Why are primitives banned?

[JFB.anon]

I think they're pretty goddam stupid too, but how are they reactionary?

[Revolution starts with U]

Think about it... how are they not reactionary?

[Искра]

They are not banned. Primitivists don't use computers and if they do they are telling lies. And telling lies is bad. And bad boys/girls get banned.

But on the other hand... they are just a bunch of smelly hippies and nobody likes them.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/HippieKatsez128403967275026250.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

They are Restricted.

It's a lovely fantasy--going back to nature and we'll all live in the world in peace and harmony--but that competes with the Communists fantasy of living in the world in peace and harmony.

And you know Communists can't tolerate competition. :D

[Nox]

The awkward moment when a Primitivist logs on to Revleft...

They are fucking idiots who not only advocate, but encourage the death of 98% of the world's population.

[Revolution starts with U]

It conflicts with our goals of economic and technological progress BuuuuuudyyyyyY :cool:

[Tim Cornelis]

I think they're pretty goddam stupid too, but how are they reactionary?

Reactionary means you want to go back to a previous time or stage. Primitivism is ultra-extreme-radical-supra-reactionary! (four prefixes for the four stages they want to go back in time--when using historical materialism).

[dodger]

The Primitives have kinda beaten us to the punch...they got it all figured out ..how we might all live our lives. Trouble is ....it is a nightmare. We all go out and get a dog, with string tied to its collar ...THE TRUST FUND THAT DADDY SET UP....WON'T LAST FOREVER. We are most likely better off ignoring them....they might just vanish...meanwhile on planet earth Wifey has come home in triumph....she has taken shameful advantage of our Barangay Captain who needed cash for his sons bail. A tractor, albeit 2nd hand is being hosed and buffed...given the status of holy relic...as indeed it will free us from the tyranny of the Carabao and plough. I wish she would stop smiling...it's unnerving me....I suddenly noticed the dog was not here to greet the excitement. The muslim girl covered her face and started to tremor.others looked away. Wifey looked towards the chest freezer and the girl fled into the night. I suppose as this was the 2nd time one of my dogs has ended up in the freezer, I was not shocked. It seems the Carabao sensing it's precarious position on the food chain had kicked the mutt. OH WELL!! He will complete Wifey's joy at our 'new tractor' ....when she shows it off to her siblings and treats them all to a plate of dog meat....not Carabao. Still smiling...I am happy for her...sort of...well almost!! Having read Animal Farm as a youngster My intention is to keep well clear of the Carabao. The sack I had just stepped over to reach the freezer started moving. No need to ask..a fully grown female King COBRA...I took that off the party menu right away..gave it to the lad who caught it. He took it to the mayor who gave him 2000 pesos.

I do hope I live to see collectivization......................:crying:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Some people need things like insulin and medicine to live.
If you take away the production of stuff like that, I'll punch you in the goddamn throat. Stupid primmies.

[pax et aequalitas]

Eh I don't hate them personally. I disagree on various points and I agree on some others (or well at least with anarcho-primitivists). However, they are not revolutionary leftists and they also shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.

[thefinalmarch]

The "primitives".

Yeah man, fuck those hunter-gatherer scum.

[hatzel]

A few people in this thread need to read something like this (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Jason_Godesky__5_Common_Objections_to_Primitivism_ _and_Why_They_re_Wrong.html) before they go spouting their trash talk. Or, in fact, they could just read any primitivist text...

Not that I care much for primitivism anyway. They have decent civ-critique, but there are plenty of good non-primmie anti-civ types who come to somewhat better conclusions than just "there's a problem with civilisation so LET'S JUST THROW ALL THIS SHIT OUT!!!" Freud's, for example, as he also claimed that primitive societies wouldn't exactly do any better than their civilised counterparts.

