Anarcho-Primitivism?

[Malesori]

Can someone explain what anarcho-primitivsm is exactly and what the "vision" is?

[Hungrydeer]

It's Pre-Civilization I think.

[tuwix]

It is based on undeniable historical facts that all development of civilization has been causing less and less freedom. Then primitivist postulate to destrroy civilizastion and return to the primitive communism. They don't recognize the fact that it is possible to utilize a civilzation to extend freedom.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Interestingly, big influences on primitivism (though not, by my readings, primitivist themselves) included Camatte (http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/), who had been part of the Bordigist International Communist Party and edited the journal Invarience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariance_%28magazine%29), and Fredy Perlman (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/), particularly his Against His-story! Against Leviathan! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_His-Story,_Against_Leviathan) which, in my opinion, stands very well as a work of post-modern literature regardless of whether or not you're drawn to its theory.

[brawler5k2]

One of this forum's moderators, Ravachol, made a good post about a year ago listing some primitivist works in this post:
/vb/if-primitivists-won-t173351/index.html?p=2481229#post2481229

(add www (dot) revleft (dot) com to the front of the link to see the post, am not able to link to websites yet I'm afraid)

[Thirsty Crow]

It is based on undeniable historical facts that all development of civilization has been causing less and less freedom.Since the notion of "freedom" is hardly quantifiable and subject to rigorous empirical testing, it seems that it depends on its conceptualization and political use. Therefore, it is hardly based on undeniable historical facts. Perhaps, you could make it such if you referred to the progressive increase in labor time, but then the entire concept would be utterly destroyed as it would depend on the rosy tinted view of not-work (colloquially called leisure time) as the realm of pure freedom, without any regard for the way even this life practice is structured by politics, ideology, and the dominant relations of production.


Then primitivist postulate to destrroy civilizastion and return to the primitive communism. They don't recognize the fact that it is possible to utilize a civilzation to extend freedom.I actually think that the primitivist thesis is that civilization collapse is inevitable.

[NGNM85]

'Anarcho-primitivism', like; 'Anarcho-capitalism', is a contradiction in terms. From the very beginning, the realization of Anarchism was always conceived of as a modern, technological society. There are any number of descriptors one could apply to the neo-luddite fringe, but it most certainly is not Anarchism, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Interestingly, big influences on primitivism (though not, by my readings, primitivist themselves) included Camatte (http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/), who had been part of the Bordigist International Communist Party and edited the journal Invarience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariance_%28magazine%29), and Fredy Perlman (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/), particularly his Against His-story! Against Leviathan! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_His-Story,_Against_Leviathan) which, in my opinion, stands very well as a work of post-modern literature regardless of whether or not you're drawn to its theory.

+1 for Perlman. I had read his stuff on fetishism and thought it was useful but against his-story fuckin blew me away when I read it. It's available on the anarchist library if anyone wants to check it out.

[Eleutheromaniac]

Didn't John Zerzan defend Ted Kaczynski?

[NGNM85]

Didn't John Zerzan defend Ted Kaczynski?

Yup. Zerzan met Kaczynski when he was on trial, and they, apparently, corresponded for some time. Zerzan has also made several statements, in interviews, essays, etc., where he has praised the unabomber. I don't know what is more repulsive, that individuals such as this, have the audacity to present thenselves as the face of Anarchism,or the fact that, in part, due to the ignorance of the general public, as to what Anarchism really stands for, that such claims are treated seriously.

[Malesori]

Actually Kaczynski's manifesto "Industrial Society and its future" is quite good

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The end of Fight Club

[argeiphontes]

There is no Fight Club. Shh.

But yeah, that would be it. I love seeing those bank buildings fall, though :lol:

[Creative Destruction]

Actually Kaczynski's manifesto "Industrial Society and its future" is quite good

Well, some of it is good. There are some intriguing Zerzan essays, too, in Future Primitive. Out of all the primitives, though, I think I enjoy Derrick Jensen the most. He's fairly practical about his ideas and his critiques of civilization and how it has harmed the environment thus far are cogent.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

There is no Fight Club. Shh.

But yeah, that would be it. I love seeing those bank buildings fall, though :lol:

Anarcho-Primitivism sounds like it would be cool in the moment (like Fight Club), but there would be wayyy to much chaos, looting, and riots. Factions would form, people playing the blame game against each other, just too much chaos.

That depends, are you a fan of chaos though?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah thank goodness we have industrial society to protect us from things like chaos, looting, riots, factions and scapegoating

[NGNM85]

Well, some of it is good. There are some intriguing Zerzan essays, too, in Future Primitive. Out of all the primitives, though, I think I enjoy Derrick Jensen the most. He's fairly practical about his ideas and his critiques of civilization and how it has harmed the environment thus far are cogent.

