On Anti-civilization And Defending Primitivists...

[saint max]

Permit me to cry about it for a moment.

I got sentenced to contribute to discourse with weirdos, bigots and pro-capitalists for defending primitivism. I am not a primitivist, but I do think that 1. the broadening ecological crisis is both inevitable and produced by civilization (and all modern/postmodern productive forces) 2. I follow a chain of logic that links all domination as problematic 3. I desire a total and universal revolt; some call insurrectional others revolution and still others maybe, "communisation" (see: Theorie Communiste/ Riff Raff). I merely say: anarchist. So in the interest of getting the most out of my mediated experiences I would like to discuss the following, the premises from the book "Endgame" vol 1-2, Derrick Jensen's new joint. I believe they all deserve, if not beckon for our gaze, if we are interested in our planet and our species survival, along with the consenquent liberation of all life.

kisses,
-max

premises from endgame:

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The premises listed above are mere assertions. Why should I not reject them for the primitivist pap that they are?

[saint max]

dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

[black magick hustla]

man you are one of those weird postmodern insurrectory anarchists. (that means, a very refined primitivist).

what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide.

you argue that the longer we wait, the harder will be the crash. what do you want to do then, destroy civilization right now and with it, kill billions of people? you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

[black magick hustla]

man you are one of those weird postmodern insurrectory anarchists. (that means, a very refined primitivist).

what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide.

you argue that the longer we wait, the harder will be the crash. what do you want to do then, destroy civilization right now and with it, kill billions of people? you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

[black magick hustla]

man you are one of those weird postmodern insurrectory anarchists. (that means, a very refined primitivist).

what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide.

you argue that the longer we wait, the harder will be the crash. what do you want to do then, destroy civilization right now and with it, kill billions of people? you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

[Comrade-Z]

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.

I don't see how this can reasonably be asserted.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed.

Depends. If they are being offered even sweeter resources in exchange for the resources they are being asked for, then it would be in their self-interest to make the transaction.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

I do not see why this is necessarily the case.

If you want to argue that violence will always be needed by the cities to commandeer or coerce rural communities into giving up food, then that argument is flawed. It is looking increasingly likely that food can be manufactured industrially in an urban setting, if need be. And what if the city can offer the countryside some really sweet deals?


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy.

I do not see why this would necessarily be an attribute of civilization. Replace "civilization" with "class society," and yeah, sure.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable.

You haven't been able to show that civlization is bad in the first place.


This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living.

Why not? You don't think humans are capable of acting out of rational self-interest? If the planet really was collapsing, don't you think we'd figure that out and do something about it?

After tackling these core premises, there's little reason to give the rest of the primitivist drivel a thorough treatment.

Premises 4, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are just fine. If you could seperate that wheat from all the chaff, you might have some insightful things to contribute.

[Comrade-Z]

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.

I don't see how this can reasonably be asserted.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed.

Depends. If they are being offered even sweeter resources in exchange for the resources they are being asked for, then it would be in their self-interest to make the transaction.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

I do not see why this is necessarily the case.

If you want to argue that violence will always be needed by the cities to commandeer or coerce rural communities into giving up food, then that argument is flawed. It is looking increasingly likely that food can be manufactured industrially in an urban setting, if need be. And what if the city can offer the countryside some really sweet deals?


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy.

I do not see why this would necessarily be an attribute of civilization. Replace "civilization" with "class society," and yeah, sure.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable.

You haven't been able to show that civlization is bad in the first place.


This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living.

Why not? You don't think humans are capable of acting out of rational self-interest? If the planet really was collapsing, don't you think we'd figure that out and do something about it?

After tackling these core premises, there's little reason to give the rest of the primitivist drivel a thorough treatment.

Premises 4, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are just fine. If you could seperate that wheat from all the chaff, you might have some insightful things to contribute.

[Comrade-Z]

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.

I don't see how this can reasonably be asserted.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed.

Depends. If they are being offered even sweeter resources in exchange for the resources they are being asked for, then it would be in their self-interest to make the transaction.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

I do not see why this is necessarily the case.

If you want to argue that violence will always be needed by the cities to commandeer or coerce rural communities into giving up food, then that argument is flawed. It is looking increasingly likely that food can be manufactured industrially in an urban setting, if need be. And what if the city can offer the countryside some really sweet deals?


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy.

I do not see why this would necessarily be an attribute of civilization. Replace "civilization" with "class society," and yeah, sure.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable.

You haven't been able to show that civlization is bad in the first place.


This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living.

Why not? You don't think humans are capable of acting out of rational self-interest? If the planet really was collapsing, don't you think we'd figure that out and do something about it?

After tackling these core premises, there's little reason to give the rest of the primitivist drivel a thorough treatment.

Premises 4, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are just fine. If you could seperate that wheat from all the chaff, you might have some insightful things to contribute.

[saint max]

Marmot,
"refined primitivst" is a sweet taint jab. Thanks. Although my sweetie and I have been saying: "primivistucho" which is like adding "cute-little" in italian.

Nonetheless, I agree with Jensen's premises and most primitivsts analysis, although I'm simply not interested in being an eco-fascist, so I abstain from the questions of "what afterwards?"


what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide

The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it. Nor will you find most within the anti-civ mileu publicly suggesting we become agents of a die off, outside of volunteer non-procreation. What we need to understand is reality and reality is to the best of my knowlegde best viewed through a historical and ecological materialism. The material reality and causal relationship between industrial civilization and ecological crisis is obvious, is it not? Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off. Our position as a species navigating climate change and ecological crisis is not an easy one nor does it suggest any pretty pictures of any possible future.

