primitives want us to.

if the primitivists want that life they can have it but we wont be sharing your fantasies.

Avery Lane

24th May 2009, 20:43

what is clear is that true equality can only be achieved through the aplication of technology allowing us to have free time to better ourselves through study and to enjoy our lives instead of having to spend sunrise to sundown up to our ankles in mud to farm our own food like primitives want us to.

if the primitivists want that life they can have it but we wont be sharing your fantasies.

Actually, farming is exactly what I'm against. I, and other primitivists, see agriculture as the root of our problems. Hunter-gatherers used to (and still do in some places) work about 12-19 hours a week. This means more "free time to better ourselves through study", which apparently leads to "true equality".
(For more info, check out Man the hunter*By Richard B. Lee, Irven DeVore, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research or Food And Evolution By Marvin Harris and Eric B. Ross)

Oh, and about that. If you look at pre-agricultural towns, you'll see houses which are all roughly the same size. However, when agriculture takes over, regardless of geographic location, you see a few large houses and lots of little houses. The start of inequity. So if you're out for equality, hunting and gathering is the way to go. Think about it: if no one settles down, no one can gather capital or wealth beyond what they can carry.

And as for the last bit, how can the way humans lived for millions of years be a fantasy?

Sam_b

24th May 2009, 21:10

Why are primitivists like yourself using the internet anyway?

mykittyhasaboner

24th May 2009, 21:15

Well, we could get to overpopulation, but that's neither here nor there. In any case, we'll be seeing if we're overpopulated in the future.
A bit of a hasty prediction, because its based on, pretty much nothing. Human population will grow "in the future" yes, but what we will also see "in the future" is the expansion of human settlement beyond Earth, as well as revolutionary changes in the way humans live on Earth. So worrying about over population and claiming that a total destruction of advancing technological civilization is the way to fix it is kind of absurd in my opinion.

I have a quick question: Can you give me a few ways you're oppressed that don't involve technology? Or, if you prefer, a way people have been oppressed historically without technology?I think having to hunt animals and live among nature with out any convenience is a crude and oppressive existence. The advent of technology has only increased the potential of human beings to enjoy life, your perception is backwards. While "technology play's a part" in oppression (just like it plays a apart in innovation and growth), technology itself isn't directly tied with oppression. How technology is owned and operated is a different question entirely.

Saullos

24th May 2009, 22:12

Why are primitivists like yourself using the internet anyway?

The same reason communists like yourself continue to live and contribute to a capitalist society; in order to raise awareness and change things from the inside.

A bit of a hasty prediction, because its based on, pretty much nothing. Human population will grow "in the future" yes, but what we will also see "in the future" is the expansion of human settlement beyond Earth, as well as revolutionary changes in the way humans live on Earth. So worrying about over population and claiming that a total destruction of advancing technological civilization is the way to fix it is kind of absurd in my opinion.

Yes, because we will definitely not be affected by the removal of so many of the Earth's resources, and will develop the ability to terraform other planets, and cross the universe; WAY before we overpopulate Earth.

I think having to hunt animals and live among nature with out any convenience is a crude and oppressive existence. The advent of technology has only increased the potential of human beings to enjoy life, your perception is backwards. While "technology play's a part" in oppression (just like it plays a apart in innovation and growth), technology itself isn't directly tied with oppression. How technology is owned and operated is a different question entirely.

It's kind of sad to see panzies like you. You've grown up in air-conditioned houses, and don't want anything less than that. You have no respect at all for nature, and for the thousands upon thousands of years for which it provided you with existence and helped form you to what you are today.

Unlike you, I don't see nature oppressive. As previously cited, our ancestors worked less than we do today.

And the question is, which is easier: the removal of technology, or completely socially changing every human on Earth to be altruistic for the rest of eternity.

As long as technology exists, it can and will be used to oppress others.

The best course of action is a return to the past; where equality existed, where sustainability was the only option present, and where alienation had not reared it's depressing face.

Code

24th May 2009, 22:58

The best course of action is a return to the past; where equality existed, where sustainability was the only option present, and where alienation had not reared it's depressing face.

Reasons your wrong:
Feudalism
Religious brainwashing
Worldwide Religious wars
Corruption as far as the eye can see
Tribal warfare
Human Sacrifice
Unvenged murder
Canibalism
Slavery
Lynching
Shaman
Random Raids
Tribal Feuds
Coal
Script Burning
Plagues
Superstition

Examples:
Sparta
Mongol Raids
Inquestision
African tribal warfare
Aztec sacrafice
Ancient Egypt
War slaves
Black slaves
Island canibalism
The Black Death
Witch burning
Library of Alexandria

Also your skrewed by the human drive for conquest and self-forwarding.
:p

Pogue

24th May 2009, 23:00

primitivism is for people who like farming a bit too much

Saullos

24th May 2009, 23:14

LeninBalls

24th May 2009, 23:32

I guess it's a slightly ok idea, it's understandable too, but I think it's impossible to have the whole world, or even some area of it reverted back to primitivism.

Sam_b

24th May 2009, 23:32

Actually, farming is exactly what I'm against. I, and other primitivists, see agriculture as the root of our problems

They don't even like farming!

Pogue

24th May 2009, 23:52

Why do I even bother?

Practically everything you two have mentioned, is not primitivism. Farming, the agricultural revolution, the Neolithic revolution, or whatever you want to call it, marked the end of the primitive man.

its for people who like caves a bit too much.

oh shit, wait, did mankind seeking shelter from the rain represent the beginning of exploitation from roofs?

Glenn Beck

24th May 2009, 23:53

Why do I even bother?

Practically everything you two have mentioned, is not primitivism. Farming, the agricultural revolution, the Neolithic revolution, or whatever you want to call it, marked the end of the primitive man.

And they happened without recourse to advanced technology and with renewable resources. Agriculture and civilization grew organically from the circumstances of certain primitive cultures and spread through conquest and barter. Perhaps our current hi-tech civilization is unsustainable but societies just as or even more brutal such as feudalism or slave society could theoretically go on forever merely punctuated by the occassional revolt, plague, or other catastrophe leading to a 'Dark Age'. The only catastrophe that could truly end civilization would be the extinction of the human race.

Face reality: there is no solution to the problem but to transcend it. Fleeing into the past, if it were possible, would simply leave conditions ripe for the eventual resurrection of civilization. I say it is impossible because even if society were to completely and catastrophically collapse the remnants of civilization will change the way human beings live and would preclude a total return to primitive existence for large segments of humanity.

This doesn't mean that a super hi-tech science fiction society is the only answer, perhaps many of the arguments about hard limits to the growth of civilization are true and our current technological society is unsustainable. Perhaps fossil fuels are extremely limited, fusion and fission are not feasible long term alternatives, and renewable energy sources do not provide us with enough energy to continue as we are. Communist society has the advantage of being rationally planned and can cope with these problems to give us a soft landing into a state of equilibrium with lower energy, rather than chaotically evolving like every system of production up to capitalism.

This, to me, is a rather clear solution, which can be implemented by human beings, can avoid mass genocide, leaves open the possibility for greater human self-awareness and conscious planning of their own future, and does not leave open the possibility for humanity having to repeat the entire vale of tears it has gone through since the invention of civilization. Communism stands for everyone that has been oppressed by civilization, it is their historic vengeance at the point when they have become powerful enough to take control themselves, from the first serf to the modern sweatshop worker or alienated retail clerk.

What solution does primitivism offer us? It offers no solution, only prophecies of the impending doom of civilization and a promise that those few of us that survive will live better without technology. Not particularly interesting nor inspiring. Primitivism has no program and no future, it is only an impassioned reaction to the misery of oppression by clinging to the only society that existed without contradictions between human beings.

You may be interested in Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels, who wrote about primitive communism long before 20th century anthropology reappraised the idea of the 'savage' and long before anarcho-primitivism.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

And here is a 'primitivist' that, while rejecting Marxism and not explicitly a communist discusses the resurgence of civilization after its collapse as well as the possibility of a non-alienated democratic human society co-existing with certain selected elements of technological society and even making advancements within the constraints required, in his view, to be ecologically sustainable

http://ranprieur.com/

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 00:39

The same reason communists like yourself continue to live and contribute to a capitalist society; in order to raise awareness and change things from the inside.
No, you've made a terrible error with this gross comparison. The capitalist system involves class-struggle, hence communists come about as a result of this struggle. We don't reject society, we want to give the ownership and control of society to the people who create and maintain it.

Primitivists on the other hand, are simply narcissistic, idealist, and simply crazy fools who want to take all of society and relive the wrteched struggle of primitve life. You can go live in the forest, many people do that already. Yet you want to force all of society to conform to reactionary ideals like "returning to nature" or some shit like that.

Yes, because we will definitely not be affected by the removal of so many of the Earth's resources, and will develop the ability to terraform other planets, and cross the universe; WAY before we overpopulate Earth.
You don't need to terraform planets to achieve settlements off Earth.

On "being affected" by the removal of Earth's resources; that doesn't seem like a solid argument because, one can easily posit that a change in the fundamental nature of human organization and activity can reverse damage done by humans; but of course that would just be more "meddling with nature".

I wonder, do you consider humans a part of the natural environment? Because I do, and therefore, we act upon our own nature, that is living and progressing.

It's kind of sad to see panzies like you. You've grown up in air-conditioned houses, and don't want anything less than that. You have no respect at all for nature, and for the thousands upon thousands of years for which it provided you with existence and helped form you to what you are today.

Fuck off, I didn't make any personal attacks towards you, don't be a dumb ass. Secondly, you have no idea what I think of 'nature'.