There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization. That's like a critique of medicine, or eating, etc.. There are certainly improvements we could make, in terms of medicine, making medical care more efficient, etc., however, there aren't any cogent argument against medicine, as a concept, except for pathological misanthropes, which, of course, Zerzan, and Jensen are, as are most self-identified primitivists.

[zoot_allures]

There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization. That's like a critique of medicine, or eating, etc.. There are certainly improvements we could make, in terms of medicine, making medical care more efficient, etc., however, there aren't any cogent argument against medicine, as a concept, except for pathological misanthropes, which, of course, Zerzan, and Jensen are, as are most self-identified primitivists.
Primitivism is an absurd fantasy but I think it's fairly silly to characterize its adherents as "pathological misanthropes". It's possible to believe that civilization has harmed humanity and that we would improve our condition by attempting to return to a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer way of life. Indeed, this is what most primitivists seem to be believe, at least from what I've read.

[zoot_allures]

I actually think that the primitivist thesis is that civilization collapse is inevitable.
Some primitivists hold that view, but it's certainly not essential to primitivism. Check out this interview with John Zerzan, from the homepage of his website:

http://www.johnzerzan.net/


Well there may not be a crash. I'm not a so-called collapsist where I'm just banking on this all failing. I think there's a good chance that as our systems get more interdependent and vulnerable that some small thing could unravel a lot of it, but I'm certainly not counting on that. It's up to us to make choices, not just sit around and wait for the whole thing to fall apart.

[baronci]

There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization. That's like a critique of medicine, or eating, etc.. There are certainly improvements we could make, in terms of medicine, making medical care more efficient, etc., however, there aren't any cogent argument against medicine, as a concept, except for pathological misanthropes, which, of course, Zerzan, and Jensen are, as are most self-identified primitivists.

Um "civilization" by definition is a society that has a class structure and a division of labor. folks who drone on about historical progressivism are usually the same types who give excuses for colonialism and imperialism .

[Creative Destruction]

There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization. That's like a critique of medicine, or eating, etc.. There are certainly improvements we could make, in terms of medicine, making medical care more efficient, etc., however, there aren't any cogent argument against medicine, as a concept, except for pathological misanthropes, which, of course, Zerzan, and Jensen are, as are most self-identified primitivists.

Yes, there are critiques, of all of those things. Most anything can be critiqued. Whether you agree with the argument or not is a separate issue, but the fact that there are classes for how to eat your food at a dinner party shows that, yes, there is a critique of "eating." The fact that there is a homeopathic movement that rejects medicine as we know it, shows that there is a critique of medicine out there. Just as well, there exists a critique of civilization. Whether you agree with them or not, or find them cogent, is, again, a separate issue. I don't think homeopathy is convincing, and I think it's ridiculous to be so strict about how you eat your food, but others apparently feel differently. I think there are some good arguments made by the primitivists -- that doesn't mean I have to take their entire framework as true.

You're conflating your desire for these things not to exist with them not existing.

[Thirsty Crow]

Um "civilization" by definition is a society that has a class structure and a division of labor. folks who drone on about historical progressivism are usually the same types who give excuses for colonialism and imperialism .
But the point is not to advocate a desirability of a return to even the pre-language state and a new hunter gatherer social forms. Oh yeah, and the second claim is getting close to guilt by association.

[NGNM85]

Um "civilization" by definition is a society that has a class structure and a division of labor.

Not in english, it isn't.


folks who drone on about historical progressivism are usually the same types who give excuses for colonialism and imperialism .

Right. Folks like Karl Marx.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not in english, it isn't.

Weeell, I kind think it is actually, since it refers to cultures and ways of life that are agricultural, and not in any way nomadic, which were historically the first sites of class formation.

[NGNM85]

Yes, there are critiques, of all of those things. Most anything can be critiqued. Whether you agree with the argument or not is a separate issue, but the fact that there are classes for how to eat your food at a dinner party shows that, yes, there is a critique of "eating."

Those classes teach etiquette. They do not question the validity of eating, as an enterprise, quite the contrary.


The fact that there is a homeopathic movement that rejects medicine as we know it, shows that there is a critique of medicine out there.

Advocates of homeopathy don't reject medicine, as a concept. They simply promote snake oil nonsense.


Just as well, there exists a critique of civilization. Whether you agree with them or not, or find them cogent, is, again, a separate issue.

It's not simply that primitivists' arguments aren't pursuasive to me, personally, they should not be pursuasive to any psychologically healthy person. That was my point.


I don't think homeopathy is convincing, and I think it's ridiculous to be so strict about how you eat your food, but others apparently feel differently. I think there are some good arguments made by the primitivists -- that doesn't mean I have to take their entire framework as true.

Derrick Jensen, for example, has given detailed, and disturbing descriptions of the horrific ecological destruction that is happening, today. (Of course, in this, he is merely regurgitating information collected by others.) However, such statements are not fundamentally primitivist. His 'solution' to this, which is what makes him a primitivist, the destruction of civilization, which would be an act of genocide on a scale never before witnessed, is pure misanthropic insanity.


