A few easy(?) questions

[Landsharks eat metal]

I have several questions on varying topics that I have been wondering about for months. I don't really think any of these is worthy of its own thread, but if they are, sorry. I think some of these are debatable, and that's okay. I want input from a variety of viewpoints if they differ.

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?
2. Are social democrats and a democratic socialists different? If so, what are the differences?
3. Is it "acceptable" to believe that other options should be encouraged over abortion as long as the choice of abortion is not actively discouraged or shamed?

[Ocean Seal]

I have several questions on varying topics that I have been wondering about for months. I don't really think any of these is worthy of its own thread, but if they are, sorry. I think some of these are debatable, and that's okay. I want input from a variety of viewpoints if they differ.

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?
2. Are social democrats and a democratic socialists different? If so, what are the differences?
3. Is it "acceptable" to believe that other options should be encouraged over abortion as long as the choice of abortion is not actively discouraged or shamed?

1. Anarcho-primitivism is a philosophy based around the idea that our continued domination is based on the development of technology which is inherently an exploitative force. They argue that when we moved out of the hunter-gatherer first mode of production we ended up with all of the problems of civilization such as oppression, alienation, and so on. So in order to do away with these we have to do away with the root cause which is technology.

The reason that the left (at least the most of the left) and well most in general dislike it, is because doing away with technology means doing away with hospitals and large scale food production. That would mean that 95% of us would die. That in itself is enough of an argument to keep me away from anarcho-primitivism.

2. Social democrats believe that by organizing cooperatives, giving more power to the government and using a graduated income tax, we can solve the problems of capitalism. Democratic socialists believe that we can achieve socialism (as the revolutionary left interprets it) through parliamentary means.

3. In saying that other choices should be encouraged over abortion, it would mean that abortion is something that is being shamed as an inferior option. So I would say that its probably a bad idea to go down that road.

[Apoi_Viitor]

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-primitivism-t157580/index.html?t=157580


2. Are social democrats and a democratic socialists different? If so, what are the differences?

Social democrats believe in capitalism but with a significant a welfare state, where as democratic socialists actually believe in overthrowing the capitalist mode of production. Democratic socialism is just a term used by socialists who want to emphasize the democratic nature of their beliefs, sort of like libertarian socialism - they are only meaningful in contrast to vanguardist socialism.


3. Is it "acceptable" to believe that other options should be encouraged over abortion as long as the choice of abortion is not actively discouraged or shamed?

Yes.

[Zugunruhe]

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are why we generally dislike anarcho-primitivism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are why we generally dislike anarcho-primitivism.

Pol Pot was against both primitivism and anarchism...

[milk]

Indeed, he was a failed Stalinist.

Although Pen Sovann, one of the early leaders of the People's Republic of Kampuchea (new state founded with the help of the Vietnamese Stalinists) once referred to DK economic policy as being 'Trotskyite utopian socialism,' which while as Stalinist jargon was meant to describe a deviation from proper socialist practice, is pretty good imo, in that I think he was referring to the period of 'war communism' during the Russian Civil War, and Trotsky's disturbing theoretical justifications for the militarisation of labour. The Khmer Rouge and their failed 'great leap' into modernity could be described as a Khmer version of war communism.

[nuisance]

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?

To answer the why do we dislike it? part of your question, why do you dislike something you do not know what it is? That's the problem with revleft when it comes to this question, they generally do not know what anarcho-primivitism is, which largely keeps its critique of techno-industrial civilisation in the realm of slurs and misunderstandings, and that they will be restricted for declaring oneself as anarcho-primivitist. That is why 'revleft' dislikes it.

An example of this already is that you'll be hard pushed to find a anarcho-primivitist advocating the deaths of millions of people, as has already been suggested!

'I have to be honest. I fear the collapse of civilization. Things are going to get much worse before they get better. There will be no happy ending for civilization and no glorious day when we all chose to abandon it. The realization that we’ve passed the point of no return will be a shock when it finally hits us. And that time is coming. Very soon.' Kevin Tucker.

[Black Sheep]

To answer the why do we dislike it? part of your question, why do you dislike something you do not know what it is? That's the problem with revleft when it comes to this question, they generally do not know what anarcho-primivitism is, which largely keeps its critique of techno-industrial civilisation in the realm of slurs and misunderstandings, and that they will be restricted for declaring oneself as anarcho-primivitist. That is why 'revleft' dislikes it.