Unlike you, I don't see nature oppressive. As previously cited, our ancestors worked less than we do today.
Yeah because hunting for food and living like nomads wasn't work. Today, in many countries it is illegal for someone to have to work for a certain period per week. Where were these restrictions back in the stone age? Oh yeah! People were too busy dying at age 30 and running around hunting and gathering. Primitivism falls flat on its head if your going to suggest that rejecting technology and destroying mankind's development is going to make our lives somehow more pleasurable or worth while.

And the question is, which is easier: the removal of technology, or completely socially changing every human on Earth to be altruistic for the rest of eternity.
The latter, destroying technology would be hard work at a tremendous cost of human life.

As long as technology exists, it can and will be used to oppress others.

This is just some generalization you fetched out of your ass, I don't care if you think this way. It is complete nonsense to say that as long as technology exists it will oppress people, while the primary function of technology is to enhance life and create new propositions and methods of living, gathering information, developing, etc.

But you on the other hand, simply look at the progress of technology and scoff at how many people sacrificed their lives and dreams for the ability to improve human life with new innovations and improvements.

The best course of action is a return to the past; where equality existed, where sustainability was the only option present, and where alienation had not reared it's depressing face.
Now your just rambling on without any substance. 'Equality' hardly has existed in the past, and the most impressive gains towards total equality have taken place in the last century.

Sustainability was "the only option" because before society people were too stupid to know how to fuck it up. I guess your argument pretty much consists of (for the second or third time) of destroying the potential of mankind to create and develop for some kind of idealist primitive style of living. It's really old when you keep insisting on rejecting technology, and especially ironic that you take the time to sign on to an internet forum using a computer. If you were a real primitivist, you wouldn't wait for other people to join you, you would go live in peace and fuckin harmony with nature. It's safe to say your just a poser.

Saullos

25th May 2009, 00:57

Primitivists on the other hand, are simply narcissistic, idealist, and simply crazy fools who want to take all of society and relive the wrteched struggle of primitve life.You're calling us idealists? I think Republicans and Democrats see both of us as idealistic radicals.

You can go live in the forest
If you were a real primitivist, you wouldn't wait for other people to join you, you would go live in peace and fuckin harmony with nature.No. If indigenous tribes are getting push off their lands, how am I suppose to find land where I can be free to build on, and hunt the animals that belong there? Nowhere in America, that's for sure; and I can't just intrude upon other indigenous tribes, for half of them I would kill just by coming in contact with.

EDIT: Honestly, if I could, I would. But as long as the outside world still exists, with the capabilities to control me, it most likely won't be possible. It's the same with communism/socialism. Trotsky saw it, that's why he called for an international revolution, and was against Stalin's Socialism in one Country, he saw that the two (capitalism and socialism) could not co-exist, and might've contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Now your just rambling on without any substance. 'Equality' hardly has existed in the past, and the most impressive gains towards total equality have taken place in the last century.One of my previous posts:

Are you trying to assert that before agriculture there was no hierarchal authority? For the most part, yes. See, "Hierarchy in the Forest" and "World Civilizations: The Global Experience" amongst many other anthropological works.The advent of agriculture gave rise to the beginning of social stratification, and income, and by proxy, income disparity. Any recent gains towards achieving equality has not truly been an advancement, but merely a reduction in inequality that wasn't always there.

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 01:12

You're calling us idealists? I think Republicans and Democrats see both of us as idealistic radicals.
I don't care what republicans or democrats think.

Yes, primitivists are idealists, because their whole ideology is based on idealist notions of technology being inherently oppressive, and that "returning to nature" is the way to go. Sound's pretty idealist to me.

No. If indigenous tribes are getting push off their lands, how am I suppose to find land where I can be free to build on, and hunt the animals that belong there? Nowhere in America, that's for sure; and I can't just intrude upon other indigenous tribes, for half of them I would kill just by coming in contact with.Indigenous tribes are losing land because they are an oppressed group, a very small minority; and it's a terrible thing. This however, has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you a supposed primitivist, wanted to live a primitive life, then there isn't much that should stop you from moving to a remote area and living that life (just don't take a car, plane, or anything else like that, just walk there). Why do you want to build stuff anyways? I thought you wanted to go back to a primitive lifestyle? Hunting animals isn't a problem (well except if you want to do so with arrowheads and spears, then it becomes pretty difficult), many people already hunt, why cant you? Just don't grab a gun, 'cause that would be unnatural.

The advent of agriculture gave rise to the beginning of social stratification, and income, and by proxy, income disparity. Any recent gains towards achieving equality has not truly been an advancement, but merely a reduction in inequality that wasn't always there.What a load of bollocks! You think that social groups who have been oppressed throughout history like women, disabled persons, (insert race, religious group, ethnicity here) have not made gains in the last century that have lead towards equality? You need to brush up on some history.

The advent of agriculture might have created the conditions for social hierarchy, but if you wan't to get rid of hierarchy, then why do you want to start over and go through the whole "social stratification" process of the development of agriculture? Surely you couldn't expect society to completely reject technology, then simply become stagnant in there ways. New technology is bound to come about, its what humans do best.

Avery Lane

25th May 2009, 01:17

(Everything gonzeau said)

Your post was a good read, to be sure. Thankfully you, unlike some others, kept this rather civil.

It's true, if we did return to a primitive state, it's very possible we could return to civilization as it is with its technology etc., but that's not much of an argument against: That's like saying we shouldn't be communist because we might return to capitalism.

I'll admit, the "prophesies of doom" are probably a bit much. However, you seem to agree that our current lifestyle isn't sustainable, and at the current rate there is certainly a possibility of ecological catastrophe.

I'm sorry you don't find primitivism inspiring, but I wouldn't either if I saw it your way. To me, primitivism isn't "clinging to the only society that existed without contradictions between human beings", but a return to a sustainable, non-oppressive way of life which is in concord with nature. It's a rejoining with the earth, the way we were designed to live. I'm not going to convince you that it's profound, but I'd suggest checking out the movie "What A Way To Go: Life At the End of Empire". It's not total primitivist propaganda, but it does have primitive stuff in there.

oh shit, wait, did mankind seeking shelter from the rain represent the beginning of exploitation from roofs?

I got a good chuckle outta that one.

Reasons your wrong:
Feudalism
Religious brainwashing
Worldwide Religious wars
Corruption as far as the eye can see
Tribal warfare
Human Sacrifice
Unvenged murder
Canibalism
Slavery
Lynching
Shaman
Random Raids
Tribal Feuds
Coal
Script Burning
Plagues
Superstition

Examples:
Sparta
Mongol Raids
Inquestision
African tribal warfare
Aztec sacrafice
Ancient Egypt
War slaves
Black slaves
Island canibalism
The Black Death
Witch burning
Library of Alexandria

This was one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Let's go one by one, shall we? Well, I'll start by eliminating those which occurred after the agricultural revolution (Civilization; the end of primitivism):

Reasons your wrong:
Religious brainwashing
Tribal warfare
Human Sacrifice
Unvenged murder
Canibalism
Slavery
Lynching
Shaman
Random Raids
Tribal Feuds
Script Burning
Plagues
Superstition

Examples:
Mongol Raids
African tribal warfare
War slaves
Island canibalism

Alright, that clears up around a third already. Now, let's take each "reason" and "example" one at a time.

1. Religious brainwashing - Even if you called animism, which was practiced by the overwhelming majority of cultures as far as we can tell, "brainwashing", it still doesn't even come close to the religious brainwashing we saw, and still see, in civilized culture. Also, the religions practiced in primitive cultures were much less destructive and problematic than those that formed during civilization.

2. Tribal warfare - Again, we see the same thing - war -in civilized society, only people were able to kill more brutally, more destructively, and on a much, MUCH wider scale. Daniel Quinn has written about this quite a bit; primitive societies never, EVER (as far as we know) destroyed the food sources of another tribe. Yet in civilization, we burned the crops of our enemies so they could not eat, and went so far as to POUND SALT INTO THE GROUND of our enemies so they could never grow food again. From what we know of Native American warfare, it was long and drawn out, but involved little death and was more about humiliating the enemy than killing or even hurting them. "Tribal warfare" is surprisingly similar to "toned down warfare".

3. Human Sacrifice - Yeah, this (may have) happened in (some) primitive societies. Though, I don't really know who, or when, or where.

4. Unvenged murder - I don't really know what the hell you're talking about with this one. If you just meant there was more murder in primitive societies, then you would be wrong, but you'll have to clarify this for me.

5. Cannibalism - I'm sure it happened, but it happens in civilized culture too. Much more in civilized culture, I'd imagine, considering food was almost always readily available in primitive culture.

6. Slavery - I don't know of any cases of slavery pre-civilization, but on the off chance there was, it can't even begin to compare to slavery in civilization, especially when you take into account the fact that a slave is a lot more useful when you're growing things than when you're hunting. With agriculture, you can tell a slave, "Go pick that for me". In a hunter-gatherer society, a slave is just another mouth to feed.

7. Lynching - I would love to see a source for a confirmed group murder from pre-civilization. I mean, I have all kinds of records of lynching in civilized society (stoning, southern lynchings, etc.), but I don't know where one would even begin to look for a case of a lynching in a primitive society.

8. Shaman - Those damn oppressive shaman! They - oh wait, that's right, they did next to nothing. Sure, they might have been spouting bizarre superstitions about various nature-gods and doing drugs, but they weren't really oppressing or killing much. The worst you could accuse them of is saying they were healing people when they actually weren't, even though some shaman knew herbal medicine techniques.

