Why are primitivists restricted?

[Skyhilist]

First off, let me start of by stating that I'm not a primitivist. I'm not against modern technology or even globalism; in fact I'm an alter-globalist.

Having said that though, I don't understand why primitivists are restricted even if most of us don't agree with them and have legitimate reasons not to.

Revolutionary leftists are for a better world for everybody, right? Well primitivists want the same thing for the most part, they just include all sentient beings in the word as "everybody", not just humans. They feel that to make that better world for every sentient being. And they think that humans need to stop to degrading the environment to do such.

I don't think there's anything anti-socialist about that, nor do I think that part is controversial. But here's what seems to trip everyone on here up. They reject modern technology, modern medicine, and large human populations. Based usually on these factors alone, various arguments are made on here that they are anti-progress and anti-socialism. Let me try to address these points and explain why their not, despite their unusual and somewhat weird ideologies.

First, lets examine the first point here. They oppose modern technology. The argument goes that technology can be used to better conditions for humans, so therefore opposing it is anti-progress and anti-socialist. Look at it this way though: primitivists want a better world for all beings, not humans, and they feel that human technology inevitably degrades the planet, making life worse for other life on earth. Remember, whether this argument is right or wrong is irrelevant, it's whether it's anti-socialist. From a primitivist point of view, there are two paths that mankind could take. The first is that they could increase technology, which would of course better humans. But in their view, this would ultimately make conditions worse for most other life on earth. So in their view, social conditions are getting better due to technology for one species, but would be worse for almost all other species. So one species would benefit but the rest (in their opinion) would suffer. So this would ultimately be the opposite of making a better world for everyone in their view, because they they consider ALL beings as part of the "everyone" that deserve a better world. Since in their view technology inevitably hurts most of this "everyone" group, more equality for "everyone" results in abandoning technology, regardless of technologies impact in OUR species. Remember again, it's not about whether or not this view is right or wrong, but whether it's anti-socialist. I don't hold it to be correct either.

The next main argument is that primitivists are anti-progress because they are against medicine. Well this is really somewhat of a straw man argument. Primitivists are not all against naturally medicine like say for example using a plant root to help with a disease. Some are, but certainly not all. What they are all against is modern medicine (e.g. vaccines). This is because they view modern medicine as requiring large amounts of resources and animal testing (the latter of which I don't support either), which only hurts other life on earth too through what they perceive to be inevitable environmental degradation. As in the case of modern technology, they believe this will only lead to environmental inequality, creating a better world for humans possibly, but a worse world for the most other species included in their "everything" group. So they also view modern medicine as not creating a more suitable world for everyone or even the majority, leading to this viewpoint much like the way that they arrive at such a viewpoint towards modern technology. I see nothing anti-socialist about these perceptions although I don't agree with them and also see nothing anti-socialist about including non-humans in "everyone" in wanting a better world for everyone.

Finally, it's argued that because they want to control the human population. Some even use the straw man argument that they all want humans to commit suicide. Some due, which is highly irrational l, but again, certainly not all do. What they do all support is lowering the human population. This is not inherently anti-socialist either, and is in my view even a valid issue, although I don't agree with their ways of dealing with it. Earth may well have exceeded carrying capacity and overshot it, meaning there's only a matter of time before we experience mass for offs. Even if this assertion is wrong though, what people fail to realize is that even if the earth can sustain the current number of people on it, it is at a tremendous cost to other species. We've even caused something called the Sixth Great Extinction (something almost universally accepted in science, not some propaganda term), which has been largely due to our immense population. Primitivists see having such a large population as backfiring not only on us, but on most other life as well, which is true. There is nothing anti-socialist about recognizing that as a major issue and wanting to do something about it. Obviously genocide and suicide are not progressive options, but not all primitivists believe in this or even the absolute extinction of humans. The desire to deal with lower human populations, is not INHERENTLY anti-socialist; some methods of doing so are, but certainly not all methods proposed by all primitivists.

I think I've hit on the main arguments of why primitivists are claimed to be anti-socialist. If anyone has anymore, post them. Perhaps I'm missing something, in which case if there's a legitimate reason to restrict them, then fine. But I certainly haven't seen one so far, as based on what I've seen of it, primitivism is not inherently anti-socialist, regardless of more specific tendencies that might be that only SOME within the movement have.

So given all this, can someone actually give me a legitimate reason as to why primitivists are restricted?

Also, before someone says "But it's hypocritical that they use the Internet but are against modern technology." Of course it is, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. There are plenty of hypocritical individuals within the socialist movement as well.

[Sasha]

Only primitivists that advocate the forcible destruction of all medical and agricultural progress and those that advocate forcible lowering the population are restricted, people that critique (the alienation of) modern society or those that see imminent societal collaps as an given (but don't advocate helping it along) are not.

[Skyhilist]

Only primitivists that advocate the forcible destruction of all medical and agricultural progress and those that advocate forcible lowering the population are restricted, people that critique (the alienation of) modern society or those that see imminent societal collaps as an given (but don't advocate helping it along) are not.

Ahh alright, thanks for clarifying. I just saw the word "primitivists" in the list of people mentioned who were restricted. This makes more sense.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I just want to add that this destruction of technology would literally entail liquidating most of the world's population...we're talking billions and billions of people.

[Skyhilist]

^Probably... and I'm not defending the viewpoint that modern technology should be destroyed. However, the way a primitivist would probably view things, such an event would have a negative human impact but a largely positive impact for all other life forms, which ecologically speaking are much more important and just as sentient as humans. I personally think we can create a sustainable world for other creatures as well without destroying technology, but I don't think believing otherwise deserves a restriction unless it's to some crazy extent like "destroy all hoes and rakes!" or something along those lines.

[Art Vandelay]

The aren't revolutionary leftists, that is enough grounds for restriction.

[Althusser]

Because primitivists are reactionaries and aren't compatible with scientific socialism. Read about Lenin's battle with the Narodniki in Tsarist Russia.

[Althusser]

^Probably... and I'm not defending the viewpoint that modern technology should be destroyed. However, the way a primitivist would probably view things, such an event would have a negative human impact but a largely positive impact for all other life forms, which ecologically speaking are much more important and just as sentient as humans. I personally think we can create a sustainable world for other creatures as well without destroying technology, but I don't think believing otherwise deserves a restriction unless it's to some crazy extent like "destroy all hoes and rakes!" or something along those lines.

Sure if human beings gave up industrial production and modern technology, the ecosystem would benefit, but human beings are the most important things on the planet, and limiting our agricultural technology to hoes and rakes would be genocide.

Also, other life forms are not just as sentient as humans.

[Sasha]

Im also not compatible with scientific socialism, and glad too. Most primivists are more revolutionary than the left-wing of fordism but sadly its a lot harder to get consensus on in the BA. (and it would end up rather empty here)

[vanukar]

Because primitivists are reactionaries and aren't compatible with scientific socialism. Read about Lenin's battle with the Narodniki in Tsarist Russia.

As far as I know you don't have to be a "scientific socialist" to be on this forum. I'd say most primitivists are a lot more sensible than most Marxists.

[Skyhilist]

but human beings are the most important things on the planet

As measured by what? Most important in terms of how we adversely affect other life, maybe, but not in that the ecosystem really depends on it. Other life could survive without us much better, yet we could not survive without other life. I find it arrogant personally to view humans as the world's crowning achievement or anything like that. Have you seen all the stupid shit we've done as a species? The only thing we have is intelligence, and even that is only one of MANY ways of measuring ability to thrive in the environments.
The opinion you've stated here is pretty irrelevant though anyways, because not viewing humans as the most important species doesn't make someone not a revolutionary leftist.