An example of this already is that you'll be hard pushed to find a anarcho-primivitist advocating the deaths of millions of people, as has already been suggested!
though i 100% agree on the notion "i disagree with X like you guys, but what is it?", i hardly think that restricting/ciriticising a-primmism is a result of misunderstanding - unless you define it alternatively.

The "classical" definition of it, a return to a pre-industrial-age-technological status , and corellating technology, scientific advance themselves to exploitation : these things are obsurd, and objectively backwards.
Moreover it has no materialist ground, ignores economic realities and can't justify itself.
So i think anarchoprimmies 1)aint even anarchist, in the traditional sense of the word and 2) the place of OI is well-deserved.

[nuisance]

The "classical" definition of it, a return to a pre-industrial-age-technological status , and corellating technology, scientific advance themselves to exploitation : these things are obsurd, and objectively backwards.
This is a common misconception, a-p's do not wish to 'return' to anything, moreso they believe in a future primivitive society. This would mean that it would have learnt from the errors of civilisation and allow humans to organise freely into autonomous tribes without the alienation and destruction of technology and industry. It is not a return but more so an adaptation to circumstances, that most a-p's believe inevitable, as shown by the Kevin Tucker quote previously.


Moreover it has no materialist ground, ignores economic realities and can't justify itself.
I'd suggest that facts like enviromental destruction, the everyday submissiion of the individual and rising depression levels are pretty material outcomes birthed out of techno-industrial civilisation.


So i think anarchoprimmies 1)aint even anarchist, in the traditional sense of the word and 2) the place of OI is well-deserved.
Traditional in the sense that they advocate society based upon autonomous self-governing groups composed of mutual aid? Seems pretty anarchist to me tbf, even if i do not fully agree with it.

[scarletghoul]

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?
It's the idea that we should go back to primitive communism from before civilisation started. We dislike it because revolutionary socialists of all kinds generally stand for the progress of humanity, not regression and undoing of all the great things we've achieved

2. Are social democrats and a democratic socialists different? If so, what are the differences?
social democrat usually refers to those who want to just have capitalism with a welfare state, whereas democratic socialism is a little more left wing, they want to bring in socialism via bourgeois-democratic reforms

3. Is it "acceptable" to believe that other options should be encouraged over abortion as long as the choice of abortion is not actively discouraged or shamed?
lol sure why not

[jake williams]

1. What exactly is anarcho-primitivism, and why do we dislike it?
The basic idea is that anarcho-primitivists believe that "primitive" societies - those that existed before the development of agriculture, modern technology, and class society - are the only possible or only just societies. They thus advocate a return to primitive social and economic organization.

There are several reasons to be against this. It's anti-materialist and utopian - we just can't force that sort of reorganization of society. On the other hand, it's also non-utopian in another sense. "Primitive communist" societies before the development of class society had some notable benefits over class societies, to an extent including ours, but they still weren't that great to live in. Their material backwardness is well-known and well-cited, but there are other aspects. So, for example, before the development of modern society, while it was difficult to have any sort of the organized misogyny and thus gender relations were relatively equal, primitive conditions nonetheless force people to gender material life in important ways. The gendered division of labour (which gets heavily symbologized and primitive religions can be pretty violently heteronormative) is to some extent obligated by material circumstances which need not exist in modern communist societies, a situation I think is not at all preferable. Anarcho-primitivists thus often defend quite reactionary ideas about gender, "motherhood" or "earth-motherhood", and so on.


2. Are social democrats and a democratic socialists different? If so, what are the differences?
"Democratic socialist" is a euphemism for "social democrat". It's also a slur against socialism - all socialism by definition is democratic, because the core is that workers democratically control the society and thus the assertion that one is a "democratic socialist" implies that there are undemocratic socialists. There aren't - if you're not democratic, you're not a socialist. Ironically social democrats don't actually support the democratic control of production.


3. Is it "acceptable" to believe that other options should be encouraged over abortion as long as the choice of abortion is not actively discouraged or shamed?
That depends. There really isn't anything wrong with abortion - except that it has costs in terms of medical costs and it's a really inefficient form of birth control. On top of that there are other relative benefits of condoms. I think it's absolutely appropriate to suggest that condoms are a better "option" than abortion, for what I think are obvious reasons.