9. Random Raids - What the fuck does this even mean? If you mean one group attacking another, then it did happen, but this happened on a much smaller and less vindictive scale than happened (or was possible) in civilization.

10. Tribal Feuds - See "tribal warfare".

11. Script Burning - ...What? You were really reaching on this one. Besides the fact that many primitive societies didn't even have a system of writing, what "script(s?)" would they be burning? I'd continue, but I'm afraid that this is too stupid to even address.

12. Plagues - You mean like the black plague, which happened post-civilization? Or the plagues which the civilized Europeans brought over to the Americas? I suppose you meant one of the plagues which spread before the rise of civilization, which don't exist because plagues require cites to spread.

13. Superstition - I don't suppose you'd like to list any examples? Do you have any? I was going to say, "Yes, I suppose superstition did some damage", but all of the superstitions seem to form post-civilization.

14. Mongol Raids - You mean when the Mongols kicked the sorry asses of the sedentary Russians and Europeans? Yeah that was harmful. Yes, Genghis Khan was a brutal leader, and the Mongol conquest of the Asian continent was grizzly as fuck. Unfortunately, you didn't totally win this one - the technology used by the Mongols played a very, very large part in their ability to conquer. Their bows were the best the world had seen up to that point, and the siege weapons they got from the Chinese contributed greatly to their success.

15. African tribal warfare - See "Tribal Warfare".

16. War slaves - See "Slavery".

17. Island Cannibalism - See "Cannibalism".

Sorry if I got a little angry there at the end, but it's hard not to in the face of such ignorance; it's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to blatantly ignore what the other person is saying.

Who needs a drink? :P

Saullos

25th May 2009, 01:20

Yes, primitivists are idealists, because their whole ideology is based on idealist notions of technology being inherently oppressive, and that "returning to nature" is the way to go. Sound's pretty idealist to me.

I'm merely putting it into perspective. Communism and socialism both seem idealistic to me; expecting harmony, and equal control over the means of production on a global level.

Indigenous tribes are losing land because they are an oppressed group, a very small minority; and it's a terrible thing. This however, has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you a supposed primitivist, wanted to live a primitive life, then there isn't much that should stop you from moving to a remote area and living that life (just don't take a car, plane, or anything else like that, just walk there). Why do you want to build stuff anyways? I thought you wanted to go back to a primitive lifestyle? Hunting animals isn't a problem (well except if you want to do so with arrowheads and spears, then it becomes pretty difficult), many people already hunt, why cant you? Just don't grab a gun, 'cause that would be unnatural.

That has nothing to do with what your talking about? I'm a primitivist, I want life to be how indigenous tribes live.

I can't find a remote area and live life, and hunt animals. It cannot be on private property. It also cannot be on public property, unless the rules have changed and I'm allowed to live in a national forest, and build (shelters such as wood shelters that primitive tribes do), and hunt animals; except the rules haven't changed.

What a load of bollocks! You think that social groups who have been oppressed throughout history like women, disabled persons, (insert race, religious group, ethnicity here) have not made gains in the last century that have lead towards equality?

Read what I said. I said they aren't so much gains in equality, as reduction in inequality. Homo sapiens started off equal, in the time period between then and now, we've regressed, and any so called "advancement" is merely reducing the problems that have been caused by agriculture and stratification.

mel

25th May 2009, 01:30

Read what I said. I said they aren't so much gains in equality, as reduction in inequality. Homo sapiens started off equal, in the time period between then and now, we've regressed, and any so called "advancement" is merely reducing the problems that have been caused by agriculture and stratification.

There was gender inequality in many primitive societies.

Code

25th May 2009, 01:32

3. Human Sacrifice - Yeah, this (may have) happened in (some) primitive societies. Though, I don't really know who, or when, or where.

Well to know when, where, or when you'd need writen history or record.

4. Unvenged murder - I don't really know what the hell you're talking about with this one. If you just meant there was more murder in primitive societies, then you would be wrong, but you'll have to clarify this for me.

In uncivilization someone could just kill someone and hide their body saying they went on a walk and never came back, or something of the sort. (i know that ones weak)

13. Superstition - I don't suppose you'd like to list any examples? Do you have any? I was going to say, "Yes, I suppose superstition did some damage", but all of the superstitions seem to form post-civilization.

Yet again examples mean records which means that "oppressive" writen word.

12. Plagues - You mean like the black plague, which happened post-civilization? Or the plagues which the civilized Europeans brought over to the Americas? I suppose you meant one of the plagues which spread before the rise of civilization, which don't exist because plagues require cites to spread.

I'll give you this one but there where still diseases that would wipe out individual villages.

7. Lynching - I would love to see a source for a confirmed group murder from pre-civilization. I mean, I have all kinds of records of lynching in civilized society (stoning, southern lynchings, etc.), but I don't know where one would even begin to look for a case of a lynching in a primitive society.

I guess for proof of anything you'd need some sorta of record keeping, no?

6. Slavery - I don't know of any cases of slavery pre-civilization, but on the off chance there was, it can't even begin to compare to slavery in civilization, especially when you take into account the fact that a slave is a lot more useful when you're growing things than when you're hunting. With agriculture, you can tell a slave, "Go pick that for me". In a hunter-gatherer society, a slave is just another mouth to feed.

in a hunter/GATHERER society you tell a slave "go pick that for me, and taste it to see if it's edible!" or "go kill that guy."

5. Cannibalism - I'm sure it happened, but it happens in civilized culture too. Much more in civilized culture, I'd imagine, considering food was almost always readily available in primitive culture.

Without farming would have alot less food then when people grew it in large amounts. Because if not I dont get why people would farm?

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 01:33

expecting harmony
That is just nonsense, 'harmony' has nothing to do with anything.

and equal control over the means of production on a global level.
Well, it has happened more or less in many countries in the world, why not on a global scale? Socialism is perfectly suited for the conditions society is in today, because socialism quite literally grows out of capitalism; as the private owners of society create their own grave diggers by creating a system based on exploitation. We communists and socialists, have actual methods and techniques of organizing and working towards socialism.

The total rejection of technology and return to primitive lifestyle however, is about as idealistic as it gets. What plan of action is there for primitivists? It seems to me like it might just be: destroy things and get people to be primitivists. That's about as much of an idea primitivsts have as to achieving their goals.

That has nothing to do with what your talking about? I'm a primitivist, I want life to be how indigenous tribes live.

I can't find a remote area and live life, and hunt animals. It cannot be on private property. It also cannot be on public property, unless the rules have changed and I'm allowed to live in a national forest, and build (shelters such as wood shelters that primitive tribes do), and hunt animals; except the rules haven't changed.

Move to Africa or somewhere, where there are plenty of indigenous tribes currently living.

Precise estimates for the total population of the world's Indigenous peoples are very difficult to compile, given the difficulties in identification and the variances and inadequacies of available census data. Recent source estimates range from 300 million[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_tribes#cite_note-2) to 350 million[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_tribes#cite_note-3) as of the start of the 21st century. This would equate to just under 6% of the total world population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). This includes at least 5000 distinct peoples[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_tribes#cite_note-4) in over 72 countries.

Read what I said. I said they aren't so much gains in equality, as reduction in inequality.Homo sapiens started off equal, in the time period between then and now, we've regressed, and any so called "advancement" is merely reducing the problems that have been caused by agriculture and stratification.
That doesn't make any sense, I'm not simply taking your word for it when you haven't even really explained how you think your claim is true; especially when I know your completely wrong.

Saullos

25th May 2009, 01:49

There was gender inequality in many primitive societies.

Sure, but to what extent? Women foraged, men hunted. Conditions were far superior than to women in civilization. Chinese foot-binding, unequal rights under the law.

Move to Africa or somewhere, where there are plenty of indigenous tribes currently living.

You really need to read what I type, because I do so for a reason.

No. If indigenous tribes are getting push off their lands, how am I suppose to find land where I can be free to build on, and hunt the animals that belong there? Nowhere in America, that's for sure; and I can't just intrude upon other indigenous tribes, for half of them I would kill just by coming in contact with.

That doesn't make any sense, I'm not simply taking your word for it when you haven't even really explained how you think your claim is true; especially when I know your completely wrong.

Again, read what I type, because I do so for a reason. This is the third time I've had to type this:

See, "Hierarchy in the Forest" and "World Civilizations: The Global Experience" amongst many other anthropological works.

Socialism is perfectly suited for the conditions society is in today, because socialism quite literally grows out of capitalism; as the private owners of society create their own grave diggers by creating a system based on exploitation.

Except for the part that... there is exploitation. There is exploitation for a reason. Human greed. Why share the wealth and means of production when you can be one of the elite, rich, few?

Avery Lane

25th May 2009, 02:12

(The stuff Code said)

Most of the stuff you said was based on the fact that there was no written word in primitive society. So, basically, we can't say any of those things happened or didn't happen. I was simply pointing out that you said that they happened, when we have no evidence for it (due to no written word). However, you seemed to insinuate that I was against writing, which isn't true - there's just no place for it in primitive society. So yes, I suppose I'm indirectly against it. Though, I suppose you could have writing in a primitive society, just not much to write on.

And alright, I suppose a slave would have some use in a primitive society, but any benefits gained by slaves would be outweighed by the inconvenience of having to feed them.

Without farming would have alot less food then when people grew it in large amounts. Because if not I dont get why people would farm?