[NGNM85]

It's a tough call. I personally think that Restriction should be employed rarely, only as a last resort. However; I totally concur with those who favor Restricting primativists, on the point that primitivism is totally insane. On the other hand; there are any number of unRestricted members who frequently espouse equally, or nearly equally crazy ideas.

[NGNM85]

As measured by what? Most important in terms of how we adversely affect other life, maybe, but not in that the ecosystem really depends on it. Other life could survive without us much better, yet we could not survive without other life. I find it arrogant personally to view humans as the world's crowning achievement or anything like that. Have you seen all the stupid shit we've done as a species? The only thing we have is intelligence, and even that is only one of MANY ways of measuring ability to thrive in the environments.
The opinion you've stated here is pretty irrelevant though anyways, because not viewing humans as the most important species doesn't make someone not a revolutionary leftist.

While I concur that human history has more than it's share of barbarism, and that we have done an abysmal job as stewards of the earth, even now, as it begins to threaten our survival, as a species. However; we must assign greater moral weight to human beings, over other living creatures. (Which is not to say we should have no concern for the natural world; quite the contrary.) first, obviously, because we are all humans, and, therefore; have a common interest in the prosperity of the human race, but more importantly because human beings are the only truly sentient beings on this planet, because every human being is a potential; 'judge of the universe', possessing this capacity for true consciousness, and this is the most precious thing, in the entire universe, which we should value, above all else.

[Skyhilist]

It's a tough call. I personally think that Restriction should be employed rarely, only as a last resort. However; I totally concur with those who favor Restricting primativists, on the point that primitivism is totally insane. On the other hand; there are any number of unRestricted members who frequently espouse equally, or nearly equally crazy ideas.

Well I mean, I think different primitivists are irrational to different extents personally, and it's kind of hard to measure or set an objective bench mark for craziness.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As measured by what? Most important in terms of how we adversely affect other life, maybe, but not in that the ecosystem really depends on it. Other life could survive without us much better, yet we could not survive without other life. I find it arrogant personally to view humans as the world's crowning achievement or anything like that. Have you seen all the stupid shit we've done as a species? The only thing we have is intelligence, and even that is only one of MANY ways of measuring ability to thrive in the environments.
The opinion you've stated here is pretty irrelevant though anyways, because not viewing humans as the most important species doesn't make someone not a revolutionary leftist.

Why are you applying emotions to human interaction with other animals? Humans are heterotrophs; the only way that they can survive is through the consumption of living matter. Complaining that 'the environment has rights too' is too idiotic to put in principle.

And no, you are not a revolutionary leftist if you want to stop technological progress and drive people back into rewild hunter-gatherer heaven. That's the textbook definition of reactionary. Personally I can't think of any reason why the BA allows these anti-intellectual, metaphysical magician slash Tarzan slash John Lennon idiots to roam free and spread their crap on the main boards other than the possibility of some Admins being sympathetic to their cause.

[NGNM85]

Well I mean, I think different primitivists are irrational to different extents personally, and it's kind of hard to measure or set an objective bench mark for craziness.

There's a spectrum, but that spectrum tends to go from; 'pretty out there', to; 'completely unhinged.' In any case; in general, primitivism is pretty crazy.

[Rurkel]

hese anti-intellectual, metaphysical magician slash Tarzan slash John Lennon idiots to roam free and spread their crap on the main boards
How many of them are on the main boards, actually?

[Skyhilist]

we must assign greater moral weight to human beings, over other living creatures.

Why? If other animals are no less sentient, and more environmentally important, then why should we hold their lives as less important just because they share less DNA with us? I think it's possible to be altruistic to humans and animals both though; I don't see treating both humans an non-humans with the utmost respect as anything that should be unachievable.

[Skyhilist]

Why are you applying emotions to human interaction with other animals? Humans are heterotrophs; the only way that they can survive is through the consumption of living matter. Complaining that 'the environment has rights too' is too idiotic to put in principle.

Yes, we need to consume plant matter. Plant matter is not sentient and there is enough to go around for all species if humans aren't more inefficient and wasteful than needed. It's not the environment so much as other sentient beings that deserve respect in and of themselves, and also have a major impact on us. But seriously man, you live in the environment. A degraded environment only worsens society.


And no, you are not a revolutionary leftist if you want to stop technological progress and drive people back into rewild hunter-gatherer heaven. That's the textbook definition of reactionary. Personally I can't think of any reason why the BA allows these anti-intellectual, metaphysical magician slash Tarzan slash John Lennon idiots to roam free and spread their crap on the main boards other than the possibility of some Admins being sympathetic to their cause.

You just reverted to an old argument that I already rebutted in my very first post in this thread. I think that primitivist ideas can be somewhat silly too; but not automatically non-leftist.

[Skyhilist]

There's a spectrum, but that spectrum tends to go from; 'pretty out there', to; 'completely unhinged.' In any case; in general, primitivism is pretty crazy.

Yeah generally. But I mean then again, there are a lot of crazy theories on here that don't get people restricted, so it's an inconsistent policy to say the least.

[NGNM85]

Yeah generally. But I mean then again, there are a lot of crazy theories on here that don't get people restricted, so it's an inconsistent policy to say the least.

I agree, that's why I said so. If we were going to Restrict people simply for saying crazy bullshit; we'd have top Restrict a hell of a lot of people. That said; it doesn't bother me too much. I have several grievances with forum policy, but this is not one of them.

[Althusser]

not viewing humans as the most important species doesn't make someone not a revolutionary leftist.

It kind of does. In a socialist society where the profit motive is eliminated, we will find better ways to produce things and live eco-friendly... for the long term benefits of MAN. I think animal abuse is dastardly, and it's one of those things that makes my blood boil, but humans are obviously more important than animals. Under socialism, I'd imagine the slaughtering of animals would be cleaner and more humane because there isn't a big corporation trying to cut corners for maximum profit. I think the environment should be shaped to meet the short-term and long-term needs of human beings, rather than the short-term profits of corporations at the expense of the environment and man, but if you think banning "hoes and rakes" is the point when it goes a little too far, it makes me wonder how you feel about industrial production and modern technology.

"Ban the factories! And the mechanical reapers! You can keep the hoes and rakes though comrades!"

[vanukar]

So you have no problem with labor alienation? Your socialism sounds pretty awful if people are going to keep having to go to work everyday for no reason other than to produce useless products.

[Skyhilist]

It kind of does. In a socialist society where the profit motive is eliminated, we will find better ways to produce things and live eco-friendly... for the long term benefits of MAN. I think animal abuse is dastardly, and it's one of those things that makes my blood boil, but humans are obviously more important than animals. Under socialism, I'd imagine the slaughtering of animals would be cleaner and more humane because there isn't a big corporation trying to cut corners for maximum profit. I think the environment should be shaped to meet the short-term and long-term needs of human beings, rather than the short-term profits of corporations at the expense of the environment and man, but if you think banning "hoes and rakes" is the point when it goes a little too far, it makes me wonder how you feel about industrial production and modern technology.

"Ban the factories! And the mechanical reapers! You can keep the hoes and rakes though comrades!"


Socialism is supposed to create a better world for everyone. It's not anti-socialist to include other sentient beings in that "everyone". If there's a net gain for all sentient life, then by including all sentient beings in "everyone" you ARE creating more of a better world than if you value humans of other life on the planet (which humans couldn't live without anyways. I mean try even living without just the services bees provide in America). The only measures that place humans as superior to other beings as far as I've seen are entirely arbitrary at best. I'm not saying animals should be worth more of course, but I think that we at least need at least strive for (rational) equality for other sentient beings (e.g. eliminating factory farming, useless animal testing for irrelevant research, etc.). Ecologically speaking though, humans are not the most important species except in that we have the largest negative impact.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm actually going to defend primitivism a bit here:


I just want to add that this destruction of technology would literally entail liquidating most of the world's population...we're talking billions and billions of people.

