A while back, I came across this theory

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

I think that it's mostly a load of bull-crap, but I somewhat relate to one of their ideals. Civilization can cause a lot of stress for people, but to completely get rid of it IMO is unreasonable. Also, they call themselves 'Anarchists', but ironically they say that they are anti left-wing.

[Ocean Seal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

I think that it's mostly a load of bull-crap, but I somewhat relate to one of their ideals. Civilization can cause a lot of stress for people, but to completely get rid of it IMO is unreasonable. Also, they call themselves 'Anarchists', but ironically they say that they are anti left-wing.
Yes, what you say is true. However, they don't consider themselves left-wing but rather a branch of third-way politics. I tend to just ignore what they say and assume that most people are reasonable enough to see that what they propose would kill 95% of us. And I don't want to be competing to be in the top 5% who get the privilege to live.

[The Douche]

The "left" in this jargon refers to the "left wing of capital", or the "official" communist parties, the socialist/social democratic parties, the unions, etc...


It has nothing to do with "third way" (which implies fascism, sorry if that wasn't your intent) politics.

[Veovis]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather study languages for a living than hunt-n-gather. :/

[CommieTroll]

what they propose would kill 95% of us. And I don't want to be competing to be in the top 5% who get the privilege to live.

And they only support that because they automatically assume they'll be in the remaining 5%

[Belleraphone]

I'd rather be a proletariat in modern America where I can at least have the privileges of technology than someone running naked through the forest chucking spears.

[kashkin]

I dare say you won't find anyone advocating this over the internet.

[The Douche]

I wish most of the posters on here had been active in the movement in the 90s and early 2000s when the anti-civ tendency was huge, you would've actually had to dialogue with them, and wouldn't be able to misrepresent their ideas all the time, as happens so often on here.

[Искра]

First political book I've ever read was Zerzan. :)

Personaly, I have nothing against him or his writings, I just don't agree with him, but I don't like anti-civ's who I met, because they were all bunch of idiots. I remember once having a discussion with a guy who owns 30 000HRK worth computer and who was screaming "USB sticks are CIA's plot against us!" - I mean, seriously :rolleyes:

[The Douche]

I would say that I am an anti-civ communist, but I am not a primitivist, while I do identify with things they say from time to time, and I think a lot of times they raise important issues which other revolutionaries will just ignore. I think people misrepresent and distort their positions in order to avoid grappling with the issues they raise.

My bookshelf is filled with stuff by Zerzan, Jensen, issues of Green Anarchy, Camatte, Perlman, and Species Traitor.

[tir1944]

So what does it mean to be an "anti-civ communist"?
Isn't that a bit of contradiction in terms too?

[Искра]

It means that he is critical thowards civilisation as concept and thowards tehnological/industrial advance. That was a question which was raised long time ago by anarchism movement. There were great discussions between FORA and CNT in the past on similar issues.

[tir1944]

It means that he is critical thowards civilisation as concept and thowards tehnological/industrial advance.
Why exactly are they critical towards these things that,from what i know,Marxists never "criticized as a concept"?

[Blake's Baby]

I wish most of the posters on here had been active in the movement in the 90s and early 2000s when the anti-civ tendency was huge, you would've actually had to dialogue with them, and wouldn't be able to misrepresent their ideas all the time, as happens so often on here.

I was and I did.

Some of them were hippies. Some of them were mystical neo-nazis. Many of them were fundamentally deeply anti-humanist. A few of them were clinically disturbed. None of them that I ever came across had a decent class analysis.

[The Douche]

I was and I did.

Some of them were hippies. Some of them were mystical neo-nazis. Many of them were fundamentally deeply anti-humanist. A few of them were clinically disturbed. None of them that I ever came across had a decent class analysis.

Sounds like people I have encountered on here, or in wal-mart.

Everywhere you go there are people like that.

As far as having a "decent class analysis" what you really mean is an analysis you agree with. I think Perlman and Camatte have brilliant analyses of capitalism and how the working class interacts with capital.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Primitivism is a well-intentioned but rather naive philosophy. Civilization is no less natural than hunter-gatherer societies. In fact civilization quite clearly is a phenomena which develops out of hunter-gatherer societies. As such, it is strange to think that somehow the destruction of civilization would be permanent and that the material interests which led to the rise of civilization would not return. Their argument on domestication is kind of silly too. They say that domestication of animals is the starting point of exploitation, but domestication is not the one-sided relationship which they see it as. Social insects cultivate fungus much the way social mammals (us) cultivate cattle and maize. When animals are domesticated, that often increases their survivability as cultivation means keeping pests and whatnot away, much the way fungus in the colonies of social insects is protected from mold, or the way ants protect aphids from predators.

