Just read Derrick Jensen's Endgame [Archive]

fa2991

17th August 2010, 23:13

Premises of Endgame
Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.The benefits of industrialization outweigh its failures. Deindustrialization at this point would lead to billions of deaths worldwide. Technological progress is inevitable, rendering nonindustrial societies unsustainable. A rock quickly becomes an arrow becomes a gun becomes a bomb...

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.Your point being...?

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.This is perhaps true of capitalism and statism, but to blame industry is to go to far. Just because the modern industrial set up is violent doesn't mean that industry is violent.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.
:rolleyes: Again, substitute "capitalism" for "civilization" and this is perhaps a truism.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.Again, this is capitalism, not production.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.
Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.How would you destroy civilization without the culture undergoing a "sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?" Random acts of terrorism?

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.Irrelevant.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.Citizens in industrial societies don't count as members of the "natural community"?

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.Was there a point to this paragraph? I couldn't find it.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life. :laugh:

Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.Probably one of the more retarded things I've ever read. This sort of shit prose is the inevitable result when primitivists try to wax philosophic.

Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.Yup.

Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.A lot of posturing and rhetoric, but no actual point, proof, or use.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.How deep. :rolleyes:

Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.People figured that out a while ago, during this little thing called The Enlightenment.

Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.Just ramblings again...

Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.Because there are no benefits to be derived from farming or hydroelectric power...

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.Should say - "within capitalism..."

If the book is anything like those premises, it should be easy to refute. I don't think he made a point or proposed something tangible through that whole thing.

Tatarin

18th August 2010, 00:21

Either you have to believe Jensen or you don't. He makes this very clear; either you accept wholeheartedly all of these premises, or he doesn't want to see you anymore. The biggest bug is that he hasn't proposed a theory, but a text that is to be followed, just like any cult. What's more, there is this movie on archive.org where he talks for like 2 hours, and at one point he discards what he has written in a previous book!

Imagine that. Second, there has never been any discussion or any clear argument as to what he says is wrong. Hell, go to his forum where you have to present yourself before you get into the real discussion (which in turn is only about his premises, any argument gets you banned).

Okay, so sure, he may be headed in the right direction with the urgency of the planet (after all, try making a revolution without air) and the hierarchic system, but there are still big questions as if any of this can work. Yes, the same could be said about communism, but communism has very real chances of working (we already know that previous social-democratic systems with a lot of welfare, and too in psychology, medicine, everything!), but primitivism has to show if it is even worth.

Consider these questions:

1. When industrial civilization collapses, what is there to stop a return to that way of life? How are you going to stop new civilizations from emerging?

2. Why would anyone return to living a hunter-gatherer's life (the level of "civilization" that Jensen proposes)? With knowledge all out in the open (think of all the books on agriculture, astronomy, biology, politics etc., all countries that have books, and all the languages they are written in) - and even in the case that this generation turns it back on that knowledge - what is there to stop future generations from discovering these and using them?

3. "Just leaving" - will that do any good today? What about the nuclear factories and silos? Or all the weapons, swords, grenades, tanks? It seems to me that a collapse would do much more bad than good both short and long term.

So the thing about primitivism is not that it is stupid or a one-man fantasy dream, it is simply impossible to do. I challenge anyone to look at all sides of how primitivism - going from industrial civilization to a hunter-gatherer society, or even "communism in the forrest" - is going to do this. Unless aliens come and make us live in the woods (which is of course the mission of alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe), it is NOT DOABLE.

Ele'ill

18th August 2010, 00:22

I like Derrick Jensen- If I debate in this thread I'd likely get restricted. I'm not a primitivist.

GPDP

18th August 2010, 00:28

I like Derrick Jensen- If I debate in this thread I'd likely get restricted. I'm not a primitivist.

I don't want you getting restricted either, but you gotta admit making such a statement is likely to put a hell of a lot of suspicion on you.

black magick hustla

18th August 2010, 00:30

derrick jensen is garbage but the point of primitivism was not that it is doable but that it is a critique, its meant to be a prognosis about industrial civilization.

The Douche

18th August 2010, 00:38

Ele'ill

18th August 2010, 01:01

I don't want you getting restricted either, but you gotta admit making such a statement is likely to put a hell of a lot of suspicion on you.

I don't like everything he says. I like some of the things he says- not because those things are 'primitivist' or 'jensenist' but because they're pretty close to post-civ anarchism or at least in tune with what I as an anarchist think of the current environmental situation.

I agree with Maldoror- Primitivism is a critique-

Also- I'd wager lots that most primitivists (not the big names but individuals that hold the belief) would jump on board with the technocrats to create some pretty rad stuff or in other words would work with other people after any collapse.

NGNM85

18th August 2010, 02:19

Jensen is a crank.

jake williams

18th August 2010, 02:34

Primitivism is fucked and Derrick Jensen is fucked. I actually forced myself to read A Language Older Than Words, and to be totally honest what it kind of seems to come down to is that he was violently sexually abused by his father, and he explicitly projects that violence to be characteristic of all of modern civilization. If I recall correctly there's at least one passage where he goes on about how violent his father was and explains that that's how the society as a whole works.

Jensen and primitivists generally quite clearly occasionally make accurate, important criticisms of different societies. But at the bottom of it, as was mentioned, it's a religious fundamentalist ideology like any other, worshiping some abstract deity (Mother Nature), refusing to accept that its own ideas fit within the realm of rational inquiry, and associating debate or challenge with heresy.

RaÃºl Duke

18th August 2010, 03:14

I think reading Camate and non-primitivist critiques of civilization can help people to better understand how to integrate this kind of ideas into our critique of modern society.I agree with this.

I mean, I personally think primitivism alla "Let's destroy modern civ and go back to hunter-gather!" is stupid but in a sense they should be examined (if you want, I myself am lazy and will not), for 2 reason (reasons for different folks).

1) Like Cmoney said, some of their critiques may be more or less valid (perhaps you would need to tweak it a bit) and can be incorporated to a more wider critique or theory.

2) If you want to argue against them, you need to know a bit about it before just saying their ideas are crap. fa2991 did a bit of this when he made a breakdown and put his arguments forward. But I seen many posters just say "prmitivism sucks" and that's that (I'm not above to say that I don't enjoy that stuff on occasion; because I do but it gets old and boring). Sure, I mean that's ok if you are preaching to the choir (there are no primitivists here and barely anyone who are "soft on them" here either) but if you ever consider arguing with actual primitivists/anti-civs or people knowledgeable of the theory and perhaps sympathetic than you would need to know their exact ideas/premises.

Animal Farm Pig

18th August 2010, 04:13

Primitive society has worked-- agriculture and settled hierarchical societies are very new if looked at in terms of the whole of human history. Whether primitive society or modern society are "better" is going to vary depending on what you value and what criteria you use for "better."

The question for me is the transition from industrial society to a primitive one. That hasn't been done before. I have a feeling it's going to involve a lot of "depopulation." I think that's the issue that Jensen is tap-dancing around in his "Premise 9." My heart breaks when I think about billions of people dying before their time. This already happens under capitalism, but to pray for the death of billions in order to turn the world into some fucking eco-park for a few.... It makes me sick to my stomach.

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th August 2010, 04:44

He said thinking of fish fucking makes him cry. Do with that what you will.

black magick hustla

18th August 2010, 07:58

for example going on on cammatte, who arguably is the forefather of primitivism as we know it, he started from a left com viewpoint. he was a militant of the international communist party, and after the failure of may 1968 to ignite a revolution, his politics started to change considerably. he concluded that the working class stopped having any anticapitalist character whatsoever, and that it is simply a cog of capitalism. This happened because capitalism becomes anthrophormized and escapes from the hands of subjects i.e. it is a force more powerful and totalitarian that the will of either the working class or the capitalists. capitalism is so omnipotent that even the bourgeosie becomes its subject, to the point that the bourgeosie becomes proletarianized. so the issue at stake is not the working class against capital, but humanity against capital, and it is not socialism or barbarism, but communism or exctinction. capitalism has domesticated man.

fredy perlan, zerzan, etcetera where more or less inspired by camatte. i disagree with these viewpoints but i respect cammatte because he came from a militant background, not from the ranks of enviromental liberals that cry about salmon and ramble about blowing up dams.

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th August 2010, 08:36

for example going on on cammatte, who arguably is the forefather of primitivism as we know it, he started from a left com viewpoint. he was a militant of the international communist party, and after the failure of may 1968 to ignite a revolution, his politics started to change considerably. he concluded that the working class stopped having any anticapitalist character whatsoever, and that it is simply a cog of capitalism. This happened because capitalism becomes anthrophormized and escapes from the hands of subjects i.e. it is a force more powerful and totalitarian that the will of either the working class or the capitalists. capitalism is so omnipotent that even the bourgeosie becomes its subject, to the point that the bourgeosie becomes proletarianized. so the issue at stake is not the working class against capital, but humanity against capital, and it is not socialism or barbarism, but communism or exctinction. capitalism has domesticated man.

I haven't read Camatte, but that paragraph just blew my mind.

Thirsty Crow

18th August 2010, 10:42

Okay, so sure, he may be headed in the right direction with the urgency of the planet (after all, try making a revolution without air) and the hierarchic system, but there are still big questions as if any of this can work. Yes, the same could be said about communism, but communism has very real chances of working (we already know that previous social-democratic systems with a lot of welfare, and too in psychology, medicine, everything!), but primitivism has to show if it is even worth.

Excuse me?
Primitivism cannot sho that it's worthy of people's attention and their wish for change simply because these people (the primitivists) are delusional.

ComradeOm

18th August 2010, 12:44

derrick jensen is garbage but the point of primitivism was not that it is doable but that it is a critique, its meant to be a prognosis about industrial civilization.Yeah, a backwards and reactionary one. Simply accepting something as "a critique" is a cop-out of the highest order. There are countless critiques of modern society out there (one for every political flavour) and most of them are either bullshit or, from a socialist perspective, deeply suspect. I would go further than fa2991, who did well to read through that nonsense, and say that this particular critique, along with most of primitivism, is highly misanthropic and has absolutely no place anywhere in the broad church that is 'the left'

Primitive society has workedWell yes, no one (save perhaps Fomenko et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%2828Fomenko%29)) has suggested that pre-capitalist society did not exist or was not viable (at the time). What the vast majority of sane people believe however is that life in industrial societies (ie, those with running water, modern medicine, consistent food sources, electrical lights, etc, etc) is significantly "better" than life without. Honestly I don't see how - besides completely disregarding human needs and living standards - this can be argued. Primitivism only become attractive when one defines "better" in terms of environmental, not humanist, concerns

To tie this back in with the above, Premise 8 is not just "irrelevant", as fa2991 suggests, but deeply dangerous. The idea that we elevate the 'needs' of "the natural world" (which, again noted by fa2991, apparently does not include urban citizens) above those of human society is simply crazy. This would entail turning the clock back centuries to return to an 'economic system' based on subsistence farming and mass deprivation. I do worry about people who are fine with all this but then get cold feet about the mechanics of mass "depopulation"

nuisance

18th August 2010, 13:12

ComradeOm

18th August 2010, 13:45

Vanguard1917

18th August 2010, 13:49

It's ashame that most peoples critiques of Jensen appear to be- 'OMG he's a primivist ain't he?

Not on this forum.

The Douche

18th August 2010, 14:07

Out of curiosity, how is one to berate Jensen for being a primitivist or espousing primitivist 'critiques', which I don't really think is in question here, without mentioning that he is a primitivist or is espousing primitivist 'critiques'?

But please, feel free to step up and defend the man. Its a shame that no one has really been willing to do so beyond stating that its a 'critique' rather than a programme

Jensen's comparison of modern civlilization to an abusive relationship, using the textbook standards and definitions of what an abusive relationship is (according to the medical community) is absolutely brilliant.

His position is mainly correct, that industrial civilization is oppressive. It is impossible to deny. How is our world not based on the exploitation of the earth's natural resources and non-human animals? The question is not if that is true, but if that bothers you. And Jensen is the last person anybody who is not a primitivist should read, he doesn't write to convince you of primitive thought, he writes to inspire/justify taking action.

The left has nobody of his capability or serving his function.

Am I a primitivist, no I don't think so, do I see value in Jensen's work? Absolutely, because it makes me question what emancipatory politics really means.

nuisance

18th August 2010, 14:30

Out of curiosity, how is one to berate Jensen for being a primitivist or espousing primitivist 'critiques', which I don't really think is in question here, without mentioning that he is a primitivist or is espousing primitivist 'critiques'?
I'm slating the knee-jerk anti-primivitism that is prevalent in leftist circles. Their appears to be a culture of anti-primivitism that is based upon ill-informed assertions which by proxy neglects any potenial insightful or interesting ideas that an author of the tradition is trying to communicate through their work. The exponents of primivitism are making different points, so presenting a naff rubbishing of the current they're from just doesn't quite cut it, for me.
Basically for someone to formulate a decent critique of a theorist or a work, then the person should have atleast read it and not based it upon some assertions made against primivitism as awhole and hold it as completely applicable to the piece presented.

But please, feel free to step up and defend the man. Its a shame that no one has really been willing to do so beyond stating that its a 'critique' rather than a programme
Haven't read enough Jensen to know, or more importantly care.

Vanguard1917

18th August 2010, 19:25

Jensen's comparison of modern civlilization to an abusive relationship, using the textbook standards and definitions of what an abusive relationship is (according to the medical community) is absolutely brilliant.

What's 'brilliant' about it? It's not remotely similar. Industry means utilising nature for human ends. It's an overall positive thing. (For example, if you had been living in a pre-industrial society, there is a strong likelihood that you would currently be dead -- what with life expectancy being around 30 and it being very common for children to die before reaching adulthood.)

There is, in stark contrast, nothing positive about domestic violence. And there is nothing whatsoever progressive or leftwing about the nonsense of the likes of Derrick Jensen.

Vanguard1917

18th August 2010, 19:42

I'm slating the knee-jerk anti-primivitism that is prevalent in leftist circles.

Some Marxists (the relatively few who have not as yet completely capitulated to each strain of eco-ideology) criticise 'primitivism' because it is nothing short of antithetical and diametrically opposed to everything which Marxism believes in.

bots

18th August 2010, 20:51

The benefits of industrialization outweigh its failures. Deindustrialization at this point would lead to billions of deaths worldwide. Technological progress is inevitable, rendering nonindustrial societies unsustainable. A rock quickly becomes an arrow becomes a gun becomes a bomb...

Is technological progress really inevitable? People lived hundreds of thousands of years in a "primitive" state. Historically civilization is the anomaly and really only became dominant through the oppression of the "non-civilized". Your example of historical progress (rock becomes bomb) is pretty telling in this regard.

It is hard to deny that people worked less (very good research points to hunter-gatherers working roughly four hours a day to secure the necessities for survival), warfare was almost non-existent or symbolic, and ecological sustainability wasn't even an issue. Now most people work the majority of their lives, warfare is constant, and we are facing environmental apocalypse. Lifespans may have been shorter in some instances, but is the fear of individual death really a good motivator for allowing the oceans to be vacuumed, continents to be deforested, etc?

The question as to whether or not we can "go back" is quickly being answered for us as oil production has peaked and there are no foreseeable energy miracles which would allow the continuance of industrial civilization in sight.

NOTE: I am playing Socrates here. I am studying electronics engineering and am pretty happy living with the comforts of modern life, even if I can see the world burning around me.

bots

18th August 2010, 22:01

What we need is communism for a way to satisfy human needs without destroying the environment

I agree, but the societies that have professed their desire for communism and have moved towards it with socialism have been some of the most ecologically destructive societies on earth. So I'd ask the question: what has to change? Has the problem of sustainability been addressed by the communist movement, or is it more of the same religion with different gods?

black magick hustla

19th August 2010, 00:20

Yeah, a backwards and reactionary one. Simply accepting something as "a critique" is a cop-out of the highest order. There are countless critiques of modern society out there (one for every political flavour) and most of them are either bullshit or, from a socialist perspective, deeply suspect. I would go further than fa2991, who did well to read through that nonsense, and say that this particular critique, along with most of primitivism, is highly misanthropic and has absolutely no place anywhere in the broad church that is 'the left'

well, as i said before, i dont really like jensen. i dont really care about animals or trees or for godsake, fish. i do care about my brothers and sisters being subject to mental illnesses that did not exist before the advent capitalist work ethic. i do care when alienated and bullied kids shoot people in the school. a critique of civilization was made precisely because of this. while i do not condone the destruction of techology (indeed a picture a future world where science is used as a liberatory tool), i can understand where someone like cammatte is coming from. the advent of a future primitive is not for me or anybody who holds a new world in their heart (dreamers are the expansion of the universe, not the adoration of its collapse) but there is something mildly nauseating when people get heart attacks from stress, or when time is divided into the microsecond to ensure the efficiency of work. fuck that shit

Tatarin

19th August 2010, 00:21

The question for me is the transition from industrial society to a primitive one. That hasn't been done before.