Primitivists like Pentti Linkola (sp?) are assholes for advocating some kind of deep-green dictatorship, but my understanding of anarcho-primitivism is that if technology is to disappear, it will be due to some kind of civilisation-destroying ecological disaster, although it would apply just as much in the instance of an apocalyptic event not of our making, e.g. an asteroid impact or supervolcano eruption. I think they have something of a point in the fact that if the disaster is large enough in extent and/or magnitude, then agriculture and the resulting excess productive capacity which supports so much activity not directly related to small-scale survival may not be an option soon enough, even if we were to work on rebuilding agriculture and industry as soon as we're physically capable. Thus in such circumstances it would seem to me that primitive anarchism would be a better start than primitive despotism.

In that spirit, it strikes me that it would be wise to preserve sufficient wild spaces on Earth to support the knowledge base required to survive without industry or agriculture. Especially since we're nowhere near establishing a self-sufficient population of humans anywhere off this planet.

Maybe that's more like anarcho-survivalism or something. :mellow:

[Sasha]

I'm actually going to defend primitivism a bit here:



you technocratic Luddite ;)1

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Primitivists say that society can't survive because we'll eventually run out of finite resources, and society is built to collapse. What do you guys think about it? Are they wrong? I was going to start a thread on it, but I hope here is okay.

[Ele'ill]

Primitivists say that society can't survive because we'll eventually run out of finite resources, and society is built to collapse. What do you guys think about it? Are they wrong? I was going to start a thread on it, but I hope here is okay.

I don't think that's exclusively a primitivist critique but yeah societies of all sizes rise and collapse. I don't think it will be because all resources have simultaneously depleted to 0.

[Skyhilist]

Primitivists say that society can't survive because we'll eventually run out of finite resources, and society is built to collapse. What do you guys think about it? Are they wrong? I was going to start a thread on it, but I hope here is okay.

Here seems like as good of a place as anywhere. I personally don't believe this though, seeing as most resources can be replenished, within reason and assuming the human population doesn't continue to get out of control. I mean every material we use that is life-based can be sustained so long as we're responsible, and if can transition away from fossil fuels, energy can also be sustainable. We have got to figure out ways around some other major issues as well though such as sustainable water consumption and our use of finite rare earth metals in technology if we want out species to remain stabile.

[Thirsty Crow]

As measured by what? Most important in terms of how we adversely affect other life, maybe, but not in that the ecosystem really depends on it.
As with social class, so with species.

To clarify: encouraging misanthropy in an actively primitivist fashion, for a lack of willingness to engage with ecological problems or for a lack of critical capacity to do so, does not get a pass. And more importantly, it's in our interest as human beings that we extend our existence as a species.


It's not anti-socialist to include other sentient beings in that "everyone"It sure is not, but perhaps not due to a misguided sense of specism (or speciesism?), but from a rational and sober assessment of the human species as part of the eco system(s) which represents humans' sheer possibility of survival - and progress. Our relationship with nature will witness significant possibilities for change only if the relationships among human beings are radically transformed first.

[Skyhilist]

As with social class, so with species.

Could you clarify what you mean by this please?

[Thirsty Crow]

Could you clarify what you mean by this please?
Well I meant what I wrote below :D

It was a spur of the moment phrase that probably meant something like, as workers, we should definitely refuse to take up the viewpoint of the capitalist class, and as humans...we should take up the viewpoint of the human species, which precludes silly misanthropy such as action against technology (I suppose, from what other users have stated, that indeed there are primitivists who advocate this).

In other words, taking up a viewpoint of the whole of the Earth's ecosystem is valid insofar as it provides guidance for a creation of a sustainable communist society, and not because it somehow transcends the narrow mindedness of focusing on the importance of human beings.

[Skyhilist]

I can agree with that somewhat, although I do think we have a lot more of a moral burden to protect life that has been threatened by humans even if it would seem not to affect us. I mean no other species by itself has anything like the "Sixth Great Extinction" based only on its existence alone. While it's important to consider humanity I think we also need to consider the well being of other beings that we have adversely affected as a species, even if saving them would have no direct affect on us. I mean they've done nothing wrong and don't deserve the destruction humans have caused. Many aren't as intelligent or as closely genetically related to us, but what's important to remember is that they are just as sentient as we are. If I accidentally hurt someone, I'd try to make things right regardless of if doing so affected me.

[Althusser]

So you have no problem with labor alienation? Your socialism sounds pretty awful if people are going to keep having to go to work everyday for no reason other than to produce useless products.

Is this a response to me?

[Thirsty Crow]

I can agree with that somewhat, although I do think we have a lot more of a moral burden to protect life that has been threatened by humans even if it would seem not to affect us.

Are you referring to endangered species here? If yes, then I don't see any reason why people should not engage in preserving life forms. Though, the issue is precisely one of priority, if an unfortunate situation arises when, for instance, a species might only be preserved in captivity (artificial habitats) due to natural habitat destruction which is necessary for a group of people (this is the tricky part, what is necessary; I'd argue for a strict delineation of the necessary and that merely pertaining to comfort), I know what my position would be. What I think is possible is a more reasonable and reasoned way to go about this.

I don't see why artificial habitats would be a problem, and I'm quite sure that many smart heads could come together and design a plan to achieve this.

[DasFapital]

I understand that there are many primitivists who support a gradually rewilding, usually involving setting up some sort of socialist state that will slowly do away with industrial civilization over the course of several centuries.

[Skyhilist]

Are you referring to endangered species here? If yes, then I don't see any reason why people should not engage in preserving life forms. Though, the issue is precisely one of priority, if an unfortunate situation arises when, for instance, a species might only be preserved in captivity (artificial habitats) due to natural habitat destruction which is necessary for a group of people (this is the tricky part, what is necessary; I'd argue for a strict delineation of the necessary and that merely pertaining to comfort), I know what my position would be. What I think is possible is a more reasonable and reasoned way to go about this.

I don't see why artificial habitats would be a problem, and I'm quite sure that many smart heads could come together and design a plan to achieve this.

Yeah I'm referring mainly to endangered, and also to animals that are exploited by humans that don't need to be for us to survive. But yeah I agree with you on the artificial habitats (I think places like the Montreal Biodome are evidence that they can work), although I would seriously hope it would never come to this, and that even if it did restoration efforts of species habitats as long as possible. But yeah I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that that other life doesn't really need humans in the end, but we need other life, so we ought to treat it as respectfully as possible (e.g. not eradicating it). I don't support genocide against any species, and I personally think the view that humans are the most important species isn't really all that valid, because it basically just says humans are most important because humans can benefit humans. I think of "keystone species" for example should be seen as the more important ones because they contribute not only towards the survival of their own kind, but also to a vast array of other species, therefore deserving as much respect and protection as possible.
Of course I don't think humans ought to be eradicated either as we are just as sentient as other animals as well. Honestly though, given the impact that humans have had, if I had the option to make it so that humans never existed in the first place, I'd probably take it. Obviously this would be paradoxical and has no actual application, but I think the existence human species should be seen as an unfortunate event for the wellbeing of other life. Of course we're already here now so the best we can do is try to coexist with other life and fix any damage that we've already done by protecting species and making ourselves more sustainable.