Um... this is the entire argument for primitivism. We might have had a bunch more food when we farmed, but it was food we didn't need, which led to accumulation of wealth, inequality, capitalism, etc.
(At least, that's how we see it)

mel

25th May 2009, 02:24

Um... this is the entire argument for primitivism. We might have had a bunch more food when we farmed, but it was food we didn't need, which led to accumulation of wealth, inequality, capitalism, etc.
(At least, that's how we see it)

That's bullshit. Farming started when significant portions of the population were dying of starvation. It was a necessary invention that allowed for society to support a larger number of human beings and progress.

Primitivism may have some value as an analysis of the origins of inequalities, but a return to a primitive society which can support a miniscule fraction of the people that currently exist on this planet has few, if any benefits, when weighed against socialism, in which inequality and capitalism are abolished, and which has an actual plan of action which doesn't involve waiting for the apocolypse or killing off the majority of the human population.

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 02:29

No. If indigenous tribes are getting push off their lands, how am I suppose to find land where I can be free to build on, and hunt the animals that belong there? Nowhere in America, that's for sure; and I can't just intrude upon other indigenous tribes, for half of them I would kill just by coming in contact with.

Yeah, that sounds like such an equal and egalitarian society; they kill outsiders!

You contradict yourself greatly here, by on one hand that you can't go live in tribal societies because they would supposedly kill you (I doub't all tribes would simply kill you), and on the other hand claim that primitivism somehow leads to equality. Not all indigenous peoples are being threatened by the big bad industrial cities; for example in Venezuela and many other Latin American countries for that matter have established rights and land for indegenous tribes which account for a significant portion of the population. Basically I think your just a poser who finds excuses for no going out and living a primitve life, which is what a real primitivist should do rather than living in this regressed socially stratefied industrial monstrosity.

Again, read what I type, because I do so for a reason. This is the third time I've had to type this:

Quote:
See, "Hierarchy in the Forest" and "World Civilizations: The Global Experience" amongst many other anthropological works.

Ah, what a great argument: "yeah go read these books and you'll see what I'm saying".

Why not elaborate on your own position, you know add something to the debate, instead of cop outs.

Except for the part that... there is exploitation. There is exploitation for a reason. Human greed. Why share the wealth and means of production when you can be one of the elite, rich, few?
Oh so now you claim that human greed is the problem and not technology, just what do you think causes exploitation in today's society?

My answer to that question would be private ownership of the means of production, specifically. Why share the wealth, when you can just be a rich prick? Well because not everyone can simply become one of the wealthy few because they either don't inherit their wealth or get extremely lucky, and its simply not possible for one who is born into an impoverished or otherwise unprivileged class and has no way out. Aside from the obvious social and, for lack of a better word, moral objections private ownership of society is ultimately tied to; the system is just a complete burden at this point. Private ownership as a method of economic organization has exhausted its own ability to progress and develop at any considerable rate, nonetheless remains very adaptive. Technology can be much better utilized in a planned economy where ownership of society is commonly shared by the working and oppressed classes who comprise society, not the elite few.

Essentially, greed may very well have a part in how capitalism operates; but if we can't proclaim that capitalism is based on greed, because greed is an emotion. Capitalism is more about the straight up material conditions of society and the organization that comes of said conditions, which are ultimately based on owners exploiting worker's.

Saullos

25th May 2009, 02:39

Yeah, that sounds like such an equal and egalitarian society; they kill outsiders!

You contradict yourself greatly here, by on one hand that you can't go live in tribal societies because they would supposedly kill you (I doub't all tribes would simply kill you), and on the other hand claim that primitivism somehow leads to equality. Not all indigenous peoples are being threatened by the big bad industrial cities; for example in Venezuela and many other Latin American countries for that matter have established rights and land for indegenous tribes which account for a significant portion of the population. Basically I think your just a poser who finds excuses for no going out and living a primitve life, which is what a real primitivist should do rather than living in this regressed socially stratefied industrial monstrosity.I meant, that I would kill half the tribes I come in contact with, because of disease. That's why first contact is such an issue.

Also, established rights are flexible, they can be taken away; and contact inherently disrupts the tribes current way of life. For example, the Taramuhara have begun to lose their land in Central America. They're boundaries keep getting pushed in (for logging), and their past way of life is no longer becoming suitable. Indigenous tribes all across Africa are currently fighting for their rights against relocation and habitat preservation.

Oh so now you claim that human greed is the problem and not technology, just what do you think causes exploitation in today's society?Technology causes it. Human greed could have still existed in primitive societies, the human greed for survival; but survival meant cooperating with small groups of people in forming hunter-gathering tribes.

This explains the rise of agriculture. It allowed for the first time, a surplus. That's why it spread amongst Europe, Asia, Middle East, and Africa. Through the use of technology, people were no longer dependent on others for their own survival, instead, human greed could be further satisfied.

My answer to that question would be private ownership of the means of production, specifically. Why share the wealth, when you can just be a rich prick? Well because not everyone can simply become one of the wealthy few because they either don't inherit their wealth or get extremely lucky, and its simply not possible for one who is born into an impoverished or otherwise unprivileged class and has no way out. Aside from the obvious social and, for lack of a better word, moral objections private ownership of society is ultimately tied to; the system is just a complete burden at this point. Private ownership as a method of economic organization has exhausted its own ability to progress and develop at any considerable rate, nonetheless remains very adaptive. Technology can be much better utilized in a planned economy where ownership of society is commonly shared by the working and oppressed classes who comprise society, not the elite few.I full heatedly agree.

Perhaps in my angst, nihilism, and distaste for this current situation, I'd rather just abandon it all. Perhaps I just can't see man redeeming himself in the future to put technology to better use.

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 02:49

I meant, that I would kill half the tribes I come in contact with, because of disease. That's why first contact is such an issue.
OK. I just see the whole primitivist thing as contradictory, because unless you go live like that, then I don't see the point.

Technology causes it. Human greed could have still existed in primitive societies, the human greed for survival; but survival meant cooperating with small groups of people in forming hunter-gathering tribes.

This explains the rise of agriculture. It allowed for the first time, a surplus. That's why it spread amongst Europe, Asia, Middle East, and Africa. Through the use of technology, people were no longer dependent on others for their own survival, instead, human greed could be further satisfied.
People are still dependant on each other for survival, that's how society works, no matter how individualistic and capitalist it may be. Tell me how would you get the food you eat, or the roof over your head if others hadn't put forward their sacrifice and labor to build that house, or produce that food. Society is a collective effort, just as much as hunting and gathering is, more so actually.

I full heatedly agree.

Perhaps in my angst, nihilism, and distaste for this current situation, I'd rather just abandon it all. Perhaps I just can't see man redeeming himself in the future to put technology to better use.Well, you don't need to look to the future, because it has already happened, and is currently happening. Technology has been put to good use in millions of places like in medicine and health care, or creative technologies for example, there are tons of examples of how technology has improved our lives; we are talking right now because of technology. Why do you want to abandon it? You might want to abandon nihilism.

Avery Lane

25th May 2009, 03:12

That's bullshit. Farming started when significant portions of the population were dying of starvation. It was a necessary invention that allowed for society to support a larger number of human beings and progress.

Primitivism may have some value as an analysis of the origins of inequalities, but a return to a primitive society which can support a miniscule fraction of the people that currently exist on this planet has few, if any benefits, when weighed against socialism, in which inequality and capitalism are abolished, and which has an actual plan of action which doesn't involve waiting for the apocolypse or killing off the majority of the human population.

You should really learn about the agricultural revolution before you call bullshit on me due to your misconceptions about it.

"Farming started when significant portions of the population were dying of starvation."
False. There are several theories about the agricultural revolution, none of which even vaguely resemble your perception of it. There is one theory that states that one society got too large and sedentary so they started to farm, but it wasn't a lack of food, it was OVERPOPULATION.

You say we started to die off like it was a bad thing. It's not! If we can feed ten people well with our resources, and we have 5 more people, than the death of some people is a response to that.

So what if primitivism can only support a fraction of the people technology can? What's the benefit?

I keep seeing the argument that primitivists have "no plan of action". So what? What's wrong with wanting to BE instead of wanting to DO? I would be content to just be alive with ample food and water (both of which I control the supply of) and people to talk to. That's really all I need.

Glenn Beck

25th May 2009, 03:32

Your post was a good read, to be sure. Thankfully you, unlike some others, kept this rather civil.

It's true, if we did return to a primitive state, it's very possible we could return to civilization as it is with its technology etc., but that's not much of an argument against: That's like saying we shouldn't be communist because we might return to capitalism.

Not at all. To roll back capitalism to feudalism or slavery would require a massive civilization crashing catastrophe. The same kind that would be required to roll back human society to primitive communism. The same goes for reverting future communism to capitalism. The collapse of Eastern Bloc transitional socialist states was qualitatively different from a total civilizational collapse because the world was still under a capitalist mode of production and even the most advanced socialist states had not succeeded in abolishing this mode of production within their territory, much less in their relationship with other states. When the capitalist mode of production is transcended on a world scale the reversion to capitalism could not happen naturally or through political will but by a new major external contradiction: a catastrophe. On the other hand the state of primitive communism would eventually, over perhaps a period of thousands of years to be sure, evolve into a hierarchical society from its own contradictions. My analysis is of course based on historical materialism, if you have a differing analysis that refutes this I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'll admit, the "prophesies of doom" are probably a bit much. However, you seem to agree that our current lifestyle isn't sustainable, and at the current rate there is certainly a possibility of ecological catastrophe.