If you mean, however, that pregnant women who don't want to be mothers (at least at some particular time), who don't want to be pregnant, and have an absolute and fundamental right to be neither, and who are pursuing abortions, should be discouraged from getting abortions in any way, I don't think this should happen. To be really honest I can't think of someone who really wants to be pregnant for several months but not be a mom, so the idea of suggesting "adoption" or whatever seems kind of idiotic, and anyway, abortion is a safe and simple medical procedure which is probably less "expensive" in a material sense than the process of adoption, never mind the process of actually looking after a child.

[nuisance]

anarcho-rimivitists do not want to return to primivitive communism.
I mean criticise primivitive religions and supposed gender roles, which didn't really exist along the same lines as they do in modern society, all you like, but it has nothing to do with anarcho-primivitism, which is the subject here.


Anarcho-primitivists thus often defend quite reactionary ideas about gender, "motherhood" or "earth-motherhood", and so on.
Got a source for this?

[Black Sheep]

This is a common misconception, a-p's do not wish to 'return' to anything, moreso they believe in a future primivitive society. This would mean that it would have learnt from the errors of civilisation and allow humans to organise freely into autonomous tribes without the alienation and destruction of technology and industry. It is not a return but more so an adaptation to circumstances, that most a-p's believe inevitable, as shown by the Kevin Tucker quote previously.
The keyword is "primitive" here, which is a socioeconomic society of the past - thus the "return".The abandoning of modern technology is something i'd hardly call "learning from the errors in society".. it seems more like a masquerade of class struggle.
"It's the damn machines that are carriers of exploitation, not our masters!" This way of thinking "I was fired as a weaver due to the machine doing my job 1000 times more effectively" is way illogical and reeks of hippy new age bullshit.
Automation frees people from menial tasks it doesn't enslave them in any way.Technology is just a tool, a neutral part in our lives - its use is what determines its outcome and impact to society.Seems to me primmies don't want to understand that.





I'd suggest that facts like enviromental destruction, the everyday submissiion of the individual and rising depression levels are pretty material outcomes birthed out of techno-industrial civilisation.
No, it's a result of utilizing technology as a means of profit - technology doesn't do anything by itself, it does what it's programmed and designed to do, and it serves the purpose for which it was created.It's not the bread knife's fault,it's the person's that uses it to stab people.It's not the atom bomb's fault, it's the scientists' that made it and the leaders that placed the order.
I can't believe how it's possible for you to fail to see that.


Traditional in the sense that they advocate society based upon autonomous self-governing groups composed of mutual aid? Seems pretty anarchist to me tbf, even if i do not fully agree with it.
In the sense of libertarian socialism.Socialism is a system that maximizes the satisfaction of human needs.
a-p belittles them to neanderthals' time.

[nuisance]

This post clearly outlines the fact that some many of the critics of anarcho-primitivism do not actually know what it is. to quote at daggers drawn on society, 'we can talk endlessly, particulary of things we know nothing about'. perhaps this is something revolutionaries should look at negating...


The keyword is "primitive" here, which is a socioeconomic society of the past - thus the "return".
You cannot go back in time. Primitive societies exist now, are they of the past or a different way of living? Anyway, this semantics since any forseeable primitive society would be in the future.


The abandoning of modern technology is something i'd hardly call "learning from the errors in society".. it seems more like a masquerade of class struggle.
"It's the damn machines that are carriers of exploitation, not our masters!" This way of thinking "I was fired as a weaver due to the machine doing my job 1000 times more effectively" is way illogical and reeks of hippy new age bullshit.
what are you on about? if the machine gets someone fired it is also the machines fault, since if it was not invented, the reason of invention was to lower the outgoings (i.e. paying labour), the person would not lose there job. that is the reality of capitalist society, technology is improved to benefit them and therefore is an attack on the working class. anyone, you clearly haven't grasped, or are not aware of, the primitivist critique of technology, which is rooted in the division of labour.

read these-
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__Technophilia__An_Infantile_Disorder.htm l
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/John_Zerzan__Future_Primitive.html
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/John_Zerzan__Against_Technology__A_talk_by_John_Ze rzan__April_23__1997_.html


Automation frees people from menial tasks it doesn't enslave them in any way.Technology is just a tool, a neutral part in our lives - its use is what determines its outcome and impact to society.Seems to me primmies don't want to understand that.
that is all very well and nice but what you do not understand is that technology, like anything in the hands of the capitalists, is not neutral. it does not exist in a vaccum and replicates the society that has produced it. it is not just a tool, but a process of mechanising society towards the reproduction of the status quo. machinery is not made to make working peoples lives any easier, it is to make the machine more efficient and profitable, meaning also to reduce workforces in certain areas. the luddites knew this. perhaps in a free society technology can be used benefit everyone, but that is simply not the case in the here and now.