[bcbm]

anti-intellectual, metaphysical magician slash Tarzan slash John Lennon idiots

wait, what?

[DasFapital]

Zerzan interview

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JLmeTO80co&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nfoc1sDorg&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q&index=10

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6d2gRBuhQ&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q

[NGNM85]

Zerzan interview

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JLmeTO80co&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nfoc1sDorg&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q&index=10

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6d2gRBuhQ&list=UU3-4zVpVOwOouB2HuqNcH3Q

No offense, but John Zerzan is crazy.

[bcbm]

no he isnt

[DasFapital]

No offense, but John Zerzan is crazy.

That's what living in Eugene, Oregon will do to you

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The problem with anarcho-primitivism is not that they think society may eventually collapse and they're thinking really hard about what to do when it happens, but that it is their revolutionary imperative to help make that happen. Their goal would set in motion the largest democide in the history of humanity. Mao and Columbus would blush.

[NGNM85]

The problem with anarcho-primitivism is not that they think society may eventually collapse and they're thinking really hard about what to do when it happens, but that it is their revolutionary imperative to help make that happen. Their goal would set in motion the largest democide in the history of humanity. Mao and Columbus would blush.

It's also important to mention that the abandonment of technology would make human extinction unavoidable. Even if we are not destroyed by nuclear holocaust, pandemics, etc., etc., we simply cannot survive the death throes of our sun. The only hope for human survival is in the stars.

[Althusser]

In all seriousness though, who in their right minds would latch on to a group that once overthrowing the state, would eliminate modern technology. I could get Glenn Beck to become a communist before you got 5 random people to even begin to consider such a shit idea as primitivism.

[Ostrinski]

People on revleft routinely routinely find difficulty in discussing maturely, I think. There's just a certain few subjects that the people on this site can't seem to discuss in a reasonable fashion. Kronstadt, pedophilia, George Orwell, and primitivism are the main ones that come to mind.

Case in point, every time primitivism comes up in a discussion people always have to go off on some emotional diatribe about ipads or something (which I happen to be writing this from btw)

[Skyhilist]

People on revleft routinely routinely find difficulty in discussing maturely, I think. There's just a certain few subjects that the people on this site can't seem to discuss in a reasonable fashion. Kronstadt, pedophilia, George Orwell, and primitivism are the main ones that come to mind.

Case in point, every time primitivism comes up in a discussion people always have to go off on some emotional diatribe about ipads or something (which I happen to be writing this from btw)

Yeah I see what you're getting at. I tried to start a civil discussion on here once about if people thought pedophilia was heritable and if so how it should be dealt with. Needless to say, it got instantly trashed as "flame bait" despite the fact that this was not at all my intent.

[RedHal]

this batshit crazy ultra reactionary tendecy has a 3 page discussion while the thread about restriction of Maoists Third Worldist is closed after three posts?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-thirdworldists-banned-t178130/index.html

Maoist Third Worldism atleast tries to deal with existing gross differences in material conditions between the 1st worlders and those living in squalor in the 3rd world. I don't know why restriction of genocidal hippy primmies is even up for discussion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No offense, but John Zerzan is crazy.

He's a lot better than, say, Derrick Jensen, who's an ideological con artist and a hypocritical idiot, in my opinion.

[vanukar]

In all seriousness though, who in their right minds would latch on to a group that once overthrowing the state, would eliminate modern technology. I could get Glenn Beck to become a communist before you got 5 random people to even begin to consider such a shit idea as primitivism.

Things don't work that way. It's not like the masses are going to suddenly latch onto a particular ideology.

[NGNM85]

He's a lot better than, say, Derrick Jensen, who's an ideological con artist and a hypocritical idiot, in my opinion.


Yes; in the sense that being punched in the face is preferable to being kicked in the balls. However; my personal preference is; 'none of the above.'

[Ele'ill]

another thread full of users flexing their muscles against 'primitivism'/criticism of society where the caliber of critiques expected can be that of 'crazy', 'balls', 'idiot'

[Questionable]

this batshit crazy ultra reactionary tendecy has a 3 page discussion while the thread about restriction of Maoists Third Worldist is closed after three posts?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-thirdworldists-banned-t178130/index.html

Maoist Third Worldism atleast tries to deal with existing gross differences in material conditions between the 1st worlders and those living in squalor in the 3rd world. I don't know why restriction of genocidal hippy primmies is even up for discussion.

Well to be fair most official third-worldist parties believe(d) that white people needed to be placed into concentration camps after the glorious third-worldist revolution because they were "too dangerous" to be left alone. Obviously that changes amongst individual TWists but I've spoken to a few who compare placing white workers into concentration camps with suppressing the bourgeoisie.

And besides it's a caricature of Marxism to imply that TWists are literally the only people on earth who have noticed that (gasp!) the first-world and third-world have different qualities of living and everyone else has their thumbs stuck up their ass, a caricature I'm quite frankly sick of. I don't mind if MTWists have their own opinions but stop acting like you're the only ones who noticed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

another thread full of users flexing their muscles against 'primitivism'/criticism of society where the caliber of critiques expected can be that of 'crazy', 'balls', 'idiot'

Well since it hasn't already been said, I'll throw "salmon fucker" out there as well.

[NGNM85]

another thread full of users flexing their muscles against 'primitivism'/criticism of society where the caliber of critiques expected can be that of 'crazy', 'balls', 'idiot'

That's not entirely accurate. A number of individuals, myself included, have made serious, and substantive criticisms of primitivism, in the course of this conversation, and elsewhere. However, since you asked, and nobody's mentioned it, yet; I'll also point out that primitivism perpetuates; 'noble savage' myths, and is totally blind to (among other things) the liberatory potential of sophisticated technologies. Second; while labels like; 'crazy', 'bullshit', or; 'nonsense' may not reveal very much about the subject in question, or anything, at all, it does not mean that these characterizations are inaccurate. Quite the contrary.

[Lowtech]

Communism as an economic system can and does include indigenous peoples. They would also be accurately regarded as our first example of communist society. Perhaps not the ideal, but the closest to it we've accompished in the 26 million some years on this planet.

When we take it as an absolute, as the only means or primary means to communism, it more often than not probably scares those who don't want to go without technology and those that support authoritarian systems.

[Ele'ill]

That's not entirely accurate. A number of individuals, myself included, have made serious, and substantive criticisms of primitivism, in the course of this conversation, and elsewhere. However, since you asked, and nobody's mentioned it, yet; I'll also point out that primitivism perpetuates; 'noble savage' myths, and is totally blind to (among other things) the liberatory potential of sophisticated technologies. Second; while labels like; 'crazy', 'bullshit', or; 'nonsense' may not reveal very much about the subject in question, or anything, at all, it does not mean that these characterizations are inaccurate. Quite the contrary.

yeah k regardless this isn't much of a conversation and there are primitivist, post-civ, neither of these two, critiques of the liberatory potential of sophisticated technologies which have of course gone unmentioned in this thread. So I think those characterizations are characterizations with a whole lot of nothing to back it up which is par for the course when it comes to discussion on societal transformation.

[NGNM85]

Andrew Flood's critique of primitivism, from an Anarchist perspective;

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1451

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1890

[Ravachol]

Haha another primitivism thread, I'm not even going to take the effort to actually participate in this one since it'll just be a bunch of leftists kicking and screaming about 'zomg y would u wanna live in mudhuts and kill all the sick children!11!'. A 'debate isn't even possible on such topics (or most topic actually) on this board.


you technocratic Luddite ;)1

ÑóẊîöʼn has been one of the few sensible voices in the 'debate' on primitivism on this board and its very telling that someone who identifies as a 'technocrat' is far more open to the subtilities of a critique of technology than the hoards of tankies and 'scientific sociulizm' kids.