[thefinalmarch]

The Primitives have kinda beaten us to the punch...they got it all figured out ..how we might all live our lives. Trouble is ....it is a nightmare. We all go out and get a dog, with string tied to its collar ...THE TRUST FUND THAT DADDY SET UP....WON'T LAST FOREVER. We are most likely better off ignoring them....they might just vanish...meanwhile on planet earth Wifey has come home in triumph....she has taken shameful advantage of our Barangay Captain who needed cash for his sons bail. A tractor, albeit 2nd hand is being hosed and buffed...given the status of holy relic...as indeed it will free us from the tyranny of the Carabao and plough. I wish she would stop smiling...it's unnerving me....I suddenly noticed the dog was not here to greet the excitement. The muslim girl covered her face and started to tremor.others looked away. Wifey looked towards the chest freezer and the girl fled into the night. I suppose as this was the 2nd time one of my dogs has ended up in the freezer, I was not shocked. It seems the Carabao sensing it's precarious position on the food chain had kicked the mutt. OH WELL!! He will complete Wifey's joy at our 'new tractor' ....when she shows it off to her siblings and treats them all to a plate of dog meat....not Carabao. Still smiling...I am happy for her...sort of...well almost!! Having read Animal Farm as a youngster My intention is to keep well clear of the Carabao. The sack I had just stepped over to reach the freezer started moving. No need to ask..a fully grown female King COBRA...I took that off the party menu right away..gave it to the lad who caught it. He took it to the mayor who gave him 2000 pesos.

I do hope I live to see collectivization......................:crying:
what the shit is this?

[tir1944]

^^Bot?:laugh:
I lol'd tho.

:laugh:

[GatesofLenin]

what the shit is this?
Post after a good hit, don't ruin the fun maaaan! :D

[Per Levy]

I think they're pretty goddam stupid too, but how are they reactionary?

go here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/titoist-restricted-stalinist-t161416/index2.html

and read what column no.4 has to say...

a little example:


Well i dont think it would be such a bad idea to return everyone to zero and let natural selection weed people out.

[Drosophila]

I don't have a problem with someone who wants to live out their life in the wilderness. It's just bad when they push their views upon others.

[ComradeMan]

I think they're pretty goddam stupid too, but how are they reactionary?

Try the Khmer Rouge..... :laugh: primitivists who were too <insert adjective of choice> to realise that they were in fact primitivists.:lol:

[milk]

That they were primitivists is factually incorrect.

[ComradeMan]

That they were primitivists is factually incorrect.

How come you home in on the word "khmer" ... creepy. LOL!!!

I said they were too <whatever> to realise, accidental if you like.... :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

I actually think everybody should spend a temporal but extended (like a month) in the wilderness, devoid of any major civilization (no tents, foodstuffs, matches, etc).

40 days in the desert, or meditating under the bodhi tree... its good for the psyche :thumbup1:

[hatzel]

I don't have a problem with someone who wants to live out their life in the wilderness. It's just bad when they push their views upon others.

Many primmies don't try to push their views on others, though. They merely claim that there will, sooner or later, come an inevitable collapse of civilisation which will necessitate this 'rewilding,' so it might be a good idea to acknowledge this eventuality and get ready for it, so that you have the faintest idea what to do. And that it might be advisable to start doing it sooner rather than later, before the decision whether or not to is taken out of your hands. Not least because it probably won't be quite as painful a transition for those who willingly embrace it ahead of time, instead of being thrust into it after some future catastrophic event...

[milk]

How come you home in on the word "khmer" ... creepy. LOL!!!

I said they were too <whatever> to realise, accidental if you like.... :laugh:

They were not 'accidental' primitivists either. I think it's creepy that you are always visiting my profile page.

[DarkPast]

Try the Khmer Rouge..... :laugh: primitivists who were too <insert adjective of choice> to realise that they were in fact primitivists.:lol:

There's the one good thing about the Khmer Rouge's legacy: they gave humanity an excellent - if extremely tragic - example of what primitivism looks like when put into practice.

EDIT: And yeah, I know that primitivism wasn't their intent. But it was the result of their policies.

[milk]

The only thing that was primitive about them was primitive capital accumulation.

[ComradeMan]

There's the one good thing about the Khmer Rouge's legacy: they gave humanity an excellent - if extremely tragic - example of what primitivism looks like when put into practice.

EDIT: And yeah, I know that primitivism wasn't their intent. But it was the result of their policies.

Hence my point- along with other insane stuff.

Primitivists are often quite rightwing underneath the tree-hugging in my experience except their pathological hatred is not of a race or a group but rather of humanity itself. Okay not all, but there are some tendencies towards this...