You're conflating your desire for these things not to exist with them not existing.

I did not mean to suggest, or even imply, that people do not say such things, what I meant was that there aren't any cogent, rational arguments against medicine, science, civilization, etc., because there aren't.

[NGNM85]

Weeell, I kind think it is actually, since it refers to cultures and ways of life that are agricultural, and not in any way nomadic, which were historically the first sites of class formation.

Meaning they predated the existence of classes. Furthermore; just because class struggle, exploitation, etc., has accompanied civilization, for most, if not all, of it' s history, does not mean the two are inextricable. Marx certainly did not believe this, and niether do I.

[Thirsty Crow]

Meaning they predated the existence of classes. Furthermore; just because class struggle, exploitation, etc., has accompanied civilization, for most, if not all, of it' s history, does not mean the two are inextricable. Marx certainly did not believe this, and niether do I.
I don't know about predating, it's a complex issue and it could very well be that class formation and this development were actually simultaneous and mutually reinforcing. But yeah, I don't think the two are inextricable either.

[Creative Destruction]

Those classes teach etiquette. They do not question the validity of eating, as an enterprise, quite the contrary.

They question the validity of certain ways of eating. But that's no matter. You don't need to reject the entire concept for it to be a critique.


Advocates of homeopathy don't reject medicine, as a concept. They simply promote snake oil nonsense.

There are some that do, but, again, that's no matter. You don't need to reject the entire concept for it to be a critique.


It's not simply that primitivists' arguments aren't pursuasive to me, personally, they should not be pursuasive to any psychologically healthy person. That was my point.

That's a pretty big value judgement and not particularly convincing itself. Nonetheless, the critique exists. You obviously disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Derrick Jensen, for example, has given detailed, and disturbing descriptions of the horrific ecological destruction that is happening, today. (Of course, in this, he is merely regurgitating information collected by others.) However, such statements are not fundamentally primitivist. His 'solution' to this, which is what makes him a primitivist, the destruction of civilization, which would be an act of genocide on a scale never before witnessed, is pure misanthropic insanity.

Sure. I don't agree with the end-goal of the primitivist, and never said I did. I'm not sure who or what you're arguing with here.


I did not mean to suggest, or even imply, that people do not say such things, what I meant was that there aren't any cogent, rational arguments against medicine, science, civilization, etc., because there aren't.

There are some cogent, rational arguments against elements of civilization and the primitivists have put forth some of them. That doesn't mean I agree with their end-goal or where they take the arguments. But, again, the critiques exist. Saying they don't or can't is factually untrue. What's happening is your vehement disagreements with the critiques.

[argeiphontes]

That depends, are you a fan of chaos though?

I'm a fan of Chuck Palahniuk. I've read most of his books. :)

Nobody really wants "anarchy", they want "anarchism" of one form or another, including me.

[bcbm]

'Anarcho-primitivism', like; 'Anarcho-capitalism', is a contradiction in terms. From the very beginning, the realization of Anarchism was always conceived of as a modern, technological society. There are any number of descriptors one could apply to the neo-luddite fringe, but it most certainly is not Anarchism, not by any stretch of the imagination.

it is 'anarchist' in the sense that they reject government and hierarchy in favor of communal forms of existence. there have always been those within the anarchist milieu who looked to the past and rejected much of the modern world.


Yup. Zerzan met Kaczynski when he was on trial, and they, apparently, corresponded for some time. Zerzan has also made several statements, in interviews, essays, etc., where he has praised the unabomber.

zerzan is interested in kaczynski's ideas, which are indeed worth reading, but he has never expressed support for the bombings and indeed has criticized them and said he hopes no one will take such actions in the future, even if he can see how tk ended up on that path.


I don't know what is more repulsive, that individuals such as this, have the audacity to present thenselves as the face of Anarchism,

i don't think he has ever presented himself as 'the' face of anarchism


There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization.

and yet there is.


Not in english, it isn't.


Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.

[BIXX]

I am anti-civilization, but not a primitivist. I don't believe we should go back- I believe we can transcend civilization.


There can be no such thing as a critique of civilization.

First, why can't there be? I know you tried to say it's like criticizing medicine or eating (and there can be valid criticisms of medicine when put in the context of a civilization critique, I have yet to see one of eating though :laugh: ), but really it's different. It is in many ways like criticizing capitalism. Capitalism is a stage of civilization, civilization is a stage of humanity, just like the paleolithic time period. Saying that you can't criticize civilization is like saying you can't criticize capitalism in that it's a ridiculous claim. Of course, like I said earlier, I am not a primitivist.

Here's a quick critique of civilization to prove your claim wrong: civilization rose with the creation of agriculture, which gave birth to crystallized gender roles.

There's your critique.


Not in english, it isn't.