No, it's a result of utilizing technology as a means of profit - technology doesn't do anything by itself, it does what it's programmed and designed to do, and it serves the purpose for which it was created.It's not the bread knife's fault,it's the person's that uses it to stab people.It's not the atom bomb's fault, it's the scientists' that made it and the leaders that placed the order.
I can't believe how it's possible for you to fail to see that.
poor strawman. this is the point, it is not in a vaccum, so your position of technology being neutral is irrelevant because it is not.


In the sense of libertarian socialism.Socialism is a system that maximizes the satisfaction of human needs.
a-p belittles them to neanderthals' time.
well that you've already spoke of primitive communism shows that primitive societies are perfectly capable of 'socialism'.
well i highly doubt that in a primitive society humans would regress to neanderthals, or are you calling native americans and aboriginies 'neanderthals', which is ridiculously cultural ignorant and shows the western-centric viewpoint of a distressing amount of radicals.

[Apoi_Viitor]

that is all very well and nice but what you do not understand is that technology, like anything in the hands of the capitalists, is not neutral.

Ok, but then why would the development of technology within a socialist society be oppressive?

[nuisance]

Ok, but then why would the development of technology within a socialist society be oppressive?
4. Primitive societies were not (and are not) comprised of foolish and unintelligent people. On the contrary. That many primitive societies were destroyed by the military devices and diseases brought down upon them by civilized societies does not change that fact.

5. The widespread implementation of many harmful technological devices and processes were brought about by early implementation of restrictive and unhealthy regimentation -- this includes the development of agriculture (beyond basic horticulture) and the development of formal written languages. These processes, in turn, have continued to facilitate the development of more harmful technological devices and processes. Many technicians today are often separated from the results of their labors so that they don't comprehend when their research is used in a manner that is unrelated to the project they were working on. Classic examples of this would include Alfred Nobel (who was trying to make mining easier when he invented dynamite) and Albert Einstein (who did not initially realize his work would lead to the atomic age and release the potential for nuclear warfare).

6. The use of technology against techno-industrial civilization should be undertaken on a pragmatic basis. In some instances it may be that some people in modern society have no choice but to use technological means to get by in their daily lives. While flippant casual use of technology should probably be criticized more than it is... glancing at a television or occasionally using a computer is not the greatest crime against humanity. Purity is for drinking water and, often, is impractical to look for in individuals. The point is, generally, that technology is best used against the worst aspects of techno-industrial society. This usage, in many instances, is why anarcho-primitivists are often correctly referred to as neo-luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism).

7. Beyond the immediate physical dangers posed to humanity and the biosphere by techno-industrial civilization... there is a constraining and harmful psychological aspect that comes from living within such a society. Even if civilization wasn't leading to mass extinction, and even if a billion people weren't currently facing issues of hunger, starvation, and warfare... it would still be reducing the quality of life for those living within it. Living in close proximity to an unpolluted natural world offers psychological benefits that are contrary to the effects of being in a traffic jam, working on an assembly line, or staring at a computer or television all day. Civilization stifles our mental health, our creativity, and our understanding of the world around us. Direct contact and interaction with the natural world offers more benefits than simulations or filtered representations of life.

http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2011/06/understanding-anarcho-primitivism.html

[Apoi_Viitor]

The widespread implementation of many harmful technological devices and processes were brought about by early implementation of restrictive and unhealthy regimentation -- this includes the development of agriculture (beyond basic horticulture) and the development of formal written languages.

Have you read Derrida's deconstruction of Levi Strauss' Tristes Tropiques (which is where I believe the hypothesis that formal written language leads to violence and class oppression comes from)? Anyways, Derrida points out that the contrast (written vs. spoken language) which Levi Strauss attempts to make is fallacious. Specifically, he attempts to state that during his studies of a Brazilian tribe (I forget the exact tribe), there were no instances of class oppression or violence until written language was introduced... On the other hand, Derrida points out numerous instances in his work which shows this wasn't true.

On the other hand, I somewhat agree with your point about the development of agriculture creating divisions of labor and regimentation of work.


These processes, in turn, have continued to facilitate the development of more harmful technological devices and processes. Many technicians today are often separated from the results of their labors so that they don't comprehend when their research is used in a manner that is unrelated to the project they were working on. Classic examples of this would include Alfred Nobel (who was trying to make mining easier when he invented dynamite) and Albert Einstein (who did not initially realize his work would lead to the atomic age and release the potential for nuclear warfare).