From this perspective, there are few options, if we are interested in suviving. One of which, a pro-civ perspective, allows a subtle complacency in the face of concentration camps--becuase we (those in post-industrial countries) will probably be some of the last to go. We can continue to struggle against abstract forms of hierarchically organized social relaity. We can continue to live radical politics as a myriad of subcultures and then pretend to be confused when someone kills us for our clean water. The state and economy will consolidate it's power, close it's borders and we can ride out the end of the world in senarrios worse than anyone's orwellian nightmares. Another option, will probably look similar except, a lot of our friends and peers will join them (too little too late) for the greater good in a very Italy 1930's esc horror story. An yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.


you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.

Sorry to over simplify. I do have my critiques of primitivism too, but I think this is a dialogue that needs to happen.

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

Marmot,
"refined primitivst" is a sweet taint jab. Thanks. Although my sweetie and I have been saying: "primivistucho" which is like adding "cute-little" in italian.

Nonetheless, I agree with Jensen's premises and most primitivsts analysis, although I'm simply not interested in being an eco-fascist, so I abstain from the questions of "what afterwards?"


what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide

The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it. Nor will you find most within the anti-civ mileu publicly suggesting we become agents of a die off, outside of volunteer non-procreation. What we need to understand is reality and reality is to the best of my knowlegde best viewed through a historical and ecological materialism. The material reality and causal relationship between industrial civilization and ecological crisis is obvious, is it not? Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off. Our position as a species navigating climate change and ecological crisis is not an easy one nor does it suggest any pretty pictures of any possible future.

From this perspective, there are few options, if we are interested in suviving. One of which, a pro-civ perspective, allows a subtle complacency in the face of concentration camps--becuase we (those in post-industrial countries) will probably be some of the last to go. We can continue to struggle against abstract forms of hierarchically organized social relaity. We can continue to live radical politics as a myriad of subcultures and then pretend to be confused when someone kills us for our clean water. The state and economy will consolidate it's power, close it's borders and we can ride out the end of the world in senarrios worse than anyone's orwellian nightmares. Another option, will probably look similar except, a lot of our friends and peers will join them (too little too late) for the greater good in a very Italy 1930's esc horror story. An yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.


you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.

Sorry to over simplify. I do have my critiques of primitivism too, but I think this is a dialogue that needs to happen.

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

Marmot,
"refined primitivst" is a sweet taint jab. Thanks. Although my sweetie and I have been saying: "primivistucho" which is like adding "cute-little" in italian.

Nonetheless, I agree with Jensen's premises and most primitivsts analysis, although I'm simply not interested in being an eco-fascist, so I abstain from the questions of "what afterwards?"


what do you want to do anyway? the destruction of industrial civilization would mean the death of most of the population, considering we cannot substain the current population with mere hunting and gathering.

so in short, you are advocating genocide

The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it. Nor will you find most within the anti-civ mileu publicly suggesting we become agents of a die off, outside of volunteer non-procreation. What we need to understand is reality and reality is to the best of my knowlegde best viewed through a historical and ecological materialism. The material reality and causal relationship between industrial civilization and ecological crisis is obvious, is it not? Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off. Our position as a species navigating climate change and ecological crisis is not an easy one nor does it suggest any pretty pictures of any possible future.

From this perspective, there are few options, if we are interested in suviving. One of which, a pro-civ perspective, allows a subtle complacency in the face of concentration camps--becuase we (those in post-industrial countries) will probably be some of the last to go. We can continue to struggle against abstract forms of hierarchically organized social relaity. We can continue to live radical politics as a myriad of subcultures and then pretend to be confused when someone kills us for our clean water. The state and economy will consolidate it's power, close it's borders and we can ride out the end of the world in senarrios worse than anyone's orwellian nightmares. Another option, will probably look similar except, a lot of our friends and peers will join them (too little too late) for the greater good in a very Italy 1930's esc horror story. An yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.


you do not have faith in technological approches against the estrangement caused by nature?

I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.

Sorry to over simplify. I do have my critiques of primitivism too, but I think this is a dialogue that needs to happen.

kisses,
-max

[overlord]

Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off.

Why so sure? Isn't necessity the mother of invention which will prevent this?


The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it.

You are anti-civilisation! :o Marxist socialism is suppose to be the most advanced form of civilsaiton comrade, not the most primitive!


A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left?

lol, you are even more insane than the capitalists here.


I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.


A novel revolutionary method comrade! Destroy the earth! You know you're free to go live in a cave if that's your desire. No need to drag everyone else down as well.

[overlord]

Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off.

Why so sure? Isn't necessity the mother of invention which will prevent this?


The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it.

You are anti-civilisation! :o Marxist socialism is suppose to be the most advanced form of civilsaiton comrade, not the most primitive!


A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left?

lol, you are even more insane than the capitalists here.


I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.


A novel revolutionary method comrade! Destroy the earth! You know you're free to go live in a cave if that's your desire. No need to drag everyone else down as well.

[overlord]

Civilization will collapse and most of human species of the planet will probably die off.

Why so sure? Isn't necessity the mother of invention which will prevent this?


The problem here is not who advocates genocide (or specicide.) In my perspective, that is the industrial/postindustrial project but you're not going to find any pro-civilization and freaky transhumanists admitting it.

You are anti-civilisation! :o Marxist socialism is suppose to be the most advanced form of civilsaiton comrade, not the most primitive!


A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left?

lol, you are even more insane than the capitalists here.