Primitivists seem to hope that some sort of collapse of society will inevitably lead to this. As of now it is the peak oil theory that is prevalent, thus no oil = no civilization. Then we can fantasize about a future nuclear war, deadly viruses, and so on.

And once again, even if someone destroys civilization alltogether - what is there to stop future humans from rebuilding it? Because that will happen. I mean, would anyone be a socialist if capitalism inevitably would return (in a future global socialist society), no matter what happened?

This already happens under capitalism, but to pray for the death of billions in order to turn the world into some fucking eco-park for a few.... It makes me sick to my stomach.

And it is one of the reasons not to dwell in primitivism. Hell, come over and fight for communism instead, then when we win you can establish your own garden somewhere and live clothed or naked! :D

Primitivism cannot sho that it's worthy of people's attention and their wish for change simply because these people (the primitivists) are delusional.

I was a little unclear, my apologies.

What I was trying to say is that you can "foresee" how communism would work. In all aspects of human life - biological, technological, psychological, everything - would become a lot better if humans lived in cooperation rather than in competition. Studies have shown this 100 years ago, and 100 miliseconds ago. Social democracy as it was in the mid-20th century, as well as some aspects of the Soviet system (education, health care, housing) have shown this, and some even consider Cuba today. We have positive results in what direction we should be heading in.

However, primitivism does not. It hopes that billions die so that some can live in the woods, and in that case for their own selfish wants. They do not explain to us why they think civilization will not return, or why all survivors of "the crash" would become hunter-gatherers. To short it down; Derrick Jensen wants to live in the woods, and if you like his books, then you should help him do that.

Is technological progress really inevitable? People lived hundreds of thousands of years in a "primitive" state. Historically civilization is the anomaly and really only became dominant through the oppression of the "non-civilized".

It is a logical following: it is easier to grow food in one place than to hunt all day for it. It is easier to have clean water where you live rather than walking miles to get it. To make things easier also means technological inventions: plows and sewage, roofs, doors, axes etc. Maybe you won't, but many other people will. To get back to a primitive state we would also have to lose intelligence.

How can civilization be an anomaly? The whole Eurasian landmass developed civilization, the conditions were there. It's not like civilization developed with exotic materials or by the help of space aliens - we did it, with tree and stone and axes and beer. Metal wasn't an anomaly, oil wasn't, I mean, the very building blocks of civilization is here on this planet. No one gave it to us, and we didn't take it from somewhere else.

I mean, the primitivists want to save the planet by destroying one of the planet's own productions: humanity! If there is anyone to blame for evil civilization, blame the earth itself. Blame evolution for creating intelligence in the first place (what the hell do organisms need these kinds of brains for???).

Now most people work the majority of their lives, warfare is constant, and we are facing environmental apocalypse.

But you are aware that you must persuade every single human on this world? How will you stop, say, the Brazilian Empire when everyone else has turned it's back on technological civilization? Why do you want primitivism when civilization inevitably will return?

The question as to whether or not we can "go back" is quickly being answered for us as oil production has peaked and there are no foreseeable energy miracles which would allow the continuance of industrial civilization in sight.

The question of peak oil is still in the air. You should really ask yourself if the ruling classes would allow such a global collapse to happen. And it is not true that civilization wouldn't continue - would it be poorer? Maybe. But again, we know how to build castles, ships, swords, arrows - follow me? The same constructions that require stone, wood and metal, all of which are plenty.

I'm not so trusting of the peak oilers too, because they speak of an "oil collapse" as if it were the end of humanity, which I find very hard to believe. Again, the ruling class is not that stupid that it would let something on this scale happen (I mean, they've been engaged in relentless class-war since time immemorial), and they do have the power to make society change "the fuel".

Besides, oil isn't the only energy source. Recently, a political party (the Center Party) in Sweden changed it's stance on using nuclear fuel, something that that particular party has been known to be strongly against. It now rules with the right-wing alliance. Could that be a clue?

I agree, but the societies that have professed their desire for communism and have moved towards it with socialism have been some of the most ecologically destructive societies on earth.

Were they, or is that what you have been told? I'm not saying that they were the most ecologically minded governments of all time, but compare them to capitalism and you will find the latter more destructive than anything else.

So I'd ask the question: what has to change? Has the problem of sustainability been addressed by the communist movement, or is it more of the same religion with different gods?

It is a question of human society. When humans live good lives, the environment do too. When humans live a bad life, the environment suffers. The way out is to destroy all humans, or make their lives better. I am not the one that is on the destroying human side.

Primitivists propose a way through an imaginal collapse that may never happen, and if it does, isn't necessarily the doomsday ending we see in movies all the time. And even if it is, there are no safeguards against a return to civilization. A return to a world that has history books filled with how to wage war and about technological innovation, which means that you would have to destroy knowledge too.

The communist movement has very real backing with examples in real life and in history, primitivism is just a dream that has such a small chance of succeeding that you have a bigger chance being picked up by Darth Vader on the street behind your own house.

meow

19th August 2010, 10:42

no sensible person is true primitivist. that is no sensible person wishes death for billions and believes that we must go back to before farming or industry.

but many sensible person agree with critique of capitalism and civilization presented by primitivists. so long as the premise are clarified and clearly explained. which the ones in the start of thread are not.

what is civilization in those paragraph? it not defined.

ComradeOm

19th August 2010, 14:11

Is technological progress really inevitable?No, its been knocked back before. We tend to call that period the 'Dark Ages'. Its a relatively inaccurate term but it does capture the despair and misery that accompanied the retardation of 'civilisation' and the fall back to more primitive and brutal social forms. Wasn't pretty

So the question becomes whether technological progress is desirable. I don't know what sort of person would say no

It is hard to deny that people worked less (very good research points to hunter-gatherers working roughly four hours a day to secure the necessities for survival)...Anyone who says this is speculating at best. We have only the roughest knowledge of the average hours worked a few centuries ago (largely culled from the precious few accounts of daily life that survive) and its ludicrous to expect to know, down to the hour, what the 'working day' was tens of thousands of years ago. Particularly when we have no documentation to corroborate any guesses

What we do know is that nutritional intake has been steadily improving for centuries (the most obvious indicator being increasing average height) and that progress has banished, for the first time in human history, the spectre of famine in those societies that industrialised. The benefits of providing a consistent food supply (in relative terms, to a staggeringly huge number of people) cannot be overstated. We talk of smallpox and medicine (see below) but the often overlooked abolition of the spectre of famine in industrial societies remains one of mankind's greatest triumphs

...warfare was almost non-existent or symbolic...Largely because there was nothing to fight over

Lifespans may have been shorter in some instances..."In some cases"? "May have been shorter"? I'll correct this for you - "Lifespans were significant shorter for everyone"

Really, where do people get this from? Tell you what, the next time you have to go to the dentist, catch an easily curable/preventable disease, receive a wound, take a sip of clean water, feel your eyesight faltering, or have to give birth... well then you can thank modern industrial society for prolonging your life. And these are just some of the obvious benefits

...but is the fear of individual death really a good motivator for allowing the oceans to be vacuumed, continents to be deforested, etc?If it comes down to balancing human life against deforestation then I will support the former every time. Wouldn't you?

The question as to whether or not we can "go back" is quickly being answered for us as oil production has peaked and there are no foreseeable energy miracles which would allow the continuance of industrial civilization in sight.People are still talking about peak oil? I thought that fad had peaked (no pun intended) three or four years ago. Its old enough that Redstar could lambast it (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory0da0.html?subaction=showfull&id=1137356923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

NOTE: I am playing Socrates here. I am studying electronics engineering and am pretty happy living with the comforts of modern life, even if I can see the world burning around me.That's not burning, that's the electric light. You know, that energy consuming monstrosity that banishes the darkness? The next time you go out after sunset you can thank Thomas Edison and the Industrial Revolution

The Douche

19th August 2010, 17:24

Os Cangaceiros

19th August 2010, 17:36

ComradeOm

19th August 2010, 17:58

Is the earth a living organism? Trees, plants, animals, etc? Civilization is based on the subjugation of everything. Communists want to end the subjugation of the working-class, people who subscribe to anti-civ positions want to end the subjugation of everything.

Communism is not a world free of exploitation, its just not. Its a world free of human exploitation. So you have to decide which side you're on. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that those are the sides when you look at primitivism vs communism.This is a good point. Essentially the primitivist critique of 'civilisation' is not only lacking from but entirely alien to communism, and Marxism in particular, which are still essentially products of the Enlightenment and 19th C positivism. This is further reinforced by the close relationship with working class struggles over the past century and a half. The idea that trees or fish are exploited, or should even be considered on par with actual workers, really makes no sense within this paradigm

Swap 'capitalism' for 'civilisation', as fa2991 does, and there is some common ground but a critique of 'civilisation' itself? That just doesn't fit. Never mind the idea that civilisation entails 'subjugation' or, heaven forbid, 'exploitation'. Which is one reason why I really struggle to understand the mindset of those who sincerely believe that the 'rights' of Mother Earth (or the environment or whatever) can even be considered alongside real oppression

black magick hustla

19th August 2010, 19:09

well civilization is class society. the advent of civilization more or less correlated with the advent of the division of labor and therefore class stratification.

bots

19th August 2010, 19:38

It is a logical following: it is easier to grow food in one place than to hunt all day for it. It is easier to have clean water where you live rather than walking miles to get it. To make things easier also means technological inventions: plows and sewage, roofs, doors, axes etc. Maybe you won't, but many other people will. To get back to a primitive state we would also have to lose intelligence.

Hm, something about this reminds me of the "communism is against human nature" argument, which is to say it is a form of the begging the question fallacy.

For instance it could be argued that the Plains Indians had a much easier life than the average worker. This is especially true of third world workers. This would seem to contradict the statement that technology makes things easier. I'm sure it's not that simple but it does illustrate that it is not such an either/or issue.

How can civilization be an anomaly? The whole Eurasian landmass developed civilization, the conditions were there. It's not like civilization developed with exotic materials or by the help of space aliens - we did it, with tree and stone and axes and beer. Metal wasn't an anomaly, oil wasn't, I mean, the very building blocks of civilization is here on this planet. No one gave it to us, and we didn't take it from somewhere else.

The whole Eurasian landmass didn't immediately develop civilization. Civilization emerged in the Middle East and then spread to the rest of the world by force and conquest.

I mean, the primitivists want to save the planet by destroying one of the planet's own productions: humanity! If there is anyone to blame for evil civilization, blame the earth itself. Blame evolution for creating intelligence in the first place (what the hell do organisms need these kinds of brains for???).

I've used this argument before and taken it further. What if the earth evolved a sentient life form in order to spread the seeds of life throughout the universe? What if we are supposed to destroy the earth in our quest to become interstellar life bringers like a seed bursts from the pod? This is of course speculation and not an argument at all. Also I don't think Derrick Jensen wants to destroy humanity. He doesn't think humanity = civilization (and neither do I really). He thinks humanity can live as a holistic part of the biosphere without the destructive civilization tendency.

But you are aware that you must persuade every single human on this world? How will you stop, say, the Brazilian Empire when everyone else has turned it's back on technological civilization? Why do you want primitivism when civilization inevitably will return?

What stopped indigenous people from developing advanced technological civilization? Why didn't the indigenous peoples of Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, etc, develop unsustainable agriculture and cities? Why has it been necessary throughout history for the civilized to impose civilization on the uncivilized?

The question of peak oil is still in the air. You should really ask yourself if the ruling classes would allow such a global collapse to happen. And it is not true that civilization wouldn't continue - would it be poorer? Maybe. But again, we know how to build castles, ships, swords, arrows - follow me? The same constructions that require stone, wood and metal, all of which are plenty.

Build me a computer. Or even just a single transistor. It's pretty tricky without an incredibly specialized workforce relying on an incredibly efficient energy source. Sure if civilization collapsed we could still build boats and arrows, but I wouldn't necessarily call that civilization. Civilization doesn't equal technology. Also I really don't know what the ruling classes would "allow". From what I can tell they are insane.

I'm not so trusting of the peak oilers too, because they speak of an "oil collapse" as if it were the end of humanity, which I find very hard to believe. Again, the ruling class is not that stupid that it would let something on this scale happen (I mean, they've been engaged in relentless class-war since time immemorial), and they do have the power to make society change "the fuel".Besides, oil isn't the only energy source. Recently, a political party (the Center Party) in Sweden changed it's stance on using nuclear fuel, something that that particular party has been known to be strongly against. It now rules with the right-wing alliance. Could that be a clue?

Yes, you're right. Nuclear is probably the best bet at this point.

Were they, or is that what you have been told? I'm not saying that they were the most ecologically minded governments of all time, but compare them to capitalism and you will find the latter more destructive than anything else.

Five year plans, Chernobyl, extreme reliance on oil, etc. I don't think there is much of a difference between the environmental views of the capitalist and socialist countries. Any information you could point out to the contrary would be appreciated.

It is a question of human society. When humans live good lives, the environment do too. When humans live a bad life, the environment suffers. The way out is to destroy all humans, or make their lives better. I am not the one that is on the destroying human side.

Strawman.

No, its been knocked back before. We tend to call that period the 'Dark Ages'. Its a relatively inaccurate term but it does capture the despair and misery that accompanied the retardation of 'civilisation' and the fall back to more primitive and brutal social forms. Wasn't pretty

From the perspective of the onward march of civilization those were the Dark Ages, though for all purposes the people then were still civilized so this is not the best example.

So the question becomes whether technological progress is desirable. I don't know what sort of person would say no

Civilization does not equal technological progress.

Anyone who says this is speculating at best. We have only the roughest knowledge of the average hours worked a few centuries ago (largely culled from the precious few accounts of daily life that survive) and its ludicrous to expect to know, down to the hour, what the 'working day' was tens of thousands of years ago. Particularly when we have no documentation to corroborate any guesses

You do know that there are still tribes in the world who live an uncivilized life? We have empirical data as to how these people live.

What we do know is that nutritional intake has been steadily improving for centuries (the most obvious indicator being increasing average height) and that progress has banished, for the first time in human history, the spectre of famine in those societies that industrialised. The benefits of providing a consistent food supply (in relative terms, to a staggeringly huge number of people) cannot be overstated. We talk of smallpox and medicine (see below) but the often overlooked abolition of the spectre of famine in industrial societies remains one of mankind's greatest triumphs

Except when wheat production is demolished due to wildfires and landslides that can be attributed to global warming and deforestation. Maybe we've hit peak food production too?

Largely because there was nothing to fight over

This really only proves the point I was trying to make.

Ele'ill

20th August 2010, 01:22

I'll participate in this thread if I can get word from an admin or mod that I will not be re-restricted.

Tatarin

20th August 2010, 02:08

Communism is not a world free of exploitation, its just not. Its a world free of human exploitation. So you have to decide which side you're on. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that those are the sides when you look at primitivism vs communism.

Well, since humans are already here, it's a pretty good idea to fight with them instead of against them, right? Basically, this forum is all about ending human exploitation.

For instance it could be argued that the Plains Indians had a much easier life than the average worker. This is especially true of third world workers.

Sure - ask any third world worker to choose the indian life or the current life, and most of them would probably choose to live the indian one. Okay, but how do we get there? By destroying civilization, which is such a huge undertaking, which will at best provide "primitive life" for a short period before a return to civilization, and in a process where most of those workers would in all probability die? Or to change the current society into serving those workers?

Revolutions all over the world have shown that it is possible - at least that part. Collapses of progress, and civilization, have only resulted in destruction and starvation.

This would seem to contradict the statement that technology makes things easier. I'm sure it's not that simple but it does illustrate that it is not such an either/or issue.

You are blaming technology for the ills of the workers. As technology can not think by itself, at least yet, how can it be the oppressor? And technology has made things easier, just not for everyone.

The whole Eurasian landmass didn't immediately develop civilization. Civilization emerged in the Middle East and then spread to the rest of the world by force and conquest.

And once again - what is there to stop this from happening again?

I've used this argument before and taken it further. What if the earth evolved a sentient life form in order to spread the seeds of life throughout the universe? What if we are supposed to destroy the earth in our quest to become interstellar life bringers like a seed bursts from the pod? This is of course speculation and not an argument at all.