[milk]

They weren't 'insane' either.

[hatzel]

There's the one good thing about the Khmer Rouge's legacy: they gave humanity an excellent - if extremely tragic - example of what primitivism looks like when put into practice.

And what makes you say that?

[tir1944]

Yep, Pol Pot is pretty much the only "communist leader" we shouldn't defend.
There's literally nothing positive about his regime.

[milk]

They gave humanity an excellent - if extremely tragic - example of what happens when you attempt to force through change regardless of the facts and at any cost. In their case, modernising models derived from both Soviet and Chinese experience. Cutting the feet of reality to fit the theoretical shoes.

[Vanguard1917]

Primitivists are often quite rightwing underneath the tree-hugging in my experience except their pathological hatred is not of a race or a group but rather of humanity itself. Okay not all, but there are some tendencies towards this...

Certainly.

Primitivists' (along with many greens') disgust for the profound and colossal achievements of humanity represents hatred of humanity itself, i.e. of the very things which make humanity unique, special and human.

"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."
-Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm)

[tir1944]

They gave humanity an excellent - if extremely tragic - example of what happens when you attempt to force through change regardless of the facts and at any cost.
Yes,it shows us that Marxism is really the only proper way to go if you want to really bring a change.

[milk]

Yes,it shows us that Marxism is really the only proper way to go if you want to really bring a change.

They used the 'Stalinised' politics of Marxism-Leninism in a country where it didn't apply.

[hatzel]

Yes,it shows us that Marxism is really the only proper way to go if you want to really bring a change.

Not at all. That's like saying that if I try to build a house out of cardboard and it falls down, this proves that there is no option but to build our houses out of metal. Forgetting wood or brick or mud or stone or...

[tir1944]

They used the 'Stalinised' politics of Marxism-Leninism in a country where it didn't apply.
I'd disagree.
"Stalinist policies" focused on industrialization,Potist policies focused on deindustrialization.



That's like saying that if I try to build a house out of cardboard and it falls down, this proves that there is no option but to build our houses out of metal.
Marxism is pretty much the only successful "leftist current",so to speak.
The biggest achievement of anarchists was the Barcelona commune or whatever it was called,and it lasted for not more than three years anyway.

[RedGrunt]

Certainly.

Primitivists' (along with many greens') disgust for the profound and colossal achievements of humanity represents hatred of humanity itself, i.e. of the very things which make humanity unique, special and human.

"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."
-Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm)

I understand the context and what is being said but humans are simply apart of nature. Without nature, humanity wouldn't even be able to transform these materials because they simultaneously get both their inspirations/ideas from nature as well as the materials. To try to separate humanity -or anything- from the whole that it is apart of is ridiculous.

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism is pretty much the only successful "leftist current",so to speak.
The biggest achievement of anarchists was the Barcelona commune or whatever it was called,and it lasted for not more than three years anyway.
That's just absurd. We live in a world dominated by capital, all of it, with continuous expansion in commodification, social and economic crises, as well as political ones, war and imperialis. And in this world you can't come up with nothing better than counting the years before any self-proclaimed "communist" regime crumbled to the ground, as if that were to constitute "proof" of the supposed superiority of one political and organizational doctrine over another?
Well that's just pathetic, and quite frankly, plain idiotic considering the fact that there's a streak of underlying defeatism inolved (you could face the same "problem" as anarchists would when confronted by this idiocy of yours: how are "communists" any better than plain old capitalist apologists since all we could do is to add up years before some regimes crumbled - which did happen in the end?)

[tir1944]

Thing is,we know what a socialist society looked like,we can analize it and correct the mistakes in the future.
On the other hand,we don't know what an anarchist-led society would look like.

[Vanguard1917]

Without nature, humanity wouldn't even be able to transform these materials

Of course. Marx makes that point: "natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature".

[Thirsty Crow]

Thing is,we know what a socialist society looked like,we can analize it and correct the mistakes in the future.
On the other hand,we don't know what an anarchist-led society would look like.
So for you it comes down to politcs? Political structures determine the social formation in question?
So much for your "Marxism".