These are all examples of technological development within a capitalist society, where technological advances are specifically geared toward fermenting capitalist society... I concede that there will still be a disconnect between labor and the result, but if you believe that technology is determined by the structure of society, then obviously it will be unlikely that oppressive and inhumane technology will be developed in a communist society.


Living in close proximity to an unpolluted natural world offers psychological benefits that are contrary to the effects of being in a traffic jam, working on an assembly line, or staring at a computer or television all day. Civilization stifles our mental health, our creativity, and our understanding of the world around us.

Again, I have to ask, why in a society that has common ownership over the means of production would such developments occur?


Direct contact and interaction with the natural world offers more benefits than simulations or filtered representations of life.

This seems more like an attack on art then on technology...

[jake williams]

anarcho-rimivitists do not want to return to primivitive communism.
Yeah, they do. The essence of "anarcho-primitivism" is that progression from primitivism communism, in the form of the technological progress which produced class society, is the problem, and that thus we need to eliminate those technologies which allowed the development of class society. If by "anarcho-primitivism" all you mean is a vague technophobia that doesn't actually make any serious claims about society or social change, then I suppose, but anarcho-primitivism usually openly and otherwise implicitly is all about the return to primitive communism, both materially and socially. If you believe that the development of modern technology is the main or only cause of the development of class society, and you believe that as long as this technology exists class society will exist, and you believe that class society should not exist, then it follows that this technology, including modern agriculture in basically every sense, should be rolled back.


I mean criticise primivitive religions and supposed gender roles, which didn't really exist along the same lines as they do in modern society
I already said that organized sexism of a certain sort can't exist in the absence of class society, and obviously society is different in different material conditions in almost every sense, including gender, but the fact is that primitive communist societies face certain imperatives relating to doing whatever is needed to survive, including differentiating labour along the lines of gender as efficiently as possible, as well as the absence of science and some other challenges. It's also the case that while some primitive communist societies have had pretty egalitarian gender relations and relatively little labour division, in general the tendency is to have entrenched differentiation of a sort slightly different in character than ours today, and in some cases even quite fiercely. Further, this gender division was in some sense largely along the lines as our today in other aspects: it was fundamentally about male rationality and female emotionality, about earth-motherhood, about women's caregiving versus men's violence, and so on.

These really aren't progressive ideas today. If anything there are places where social democracy is so materially productive that in fundamental ways gender relations are more egalitarian than they were in primitive communist societies. We have the material and ideological grounds on which to ask if men and women are immutably and necessarily different in their social roles, something we frankly didn't a hundred thousand years ago.


Got a source for this?
A lot of it is fairly cryptic, and exists at different levels. Some are more sympathetic than others. I can say I hear a lot about the idea that Native American societies, at least some and only those which existed before agriculture, had totally egalitarian but also fundamentally materially, socially and symbolically separate gender relations. On the other hand, a lot of my "primmie-sympathizing" friends, fair enough, think all the "earth mother" business is bullshit. At the end of the day though, whether they're aware of it or not, they're advocating a return to the conditions that produced those gender roles.

[nuisance]

A lot of it is fairly cryptic, and exists at different levels.
This is the basis of your arguement, some hidden meaning that you believe to have discovered yet is denied by the actual proponents of the line of thought. and the only reason that such opinions as yours garner any sympathy or 'thanks' is because they are as equally ill-informed as you. however i am not so deeply alligned, nor aswell versed to do it justice, to a-p to continue bother arguing it much more, as such an attempt has been shown to be rather pointless on this forum many times before. arguing in defence has also resulted in previous restrictions.
that said if you, or indeed anyone, who wants to actual make accurate critique of a-p then please read some of the works out there. i'll even list a few, y'know, to make it that much easier!

http://www.primitivism.com/index.html

future primitive http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/John_Zerzan__Future_Primitive.html

on the bourgeois ideology of progress http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Fredy_Perlman__Against_His-story__Against_Leviathan.html

on the rise of gender roles (may be of interest to Jammoe) http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/John_Zerzan__Patriarchy__Civilization__And_The_Ori gins_Of_Gender.html

a response to a critique http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Nihilo_Zero__A_primitivist_response_to_Andrew_Floo d_s_question__Is_primitivism_realistic_.html

enjoy!