But it is surely something especially primitivists can't deny: why are there humans? Why isn't the intelligence of the dolphin enough? If humans are a product of the earth, then surely human development must be a part of this very human nature? Or would this mean that "nature", as it stands, is not a complete system and can evolve anomalies even hurtful to itself?

Also I don't think Derrick Jensen wants to destroy humanity. He doesn't think humanity = civilization (and neither do I really). He thinks humanity can live as a holistic part of the biosphere without the destructive civilization tendency.

Maybe he doesn't want to, but run a scenario through your head of a collapse and everything that would result in primitivism, what would that mean for the billions of people alive now?

What stopped indigenous people from developing advanced technological civilization? Why didn't the indigenous peoples of Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, etc, develop unsustainable agriculture and cities? Why has it been necessary throughout history for the civilized to impose civilization on the uncivilized?

Asia, Europe and the south Americas (you'd think they have it warm enough not to build civilization compared to the north) did develop civilization. The pyramids, perhaps, in Egypt? No one imposed it on them. That the Europeans happened to impose their way of life, belief and culture is the play of dice, no one can control that. Make the Chinese turn their ship left instead of right 1540 years ago, and we'd be sitting whining about them today.

Sure if civilization collapsed we could still build boats and arrows, but I wouldn't necessarily call that civilization. Civilization doesn't equal technology.

So you're saying civilization is about 100 years old? Because that would be about the time we'd be living in in a collapse scenario. Okay, make it 200 or 300 years back. That's still at a time where little UK had dominion over the earth. That wasn't civilization?

Also I really don't know what the ruling classes would "allow". From what I can tell they are insane.

Maybe insane, but they're not crazy, they know what they are doing. A collapse would also mean a collapse of their own wealth, of their control. If their wealth is their number one priority now, fighting workers at all times (directly and indirectly), you don't think they mind their own survival?

Five year plans, Chernobyl, extreme reliance on oil, etc. I don't think there is much of a difference between the environmental views of the capitalist and socialist countries. Any information you could point out to the contrary would be appreciated.

There haven't been any socialist countries (that is, countries where the workers have direct control over the means of production), so obviously there is no proof. There is proof that Europe, a continent where most countries have strong welfare compared to Asia and the Americas, is also the very same place where the environment fares better.

ComradeOm

20th August 2010, 11:45

I'll participate in this thread if I can get word from an admin or mod that I will not be re-restricted. Why should there be exemptions from the rules?

well civilization is class society. the advent of civilization more or less correlated with the advent of the division of labor and therefore class stratification.One does not follow from the other. That the origins of civilisation (in the classical sense) follow, not coincide with, that of the division of labour does not necessarily mean that civilisation itself is dependent on class divisions. But to go further you'd have to define civilisation

Civilization does not equal technological progressNo, but it is underpinned by it. It is impossible to imagine a hunter-gather society in possession of, for example, laboratories capable of producing anti-malarial drugs. Implicit in Jensen's writings, and pretty explicitly so in that of other primitivists, is the essentially the abolition of all technological progress since the first Agricultural Revolution. You cannot have it both ways - technology gave rise to 'civilisation' and the abolition of 'civilisation' entails an end to technological progress and a great leap back into the dark

You do know that there are still tribes in the world who live an uncivilized life? We have empirical data as to how these people liveI'd be interested in seeing your sources on these exceptionally rare cares. Although I'm sure you've got a whole list of reasons as to why they are rare in the first place

Except when wheat production is demolished due to wildfires and landslides that can be attributed to global warming and deforestation. Maybe we've hit peak food production too?"And I looked, as he opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black as sackcloth. And the moon became as blood"

This is exactly the sort of scaremongering that is so rife today. What on earth makes you think that food production has peaked? The claim/question is absolutely baseless, as is the idea that wildfires and mudslides are about to sweep the world's agricultural regions. You've been watching too many Roland Emmerich films

But then the idea of a vengeful Mother Earth is central to primitivism. The idea that industrial society is inevitably doomed (through cancer or the ozone layer or peak oil or global warming or whatever the current fad is) runs through both primitivism and Jensen's beliefs. This boogeyman is necessary because no one sane would seriously dismantle modern industrial society. Hence the need for an inevitable and irreversible breakdown to justify these misanthropic and reactionary policies (or critiques)

This really only proves the point I was trying to makeThat a complete lack of material possessions is a good thing?

Communists aspire to create a classless society because we believe that it is one of abundance - there is no need for conflict when everyone has more than enough to satisfy themselves. Primitivists advocate the polar opposite - a society in which material goods (along with modern technology) are simply not available to fight over. What a miserable existence that would be. At least it would be short :glare:

Vanguard1917

20th August 2010, 13:30

It is impossible to imagine a hunter-gather society in possession of, for example, laboratories capable of producing anti-malarial drugs. Implicit in Jensen's writings, and pretty explicitly so in that of other primitivists, is the essentially the abolition of all technological progress since the first Agricultural Revolution. You cannot have it both ways - technology gave rise to 'civilisation' and the abolition of 'civilisation' entails an end to technological progress and a great leap back into the dark

Good point. But it is pretty comical that it has to even be made on a forum for 'revoultionary leftists'.

Ele'ill

21st August 2010, 04:22

Why should there be exemptions from the rules?

There are quite a few primitivists on this forum that are unrestricted- you would likely consider them comrades.

Edit- perhaps not primitivists but individuals that identify with the environmental urgency that primitivism highlights to a degree.

The exemptions from the rules would apply to a thread created about a group that isn't allowed on the forum- when the chatter in that thread is either dishonest or not entirely accurate.

I am not a primitivists and have never been- but I agree with a lot of what's said by certain primitivists.

chegitz guevara

21st August 2010, 05:49

Can someone just shoot Jensen and put him out of our misery? And why aren't primitivists off living in the jungle, naked? Why must stupid people continue to bother me?

The Douche

21st August 2010, 06:20

Can someone just shoot Jensen and put him out of our misery? And why aren't primitivists off living in the jungle, naked? Why must stupid people continue to bother me?

Why aren't primitivists living in the jungle? I dunno, why don't you move to cuba?:rolleyes:

NGNM85

21st August 2010, 06:47

I find it very amusing, and very telling, that primativists have such a sizeable, and thriving internet community.

The Douche

21st August 2010, 06:51

I find it very amusing, and very telling, that primativists have such a sizeable, and thriving internet community.

Amusing like communists supporting capitalism with their money?:rolleyes:

bcbm

21st August 2010, 08:36

life in industrial societies (ie, those with running water, modern medicine, consistent food sources, electrical lights, etc, etc) is significantly "better" than life without.

historically few industrial cities met your criteria until relatively recently and even today there are billions of people living in societies that would not be industrial by your definition but are essential to the now global industrial society.

Honestly I don't see how - besides completely disregarding human needs and living standards - this can be argued.humans needs and living standards are today not being met for more people than existed on the planet during the industrial revolution.

Primitivism only become attractive when one defines "better" in terms of environmental, not humanist, concernsi don't see how environmental concerns are not humanist concerns; look at the impact on human beings in areas of intense industrial pollution. not that this makes primitivism attractive but i think it does mean looking at some of the questions primitivism presents.

The idea that industrial society is inevitably doomed (through cancer or the ozone layer or peak oil or global warming or whatever the current fad is) runs through both primitivism and Jensen's beliefs. This boogeyman is necessary because no one sane would seriously dismantle modern industrial society.i don't think anyone sane can look at the current global situation and think everything is going well. in the struggle to achieve a world that isn't shit i think dismantling modern industrial society will almost certainly be necessary, which doesn't mean to destroy it but an almost complete transformation of production and much else.

meow

21st August 2010, 09:03

many people are primitivist for "human" reasons. some people say "civilization" causes many problems for all people. technology causes more problems then it solves.

so for those people it is not environment reason to oppose "civilization".

ComradeOm

21st August 2010, 12:06

I am not a primitivists and have never been- but I agree with a lot of what's said by certain primitivistsFunny that, there are a lot of people in this thread who agree with ("certain") primitivists, who think there's a lot of worth to primitivist critiques, are willing to defend much of primitivism, but are suddenly eager to remind everyone that they're not a primitivist (promise). I wonder what a cynic would make of this

As I said earlier - I don't understand the sort of people who nod along with primitivism and its critiques until the get to the mass 'depopulation' part. If alarm bells have not been ringing long before this (say, when someone argues that a return to hunter-gather or medieval society is a good thing) then there is something badly wrong with them

And I'll consider someone a comrade right up until the point they start advocating the mass immiseration of the working class

historically few industrial cities met your criteria until relatively recently and even today there are billions of people living in societies that would not be industrial by your definition but are essential to the now global industrial society.I don't see the relevance of the first part. As for the second, yes there are vast areas of the globe that have not being industrialised. The reaction of communists is not to applaud them for their misery and lack of economic development but to work against the capitalist system that prevents them from advancing. It is capitalism, not industry itself, that insists that over half the world remains destitute

humans needs and living standards are today not being met for more people than existed on the planet during the industrial revolutionItself a testament to progress - there were less than a billion people on this planet before a host of advances unleashed by the Industrial Revolution (most notably in medicine and agriculture) allowed for vastly greater population levels to be sustained. And to invert your argument, there are many more people alive today enjoying relatively high (compared to medieval times) living standards than existed on the planet during the Industrial Revolution

And of course even this one billion comprised sedimentary agricultural societies. Take these away, ie revert to hunter-gather societies, and you're down to a few tens of millions

i don't see how environmental concerns are not humanist concernsIts simple: humanism is concerned with human welfare; environmentalism is concerned with the environment. Is there some overlapping? Yes, humans are also part of the environment, this much is obvious. But the focus of both schools is completely different. Environmental concerns only impinge on humanistic philosophies to the extent that environmental damage can detrimentally impact human society. So the humanist is more than happy to make the trade off with 'environmental exploitation' if it benefits human society

Which is why I have some time for environmentalism (particularly the localised stuff) but none for primitivism. We can all agree that a sustainable economy is a good thing (while differing on the importance that should be attached to it) but primitivism is an inherently anti-humanist ideology because it condemns any 'exploitation' that might benefit actual people, with Jensen actually comparing this 'exploitation' to that of an abusive relationship. So fuck humanity, fuck the needs of people to live and enjoy life; people should die, people should live short miserable lives; all so that we can say that we put Earth first

And they're right. If your concern is the environment (excluding that human part of it for some reason) then humanity really is a scourge. We should get rid of it or at least throw it back to prehistory. Genocide becomes the ideal environmental solution. I'm not even going to bother drawing the comparison with humanism but I think we can both see that these are not one and the same - that environmental concerns are not necessarily humanist concerns

i don't think anyone sane can look at the current global situation and think everything is going wellWell that of course depends on your vantage point. If you were a 17th C peasant I'd imagine you'd think that a society in which you'll probably live to 70, have access to a constant food supply, the ability to talk to people across the world at any time, and generally more material comfort than you could imagine... well you'd think that things were going pretty sweet at the moment

Conversely, if you were a peasant or worker in China and India and you looked to the West and saw the standard of living enjoyed by those living in industrial societies, you'd definitely agree that things weren't going well but not for the reasons that you yourself might imagine. 'Exploitation' in the real world, be in a hamlet near Kolkata or a factory floor in Pittsburgh, is very different from what Jensen et al knows. The reason that things are not "going well" is because of capitalism, not 'civilisation'

But while I don't want to get into 'proler-than-thou' mode, I do think that perspective is important here. I'm the first generation of my family to be raised as a 'townie' so my family has very acute memories of the hardships, experienced only fifty years ago, of peasant life in Ireland. There is a real appreciation for not having an outhouse, not having to walk several miles to school/work, not having to sleep five to a room, having more than one TV for the entire village, being only an hour's drive from the capital via the motorway, etc, etc. So to people who suggest that we'd be better off without technology, that there's no such thing as economic progress, or that we should stop 'exploiting' the environment in favour of ignoring the real needs of the people... fuck that

in the struggle to achieve a world that isn't shit i think dismantling modern industrial society will almost certainly be necessary, which doesn't mean to destroy it but an almost complete transformation of production and much else. Transformation yes. The workers shall control the means of production, blah blah blah. If you think that this entails dismantling modern industry then you are mistaken. Industry has to be reorganised, made more efficient, but not abolished

Dimentio

21st August 2010, 12:44

It's ashame that most peoples critiques of Jensen appear to be- 'OMG he's a primivist ain't he? Oh! I must disagree with that!' Then we're presented with some half arsed ramble that's supposed to indictate that Jensen is actually the idiot in the equation.

I don't think he's an idiot for being an anti-civilisationist anarchist. I think he is a skilled public speaker. But his ideology is really just consisting of tautologies and claims without anything backing them up than "self-evident common sense statements".

Reagan also had lots of those.

I hate it when people take stupid "common sense" arguments as a fact that the person uttering them somehow is "deep". Yet, strangely, "common sense" statements like "they have technology, we only have love", "turn the other cheek", "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" or "Ich bin eine Berliner" are often having a better effect on people than lengthy elaborations on statistics, facts and information.

I must admit that I've began to use "common sense" more recently, since its efficient - but I still have nothing but contempt for it.

Ele'ill

21st August 2010, 17:36

bcbm

21st August 2010, 21:17

Funny that, there are a lot of people in this thread who agree with ("certain") primitivists, who think there's a lot of worth to primitivist critiques, are willing to defend much of primitivism, but are suddenly eager to remind everyone that they're not a primitivist (promise). I wonder what a cynic would make of this

i don't think we can return to a gatherer-hunter lifestyle or even that such a thing would be desirable. i do think civilization, technology and a number of generally accepted facets of our society are not above being critically examined.

I don't see the relevance of the first part. As for the second, yes there are vast areas of the globe that have not being industrialised. The reaction of communists is not to applaud them for their misery and lack of economic development but to work against the capitalist system that prevents them from advancing. It is capitalism, not industry itself, that insists that over half the world remains destitute

the relevance is that your definition of "industrial society" is incorrect because it conveniently leaves out the areas that are industrialized but don't meet your criteria of running water, etc. industrial society is not just the developed cities of the world, it is also the devastation that has always accompanied it.

and where do you get "applauding them for the misery?" i think its pretty explicit in my post that i consider this a bad thing.

Itself a testament to progress - there were less than a billion people on this planet before a host of advances unleashed by the Industrial Revolution (most notably in medicine and agriculture) allowed for vastly greater population levels to be sustained. And to invert your argument, there are many more people alive today enjoying relatively high (compared to medieval times) living standards than existed on the planet during the Industrial Revolution

i guess i don't consider it progress to rapidly create a society more unequal and generally detrimental to human beings than any in the pre-industrial world. its not that nothing good has come from industrial society but rather that all progress has been built on the corpses of the under-classes and i have a problem saying that the suffering and deaths of billions are worth it for a small minority of the globe to live in comfort.

And of course even this one billion comprised sedimentary agricultural societies. Take these away, ie revert to hunter-gather societies, and you're down to a few tens of millions

why are the only options besides industrial society reverting to past models?

Well that of course depends on your vantage point. If you were a 17th C peasant I'd imagine you'd think that a society in which you'll probably live to 70, have access to a constant food supply, the ability to talk to people across the world at any time, and generally more material comfort than you could imagine... well you'd think that things were going pretty sweet at the moment

except most people don't live in that society but rather support it through their labor.

Conversely, if you were a peasant or worker in China and India and you looked to the West and saw the standard of living enjoyed by those living in industrial societies, you'd definitely agree that things weren't going well but not for the reasons that you yourself might imagine. 'Exploitation' in the real world, be in a hamlet near Kolkata or a factory floor in Pittsburgh, is very different from what Jensen et al knows. The reason that things are not "going well" is because of capitalism, not 'civilisation'

i think the problem has grown much bigger than simply eliminating capitalism, the whole model of industry and production we have needs to be changed.

Transformation yes. The workers shall control the means of production, blah blah blah. If you think that this entails dismantling modern industry then you are mistaken. Industry has to be reorganised, made more efficient, but not abolished

did you miss where i said specifically it does not mean destroying it? i think we need bigger transformation than workers controlling the means of production and that the end result will bear little resemblance to modern industrial society.

Tatarin

21st August 2010, 22:26

i don't think we can return to a gatherer-hunter lifestyle or even that such a thing would be desirable. i do think civilization, technology and a number of generally accepted facets of our society are not above being critically examined.

Surely, but there is nothing that says that people will go back to hunter-gatherers. We might have new empires - on any levels of technology. The only difference is that there may not be computers, or electric light in the ammount we have now. In other words, unless you can convince exactly all people who will survive (and who are they?) or have the power to force people to become hunter-gatherers', it is simply impossible.