I'm agnostic as to whether our society is ecologically sustainable or not, I'm not an ecologist or anything. I lean towards the view that capitalism is not but that most economic activity under capitalism is unnecessary. I don't very much care whether communist society chooses balanced equilibrium or eternal progress. What matters is that communist society is the only society that is capable of making an informed choice, or even a choice at all. Dire predictions may of course come true, but until that point they are just predictions and aren't the best foundation for an ideology (Just ask the Jehova's Witnesses!). I critique them for this reason, not because I think they are 'overboard', though they may certainly be overreaching. The insight that things are not going well is only the beginning, after that we need an analysis of what to do about it.

I'm sorry you don't find primitivism inspiring, but I wouldn't either if I saw it your way. To me, primitivism isn't "clinging to the only society that existed without contradictions between human beings", but a return to a sustainable, non-oppressive way of life which is in concord with nature. It's a rejoining with the earth, the way we were designed to live. I'm not going to convince you that it's profound, but I'd suggest checking out the movie "What A Way To Go: Life At the End of Empire". It's not total primitivist propaganda, but it does have primitive stuff in there.

I understand that primitivism has certain insights to human nature and is an ideology that seeks human liberation, I say it is not inspiring or interesting fro the reason I articulated in my last paragraph: it offers us no alternative but to be thrown around by forces beyond our control. To wait for civilization to collapse and live, free but weak and ignorant and easy pickings for the next would-be master and lord, just as unable to resist as any other native people. I prefer to believe that we have a chance to break out of the prison and run things for our own benefit, rather than wait for an external force to liberate us until someone else learns to build a cage.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

25th May 2009, 03:49

Anarcho-primativism is rather hypocritical. They have some loosely phrased arguments that they can't establish there ideal society? What limitations? There is land despite the claim made earlier. You don't need resources because it's primitive life. You just need enough money to get yourself into some forest in the middle of nowhere. Just about anyone can do that.

One primitivst argued that he was driven to politics because he couldn't be one with nature. Helicopters flying over him distracted him. If he was truly a primitivist, he would look at the helicopter like a bird. If he was truly a primitivist, he would have little or no moral obligation to change society, either.

To be fair, though, primitivism has some decent points. A lot of the needless materialism in modern society hasn't actually increased our quality of life. It only increases what we expect. There is evidence that people slowly go back to an average state of satisfication despite increased financial circumstances.

I'll take a lot of the advances of society because I'm accustomed to them. I'll take the others because they're just plain good - medicine. The rest, maybe, I can reject. We may want to discourage our children from participating in some of the leisure activities we do. If we play video games, let them choose to play or not, et cetera.

Avery Lane

25th May 2009, 04:08

When the capitalist mode of production is transcended on a world scale the reversion to capitalism could not happen naturally or through political will but by a new major external contradiction: a catastrophe.

You say that human greed is what will lead to the breakdown of a primitive system, so why do you suspend your knowledge of our greed for this bit?
And as for the reference to the Eastern Bloc, I just meant that saying that a system can change isn't much of an argument against it; I wasn't saying that the collapse of a primitive society would look like that of a communist one.

I'm not going to say that a primitive society will never progress. However, if there is a system with little oppression, very little work, and is MASSIVELY sustainable (in fact, in practice, no other system matches hunting/gathering in terms of sustainability), we should certainly have it as a goal.

I'm agnostic as to whether our society is ecologically sustainable or not, I'm not an ecologist or anything.
...
I don't very much care whether communist society chooses balanced equilibrium or eternal progress.
...
Dire predictions may of course come true, but until that point they are just predictions and aren't the best foundation for an ideology (Just ask the Jehova's Witnesses!).
...
The insight that things are not going well is only the beginning, after that we need an analysis of what to do about it.

Wha? This is of titanic importance! It doesn't matter if you're a primitivist, a capitalist, a socialist, or even if you're not human - we can all agree that the destruction of the environment is not in our best interest.
"Dire predictions may of course come true". Yes. If I see a bear running at me, I am going to think, "I should get the fuck away from this bear before he mauls the shit out of me", not, "Maybe this bear is going to not attack me, it's best to wait and see." Ecology, of ALL places, is not the arena for indifference.

I understand that primitivism has certain insights to human nature and is an ideology that seeks human liberation, I say it is not inspiring or interesting fro the reason I articulated in my last paragraph: it offers us no alternative but to be thrown around by forces beyond our control. To wait for civilization to collapse and live, free but weak and ignorant and easy pickings for the next would-be master and lord, just as unable to resist as any other native people. I prefer to believe that we have a chance to break out of the prison and run things for our own benefit, rather than wait for an external force to liberate us until someone else learns to build a cage.

Yes, if a more advanced people were to take over a primitive society, there would be no stopping them, really. It's the reason people like me and Saullos aren't living out on our own now - people would come in with guns and cars, and they would tell us to get the fuck off of their land. So yes, it is idealist, but I think it's the only shot we've got at approaching the ideal.

mel

25th May 2009, 04:28

So yes, it is idealist, but I think it's the only shot we've got at approaching the ideal.

The problem is that there is no "approaching the ideal" there is only, "wait for society to collapse and hope we never redevelop agriculture". As long as you're waiting for societal collapse anyway, why not try to develop a system which is both ecologically sustainable and can support roughly the size of the population we are currently dealing with? Why can't this system also be purely egalitarian and free, and have full employment and shorter working hours than exist under capitalism? Any active move towards primitivism would necessitate the mass killing of billions of people. I assume that you believe this is not an option, so while you're waiting for society to collapse, why not help us make things better for everyone in the meantime?

Mindtoaster

25th May 2009, 04:48

Are most primmies also vegans?

Avery Lane

25th May 2009, 05:23

Are most primmies also vegans?
I suppose you could be, but then you wouldn't be a hunter-gatherer, you'd be a gatherer.

The problem is that there is no "approaching the ideal" there is only, "wait for society to collapse and hope we never redevelop agriculture". As long as you're waiting for societal collapse anyway, why not try to develop a system which is both ecologically sustainable and can support roughly the size of the population we are currently dealing with? Why can't this system also be purely egalitarian and free, and have full employment and shorter working hours than exist under capitalism? Any active move towards primitivism would necessitate the mass killing of billions of people. I assume that you believe this is not an option, so while you're waiting for society to collapse, why not help us make things better for everyone in the meantime?

Ok, as for societal collapse, I don't think that's the ideal path to a primitive society, just a possible one. There's never been a global societal collapse, so we have no idea what it would be like, but with the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent dark ages, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of systems formed out of necessity/collapse/catastrophe are less than optimal. As such, I think the proper route to primitivism is by starting small and gradually growing. OR, starting small and dying off, it really makes no difference to me, considering I'll only see a lifetime of it anyways.

And if anyone says another thing about genocide, mass killing, etc., I'm going to go kill them all myself. Frankly, I don't even give a fuck. Death is as natural as everything else I'm supporting, so I welcome it. If I'm one among the billions that would have to die, than so be it.

So as for now, I'm going to learn how to live on my own, find like minded people, and do it. I don't expect there to be a primitive revolution where the majority of humans eschew technology, billions of people die, and in a generation we're all a few million years in the past; Of all the possible scenarios, that's probably the least likely. Instead, I'm going to live my life as best as I can based on what I think "best" is, and if other people want to join me, great. If not, then they can leave me be and that'll be good enough for me.

apathy maybe

25th May 2009, 09:19

Are most primmies also vegans?

I doubt that any primitivist who has thought about it is a vegan, or even vegetarian. After all, where do you get your protean from if you aren't farming? You hunt down an animal and eat it. That's what.

Saullos

25th May 2009, 23:04

Question, why is alienation bad in all cases except between man and nature?

mykittyhasaboner

25th May 2009, 23:11

Question, why is alienation bad in all cases except between man and nature?
What do you mean by that exactly?

Alienation between man and nature certainly exists, and is quite relevant; and it's not only alienation between the two, but a conflicting relationship (at least in currently seen developed societies, especially bourgeois society).
Bookchin sums it up here pretty well in my opinion:

The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the domination of man by man… But it was not until organic community relation … dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the natural world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised wantonly. … The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital
—Bookchin, Murray, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p.24–25

21st Century Kropotkinist

29th May 2009, 16:21

If you a supposed primitivist, wanted to live a primitive life, then there isn't much that should stop you from moving to a remote area and living that life (just don't take a car, plane, or anything else like that, just walk there)..

This is exactly right. This is my problem with anarcho-primitivists. While some of them believe in pluralism, i.e., a post-revolutionary society in which there are mutualist, communist, syndicalist, primitivist communities, etc., for which I'm totally in favor of, some of them feel as if we should all be forced into their dystopia of gathering berries and tracking down the next meal with bows and arrows. Wouldn't this be coercion? If you want to destroy technology that a majority favors, wouldn't this be authoritarian? If I wanted to force communism or syndicalism down someone's throat, would I not be a tyrant? I argue that this would be coercive, and actually has nothing to do with anarchism. Plus, as I already mentioned, if one had any concern for humanity, then they wouldn't favor mass primitivism, as it would lead to de facto genocide of millions.

Another flaw of primitivism is that it seems many are in the "post-left" camp of anarchism which doesn't even favor revolution. They favor self-liberation, or "splendid isolationism." It's very individualist and hates anything to do with class struggle or hearing about the suffering of the working masses.

As said, though, if anarcho-primitivists simply have a preference for this kind of community, then no one should object. Our objections come from the authoritarian strands within the ideology.

Agrippa

3rd June 2009, 22:57

Time for me to step in.

To me, "primitivism" is not about the dangers of "agriculture" in comparison to "hunter-gatherer societies", which is buying into the mythology of capitalist anthropology. All "hunter-gatherer societies" had an understanding of horticultural principles and in every agricultural society, even in our global industrial society, many still hunt, fish, and gather vegetables to subside. Many settled, agricultural societies have switched over to nomadic hunting and gathering (and, obviousy, vise versa) when conditions made it nessicary. The idea of a natural progression from hunter-gathering to farming is un-scientific, the evidence doesn't back it up, and it's really basically a fabrication used to justify capitalist ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism.

Primitivism, for me, primarily, revolves around
A) Questioning Marxist dogma regarding the "objective" and "scientific" observation that capitalism has to emerge from feudalism to create the conditions of a truly communist society.
B) Questioning whether a communist society can be "global" (ie: involving simultanious mass-participation of hundreds of thousands or millions if not billions of people in a somehow-democratic and somehow-egalitarian political and economic administration that orchestrates global commodity-production and exchange) and questioning the schemes and visions of even allegedly "libertarian" or "anarchist" communists who think of "communism" as something with central planning.
C) Taking a truly critical look at the social structures imposed by capitalism and whether they are nessecary and beneficial in a hypothetically libertarian society, or whether a hypothetically libertarian society could even exist simultaniously with the economic conditions needed to create and maintain them.
D) Challenging materialism, Newtonianism, Cartesianism, etc. as ideological justifications for capitalist subjugation.
E) Recognizing that the only genuine alternative to nationalism is the tribalism that organically emerges from free association, not an impossible "international" proletarian society.
F) Preparing for the global catastrophe that will inevitably occur as a result of the contradictions within capitalism. Ie: Autonomism/survivalism rather than syndicalism, parliamentarianism, etc.

I recognize that in many ways, Leftist primitivists have many goals in common with extreme-right reactionaries, and primitivist romanticism is traditionally how the two otherwise-contrary currents of radical right and radical left conjoin. However, ideas intrinsic to the reactionary right (nationalism, racialism, patriarchalism, etc.) are so vile and repugnant that no comprimise can ever be made.

One criticism I see a lot of primitivism, that, in my mind, is totally invalid, is that primitivism "would result in the death of millions/billions of people". On the contrary, it is the capitalists, who, as the architects of this global society, are totally to blame for any loss of life, human or otherwise, that occurs as contradictions within capitalism worsen. The capitalists willingly plunged into the deep end of irresponsible and irreversable social and agricultural plans, they knew the potential risks, and they took them, because they don't care about anyone's life other than their own. If millions or billions die due to the collapse of the global industrial infastructure, it is no more the anarchist/communist primitivist's fault than it is the parachuteer who notices his comrade's chute has failed to properly deploy.

BakuninFan

3rd June 2009, 23:14

Anarcho-Primitivists actually believe that we should revert to hunter-gathering!? Absurd! Theyre a bunch of angsy utopianists. That will NEVER happen. We need to work on politics that mesh with the modern age, not revert to a time with no learning, medicine, or technology. Good anarchism is Libertarian Socialism. Green Anarchism is bad anarchism.

I do, however, accept the idea that consumerism is the root of all evil in the capitalist system. Still, Primitivism is totally irrelevant.

mykittyhasaboner

3rd June 2009, 23:41

The idea of a natural progression from hunter-gathering to farming is un-scientific, the evidence doesn't back it up, and it's really basically a fabrication used to justify capitalist ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism.
Really? What a bold claim, its too bad that you don't have any evidence to back it up with, now do you? Hypocritical of you, in my opinion.

Now what makes you think that the idea of hunter-gatherer society, 'naturally' progressing towards an agricultural society is a fabrication used to justify Marxism-Leninism, when ML relatively nothing to do with this idea?

welshboy

4th June 2009, 08:23

I have a quick question: Can you give me a few ways you're oppressed that don't involve technology? Or, if you prefer, a way people have been oppressed historically without technology?

Homophobia, Sexism, Racism.
How's about dying by the age of 40 because of easily treatable diseases?

Primitivism has about as much to do with anarchism as 'anarcho-capitalism', i.e bog all.
Primitivists take alienation and misplace it's roots within civilisation rather than within capitalism/class society.
Some of the writings of primitivists, John Zerzan's Elements of Refusal for example, make for interesting philosophical readings. Exploring links between language, art and alienation is an interesting thought experiment. However like Descartes Cogito it is a philosophical cul de sac which has no practical application. To seek to apply primitivist philosphies and ideology is to seek megadeth and ecological catastrophe on a scale that would put global capitalism to shame. As nucelear power stations went into meltdown and oil refineries spewed their effluence untreated in the environment, as the corpses of billions rot where they fall we would quickly see the world transformed into a hell that even Bosch would have trouble concieving.
This being said I do find pre-civilised tribes fascinating and the few examples of those that do live without hierarchy are interesting. Many tribes however practice division of labour along gender lines as well as along primitive lines of class, with chiefs and shamans being exempt from work.
Now the prime examples that will be thrown at me by the primitivists are those of the Mbuti, San and !Kung. All of whom live fairly egalitarian,hierarchy free existences. however they are only three tribes in very specific circumstances.
Tribes throughout the primitivist mecca that is West Papua are not so egalitarian. The majority of the tribes in West Papua practice warfare amongst themselves, value women as they value livestock and there is evidence of cannibalism as well. Hardly what we should be aspiring to as people who want to work towards a society based upon equality, justice, mutual aid and solidarity now is it?

welshboy

4th June 2009, 08:41

I doubt that any primitivist who has thought about it is a vegan, or even vegetarian. After all, where do you get your protean from if you aren't farming? You hunt down an animal and eat it. That's what.

Actually I know quite a few primmo's that are vegan. Just because they would rather be hunting down deer in some primitive hell hole doesn't mean they want to engage with the meat industry.

welshboy

4th June 2009, 08:47

As such, I think the proper route to primitivism is by starting small and gradually growing. OR, starting small and dying off, it really makes no difference to me, considering I'll only see a lifetime of it anyways.
As in wee camps for just a few million then work your way up? :p

And if anyone says another thing about genocide, mass killing, etc., I'm going to go kill them all myself. Frankly, I don't even give a fuck. Death is as natural as everything else I'm supporting, so I welcome it. If I'm one among the billions that would have to die, than so be it.
You are a nihilist not an anarchist then aren't you?

Agrippa

4th June 2009, 15:21

How's about dying by the age of 40 because of easily treatable diseases?

Most people who died at the age of 40 in "primitive" societies did not die from "easily treatable diseases", but rather other dangers such as large animals, warfare, etc. Virtually all human societies have very complicated and sophisticated systems of medical practice that are very effective at treating easily treatable diseases as well as less easily treatable diseases. The fact that industrial capitalism has pioneered (in addition to a myriad of harmful, useless pharmaceuticals) additional useful medical tools is irrelevant to this primitivist. As long as we are focused on the needs of the eco-system we can produce industrial medicine such as TB vaccinations and pharmacutical antibiotics in limited amounts as needed.

Primitivism has about as much to do with anarchism as 'anarcho-capitalism', i.e bog all.Oh well, in my mind industrialized socialism/"communism" has as much to do with anarchism as "anarcho-capitalism", i.e bog all. To each his own.

Primitivists take alienation and misplace it's roots within civilisation rather than within capitalism/class society.Yes, that is something many modern-day primitivists such as Jensen and Zerzen are very much guilty of and should be caned for. However, that in no way redeems industrial society.

Some of the writings of primitivists, John Zerzan's Elements of Refusal for example, make for interesting philosophical readings. Exploring links between language, art and alienation is an interesting thought experiment.Really? I think it's total garbage. It's based on the implicitly racist, Eurocolonist notion that more "primitive", less "civilized" societies are somehow less sophisticated when it comes to art, language, religion, etc. The only difference is that in Zerzan's New Age nihilism he spins this into a good thing.

To seek to apply primitivist philosphies and ideology is to seek megadeth and ecological catastrophe on a scale that would put global capitalism to shame.Not nessicarily, no more so than any situation in which a medium-sized planet such as Earth is crammed full of 6-12 billion human beings (as a consequence of the labor demands of capitalism) could easily result in that outcome. This primitivist, for one, would be working to try to save people and share resources with them (a la our comrades immediately after Hurricane Katrina) during any ecological catastrophe that could occur as industrial society breaks apart.

As nucelear power stations went into meltdown and oil refineries spewed their effluence untreated in the environment,

Just because we are primitivists doesn't mean we don't believe in the principles of engineering and applying them in order to, say, safely dismantle an oil refinery or take the efforts required to make sure a former nuclear power station poses no furter threat to the Earth and our bodies.

as the corpses of billions rot where they fall we would quickly see the world transformed into a hell that even Bosch would have trouble concieving.Nice melodrama. If you want, I could wax poetic about the desolate urban landscape created by botched attempts at anarcho-futurist/anarcho-urbanist social schemes. That still wouldn't make for a rational or logical argument.

This being said I do find pre-civilised tribes fascinatingWow. Do you think their ethnic identities have any value independent of your "fascination" with them, my friend?

and the few examples of those that do live without hierarchy are interesting.Just because you are ignorant of many examples does not mean the examples that exist are "few"

Many tribes however practice division of labour along gender linesYes and as those societies further develop, first into fuedal patriarchy and then into capitalis, the gender-specific oppression worsens.

with chiefs and shamans being exempt from work. What is your basis of experience in saying this? I assume you read it in a book. If so, what's your source?