No offense, but John Zerzan is crazy.

Great argument there. He's said and written more interesting stuff (and I'm pretty sure participated in more workers' struggles back when he was still on the more leftcomish side of things) than most members on this board combined.

[Art Vandelay]

Great argument there. He's said and written more interesting stuff (and I'm pretty sure participated in more workers' struggles back when he was still on the more leftcomish side of things) than most members on this board combined.

I just read the Mass Psychology of Misery by Zerzan and while I, obviously, disagree with his conclusion about the destructive nature of technology in society, I think it contained some interesting insights on mental illness.

[Art Vandelay]

this batshit crazy ultra reactionary tendecy has a 3 page discussion while the thread about restriction of Maoists Third Worldist is closed after three posts?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-thirdworldists-banned-t178130/index.html

Maoist Third Worldism atleast tries to deal with existing gross differences in material conditions between the 1st worlders and those living in squalor in the 3rd world. I don't know why restriction of genocidal hippy primmies is even up for discussion.

There were lengthy discussions on the matter, in forums you're incapable of seeing.

[NGNM85]

Haha another primitivism thread, I'm not even going to take the effort to actually participate in this one since it'll just be a bunch of leftists kicking and screaming about 'zomg y would u wanna live in mudhuts and kill all the sick children!11!'. A 'debate isn't even possible on such topics (or most topic actually) on this board.

You are quite correct in that there are a number of subjects that, apparently, much of the forum members, including many of the administrators, are constitutionally incapable of discussing in a calm, rational manner, I've been often, vexed, by this, myself. However; most of the criticisms of primitivism, including the ones you've mentioned, are quite legitimate. To go back to the 16th, century, or whenever it is decided that everything went wrong, (Primitivists are notoriously vague about this.) would be an act of genocide, on a scale that has never been seen, before, in human history. There's really no other way to see it.


...critique of technology than the hoards of tankies and 'scientific sociulizm' kids.

There aren't any substantive arguments against technology, categorically. Just as there aren't any sound, categorical, arguments against medicine, or literature, etc. You can criticize the way technologies are, occasionally employed, or how they are developed, etc., but there aren't any sound, categorical arguments against these things.


Great argument there. He's said and written more interesting stuff (and I'm pretty sure participated in more workers' struggles back when he was still on the more leftcomish side of things) than most members on this board combined.

You deliberately omitted my more serious criticisms, such as the fact that primitivism traffics in; 'noble savage' myths, that it ignores the liberatory potential of sophisticated technology, that returning to a preindustrial society would guarantee human extinction, etc., etc. Furthermore, as I was saying; just because such comments don't reveal very much about the subject in question, or, even, anything at all, doesn't mean they are not entirely correct.

I'm not the man's biographer. Whatever he may have done, before he became a neo-luddite, is not the issue. I take issue with the philosophy he expounds, today, which is fundamentally antithetical to Marxism, and Anarchism.

[Ravachol]

However; most of the criticisms of primitivism, including the ones you've mentioned, are quite legitimate. To go back to the 16th, century, or whenever it is decided that everything went wrong, (Primitivists are notoriously vague about this.) would be an act of genocide, on a scale that has never been seen, before, in human history. There's really no other way to see it.


I don't know why I'm even bothering addressing you as a simple fucking forum search would have brought up at least 3 topic in which I (and bcbm and the douche to name two) explained some of the primitivist positions. What you're saying is bollocks, because:

a) there's no such thing as a unified 'primitivist' position
b) most primitivist don't buy into the 'original sin' myth and they most certainly aren't vague about what constitutes the problematics of civilisation and what processes brought that up
c) there's almost no primitivist that argues for 'genocide' or whatever the fuck strawmen you guys wanna keep throwing up. Most consider ecological collapse (or a general collapse of industrial civilisation) as inevitable and immanent and brought about by its own workings. What they advocate is not repeating the same mistake again, saving what there is to save and restructuring the ruins along with pointing out that civilisation has been a continuous process of genocide and slaughter all along.

But apparently you couldn't be bothered to use that nifty forum search function. So much for technology ey? :rolleyes:



There aren't any substantive arguments against technology, categorically.


Yes there are but that's not even what primitivism is about. I'd say, take a good look at those older forum threads or actually bother to read something they write instead of screaming and kicking about what you think their positions are.



You can criticize the way technologies are, occasionally employed, or how they are developed, etc., but there aren't any sound, categorical arguments against these things.


Yes, because the problem with Auschwitz, the A-bomb and cctv mass surveillance were their application and technology is just 'neutral' right?



You deliberately omitted my more serious criticisms, such as the fact that primitivism traffics in; 'noble savage' myths


Hardly. Most primitivists draw upon mainstream (paleo-)anthropological consensus.


that it ignores the liberatory potential of sophisticated technology


What liberatory potential? Like how the introduction of the conveyor belt shortened the workday right? :rolleyes:



that returning to a preindustrial society would guarantee human extinction


So will the continuation of industrial civilisation as we know it.



I'm not the man's biographer. Whatever he may have done, before he became a neo-luddite, is not the issue. I take issue with the philosophy he expounds, today, which is fundamentally antithetical to Marxism, and Anarchism.

No it isn't and even if it was, who the fuck cares. I'm not interested in preaching the pure gospel of whatever ideological cool-aid you drank.

But I'm not going into this discussion any further because this topic has been discussed at length on this forum before and its largely a waste of time with you lot.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, because the problem with Auschwitz, the A-bomb and cctv mass surveillance were their application and technology is just 'neutral' right?

Could you describe further, if you wish to continue at all with me (someone who's going to be approaching this in a rational manner; I'll leave all my prejudices at the door), in which ways technology is not neutral? Off the top of my head, what I would say would be that technology is highly affected by the mode of production in which it is being used. Given that we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (who therefor, for the most part, have a monopoly on technology) it isn't a surprise that the A-bomb was used in a inter-imperialist war; cameras have been turned into a method of keeping tabs the populace; that the conveyor belt was used to increase production, not decrease working hours; etc...


So will the continuation of industrial civilisation as we know it.

I think that the key word here is as we know it; everyone on the board wants to change industrial civilization as we know it and don't think anyone would argue that it hasn't become a direct threat to the survival of the human species.

Edit: Also I don't know if you saw my post on the bottom of the last page, but I just read The Psychology of Mass Misery by Zerzan and despite disagreeing with some of his conclusions, I thought it has some interesting insights.

[Art Vandelay]

To go back to the 16th, century, or whenever it is decided that everything went wrong, (Primitivists are notoriously vague about this.) would be an act of genocide, on a scale that has never been seen, before, in human history. There's really no other way to see it.

I am not well versed in primitivist thought, however I know that Zerzan is actually quite specific about this.

[Ravachol]

Could you describe further, if you wish to continue at all with me (someone who's going to be approaching this in a rational manner; I'll leave all my prejudices at the door), in which ways technology is not neutral? Off the top of my head, what I would say would be that technology is highly affected by the mode of production in which it is being used. Given that we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (who therefor, for the most part, have a monopoly on technology) it isn't a surprise that the A-bomb was used in a inter-imperialist war; cameras have been turned into a method of keeping tabs the populace; that the conveyor belt was used to increase production, not decrease working hours; etc...