Just ask anyone on this forum if they would still be anarchists or communists if it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that anarchism or communism would always - if done by humans at least - result in complete chaos (violent gangs, fundamentalists etc.) or bloodthirsty police states. Obviously it would be pretty pointless being here or being a communist or an anarchist.

So is civilization worth of being criticized? Sure, nothing is beyond criticism. No one is saying that socialism and even communism will be a perfect paradise. But primitivism offers us a way out by somehow destroying civilization and says that somehow people will automatically run to the woods and live a perfect wild life hand in hand with nature. Even discard the people that will die or that life will be shorter - hell, make it even happier and perfect - you still have the problem with the return of civilization. How do you prevent that? How do you prevent primitive empires (or say "huge tribes") banding together?

The fight for primitivism is pointless because unless you convince everybody or some greater force "makes you do it", it will not happen.

Dimentio

21st August 2010, 22:53

Even if you do it, it won't happen.

People are fighting for, not against their, interests.

Vanguard1917

22nd August 2010, 01:45

the relevance is that your definition of "industrial society" is incorrect because it conveniently leaves out the areas that are industrialized but don't meet your criteria of running water, etc.

:confused:

Are you more likely to have clean running water in a modern industrial society or in a non-industrial society?

And what about not just clean water on tap, but access to modern medical treatment, enough food, decent housing, education, a transport system, information technology, opportunities to travel abroad on holiday, labour-saving household appliances, a telecommunications network, a gas- or electric-powered cooker, or just enough electricity to simply light a bulb in your home so that your waking hours aren't predetermined by the rising and setting of the sun (something which is the reality for around 2 billion people today -- none of whom, incidentally, live in the West)?

Is access to such things more common in economically developed countries or in economically underdeveloped countries?

As any genuinely progressive person well knows, the problem which the world faces is not too much economic development, but too little economic development. Ask the 'third world' poor if they don't want what many of us in the West take for granted. The number one demand of people in developing countries is economic development -- something which capitalism has utterly failed to provide for them and something which primitivists and the bulk of environmentalists in general tell them that they should not have.

For that, our eco-friends should be offered free brain transplants, not praised for their 'extremely valid observations' (to quote from Mari3L's ridiculous assertion).

meow

22nd August 2010, 04:15

:confused:

Are you more likely to have clean running water in a modern industrial society or in a non-industrial society?

if a person live in delhi or islamabad do they live in non-industrial society? how likely is clean running water for them?

if a person live in mexico city do they live in industrial society? do they have clean running water?

a critique of industrial civilization says that there is something wrong (beyond capitalism) when these "industrual society" dont have clean running water.

Tatarin

22nd August 2010, 05:21

a critique of industrial civilization says that there is something wrong (beyond capitalism) when these "industrual society" dont have clean running water.

How is that a critique of industrial civilization and not of capitalism? The ruling classes of India, Pakistan and Mexico do have running water. If these countries were socialist, and people didn't have running water (or most of them didn't), then that may be valid, but it isn't since those are among the poorer countries, with wide gaps between rich and poor.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

22nd August 2010, 12:16

if a person live in delhi or islamabad do they live in non-industrial society? how likely is clean running water for them?

if a person live in mexico city do they live in industrial society? do they have clean running water?

a critique of industrial civilization says that there is something wrong (beyond capitalism) when these "industrual society" dont have clean running water.

Both of those places would probably be considered industrialising societies, not industrialised; like England in the 1850's, they are kept by capitalism at a stage where parts of society enjoys the fruits of industrialism, whereas the poor majority are this denied.

But as has been said, these are effects of capitalism, not of industrial society.

meow

22nd August 2010, 13:06

i dont argue that it is not capitalism. i say that it is possible to say it is more then just capitalism.

ZeroNowhere

22nd August 2010, 13:22

a critique of industrial civilization says that there is something wrong (beyond capitalism) when these "industrual society" dont have clean running water.
Yes, which was the point of VG1917's question, which you did not answer.

Vanguard1917

22nd August 2010, 13:24

if a person live in delhi or islamabad do they live in non-industrial society? how likely is clean running water for them?

Those are poor, underdeveloped parts of the world. Even so, you will find that living standards in the more developed parts of India (i.e. in the big cities like Delhi) are generally far higher than they are in the rural parts of the country. The same goes for Pakistan and Mexico.

a critique of industrial civilization says that there is something wrong (beyond capitalism) when these "industrual society" dont have clean running water.

But that 'critique' is plain wrong, as empirical evidence shows. It is generally objective fact that life in economically developed societies is, by every empirical measure, better than life in economically underdeveloped countries.

Where does this place this so-called critique of industrial society? I think securely in the realm of fideism.

Old Man Diogenes

22nd August 2010, 13:38

I don't think there's an issue with technology or technological advance, it's the way in which technology is harnessed and used by a ruling minority as a privilege and/or to enslave the majority rather than to aid all humanity. As other people have already correctly stated, it's a problem with capitalism and not with industry alone.

Dimentio

22nd August 2010, 16:23

Maybe because we live outside of the paperbacks. We also want to seperate ourselves from a banned ideology on this forum so we don't become restricted or banned.

This is really saying it all.

black magick hustla

22nd August 2010, 20:43

i dont really care that much about this whole primitivist thing because i am not one, i am a left communist. primitivism is an aspect of what the icc terms as modernism, here is an article about it:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/230_Fbarrot.htm

modernism emerged in the 70s after the failure of the revolutionary waves in the 60s. people at that time thought revolution was around the corner, but it was not. this led to a confusion in some factions of the communist minorities and a generalized pessimism that led to the belief that the working class was not revolutionary anymore and a distrust for organization. modernism is not necessarily counterrevolutionary - dauve and the situationists are expressions of modernism too. primitivism is simply, modernism gone to the extreme, for primitivism originally started as a faction within the communist movement

there is obviouly primitivism to primitivism. jensen has no organic link to working class politics. cammattes primitivism could be summarized in the idea that communism is the end of the division of labor and species-being alienation, and therefore the return to nature of man. cammattes critique of technology was not so much a critique of technology itself, but the form technology took when it got integrated into capital.

Tatarin

22nd August 2010, 21:55

Or simply put; primitivism has surged because people feel that the working class won't or is unable to "make revolution", thus the old saying (re-stated): "No communism? Then barbarism!"

i say that it is possible to say it is more then just capitalism.

But what, exactly? Would you say that the castles left behind have a reason more then just feudalism?

bcbm

22nd August 2010, 22:07

Surely, but there is nothing that says that people will go back to hunter-gatherers.

um, i say exactly that in the bit you quoted so i'm not sure why you were talking at me about how primitivism can't work. i never said it could.

---

Are you more likely to have clean running water in a modern industrial society or in a non-industrial society?are you more likely to work 16 hour shifts in a factory dealing with highly toxic chemicals in a modern industrial society or non-industrial society? i don't see how you can list off the achievements of industrial society while ignoring the cost at which they are produced.

As any genuinely progressive person well knows, the problem which the world faces is not too much economic development, but too little economic development.nobody in this thread has suggested there is "too much economic development." incidentally, i don't think the problem is too much or too little economic development, but too little development in all societies that is specifically geared towards improving the lives of human beings and opening up more possibilities for them.

Ask the 'third world' poor if they don't want what many of us in the West take for granted. The number one demand of people in developing countries is economic development -- something which capitalism has utterly failed to provide for them and something which primitivists and the bulk of environmentalists in general tell them that they should not have.as far as i can tell, primitivists desire for the end of civilization on a global scale, so i'm not sure why you're trying to paint their position as specifically anti-third world.

It is generally objective fact that life in economically developed societies is, by every empirical measure, better than life in economically underdeveloped countries.life there is not better simply because of industrialism but the opportunities industrialism has created for the exploitation of human beings. the underdeveloped countries support the developed ones and a sane production strategy for our global society will require more than applying the same industrial processes across the globe; it will require a complete rethinking and reorganization of industry.

---

these are effects of capitalism, not of industrial societycapitalism created, constructed and continues to expand industrial society as we know it. i don't think its a particularly unreasonable conclusion that industrial society as it exists cannot be divorced from capitalism and that any advanced society without capitalism will implement a much different form of industry.

Vanguard1917

23rd August 2010, 00:02

are you more likely to work 16 hour shifts in a factory dealing with highly toxic chemicals in a modern industrial society or non-industrial society? i don't see how you can list off the achievements of industrial society while ignoring the cost at which they are produced.

This is a quite remarkable response given that by pretty much every empirical measure available you are better off living in the West than in the 'third world' -- hence why millions of people risk arm and leg to enter, and re-enter, Western countries every year, many unsuccessfully. That's the great irony of ideologies like environmentalism which celebrate underdevelopment: it's primarily the practice of those who have never had to experience the poverty which goes hand in hand with underdevelopment (i.e. middle class Westerners). Why? Because if you had been forced to experience it, you would realise that there's nothing whatsoever to celebrate about it.

Dimentio

23rd August 2010, 00:03

Or simply put; primitivism has surged because people feel that the working class won't or is unable to "make revolution", thus the old saying (re-stated): "No communism? Then barbarism!"

But what, exactly? Would you say that the castles left behind have a reason more then just feudalism?

Not really. Primitivism is a current which is coming from reactionary sources and partially from Rousseau. It has been very popular within western culture since the 18th century and books like "The Last Mohican".

First recently, there has been people who are deluded enough to actually try to make it into an ideology. Sadly, most of them are considering themselves to be left-wingers, or at least are portraying themselves as such.

I would have preferred if all primitivists had been as honest as Pentti Linkola. He must be the only primitivist with an actual programme to reach primitivism (1, make violent revolution/military coup, 2, start killing humans - especially females and kids, 3, force everyone to live below substinence except a small enlightened elite who would have access to weapons to prevent others from advancing). He is probably also one of few primitivists who genuinly is living as he's teaching.

bcbm

23rd August 2010, 01:15

This is a quite remarkable response given that by pretty much every empirical measure available you are better off living in the West than in the 'third world' -- hence why millions of people risk arm and leg to enter, and re-enter, Western countries every year, many unsuccessfully. That's the great irony of ideologies like environmentalism which celebrate underdevelopment: it's primarily the practice of those who have never had to experience the poverty which goes hand in hand with underdevelopment (i.e. middle class Westerners). Why? Because if you had been forced to experience it, you would realise that there's nothing whatsoever to celebrate about it.

it feels like we're talking past each other.

nobody in this thread has suggested there is "too much economic development." incidentally, i don't think the problem is too much or too little economic development, but too little development in all societies that is specifically geared towards improving the lives of human beings and opening up more possibilities for them.

when you say "non-industrial society," what do you mean? most of the third world is industrialized. and nobody is celebrating third world poverty, i'm not sure where you're pulling that from?

Tatarin

23rd August 2010, 04:20

i don't see how you can list off the achievements of industrial society while ignoring the cost at which they are produced.

That is because ordinary men and women do not have control over what is produced or in what rate. Remove industry from any country and they would be pretty much the same, only without electric lights and computers. Has technology made exploitation faster and more effective? Sure, but the same can be said about guns - cops have it much easier now when they can just shoot. But that rather says more about cops - as well as the system of cops - than it does of guns.

Vanguard1917

23rd August 2010, 20:13

when you say "non-industrial society,"

E.g. a pre-industrial society like the ones praised by Jensen, or a contemporary society heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly that of the subsistence-level variety.

bcbm

23rd August 2010, 23:14

Remove industry from any country and they would be pretty much the same, only without electric lights and computers.

you're kidding, right?

Has technology made exploitation faster and more effective? Sure, but the same can be said about guns - cops have it much easier now when they can just shoot. But that rather says more about cops - as well as the system of cops - than it does of guns.

i don't think comparing one tool to an entire system of production, exploitation and power makes sense. industrialization has done more than just make exploitation more effective, though that is one thing it has excelled at.

---

E.g. a pre-industrial society like the ones praised by Jensen, or a contemporary society heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly that of the subsistence-level variety.

then how is your response about people running from the third world in any way applicable?

Tatarin

24th August 2010, 01:12

you're kidding, right?

Then what would it be like? Classless?

i don't think comparing one tool to an entire system of production, exploitation and power makes sense. industrialization has done more than just make exploitation more effective, though that is one thing it has excelled at.

Then what has it done? If we would have had socialism back in the 1700's, then maybe industry wouldn't have developed as it has, and maybe more environmentally friendly ways would have been found way back. I just don't get what industry is responsible of by itself.

bcbm

24th August 2010, 05:49

Then what would it be like? Classless?

no, but they would still be substantially different.

Then what has it done? If we would have had socialism back in the 1700's, then maybe industry wouldn't have developed as it has, and maybe more environmentally friendly ways would have been found way back. I just don't get what industry is responsible of by itself.

the problem isn't industry, the problem is modern industrial society. i don't think it can be easily separated from capitalism as its entire development has been to serve the ends of capital. a communist industry would be something completely different, not just a minor shift in our current setup.

ComradeOm

24th August 2010, 13:14

We also want to seperate ourselves from a banned ideology on this forum so we don't become restricted or bannedWhile continuing to defend the policies of said banned ideology?

Because there are often extremely valid observation made by certain groups (primitivists etc) that aren't being made by other groupsAgain, the assumption that the critiques of primitivists are "extremely valid" is one that is not taken as a given on this forum. I think I've made it clear in this thread, and others, that I consider it to be nothing but misanthropic bullshit

We do not tolerate fascists on this forum and nor do we tolerate those who defend basic fascist tenets or fascist 'critiques' of modern society. I fail to see why we should do the same for primitivists

Most primitivists or primitivists sympathizers would do nothing of the sort. Which is the crux of the issue. The policies of primitivism and "primitivists sympathizers" like yourself would inherently lead to this mass immiseration. This is why primitivists are restricted on this forum - murdering countless millions of humans and insisting that workers forego basic amenities is just not acceptable on a board supposedly dedicated to advancing the cause of this same working class. What we are seeing in this thread is posters accepting core primitivist logic (or the underlying 'critique') as sound while pulling back from openly declaring their hand for fear of admin action

most of the third world is industrializedWhich is manifestly false. Nine of the top ten manufacturing countries (http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/) in the West. That is, confined to Europe, N America, and Japan+Korea. Elsewhere the dominant sector is that of agriculture (often subsistence) and resource extraction. Welcome to imperialism

Which really rams home to idiocy of this 'civilisation' critique - any concept that fails to differentiate between the West and the ROTW (be it in terms of economics or living standards), and the exploitation inherent in this relationship between industrialised and non-industrialised, is hopelessly flawed and out of touch with reality. Its also completely unable to offer a solution to the colonial and semi-colonial nations by shutting off the only reasonable 'escape route' - further industrialisation

i guess i don't consider it progress to rapidly create a society more unequal and generally detrimental to human beings than any in the pre-industrial worldBecause everything was just delightful in pre-industrial agrarian societies :rolleyes:

its not that nothing good has come from industrial society but rather that all progress has been built on the corpses of the under-classes and i have a problem saying that the suffering and deaths of billions are worth it for a small minority of the globe to live in comfort. There are two ways to approach the dark underbelly of progress - lament that it ever happened and complain about how good things were back when everyone was dying of plague... or accept that industrialisation has brought immense benefits and work to extend these to all of humanity

why are the only options besides industrial society reverting to past models?Because a society cannot be divorced from its mode of production. Abandoning manufacturing would end capitalism, end socialism, end the proletariat, and throw us back to an age when wealth was derived from other sources. Most likely feudalism

except most people don't live in that society but rather support it through their laborYes, most people on this planet live in pre-industrial societies that are maintained as such by the needs of capitalism

i think the problem has grown much bigger than simply eliminating capitalism, the whole model of industry and production we have needs to be changedThe two are one and the same. The abolition of capitalism necessitates fundamental changes to the mode of production. Where the primitivists have it wrong however is insisting that this means abandoning the advances of capitalism (which, like it or not, are very real and worth keeping). Instead socialism must herald the expansion of industrial society to encompass the entire globe. We seek not to abolish the benefits enjoyed in the West but to extend them to all

i think we need bigger transformation than workers controlling the means of production and that the end result will bear little resemblance to modern industrial society. Such as?

Tatarin

24th August 2010, 22:47

no, but they would still be substantially different.

So there you see, a society that comes from a collapse (by humans or nature) will not result in any betterment to either the working class nor humans at a whole.

the problem isn't industry, the problem is modern industrial society. i don't think it can be easily separated from capitalism as its entire development has been to serve the ends of capital. a communist industry would be something completely different, not just a minor shift in our current setup.