Now the prime examples that will be thrown at me by the primitivists are those of the Mbuti, San and !Kung. All of whom live fairly egalitarian,hierarchy free existences.Only if you want to buy into a romantic, Orientalist presumtion that the Mbuti, San, and !Kung still live in the exact same way they did hundreds of years ago. Most !Kung "tribal leaders" these days probably are patriarchal assholes just like the "tribal leaders" of American Indians, Paupans, etc.

however they are only three tribesDo you mean to tell me those are the only three ethnic groups in Africa that lived without patriarchy or class-heirarchy? Again, what experience do you base this on? Your anthropology 101 class?

in very specific circumstances.What's so "specific" about sub-Saharan Africa? Is it blessed or something?

Tribes throughout the primitivist mecca that is West Papua are not so egalitarian.I'm sure that many are and many are not. We are talking about one of the most ethnically diverse (and undocumented and unrecorded in terms of research by Western anthropologists) reigons in the world. I'm positive you have neither the personal experience nor the academic expertise needed to reach such a sweeping and drastic conclusion about every tribe in that reigon.

The majority of the tribes in West Papua practice warfare amongst themselvesSo? Every society does that, including the "egalitarian" !Kung and Mbuti. Warfare is a fact of life. We as revolutionaries seek to "practice warfare" against the ruling class. How are we any better?

value women as they value livestockUndoubtedly true, but we need to ask
A) Is this something that has always been indigenous to Paupan tribes, or is it something that developed and spread as a consequence of certain material conditions?
B) Is this something that has been alievated by interactions by Paupan tribes with outside forces (IE: capitalist imperialism) or something that has been worsened by it?
C) Does the fact that there are patriarchal tribes demonstrate that patriarchalism is inherent to tribalism, especially since non-tribal societies (such as fuedalism, capitalism) seem all the more likely to be patriarchal?

and there is evidence of cannibalism as well.Even if this is true, big deal. How is cannibalism any more shocking or deplorable than any other funeral rite? Just because you're not used to it? We're not talking about a sex pervert who kills children to eat them because he gets off on it. (Although unfortunately I'm sure those people exist in every society) We're talking about people consuming the bodies of their fallen adversaries as a ritual to honor the slain. In a way it's acctually the most efficient funeral rite since it doesn't waste resources....

Hardly what we should be aspiring to as people who want to work towards a society based upon equality, justice, mutual aid and solidarity now is it?Oh well, I guess we just have to wait for the advance of enlightenment socialism to bring civilization to the Paupan barbarians...

Dimentio

5th June 2009, 13:44

No offence if anyone here's one but it seems kinda ignorant and self-destroying. Also quite unobtainable.'

Most people here hate anarcho-primitivism anyway.

The reason why anarcho-primitivism is, is that primmies are so cowardly that they refuse to recognise the implications of their philosophy, preferring to throw vague metaphysical poetical statements about the alienation of civilisation. Anarcho-primitivism is an ideology based on profoundly idealistic overtones.

Thus, it cannot be debated rationally. Primitivists do not debate by thinking in general, but by feeling. And you cannot debate against emotions with rational arguments. That is what makes them so dishonest.

There has never been a wider discrepancy between ideal and reality than in anarcho-primitivism. They claim the "post-industrial neo-hunter gatherer" society will be a progressive utopia where women will rule, everyone would be equal, people will just work four hours a day and everyone will hug everyone and make free love.

In reality, their vision will stipulate the extinction of 99% of the human race.

I actually prefer the misantropic fuck Pentti Linkola. He is a self-declared eco-fascist who wants to go back to the technological level of the 18th century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meMtM6nxQfE

He is entirely open about his intentions of genocide and the consequences of his ideology. He simply does'nt have any qualms about human suffering. I appreciate that he is leaving all cards on the table and is not hiding his opinions behind bizarre tautologies.

Ciao.

welshboy

5th June 2009, 14:06

Am in work atm so not got time to rely in full. Here is an interesting article from today's Independent that talks about a paper published in the latest copy of Science. The paper explains the origins of altruism from an evolutionary standpoint through the near constant state of warfare in primitive humanity, as in pre-agriculture.

Samuel Bowles, of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, said: "Warfare was sufficiently common and lethal among our ancestors to favour the evolution of what I call parochial altruism, a predisposition to be co-operative towards group members and hostile towards outsiders.

Drawing on archaeological data from the Stone Age and ethnographic studies of latter-day tribes of hunter-gatherers, Dr Bowles concluded that it was possible for altruism to have evolved by Darwinian selection – if the warfare was intense enough between competing tribes and there were sufficient genetic differences between these human groups.

He has showed that genetic differences between human groups were indeed greater than previously thought, and that warfare was a near-continual activity that must have shaped early human social behaviour. As a result, altruistic acts of personal sacrifice helped one group to survive in favour of another, he said.

Ruth Mace, an anthropologist at University College London, said Dr Bowles' study went against the accepted idea of the selfish-gene theory which long ago rejected the proposal that natural selection worked at the level of the group rather than the individual.

"Recent literature on social evolution has reopened the debate, arguing that in some circumstances group selection might be important, especially in a cultural species like humans," she said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-what-is-it-good-for-it-made-us-less-selfish-1697321.html

ZeroNowhere

5th June 2009, 18:02

Question, why is alienation bad in all cases except between man and nature?Learning is not stupid and is never pointless, so I shall restrain myself from responding to this.

The reason why anarcho-primitivism is, is that primmies are so cowardly that they refuse to recognise the implications of their philosophy, preferring to throw vague metaphysical poetical statements about the alienation of civilisation.
Eh, I wouldn't say that primmies are cowardly. Annoying, yes, I don't really see much reason to say they're cowardly. I'm fairly sure that most do admit to the implications, and either don't really give a shit about people dying, or just really hate good music.

mel

5th June 2009, 19:13

One criticism I see a lot of primitivism, that, in my mind, is totally invalid, is that primitivism "would result in the death of millions/billions of people". On the contrary, it is the capitalists, who, as the architects of this global society, are totally to blame for any loss of life, human or otherwise, that occurs as contradictions within capitalism worsen. The capitalists willingly plunged into the deep end of irresponsible and irreversable social and agricultural plans, they knew the potential risks, and they took them, because they don't care about anyone's life other than their own. If millions or billions die due to the collapse of the global industrial infastructure, it is no more the anarchist/communist primitivist's fault than it is the parachuteer who notices his comrade's chute has failed to properly deploy.

I know the thread has moved on a bit, but I feel the need to address this statement.

Nobody here is blaming the primitivists for the deaths of all of these people. However, we disagree that these deaths are inevitable. If the deaths are not inevitable, then for a primitivist society to be brought about it would necessitate that the primitivists cause those deaths. Most of us here believe that industrialized society can be simultaneously progressive and environmentally conscious. We believe the earth is more resilient than the primitivists give it credit for, and that if production is environmentally conscious and not wasteful, that we can continue to sustain the sizes of populations that exist on this earth now. Unless you can provide solid evidence that any industrialized society (and not just capitalism) would inevitably cause a complete environmental collapse in which billions of humans died out, we're going to continue trying for a better option than "wait for the inevitable and hope the survivors don't have any shitty ideas about the subjugation of women".

Dimentio

5th June 2009, 19:19

Question, why is alienation bad in all cases except between man and nature?

In what way are human beings alienated from nature? To be alienated from nature is to be alienated from a room. It does'nt make any sense.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th June 2009, 21:12

Primitivism, for me, primarily, revolves around
A) Questioning Marxist dogma regarding the "objective" and "scientific" observation that capitalism has to emerge from feudalism to create the conditions of a truly communist society.

You don't have to be a primmie to question Marxism.

B) Questioning whether a communist society can be "global" (ie: involving simultanious mass-participation of hundreds of thousands or millions if not billions of people in a somehow-democratic and somehow-egalitarian political and economic administration that orchestrates global commodity-production and exchange) and questioning the schemes and visions of even allegedly "libertarian" or "anarchist" communists who think of "communism" as something with central planning.You can question anything, but that doesn't mean those questions are valid.

C) Taking a truly critical look at the social structures imposed by capitalism and whether they are nessecary and beneficial in a hypothetically libertarian society, or whether a hypothetically libertarian society could even exist simultaniously with the economic conditions needed to create and maintain them.
Surely that depends on the social structure in question, does it not? Again, one doesn't have to be a primmie to question such things.

D) Challenging materialism, Newtonianism, Cartesianism, etc. as ideological justifications for capitalist subjugation.I don't think they are justifications for such.

E) Recognizing that the only genuine alternative to nationalism is the tribalism that organically emerges from free association, not an impossible international" proletarian society.I think we should challenge all forms of human in-groups and out-groups, not just nationalism.

F) Preparing for the global catastrophe that will inevitably occur as a result of the contradictions within capitalism. Ie: Autonomism/survivalism rather than syndicalism, parliamentarianism, etc.Inevitably? You make a good case for primitivism being a secular "Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)".

Agrippa

8th June 2009, 00:55

Nobody here is blaming the primitivists for the deaths of all of these people. However, we disagree that these deaths are inevitable.

It's one thing to argue that "the deaths of all these people" is not inevidable. It's another to propose a solution to the problem - a feasable, practical solution - a blueprint for a political and economic system that would produce the means to allow 6-12 billion people to live long, comfortable, egalitarian lives.

To me, the point is moot. Communists have never and never will have the power to create social plans that effect the lives of billions or even hundreds of millions of people. It's time for more realistic goals.

If the deaths are not inevitable, then for a primitivist society to be brought about it would necessitate that the primitivists cause those deaths.

The primitivist society I desire would allow for industrial technology to combat diseases that are largely the consequence of industrial technology (pharmacuticals for anti-bitoci resistant TB, latex condoms for HIV, etc.) Since disease has always been a weapon of colonialism, this scenario would be akin to a "primitivist" community maintaining or even producing automatic weapons to protect themselves from external threats.