I probably have too much faith. I think fighting civilization's attempts to survive ecological crisis is also something anarchists ought to be thinking about.


A novel revolutionary method comrade! Destroy the earth! You know you're free to go live in a cave if that's your desire. No need to drag everyone else down as well.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by saint max+--> ( saint max)I got sentenced to contribute to discourse with weirdos, bigots and pro-capitalists for defending primitivism. I am not a primitivist[/b] Isn't the system wonderful? So logical and it works just fine. You're a primitivist, you got restricted. No doubt about it, things are working fine. (See sig for more meaning.)


Originally posted by saint max+--> (saint max)Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.[/b] Silly. What is meant by civilization and why cannot a sufficiently advanced civilisation with few people not be sustainable?


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Two ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence. Interesting claim, no arguments to show why. Certainly the state capitalist system (or even just state system) requires persistent and widespread violence or the threat of such, and would collapse without it. If industrial civilisation is linked with capitalism and the state then the argument would hold. I disagree that they are linked though.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.State/capitalist (and previous civilisations) are based on ... However, this does not mean that a civilisation could not exist that did not have these problems.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Five: ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.The problem is that you are linking civilisation with capitalist industrialisation. They are two different things.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.Replace civilization with capitalist industrialisation and I might agree with you.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.Fine. I agree.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Nine: ... The way to reduce the population of the world is to give everyone a better standard of living. We can examine the over-developed countries of Western Europe and Japan for examples of population decrease.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.
Requires more articulated argument. This is just silly without basis.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. ...Some people control more resources then others. These we call rich. The paper has nothing to do with it, except as a symbol of those resources.


saint [email protected]
Premise Thirteen ... OK...


saint max
Premise Fourteen: ... See answer for 10 and 11 above.
For most of the others I say as I do above. 17 OK...



And WTF overlord? Has somebody hacked his account? Ah I see the problem. He's a fuckwit (or a troll (or both)).


My basic gripe with primitivism is that the pre-industrial society that most of them want to go back to is not as good as what they think. Even today with mass telecommunication and information technologies available we still find irrationality, racism etc. In any decentralised society without such things (and travel as well), you would soon find that the other becomes a threat. Those who do not have skin the same colour as ours become our enemies because they are different.

If you abolish knowledge storage (computers and books and the means to produce and use them), then you bring about conditions ripe for the reintroduction of superstitious crap.

Technology has its problems, but the lack of technology is a bigger problem

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by saint max+--> ( saint max)I got sentenced to contribute to discourse with weirdos, bigots and pro-capitalists for defending primitivism. I am not a primitivist[/b] Isn't the system wonderful? So logical and it works just fine. You're a primitivist, you got restricted. No doubt about it, things are working fine. (See sig for more meaning.)


Originally posted by saint max+--> (saint max)Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.[/b] Silly. What is meant by civilization and why cannot a sufficiently advanced civilisation with few people not be sustainable?


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Two ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence. Interesting claim, no arguments to show why. Certainly the state capitalist system (or even just state system) requires persistent and widespread violence or the threat of such, and would collapse without it. If industrial civilisation is linked with capitalism and the state then the argument would hold. I disagree that they are linked though.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.State/capitalist (and previous civilisations) are based on ... However, this does not mean that a civilisation could not exist that did not have these problems.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Five: ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.The problem is that you are linking civilisation with capitalist industrialisation. They are two different things.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.Replace civilization with capitalist industrialisation and I might agree with you.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.Fine. I agree.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Nine: ... The way to reduce the population of the world is to give everyone a better standard of living. We can examine the over-developed countries of Western Europe and Japan for examples of population decrease.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.
Requires more articulated argument. This is just silly without basis.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. ...Some people control more resources then others. These we call rich. The paper has nothing to do with it, except as a symbol of those resources.


saint [email protected]
Premise Thirteen ... OK...


saint max
Premise Fourteen: ... See answer for 10 and 11 above.
For most of the others I say as I do above. 17 OK...



And WTF overlord? Has somebody hacked his account? Ah I see the problem. He's a fuckwit (or a troll (or both)).


My basic gripe with primitivism is that the pre-industrial society that most of them want to go back to is not as good as what they think. Even today with mass telecommunication and information technologies available we still find irrationality, racism etc. In any decentralised society without such things (and travel as well), you would soon find that the other becomes a threat. Those who do not have skin the same colour as ours become our enemies because they are different.

If you abolish knowledge storage (computers and books and the means to produce and use them), then you bring about conditions ripe for the reintroduction of superstitious crap.

Technology has its problems, but the lack of technology is a bigger problem

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by saint max+--> ( saint max)I got sentenced to contribute to discourse with weirdos, bigots and pro-capitalists for defending primitivism. I am not a primitivist[/b] Isn't the system wonderful? So logical and it works just fine. You're a primitivist, you got restricted. No doubt about it, things are working fine. (See sig for more meaning.)


Originally posted by saint max+--> (saint max)Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.[/b] Silly. What is meant by civilization and why cannot a sufficiently advanced civilisation with few people not be sustainable?


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Two ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence. Interesting claim, no arguments to show why. Certainly the state capitalist system (or even just state system) requires persistent and widespread violence or the threat of such, and would collapse without it. If industrial civilisation is linked with capitalism and the state then the argument would hold. I disagree that they are linked though.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.State/capitalist (and previous civilisations) are based on ... However, this does not mean that a civilisation could not exist that did not have these problems.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Five: ...OK...