[Tenka]

Why are primitives banned?
I for one am glad that primitives are banned. Their uncivilised and cannibalistic proclivities are wholly incongruous with RevLeft society (excepting the unlikely event of our being famine-stricken and driven to eat our own dead).

Or did you mean primitivists, i.e., hippies?

[tir1944]

Political structures determine the social formation in question? No,there's a much more complex "relationship" between the two.That's especially obvious in the early times of the USSR for example.
Why?

[Smashcapitalists]

A primitivist with a computer lol

[hatzel]

A primitivist with a computer lol

A communist with a computer, presumably purchased from a company which extracts surplus value from the labour of wage slaves for the benefit of the capitalist, thus supporting the capitalist system lol

(That's my way of telling you not to be so silly)

[maskerade]

The "primitives".

Yeah man, fuck those hunter-gatherer scum.

I know this is a joke, but the irony is of course that hunter-gatherers are more advanced than western civilization on so many levels. 4 hour work day, no private property, healthy diet and lifestyle not to mention their focus on culture as being time spent with loved ones.

There is a reason why contemporary hunter-gatherers have refused to be a part of the cultures which surround them; and it's not because they hate technology and want everyone to live like them, it's because they don't want to be alienated and subjected to forces beyond their control.

Edit: referring to societies that exist on the margins of our globalized community as 'primitive' is not only ethnocentric and part of a discourse which furthers their subjugation, it is also simple minded and reflects colonialist narratives of 'civilizing missions'. These communities probably wouldn't label you as either primitive or advanced, which says something about how culturally progressive they are.

[Drosophila]

Many primmies don't try to push their views on others, though. They merely claim that there will, sooner or later, come an inevitable collapse of civilisation which will necessitate this 'rewilding,' so it might be a good idea to acknowledge this eventuality and get ready for it, so that you have the faintest idea what to do. And that it might be advisable to start doing it sooner rather than later, before the decision whether or not to is taken out of your hands. Not least because it probably won't be quite as painful a transition for those who willingly embrace it ahead of time, instead of being thrust into it after some future catastrophic event...

Really? I thought the whole point behind anarcho-primitivism was to abolish the state and get rid of all modern technology, leaving humans to live off the land.

[thefinalmarch]

Yep, Pol Pot is pretty much the only "communist leader" we shouldn't defend.
There's literally nothing positive about his regime.
What exactly is it about other "Communist" regimes that make them worth defending? Why are you even considering defending any sort of regime outside and above the working class to begin with?

[ComradeMan]

It: referring to societies that exist on the margins of our globalized community as 'primitive' is not only ethnocentric and part of a discourse which furthers their subjugation, it is also simple minded and reflects colonialist narratives of 'civilizing missions'. These communities probably wouldn't label you as either primitive or advanced, which says something about how culturally progressive they are.

And idealising hunter-gatherer societies, putting words into their mouths and speaking for them is also, inadvertently, a form of "colonialist" mentality.

It's not that these groups don't want progress and it's wrong to expect them to live in an "anthropological museum"- the problem is that the last thing they usually receive is "progress".


They weren't 'insane' either.

You can't seem to distinguish between when people are expressing opinion and comment and when people are analysing/creating an historical narrative. :rolleyes:

Taking a fucked up country and completely fucking it up even more, turning it into a giant slave labour camp basically and brutally killing people who are starving because they tried to catch a mouse to supplement their diet at the same time as heralding your achievements, claiming you've done better than both Lenin and Mao while your country is dying around you- to the extent I have read that some reports were even falsified/twisted so as not to spoil the propaganda- all the while led by an increasingly paranoid leader with a murderous clique of sociopaths- is in my opinion pretty damn insane.

[hatzel]

Really? I thought the whole point behind anarcho-primitivism was to abolish the state and get rid of all modern technology, leaving humans to live off the land.

Primmies are a mixed bag, so speaking of a single primitivism is pretty difficult. However...

Yes, there is the critique of civilisation (that being the fundamental element here, not technology) as undesirable, and the suggestion that a so-called 'primitive' way of life (that is to say, a hunter-gatherer society) would be better, not only from an ecological perspective, but also better for people. For instance, by freeing people from labour, remembering that contemporary hunter-gatherers have significantly more leisure time than we do, precisely because they don't have to work all the time to keep their techno-industrial/agricultural economy ticking over. Some primitivists may advocate an active 'rewilding' (that is to say, forcibly dissolving civilisation) on this basis. The critique, however, has far more important implications, as I will address...