Most of us here believe that industrialized society can be simultaneously progressive and environmentally conscious.

It's one thing to believe this. It's another way to demonstrate how, practically considering, industrial society can be organized in an ecologically conscious and politically libertrarian/egalitarian way.

We believe the earth is more resilient than the primitivists give it credit for, and that if production is environmentally conscious and not wasteful, that we can continue to sustain the sizes of populations that exist on this earth now.

It's one thing to profess belief. It's another to demonstrate the fact of one's belief.

This is not nessicarily for the long-term health of the Earth we speak. She, at least once, survived an encounter with a massive meteorite that wiped out 90% of life on her surface. Ironically, my motivations are partly human since I believe industrial civilization is a threat to the survival of the human race.

Unless you can provide solid evidence that any industrialized society (and not just capitalism)

In order for that to happen, I would have to provide evidence for any industrial society that's not capitalist, period. There is no historical precedent for such society. It seems to only exist in the future-thinking minds of Marxists and pro-industry "anarchists".

hope the survivors don't have any shitty ideas about the subjugation of women".

With all due respect, that argument is fatuous. The ruling political factions (not just the current political order but the under-dog rivals like the white nationalists, Islamists, Hindu fascists, etc.) already have the shittiest ideas about the subjugation of women that exist. Anyone who is serious about any Marxist or anarchist ideals is also serious about militant anti-feminism. Regardless of one's stance on industry or technology we can all agree to resist all forms of patriarchal oppression that would attempt to impose themselves on ourselves or our comrades throughout the world.

Agrippa

8th June 2009, 01:07

You don't have to be a primmie to question Marxism.

Yes, but, in my mind, that is somewhat akin to questioning national socialism without addressing the question of racialism.

You can question anything, but that doesn't mean those questions are valid.

Indeed. Feel a desire to debate the subject?

Surely that depends on the social structure in question, does it not?

The point I was getting at is that many forms of anarchist ideology that are "non-primitivist" or "anti-primitivist" believe that any institution that was imposed by capitalist class-rule can be removed from capitalist material motivations. (For example, the transportation system, the medical infastructure, and so on) Primitivsts believe this is impossible

I don't think they are justifications for such.

You're not a primitivist, and likely an atheist/materialist. I am not an athiest as there are very few atheist primitivists. You and have profound ideological differences but in terms of al practical/tactical considerations we are utter allies. I would be happy to discuss religious/philosophical issues, but that is for the appropriate sub-forums of this message board, and under the stipulation that we are doing this for fun and blowing off steam, not waging a serious war against ideological enemies.

I think we should challenge all forms of human in-groups and out-groups, not just nationalism.

To me, this is an absurdity. Why do "all forms" of human relationships need to be challenged? This seems like senseless post-modern nihilism. We can challenge all attempts to impose forms of human relationships, but given so it is my belief that from what is known of human psychology, tribalism will enevidably emerge as a consequence....

Inevitably? You make a good case for primitivism being a secular "Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)".

Keep in mind that orthodox Marxism also points out how the contradictions of capitalism will inevidably exasperate, causing capitalism to "dig [its] own grave". Marxism, unlike Christian millinealism, is rooted in the scientific observation of the world. Marxists observe many things incorrectly, IMHO, but on this observation they are correct.

mel

8th June 2009, 02:01

It's one thing to argue that "the deaths of all these people" is not inevidable. It's another to propose a solution to the problem - a feasable, practical solution - a blueprint for a political and economic system that would produce the means to allow 6-12 billion people to live long, comfortable, egalitarian lives.

Many marxists have done, or at least attempted to do, just that. The basic fact of the matter is that all of this is speculation, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a free society could develop more efficient means of production (and need-based production would, of course, eliminate a lot of the inefficiency which exists in capitalism). When keeping costs low is no longer the primary motivating factor of industry, innovaions will be made to make industrial production run cleaner and greener.

To me, the point is moot. Communists have never and never will have the power to create social plans that effect the lives of billions or even hundreds of millions of people. It's time for more realistic goals.

Says you. If you are going to criticize me for not providing any justifications for my belief, it's ridiculous for you not to hold yourself to the same standard. But to me, the point is moot. Primitivists have never, and will never have the power to create social plans that effect the lives of billions or even hundreds of millions of people. I guess it's a good thing you're sitting around waiting for some "inevitable" apocalyptic situation which will wipe out the vast majority of the earth's population, or you might have to try to come up with a plan for reaching your goals.

The primitivist society I desire would allow for industrial technology to combat diseases that are largely the consequence of industrial technology (pharmacuticals for anti-bitoci resistant TB, latex condoms for HIV, etc.) Since disease has always been a weapon of colonialism, this scenario would be akin to a "primitivist" community maintaining or even producing automatic weapons to protect themselves from external threats.

What?

It's one thing to believe this. It's another way to demonstrate how, practically considering, industrial society can be organized in an ecologically conscious and politically libertrarian/egalitarian way.

There is exhaustive literature on this subject, countless different ideas have been proposed, and I don't really have the time or the space to make this demonstration, but I think it's awfully pessimistic of you to believe that an industrial society cannot be organized in this way.

It's one thing to profess belief. It's another to demonstrate the fact of one's belief.

This is not nessicarily for the long-term health of the Earth we speak. She, at least once, survived an encounter with a massive meteorite that wiped out 90% of life on her surface. Ironically, my motivations are partly human since I believe industrial civilization is a threat to the survival of the human race.

It's one thing to profess belief. It's another to demonstrate the fact of one's belief.

What evidence do you have than any industrial society is necessarily, in principle, ecologically insustainable and in-egalitarian?

In order for that to happen, I would have to provide evidence for any industrial society that's not capitalist, period. There is no historical precedent for such society. It seems to only exist in the future-thinking minds of Marxists and pro-industry "anarchists".

Or you could demonstrate that in principle, an inudstrial society is incapable of being egalitarian and ecologically conscious. However I imagine if you tried you couldn't, because it isn't.

With all due respect, that argument is fatuous. The ruling political factions (not just the current political order but the under-dog rivals like the white nationalists, Islamists, Hindu fascists, etc.) already have the shittiest ideas about the subjugation of women that exist. Anyone who is serious about any Marxist or anarchist ideals is also serious about militant anti-feminism. Regardless of one's stance on industry or technology we can all agree to resist all forms of patriarchal oppression that would attempt to impose themselves on ourselves or our comrades throughout the world.

How do you propose that your primitivist society fight patriarchal influences? There is at least as much evidence for patriarchal and matriarchal primitive societies as for egalitarian ones. You really just have to hope that of the people who remain after your inevitable apocalypse, the majority aren't people who have shitty ideas about the subjigation of others, or else you're in for a bumpy fucking ride.

Agrippa

8th June 2009, 05:36

This forum is called "learning", not "belligerent verbal harassment".

This sort of tangent is totally against the spirit of constructive debate - "I guess it's a good thing you're sitting around waiting for some 'inevitable' apocalyptic situation which will wipe out the vast majority of the earth's population". Considering I've already specifically said that during times of crisis, radicals should try to help others and save their lives, and that certain forms of production pioneered by capitalism should be continued to treat extreme maladies, most of which were brought about by conditions created by capitalism, it's assuming horrible faith to infer that I am "waiting for some 'inevitable' apocalyptic situation which will wipe out the vast majority of the earth's population". What you're doing is demolishing strawmen.

The reason I don't believe communists, (or "primitivists", for that matter) will ever engineer a social scheme that effects the lives of billions of people isn't because I think communists are bad and wrong and hope their political projects fail. The reason is because communism is impossible on a mass-scale. We should be organizing into tight-knit communities of intimate acquaintances (friends, family, neighbors) to preserve and perpetuate our cultural values, create a decentralized infastructure to produce what we need to survive, and intervene directly against capitalism, not dreaming of a messianic rapture in which the masses are miraculously transformed into activist zombies to sieze control of industrial civlilization.

The vast majority will never have political aspirations beyond their basic needs for survival. Communist/libertarian agitators will always be in the minority. You may call this pessimism, but just because something is pessimistic doesn't mean it's wrong.

Furthermore, saying "There is exhaustive literature on this subject" in lieu of argument, without offering me further book reccomendations, or other reading material of any time, seems to serve no purpose to the debate except to boast about how more well-informed you are on the subject than I am. Again, you can say "well clearly if such-and-such happened, industrial society would be green and egalitarian and sustainabile" without providing the math on how the Earth's resources are going to produce the means to give 12 billion people comfortable, middle-class existences. To say "many Marxists" have in the past figured this out, again, without citing any literature, is a waste of our time. If you "don't really have the time or the space to make this demonstration", then don't bother arguing. I understand if you have better things to do, message boards are not that important.

Finally, regarding the claim that "at least as much evidence for patriarchal and matriarchal primitive societies as for egalitarian ones", even if this were true, it's irrelevant. The fact that other people in the past behaved a certain way does not in any way force any choices upon me. I can't control how other people behave after "my" inevitable apocalypse or during any other time, I can only fight for my own agenda. The rest of your point, regarding the "bumpy ride" confronting the millions of people with oppressive, patriarchal agendas, is a fact-of-the-matter that remains unchanged regardless of your stance on industrialism.

I could return you the favor and create some bogus strawman about how you would just dope all the sexists up on pharmaceutical drugs or give them lobotomies once you sieze control of the industrial means of production....as always I think the most reliable form of self-defense against such forces is the well-armed, well-trained commune.