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.The problem is that you are linking civilisation with capitalist industrialisation. They are two different things.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.Replace civilization with capitalist industrialisation and I might agree with you.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.Fine. I agree.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Nine: ... The way to reduce the population of the world is to give everyone a better standard of living. We can examine the over-developed countries of Western Europe and Japan for examples of population decrease.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.
Requires more articulated argument. This is just silly without basis.


Originally posted by saint max
Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. ...Some people control more resources then others. These we call rich. The paper has nothing to do with it, except as a symbol of those resources.


saint [email protected]
Premise Thirteen ... OK...


saint max
Premise Fourteen: ... See answer for 10 and 11 above.
For most of the others I say as I do above. 17 OK...



And WTF overlord? Has somebody hacked his account? Ah I see the problem. He's a fuckwit (or a troll (or both)).


My basic gripe with primitivism is that the pre-industrial society that most of them want to go back to is not as good as what they think. Even today with mass telecommunication and information technologies available we still find irrationality, racism etc. In any decentralised society without such things (and travel as well), you would soon find that the other becomes a threat. Those who do not have skin the same colour as ours become our enemies because they are different.

If you abolish knowledge storage (computers and books and the means to produce and use them), then you bring about conditions ripe for the reintroduction of superstitious crap.

Technology has its problems, but the lack of technology is a bigger problem

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 12:19 AM
dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

Very well...


Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

No basis for this assertion. Civilisation has been sustained for a good 3000 years at least, and high tech civilisation has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing conditions, otherwise it would be around anymore.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The fact that "traditional communities" have been destroyed and opressed in the process of serving the many is due to racism not civilisation.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Again, this assertion is not substantiated. you don't need to beat people over the head in order to construct a computer or other artefact of technological society. The problem of oppression is social and cultural not technological. Technology on it's own does not oppress, you need human agents in order to do that.


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Not true. Hierarchy is clearly defined in class societies, and violence by it's very nature is visible and noticable. It's only apathy and wilful ignorance that causes violence to be ignored.
This premise also suggests that violence in all forms is udesirable. This is obviously wrong - violence in self-defence, whether that is in defence of the individual or of the community, is both necessary and desirable since individuals and communities who do not use violence in self defence against violent attackers tend to go extinct pretty quickly.
Violence against the higher classes is considered good or bad depending upon the class of the individual doing the judging - to the higher classes, violence against them is undesirable because it threatens their station, and to the lower classes violence against the higher classes is desirable and applauded because it is a mechanism of self-defence.

Replace the word "civilisation" with "class society" in the above premise and you'll be hitting closer to the mark.


Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Nonsense. Production may involve oppression but is not necessary, since somebody who produces something they end up using and/or owning aren't oppressing themselves.
The fact that the capitalist class calls retribution against the lower classes for defending themselves "justice" does not make it so.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Civilisation has undergone social changes before, and will doubtless do so again, and these changes have always been for the better - a person living in capitalist society generally lives a better life than someone living under fuedalist society.
Isn't it strange the most miserable people on this planet are the ones not enjoying the benefits of technological society?


Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

This assumes that civilisation will even crash in the first place, rather than continuing to develop and improve the lives of more people ever day.
When people in Africa are starving due to the actions of warlords and colonialism, which is a better idea; improving their infrastructure and political system, or saying them "sorry, civilisation has fucked you all up, suggest you run into the wild and live off the land" and dooming them to certain death at the hands of uncaring nature?


Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Wrong. The needs of the human species outweigh the needs of either.


Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Or we could improve quality of life of people in general, lowering the birth rate and hence allowing populations to be decreased to managable levels without violence.


Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Nihilistic rubbish. Most people simply want a full and happy life.


Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Yes, we occupy this planet. So fucking what? Hopefully we'll find some more planets to live on as well.


Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Yeah yeah, capitalism is bad, tell me something I don't know already.


Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

So let's depose our masters and establish an egalitarian society. Doesn't mean we have to abandon technology or civilisation.


Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Complete nonsense.


Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

A tautology. Yawn.


Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Basic materialism. I don't see how primitivism follows from this, though.


Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Americans aren't the only people on this planet, you know :rolleyes:


Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

What is our "current sense of self" and why is it assumed to be so monolithic? I'm pretty sure an atheist has a different "sense of self" from a theist.


Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

That's not a problem, that civilisation's strongest asset. Without it we would still be lion food.


Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

This is why I'm for classless, moneyless society. But the attainment of such a society is only made possible by the existance of an advanced technological civilisation - without it, wellbeing is determined by the vagaries of nature, which for the most part is inimical to human existance.

Basically, primitivists are missing the point. It's not technology which is the problem - technology is a neutral force that can be used for good or bad purposes. The problem is class society, and the shortsightedness that comes with it - the ruling classes are mainly interested in maintaining their power rather than making rational decisions as society should.

The thing is, the primitivist project will be all for nothing. If civilisation collapses and the precious few manage to get by living in a technological dark age, they won't be able to leave this planet, or at least not for a very long time. Why is this important? Because sooner or later, something's going to happen to this planet that will be nothing but bad news for the human species. Asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruptions, ice ages, the sort of things that have caused massive global extinctions in the past. We need to get a firm foothold on some other world before that happens, and that's only possible with technology.

In order to survive we need technology and a civilisation capable of sustaining high enough levels of technology long enough for us to spread out into the universe. Once we do that, the only thing we have to fear as a species is the death of the universe itself, and that's a long time coming, and doubtless we'll find a way to survive that.

That's a bright future, and one I'm willing to fight for.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 12:19 AM
dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

Very well...


Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

No basis for this assertion. Civilisation has been sustained for a good 3000 years at least, and high tech civilisation has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing conditions, otherwise it would be around anymore.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The fact that "traditional communities" have been destroyed and opressed in the process of serving the many is due to racism not civilisation.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Again, this assertion is not substantiated. you don't need to beat people over the head in order to construct a computer or other artefact of technological society. The problem of oppression is social and cultural not technological. Technology on it's own does not oppress, you need human agents in order to do that.


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Not true. Hierarchy is clearly defined in class societies, and violence by it's very nature is visible and noticable. It's only apathy and wilful ignorance that causes violence to be ignored.
This premise also suggests that violence in all forms is udesirable. This is obviously wrong - violence in self-defence, whether that is in defence of the individual or of the community, is both necessary and desirable since individuals and communities who do not use violence in self defence against violent attackers tend to go extinct pretty quickly.
Violence against the higher classes is considered good or bad depending upon the class of the individual doing the judging - to the higher classes, violence against them is undesirable because it threatens their station, and to the lower classes violence against the higher classes is desirable and applauded because it is a mechanism of self-defence.

Replace the word "civilisation" with "class society" in the above premise and you'll be hitting closer to the mark.


Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Nonsense. Production may involve oppression but is not necessary, since somebody who produces something they end up using and/or owning aren't oppressing themselves.
The fact that the capitalist class calls retribution against the lower classes for defending themselves "justice" does not make it so.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Civilisation has undergone social changes before, and will doubtless do so again, and these changes have always been for the better - a person living in capitalist society generally lives a better life than someone living under fuedalist society.
Isn't it strange the most miserable people on this planet are the ones not enjoying the benefits of technological society?


Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

This assumes that civilisation will even crash in the first place, rather than continuing to develop and improve the lives of more people ever day.
When people in Africa are starving due to the actions of warlords and colonialism, which is a better idea; improving their infrastructure and political system, or saying them "sorry, civilisation has fucked you all up, suggest you run into the wild and live off the land" and dooming them to certain death at the hands of uncaring nature?


Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Wrong. The needs of the human species outweigh the needs of either.


Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Or we could improve quality of life of people in general, lowering the birth rate and hence allowing populations to be decreased to managable levels without violence.


Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Nihilistic rubbish. Most people simply want a full and happy life.


Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Yes, we occupy this planet. So fucking what? Hopefully we'll find some more planets to live on as well.


Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Yeah yeah, capitalism is bad, tell me something I don't know already.


Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

So let's depose our masters and establish an egalitarian society. Doesn't mean we have to abandon technology or civilisation.


Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Complete nonsense.


Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

A tautology. Yawn.


Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Basic materialism. I don't see how primitivism follows from this, though.


Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Americans aren't the only people on this planet, you know :rolleyes:


Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

What is our "current sense of self" and why is it assumed to be so monolithic? I'm pretty sure an atheist has a different "sense of self" from a theist.


Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

That's not a problem, that civilisation's strongest asset. Without it we would still be lion food.


Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

This is why I'm for classless, moneyless society. But the attainment of such a society is only made possible by the existance of an advanced technological civilisation - without it, wellbeing is determined by the vagaries of nature, which for the most part is inimical to human existance.

Basically, primitivists are missing the point. It's not technology which is the problem - technology is a neutral force that can be used for good or bad purposes. The problem is class society, and the shortsightedness that comes with it - the ruling classes are mainly interested in maintaining their power rather than making rational decisions as society should.

The thing is, the primitivist project will be all for nothing. If civilisation collapses and the precious few manage to get by living in a technological dark age, they won't be able to leave this planet, or at least not for a very long time. Why is this important? Because sooner or later, something's going to happen to this planet that will be nothing but bad news for the human species. Asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruptions, ice ages, the sort of things that have caused massive global extinctions in the past. We need to get a firm foothold on some other world before that happens, and that's only possible with technology.

In order to survive we need technology and a civilisation capable of sustaining high enough levels of technology long enough for us to spread out into the universe. Once we do that, the only thing we have to fear as a species is the death of the universe itself, and that's a long time coming, and doubtless we'll find a way to survive that.

That's a bright future, and one I'm willing to fight for.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 12:19 AM
dearest freaky transhumanist,

I don't so much care if you reject them. I do care why. I beleive the assertions. Do you think they are invalid or incorrect? Please, if you can, deconstruct...

kisses,
-max

Very well...


Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

No basis for this assertion. Civilisation has been sustained for a good 3000 years at least, and high tech civilisation has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing conditions, otherwise it would be around anymore.


Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The fact that "traditional communities" have been destroyed and opressed in the process of serving the many is due to racism not civilisation.


Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Again, this assertion is not substantiated. you don't need to beat people over the head in order to construct a computer or other artefact of technological society. The problem of oppression is social and cultural not technological. Technology on it's own does not oppress, you need human agents in order to do that.


Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Not true. Hierarchy is clearly defined in class societies, and violence by it's very nature is visible and noticable. It's only apathy and wilful ignorance that causes violence to be ignored.
This premise also suggests that violence in all forms is udesirable. This is obviously wrong - violence in self-defence, whether that is in defence of the individual or of the community, is both necessary and desirable since individuals and communities who do not use violence in self defence against violent attackers tend to go extinct pretty quickly.
Violence against the higher classes is considered good or bad depending upon the class of the individual doing the judging - to the higher classes, violence against them is undesirable because it threatens their station, and to the lower classes violence against the higher classes is desirable and applauded because it is a mechanism of self-defence.

Replace the word "civilisation" with "class society" in the above premise and you'll be hitting closer to the mark.


Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Nonsense. Production may involve oppression but is not necessary, since somebody who produces something they end up using and/or owning aren't oppressing themselves.
The fact that the capitalist class calls retribution against the lower classes for defending themselves "justice" does not make it so.


Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Civilisation has undergone social changes before, and will doubtless do so again, and these changes have always been for the better - a person living in capitalist society generally lives a better life than someone living under fuedalist society.
Isn't it strange the most miserable people on this planet are the ones not enjoying the benefits of technological society?


Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

This assumes that civilisation will even crash in the first place, rather than continuing to develop and improve the lives of more people ever day.
When people in Africa are starving due to the actions of warlords and colonialism, which is a better idea; improving their infrastructure and political system, or saying them "sorry, civilisation has fucked you all up, suggest you run into the wild and live off the land" and dooming them to certain death at the hands of uncaring nature?


Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Wrong. The needs of the human species outweigh the needs of either.


Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Or we could improve quality of life of people in general, lowering the birth rate and hence allowing populations to be decreased to managable levels without violence.


Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Nihilistic rubbish. Most people simply want a full and happy life.


Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Yes, we occupy this planet. So fucking what? Hopefully we'll find some more planets to live on as well.


Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Yeah yeah, capitalism is bad, tell me something I don't know already.


Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

So let's depose our masters and establish an egalitarian society. Doesn't mean we have to abandon technology or civilisation.


Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Complete nonsense.


Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

A tautology. Yawn.


Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Basic materialism. I don't see how primitivism follows from this, though.


Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Americans aren't the only people on this planet, you know :rolleyes:


Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

What is our "current sense of self" and why is it assumed to be so monolithic? I'm pretty sure an atheist has a different "sense of self" from a theist.


Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

That's not a problem, that civilisation's strongest asset. Without it we would still be lion food.


Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

This is why I'm for classless, moneyless society. But the attainment of such a society is only made possible by the existance of an advanced technological civilisation - without it, wellbeing is determined by the vagaries of nature, which for the most part is inimical to human existance.

Basically, primitivists are missing the point. It's not technology which is the problem - technology is a neutral force that can be used for good or bad purposes. The problem is class society, and the shortsightedness that comes with it - the ruling classes are mainly interested in maintaining their power rather than making rational decisions as society should.

The thing is, the primitivist project will be all for nothing. If civilisation collapses and the precious few manage to get by living in a technological dark age, they won't be able to leave this planet, or at least not for a very long time. Why is this important? Because sooner or later, something's going to happen to this planet that will be nothing but bad news for the human species. Asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruptions, ice ages, the sort of things that have caused massive global extinctions in the past. We need to get a firm foothold on some other world before that happens, and that's only possible with technology.

In order to survive we need technology and a civilisation capable of sustaining high enough levels of technology long enough for us to spread out into the universe. Once we do that, the only thing we have to fear as a species is the death of the universe itself, and that's a long time coming, and doubtless we'll find a way to survive that.

That's a bright future, and one I'm willing to fight for.

[Guest1]

Primitivism is the desperate ideology of those incapable of seeing a world without a collapsing capitalist class. We've had apocalyptic traditions pick up around every revolution, and every time they've been completely marginalized and proven wrong when the oppressors were thrown off and a new class led civilization forward.

Primitivists merely unconsciously reflect the bourgeois outlook that they are the center of the universe and because they are losing on a world scale, the whole world must be going to shit. Those primitivists that put action behind their words will act against the revolutionary wave we are seeing the beginnings of, and will inadvertantly put themselves in the same camp as the bourgeoisie. They will become agents of that class, and be destroyed with it. Some will even abandon primitivism and join the Fascist gangs that will inevitably spring up. Most will just shut up and disappear though.

Primtivism is naked reaction, and any primitivist who puts action behind their words will face an armed workers' movement unwilling to be forced to lose their health and well being. Bang.

[Guest1]

Primitivism is the desperate ideology of those incapable of seeing a world without a collapsing capitalist class. We've had apocalyptic traditions pick up around every revolution, and every time they've been completely marginalized and proven wrong when the oppressors were thrown off and a new class led civilization forward.

Primitivists merely unconsciously reflect the bourgeois outlook that they are the center of the universe and because they are losing on a world scale, the whole world must be going to shit. Those primitivists that put action behind their words will act against the revolutionary wave we are seeing the beginnings of, and will inadvertantly put themselves in the same camp as the bourgeoisie. They will become agents of that class, and be destroyed with it. Some will even abandon primitivism and join the Fascist gangs that will inevitably spring up. Most will just shut up and disappear though.

Primtivism is naked reaction, and any primitivist who puts action behind their words will face an armed workers' movement unwilling to be forced to lose their health and well being. Bang.

[Guest1]

Primitivism is the desperate ideology of those incapable of seeing a world without a collapsing capitalist class. We've had apocalyptic traditions pick up around every revolution, and every time they've been completely marginalized and proven wrong when the oppressors were thrown off and a new class led civilization forward.

Primitivists merely unconsciously reflect the bourgeois outlook that they are the center of the universe and because they are losing on a world scale, the whole world must be going to shit. Those primitivists that put action behind their words will act against the revolutionary wave we are seeing the beginnings of, and will inadvertantly put themselves in the same camp as the bourgeoisie. They will become agents of that class, and be destroyed with it. Some will even abandon primitivism and join the Fascist gangs that will inevitably spring up. Most will just shut up and disappear though.

Primtivism is naked reaction, and any primitivist who puts action behind their words will face an armed workers' movement unwilling to be forced to lose their health and well being. Bang.