Civilisation is unsustainable. Without establishing that premise (or claim, or suggestion, or whatever word you want to use), there can be no understanding of anarcho-primitivism. It's not just a question of civilisation being undesirable, and that we should therefore get rid of it, but that it is fundamentally unsustainable, and that the whole history of human civilisation has been effectively papering over the cracks, trying to delay the inevitable collapse. As an example...we know that we can't exploit oil, gas, coal and other such resources forever, neither as energy nor for other purposes, such as the manufacture of plastic. If these fossil fuels ran out tomorrow, unexpectedly, I think we could agree that the impact on modern civilisation would be catastrophic. Therefore (and this is where technology comes in), we are developing alternative technologies, such as solar and wind power, or hydrogen power cells for vehicles, to try to overcome that problem. At the same time, we develop replacements for plastic, so that we no longer need oil. The issue, however, is that this is merely delaying the issue, because making solar panels and wind turbines and all that also requires exploiting resources, and plastic replacements, too, and that eventually those resources, like fossil fuels in the modern day, will become increasingly scarce, so replacements will have to be found, and so on and so forth.

This, some may argue (though I'm sure the technophiles here would beg to differ), can't carry on forever. There's a certain limit to development and innovation, before either there's no option left (that is to say, no remaining resource which can replace the exhausted resource), or that option isn't found quickly enough (imagine if the reserves of fossil fuels were only sufficient to last until, say, 1900, before any alternative energy source could have been developed). For the primmies, movements within civilisation (such as the development of renewable energy) are just trying to push back the inevitable collapse of civilisation, and are thus ineffectual.

And this is where the undesirability of civilisation comes into play...if civilisation is both unsustainable and undesirable, why exactly do we keep trying to patch it up, digging ourselves deeper and deeper into it? If fossil fuels had run out in 1900, sparking an extreme crisis, and perhaps the fall of civilisation, the planet, and its population, would have been in a considerably better position than if the same happened today. And if development continues unabated, constantly papering over the cracks, the consequences of a future collapse will be still worse. So the primitivist would, admittedly, argue that we shouldn't just keep on as we are, trying to delay the inevitable, rather than engaging in a voluntary rewilding, or at least a serious criticism of the implications of development. That is to say, if people choose to 'leave' civilisation, having learnt survival techniques and all that jazz, then perhaps a catastrophic crisis and collapse of civilisation can be averted through a more 'gradual' transition from one to the other.

The scenario you mention ("to abolish the state and get rid of all modern technology, leaving humans to live off the land") isn't something primmies propose or suggest as a course of action. It's something they argue is inevitable, and you can either do it voluntarily, before you have to, so that the transition isn't so painful, or you can just wait until some future collapse when pretty everybody starves to death. The end result is the same, it's just a question of how to go from one to the other.

[maskerade]

An idealising hunter-gatherer societies, putting words into their mouths and speaking for them is also, inadvertently, a form of "colonialist" mentality.

It's not that these groups don't want progress and it's wrong to expect them to live in an "anthropological museum"- the problem is that the last thing they usually receive is "progress".


No, it is not. Where was the idealising? And what words did I put into their mouths? I was frank about my hypothetical conjecture. Most of what I said is based on a text called 'The most Affluent Society' by Sahlins, granted I may have generalized hunter-gatherers as the text deals primarily with a group in the Kalahari, but there is nothing factually incorrect about what I said.

No one expects them to live in an 'anthropological museum', and in fact this idea that they are somehow lost in the past is also incorrect. Undoubtedly they have changed tremendously through contact with other groups and cultures; they are part of the modern just as much as we are.

[DarkPast]

The ironic thing about the "sustainability" argument is that the very reason hunter-gatherers turned to agriculture was because they had hunted out most megafauna... (see Anthropocene)

[maskerade]

The ironic thing about the "sustainability" argument is that the very reason hunter-gatherers turned to agriculture was because they had hunted out most megafauna... (see Anthropocene)

In some places, yea. In others, farming was somewhat accidental as they would discover plants growing near their latrines.