You should have fact checked with your dictionary: [civilization is] ]an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.


the destruction of civilization, which would be an act of genocide on a scale never before witnessed, is pure misanthropic insanity.

Why would it be?


...but there would be wayyy to much chaos...

Chaos is just breaking patterns. Personally I am OK with that.

Have some Wolfi Landstreicher:


Civilization comes from the Latin word civis, which means city-dweller. Thus, civilization is a way of life based upon city dwelling — upon dwelling within areas of concentrated human population separated from the areas where this population gets its sustenance. A revolutionary critique of civilization would thus want to examine the social relationships that create and are created by cities.
But the existence of what appears to be a city is not enough, in itself, to define civilization. So let’s consider what happened when the first civilizations arose. It is generally agreed that the first civilizations began to develop about eight to ten thousand years ago. But what actually began to develop? The evidence we have indicates that certain specializations began to crystallize into a number of intertwined social institutions: the state, property, the family, religion, law, work (as an activity separated from life), etc. This process took place through the alienation of people’s capacity to create their own lives individually and collectively on their own terms. This alienated creativity crystallized as concentrated power and wealth centered in the institutions of society. Based on dispossession of the great majority, the institutions are the representation of class relationships. With the rise of this institutional framework, society ceases to be a network of relationships between individuals for meeting their needs and desires, and instead becomes a network of predetermined, institutionalized relationships that stands above people and into which they must fit. Thus, they no longer consciously develop techniques together for meeting their needs and desires. Instead technological systems are developed with the aim of reproducing the institutional social order, which is itself a bureaucratic technology for mediating social relationships. The needs and desires of individuals are subordinated to this framework, and individuals themselves become cogs in the social machine. Their survival is made dependent upon this social machine locking them into an ongoing servitude that can only be broken through a radical rupture with the social order, a destructive overturning of existing social relationships, that opens the possibility for creating a new life together.

When I speak of civilization, I mean this network of institutions that dominates our lives.

And from my own book, Rejectionary Anarchist Critiques:


...civilization is a set of crystallized structures that individuals and communities must work within in a specific way determined by those structures to survive.

[Thirsty Crow]

What would transcending civilization actually mean?

Because, as is evident from Landstreicher quote, this can only mean class division and kinds of social life based on it. Everybody here is anti-civilization then.
But the point is that the notion of civilization is best understood in its opposition to concepts denoting nomadic and hunter gatherer ways of life. Well, not really nomadic I'd guess. So, stationary, agricultural, with increased involvement of humans in actually shaping our environment through industry, and so on. What I want to say is that your use of the concept is, I think, a bit off.

And your own definition is hopelessly vague I'm afraid. And again subject to the objection outlined above.

[zoot_allures]

they should not be pursuasive to any psychologically healthy person
What is the justification for this claim?

I'm aware it's not uncommon to claim that those with unpopular beliefs or behaviours - particularly unpopular beliefs or behaviours that challenge particular aspects of the cultural status quo - are mentally ill, but I'd hope that members of Revleft are above that.

Though I disagree with primitivism, it does not seem to me necessarily psychologically unhealthy to accept it.


Derrick Jensen, for example, has given detailed, and disturbing descriptions of the horrific ecological destruction that is happening, today. (Of course, in this, he is merely regurgitating information collected by others.) However, such statements are not fundamentally primitivist. His 'solution' to this, which is what makes him a primitivist, the destruction of civilization, which would be an act of genocide on a scale never before witnessed, is pure misanthropic insanity.
Another "solution" to that problem, quite popular in my experience: blind faith that science and technology will save us. We do not need to make any radical changes to our way of life. Science will show us how to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere. Science will engineer new forms of crops that can cope with changing climates. Never mind topsoil depletion; science will develop a replacement for us. We can pump the oceans full of iron to stop ocean acidification. And maybe we can hook them up with a giant ventilator to prevent anoxia. Etc.

Most people I know don't much care about resource depletion, climate change, overpopulation, etc. They don't care because they assume that science, technology, and general human ingenuity will allow us to overcome almost any problem. In my view this kind of attitude is extremely dangerous. I think that if we don't make radical changes to our society, like right now (ideally: 30 years ago, but that's off the table now), then we will experience a global societal collapse. Lots of people will die.

The point is: however much I disagree with them, I think it would be pretty ridiculous to describe people who favour the "technology-will-save-us solution" as genocidal. They definitely aren't misanthropic.

Is Derrick Jensen a genocidal misanthrope? I don't know. I'm not familiar with his work. Certainly, though, not all people who support the destruction of civilization are genocidal misanthropes.

(One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that plenty of primitivists probably see the destruction of civilization as something to work towards in the very long-term. It's difficult to see how we could return to a hunter-gatherer way of life in the space of a few decades without some mass killing. But killing would not be necessary if our timescale is more like hundreds or even thousands of years.)