[saint max]

dearest partisans of progress,

There is a few misconceptions I would like to point out, again. I am NOT a primitivist. However considering the enormous amount of data out there--not to mention a bit of conventional wisdom and common sense--that suggests that there is a broadening ecological crisis coupled with the broadening crisis of late capital in regards to hierarchies and contradictions. If you can't recognize this, I feel sorry for you and your inept and obsolete politics.

That being said becuase of the emormity of the issue at hand, and it's probable consenquences, it would probably serve every radical project that seeks liberation from capitalism to explore both the liberatory and opportunistic possibilities as well as the material reality of what the next 10-30 years will mean.

The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects. One might bring up the long history of betrayal of marxist modernizations towards indigenous peoples (see: For American to Live, Europe must die, W. Churchills Marxism and American Indians or "Just Leave us Alone" by the OMP). Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.

I would also like to suggest that if you're going to participate in this thread, it would be best to read the entire thread before pissing your name and ridiculous comments (that maybe have already been pissed on the wall.)

And Che, it's funny becuase I was supposedly also restricted because I used "threatening words" about how I would, like you, kill for my project of liberation. In fact I think I was honest about my own intent, not my "armed workers movement." By the way, do you mean the military? the Pigs or some wingnut rednecks I met at the gunshow last week?

Perhaps it's just me, but in the states, I don't see many urban armed proles? (i'm excluding my friends the lumpen, of course.) Violent postuing makes cute t-shirts and patches, but when was the last time you went shooting hun? And when was the last time you and the autonomous barrista's council came along?

I will reply more indepth to rest of the thread soon.

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

dearest partisans of progress,

There is a few misconceptions I would like to point out, again. I am NOT a primitivist. However considering the enormous amount of data out there--not to mention a bit of conventional wisdom and common sense--that suggests that there is a broadening ecological crisis coupled with the broadening crisis of late capital in regards to hierarchies and contradictions. If you can't recognize this, I feel sorry for you and your inept and obsolete politics.

That being said becuase of the emormity of the issue at hand, and it's probable consenquences, it would probably serve every radical project that seeks liberation from capitalism to explore both the liberatory and opportunistic possibilities as well as the material reality of what the next 10-30 years will mean.

The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects. One might bring up the long history of betrayal of marxist modernizations towards indigenous peoples (see: For American to Live, Europe must die, W. Churchills Marxism and American Indians or "Just Leave us Alone" by the OMP). Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.

I would also like to suggest that if you're going to participate in this thread, it would be best to read the entire thread before pissing your name and ridiculous comments (that maybe have already been pissed on the wall.)

And Che, it's funny becuase I was supposedly also restricted because I used "threatening words" about how I would, like you, kill for my project of liberation. In fact I think I was honest about my own intent, not my "armed workers movement." By the way, do you mean the military? the Pigs or some wingnut rednecks I met at the gunshow last week?

Perhaps it's just me, but in the states, I don't see many urban armed proles? (i'm excluding my friends the lumpen, of course.) Violent postuing makes cute t-shirts and patches, but when was the last time you went shooting hun? And when was the last time you and the autonomous barrista's council came along?

I will reply more indepth to rest of the thread soon.

kisses,
-max

[saint max]

dearest partisans of progress,

There is a few misconceptions I would like to point out, again. I am NOT a primitivist. However considering the enormous amount of data out there--not to mention a bit of conventional wisdom and common sense--that suggests that there is a broadening ecological crisis coupled with the broadening crisis of late capital in regards to hierarchies and contradictions. If you can't recognize this, I feel sorry for you and your inept and obsolete politics.

That being said becuase of the emormity of the issue at hand, and it's probable consenquences, it would probably serve every radical project that seeks liberation from capitalism to explore both the liberatory and opportunistic possibilities as well as the material reality of what the next 10-30 years will mean.

The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects. One might bring up the long history of betrayal of marxist modernizations towards indigenous peoples (see: For American to Live, Europe must die, W. Churchills Marxism and American Indians or "Just Leave us Alone" by the OMP). Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.

I would also like to suggest that if you're going to participate in this thread, it would be best to read the entire thread before pissing your name and ridiculous comments (that maybe have already been pissed on the wall.)

And Che, it's funny becuase I was supposedly also restricted because I used "threatening words" about how I would, like you, kill for my project of liberation. In fact I think I was honest about my own intent, not my "armed workers movement." By the way, do you mean the military? the Pigs or some wingnut rednecks I met at the gunshow last week?

Perhaps it's just me, but in the states, I don't see many urban armed proles? (i'm excluding my friends the lumpen, of course.) Violent postuing makes cute t-shirts and patches, but when was the last time you went shooting hun? And when was the last time you and the autonomous barrista's council came along?

I will reply more indepth to rest of the thread soon.

kisses,
-max

[chimx]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 04:29 AM
. . . An[d] yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.
amen brother!

so many folk want to ignore the issue of ecological sustainability and get on with their touchy-feely premise that once classless society is reached, the necessity for ecological domination an non-sustainability will wither away. this rubs me the wrong way. maybe cause its i'm a montana boy that lives 5 minutes from the forest and can see first hand the deforestation that takes place, or that i live 45 minutes from the berkley pit, one of the largest ecological disasters world-wide. the transhumanist mentality of ecolocial domination is the same capitalist mentality that is driving us towards ecological crisis and serious dialogue needs to take place on it. but i doubt if that will happen when it is all too convenient to label such an ideology as "opposing" and sweep it under the carpet.