Yes, this was my argument. Industry by itself is not the problem, but what system uses it. I'm not arguing about industry being separated from capitalism, just that it is capitalism that is responsible for the developed industry and how it looks and works today. Thus I don't understand the need of any criticism of industrial society when it is capitalism that directs it's development, and is the problem at hand that is to be solved by humanity.

Dimentio

24th August 2010, 22:52

Actually, for all its flaws, the current system - broken down on a nation for nation basis - is probably one of the more equal systems ever. In substinence systems, especially in the old agricultural systems, the survival clinged on the total submission of 99% of the population to an armed minority. The class systems were generally also fixed, which meant that it was LEGALLY impossible for a third-class subject to advance in his or her life.

Nowadays, it is just DE-FACTO impossible. In theory, everyone is allowed to become wealthy and join the ruling class.

bots

24th August 2010, 23:11

Yes, this was my argument. Industry by itself is not the problem, but what system uses it. I'm not arguing about industry being separated from capitalism, just that it is capitalism that is responsible for the developed industry and how it looks and works today. Thus I don't understand the need of any criticism of industrial society when it is capitalism that directs it's development, and is the problem at hand that is to be solved by humanity.

So maybe we need to really criticize industrial society. Criticize the nuts and bolts, the time cards and the 12 hour shifts, the toxic chemicals spewed into the atmosphere and the destructive march of civilization. If you want to develop a communist industry you have to rethink and overcome the very foundations of capitalist industry. Primitivism is ridiculous but it resonates with people who are sick to death of working shit jobs in some factory or office or fast food joint. It resonates with people who watch the untouched wild nature they used to retreat to on weekends being eaten up by a mindless system which carries the flag of "progress". It resonates with people watching their loved ones dying of cancer due to the shit we are forced to breathe and eat. Too often communists look like they are simply offering the other side of a coin instead of real alternatives to this alienating, life destroying, boring as fuck existence.

Dimentio

24th August 2010, 23:15

So maybe we need to really criticize industrial society. Criticize the nuts and bolts, the time cards and the 12 hour shifts, the toxic chemicals spewed into the atmosphere and the destructive march of civilization. If you want to develop a communist industry you have to rethink and overcome the very foundations of capitalist industry. Primitivism is ridiculous but it resonates with people who are sick to death of working shit jobs in some factory or office or fast food joint. It resonates with people who watch the untouched wild nature they used to retreat to on weekends being eaten up by a mindless system which carries the flag of "progress". It resonates with people watching their loved ones dying of cancer due to the shit we are forced to breathe and eat. Too often communists look like they are simply offering the other side of a coin instead of real alternatives to this alienating, life destroying, boring as fuck existence.

Since when is primitivism popular amongst workers? Most workers have probably never heard about primitivism, which is mostly known in the anarchist scene and amongst freegans.

We in the tendency I'm representing are more than anyone agreeing that environmental degradation represents a fundamental threat to all forms of life on the planet. But ultimately, what we should strive for is to create sustainability so that future generations of human beings could enjoy life without having to be worried for diseases, poverty, oppression and the security of their children.

bots

24th August 2010, 23:17

Lenin:

Capitalism cannot be at a standstill for a single moment. It must forever be moving forward. Competition, which is keenest in a period of crisis like the present, calls for the invention of an increasing number of new devices to reduce the cost of production. But the domination of capital converts all these devices into instruments for the further exploitation of the workers.
The Taylor system is one of these devices.
Advocates of this system recently used the following techniques in America.
An electric lamp was attached to a worker’s arm, the worker’s movements were photographed and the movements of the lamp studied. Certain movements were found to be to “superfluous” and the worker was made to avoid them, i.e., to work more intensively, without losing a second for rest.
The layout of new factory buildings is planned in such a way that not a moment will be lost in delivering materials to the factory, in conveying them from one shop to another, and in dispatching the finished products. The cinema is systematically employed for studying the work of the best operatives and increasing its intensity, i.e., “speeding up” the workers.
For example, a mechanic’s operations were filmed in the course of a whole day. After studying the mechanic’s movements the efficiency experts provided him with a bench high enough to enable him to avoid losing time in bending down. He was given a boy to assist him. This boy had to hand up each part of the machine in a definite and most efficient way. Within a few days the mechanic performed the work of assembling the given type of machine in one-fourth of the time it had taken before!
What an enormous gain in labour productivity!... But the worker’s pay is not increased fourfold, but only half as much again, at the very most, and only for a short period at that. As soon as the workers get used to the new system their pay is cut to the former level. The capitalist obtains an enormous profit, but the workers toil four times as hard as before and wear down their nerves and muscles four times as fast as before.
A newly engaged worker is taken to the factory cinema where he is shown a “model” performance of his job; the worker is made to “catch up” with that performance. A week later he is taken to the cinema again and shown pictures of his own performance, Which is then compared with the “model”.
All these vast improvements are introduced to the detriment of the workers, for they lead to their still greater oppression and exploitation. Moreover, this rational and efficient distribution of labour is confined to each factory.
The question naturally arises: What about the distribution of labour in society as a whole? What a vast amount of labour is wasted at present owing to the disorganised and chaotic character of capitalist production as a whole! How much time is wasted as the raw materials pass to the factory through the hands of hundreds of buyers and middlemen, while the requirements of the market are unknown! Not only time, but the actual products are wasted and damaged. And what about the waste of time and labour in delivering the finished goods to the consumers through a host of small middlemen who, too, cannot know the requirements of their customers and perform not only a host of superfluous movements, but also make a host of superfluous purchases, journeys, and so on and so forth!
Capital organises and rationalises labour within the factory for the purpose of increasing the exploitation of the workers and increasing profit. In social production as a whole, however, chaos continues to reign and grow, leading to crises when the accumulated wealth cannot find purchasers, and millions of workers starve because they are unable to find employment.
The Taylor system—without its initiators knowing or wishing it—is preparing the time when the proletariat will take over all social production and appoint its own workers’ committees for the purpose of properly distributing and rationalising all social labour. Large-scale production, machinery, railways, telephone—all provide thousands of opportunities to cut by three-fourths the working time of the organised workers and make them four times better off than they are today.
And these workers’ committees, assisted by the workers’ unions, will be able to apply these principles of rational distribution of social labour when the latter is freed from its enslavement by capital.

This is a pretty good example of what I'm trying to say as far as some communists presenting the other side of the same coin. If you don't want to punch Lenin in the face after reading this I don't know what to tell you.

bots

24th August 2010, 23:20

Since when is primitivism popular amongst workers? Most workers have probably never heard about primitivism, which is mostly known in the anarchist scene and amongst freegans.

We in the tendency I'm representing are more than anyone agreeing that environmental degradation represents a fundamental threat to all forms of life on the planet. But ultimately, what we should strive for is to create sustainability so that future generations of human beings could enjoy life without having to be worried for diseases, poverty, oppression and the security of their children.

I'm not saying primitivism is popular amongst workers. But neither is Marxism. All I'm saying is the one probably resonates where the other doesn't because of what it offers (or claims to offer).

edit:
As a worker if you were to offer me democratic control of the place I work or the opportunity to burn the place I work down I would choose burning the place down every time. Too often I think socialist programmes are really just offering alienation with a human face.

Ele'ill

25th August 2010, 00:01

While continuing to defend the policies of said banned ideology?

You first have to identify why the ideology was banned. What parts of it are counter productive?

We're defending aspects of the ideology that aren't banned and are no more than a critique of what unchecked civilization can do to the planet. If an environmentalist says 'capitalist industry is destroying the planet' and a primitivist says 'capitalist industry is destroying the planet'- that doesn't mean the environmentalist is a primitivist.

Nice try.

Again, the assumption that the critiques of primitivists are "extremely valid" is one that is not taken as a given on this forum. I think I've made it clear in this thread, and others, that I consider it to be nothing but misanthropic bullshit

Yeah and there's a world of difference between 'saying' and 'proving'.

We do not tolerate fascists on this forum and nor do we tolerate those who defend basic fascist tenets or fascist 'critiques' of modern society. I fail to see why we should do the same for primitivists

Because most leftist can agree that capitalist industry- profit motive- when unchecked- trades ecological balance- workers rights- and social justice for profit any day of the week.

This thread talks about primitivism and specifically Derrick Jensen who talks a lot about the environment. I like a lot of what he has to say- his wording- and some of his basic ideas.

Which is the crux of the issue. The policies of primitivism and "primitivists sympathizers" like yourself would inherently lead to this mass immiseration. This is why primitivists are restricted on this forum - murdering countless millions of humans and insisting that workers forego basic amenities is just not acceptable on a board supposedly dedicated to advancing the cause of this same working class. What we are seeing in this thread is posters accepting core primitivist logic (or the underlying 'critique') as sound while pulling back from openly declaring their hand for fear of admin action

No, what's happening is a handful of very intelligent people posting in this thread are saying 'I live outside of theory and don't have to dress like my favorite revolutionary.'

I'm a flexible person and if someone with another ideology points something out- 'an observation'- and I agree with it- I can do so without suddenly falling in love with them and their entire poli-socio belief system. It's a spokes council meeting or community gathering with food versus a paperback dated a hundred years ago.

I'm not a primitivist because I don't believe in the majority of the values put forth regarding it- I do agree on many of the observations- probably because they're not necessarily new and are very similar if not identical to other observations made from within leftist groups.

Tatarin

25th August 2010, 03:02

So maybe we need to really criticize industrial society. Criticize the nuts and bolts, the time cards and the 12 hour shifts, the toxic chemicals spewed into the atmosphere and the destructive march of civilization.

What you just mentioned is capitalist industry, and is formed to do just that: make you work longer for less pay. This isn't proof of what industrial civilization is supposed to be or is some sort of a vision socialists have for everyone. If there were a magic portal from which everything we needed came from, then that would be the object of liberation. But that isn't how the world is like, we have to produce what we need. Industry can be greener and more work-friendly, only that will cost, and in capitalism cost is exactly what you should have less of (as a capitalist).

If you want to develop a communist industry you have to rethink and overcome the very foundations of capitalist industry.

No one argues that industry must be reorganized in socialism, as questions of the cost of construction and effectivity and such would become irrelevant.

It resonates with people who watch the untouched wild nature they used to retreat to on weekends being eaten up by a mindless system which carries the flag of "progress".

Not progress - profit. Take a look on any such areas and you might notice that only a small rich group of people gets the benefit.

Too often communists look like they are simply offering the other side of a coin instead of real alternatives to this alienating, life destroying, boring as fuck existence.

This sounds like it is taken from some kind of manual on evil communism. Tell me, what do you think we offer?

I'm not saying primitivism is popular amongst workers. But neither is Marxism.

You might have noticed people like Hugo Chavez, or the revolution in Nepal. Oh, don't forget Greece. Tell me, under what colors did the Greek workers march on to the presidential palace? I don't think it was the primitivist one. I have yet to see an uprising that craves the destruction of civilization.

As a worker if you were to offer me democratic control of the place I work or the opportunity to burn the place I work down I would choose burning the place down every time.

Hah, I doubt many workers think otherwise, and I agree, many places of exploitation today would most likely burn. But not many would choose to burn down their homes, libraries, hospitals, schools, hell movie theatres.

Too often I think socialist programmes are really just offering alienation with a human face.

Okay, so make socialism the evil machine you envision. What do you offer? Do you seriously expect people to rip their clothes of their bodies and running to the woods to live a life around the camp fire hunting rabbits and boar? What if a group don't want to do that? What if they turn back to the city and begin industry anew? What, you're going to kill them? What if they lived on the other side of the globe? Are you going to walk all the way to stop them from creating civilization?

You say you hate civilization yet you give no explanation of how people are supposed to live a (okay) "more simple life" - or if they even want to do so.

meow

25th August 2010, 08:30

Okay, so make socialism the evil machine you envision. What do you offer? Do you seriously expect people to rip their clothes of their bodies and running to the woods to live a life around the camp fire hunting rabbits and boar? What if a group don't want to do that? What if they turn back to the city and begin industry anew? What, you're going to kill them? What if they lived on the other side of the globe? Are you going to walk all the way to stop them from creating civilization?

You say you hate civilization yet you give no explanation of how people are supposed to live a (okay) "more simple life" - or if they even want to do so.
mariel is i doubt wanting people to rip off there clothes and run naked in woods. nor do they want to kill people. neither do i want.

i dont want to get rid of tech. and i doubt that mariel does either.

the point is that you and many "socialists" like you seem to offer capitalism without the capitalists. industry for industry sake is not worth it. technology for technology sake is not worth it.

i say many primitivist argument make sense. i am not primitivist though. what i mean is that technology how used now is degrading. dehumanizing. in many respects. i want to shut down all coal mines as they are terrible place to work. yet under "socialism" practised by ussr and seemingly promoted by many here coal mines have to stay. even if no one wants to work in them.

socialists are not socialists for tech sake. they are socialists for people sake! if you dont care about the people then fuck off. and primitivists rarely say they want to kill everyone. and people who say they like some primitivist ideas dont want to kill everyone either. the "socialists" who want to keep coal mining and coal burning are killing more people then any primitivist ever could. (as primitivist never get enough support)

ComradeOm

25th August 2010, 17:04

You first have to identify why the ideology was banned. What parts of it are counter productive?Because its core critique (to be very simplistic, that technology is bad) and conclusions (technology must be abandoned, again simplistic) are by definition reactionary

We're defending aspects of the ideology that aren't banned and are no more than a critique of what unchecked civilization can do to the planet. If an environmentalist says 'capitalist industry is destroying the planet' and a primitivist says 'capitalist industry is destroying the planet'- that doesn't mean the environmentalist is a primitivist. Except that's not simply what Jensen, and others, say. They insist that modern 'civilisation' (apparently defined as societies that utilise technology) is both unsustainable and unredeemable. This is not a critique of capitalism or its policies - its an assault on the very notion of social and technological progress. So no, there is indeed a very clear difference between most environmentalist critiques and that advocated by primitivists

I want to stress the bold above. Does anyone here subscribe to the notion that "civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living"? Because this is entirely unacceptable for RevLeft. Ditto the premise that follows. When you defend Jensen, and his 'critique' you are defending this sentiment. Think about that

Yeah and there's a world of difference between 'saying' and 'proving'.I think its perfectly obvious that what Jensen is advocating is antithetical to almost everything that the socialist movement stands for. I think that its perfectly obvious that you agree with much of what Jensen says. Can I 'prove' this in a court of law? I shouldn't have to

Because most leftist can agree that capitalist industry- profit motive- when unchecked- trades ecological balance- workers rights- and social justice for profit any day of the weekNo 'leftist' would argue that this is a) a problem with technology which is by nature deemed to be unsustainable, or b) the solution to any ecological problem is the abandonment of industrial society in favour of a return to hunter-gather or agrarian societies. If you find yourself agreeing with either of these points then you are a reactionary, not a 'leftist', and should be consigned to OI

This thread talks about primitivism and specifically Derrick Jensen who talks a lot about the environment. I like a lot of what he has to say- his wording- and some of his basic ideasUnderstand that this is not some sort of trick or whatnot but do us a favour and just say what you believe in. What exactly about Jensen's writings do you like? What parts of his critique do you agree with? Which of his policies would you advocate?

Not only is it unedifying to see someone dancing around what they actually believe in (and everyone knows they believe in) but it also makes it difficult, for obvious reasons, to have a discussion based on perceived positions. So do the honourable thing either way - cards on the table or walk away from the thread

No, what's happening is a handful of very intelligent people posting in this thread are saying 'I live outside of theory and don't have to dress like my favorite revolutionary.'What?

No, no, I understand. You are the intelligent and non-conformist rebel while I am the dull Leninist constantly entertaining dreams of skull fucking Lenin. Blah blah blah. I've heard it before and it is officially, now, the last resort of the desperate primitivist

I'm a flexible person and if someone with another ideology points something out- 'an observation'- and I agree with it- I can do so without suddenly falling in love with them and their entire poli-socio belief system. It's a spokes council meeting or community gathering with food versus a paperback dated a hundred years agoSimple question: Do you agree with the premises laid out here (http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm)? Please indicate the ones that you do and don't agree with. Because, as I mentioned above, its pretty hard to discuss your "observations" when you refuse to divulge them

bcbm

25th August 2010, 17:47

Which is manifestly false. Nine of the top ten manufacturing countries (http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/) in the West. That is, confined to Europe, N America, and Japan+Korea. Elsewhere the dominant sector is that of agriculture (often subsistence) and resource extraction. Welcome to imperialism

you don't have to be at the top to still have taken some part in the industrialization process. obviously most of the world is not as developed as europe or even china, but there is industrial development in most of the world and the places lacking the machinery are still essential to the maintenance of the industrial system.