[Thirsty Crow]

They don't care because they assume that science, technology, and general human ingenuity will allow us to overcome almost any problem. In my view this kind of attitude is extremely dangerous. I think that if we don't make radical changes to our society, like right now (ideally: 30 years ago, but that's off the table now), then we will experience a global societal collapse. Lots of people will die.

Then we're already fucked.
There is no workers' revolution on the horizon, not even close. And capital, with its state, is definitely not in a position to facilitate changes we're talking about.

About science, yeah, I agree that people do not understand the way it operates in capitalism and I'd say this is the source of the naive confidence in scientific solutions to present problems within the confines of capitalism. But I think the situation is somewhat different with communists, as there is at least an understanding that eliminating capital opens up possibilities which are hardly imaginable now.

And finally, there are only two possible ways to deal with these problems, and they are connected: 1) science and technology - I don't think any return to local societies and petty production is actually viable, and these (s&t) represent a specifically human way of being-in-the-world (through production of life and the conditions for life - environment included) which indeed can uncover possibilities previously unknown (just how much of science is actually guided by research programs directly or indirectly structured by capital and its own, and not global society's needs), and b) collective decision making with regard to consumption standards connected to its impact on resource use and depletion, and environmental damage as well - communism isn't, or should not be about "ferraris for all", but about a sustainable human world community where free creativity replaces necessary labor progressively, through automation; in this sense, consumption patterns and standards become the object of collective decision making, and if it is deemed that these should be lowered due to its mediated impact upon the environment (which itself is an impact upon human communities), then this will be greatly facilitated by these new social forms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Beyond critiques of civilization (class societies) what do primitivists advocate in terms of action? Immediate collapse or massive disruption of exiting civilization (which is probably advocated more by comic book characters than primitivists - at least I hope) is basically advocating a "benevolent" mass genocide since family farming production could not support this level of population and everyone living in places like Los Angeles and so on would die without a water system or electricity. "Reformist" or evolutionary primitivism... how would that happen? It seems like it would require a totalitarian dictatorship.

[BIXX]

What would transcending civilization actually mean?

A world without any structures that oppress us. I wish I could tell you. Like many of us here say about a post-capitalist society, we cannot tell what it would look like, but we can guess.


Because, as is evident from Landstreicher quote, this can only mean class division and kinds of social life based on it. Everybody here is anti-civilization then.

Not necessarily. Many of us still believe in things like work, the economy, and production, which are distinctly traits of civilization.


But the point is that the notion of civilization is best understood in its opposition to concepts denoting nomadic and hunter gatherer ways of life. Well, not really nomadic I'd guess. So, stationary, agricultural, with increased involvement of humans in actually shaping our environment through industry, and so on. What I want to say is that your use of the concept is, I think, a bit off.

But If you attack it from a standpoint of simple oppression, you can easily see these other implications (gender roles, hierarchy, etc...) which, on a basis of liberation, I think is far more accurate and useful.

The definition I have does appear vague at first glance, but it's far more specific than you might realize. If you have any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what you think it's missing.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not necessarily. Many of us still believe in things like work, the economy, and production, which are distinctly traits of civilization.
Work, or labor? I assume that you're aware of this proposed distinction in some circles.

If you really believe that it is possible to abolish production, and labor with it, then I'm sorry but you are pretty much deluded and do not understand the human way of living in this world. Which can only be abolished with the abolition of the human species.

All of this doesn't hold if you uphold some sort of a transhumanist, automate-every-single-damn-thing.


The definition I have does appear vague at first glance, but it's far more specific than you might realize. If you have any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what you think it's missing.
It's not specific, and it doesn't merely appear vague. It relates to social structures as such - and if one thought about a projected communist world society, this definition of yours would cover that as well since survival isn't guaranteed and has to be labored for.

Therefore, this concept is really meaningless since it isn't nearly specific enough. Unless you're holding back a ton of unvoiced assumptions that guide the formation of this definition.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not necessarily. Many of us still believe in things like work, the economy, and production, which are distinctly traits of civilization.
lost me there. Band societies didn't produce anything, people didn't perform collective tasks? I think it's more likely that the relationships and arrangements were different.

[BIXX]

Work, or labor? I assume that you're aware of this proposed distinction in some circles.

If you really believe that it is possible to abolish production, and labor with it, then I'm sorry but you are pretty much deluded and do not understand the human way of living in this world. Which can only be abolished with the abolition of the human species.

I recommend reading some post-leftist texts on work. I am in school right now so I don't have time to explain but it's fairly interesting, and I agree with this.


All of this doesn't hold if you uphold some sort of a transhumanist, automate-every-single-damn-thing.

I am confused by this- do you mean UNLESS I hold those views?

However, I do not.


It's not specific, and it doesn't merely appear vague. It relates to social structures as such - and if one thought about a projected communist world society, this definition of yours would cover that as well since survival isn't guaranteed and has to be labored for.

May you rephrase this for me? As it is now it sounds as if you are trying to say that this definition should not apply to post-capitalist society. I believe this definition would apply to a communist society, and fail to see the problem with that.


Therefore, this concept is really meaningless since it isn't nearly specific enough. Unless you're holding back a ton of unvoiced assumptions that guide the formation of this definition.

I would say you should read some post-left critiques to understand (or rather, give them context) the arguments I'm making. I'll try to remember to edit them into this post later, but if I forget please PM me.


lost me there. Band societies didn't produce anything, people didn't perform collective tasks? I think it's more likely that the relationships and arrangements were different.

I'm not arguing for primitivism, I am arguing against civilization.

I would say they produced less, but not that they didn't produce at all. They also performed collective tasks, but these most likely were more akin to play than work.

[bcbm]

Beyond critiques of civilization (class societies) what do primitivists advocate in terms of action? Immediate collapse or massive disruption of exiting civilization (which is probably advocated more by comic book characters than primitivists - at least I hope) is basically advocating a "benevolent" mass genocide

depends on the primitivist. a lot, probably the majority, are proponents of 'rewilding' which is basically just learning how to survive in the wilderness without civilization and breaking idk the 'civilized' processes of your brain. they see civilization collapse as inevitable and prepare for that eventuality.

others do this but also attack some scientific operations, environmentally damaging projects, etc but this is more rare, though there have been some recent actions in mexico and italy. for the most part there are a lot who talk about 'attacking infrastructure' like dams and electrical power stations, but don't do any of this to my knowledge. they believe collapse is inevitable too i think but want to rush it along.

either way a collapse would be nasty business.


since family farming production

farming is civilized


everyone living in places like Los Angeles and so on would die without a water system or electricity.

well, yeah, people should probably gtfo of these areas anyway sooner rather than later.


"Reformist" or evolutionary primitivism... how would that happen? It seems like it would require a totalitarian dictatorship.

everyone opts to return to a gatherer-hunter way of living and we have a negative birthrate coupled with an 'easing off' of some technology and industry.

yeah, that seems likely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not simply that primitivists' arguments aren't pursuasive to me, personally, they should not be pursuasive to any psychologically healthy person. That was my point.

Pathologising opinions you disagree with has more than a whiff of hubris and potential tyranny-by-the-numbers about it. I'd advise against against it. Besides, the wrongness of an ideology has nothing to do with the mental state of its advocates.

In fact, I'd say that you misunderstand the appeal of primitivism. Even as a future-oriented person with definite technophiliac tendencies, I can understand why the idea of reverting to a simpler time has an appeal to psychologically healthy persons. It's a large part of the reason why nostalgia is so popular and treasured. Primitivism takes such notions and feelings further, extending them to before a time when agriculture required that people lived by the sweat of their brows.

Certainly the primitivists paint an inviting vision; a world with no alarm clocks or timetables, where the bounty of nature is there for the taking, needing only as much effort as one feels like putting in at the time, a life in which people are familiar to one and strangers are a rare and special occurrance. I think this vision is largely borne out by archeological and anthropological evidence which shows that hunter-gatherers generally have a better quality of life than most feudal peasants or workers at the dawn of industrialisation (hell, there are plenty of people living today for whom a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would be an improvement). Of course reality is more complicated than such idealised visions, but that applies just as much to life during civilisation as it does to life before it.

Additionally, I think that as a global civilisation we should not only maintain wild spaces, but we should also have sufficient wild spaces to make hunter-gatherer lifestyles still possible. This would actually be easier to achieve if we make good on transferring our industrial capabilities into Earth orbit and beyond - while doing so will require a significant initial investment of Earthly resources and energy, the opportunity to have our cake and eat it is one that we shouldn't pass up lightly.

The primitivists and their fellow travellers can have the Earth, if the stars are open to the rest of us.

[Thirsty Crow]

I recommend reading some post-leftist texts on work. I am in school right now so I don't have time to explain but it's fairly interesting, and I agree with this.I'm not so sure what you agree with here. The abolition of production and labor, and thereby the human species? Or with the distinction of work and labor, one that I think is pretty useful?




I am confused by this- do you mean UNLESS I hold those views?

However, I do not.My claim is that aiming at abolishing production only makes sense in two contexts: that of a transhumanist, "automate EVERYTHING" vision, or that of a full blown primitivism as an ideology born from, in part, reactionary and idealist "critiques" of science and technology (the long and glorious line coming to fruition with Marcuse, for instance).






May you rephrase this for me? As it is now it sounds as if you are trying to say that this definition should not apply to post-capitalist society. I believe this definition would apply to a communist society, and fail to see the problem with that.No need for rephrasing as you understand what I'm driving at.
The problem with this definition encompassing communist world society is that it sees oppressive structures where there simply is no basis for them to develop.


I would say you should read some post-left critiques to understand (or rather, give them context) the arguments I'm making. I'll try to remember to edit them into this post later, but if I forget please PM me.

Honestly, I don't have the time for it. So I would rather if you summarized the arguments as it surely seems you have a good grasp on the topic.


I'm not arguing for primitivism, I am arguing against civilization.As I said, the way you envision civilization and the fact that arguing against something nearly always implies advocating something else, means that you're pretty close to either advocating a kind of a primitivism unwittingly.
Or it is that you use concepts and notions in a way that is not familiar to me. Most pertinent here is the notion of production and labor/work distinction.


I would say they produced less, but not that they didn't produce at all. They also performed collective tasks, but these most likely were more akin to play than work.
The clear division between play - as evident in, for instance, cave drawings - and labor, the latter meaning activities necessary for physical survival (where labor actually becomes the basis for play through pictorial representation) in such historical communities leads me to assume that you're also operating with a faulty concept of play.

[synthesis]

What I don't get about primitivists who accept the general tenets of Marxism is, how are you going to go back to a pre-civilization set of conditions and not then worry about the reincarnation of a class society as soon as people start doing agriculture again? Would they be physically prevented from doing this?

[DasFapital]

Well we might as well just be proactive and wipe out any species that might one day be able to develop advanced technology. We wouldn't want industrial society to accidentally emerge again.

[bcbm]

Well we might as well just be proactive and wipe out any species that might one day be able to develop advanced technology.

this is actually happening due to the human caused current mass extinction event. yay

[Vanguard1917]

Pathologising opinions you disagree with has more than a whiff of hubris and potential tyranny-by-the-numbers about it. I'd advise against against it. Besides, the wrongness of an ideology has nothing to do with the mental state of its advocates.

Absolutely. But we still need to win the argument against these retrograde opinions, aspects of which extend far beyond a small number of self-described primitivists. The latter only represent an extreme tendency of a much wider reactionary ideological trend in modern western societies. Saying that we will cater to their reactionary notions is to abandon the struggle against some of the most pervasive anti-socialist positions around today.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Absolutely. But we still need to win the argument against these retrograde opinions, aspects of which extend far beyond a small number of self-described primitivists. The latter only represent an extreme tendency of a much wider reactionary ideological trend in modern western societies. Saying that we will cater to their reactionary notions is to abandon the struggle against some of the most pervasive anti-socialist positions around today.

Wait, skepticism about idealist narratives of a grand historical ark moving from necessity toward freedom is one of the most pervasive anti-socialist positions around? God no! Next thing you know, the utterly massive indigenous solidarity movement will start rounding us up and having us shipped off to permaculture-gulags. :glare:

[Vanguard1917]

Wait, skepticism about idealist narratives of a grand historical ark moving from necessity toward freedom is one of the most pervasive anti-socialist positions around? God no! Next thing you know, the utterly massive indigenous solidarity movement will start rounding us up and having us shipped off to permaculture-gulags. :glare:

The pervasive idea that socialism is practically and definitely impossible to achieve due to natural limits is, yes, an argument against socialism which needs to be demolished via most ruthless criticism and action.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I don't get about primitivists who accept the general tenets of Marxism is, how are you going to go back to a pre-civilization set of conditions and not then worry about the reincarnation of a class society as soon as people start doing agriculture again? Would they be physically prevented from doing this?

Yeah I agree. I think if society collapsed or whatnot, it is far more likely that "barbarism" (family based agriculture) would be the way things were produced rather than a return to primitive communism.

What I take from Marx's arguments about the development of different kinds of societies and "progress" isn't that one is necissarily better abstractly, just that one supplants the other because it is more sucessful at reproducing itself. An agricultrual society can have higher populations than a band society and can also create specialization in tasks... consaquently an agricultural society can create soldiers and farmers and weapon makers whereas a prolonged war by a band society would mean that they couldn't also get food or make weapons or have specially trained killers. A band with good warriors might win a battle, but ultimately it would loose the war against agricultural production-based societies. It's worse in many ways, but it is also "stronger" in comparison and that's why it was able to outpace and replace communal band societies in the long run.

[Vanguard1917]

What I take from Marx's arguments about the development of different kinds of societies and "progress" isn't that one is necissarily better abstractly, just that one supplants the other because it is more sucessful at reproducing itself.

And that success in the economic realm produces a whole range greater possibilities for mankind more generally. For Marx and Engels, industrial development in the bourgeois epoch was humanity's greatest hitherto achievement, far surpassing the achievements of previous civilisations, to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto. Marx was categorical on this fundamental point. And towards those of his contemporaries who spouted idiotic nature-worship, Marx was far from sympathetic:

'modern natural science ... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness... [I]t would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines.'

[Vanguard1917]

Trotsky made a similar point, is his usual clear and perceptive way:

'Through the machine, man in Socialist society will command nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will point out places for mountains and for passes. He will change the course of the rivers, and he will lay down rules for the oceans. The idealist simpletons may say that this will be a bore, but that is why they are simpletons. Of course this does not mean that the entire globe will be marked off into boxes, that the forests will be turned into parks and gardens. Most likely, thickets and forests and grouse and tigers will remain, but only where man commands them to remain. And man will do it so well that the tiger won’t even notice the machine, or feel the change, but will live as he lived in primeval times. The machine is not in opposition to the earth. The machine is the instrument of modern man in every field of life. The present-day city is transient. But it will not be dissolved back again into the old village. On the contrary, the village will rise in fundamentals to the plane of the city. Here lies the principal task. The city is transient, but it points to the future, and indicates the road. The present village is entirely of the past.'

[Ravachol]

Trotsky made a similar point, is his usual clear and perceptive way:

'Through the machine, man in Socialist society will command nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will point out places for mountains and for passes. He will change the course of the rivers, and he will lay down rules for the oceans. The idealist simpletons may say that this will be a bore, but that is why they are simpletons. Of course this does not mean that the entire globe will be marked off into boxes, that the forests will be turned into parks and gardens. Most likely, thickets and forests and grouse and tigers will remain, but only where man commands them to remain. And man will do it so well that the tiger won’t even notice the machine, or feel the change, but will live as he lived in primeval times. The machine is not in opposition to the earth. The machine is the instrument of modern man in every field of life. The present-day city is transient. But it will not be dissolved back again into the old village. On the contrary, the village will rise in fundamentals to the plane of the city. Here lies the principal task. The city is transient, but it points to the future, and indicates the road. The present village is entirely of the past.'

Brought to you by the man also known for such luminous nuggets as:

If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers.
(..)
Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps.

[Alexios]

And that success in the economic realm produces a whole range greater possibilities for mankind more generally. For Marx and Engels, industrial development in the bourgeois epoch was humanity's greatest hitherto achievement, far surpassing the achievements of previous civilisations, to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto. Marx was categorical on this fundamental point. And towards those of his contemporaries who spouted idiotic nature-worship, Marx was far from sympathetic:

'modern natural science ... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness... [I]t would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines.'

But primitivists don't want to return to an agricultural economy.

[Vanguard1917]

Brought to you by the man also known for such luminous nuggets as:

I'm not completely uncritical of all the positions that Trotsky held under the extremely tense and difficult conditions of a war against a vicious counter-revolutionary army backed and aided by all the major imperialist powers.

Nevertheless, compared to what your primitivist friends espouse...

[Vanguard1917]

But primitivists don't want to return to an agricultural economy.

No - they want something even worse.

[Ravachol]

Nevertheless, compared to what your primitivist friends espouse...

Gee, for someone who pops up with strawmen in every thread that hints at a world that doesn't smell of chimneys, nuclear reactors and blast furnaces you sure have a thick skull regarding the notions of what primitivists 'espouse'. I'd be inclined to say 'you should know better', but well, i know better...

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks for the kind words. But perhaps, instead of just dishing out compliments, you'd like to refute my actual argument - that primitivism has nothing at all to do with Marxism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Thanks for the kind words. But perhaps, instead of just dishing out compliments, you'd like to refute my actual argument - that primitivism has nothing at all to do with Marxism.

See Camatte, The Wandering Of Humanity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/), at the Marxists Internet Archive.

[bcbm]

Thanks for the kind words. But perhaps, instead of just dishing out compliments, you'd like to refute my actual argument - that primitivism has nothing at all to do with Marxism.

it has been refuted plenty of times. the marxist roots of primitivism have been shown time and time again. i believe a post on the first page even links back to a previous discussion of such.

[Ravachol]

Thanks for the kind words. But perhaps, instead of just dishing out compliments, you'd like to refute my actual argument - that primitivism has nothing at all to do with Marxism.

I'm not gonna waste my time on you showing this again and again because (as posted above) this has been done in other threads, but your reply will be pretty predictable: Camatte is not a TRUE scotsma-- err marxist, he abandoned TRUE scotsmansh-- err marxism when he denied the historical necessity of the development of the productive blablabla who cares

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not gonna waste my time on you showing this again and again because (as posted above) this has been done in other threads, but your reply will be pretty predictable: Camatte is not a TRUE scotsma-- err marxist, he abandoned TRUE scotsmansh-- err marxism when he denied the historical necessity of the development of the productive blablabla who cares
No need to do this no true Scotsman bull. But, it seems that Camatte operates with a mangled concept of the distinction between formal and real domination of capital (the "despotism" of capital, "capital-as-representation" and finally the waning of exchange relations, connected with it; did we really witness the last mentioned?? I'd say that not only is this incorrect, but the opposite is happening).

[Vanguard1917]

it has been refuted plenty of times. the marxist roots of primitivism have been shown time and time again. i believe a post on the first page even links back to a previous discussion of such.

Post-structural theory also has 'Marxist roots', in the sense that many of its founders were formerly associated with Marxism. That doesn't mean that core post-structuralist ideas aren't diametrically opposed to Marxism.