Sure. First of all, I don't think its quite as simple as talking about 'which class is in control' which is a misunderstanding of how capital works. Capital dominates through its organisation of social life, not through imperatives issued by bourgeois lords from ivory towers. Marx distinguishes two modes of operation for capitalism: formal and real subsumption. Under formal subsumption (which follows after a process of primitive accumulation) capital forces society to reorganize according to its principles, ie. the peasant no longer grows his own food and pays a feudal tax but he takes his food to the market to sell it, using that money to buy other products (a simplistic example). Under formal subsumption, the production and social life continue largely as before albeit subjected to capital 'hovering above' the subjugated society.

Gradually, however, capital's needs start to influence the organisation of the labor process itself. The farmer moves towards massive monoculture-crop based agriculture as this favors his position on the market, the small workshops are replaced by massive factories where agricultural workers driven from their lands by enclosures are turned into the industrial proletariat. This process continues internally through a re-organization of the labour process, conveyor belts are introduced to speed up the production process and labourers are deskilled from being artisans in order to increase piece-rate production. Meanwhile, education morphs and shifts its shape as it has to adapt to the new needs of the social reproduction of a changing proletariat and new technologies arise out of those needs. One cannot take the conveyor belt as an idealist construct without seeing the social context that gave rise to it: a particular organic composition of capital.

On subsumption: http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/6 and http://www.riff-raff.se/en/sic1/sic-1-09-on-the-periodisation-of-the-capitalist-class-relation.pdf

On the matter of technology being 'neutral', i'd answer no. Though there are two cases to be distinguished:

1. Technology as a conceptual category: I think even in this case, technology is a troublesome concept but I don't reject it categorically and neither do all primitivists. Depending on who you speak to, of course. Primitivists don't reject bowdrills and flintknapping, which are obviously technologies. The problem with tools and technology as a conceptual category is largely that they are heavily tied up with the emergence of a division of labor, specialisation and alienation. Though I don't think this means a categorical rejection of technology is required.

2. Technology as it exists as a material plane around us: this is where the problem is at. As I explained above, capital dominates social reality from top to bottom and this shapes all terrain, both material and social. What technologies get research depends on a particular social need, a social need determined by the composition of the social terrain which is in turn determined by capital (though this does not mean capital cannot reflect a human need, ie. workers have to eat to reproduce themselves, yet capital distorts it in its own particular ways). What is considered 'socially useful', what is considered economically viable and what is considered acceptable is all shaped by capital, so it goes much deeper than the eventual 'use' technology is put to. One famous example is how in the aftermath of the revolutionary unrest preceding the Paris Commune baron von Herrhausen was tasked to reorganize Paris. The small city streets and alleys had prevented versailles from deploying canons and large batallions throughout paris while favoring the construction of barricades which had complicated smashing the uprisings. So most of the paris inner city was taken down, broad roads and squares were favored and all were connected to railways from versailles so cannons and troops could be shiped into paris easily. In this way, the urban geography (and thus the technical composition) of Paris was shaped by capital and by no means a 'neutral' artifact which at any time could have been put to any use depending on the user.

Disconnecting a technology from its historical context is about as silly as disconnecting something like parliament or representative democracy from its historical context, yet when it comes to bolts and gears leftists are blinded and to no small extent thanks to the cult of 'progress' surrounding the 'development of the productive forces' scam I'd say.

Some stuff worth reading:

http://libcom.org/library/human-species-earths-crust-amadeo-bordiga by Bordiga

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dave-antagonism-jacques-camatte-and-the-new-politics-of-liberation on Camatte

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan by Perlman



I think that the key word here is as we know it; everyone on the board wants to change industrial civilization as we know it and don't think anyone would argue that it hasn't become a direct threat to the survival of the human species.

Well there's tons of people here who jack of to big chimneys, coal mines and sturdy stakhnovite men shoveling train lorries full of steel bars, at most lots of leftists want a reorganisation of the management of industrial civilisation. A reorganisation that would just be a centrally planned or self-managed deathmarch, depending on the political flavor.

[NGNM85]

, because:I don't know why I'm even bothering addressing you as a simple fucking forum search would have brought up at least 3 topic in which I (and bcbm and the douche to name two) explained some of the primitivist positions. What you're saying is bollocks

a) there's no such thing as a unified 'primitivist' position

You're contradicting yourself. If there is no one; 'true' branch of primitivism, but, rather; a (narrow) range of related primitivisms, (Which I grant, incidentally.) you cannot then proclaim that whatever branch that you, and/or The Douche endorse is; 'true' primitivism.


, b) most primitivist don't buy into the 'original sin' myth and they most certainly aren't vague about what constitutes the problematics of civilisation and what processes brought that up

What I said was that I have observed most primitivists are exceedingly vague about where they draw the line between 'good' technology, and 'bad' technology, precisely at what level of technological advancement, they insist, we must not surpass. Most primitivists are pretty evasive about that.


, c)there's almost no primitivist that argues for 'genocide' or whatever the fuck strawmen you guys wanna keep throwing up.

It's not a straw-man argument. There are plenty of primitivists who welcome, and/or encourage the collapse of industrial civilization. It isn't difficult to find examples. That's not unfair. Now; for a population of roughly 7 billion people, or anything close to that, to return to preindustrial life would be catastrophic. It would necessitate mass death on a scale never before seen, in human history. That's mass murder. That's not even counting theincalcuable needless suffering caused by treatable diseases, and injuries, etc.


, Most consider ecological collapse (or a general collapse of industrial civilisation) as inevitable and immanent and brought about by its own workings.

The collapse of industrial civilization is not inevitable. It's possible, even likely, but it's not inevitable. Also; it's extremely unlikely that the survivors of such a cataclysm would decide to return to a preindustrial existence, not by choice, most likely; they would scavenge any, and all existing technology, available, and use it to the greatest extent of their ability. Second; while not all primitivists are openly enthusiastic about the collapse of civilization, (Although; some are, very explicitly so.) most don't seem particularly upset about it. I've seen primitivists howl about vivisection, or the destruction of the biosphere, but human suffering, and death doesn't seem to have much emotional resonance.


, What they advocate is not repeating the same mistake again, saving what there is to save and restructuring the ruins along with pointing out that civilisation has been a continuous process of genocide and slaughter all along.

I won't argue that human history contains more than it's share of barbarism. (As well as music, poetry, literature, science, kindness, beauty, mathematics, etc.) However; to claim that violence, or authoritarianism, and technology are inextricable is utter nonsense.


, Yes there are but that's not even what primitivism is about. I'd say, take a good look at those older forum threads or actually bother to read something they write instead of screaming and kicking about what you think their positions are.

I stand by every word. Primitivism is, in a word; nonsense. It is fundamentally antithetical to Marxism, and Anarchism. Many primitivists are either enthusiastic about the collapse of civilization, or blasé. Many primistivists are strikingly vague about precisely what level of technology they consider acceptable. Finally; returning to a preindustrial mode of
existence would, absolutely, necessitate mass death on an incomprehensible scale, and, would, incidentally, doom the human race to extinction.


, Yes, because the problem with Auschwitz, the A-bomb and cctv mass surveillance were their application and technology is just 'neutral' right?

Auschwitz was a Nazi death camp, not a technology, unto itself. There is nothing fundamentally evil about trains, fumigants, etc., just as there is nothing fundamentally oppressive, or violent about cameras, or nuclear fission. The discovery of nuclear fission allows for the possibility to create nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapons were not the products of science, but of nation-states, and capitalism. To lay the blame for the holocaust at the foot of science is absurd. There are any number of very serious flaws in the Third Reich, as an institution, which one could criticize, but an excess of rationality isn't one of them. Again; the claim that technology and oppression, or violence are fundamentally linked is totally baseless.