But primitivists are fucking stupid regardless, any return back to their ideal human condition would ultimately result in the repetition of history itself.

[Revolution starts with U]

Primmies are a mixed bag, so speaking of a single primitivism is pretty difficult. However...

Yes, there is the critique of civilisation (that being the fundamental element here, not technology) as undesirable, and the suggestion that a so-called 'primitive' way of life (that is to say, a hunter-gatherer society) would be better, not only from an ecological perspective, but also better for people. For instance, by freeing people from labour, remembering that contemporary hunter-gatherers have significantly more leisure time than we do, precisely because they don't have to work all the time to keep their techno-industrial/agricultural economy ticking over. Some primitivists may advocate an active 'rewilding' (that is to say, forcibly dissolving civilisation) on this basis. The critique, however, has far more important implications, as I will address...

Civilisation is unsustainable. Without establishing that premise (or claim, or suggestion, or whatever word you want to use), there can be no understanding of anarcho-primitivism. It's not just a question of civilisation being undesirable, and that we should therefore get rid of it, but that it is fundamentally unsustainable, and that the whole history of human civilisation has been effectively papering over the cracks, trying to delay the inevitable collapse. As an example...we know that we can't exploit oil, gas, coal and other such resources forever, neither as energy nor for other purposes, such as the manufacture of plastic. If these fossil fuels ran out tomorrow, unexpectedly, I think we could agree that the impact on modern civilisation would be catastrophic. Therefore (and this is where technology comes in), we are developing alternative technologies, such as solar and wind power, or hydrogen power cells for vehicles, to try to overcome that problem. At the same time, we develop replacements for plastic, so that we no longer need oil. The issue, however, is that this is merely delaying the issue, because making solar panels and wind turbines and all that also requires exploiting resources, and plastic replacements, too, and that eventually those resources, like fossil fuels in the modern day, will become increasingly scarce, so replacements will have to be found, and so on and so forth.

This, some may argue (though I'm sure the technophiles here would beg to differ), can't carry on forever. There's a certain limit to development and innovation, before either there's no option left (that is to say, no remaining resource which can replace the exhausted resource), or that option isn't found quickly enough (imagine if the reserves of fossil fuels were only sufficient to last until, say, 1900, before any alternative energy source could have been developed). For the primmies, movements within civilisation (such as the development of renewable energy) are just trying to push back the inevitable collapse of civilisation, and are thus ineffectual.

And this is where the undesirability of civilisation comes into play...if civilisation is both unsustainable and undesirable, why exactly do we keep trying to patch it up, digging ourselves deeper and deeper into it? If fossil fuels had run out in 1900, sparking an extreme crisis, and perhaps the fall of civilisation, the planet, and its population, would have been in a considerably better position than if the same happened today. And if development continues unabated, constantly papering over the cracks, the consequences of a future collapse will be still worse. So the primitivist would, admittedly, argue that we shouldn't just keep on as we are, trying to delay the inevitable, rather than engaging in a voluntary rewilding, or at least a serious criticism of the implications of development. That is to say, if people choose to 'leave' civilisation, having learnt survival techniques and all that jazz, then perhaps a catastrophic crisis and collapse of civilisation can be averted through a more 'gradual' transition from one to the other.

The scenario you mention ("to abolish the state and get rid of all modern technology, leaving humans to live off the land") isn't something primmies propose or suggest as a course of action. It's something they argue is inevitable, and you can either do it voluntarily, before you have to, so that the transition isn't so painful, or you can just wait until some future collapse when pretty everybody starves to death. The end result is the same, it's just a question of how to go from one to the other.

Rubbish. There is a vast universe out there full of resources to exploit for our benefit. The hyper-advance of civilization may be unsustainable. Civlization can theoretically go on virtually forever (conceivably through and even after the big freeze).

[hatzel]

Rubbish. There is a vast universe out there full of resources to exploit for our benefit. The hyper-advance of civilization may be unsustainable. Civlization can theoretically go on virtually forever (conceivably through and even after the big freeze).