Which really rams home to idiocy of this 'civilisation' critique - any concept that fails to differentiate between the West and the ROTW (be it in terms of economics or living standards), and the exploitation inherent in this relationship between industrialised and non-industrialised, is hopelessly flawed and out of touch with reality. Its also completely unable to offer a solution to the colonial and semi-colonial nations by shutting off the only reasonable 'escape route' - further industrialisationits annoying when you use what i am saying as a platform to talk about things that have nothing to do with it. i've been speaking explicitly the entire time about the exploitation that exists in order to maintain "the west," as well as the need for a reasonable escape route, which is not simply "further industrialization," something that often has very negative consequences for generations of humans affected by it. regardless, i'm not suggesting there be no development, which i've made extremely clear.

Because everything was just delightful in pre-industrial agrarian societies :rolleyes:hey if i just put some sarcasm and an eye roll in maybe no one will notice i'm completely missing the point:rolleyes:

There are two ways to approach the dark underbelly of progress - lament that it ever happened and complain about how good things were back when everyone was dying of plague... or accept that industrialisation has brought immense benefits and work to extend these to all of humanityi'm not sure how it follows that by examining industry and civilization critically you must want everyone to go back to dying of plague.

Because a society cannot be divorced from its mode of production. Abandoning manufacturing would end capitalism, end socialism, end the proletariat, and throw us back to an age when wealth was derived from other sources. Most likely feudalismi have specifically stated multiple times that i am not talking about "abandoning" anything.

Yes, most people on this planet live in pre-industrial societies that are maintained as such by the needs of capitalismthey may not be fully realized industrial centers, but most societies are still post-industrial because of the impact industrialization has had on virtually everything.

Such as?probably a complete transformation of the mode of production, destroying the factory model and looking for new ways to integrate production with human activity with a strong need for a new technological base in addition with the reworking or rediscovering of older methods. i don't have too much specifically "planned" if that's what you're asking for, but i don't think getting rid of the bosses and putting workers in control will be enough to solve all the problems we have because of industrial production.

----

So there you see, a society that comes from a collapse (by humans or nature) will not result in any betterment to either the working class nor humans at a whole.

i don't recall saying it would.

Yes, this was my argument. Industry by itself is not the problem, but what system uses it. I'm not arguing about industry being separated from capitalism, just that it is capitalism that is responsible for the developed industry and how it looks and works today. Thus I don't understand the need of any criticism of industrial society when it is capitalism that directs it's development, and is the problem at hand that is to be solved by humanity.

there is no "industry by itself," the entire system is tied directly to capital and i think it is a reciprocal relationship more than a matter of one directing the other. look at it this way- if the workers occupy the factory and the miners the mine, there is still the issue of factories and mining.

Tatarin

25th August 2010, 23:41

the point is that you and many "socialists" like you seem to offer capitalism without the capitalists. industry for industry sake is not worth it. technology for technology sake is not worth it.

Whoever said that we offer that kind of things? You accuse socialists of wanting everyone to work in the mines 24/7 like it was taken from some kind of Fox News manual on how communism is. We want all of humanity to benefit from technology and industry as the richest men on this planet already do.

what i mean is that technology how used now is degrading. dehumanizing. in many respects.

There is no argument here. But what you described is capitalism - for profit for the few at the exploitation of the many. Of course the resources of the earth is then shaped to that exploitation, and that is my argument: to concentrate on ending that exploitation so that the resources can be shaped for humans and for the environment.

i want to shut down all coal mines as they are terrible place to work.

Of course you do, because they are unsafe and hazardous because implementing safety and using the latest knowledge to mine would mean millions of lost profits. That's why mines are shaped as they are now.

yet under "socialism" practised by ussr and seemingly promoted by many here coal mines have to stay.

Actually, I doubt you will find many persons here who uphold the USSR as the prime example of socialism. In fact, many have some things to say about it.

Do coal mines have to stay? Well, we have to use them to live a progressive life. Do "we" mean that coal mines will be what they are today, only people work less hours? No. Coal mining, as well as many other aspects, will look quite differently.

even if no one wants to work in them.

Yeah, well, everything can't be served to your bed now, can it? That doesn't mean that coal mining has to be dangerous and hazardous. The Japanese are apparently the leading nation when it comes to robotics - maybe we can learn something from that?

And to extend that question, in any collapse scenario (okay, excluding asteroid impact, alien invasion, robots from the future etc...) you would most likely not just "not want" to work in those mines, you would probably have to - as a slave. Because I find it hard that civilization - ever - would go further back than the Middle Ages (the most likely being the 1700's, or just before the industrial revolution).

In other words, the argument is pretty much making work easier, or going back to much harder times.

and primitivists rarely say they want to kill everyone.

Because they have no clear answers. They want to go back to "simpler times" and wish for the collapse of industrial society. Now, what do you think that would mean?

What would happen in such a collapse? Not only would they suffer during it, they would do so much more after it. Unless you believe that everyone agrees to live in the woods.

It's like I would say "I want the world to be ruled by white people." But hey! I never said anybody would die, did I? What do you think will happen if that would become the policy of a country?

and people who say they like some primitivist ideas dont want to kill everyone either.

Then what are these primitivist ideas? And why are they separate enough to be separate ideas from that of communism?

the "socialists" who want to keep coal mining and coal burning are killing more people then any primitivist ever could.

Then tell me - what will happen if we shut it all down? Let's burn down everything - what will happen? You already say you want tech - how do you suppose we are going to have that without the necessary mines?

(as primitivist never get enough support)

I wonder why...

there is no "industry by itself," the entire system is tied directly to capital and i think it is a reciprocal relationship more than a matter of one directing the other.

What? You mean the mines and factories are forcing people to work in them?

look at it this way- if the workers occupy the factory and the miners the mine, there is still the issue of factories and mining.

Yes, so? We don't have to have the factories we have today, neither do we have to have the mines we have now. Will it take time to restructure the system? Of course.

Because I find it hard to have it any other way. If you want electric light, medicine, transportation and research, and just about anything we have to have this industry, until we can find a way to make it even more effective, and more friendly to humans and to environment.

bcbm

26th August 2010, 01:01

What? You mean the mines and factories are forcing people to work in them?

no i'm saying that capital influences industry but industry influences capital as well, there effectively isn't one without the other.

Yes, so? We don't have to have the factories we have today, neither do we have to have the mines we have now. Will it take time to restructure the system? Of course.

Because I find it hard to have it any other way. If you want electric light, medicine, transportation and research, and just about anything we have to have this industry, until we can find a way to make it even more effective, and more friendly to humans and to environment.

i am suggesting that communism will be that "way," and it will represent a total break with the current model of industry.

ComradeOm

28th August 2010, 18:42

you don't have to be at the top to still have taken some part in the industrialization process. obviously most of the world is not as developed as europe or even china, but there is industrial development in most of the world....Minuscule and derisory levels of industrial development do not automatically lead to the hallowed halls of 'industrial society'. Obviously deciding just when exactly the latter has occurred is problematic (although I'd be confident that Rostow's model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostovian_take-off_model) still holds) but small levels of cottage industry are perfectly compatible with agrarian and pre-industrial society

they may not be fully realized industrial centers, but most societies are still post-industrial because of the impact industrialization has had on virtually everythingApologies for the chopping and changing but this is closely related to the above

How can a society (and this is not the same as country) that has no modern industry to speak of be considered "post-industrial"? Other than as part of some grand environmentalist joke of course. Do agrarian societies interact with industrial societies? Of course - that's capitalism (see below) and inherent in this is the idea of a trade dependency loop that retards one society's development while benefiting the capitalists of another. But then none of this changes the fact that there are industrial and pre-industrial societies. Industrialisation doesn't just happen to someone else, its not a global affair, but instead it is a very real set of economic and social developments that occurs society by society (not necessarily in serial)

So the fact that America industrialised is not hugely relevant (in the positive sense at least) to the industrial development of Botswana

...and the places lacking the machinery are still essential to the maintenance of the industrial systemWhich is true, to a degree. But then this merely demonstrates the error in conflating 'capitalism' with 'industrial society'. Capitalism, having entrenched itself in the West, actively hinders the development of the ROTW in order to serve the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie. The solution is not the abandonment of the advances made in the West but rather extending them, through the abolition of capitalism, to those regions that are currently still in a pre-industrial state

hey if i just put some sarcasm and an eye roll in maybe no one will notice i'm completely missing the point:rolleyes:You suggested that that industrial society is more "generally detrimental to human beings than any in the pre-industrial world". I consider the only proper responses to this to be either sarcasm or disdain

Did you know that that fewer than 50% of the population in 15th C Germany lived to reach the age of fifteen? Or that "Augsburg recorded 38,000 plague victims in eight years in the first half of the 16th C, followed by 20,000 in seven years between 1550 and 1600" and "London lost a fifth of its population in each of its outbreaks in 1595, 1603 and 1625, and had only eleven years without high mortality rates between 1625 and 1646"? This was the reality of the "pre-industrial world", as the millions of malaria victims who die every year in the 21st C can attest to

So I remain suspicious bcbm. You "specifically state" that you're not talking about "abandoning" modern technology and so forth, and then you come out with a clanger like the above. Leaving aside the fact that I consider dying of easily preventable diseases to be fairly detrimental to my being, you can see why I'm getting mixed messages here

probably a complete transformation of the mode of production, destroying the factory model and looking for new ways to integrate production with human activity with a strong need for a new technological base in addition with the reworking or rediscovering of older methods. i don't have too much specifically "planned" if that's what you're asking for, but i don't think getting rid of the bosses and putting workers in control will be enough to solve all the problems we have because of industrial productionWell its hard to argue with that. Personally it sounds too close to artisan production for my tastes but I'm not going to argue which utopia is more realistic

bcbm

29th August 2010, 20:22

Minuscule and derisory levels of industrial development do not automatically lead to the hallowed halls of 'industrial society'. Obviously deciding just when exactly the latter has occurred is problematic (although I'd be confident that Rostow's model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostovian_take-off_model) still holds) but small levels of cottage industry are perfectly compatible with agrarian and pre-industrial society

Apologies for the chopping and changing but this is closely related to the above

How can a society (and this is not the same as country) that has no modern industry to speak of be considered "post-industrial"? Other than as part of some grand environmentalist joke of course. Do agrarian societies interact with industrial societies? Of course - that's capitalism (see below) and inherent in this is the idea of a trade dependency loop that retards one society's development while benefiting the capitalists of another. But then none of this changes the fact that there are industrial and pre-industrial societies. Industrialisation doesn't just happen to someone else, its not a global affair, but instead it is a very real set of economic and social developments that occurs society by society (not necessarily in serial)

i don't think its useful or accurate to discuss industrial society as existing separately from the material base that supports it. from the beginning the creation and expansion of modern industrial society has relied on the practice of primitive accumulation, which is still occurring today across the third world and, in fact, has never ceased to occur- its what keeps the whole capitalist system of industry functioning. given the now global nature of the system i think considering many underdeveloped areas post-industrial (as in, integrated into the industrial system) makes sense. its a bit of a cop out to label as products of industrial society all of the good things while ignoring the realities that are required to create them and maintain the system that creates them.

Which is true, to a degree. But then this merely demonstrates the error in conflating 'capitalism' with 'industrial society'. Capitalism, having entrenched itself in the West, actively hinders the development of the ROTW in order to serve the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie.again, i don't think the two can simply be divorced like that, capitalism and industrial society have grown together and each has influenced the other.

The solution is not the abandonment of the advances made in the West but rather extending them, through the abolition of capitalism, to those regions that are currently still in a pre-industrial statei feel like its really pointless to have this discussion when you aren't even understanding what i am saying.

You suggested that that industrial society is more "generally detrimental to human beings than any in the pre-industrial world". I consider the only proper responses to this to be either sarcasm or disdainour current system is kept functioning by keeping a majority of the population in some form of exploitation and for most it is more extreme than almost any that existed in history and certainly so many people have never lived in such destitution. i am not suggesting pre-industrial life was great, i am saying that the creation and maintenance of our industrial world has come at an almost unfathomable human cost that, in my view, has been unnecessary.

So I remain suspicious bcbm. You "specifically state" that you're not talking about "abandoning" modern technology and so forth, and then you come out with a clanger like the above.i have explicitly stated why i think that is the case and how i view the question of industry, etc. your suspicions are your own problem; they are not based on what i'm saying.

Leaving aside the fact that I consider dying of easily preventable diseases to be fairly detrimental to my being, you can see why I'm getting mixed messages hereno, i've been extremely clear here and elsewhere about my views. i don't see what is so confusing about recognizing that modern industrial society has created a largely horrific world and that creating a world based around human needs will require a total reimagination of, well, almost everything but industry and production are certainly not exempt.

Well its hard to argue with that. Personally it sounds too close to artisan production for my tastes but I'm not going to argue which utopia is more realisticto me this suggests you're reading what i write having already concluded that i'm arguing from some quasi-primitivist position instead of understanding what i am actually saying. the only part that could even remotely suggest this is when i say "the reworking or rediscovering of old methods," which hardly suggests reverting to cottage industries.

Omnia Sunt Communia

1st September 2010, 20:59

Did you know that that fewer than 50% of the population in 15th C Germany lived to reach the age of fifteen? Or that "Augsburg recorded 38,000 plague victims in eight years in the first half of the 16th C, followed by 20,000 in seven years between 1550 and 1600" and "London lost a fifth of its population in each of its outbreaks in 1595, 1603 and 1625, and had only eleven years without high mortality rates between 1625 and 1646"?

And these developments occurred within the primitive development of capitalism, in the context of a violent process of assimilating the peasant masses into a metropolitanized and proletarianized existence, facilitated by the destruction of traditional communal medical disciplines. A very intellectually dishonest argument against primitive communism.

black magick hustla

3rd September 2010, 03:45

medical communal disciplines huh. revleft has had an influx of crazy luddites recently

ComradeOm

4th September 2010, 16:12

again, i don't think the two can simply be divorced like that, capitalism and industrial society have grown together and each has influenced the otherOf course they have developed together. Does this mean that they are intransigently linked and that one cannot survive without the other? No

Whether or not a society is industrialised can be quantified by a range of measures. Arguing that, say, most of Africa is an industrial society is simply false (as in, not up for discussion without questioning the indicators themselves) because every economic indicator makes clear that it is not. The African economy is just overwhelmingly orientated towards the primary sector. There are only so many ways that I can put this - Africa is not industrialised and most of the continent does not entertain an 'industrial society'

Which tends to be a pretty major hole in the thesis that capitalism and 'industrial society' "cannot be divorced". If, as I'm sure we all agree, capitalism is a global system then why, keeping in mind the above, is industrialisation not universal? :confused:

its a bit of a cop out to label as products of industrial society all of the good things while ignoring the realities that are required to create them and maintain the system that creates themIf I ignored the unpleasant side to capitalism, never mind actively oppose it, I would not be a member of this site

What is clear however is, carrying on from the above, that there is an undeniable correlation between industrialisation and living standards. Pick whatever measure you want (life expectancy, infant mortality, calorie consumption, etc) and you'll find that industrialised nations lead the way. This is not a coincidence

given the now global nature of the system i think considering many underdeveloped areas post-industrial (as in, integrated into the industrial system) makes senseNo, it doesn't. Considering a country 'post-industrial' when it was never 'industrial' in the first place makes very little sense. What is far more reasonable is asserting that these nations have never been through industrialisation, and thus have not reaped its benefits, because they are being retarded by capitalism. Otherwise you're just dancing around terms

i feel like its really pointless to have this discussion when you aren't even understanding what i am sayingMy mistake, I somehow got the impression that you were opposed to industrial society, considering it synonymous with capitalism, and objected to "further industrialisation" throughout the ROTW. I wonder where I got this idea?

i am not suggesting pre-industrial life was great, i am saying that the creation and maintenance of our industrial world has come at an almost unfathomable human cost that, in my view, has been unnecessary.Because there was or is an alternative to the development of industrial society and penicillin?

Here's the story - industrial life is shit and pre-industrial life was shit. Life is generally shit when you are not part of the ruling class. Leaving it at this however is disingenuous at best and blindly ignorant at worst because there are degrees of shitiness. For the vast swathe of people today who are unfortunate enough to live outside the bounds of industrial society, life is not significantly worse than it was two hundred years ago. There have been additional burdens but also considerable respite in the form of technological advances - the infant mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa today, while remaining unacceptably high, has declined sharply in the past century (and continues to do so)*. This is while the basic mode of production (subsistence agriculture) has not significantly changed in centuries. Life is still shit in these regions but it has gotten better in some very quantifiable ways. Of course in industrial societies the story is almost incomparably different but I'm sure you can see that for yourself

So no, I don't consider your grudging admission, hastily qualified, that pre-industrial society was not exactly great to be of much use. We still live in an oppressive economic system built on blood and sweat... but so did ever other pre-capitalist society. The only real difference with capitalism is that its allowed for a vast ballooning of the absolute numbers suffering

*Which is incidentally why 'so many people are living in such destitution'

to me this suggests you're reading what i write having already concluded that i'm arguing from some quasi-primitivist position instead of understanding what i am actually sayingAn alternative view being that your weak protests simply do not convince. For what its worth, I don't think that you're a primitivist, just a utopian. Your future is one where industrialisation is no more (as industrial society and capitalism are one and the same) but we somehow aren't dying off in the millions due to plague or starvation. Suit yourself

And these developments occurred within the primitive development of capitalismI'm beginning to conclude that you have very little idea as to just what "the primitive development of capitalism" actually means. How far back do you date this process?

Regardless, those figures were ones that I had on hand at the time. A similar picture emerges from the study of any pre-industrial society. Medieval towns and regions were regularly visited by waves of typhus, diphtheria, bubonic plague, smallpox, etc. Indeed one of the most famous cases was that of Athens which was wracked by three waves of plague (probably typhus) in four years around 430BC. The "primitive development of capitalism" or "the destruction of traditional communal medical disciplines"?

...facilitated by the destruction of traditional communal medical disciplinesWe really need a 'You're crazy' emoticon on this site

A very intellectually dishonest argument against primitive communismNothing is more dangerous than an idiot with a bit of knowledge. "Primitive communism" is not something to admire or to aspire to. Only primitivists even consider the suggestion that we one date might return to such a primitive and backwards state of being

Omnia Sunt Communia

4th September 2010, 16:24

A similar picture emerges from the study of any pre-industrial society. Medieval towns and regions were regularly visited by waves of typhus, diphtheria, bubonic plague, smallpox, etc. Indeed one of the most famous cases was that of Athens which was wracked by three waves of plague (probably typhus) in four years around 430BC.

That's a pretty biased survey of "pre-industrial society", those were all proto-capitalist urban patriarchal slave-states. The condition of human health has worsened with the further development of patriarchal civilization through the motor of industrialism. (eg: HIV, cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc. etc.) I don't believe in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" though, under communism we can continue to use the sciences of the modern capitalist era to cure disease...

ComradeOm

4th September 2010, 16:38

That's a pretty biased survey of "pre-industrial society", those were all proto-capitalist urban patriarchal slave-statesAthens in 430BC was proto-capitalist? :laugh:

Again, I ask you to define just when you believe "the primitive development of capitalism" to have begun? Because it seems to me that you've divided history into three stages - Capitalism (bad), proto-capitalism (bad), and some lost utopia (good)

The condition of human health has worsened with the further development of patriarchal civilization through the motor of industrialism. (eg: HIV, cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc. etc.)Demonstrably false. Not only can the likes of HIV be balanced against smallpox and other victories (who was the last person you know who died of measles?) but it is undeniable that current rates of infant mortality are the lowest in recorded history and that the average age of a person on this planet is the highest in recorded history. Which are merely two of myriad indicators that show that people today are living longer and in better condition than ever before. The idea that human health is somehow regressing, despite the incredible advances in medical technology, is simply absurd

Omnia Sunt Communia

4th September 2010, 18:50

Athens in 430BC was proto-capitalist

Yes, the Athenians would have created capitalism if they could, it just didn't happen that way.

Again, I ask you to define just when you believe "the primitive development of capitalism" to have begun?Around the 15th and 16th centuries AD

ecause it seems to me that you've divided history into three stages - Capitalism (bad), proto-capitalism (bad), and some lost utopia (good)I did no such thing. Primitive communist societies were far from "utopian"....

Not only can the likes of HIV be balanced against smallpox and other victories (who was the last person you know who died of measles?)A) it's a false dichotomy since the industrial mode of production can be smashed without smashing smallpox vaccinations.
B) It's chauvinistic to say that the suffering of HIV victims is "balanced" by other novel happenstances and flukes of capitalism, (such as the discovery of penicillin and vaccinations) - as if the latter requires the former - which in no way present a moral argument for industrial capitalism. Do you by chance have HIV?

it is undeniable that current rates of infant mortality are the lowest in recorded historyConsidering you are not providing statistics to back up your claims, I find them difficult to refute. Are you talking about in the more developed regions of the capitalist world or are you also including regions such as Africa and Latin America where infant mortality is still very high?

that the average age of a person on this planet is the highest in recorded history.Long age is not always an indication of good health, in the capitalist metropolis the majority of the elderly are crippled with pain and physical malady due to the stresses of modern proletarian life.

The idea that human health is somehow regressing, despite the incredible advances in medical technology, is simply absurdIf human health is progressing then why get rid of capitalism?

Vanguard1917

4th September 2010, 19:39

Considering you are not providing statistics to back up your claims, I find them difficult to refute. Are you talking about in the more developed regions of the capitalist world or are you also including regions such as Africa and Latin America where infant mortality is still very high?

Pre-20th century global life expectancy at birth was around 30. The 20th century saw world life expectancy more than double -- today it is around 65. Wikipedia gives, with references, data for 'Life expectancy variation over time': (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy).

Child mortality has declined radically -- by more than 60% globally in the last 50 years (http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45607.html).

A) it's a false dichotomy since the industrial mode of production can be smashed without smashing smallpox vaccinations.

Nope. Getting rid of industrial society will mean getting rid of the advancements which were made possible only as a result of industrial society. You cannot have modern hospitals and state of the art medical research centres under conditions of economic backwardness.

B) It's chauvinistic to say that the suffering of HIV victims is "balanced" by other novel happenstances and flukes of capitalism, (such as the discovery of penicillin and vaccinations)

'Flukes'? There are a myriad of illnesses that were once incurable and basically untreatable, for which we now have cures, effective treatments and ways of preventing.

That's no fluke. It's empirical fact that, on average, people today are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

And in developed societies, HIV is a treatable disease. It is in industrially underdeveloped societies that millions suffer and die from it.

If human health is progressing then why get rid of capitalism?

Because it's not progressing fast enough. And capitalism denies adequate social and economic development to a large proportion of humanity.

Ele'ill

4th September 2010, 19:58

Because its core critique (to be very simplistic, that technology is bad) and conclusions (technology must be abandoned, again simplistic) are by definition reactionary

It's been a while since I posted in here so bare with me if I'm not exactly on topic-

As far as I've seen (and most people have seen if they open their eyes) technology has been used for the advancement of industries that are harming the planet.

This is not a rebuttal to anything you've said. I'm going to use this post to clarify things.

Except that's not simply what Jensen, and others, say. They insist that modern 'civilisation' (apparently defined as societies that utilise technology) is both unsustainable and unredeemable.

I believe the current state of technology and industry is horrid. I appreciate some of Jensen's critiques of current industry and technology. I appreciate some of his observations.

This is not a critique of capitalism or its policies - its an assault on the very notion of social and technological progress. So no, there is indeed a very clear difference between most environmentalist critiques and that advocated by primitivists

The environmental critiques are nearly identical or often much more pronounced from Jensen- I think his thoughts are well articulated. The proposed solutions are what's different.

I want to stress the bold above. Does anyone here subscribe to the notion that "civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living"?

Not while using unsustainable industry practices.

Not while operating at anything less than 100% sustainable or in a manner that does not allow ecosystems to repair.

Because this is entirely unacceptable for RevLeft.

Was it you that already said this once in this thread?

Do you understand how listening to someone you might generally disagree with can still reward you with new insight?

I can agree with Jensen and I can disagree with him.

Ditto the premise that follows. When you defend Jensen, and his 'critique' you are defending this sentiment. Think about that

I already have thought about it and I think it's bullshit.

If anything at all I'm defending against knee jerk accusations and blatant parroted witchhuntery. Give it a rest already.

I thank the posts in other threads- of many people I've argued heavily with in the animal rights threads. It's because while I don't agree with their views on animal rights- I do agree with their views on say- labor- with some of them I simply appreciate the wording of their observations. Some people I disagree with on Labor- but agree with on animal rights topics!

It's amazing, you should try it sometime.

It must really suck something fierce for you to go to any type of council or forum where ideas are freely exchanged.

I think its perfectly obvious that what Jensen is advocating is antithetical to almost everything that the socialist movement stands for. I think that its perfectly obvious that you agree with much of what Jensen says. Can I 'prove' this in a court of law? I shouldn't have to

I think you're visiting my intentions of posting in a thread like this. Don't.

I also don't believe that you've read much of Jensen.

No 'leftist' would argue that this is a) a problem with technology which is by nature deemed to be unsustainable, or b) the solution to any ecological problem is the abandonment of industrial society in favour of a return to hunter-gather or agrarian societies. If you find yourself agreeing with either of these points then you are a reactionary, not a 'leftist', and should be consigned to OI

I don't believe the situation could be handled in such a simple manner. No.

I do believe there is a balance that needs to be met.

I'm also tired of the threats regarding my re-restriction.

Understand that this is not some sort of trick or whatnot but do us a favour and just say what you believe in. What exactly about Jensen's writings do you like? What parts of his critique do you agree with? Which of his policies would you advocate?

Who is "us"?

Fuck you and your trial. Restrict me. :)

I'm not a primitivist- I appreciate some of the primitivist environmental observations.

Not only is it unedifying to see someone dancing around what they actually believe in (and everyone knows they believe in) but it also makes it difficult, for obvious reasons, to have a discussion based on perceived positions. So do the honourable thing either way - cards on the table or walk away from the thread

I appreciate some of the environmental observations.. I believe some of his writing is clever- I like some of the interviews I've seen.

This is what I've said before- in this thread and others. Don't ask me to repeat myself again- thanks. :thumbup1:

No, no, I understand. You are the intelligent and non-conformist rebel while I am the dull Leninist constantly entertaining dreams of skull fucking Lenin. Blah blah blah. I've heard it before and it is officially, now, the last resort of the desperate primitivist

The difference here is that you've proven the 'I am the dull Leninist constantly entertaining dreams of skull fucking Lenin. Blah blah blah.' but have yet to prove that I am in any way 'desperate', a primitivist or any combination of the two.

I think it's obvious that you're playing forum cop here. Just knock it off- it makes you look silly as shit.

Simple question: Do you agree with the premises laid out here (http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm)? Please indicate the ones that you do and don't agree with. Because, as I mentioned above, its pretty hard to discuss your "observations" when you refuse to divulge them

I'm going to read this and post a reply in a separate post- in this thread.

Dimentio

4th September 2010, 20:20

What do you propose should be the solution, Mari3l?

Ele'ill

4th September 2010, 20:24

I'm going to quote directly from the link http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

"Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization."

I believe it can be sustainable. I believe profit or a general demand (not necessarily involving profit) can cause industry to 'cut corners' to put it lightly.

I believe civilization can be sustainable- I don't think every type of industry can be- and I think this is a huge problem.

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

This is what's happening under capitalism right now. I like this observation- I'm smart enough to realize he isn't taking an 'anti capitalist' stance on this issue even though he is against this issue which is 'anti-capitalist'. Resource grabbing at the expense of communities would be beyond undesirable post revolution- in a leftist world.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

I'm unsure of what he's referring to. War? City crime?

I agree with his observation but I think it's pretty generic- I disagree with what it means and where he's coming from. Without violent resource grabbing, neo-liberalism and war to name a few- without the plethora of violent institutions- Capitalism wouldn't be capitalism.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this- I don't disagree.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't disagree with this.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

I agree with his sense of urgency, and the general observation that we're in some thick shit right now and it's getting worse. Rather than cry about it and write books about how I'm crying about it I act to make things better now. I act to make the future better.
I'm a revolutionary in the sense that I believe revolution can succeed in changing a country and the world.

I'm not going to go through the entire list-

While I disagree with the 'primitivist' solutions- I agree with their urgency and environmental observations.

Or the fatal flaw in your shitty-fuck forum cop trial is that I could be lying about all of this. I'll let my original unrestriction, past posts in other areas of the forum and future posts on this forum stand as 'trial'.

Ele'ill

4th September 2010, 20:26

What do you propose should be the solution, Mari3l?

The solution to what?

ComradeOm

4th September 2010, 22:00

Yes, the Athenians would have created capitalism if they could, it just didn't happen that wayYou clearly have no idea what proto-capitalism actually means. It is not the same as 'pre-capitalism'

But then this merely displays your ignorance of the meaning behind the jargon. Why would the Athenian ruling class "have created capitalism if they could"? You make capitalism sound like an historic accident when the reality is that the establishment of capitalist relations would have destroyed the class basis of the Athenian elite

A) it's a false dichotomy since the industrial mode of production can be smashed without smashing smallpox vaccinationsI should certainly hope so given my desire to "smash" capitalism and build on its industrial advances. But then that's not what is in question here. The reality is that it was "industrialism" that created these vaccines in the first place and not any prior social base. Like it or not, the eradication of smallpox is a victory for industrial society. This, and a host of other advances, directly contradict your nonsensical claims that "industrialism" has decreased the "condition of human health"

B) It's chauvinistic to say that the suffering of HIV victims is "balanced" by other novel happenstances and flukes of capitalism, (such as the discovery of penicillin and vaccinations) - as if the latter requires the former - which in no way present a moral argument for industrial capitalism. Do you by chance have HIV?Who is pretending to "present a moral argument for industrial capitalism"? As for saying that these are "flukes", have you happened to suffer from an easily curable disease in the past? I know that I can say with certainty that if it were not for modern medicine I would not be alive today

Considering you are not providing statistics to back up your claims, I find them difficult to refute. Are you talking about in the more developed regions of the capitalist world or are you also including regions such as Africa and Latin America where infant mortality is still very high?You cannot read? Do a search on this page for, "the infant mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa today, while remaining unacceptably high, has declined sharply in the past century (and continues to do so)"

Secondly, do you really need such basic history spelt out to you? Did you not learn this in school? Honestly, this is very simple stuff. Infant mortality rates have been falling for centuries in the industrialised West. Significantly so as well - in 1900 it stood at around 140 infants per thousand in England, a century later and it was 4.3 in the UK. It has obviously fallen less dramatically in the ROTW but even still there are less than half a dozen nations in the world today that have a higher rate than England had in 1900. Progress

Again though, I'm always amazed when people ask me for figures for this stuff. Its just so basic

Long age is not always an indication of good health, in the capitalist metropolis the majority of the elderly are crippled with pain and physical malady due to the stresses of modern proletarian lifeWhat are you talking about. A hundred years ago the average life expectancy for a male in England was 45, today it is 75. Those additional thirty years are not spent in some sort of painfully crippling hellish existence as people somehow outlive their 'natural' lifespan. Frankly, what sort of mind thinks that living an additional three decades is a bad thing?

If human health is progressing then why get rid of capitalism?Because the workers can do better. Duh. Capitalism is an unimaginably vast improvement on pre-capitalist societies but no one here has pretended that it is even close to perfect. It is still a bloody system that rests on the exploitation of the proletariat. I can only expect a socialist future to be an equally great advancement

bcbm

5th September 2010, 04:14

My mistake, I somehow got the impression that you were opposed to industrial society, considering it synonymous with capitalism, and objected to "further industrialisation" throughout the ROTW. I wonder where I got this idea?

i wonder too:

which doesn't mean to destroy it but an almost complete transformation of production

the whole model of industry and production we have needs to be changed

did you miss where i said specifically it does not mean destroying it? i think we need bigger transformation than workers controlling the means of production and that the end result will bear little resemblance to modern industrial society.

i don't think the problem is too much or too little economic development, but too little development in all societies that is specifically geared towards improving the lives of human beings and opening up more possibilities for them.

a sane production strategy for our global society will require more than applying the same industrial processes across the globe; it will require a complete rethinking and reorganization of industry

any advanced society without capitalism will implement a much different form of industry.

the problem isn't industry, the problem is modern industrial society. i don't think it can be easily separated from capitalism as its entire development has been to serve the ends of capital. a communist industry would be something completely different, not just a minor shift in our current setup.

Because there was or is an alternative to the development of industrial society and penicillin?

what happened happened, but i don't think that means it was inevitable.

An alternative view being that your weak protests simply do not convince. For what its worth, I don't think that you're a primitivist, just a utopian. Your future is one where industrialisation is no more (as industrial society and capitalism are one and the same) but we somehow aren't dying off in the millions due to plague or starvation. Suit yourself

what "weak protests?" i've been saying the same thing from the beginning, and i have specifically stated... oh fuck it, you can't or won't understand, this is pointless. suit yourself.

Omnia Sunt Communia

5th September 2010, 21:45

Pre-20th century global life expectancy at birth was around 30. The 20th century saw world life expectancy more than double -- today it is around 65. Wikipedia gives, with references, data for 'Life expectancy variation over time': (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy).

I remain skeptical, that Wikipedia article is riddled with missing academic citations, the small pool of literature it does reference is poorly researched and blatantly biased towards capitalism. (Unsurprising given Wikipedia's flacid academic rigor) For example, one article uses the activities of modern man to infer Paleolithic and Neolithic life expectancy.

The truth is reliable statistics do not exist for most of the pre-modern era, capitalist scientists enjoy pontificating on the 'misery' of life before capital based on limited fossilization evidence of worn tooth enamel and joint stress in human fragments.

The truth is that life has always been dangerous, we as modern proletarians live with the very common risk of death by automobile crashes and workplace hazards which immolate uncounted numbers of individuals, plus attacks from cops, prison guards, pimps and other patriarchal thugs, and high suicide rates from the psychological stress of capitalism. Add that to the poor nutritional quality of industrially produced food and the myriad organic and synthetic toxins we all inadvertently consume in the air, earth, and water, plus the powerful new toxic drugs we wittingly poison ourselves with - I would venture to say that for the most part capitalism has created conditions of increased misery, and the sole motor of capitalist production is industry. There has never been a social project that has retained the conditions of industry and not also the conditions of capitalism, it was the primary failing of the USSR, the PRC, and anarchist Catalonia.

Child mortality has declined radically -- by more than 60% globally in the last 50 years (http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45607.html).The UN imperialists are not exactly unbiased observers, (and this is a study of trends in different years of the capitalist era, and thus not of specific relevance) although the data they collect is certainly enlightening. I wish I was more learned on the subject but remain obstinately skeptical. The vulgar and barbaric manner in which capitalist medical industry exploits birthing women is disgusting - the way they are stripped of their freedom by medical bureaucrats crowded in cramped and ugly, florescent lit compartments with the infectious sick. It's pathetic that Ricki Lake has a more sophisticated understanding of this issue than some partisans of the communist left. (The otherwise insipid hipster-yuppie-capitalist "consumer activist" periodical AdBusters has a surprisingly good article about this subject entitled "Industrial Childbirth")

Now this is in comparison to the communal birthing traditions of the plebian masses, which were stomped out across the globe by the emergence of the capitalist medical complex, which were given by mothers to daughters and aunts to nieces, in relatively stress-free environments, with safer drugs and without the motivation of capital.

You cannot have modern hospitals and state of the art medical research centres under conditions of economic backwardness."Economic backwardness" is a mental hobgoblin of the bourgeoisie. The hospital is a barbaric relic of capitalism, historically developed to institutionally exploit the infirm poor. Doctors need clean water, precise, well-sterilized scapels, and well-stocked apothecaries of time-tested medicines, not toxic "sterility" and cumbersome, cancerous gadgets which are mostly trophies of economic hubris. The "sanitary" conditions of a capitalist hospital, be it private or public, are illusory, and once the arts and sciences of humanity are freed from the crushing toil of wage labor, beautiful new monasteries of medical knowledge will be built in the ruins of the hospitals

'Flukes'? There are a myriad of illnesses that were once incurable and basically untreatable, for which we now have cures, effective treatments and ways of preventing.The bourgeoisie have made their contributions to medical science, it's true. We can thank them by stealing good their ideas when we totally destroy their miserable social order.

And in developed societies, HIV is a treatable disease. It is in industrially underdeveloped societies that millions suffer and die from it."industrially underdeveloped societies" are "industrially underdeveloped" because other regions of the capitalist globe are "developed". It's called a global capitalist market. Children in Asia, Latin America, and Africa don't have food, water, or basic medicine because the capitalists are using our collective resources to mass-produce, among other things, botox injections, liposuction vacuums, paper hospital-bed sheets, sonogram machines, and X-ray generators.

Also, as anyone with HIV can tell you, modern "treatments" mostly involve pharmaceuticals with horrific and miserable side-effects. A modern blight such as HIV requires modern solutions, HIV will not be cured with ginseng tea, but the capitalists are not motivated to cure any disease, they are motivated to destroy unneeded human capital and keep the remaining work-force productive. (This is why HIV has been deliberately used in policies of genocide in Africa and why the "socialist" Obama regime has gutted AIDS research in the US)

Because it's not progressing fast enough. And capitalism denies adequate social and economic development to a large proportion of humanity.The conceptualization of the creation of a new socialist society in the ruins of the old as a "progress" beyond capital is a limitation. The goal is to redirect the historical trajectory of the world in a totally new direction. Of course "capitalism denies adequate social and economic development to a large proportion of humanity", this is a consequence of concreate means implemented to produce the wasteful luxuries of the wealthy minority. Wishing the conditions of psychologically and spiritually desolate decadence enjoyed by the bourgeoisie upon the mass of humanity is nothing more than ecocidal, suicidal misanthropy.

And of course Derrick Jensen is the perfect strawmen for the technocrat 'communists'; in Language Older Than Words he admits to killing a duck to cope with psychosexual trauma. What We Leave Behind has gross prosaic pornography describing the idyllic consumption of human feces by canines. He is more of a reactionary extremist than the Unabomber, favoring the end of literacy, metallurgy, and agriculture, and unlike Zerzan he's not even an impressive intellectual nor is he interested in any substantial class analysis. He substitutes idyllism and misanthropic defeatist millennialism for a coherent program of proletarian dictatorship. He makes his living selling overpriced copyrighted self-help books and university lectures in which he brags about communing with trees, rivers, and stars. (As if that makes him special and not just another ordinary human being) His 'critiques' of Buddhism bring to mind the Invisible Committee's words on the anarchist who 'negates' what he does not comprehend. A splendid example of the parasitic, capitalist 'left'. And on top of that his existence refustes his own essentialist posturings, since he is dependent upon capitalist medicine to treat his Crohn's Disease. (Luckily for Jensen, the glorious destruction of capitalism and the end of the modern era does not necessitate the abandonment of certain useful tools pioneered by our class-enemy)

Tatarin

5th September 2010, 23:49

Yeah, about that. Selling books that are made on the same trees he says he wants to protect. Or what about driving that truck?

The truth is, like I've already stated a billion times, is that any collapse that doesn't kill all of us will either result in a limited dark age or just a new age. Humans will always want to make life simpler, easier, more want and less have to.

The big flaw of primitivism is that it doesn't offer solution, it simply hopes that everything will be fine once civilization is gone. It's too much "communing with trees, animals and stars" and no "what to eat and how to get warm", if you get my meaning.

chegitz guevara

6th September 2010, 18:54

Jensen should be shot in the brain. His books burned. The internet scrubbed free of his writings, and his followers killed and eaten.

Tatarin

7th September 2010, 03:18

Jensen should be shot in the brain. His books burned. The internet scrubbed free of his writings, and his followers killed and eaten.

Killed and eaten? Who's the primitivist now?! :D

bailey_187

7th September 2010, 11:27

Jensen should be shot in the brain. His books burned. The internet scrubbed free of his writings, and his followers killed and eaten.

THis may have been sarcasm, but i agree except the eating people

Omnia Sunt Communia

7th September 2010, 19:18

THis may have been sarcasm, but i agree except the eating people

As long as we don't eat the brains, we'll be OK

chegitz guevara

8th September 2010, 04:16

You know what meat eaters call vegans?

Food.

chegitz guevara

8th September 2010, 04:19

Killed and eaten? Who's the primitivist now?! :D

It's recycling. They wouldn't want their bodies to go to waste.

Ele'ill

11th September 2010, 00:26

You know what meat eaters call vegans?

Food.

That's because they would die from the toxins they'd ingest if they ate their fellow carnivores.

Unkut

14th September 2010, 06:41

Is the earth a living organism? Trees, plants, animals, etc? Civilization is based on the subjugation of everything. Communists want to end the subjugation of the working-class, people who subscribe to anti-civ positions want to end the subjugation of everything.

Communism is not a world free of exploitation, its just not. Its a world free of human exploitation. So you have to decide which side you're on. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that those are the sides when you look at primitivism vs communism.

Okay but in nature itself though, do not the predatory animals exploit the animals that are their prey? So nature in itself is exploitative in a sense. However I don't mean to imply that this apparently natural exploitation by predators of prey justifies human exploitation. When I was a child actually and I would watch National Geographic I used to wonder why no one ever did anything when they showed a predator animal like a tiger hunting a deer or whatever. I would always want the camera person or whoever to shoot the tiger and felt that what I was seeing was a grave injustice. It's kind of strange to me how I had that natural instinct as a kid and yet the tiger hunting the deer is also part of nature. I'm probably getting off topic a bit now.

chegitz guevara

15th September 2010, 17:51

That's because they would die from the toxins they'd ingest if they ate their fellow carnivores.

Carnivores eat other carnivores all the time. We're badass like that.

Ele'ill

15th September 2010, 19:15

Carnivores eat other carnivores all the time. We're badass like that.

So this thread's now about cannibalism

ZeroNowhere

15th September 2010, 19:18

I find it entirely appropriate that a thread about Derrick Jensen should turn into a thread about cannibalism. It seems to reflect a new and better direction for Revleft: discussion not only of problems, but also of concrete solutions to them.

chegitz guevara

15th September 2010, 19:27

So this thread's now about cannibalism

I prefer to call it recycling.

Ele'ill

15th September 2010, 19:30

Would it be fair to say that primitivists lack faith in those dedicating their lives towards social justice?

It seems that primitivism as a word is misused amongst a lot of the left- especially here in the PNW. Anarcho-primitivism isn't primitivism at all- that wouldn't make any sense as it seems the main feature of primitivism is the undesireable cleansing of the planet from humans- or letting it happen passively. 'Anarcho-primitivists' are just anarchists that lack altruism and instead want to live their life without struggle- and live it simply- they'd be pushing for more of a post civ way of life. They're selfish and useless and barely anarchists-by-action but whatever.

Omnia Sunt Communia

15th September 2010, 19:35

Okay but in nature itself though, do not the predatory animals exploit the animals that are their prey?

Yes but this "exploitation" can often be mutually beneficial unlike capitalist exploitation.

Kiev Communard

15th September 2010, 20:14

Anarcho-Primitivism is the result of idealising the "golden age" of primitive communist society, depicting it as some kind of utopian paradise. The Anarcho-Primitivists fail to take into account that even before the advent of capitalist colonialism most "primitive communist" societies (save for some exceptions, such as Australian Aborigines) have already had quite prominent levels of social inequality (for instance, institutionalized slavery in Pacific Amerindian society or hereditary chiefdom of Papuans), while many others (especially that of Sub-Saharan Africa) were busy converting themselves into proper class-based societies. The Primitive Communism is sustainable only at the extremely low level of development of productive forces (Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherer society). Even Neolithic-style craft and primitive agriculture lead to the accumulation of social surplus and struggle over it, and hence to the emergence of first class societies, state and private (including state) property.

Therefore, the Anarcho-Primitivists need to go even further than Pol Pot to achieve their much vaunted (anti)-utopia.

Ele'ill

15th September 2010, 20:25

They come across as being extremely unwilling to work with people- the working class etc..

Omnia Sunt Communia

15th September 2010, 21:09

Dimentio

15th September 2010, 21:12

this is an invasion

16th September 2010, 02:11

This is quite sadistic of me, but it would kind of settle the issue if they manage to take power in some less important country, like Austria for example. That could serve as an example to the world of what not to do.

I think talking about anarcho-primitivists "taking power" displays a very serious misunderstanding of what anarcho-primitivism is.

chegitz guevara

16th September 2010, 03:01

The Khmer Rouge was all about shock-industrializing Cambodia so the political state could compete in the world economy.

I would suggest you could do a bit more studying on the situation in Kampuchea under the Pol Pot regime. Far from chock-industrializing, they shut down all the factories for several years, and then only opened up a few very small ones (like a bicycle shop).

Dimentio

16th September 2010, 09:09

I think talking about anarcho-primitivists "taking power" displays a very serious misunderstanding of what anarcho-primitivism is.

The problem is that in that case, their very ideology is one of defeatism, and they prevent others from instigating change by demotivating young people from doing anything else but read Ishmael and wank one another off.

Kiev Communard

16th September 2010, 13:06

I agree with your first paragraph. Your reference to Pol Pot, however, is somewhat incoherent. The Khmer Rouge was all about shock-industrializing Cambodia so the political state could compete in the world economy.

Sorry, but you are wrong. As far as I know the economic plans of the Khmer Rouge were based mostly on turning Cambodia into rice supplier on the global market, as they felt that developing industry was somehow "counterproductive" and "decadent".

Dimentio

16th September 2010, 18:42

Sorry, but you are wrong. As far as I know the economic plans of the Khmer Rouge were based mostly on turning Cambodia into rice supplier on the global market, as they felt that developing industry was somehow "counterproductive" and "decadent".

Their plan was actually to destroy the infrastructure to start again from zero. I only know one other guy who has proposed something as utterly stupid, and he's a flaming idiot whose vision of a future is that he recruits some unemployed people as his slaves who build a dome, give him food and research a longevity cure so he could live forever and save humanity.

This, children, is what is happening when you let philosophy students run a country. :lol:

Omnia Sunt Communia

16th September 2010, 22:03

Sorry, but you are wrong. As far as I know the economic plans of the Khmer Rouge were based mostly on turning Cambodia into rice supplier on the global market, as they felt that developing industry was somehow "counterproductive" and "decadent".

I would suggest you could do a bit more studying on the situation in Kampuchea under the Pol Pot regime. Far from chock-industrializing, they shut down all the factories for several years, and then only opened up a few very small ones (like a bicycle shop).

Any cursory study of the literature indicates this is not the case.

Ieng Sary described the Khmer Rouge economic strategy as such: "With revenues from agriculture we are building industry". Khieu Samphan wrote a thesis entitled "Cambodia's economy and Industrial Development".

The agricultural policies of the Khmer Rouge were hardly "primitivist", they more closely resemble Stalinist collectivization in the USSR or the PRC's Great Leap Forward.

To be fair, you could accuse the Khmer Rouge of being "primitivist" on the grounds that they used Marxist anti-intelligentsia sentiment to justify the persecution of intellectuals critical of the Khmer Rouge regime, or that they engaged in right-wing eugenics. (Massacring the near-sighted, etc.)

chegitz guevara

16th September 2010, 22:11

Reality trumps Ieng Sary's words. There was no industrialization during the KR years.

Omnia Sunt Communia

17th September 2010, 02:15

There was no industrialization during the KR years.

Maybe if you believe Wikipedia's account of Democratic Kampuchea, which claims (rather optimistically) that "cities were emptied, organized religion was abolished, and private property, money and markets were eliminated." (Next to these remarks is a citation to a Cornell University pamphlet entitled Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century)

In reality what we have is a geopolitically isolated capitalist regime using emotionally charged rhetoric about "urban decadence" to justify the forced relocation of segments of the proletariat from one spot on the local capitalist terrain to another, for the purposes of "rural development" and global trade.

Keep in mind that the Khmer Rouge's "four-year plan" consisted of disastrous industrial projects that necessitated the destruction of "decadent" and "fuedal" traditional Khmer architecture in favor of factories.

Here is a comment on the educational system of the Khmer Rouge from vol. 38 of History of Education Quarterly:

"Basic Democratic Kampuchea educational policies and objectives were outlined in the 1976 Four Year Plan to Build Socialism in All Fields and in statements made by Khmer Rouge leaders. According to the Four-Year Plan, children were supposed to engage in three years of half-time primary education, according to Khieu Samphan schooling was to take place in 'factories, cooperatives, and revolutionary establishments.' [...] Academic failure may also have been related to the significant attention given in schools to the singing of revolutionary songs, identified as an ideal method of teaching students "good models ... of socialist revolution and [for] the building of socialism. [...] A final goal of Khmer Rouge education was to gain knowledge of 'technology [by means of] work and practice."

This doesn't sound like "primitivism" to me, it sounds like garden-variety Bolshevik barbarism. (Albeit infused with fascist Khmer nationalism and anti-cosmopolitanism)