, What liberatory potential? Like how the introduction of the conveyor belt shortened the workday right? :rolleyes:

My first example would be the internet, which I would argue, is inherently democratizing, inherently liberating. One of the primary bulwarks of authoritarian regimes has always been control over the access, and dissemination of information. As web connectivity is becoming available, even in the most remote corners of the globe, even the most repressive, (North Korea) to the most technologically sophisticated, (China) dictatorships are failing, miserably, at controlling the exchange of ideas, and this trend is accelerating. A technology that allows humans to freely exchange, and access information that has not been filtered, or censored, is inherently empowering, and inherently democratizing.


, So will the continuation of industrial civilisation as we know it.

The operative phrase being; 'as we know it.' Admittedly; that's likely, although by no means certain. However; as 9mm pointed out; no-one, here, is advocating maintaining the status quo. Practically everyone, here, is agreed that we need to dismantle the ruling institutions, namely; capitalism, and nation-states, and replace them with something more humane, just, and democratic.


, No it isn't..

It absolutely is. That's just an empirical fact. Anarchism was always envisioned in a modern context. When Anarchist writers, from Emma Goldman, to Bakunin, to Kropotkin, to Malatesta, etc., pictured a fully-developed Anarchist society; they pictured a modern, technological civilization. Marx was very explicit that communism was contingent upon the productive powers being developed to a certain point; (Which I wholeheartedly agree with.) he was no luddite. He didn't want to return to a preindustrial state. He even praised the advances of the industrial revolution, even as he decried the human suffering that occurred, in that same period, again; as a result of capitalism.


, and even if it was, who the fuck cares.

I would think that anybody who is a Marxist, or an Anarchist would care.
Presumably; that includes virtually the entire population of the forum, minus one, or two right-wing trolls.


I'm not interested in preaching the pure gospel of whatever ideological cool-aid you drank.

Anarchism, the philosophy I espouse, does not lend itself well to dogmatism. That isn't to say it's impossible to be a dogmatic Anarchist, it just doesn't lend itself very easily to dogmatism. In any case; I'm certainly not religiously dogmatic. There are plenty of members who are, but I'm
not.

[Ravachol]

I'm sorry NGNM85 i'm not going to address your post because it speaks for itself. You've clearly never read any actual primitivist writings (otherwise you wouldn't be so confused about their positions and espouse such nonsense) and you rely purely on strawmen. My post in response to 9mm should address some of the stuff you're babbeling about.

Aside from your historical illeteracy regarding marxist and anarchist nuances on technology (primitivism being largely the product of former Marxists such as Camatte and Zerzan and the odd anarchist like Perlman) I don't really want anything to do with your naive technophilic conception of 'anarchism'. Other than that I'd say: good luck with your 'inherently democratizing and liberatory' technology, i await the day it will finally do away with Capital. Perhaps you can automatize the revolution as well.

[Art Vandelay]

Just a note Ravachol, due to the size of your post and the relative unfamiliar nature (to me) of the discussion, I'll have to wait till I have more time tmro to answer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure. First of all, I don't think its quite as simple as talking about 'which class is in control' which is a misunderstanding of how capital works. Capital dominates through its organisation of social life, not through imperatives issued by bourgeois lords from ivory towers. Marx distinguishes two modes of operation for capitalism: formal and real subsumption. Under formal subsumption (which follows after a process of primitive accumulation) capital forces society to reorganize according to its principles, ie. the peasant no longer grows his own food and pays a feudal tax but he takes his food to the market to sell it, using that money to buy other products (a simplistic example). Under formal subsumption, the production and social life continue largely as before albeit subjected to capital 'hovering above' the subjugated society.

Gradually, however, capital's needs start to influence the organisation of the labor process itself. The farmer moves towards massive monoculture-crop based agriculture as this favors his position on the market, the small workshops are replaced by massive factories where agricultural workers driven from their lands by enclosures are turned into the industrial proletariat. This process continues internally through a re-organization of the labour process, conveyor belts are introduced to speed up the production process and labourers are deskilled from being artisans in order to increase piece-rate production. Meanwhile, education morphs and shifts its shape as it has to adapt to the new needs of the social reproduction of a changing proletariat and new technologies arise out of those needs. One cannot take the conveyor belt as an idealist construct without seeing the social context that gave rise to it: a particular organic composition of capital.

Surely the context in which technologies are deployed is important, though? If I had a horse and sufficient land to grow crops, then my use of a horse-collar to plough the land would not reproduce feudal relations because I would still be living in the context of a capitalist society. Presumably then, the use of conveyor belts in a communist society in itself would not reproduce capitalist relations.

[NGNM85]

yeah k regardless this isn't much of a conversation and there are primitivist, post-civ, neither of these two, critiques of the liberatory potential of sophisticated technologies which have of course gone unmentioned in this thread. So I think those characterizations are characterizations with a whole lot of nothing to back it up which is par for the course when it comes to discussion on societal transformation.

It's worth mentioning that contraceptives, etc., (More great examples of how technology can be empowering.) would be completely unavailable without industry, without sophisticated technology. Therefore; women would have absolutely no control over their reproductive process, whatsoever, in your 'Anarcho-primitivist' utopia. This just seems to be a glaring oversight for someone who makes such a public display of their professed commitment to reproductive rights.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's worth mentioning that contraceptives, etc., (More great examples of how technology can be empowering.) would be completely unavailable without industry, without sophisticated technology. Therefore; women would have absolutely no control over their reproductive process, whatsoever, in your 'Anarcho-primitivist' utopia. This just seems to be a glaring oversight for someone who makes such a public display of their professed commitment to reproductive rights.

Ahem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control#Ancient_Mesopotamia.2C_Egypt_and_Rom e)


Birth control and abortion are well documented in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. One of the earliest documents explicitly referring to birth control methods is the Kahun Gynecological Papyrus from about 1850 BCE. It describes various contraceptive pessaries, including acacia gum, which recent research has confirmed to have spermatocidal qualities and is still used in contraceptive jellies. Other birth control methods mentioned in the papyrus include the application of gummy substances to cover the "mouth of the womb" (i.e. the cervix), a mixture of honey and sodium carbonate applied to the inside of the vagina, and a pessary made from crocodile dung. Lactation (breast-feeding) of up to three years was also used for birth control purposes in ancient Egypt.[108]

Plants with contraceptive properties were used in Ancient Greece from the 7th century BCE onwards and documented by numerous ancient writers on gynaecology, such as Hippocrates. The botanist Theophrastus documented the use of Silphium, a plant well known for its contraceptive and abortifacient properties. The plant only grew on a small strip of land near the coastal city of Cyrene (located in modern day Libya), with attempts to cultivate it elsewhere failing. Its price increased due to high demand, leading to it being worth "more than its weight in silver" by the 1st century BC. The high demand eventually led to the extinction of Silphium during the third or 2nd century BC. Asafoetida, a close relative of siliphion, was also used for its contraceptive properties. Other plants commonly used for birth control in ancient Greece include Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), willow, date palm, pomegranate, pennyroyal, artemisia, myrrh, and rue. Some of these plants are toxic and ancient Greek documents specify safe dosages. Recent studies have confirmed the birth control properties of many of these plants, confirming for example that Queen Anne's lace has post coital anti-fertility properties. Queen Anne's lace is still used today for birth control in India. Like their neighboring ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans practiced contraception and abortion.[108]

[bcbm]

It's worth mentioning that contraceptives, etc., (More great examples of how technology can be empowering.) would be completely unavailable without industry, without sophisticated technology. Therefore; women would have absolutely no control over their reproductive process, whatsoever, in your 'Anarcho-primitivist' utopia. This just seems to be a glaring oversight for someone who makes such a public display of their professed commitment to reproductive rights.

this is just flat out wrong. birth control existed in ancient egypt and ancient greece, to name two societies without industry or sophisticated technology and they practiced a variety of other methods to control their reproductive process.

edit: dammit noxion ;-)

[l'Enfermé]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ancient Greece & Egypt were sedentary class societies. ;)


a pessary made from crocodile dung.