Don't have a go at me, I'm just trying to sum the primitivists' position up in one meagre post! Just let this me tell you this...if it just so happens that civilisation breaks down and everything turns to shit and then it's only the primmies who were ready for it and everybody else dies...you've only got yourself to blame :tt2:

[Flying Trotsky]

Why are primitivists banned?

Technically they aren't- they're just restricted with regards to what they can do and where they can post on RevLeft. As for the reason, RevLeft tends to make a sweeping generalization about primitivists, insisting that their vision would wind up killing off upwards of 90% of the world's population.

Problem is, Primitivism can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and the whole school of thought is getting punished for the views of a few fringe elements...

[Drosophila]

Primmies are a mixed bag, so speaking of a single primitivism is pretty difficult. However...

[...]

The scenario you mention ("to abolish the state and get rid of all modern technology, leaving humans to live off the land") isn't something primmies propose or suggest as a course of action. It's something they argue is inevitable, and you can either do it voluntarily, before you have to, so that the transition isn't so painful, or you can just wait until some future collapse when pretty everybody starves to death. The end result is the same, it's just a question of how to go from one to the other.

I get what you're saying. It's a stupid ideology nonetheless (primitivism that is).

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't have a go at me, I'm just trying to sum the primitivists' position up in one meagre post! Just let this me tell you this...if it just so happens that civilisation breaks down and everything turns to shit and then it's only the primmies who were ready for it and everybody else dies...you've only got yourself to blame :tt2:

Im with that whole idea; self sustainability. But humans are natural, and humans created civilization. There is no reason we cannot be both civilized and natural.

[ComradeMan]

Rubbish. There is a vast universe out there full of resources to exploit for our benefit. The hyper-advance of civilization may be unsustainable. Civlization can theoretically go on virtually forever (conceivably through and even after the big freeze).

A vast universe that at the moment we could only exploit in theory as we do not have the technological means to do so. It's all very well saying that a moon of Saturn is rich in methane etc but we do not have either the technology or possibly the funding to exploit those reserves.

Secondly, the argument about sustainability is not just about the reserves running out, but also about the damage that is caused generally by uncontrolled development and expansion of industry etc. At the end of the day, we have one biosphere- if we screw that up we go down.

[hatzel]

A vast universe that at the moment we could only exploit in theory as we do not have the technological means to do so. It's all very well saying that a moon of Saturn is rich in methane etc but we do not have either the technology or possibly the funding to exploit those reserves.

To be honest I think it makes perfect sense to use up all our resources trying to bring resources from other planets to Earth to replace the resources we don't have any more oh no wait that makes no sense whatsoever!

[ComradeMan]

To be honest I think it makes perfect sense to use up all our resources trying to bring resources from other planets to Earth to replace the resources we don't have any more oh no wait that makes no sense whatsoever!

Exactly the point..... ;)

And even if we did manage that, would it be the right way ahead? Supposing we suddenly discovered a massive oil-field somewhere new-- enough oil to supply us at twice present consumption for 1000 years.... would that necessarily mean it would be the right option?

[Revolution starts with U]

A vast universe that at the moment we could only exploit in theory as we do not have the technological means to do so. It's all very well saying that a moon of Saturn is rich in methane etc but we do not have either the technology or possibly the funding to exploit those reserves.

Secondly, the argument about sustainability is not just about the reserves running out, but also about the damage that is caused generally by uncontrolled development and expansion of industry etc. At the end of the day, we have one biosphere- if we screw that up we go down.

Is there no room for renewable energy, and even (for all intents and purposes) unlimited energy like harnessing the power of storms or the sun? The problem with primitivism is it dicounts the creativity of the human species.

I like the fact that I didn't die at 3 months old. Do you?

[Iron Felix]

If they want to run around naked and swing from trees to trees like monkeys, none of our business. But they don't belong here.

[ComradeMan]

Is there no room for renewable energy, and even (for all intents and purposes) unlimited energy like harnessing the power of storms or the sun? The problem with primitivism is it dicounts the creativity of the human species.

I like the fact that I didn't die at 3 months old. Do you?

It wasn't an argument for primitivism that I was presenting. However I do note, not necessarily from you, a tendency to deride anything that smacks of "green -isms" as primitivism.