I think one thing which primitivists get right however is that people should have a fundamental right to live that way if they please. Bushmen in Africa for instance continue to live a primitivist existence by choice, and should be allowed to do so. But the idea that society in general should be encouraged to abandon civilization altogether instead of reforming it is naive.

Another thing they get right is that the expansion of the means of production, paradoxically, leads to increased work for the vast majority of the species. Hunter gatherers lead lives with very low work-intensity. But this is a phenomenon which Karl Marx also noted, and isn't unique to them.

[The Douche]

SCM, you're also misrepresenting the primitivist or anti-civ positions, allbeit in a somewhat more positive light than other posters.

1) The basis for the arguement against civilization is not necessarily that it is "unnatural" (though you will sometimes find reference to that depending on the thinker) but that it is exploitative, of humans, animals, and the earth.

And not all anti-civ or primitivists think that the world will just be like it was tens of thousands of years ago. Some people envision a new "civilization" emerging, some want to use certain technologies but not others (permaculture).

Its important to note that primitivists don't just want to turn the clock back. They aim for a "future primitive".

Primitivists do not believe "people should live how they please", they believe civilization should be destroyed.

[tir1944]

1) The basis for the arguement against civilization is not necessarily that it is "unnatural" (though you will sometimes find reference to that depending on the thinker) but that it is exploitative, of humans, animals, and the earth.
Mammoths were hunted to extinction in the "pre-civilization" times...


Some people envision a new "civilization" emerging, some want to use certain technologies but not others (permaculture).
So is it a civilization or a "civilization"?:laugh:


They aim for a "future primitive".
What does this mean?



Primitivists do not believe "people should live how they please", they believe civilization should be destroyed.
Why?

Also what do primitivists think of Pol Pot?

[Sentinel]

I dare say you won't find anyone advocating this over the internet.

Unfortunately you are wrong, we've had quite a few of them here back in the day and were therefore forced to adopt a restriction policy. Some were honest and accepted being restricted, while the many tried to weasel out of it by calling themselves something else such as green anarchists etc, and playing word games 'civilisation in anti-civilisation doesn't mean civilisation, but capitalism' etc.

Luckily this isn't as much of a problem anymore as that movement has pretty much faded away, as the progressive class war left is regaining it's strength. But yeah, debating these issues has consumed many, many hours of my life I will never get back.

I don't however think it's hypocritical or stupid of them to use the internet, I can certainly relate to the argument of using the system to bring it down. It's about the only logical conclusion the primitivists ever came to, afaik.

Ok, yeah I know that some of their critiques of capitalism may be okay as well, but when it comes in that package I'd seriously advice anyone to read Marx (or Bakunin) instead.

[The Douche]

Unfortunately you are wrong, we've had quite a few of them here back in the day and were therefore forced to adopt a restriction policy. Some were honest and accepted being restricted, while the many tried to weasel out of it by calling themselves something else such as green anarchists etc, and playing word games 'civilisation in anti-civilisation doesn't mean civilisation, but capitalism' etc.

Luckily this isn't as much of a problem anymore as that movement has pretty much faded away, as the progressive class war left is regaining it's strength. But yeah, debating these issues has consumed many, many hours of my life I will never get back.

I don't however think it's hypocritical or stupid of them to use the internet, I can certainly relate to the argument of using the system to bring it down. It's about the only logical conclusion the primitivists ever came to as far as I'm aware.

In all fairness, there is a lot of debate about what it means to be "anti-civ" within the anti-civ and primitivist movements.

[Sentinel]

In all fairness, there is a lot of debate about what it means to be "anti-civ" within the anti-civ and primitivist movements.


You may be correct, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't used as an excuse to oppose the restriction of actual primitivists quite a few times. ;)

[The Douche]

You may be correct, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't used as an excuse to oppose the restriction of actual primitivists quite a few times. ;)

No doubt, I'm sure it was.

[Lanky Wanker]

Wouldn't this be more like Satanic fascism? Survival of the fittest: the way nature works... even though we're not neanderthals anymore.

[The Douche]

Wouldn't this be more like Satanic fascism? Survival of the fittest: the way nature works... even though we're not neanderthals anymore.

Jesus christ...:cursing: