Howcome 'Primitivism' isn't considered left-wing?

[FieldHound]

From the little I know of it ("5 Common Objectives to Primitivism and Why They're Wrong") I'm not an advocate but am curious to know why it's not considered leftist round here. Is it the sort of "elitist" attitude? Is there more to it that I don't know about? I've been meaning to read some Zerzan but haven't got round to it yet. Would you consider it right-wing, or syncretic, or what? Sorry if this is in the wrong section, please move to 'Opposing Ideologies' if that's where it belongs.

[Sasha]

it depends, primitivism in its caricature of forcing people to abandon civilization by forcibly destructing (medical) progress, targeting scientists etc is considered a reactionary ideology much like maoist third worldism is here. not because we dont recognize the revolutionary leftist origins of these movements but because it has morphed in to a reactionary movement at odds with progress (and if i'm honest because their adherents are particularly disruptive of discussion, while many other ideologies have their own pet subjects they dont tend to interject them in every totally unrelated subject discussion as MTW's, hardline primmies and religious folks tend to do).
but many users on this board (many mods and even admins like myself included) are influenced by a whole range of anti- and post-civ writers and movements and they are frequently discussed here.

[Tim Cornelis]

I regard it as leftist. But also highly reactionary.

[Palmares]

Well, I hope this thread doesn't become a flame war... :unsure:

But coming from an anti-civ perspective (as opposed to one critical of it), I think the fact that it fits in the spectrum of so-called "post-left" (or post-anarchist) does point to it not being "left" in the most traditional sense. But it's hardly alone in this respect, as egoist/nihilist/insurrectionalist anarchists fit in this loose category too.

Same roots (in the Eurocentric sense), different branches.

[BIXX]

To be fair I am anti-civ but not primitivist. I wouldn't associate with the left or post-left because they both are kinda lame imo.

I don't regard primitivism as left because of the qualitative differences it has to the left.

[Blake's Baby]

How 'primitivist'? I've heard primmos claim that the earth will never be healed until there are only 50,000 humans left on the planet. So, they are saying that advocate a way of living that requires the deaths of 6,999,950,000 people (more than 99.99% of the human population) or thereabouts.

No way is that 'left' under any definition of 'left' that I'm aware of.

[Lord Testicles]

If a reactionary is someone who wants to return to a previous state of society then primitivists are as reactionary as they can come, no?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be fair I am anti-civ but not primitivist. I wouldn't associate with the left or post-left because they both are kinda lame imo.

I don't regard primitivism as left because of the qualitative differences it has to the left.

Are all your posts basically about yourself?

[Sasha]

How 'primitivist'? I've heard primmos claim that the earth will never be healed until there are only 50,000 humans left on the planet. So, they are saying that advocate a way of living that requires the deaths of 6,999,950,000 people (more than 99.99% of the human population) or thereabouts.

No way is that 'left' under any definition of 'left' that I'm aware of.


most primmies that think earth would better off with less humans tend to see mass human die off earlier as unavoidable then something which should be actively worked towards (and even the former are not representative of all primmies).
maybe all doomsday preppers are a bit crazy but almost none of them is antrax spreading or forcing laced kool-aid on little children crazy

[Blake's Baby]

Oh well obviously 'not trying to save people' is so much better than 'actually killing them'.

As in, locking the doors of a burning building is much better than leaving the doors open and shooting them as they come out.

[Sasha]

Another caricature, like said most primmies see collapse of civilisation (civilization as in the the sense of capitalist society) as unavoidably, as being intrinsic to capitalism (quite a Marxist concept), not the dying of people is desirable, the collaps of capital is, and they are envisioning how an socialist society could be build on its ruins.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, like I said, it's OK that billions of people die, as long as you you didn't actually kill them yourself, you don't actually have to, you know, try and help save them.

It's anti-human fuckwittery and anyone promoting it should be strongly encouraged to live up to their ideology and kill themselves to leave more room for the rest of us.

[Hit The North]

Another caricature, like said most primmies see collapse of civilisation (civilization as in the the sense of capitalist society) as unavoidably, as being intrinsic to capitalism (quite a Marxist concept), not the dying of people is desirable, the collaps of capital is, and they are envisioning how an socialist society could be build on its ruins.

Except that Marx didn't see capitalism and civilisation as synonymous nor that the end of capitalism would be the end of civilisation. And Marx would laugh at the notion of a post-capitalist socialist society being a lower mode of production. So not very Marxist at all.

[BIXX]

Are all your posts basically about yourself?
Well, when I am giving my point of view it makes sense to talk in reference to myself.

[BIXX]

Oh well obviously 'not trying to save people' is so much better than 'actually killing them'.

As in, locking the doors of a burning building is much better than leaving the doors open and shooting them as they come out.
Um... primitivism might actually be looked at as the way they see to save people, things like rewilding etc... being a way to survive after the collapse.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Technology isn't the enemy, and in fact technology came in existence precisely because people didn't want to eat berries and raw meat for eternity.


Are all your posts basically about yourself?


Tendency: Egoist Anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1223)

[Martin Luther]

I thought the whole idea of primitivism in Marxist terms was to bring about regress in the means and mode of production, so it can only be reactionary.

[Blake's Baby]

Um... primitivism might actually be looked at as the way they see to save people, things like rewilding etc... being a way to survive after the collapse.

But the collapse has to happen.

What we are trying to do is prevent the collapse in the first place.

Can you really not see the difference between those things?

'After I set the building on fire, 800 people burned to death but when a couple of people escaped I gave them a drink of water.'

'I stopped some nutcase who was trying to set the tower-block on fire.'

They really are very different.

[Skyhilist]

I think what's being said isn't that primitivists necessarily want collapse or even don't want to stop it - they just have a really fatalist position and think that no matter what we try to do collapse will happen. And this causes them as a result to focus on building society after collapse as opposed to trying to stop collapse (which they think couldn't possibly work due to their fatalist stance). It's not really a rational train of thought. But that also isn't to say that primitivists are "ok" or "want" billions of people to die, they sort of just think it'll happen regardless and is unstoppable usually.

[FieldHound]

But the collapse has to happen.

What we are trying to do is prevent the collapse in the first place.

Are you choosing to ignore the "inevitable" part on purpose? Your burning building example doesn't work because there is a possibility of saving people, while as I can gather the opinion of primitivists is that the collapse of society and subsequent deaths of perhaps the majority is inevitable, whereas you're arguing with the idea that this collapse is preventable but with the cure/solution ignored. I don't agree that it is inevitable and I'm not a primitivist (at least not in this extreme sense which is the only kind I'm somewhat familiar with) but accusing people of being irresponsible in preventing an issue they believe is inevitable doesn't make sense. A lot of Marxists full-heartedbly believe that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, many anarchists believe that authority inevitably leads corruption, and as far as I can tell these extreme-primitivists think along these same lines, that such a huge population is not sustainable by any means and will inevitably collapse. Inevitability and prevention are incompatible, and as untrue as you think this concept of the inevitable dying off of most of civilisation to be (as I do), arguing along the lines of believers in this theory of being irresponsible doesn't make sense.

[FieldHound]

I mean debating whether or not it is inevitable is one thing, but to consider the belief in the inevitability as fundamentally unethical I'm not so sure about. I disagree with christians believe the apocalypse/doomsday being imminent and am willing to debate over it (though it tends to be fruitless), but to attack them simply for believing it doesn't make sense to me.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is nothing really wrong with the position that there should be a population reduction. Usually that is reached by education, economic prosperity, technological advances, less religion and better and more accessible medical care which will automatically reduce birth rates dramatically.

What primitivism however is suggesting is to return to a a state several modes of production ago...and as a result of that several millions of people will naturally die. At least...that is the practical result of their ideology...one which they take great pains to either ignore or explain away in a convenient redressing.

[consuming negativity]

When I think primitivism, I think Ted Kaczynski. His motivation was good: he was tired of having the trees and natural environment and everything around him being destroyed and wasted. But what did he do about it? Nothing good. I sort of feel the same thing about fascists, really. They see that capitalism is draining the soul out of our society just like we do. It's just that they make the complete opposite assumptions that we do in going about fixing that problem, and they end up wanting to make things worse rather than make them better. In this sense, I consider primitivism to be a sort of third position against technological progress. Luckily, it is a very uncommon and irrelevant one, because most people see that technology and particularly the collection and distribution of information as a very good thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revolutionary socialists fight for a post-class society, one where the productive forces are developed to the extent that class stratification is impossible, a society of free access and abundance. Primmos fight for a return to hunter-gatherer societies - usually inconsistently but there you have it. They can talk about the "inevitability" of an ecological collapse all they want (it's not as if an actual socialist should allow himself to be fooled by talk about the inevitability of something) - after all the extreme christian right thinks that the Rapture is imminent as well, and they're just trying to save people by forcing them to not have abortions, be gay and so on.

[BIXX]

Revolutionary socialists fight for a post-class society, one where the productive forces are developed to the extent that class stratification is impossible, a society of free access and abundance. Primmos fight for a return to hunter-gatherer societies - usually inconsistently but there you have it. They can talk about the "inevitability" of an ecological collapse all they want (it's not as if an actual socialist should allow himself to be fooled by talk about the inevitability of something) - after all the extreme christian right thinks that the Rapture is imminent as well, and they're just trying to save people by forcing them to not have abortions, be gay and so on.
You're only talking about accelerationism, not primitivism. You seen incapable of understanding that there are multiple types of primitivism, in favor of only the accelerationist stance.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you choosing to ignore the "inevitable" part on purpose? Your burning building example doesn't work because there is a possibility of saving people, while as I can gather the opinion of primitivists is that the collapse of society and subsequent deaths of perhaps the majority is inevitable, whereas you're arguing with the idea that this collapse is preventable but with the cure/solution ignored. I don't agree that it is inevitable and I'm not a primitivist (at least not in this extreme sense which is the only kind I'm somewhat familiar with) but accusing people of being irresponsible in preventing an issue they believe is inevitable doesn't make sense. A lot of Marxists full-heartedbly believe that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, many anarchists believe that authority inevitably leads corruption, and as far as I can tell these extreme-primitivists think along these same lines, that such a huge population is not sustainable by any means and will inevitably collapse. Inevitability and prevention are incompatible, and as untrue as you think this concept of the inevitable dying off of most of civilisation to be (as I do), arguing along the lines of believers in this theory of being irresponsible doesn't make sense.

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.

[BIXX]

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.
You're being an idiot, which is a shame because I know you are intelligent.

Primitivists don't believe they can save those people from death- they're just formulating a plan for when it inevitably happens.

[Blake's Baby]

But they're obviously very wrong, and therefore they must be really stupid for believing it, or stupid and asshattish for pretending to believe it. Seriously. All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

[consuming negativity]

But they're obviously very wrong, and therefore they must be really stupid for believing it, or stupid and asshattish for pretending to believe it. Seriously. All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

Be careful with that edge you've got there. It's very sharp, and I'd lose a lot of sleep if something bad happened to you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's [I]The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's [I]The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.

[FieldHound]

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

I agree, in regards to whatever form of primitivism the author of "5 Objections to Primitivism" supports.


It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.

I think this is where we disagree, because from the little that I know of this extreme branch of primitivism, they don't see the 99% dying as a solution but as a terrible catastrophe, one that is inevitable. Suppose there was a very large meteor detected lightyears away (I don't know my space talk...) heading roughly in the direction of Earth, and that while most scientists didn't think it would be a problem a handful thought it would inevitably hit our planet and wipe us all out, well I don't think that personal belief/theory would be considered a solution to anything. I think that they believe that this catastrophic ending of most human life is sadly bound to happen and that the best they can do is plan for how to organise (or not) society afterwards. Pessimistic, paranoid, even crazy, whatever you want to call it, I don't think they're necessarily bad people, in the moral/ethical sense, for believing this.

[FieldHound]

All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

Ok haven't we already established that this particular brand of primitivism doesn't represents primitivists in general? Ironic generalised thinking since you're a left-communist as lots of anti-communists I've spoke to like to paint all communists with the Stalinist brush...

Unless you're just paraphrasing but still, "the communists are responsible for the deaths of millions!" is just paraphrasing too...

[BIXX]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's [I]The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.
I personally wouldn't connect primitivism with the left. Of course I'm ok with this as I am particularly bothered by the left.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on anti-civ thought? (Sorry if you posted them and I just didn't notice)

[BIXX]

Ok haven't we already established that this particular brand of primitivism doesn't represents primitivists in general? Ironic generalised thinking since you're a left-communist as lots of anti-communists I've spoke to like to paint all communists with the Stalinist brush...

Unless you're just paraphrasing but still, "the communists are responsible for the deaths of millions!" is just paraphrasing too...
Apparently BB is incapable of understanding that. Or they are incapable of having an honest conversation.

[Blake's Baby]

Which bit am I not getting DD? The only primitivists I know anything about were connected to the magazine Green Anarchist some years ago and this is what I'm basing my view of primitivism on. Yes, it was the most dreadful anti-human ideology that didn't seem at all sorry about the fact that they thought billions would die, in fact I got the idea they rather relished the idea as it would allow them to swan about proving they were superior. Sort of Neitzsche-in-Furs, if you will. If there are other primitivists I'm doing a disservice to by associating them with these lunatics, then that is presumably because none of these other primitivists has ever positively impressed their ideology on me to the extent that these fuckwits have negatively impressed me.

So, please, try to explain what it is I'm not getting.

[FieldHound]

So, please, try to explain what it is I'm not getting.

By your own admittance, having a small, specific and obviously unrepresentable reference point.


The only primitivists I know anything about were connected to the magazine Green Anarchist some years ago and this is what I'm basing my view of primitivism on.

And you are using this as a universal basis for all branches of primitivism. Your judgement's basis being very narrow and subjective, and the fact that you're clearly aware of this selective view yet don't see it as a bit illogical. I can't speak for anyone else but that's what I think you're not getting.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There are a number of dumb ideologies that I won't stoop to taking or debating seriously, but I don't then try to present my criticism as well intentioned discourse. 99% of people cannot talk about primitivism without making use of strawman arguments and caricatures, which is cool but stop trying to cover it up, its not working. I agree with Tim, I would say it's left wing but reactionary as hell.

[Blake's Baby]

By your own admittance, having a small, specific and obviously unrepresentable reference point...

Oh, OK, I'm too ignorant to have an opinion, is that what you're getting at?

I apologise for not being aware of the vast flocks of sensible primitivists out there wandering about telling us all that it's regrettable we're all going to die. Obviously my fault for being wilfully blind to them.




...And you are using this as a universal basis for all branches of primitivism. Your judgement's basis being very narrow and subjective, and the fact that you're clearly aware of this selective view yet don't see it as a bit illogical. I can't speak for anyone else but that's what I think you're not getting.

No, not really, because I'm not aware that there are any primitivists that aren't anti-human assholes. Perhaps there are. I've never come across any. Doesn't mean I won't. But, like everyone else, I can only base my opinions of things on what I'm aware of. If I get bitten by a dog, my opinion will be that dogs bite. You might not have been bitten by a dog. Maybe you don't know they bite. But I'm afraid you don't get to call me stupid for insisting that dogs bite.

[PhoenixAsh]

I too am very curious to these primitivists which hold such vastly differing views.

I am not saying primitivists don't have interesting points or arguments...but I am not aware of any primitivist brach that basically state we can do with all people currently pressent on this earth and who do not rely their ideology actually working on scores of people actually dying,

[Sasha]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/post-civ

[Lord Testicles]

Well that Anarcha-Herbalism essay was a load of low grade guff.


A society of people who are responsible for their own health and able to gather or grow their own medicines is a hard society to rule. These days we are dependent on the power structure of industrial health care — the secret society of the doctors, the white-male-dominated medical schools, the corporate decision makers with their toxic pharmaceuticals and heartless greed and labs full of tortured beings. That dependence is one more thing keeping us tied down to the State and unable to rebel with all our hearts or even envision a world without such oppression. With a new system of healing, based on self-knowledge and herbal wisdom, we will be that much more free. :rolleyes:

Sometimes, some "anarchists" need to die. Fuck off back into the cold embrace of Gaia you dippy waste of carbon.

So am I to take from this that primitivists come in two verities: Anti-human psychopaths and New Age mystic morons?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You're only talking about accelerationism, not primitivism. You seen incapable of understanding that there are multiple types of primitivism, in favor of only the accelerationist stance.

"But people don't understand, there are anarchist and art-based groups whose existence totally proves that the glorious Sy..." Wait, I was having a bit of a flashback. Who are these "non-accelerationist" primmos? Name, occupation and name of mimeographed zine, please.


b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

(1) Marxism, which is definitely part of leftist thought, is not "for" egalitarianism in general - although egalitarian slogans can be raised in certain circumstances, to focus on equality is to miss the point quite badly. This is pretty basic - Marx himself covers it in his attack on Lassalle.

(2) Primitivism can't be "radically egalitarian" as it can't be egalitarian at all. Here is one question the defenders of primitivism have been avoiding - how would a primmo society provide for free, medically safe abortion up to the point of birth? It couldn't.


c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

Except European liberalism envisions progress as being largely concerned with state forms, from despotism to the bourgeois democratic republic, whereas progress, for the Marxist, is chiefly the progress of modes of production. Not to mention that primitivism is infinitely closer to European liberalism and its myth of the noble savage living in the state of nature.

[Palmares]

The only primitivists I know anything about were connected to the magazine Green Anarchist some years ago and this is what I'm basing my view of primitivism on.

I'm far from a scholar of that publication, but my knowledge of it is that it was, to say the least, very hit and miss. For one, the editors changed hands a few times, often related to political disputes. This horrible guy Richard Hunt was an editor who was then kicked out I believe, as he had distasteful tendency towards nationalism. His activities after the split illuminated thus. But to add to that, I believe there were some articles in that publication that were of a particularly sinister nihilist vibe. I can't remember the specifics, but I think these articles would understandably lead to the view of the magazine being anti-human as as it were.

Even the publication Green Anarchy from the US had editorial changes, and this changed the politics dramatically. Not to mention the internal conflict that continued throughout - primitivists vs non-primitivists (as a false dichotomy).


http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/post-civ

Unfortunately, Richard Hunt is on that list. I guess it's as annoying as finding Stalin's writings on a "communism" list.

[BIXX]

I am with the nihilists, I am anti-human in that humanity is one of the greatest spooks used stop us from acting.

But this discussion is about primitivism.

[Palmares]

Just like all these other "isms" we are throwing around, there's different types of nihilists. If I remember correctly, the nihilism I'm referring to included support of acts of terrorism. Specifically, the Oklahoma bombing and the Tokyo Subway gassing, I believe.

I understand we should keep different tactics open, but ideological misanthropy is the antithesis of why I believe we should struggle. It's not a world/community I want to be part of.

[BIXX]

Eh, I support terrorist struggle, but only in as much as it is useful to me. I mean, RS kicks some ass. Idk, a lot goes into whether or not I support an action.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I don't know why they call it Anarcho-Primitivism as there is little about it that resembles Anarchism and it is certainly nothing resembling any kind of socialism


...except of course anarchism....

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't know why they call it Anarcho-Primitivism as there is little about it that resembles Anarchism and it is certainly nothing resembling any kind of socialism


...except of course anarchism....

[PhoenixAsh]

OW fucking crap ass shitty fucking phones.. fucking edit button.

I editted instead of quoted The Modern Prometeus post.

WTF.

logged here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2790341&postcount=113

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I don't know much about primitivism, but it strikes me as "lifestylist." It brings to mind "communes" of the hippie variety, although I imagine primitivism has a more rugged, survivalist aesthetic.

I don't know if it's reactionary, but it doesn't pose a threat to the machines of oppression. Their vision of utopia is predicated on everyone being persuaded to be primitivist. I can see the appeal if one has the first-world luxury of romanticizing the way many, many people suffer.

[Lord Testicles]

Mod abuse! Mod abuse!

Quick! Call an emergency meeting of the Soviet of Workers of the Union of Socialist Forums!

[Martin Luther]

Bureaucratic wrecker!

[PhoenixAsh]

And TMP had some pretty good points too...

Which you will never know about untill they repost...

[The Modern Prometheus]

I will not stand for such bureaucracy and obvious revisionism! So instead i shall sit down and retype my post after dinner ;)

[BIXX]

Is there not an undo edit option? Or edit history?

[The Modern Prometheus]

Just like all these other "isms" we are throwing around, there's different types of nihilists. If I remember correctly, the nihilism I'm referring to included support of acts of terrorism. Specifically, the Oklahoma bombing and the Tokyo Subway gassing, I believe.

I understand we should keep different tactics open, but ideological misanthropy is the antithesis of why I believe we should struggle. It's not a world/community I want to be part of.

The Oklahoma city bombing was carried out as a reaction to such incidents as Waco by what where essentially far right anti-government, white supremacist Christian terrorists. It was a part of the much bigger white Supremacist Christian terrorist militia movement across the US during the 90's which burned out as quickly as it began. As for the Tokyo Subway Sarin attack the Aum Shinrikyo where more or less Japan's answer to the Peoples Temple. They where driven by a weird mix of Doomsday bullshit connected to Nostradamus, anti-Japanism, antisemitism and like every other cult alot more bullshit as well. Neither had anything to do with Nihilism as far as i know.

As for Primitivism how can it be anything other then the very definition of reactionary in todays post-industrial society where we are all connected by technology? With 1 click on skype i can talk to my friends halfway around the world or download a blues song that i would have previously had to go scouring through every record shop downtown looking for. I don't look upon that as a bad thing at all and there is no turning back from this age of technology. I see Anarcho-Primitivism as being the most reactionary of the so called left ideologies. It certainly has nothing to do with Anarchism or indeed any kind of Socialism really as Socialism embraces science and Socialists whether they are Anarchists or Marxists generally see technology as a neutral thing to be used to our advantage or against us.

Really is throwing away our computers, ripping the satellite dishes out of our houses and tossing out all our indoor plumbing and driving us back to the stone age really the most pressing matters for the working class of today? Yes because before we had such awful things as modern medicine, sanitation, IPad's and Netflix there was no conflict between humans. Although i do remember a few wars as well as epidemics that could have been easily treated with Penicillin i am sure they where just signs of encroaching technology and what was to come with todays society :grin: . Also how would one enforce Primitivism this and still maintain a Anarchist society? What the hell would you do besides having the equivalent of the Gestapo doing raids on peoples houses for any contraband items such as computers, phones, tablets, ibuprofen, antibiotics, a wheel, etc? Yes i am sure forcing the working class back into the fucking dark ages is what we all really want and would be a sure fire way to win all of us over :laugh:

I imagine if Primitivism somehow managed to gain a foothold it would end up looking much more like Cambodian under the Khmer Rouge rather then some Communist utopia. Granted the idea of Primitivism ever gaining traction is as laughable as the ideology itself.

As a side note has anyone here ever actually met a Primitivist? I have met lot's of Anarchist Communists and Syndicalists but i honestly never heard of Anarcho-Primitivism until i did a google image search on that black and green flag. For a minute i thought it was some kind of flag for a Irish Anarchist group but was sadly let down.

[BIXX]

I know a primmo or two in real life.

I have heard some interesting arguments regarding how the Primitivists think we would maintain a pre-civilized society. In fact, it would likely be impossible to rebuild civilization because many of the resources that sustain it now would be unable to be retrieved as the technology to do so would be gone.

Also, I don't think primmos are concerned with the proletariat really (I'm not either but I suspect it's for different reasons.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Humans would certainly still have the knowledge and ability to maintain sedentary, pastoral lifestyles, which really is the bedrock of class society and "civilization", though.

[Palmares]

I wasn't talking about the actions of Oklahoma and Tokyo being undertaken by nihilists, but rather describing these particular supporters of thus as some sort of anti-human nihilists.

Clarified?


Idk, a lot goes into whether or not I support an action.

Agreed. I'm not dogmatically against any given action, but by a similar view, am far from dogmatically supportive of any action taken against the state(s).


I don't know why they call it Anarcho-Primitivism as there is little about it that resembles Anarchism and it is certainly nothing resembling any kind of socialism

Man, I've been quoted twice on this one, and for the life of me I can't remember posting it. Can't find it anywhere either. Someone must have slipped something into my drink... ;)

[BIXX]

I wasn't talking about the actions of Oklahoma and Tokyo being undertaken by nihilists, but rather describing these particular supporters of thus as some sort of anti-human nihilists.

Clarified?

I still think this is an odd statement. The supporters of these actions (assuming they aren't just being edgy) probably hold the same or similar opinions as the people who committed those actions. I doubt any nihilists would be supportive of those actions.

You seem to be using nihilist as an insult, just as folks used anarchist until Proudhon used it to describe himself. They used it incorrectly, just as you seem to be doing now.




Agreed. I'm not dogmatically against any given action, but by a similar view, am far from dogmatically supportive of any action taken against the state(s).
I'm interested in what groups/actions you do support?




Man, I've been quoted twice on this one, and for the life of me I can't remember posting it. Can't find it anywhere either. Someone must have slipped something into my drink... ;)

I can't find it either, honestly.

[Ocean Seal]

From the little I know of it ("5 Common Objectives to Primitivism and Why They're Wrong") I'm not an advocate but am curious to know why it's not considered leftist round here. Is it the sort of "elitist" attitude? Is there more to it that I don't know about? I've been meaning to read some Zerzan but haven't got round to it yet. Would you consider it right-wing, or syncretic, or what? Sorry if this is in the wrong section, please move to 'Opposing Ideologies' if that's where it belongs.

Because its not.
And its not for three pretty clear reasons.

It embraces an ideology with the desire to annihilate a large part of humanity by some means (not all as bad as the next).

It has little to do with class warfare.

There is no material basis for it (as in you can't get large swaths of the population to support their probable deaths for weird Malthusian reasons).

[Palmares]

I still think this is an odd statement. The supporters of these actions (assuming they aren't just being edgy) probably hold the same or similar opinions as the people who committed those actions. I doubt any nihilists would be supportive of those actions.

You seem to be using nihilist as an insult, just as folks used anarchist until Proudhon used it to describe himself. They used it incorrectly, just as you seem to be doing now.

Nihilism, is generally pretty vague (especially in that post-modern/structuralist way). Haha, take that statement... And it's beginnings are hardly anarchist. However, I'm not saying nihilism, per se, is a pejorative. It's not a monolithic entity. However, I believe the type of nihilism that posits something along the lines of "destruction for it's own sake" has some questionable elements.

However, I'm open to my usage in reference to these particular authors being inaccurate. I thought it was a good description, but then again, I don't identify as an nihilist I suppose. Perhaps there's a better description for these authors?


I'm interested in what groups/actions you do support?

I'm not particularly sectarian, so a fairly large mount of leftist stuff is fine by me, even if I have my political differences. But certainly insurrectionary actions and the similar are perhaps more in line with my ideas. Maybe it sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but like you said, it's a case by case scenario. You can support something, be critical of it, but then also not supportive certain actions. I'm being vague and hypothetical, but I can't think of any good examples at this time. Apologies.


I can't find it either, honestly.

I guess you missed the joke. Understandably it's quite a confusing mess those posts. It was a moderator error.

[BIXX]

Oh I didn't realize there were more errors :P

[Illegalitarian]

The green libertarian socialist anarchism of people like Bookchin, which is based around municipal communalism with a strong emphasis on environmentalism is most certainly leftist.


Most primitivists will tell you that, rather than advocating absolute deindustrialization and the end of civilization as we know it, they believe that modern society is unsustainable and will eventually collapse on itself in a situation that will force us back to the days of hunter-gatherer society, and they're simply preparing for it.

Which isn't really leftist or.. really anything at all, it's more of an unfounded doomsday prophecy on the same level as militias who prep for the oh-so-eminent race war.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The green libertarian socialist anarchism of people like Bookchin, which is based around municipal communalism with a strong emphasis on environmentalism is most certainly leftist.

How so?

[Illegalitarian]

It's simply libertarian communism with an over-emphasis on environmentalism and environmentally-friendly activity.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's simply libertarian communism with an over-emphasis on environmentalism and environmentally-friendly activity.

No, I don't think that is true at all - not only does the socialisation of the means of production drop out of Bookchin's work at that point (and it's not as if it was a major theme before that), communists, whether libertarian or otherwise, don't advocate city-states as Bookchin did.

[Illegalitarian]

Well Bookchin was very back-and-forth near the end of his life on communism v. radical social democracy but he has certainly advocated the socialization of the means of production before, and his idea of municipal communalism was originally more in line with the anarchist idea of commune-based societies rather than city-states.

[BIXX]

Ew, bookchin.

[Illegalitarian]

I think debating with a real anarchist (Bob Black) put things in perspective for ol' Bookchin and made him realize that maybe he wasn't an anarchist after all


boy that was a good debate

[Lord Testicles]

I think debating with a real anarchist (Bob Black) put things in perspective for ol' Bookchin and made him realize that maybe he wasn't an anarchist after all


boy that was a good debate

Bob Black is more an informant and a snitch than an anarchist I'm afraid. There are probably police officers that make better anarchists than Bob "The snitch" Black.



http://www.seesharppress.com/blacknarc.gif

[Illegalitarian]

Disappointing, but he's still 10 times the anarchist Bookchin is imo

[Mikula Mali]

First thing that comes to mind is Darwin. He claimed evolution is not destined to always go in a advancing way, sometimes it goes in less resistant path.

[BIXX]

I think debating with a real anarchist (Bob Black) put things in perspective for ol' Bookchin and made him realize that maybe he wasn't an anarchist after all


boy that was a good debate
On top of being a snitch Bob is a racist.

[Palmares]

Are talking about what he said during his beef with Ward Churchill or is there something else?

[BIXX]

Well a letter from him was posted somewhere on revleft where he refers to Muslims as "towelheads".

[Palmares]

This letter (the word "towelheads" wasn't used, but other questionable words are present)?: http://pastebin.com/Kf5yv6Wh

Very antagonistic to say the least, but I couldn't really find much good information on the background of the original incident. Just lots of trolling from all sides, on sites like anarchistnews.org

[BIXX]

Not that one, but that's something I hadn't heard of.

Seriously though, that shit is so damn embarrassing to me with the way anarchists act.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This letter (the word "towelheads" wasn't used, but other questionable words are present)?: http://pastebin.com/Kf5yv6Wh

Very antagonistic to say the least, but I couldn't really find much good information on the background of the original incident. Just lots of trolling from all sides, on sites like anarchistnews.org

LOL at Bob "I'm a lawyer and a snitch, but more anarchist than you" Black.

"Some Black people were mean to me on a bus once. Racism goes both ways!"

:glare:

- - - -

On the topic at hand, I think a few posters have really emphasized the terrible thinking that primitivism constitutes a reaction to: The idea that "socialism" must necessarily take the shape of a single world-embracing totalizing system of mass industrial production and constant connectivity. "The other end of history," in which the total victory of Civilization is still emerging out of Eurocapitalism - it just doesn't stop there: It goes a step further and wipes out all particularity, all place, etc.
Of course, this is framed as liberatory - as though women's emancipation is premised on the high tech sector of pharmaceutical production, as though bodily autonomy concerns primarily questions of access to this or that "high" technology, etc.
The colonial implications of all this should be disturbingly obvious.

The European Christian mission of salvation, now with a red gloss!

[BIXX]

Here is the other racist letter: http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001654.html

[Illegalitarian]

Bringing up Bookchin's turn to statism, telling me Black was a snitch racist, are there any more of my favorite communist/anarchist writers and figures you guys want to shit on?

What next, are you going to tell me that Trotsky helped the US government spy on communists within the US? That Kim Jong Il actually wasn't born out of a magical glacier? Crush more of my dreams, why don't you!

[DOOM]

I recall that primitivism grew out of post-leftism and radical environmentalism, right? So no, primitivism isn't left by their own and by our standards. I seriously doubt that primitivists consider themselves leftists, as most leftists (in the revolutionary sense) are actually absolutely "glad" about what modernity and technological progress are going to bring us.

[Lord Testicles]

Bringing up Bookchin's turn to statism, telling me Black was a snitch racist, are there any more of my favorite communist/anarchist writers and figures you guys want to shit on?

What next, are you going to tell me that Trotsky helped the US government spy on communists within the US? That Kim Jong Il actually wasn't born out of a magical glacier? Crush more of my dreams, why don't you!

:lol:

Nobody is trying to shit on your favourite writers, they shat on themselves without the help of anyone else.

P.S Bob Black is still alive (unfortunately) so it's not that he was a snitch racist, it's that he is a snitch racist.

P.P.S Just a heads up, George Orwell was also a snitch and Gandhi was a racist.

[Illegalitarian]

I knew about Orwell's list and Gandhi's pedophilia and racism, but Black being a terrible shit is sad news. Though I guess it's the theories, not the man himself, that I liked in the first place.




Speaking of primitivism, I'm not sure why but it also seems to have quite a streak of transphobia in it as well, as evidenced by second-wave feminism of Jensen and the others who run Deep Green Resistance and the terrible remarks and attitudes they have made.

[BIXX]

Eh, most primitivists seem to denounce DGR.

[bcbm]

I recall that primitivism grew out of post-leftism and radical environmentalism, right? So no, primitivism isn't left by their own and by our standards. I seriously doubt that primitivists consider themselves leftists, as most leftists (in the revolutionary sense) are actually absolutely "glad" about what modernity and technological progress are going to bring us.

no primitivism grew out of left communism via camatte

[Blake's Baby]

Not that we go around telling people that. Or, when we do, we say it grew out of Bordigism, which we regard as the weird uncle at the wedding. A bit mad but still, you know, family.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

no primitivism grew out of left communism via camatte

That's a bit like saying fascism grew out of the left wing of Italian socialism. True in a way, but highly misleading.

Anyway, it's been, what, five pages, and we've heard all about what dirty_doxxer supports today, but I'm still waiting for an answer: how do the primmos and their defenders ("we're anti-civ not primmo, honest guvnor") suppose a "re-wilded" or whatever-horrible-neologism-you-want-to-call-it society would provide for free and safe abortion up to the date of birth?

[Blake's Baby]

"Siblings, though we can't actually provide free and safe abortion up to the date of birth, that being no-one's fault, not even the Productivists, we will fight for the right to provide for free and safe abortion up to the date of birth."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Siblings, though we can't actually provide free and safe abortion up to the date of birth, that being no-one's fault, not even the Productivists, we will fight for the right to provide for free and safe abortion up to the date of birth."

I'm too drunk to know if you're being flippant, but if a self-identified Republican said this re: the abortion clinic closings they would be torn apart by wild wabid animals within a week.

So how do primmos get a free pass?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anyway, it's been, what, five pages, and we've heard all about what dirty_doxxer supports today, but I'm still waiting for an answer: how do the primmos and their defenders ("we're anti-civ not primmo, honest guvnor") suppose a "re-wilded" or whatever-horrible-neologism-you-want-to-call-it society would provide for free and safe abortion up to the date of birth?

For one, the question is a bit of a red herring since no society has ever provided this universally. Where you're being particularly tricky, I think, is that you can say, "Well, my socialism will!" without citing any precedent (the "degenerated workers states" you defend certainly didn't!) , but wouldn't accept the same "Well, we'll figure it out!" answer from the people you brand primitivists. It's a bit cheap.

Moving on though, on the question of bodily autonomy, various means of inducing miscarriage have been used by a variety of "primitive" peoples.

Further, in many societies, they did one better on "up to the date of birth" - infanticide has hardly been an unusual practice among humans.

*shrug*

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For one, the question is a bit of a red herring since no society has ever provided this universally. Where you're being particularly tricky, I think, is that you can say, "Well, my socialism will!" without citing any precedent (the "degenerated workers states" you defend certainly didn't!) , but wouldn't accept the same "Well, we'll figure it out!" answer from the people you brand primitivists. It's a bit cheap.

Well, no, there is nothing to "figure out" when it comes to socialism and abortion. The medical techniques that allow for safe (the mortality rate generally being much less than birth) abortion up to the date of birth already exist - and in socialism, obviously they couldn't be restricted in any way (who is going to restrict them, the socialist police?).

But primmos want to destroy technology (or they believe some quasi-eschatological social collapse will destroy technology, which they don't support at all, honest). So the question is a technical one - how would abortion be preformed in the sort of society primmos envision, with sharp sticks?

It's important to point this out because a lot of primmos are the slimiest sort of misogynist (see Feral "talking about women's liberation means portraying women as eternal victims" Faun), and the rest of the "movement" seems pretty chill about destroying technology that often means a more comfortable life for minorities and women (limited under capitalism of course).


Moving on though, on the question of bodily autonomy, various means of inducing miscarriage have been used by a variety of "primitive" peoples.

All of which are significantly less safe and pleasant than modern chemical or surgical abortion. Which, hey, is understandable given the circumstances, but primmos want to turn the clock back to this point - they want to destroy modern medical technology and go back to various poisonous herbs and other such niceties.

[bcbm]

That's a bit like saying fascism grew out of the left wing of Italian socialism. True in a way, but highly misleading.

what part is misleading?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm too drunk to know if you're being flippant, but if a self-identified Republican said this re: the abortion clinic closings they would be torn apart by wild wabid animals within a week.

So how do primmos get a free pass?

I'm paraphrasing the People's Front of Judea.

I'm pretty much the most anti-primmie it's possible to be without having a medical definition attached to my dislike. I mean, I've never set fire to a yurt, because unlike *at least some* primmies, I don't want other people to die, but the whole ideology is deeply repugnant in my view.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

what part is misleading?

The implication that primitivism developed from Bordigism in the sense that it is a modification of Bordigism or that it follows the logic of Bordigism.


I'm paraphrasing the People's Front of Judea.

I'm pretty much the most anti-primmie it's possible to be without having a medical definition attached to my dislike. I mean, I've never set fire to a yurt, because unlike *at least some* primmies, I don't want other people to die, but the whole ideology is deeply repugnant in my view.

Ah, normally I would've got the reference but when I was writing that there was maybe 1% of blood left in my alcohol. But I never meant to say that you were giving primmos a free pass - but that RevLeft was. And it's true. You can say whatever disgusting stuff you want, as long as you chant Cammate Fordism anti-civ anti-civ you'll be fine.

Incidentally, I don't think there are any primmos in yurts. Mostly they can be found around the uni coffee shop. The best thing is, of course, that they could be in yurts, they could literally go live in the woods and gather berries until they die. But they don't. Doesn't that tell us something?

I mean, if I could live in a post-class, global, planned society, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to people here, I'd take the first bus, train, boat, I'd walk if I have to.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The implication that primitivism developed from Bordigism in the sense that it is a modification of Bordigism or that it follows the logic of Bordigism.



Ah, normally I would've got the reference but when I was writing that there was maybe 1% of blood left in my alcohol. But I never meant to say that you were giving primmos a free pass - but that RevLeft was. And it's true. You can say whatever disgusting stuff you want, as long as you chant Cammate Fordism anti-civ anti-civ you'll be fine.

Incidentally, I don't think there are any primmos in yurts. Mostly they can be found around the uni coffee shop. The best thing is, of course, that they could be in yurts, they could literally go live in the woods and gather berries until they die. But they don't. Doesn't that tell us something?

I mean, if I could live in a post-class, global, planned society, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to people here, I'd take the first bus, train, boat, I'd walk if I have to.

So before saying anything else, I just wanted to point out this bold part as a demonstration of how intellectually honest you're actually interested in being and how you're totally not trolling or anything. Replace 'primmos' with commies and yurts with North Korea or Cuba and oh boy what a familiar post this becomes. Anyhow, just like you can't move to North Korea to experience the joys of communism, you can't pitch a tent in the forest and experience post-industrial bliss, or whatever passes for bliss in a post-industrial hellscape. It's the part of the day where you pass out from blood loss after being mauled by a radscorpian I think.

Primitivists are of the mind that industrial society is unsustainable, unsustainable to the extent that it will collapse and consume itself, along with a sizable chunk of the biosphere. As a result of this collapse human society will have to reconstitute itself based on the material available, and since industrial society will supposedly have consumed all the resources on the earth's surface and since machinery to get at the good stuff still remaining in the ground won't be around anymore, they reckon that human society will have to get by with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They aren't planning on personally destroying each and every artificially housed hormone that might be used by transgender people or each clinic that might be used by women for immediate abortions, instead they say that the industrial society which made these things available will itself disappear due to it's own designs without the help of anyone. That in of itself doesn't sound all that reactionary, but for sure some of the theories and I guess tendencies that result from this starting point are. Imagine if you will a diagram of stupid leftist tendencies ranging from left liberalism and social democracy to whatever ideology it is that drives people to form cults and keep domestic slaves for decades. Now take those categories and change their stupid names to other stupid names that revolve around 'green' vocabularies. You get all kinds of people, people that develop a fetish for the collapse itself (left wing version; think of people who intellectually masturbate over the opportunity to kill a CEO or something, rather than focusing on something really cool like not having to go to work or pay for anything ever again, go figure.) because they have any number of issues in the here and now and society collapsing seems like a good alternative in that mindset I suppose. But they can't make the collapse happen any faster than it's already doing it, just like you can't make communism happen any faster by handing out leaflets or newspapers. They just continue to go to work and posting blogs that no one reads. Then there are some other nerds that think industrial society could maybe be brought down in a 'controlled' fashion like wiring a partially-collapsed building with dynamite. They like to role play as eco-terrorists but actually are just a fan-cult around one of the more famous primitivist writers.

Then you have the nihilists. These people are young and angry and as a result of not thinking too critically and of not having a whole lot of perspective in life yet, think it's a good idea to take revenge on the people "responsible" for the whole ecological collapse that's coming. Now whether those people are actually responsible for anything to a greater or lesser extent than the nihilists themselves doesn't really enter the equation because like I said there's a lack of critical thinking going on. This phenomena also reproduces itself on the left..and the right and pretty much any movement that can attract young and angry people who don't think critically.

Again though, this all sounds super familiar, I dunno. But yeah that's primitivism, its as useless are you are (or anyone else on the left, not intended to be an insult), which is maybe why leftists are so keen to beat up on it, although you have to admit it sort of sets itself up for it. Luckily there are no primitivists on revleft aside from those in your head. If there were some, you wouldn't have had to wait over a week for me to get stoned and respond like this.

I know revleft gets on loops about certain topics, but I'm ready to transition away from primitivism, I feel as though this is the 6th or 7th thread about it in the last few weeks.

[BIXX]

So before saying anything else, I just wanted to point out this bold part as a demonstration of how intellectually honest you're actually interested in being and how you're totally not trolling or anything. Replace 'primmos' with commies and yurts with North Korea or Cuba and oh boy what a familiar post this becomes. Anyhow, just like you can't move to North Korea to experience the joys of communism, you can't pitch a tent in the forest and experience post-industrial bliss, or whatever passes for bliss in a post-industrial hellscape. It's the part of the day where you pass out from blood loss after being mauled by a radscorpian I think.

Primitivists are of the mind that industrial society is unsustainable, unsustainable to the extent that it will collapse and consume itself, along with a sizable chunk of the biosphere. As a result of this collapse human society will have to reconstitute itself based on the material available, and since industrial society will supposedly have consumed all the resources on the earth's surface and since machinery to get at the good stuff still remaining in the ground won't be around anymore, they reckon that human society will have to get by with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They aren't planning on personally destroying each and every artificially housed hormone that might be used by transgender people or each clinic that might be used by women for immediate abortions, instead they say that the industrial society which made these things available will itself disappear due to it's own designs without the help of anyone. That in of itself doesn't sound all that reactionary, but for sure some of the theories and I guess tendencies that result from this starting point are. Imagine if you will a diagram of stupid leftist tendencies ranging from left liberalism and social democracy to whatever ideology it is that drives people to form cults and keep domestic slaves for decades. Now take those categories and change their stupid names to other stupid names that revolve around 'green' vocabularies. You get all kinds of people, people that develop a fetish for the collapse itself (left wing version; think of people who intellectually masturbate over the opportunity to kill a CEO or something, rather than focusing on something really cool like not having to go to work or pay for anything ever again, go figure.) because they have any number of issues in the here and now and society collapsing seems like a good alternative in that mindset I suppose. But they can't make the collapse happen any faster than it's already doing it, just like you can't make communism happen any faster by handing out leaflets or newspapers. They just continue to go to work and posting blogs that no one reads. Then there are some other nerds that think industrial society could maybe be brought down in a 'controlled' fashion like wiring a partially-collapsed building with dynamite. They like to role play as eco-terrorists but actually are just a fan-cult around one of the more famous primitivist writers.

Then you have the nihilists. These people are young and angry and as a result of not thinking too critically and of not having a whole lot of perspective in life yet, think it's a good idea to take revenge on the people "responsible" for the whole ecological collapse that's coming. Now whether those people are actually responsible for anything to a greater or lesser extent than the nihilists themselves doesn't really enter the equation because like I said there's a lack of critical thinking going on. This phenomena also reproduces itself on the left..and the right and pretty much any movement that can attract young and angry people who don't think critically.

Again though, this all sounds super familiar, I dunno. But yeah that's primitivism, its as useless are you are (or anyone else on the left, not intended to be an insult), which is maybe why leftists are so keen to beat up on it, although you have to admit it sort of sets itself up for it. Luckily there are no primitivists on revleft aside from those in your head. If there were some, you wouldn't have had to wait over a week for me to get stoned and respond like this.

I know revleft gets on loops about certain topics, but I'm ready to transition away from primitivism, I feel as though this is the 6th or 7th thread about it in the last few weeks.
I kinda object to your caricature of nihilism. Unless you are using it in a colloquial and incorrect sense, what you are saying is incorrect. I mean, the general idea behind your post makes sense, that just seemed wrong.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think revenge is clearly the motive behind it, I don't think any of these groups are really operating under a true belief that they can effect change through isolated bombings or even homicide.

[consuming negativity]

I don't think it is possible to have an ideology that is immune from its being adopted by someone who isn't very intelligent. To define nihilism by 16 year olds, to define communism by 16 year olds, or really, to even define 16 year olds by who they think they are, is of course a gross mis-characterization. You wouldn't characterize John Maynard Keynes based on what your alcoholic uncle said at the last family gathering, so why waste time with obvious inaccuracies? Sometimes, people just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh my characterization of nihilism as an actual ideology? No I just used that as a placeholder for generic Eco terrorists as being separate from other primitivists. I don't really know much about nihilism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So before saying anything else, I just wanted to point out this bold part as a demonstration of how intellectually honest you're actually interested in being and how you're totally not trolling or anything. Replace 'primmos' with commies and yurts with North Korea or Cuba and oh boy what a familiar post this becomes. Anyhow, just like you can't move to North Korea to experience the joys of communism, you can't pitch a tent in the forest and experience post-industrial bliss, or whatever passes for bliss in a post-industrial hellscape. It's the part of the day where you pass out from blood loss after being mauled by a radscorpian I think.

Primitivists are of the mind that industrial society is unsustainable, unsustainable to the extent that it will collapse and consume itself, along with a sizable chunk of the biosphere. As a result of this collapse human society will have to reconstitute itself based on the material available, and since industrial society will supposedly have consumed all the resources on the earth's surface and since machinery to get at the good stuff still remaining in the ground won't be around anymore, they reckon that human society will have to get by with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They aren't planning on personally destroying each and every artificially housed hormone that might be used by transgender people or each clinic that might be used by women for immediate abortions, instead they say that the industrial society which made these things available will itself disappear due to it's own designs without the help of anyone. That in of itself doesn't sound all that reactionary, but for sure some of the theories and I guess tendencies that result from this starting point are. Imagine if you will a diagram of stupid leftist tendencies ranging from left liberalism and social democracy to whatever ideology it is that drives people to form cults and keep domestic slaves for decades. Now take those categories and change their stupid names to other stupid names that revolve around 'green' vocabularies. You get all kinds of people, people that develop a fetish for the collapse itself (left wing version; think of people who intellectually masturbate over the opportunity to kill a CEO or something, rather than focusing on something really cool like not having to go to work or pay for anything ever again, go figure.) because they have any number of issues in the here and now and society collapsing seems like a good alternative in that mindset I suppose. But they can't make the collapse happen any faster than it's already doing it, just like you can't make communism happen any faster by handing out leaflets or newspapers. They just continue to go to work and posting blogs that no one reads. Then there are some other nerds that think industrial society could maybe be brought down in a 'controlled' fashion like wiring a partially-collapsed building with dynamite. They like to role play as eco-terrorists but actually are just a fan-cult around one of the more famous primitivist writers.

Then you have the nihilists. These people are young and angry and as a result of not thinking too critically and of not having a whole lot of perspective in life yet, think it's a good idea to take revenge on the people "responsible" for the whole ecological collapse that's coming. Now whether those people are actually responsible for anything to a greater or lesser extent than the nihilists themselves doesn't really enter the equation because like I said there's a lack of critical thinking going on. This phenomena also reproduces itself on the left..and the right and pretty much any movement that can attract young and angry people who don't think critically.

Again though, this all sounds super familiar, I dunno. But yeah that's primitivism, its as useless are you are (or anyone else on the left, not intended to be an insult), which is maybe why leftists are so keen to beat up on it, although you have to admit it sort of sets itself up for it. Luckily there are no primitivists on revleft aside from those in your head. If there were some, you wouldn't have had to wait over a week for me to get stoned and respond like this.

I know revleft gets on loops about certain topics, but I'm ready to transition away from primitivism, I feel as though this is the 6th or 7th thread about it in the last few weeks.

Well, good for you that you got stoned and all, but this post depends on the usual primmo (and I'm not saying you're a primmo for using it, mind) rationalisation that, no really, they don't want the collapse to happen, but it will, honest. And if you actually read any of the primmos and semi-primmos - Jensen or Zerzan or Faun - they're obviously salivating at the prospect. As were the overwhelming majority of people banned as primmos on RevLeft - that one dude who talked about an increasing population of salmon every year sticks out in my mind (is this what left politics has degenerated to on this site? fuck salmon). You practically admit this later on.

So these people - these people who want to live in the woods free of sinful industrial society - they can do so right now. In fact all of us would be happy if they did so.

And of course primmos can't bring about the collapse of industrial society, but hey, that one boneheaded Nazi won't bring about a fascist dictatorship either, does that mean he's A-OK?

I don't know if there are primmos on RevLeft. There are certainly political exhibitionists who post communiques by primmo or pretend-primmo groups as well as a large number of users who will swallow any kind of crap as long as it's packaged as "post-left", "critical" theory.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Salivating at the prospect I tell you! Heavens! I assume the rest of that post was an apology for your other posts in this thread. Not accepted you cheeky fuck

[bcbm]

The implication that primitivism developed from Bordigism in the sense that it is a modification of Bordigism or that it follows the logic of Bordigism.

i think camatte was using 'left communism logic' (what) when he made the turn towards primitivism. it didn't come out of nowhere.


But I never meant to say that you were giving primmos a free pass - but that RevLeft was. And it's true. You can say whatever disgusting stuff you want, as long as you chant Cammate Fordism anti-civ anti-civ you'll be fine.

what disgusting stuff have users said? let's have some names and quotes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

i think camatte was using 'left communism logic' (what) when he made the turn towards primitivism. it didn't come out of nowhere.

It didn't come out of nowhere (what does?), but it certainly involved him rejecting the logic of left communism, specifically Bordigism.


what disgusting stuff have users said? let's have some names and quotes.

Ha, why, so the thread can be locked because "this is not the place for board administration, PM an admin" (and be ignored)? I mean, just look at this fucking thread.

[bcbm]

It didn't come out of nowhere (what does?), but it certainly involved him rejecting the logic of left communism, specifically Bordigism.

shrug


Ha, why, so the thread can be locked because "this is not the place for board administration, PM an admin" (and be ignored)? I mean, just look at this fucking thread.

ok so pm them to me. i've skimmed the thread, i don't see anyone getting a hardon for human extinction.

[consuming negativity]

Well, good for you that you got stoned and all, but this post depends on the usual primmo (and I'm not saying you're a primmo for using it, mind) rationalisation that, no really, they don't want the collapse to happen, but it will, honest. And if you actually read any of the primmos and semi-primmos - Jensen or Zerzan or Faun - they're obviously salivating at the prospect. As were the overwhelming majority of people banned as primmos on RevLeft - that one dude who talked about an increasing population of salmon every year sticks out in my mind (is this what left politics has degenerated to on this site? fuck salmon). You practically admit this later on.

Well, good for you that you got stoned and all, but this post depends on the usual commie (and I'm not saying you're a commie for using it, mind) rationalization that no, really, they don't want the revolution to happen, but it will, honest. And if you actually read any of the commies and pinkos - Marx or Bakunin or Lenin - they're obviously salivating at the prospect. As are the majority of people posting as communists on Revleft - that one dude who talked about an increasing level of industrialization every year sticks out in my mind (is that is what left politics has degenerated to on this site? fuck work). You practically admit this later on.

---

My point being that you can make a shitty caricature of anyone if you really wanted to. It's a lot easier to just dismiss people as idiots than to consider the idea that they see something you don't, and in truth, the idea that the system as it is now is unsustainable is pretty damn integral to "revolutionary" left-wing politics and the theory behind it.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I wasn't talking about the actions of Oklahoma and Tokyo being undertaken by nihilists, but rather describing these particular supporters of thus as some sort of anti-human nihilists.

Clarified?


The very few misguided cretins that support actions like the Oklahoma bombing tend to be your far right, anti-government, Christian types who think that America and all the "indigenous white countries" :laugh: belong to White Protestant Anglo-Saxons and should remain that way. As for supporters of the Tokyo Subway attack the only people i have ever heard support that are people who are blatantly racist against the Japanese.

It's much the same deal with Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber) as he was very far right wing, a rabid anti-Socialist and does fit the definition of being a Primitivist atleast in my opinion. Eric Rudolph the Olympic park bomber was also a white supremacist, homophobic, anti-abortion, far right anti-government right wing Christian who was a member of those nutters called the Church of Israel of all things.

I do know a few people who believe in Nihilism but none of them support actions like these or are even very political. I have had quite a few rather interesting debates with nihilists actually especially the existential nihilists. They are indeed a very far cry from say the likes of the Russian Nihilists of the 1800's.

[BIXX]

You're wrong about ted kaczynski, he is no way right wing. Also he is not a a primitivist.

[Palmares]

Indeed, he has an entire essay dedicated to his own critiques of primitivism.

[John Nada]

Eric Rudolph the Olympic park bomber was also a white supremacist, homophobic, anti-abortion, far right anti-government right wing Christian who was a member of those nutters called the Church of Israel of all things.Actually I think he was a Catholic.

[Red Commissar]

Rudolph was raised in a Catholic background but he had associated with various Christian Identity movements, including the Church of Israel, when he was older. I don't know if this can be seen as primitivist or nihilist though so much as part of the more generic run of the mill anti-government, right-wing militia movement.