Damn.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

To be fair, that's like saying we can't complain about capitalism because we live in capitalist society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

Perhaps "technological fetishism" would be more accurate, at least in Marxist terms. I think it's pretty clear that what is meant by such terms is an overweening confidence in technological solutions with little or no regard given to social and economic contexts, rather than the mere use of technology as a tool.

[bcbm]

Ancient Greece & Egypt were sedentary class societies. ;)


they didnt have industry or 'advanced technology' tho

and gatherer-hunters had methods of reproductive control

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ancient Greece & Egypt were sedentary class societies. ;)

I hardly think harvesting/growing plants is beyond the ken of itinerant hunter-gatherers though, don't you think?

[Ravachol]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

Complaining about capitalism in a capitalist society, that makes sense! I bet you eat at McDonalds too and buy Nikes you capitalist! :rolleyes:

Edit: Damnit Negative creep.

[Os Cangaceiros]

they didnt have industry or 'advanced technology' tho

No, but really the thrust of the arguments I've seen regarding primitivism is that once you start settling down and tilling the soil and divvying up land, a structured society of classes (and all the negativity that goes with it) is never far behind.

[Ravachol]

Also, despite all the contraceptives in the world (which is all great and fancy), the notion that those by themselves magically 'empower' women would negate both feminism and ignore the harsh reality of a world where regional availability of contraceptives does not imply feminine control over reproductive capabilities. But who am I to take social context into account when technology apparently acts like a magic ahistorical wand upon reality?

[Ravachol]

No, but really the thrust of the arguments I've seen regarding primitivism is that once you start settling down and tilling the soil and divvying up land, a structured society of classes (and all the negativity that goes with it) is never far behind.

Not per se, this completely depends on whom you talk to. It is a historical given that sedentism and agriculture where major factors in the rise of class society (together with the solidification of social hierarchies through the institutionalisation of the shaman) but most primitivists explicitly avoid the notion of 'orginal sin'. They observe primitivist communist hunter-gatherer societies and point to how particular technology influences the modification of social structures, but this is not to say that it's a deterministic process. Besides, there's non-primitivist critiques of civilisation as well out there (eg. Wolfi Landstreicher).

[vanukar]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

Complaining about people complaining.

Yup, that makes sense.

[NGNM85]

Also, despite all the contraceptives in the world (which is all great and fancy), the notion that those by themselves magically..

Contraceptives, etc., don't work by magic. They are products of science. (Which, I know; you despise.) They work in explicable ways consistent with biology, and known principles of physics. (Which you, also, hate.)


'empower' women would negate both feminism

Not in the slightest. I didn't say that having contraceptives, or access to abortion, etc., made women social equals. No technology could be expected to do that. Contraceptives prevent pregnancies, and abortions end pregnancies. No more; no less. What I did say was that having access to contraceptives, abortion, etc., empowers women, in contrast to women who do not have access to these things. That's a fact. Women who have control, or some measure of control, over their reproductive process are more empowered than women who have no control over their reproductive process, or less control over their reproductive process. Control over their reproductive lives doesn't automatically make women social equals, it merely makes it possible for women to be social equals.


and ignore the harsh reality of a world where regional availability of contraceptives does not imply feminine control over reproductive capabilities.

(Obviously) Women can only reap the benefits of contraception, abortion, etc., if they have access to them. Many of the world's women, unfortunately, have no access to these things, or very limited access. That's horrible, but that's the nature of capitalism, which is just one of a billion reasons why we must demolish capitalism, and replace it with something more rational, democratic, and humane, namely; socialism. In a rational society; every woman on the planet would have access to these things.


But who am I to take social context into account when technology apparently acts like a magic ahistorical wand upon reality?

Again; it's not magic, it's science.

There was nothing ahistorical about what I actually said, which is a bit different from the statements you have ascribed to me.

[vanukar]

Contraceptives, etc., don't work by magic. They are products of science. (Which, I know; you despise.) They work in explicable ways consistent with biology, and known principles of physics. (Which you ,also, hate.)


lol

[NGNM85]

Complaining about "technophilia", on the internet.

Yup, that makes sense.

I've always been amused by the fact that the primitivists have such a substantial presence on the internet.

[vanukar]

could u stop italicizing words unnecessarily

[NGNM85]

could u stop italicizing words unnecessarily

It isn't 'necessary' in the sense that the rules of punctuation don't require it, in this case, quite the opposite, actually. However; there is a rational explanation for this. I do it as a way of overcoming the limitations of webforums, as a medium. If I was speaking to someone, in person, I would typically emphasize certain key words, and phrases, by gesticulating, or modulating my voice, etc. In a similar fashion, I like to utilize italics to draw attention to specific key notes, in my posts.

[o well this is ok I guess]

No offense, but John Zerzan is crazy. I wish the proll strole manifesto had been saved.

"The moment we drank John Zerzan's cum is when we became human again. Lenin's ghost came and said 'don't fuck with time' "

[Ele'ill]

I've always been amused by the fact that the primitivists have such a substantial presence on the internet.



I bet you could pull several examples all of which unironic for reasons already mentioned in this thread with the rest of the folks you mention not being primitivists which was also already mentioned in this thread but here you go again flex those muscles. It's like you're beating up an already wounded ghostly ant, well done.

[Ravachol]

Contraceptives, etc., don't work by magic. They are products of science. (Which, I know; you despise.) They work in explicable ways consistent with biology, and known principles of physics. (Which you, also, hate.)


I've always been amused by the fact that the primitivists have such a substantial presence on the internet.

I'm not gonna go into this thread any further as its turned out as I feared, full of leftist bollocks and feet-stamping (except for 9mm's genuine curiousity and Noxion's naunced views), but I'll amuse you with the fact that I'm a computer scientist by profession so there you go.

[bcbm]

There was nothing ahistorical about what I actually said

except the part where you said contraceptives are the product of industry and advanced technology, which isn't the case because they have existed since the dawn of civilization and even gatherer-hunters practiced birth control.

[NGNM85]

except the part where you said contraceptives are the product of industry and advanced technology, which isn't the case because they have existed since the dawn of civilization and even gatherer-hunters practiced birth control.

This was a misinterpretation. I'm well aware that preindustrial societies used various methods to control reproduction. (However; I did not know that one of those methods was inserting crocodile dung into the vagina.) I was referring to modern contraceptives; birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, etc. I just thought that went without saying. What nobody mentioned, and this is a particularly glaring oversight; how effective is this stuff? I haven't conducted any exhaustive study, but I'd bet good money most of these primitive contraceptives are substantially less effective that birth control pills, or condoms, etc. Furthermore; it's pretty unlikely that an agrarian, preindustrial, or, rather; 'post-industrial' society would be able to maintain a sufficient supply, and it's a virtual certainty that a hunter-gatherer society would not be able to do so. There's a similar oversight with regards to abortions. Sure; they've been performed for ages; but what were the mortality rates?

[Dean]

lol

vanukar, this a verbal warning for spam. This is not facebook - if everyone posted when they laughed, discussion would be buried. If you want to post "lol" or complaints about punctuation, be sure to include actual substance as well. Otherwise, use the "thanks" and "reputation" (scales symbol) buttons instead.