[chimx]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 04:29 AM
. . . An[d] yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.
amen brother!

so many folk want to ignore the issue of ecological sustainability and get on with their touchy-feely premise that once classless society is reached, the necessity for ecological domination an non-sustainability will wither away. this rubs me the wrong way. maybe cause its i'm a montana boy that lives 5 minutes from the forest and can see first hand the deforestation that takes place, or that i live 45 minutes from the berkley pit, one of the largest ecological disasters world-wide. the transhumanist mentality of ecolocial domination is the same capitalist mentality that is driving us towards ecological crisis and serious dialogue needs to take place on it. but i doubt if that will happen when it is all too convenient to label such an ideology as "opposing" and sweep it under the carpet.

[chimx]

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 22 2006, 04:29 AM
. . . An[d] yet another is to look at the reality of our situation and do what ever it takes to both stop civilization's interventions and accumulations, and lessen the fall by creating less unsustainable forms ecologically participating and genuine communities of and in revolt.

A lot of things are going to get really bad. A lot of people are going to die. If this is inevitable, then why are anti-civs chastized for preparing and attempting to frame an authentic discourse to act in reality rather than the insane and assinine politics of the modern and postmodern Left? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in class vengeance too and a reasonable way to exist in revolt in such precarrious neoliberal times, but I'm interested in anarchy and actually destroying all systems of domination more than I am of just having fun or gettin mad theory points.
amen brother!

so many folk want to ignore the issue of ecological sustainability and get on with their touchy-feely premise that once classless society is reached, the necessity for ecological domination an non-sustainability will wither away. this rubs me the wrong way. maybe cause its i'm a montana boy that lives 5 minutes from the forest and can see first hand the deforestation that takes place, or that i live 45 minutes from the berkley pit, one of the largest ecological disasters world-wide. the transhumanist mentality of ecolocial domination is the same capitalist mentality that is driving us towards ecological crisis and serious dialogue needs to take place on it. but i doubt if that will happen when it is all too convenient to label such an ideology as "opposing" and sweep it under the carpet.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by saint max+--> (saint max) There is a few misconceptions I would like to point out, again. I am NOT a primitivist. However considering the enormous amount of data out there--not to mention a bit of conventional wisdom and common sense--that suggests that there is a broadening ecological crisis coupled with the broadening crisis of late capital in regards to hierarchies and contradictions. If you can't recognize this, I feel sorry for you and your inept and obsolete politics.[/b]I know you're not a primmie, just teasing. Just like chimx isn't (though it says in the Admin Action thread that chimx was restricted for being one).

Yes the earth is fucked up. But that is a result of the misuse of technology, not the technology itself. Yes there is a relation to the earth being fucked up and hierarchy, those at the top are doing the fucking, and they do not care about the rest of us.

(And my politics aren't obsolete, smash the state and abolish capitalism only becomes obsolete when they have happened.)


Originally posted by saint max+--> (saint max) The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects. [/b]
You see, the primitivist problem is that it is not a critique of civilisation, but a critique of industrial technological hierarchical civilisation. You can have an civilisation that takes into account the Earth, and is still a technological civilisation.


saint [email protected]
Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.1) yes, 2) yes, 3) yes. I agree.


chimx
so many folk want to ignore the issue of ecological sustainability and get on with their touchy-feely premise that once classless society is reached, the necessity for ecological domination an non-sustainability will wither away. this rubs me the wrong way. maybe cause its i'm a montana boy that lives 5 minutes from the forest and can see first hand the deforestation that takes place, or that i live 45 minutes from the berkley pit, one of the largest ecological disasters world-wide. the transhumanist mentality of ecolocial domination is the same capitalist mentality that is driving us towards ecological crisis and serious dialogue needs to take place on it. but i doubt if that will happen when it is all too convenient to label such an ideology as "opposing" and sweep it under the carpet.
I will agree with a lot of what you have here. We should not try and dominate nature. That 19th century bullshit is, just that, bullshit. The Earth exists because, but as humans, as the "most intelligent" animals around, we should not say, well fuck everything else.

Ecology is important, and a revolution might not fix things with regards to humans attitudes towards nature, but once we stop humans from dominating humans, maybe we can see that dominating other animals is just as bad. Dominating eco-systems is just as bad.

After all, we have to live on this planet.


I'll say it again, the problem with primitivism is that while it has good critiques, it has focused on the wrong cause of the problems. And then it is putting forward a solution that will not work. Yes the problems exist, but not because of civilisation, just this civilisation, we can build a better one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Saint Max

There is a few misconceptions I would like to point out, again. I am NOT a primitivist. However considering the enormous amount of data out there--not to mention a bit of conventional wisdom and common sense--that suggests that there is a broadening ecological crisis coupled with the broadening crisis of late capital in regards to hierarchies and contradictions. If you can't recognize this, I feel sorry for you and your inept and obsolete politics.

Show me where in this thread I called you a primitivist.


The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects.

That's funny, I thought I was critiqueing primitivist ideology, not the concept of ecology.


Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.

And primitivism won't solve any of those problems. The correct application pof technology on the other hand will.

Chimx

the transhumanist mentality of ecolocial domination is the same capitalist mentality that is driving us towards ecological crisis and serious dialogue needs to take place on it.

You obviously have no fucking clue what transhumanism is about. Transhumanist control over the environment is a recognition of the fact that nature left to run it's course is ultimately inimical to human existance, and thus must be brought under control in order to maximise safety and comfort for the human species.
Capitalist control over the environment is based on short term gains without regard for the long term consequences.

[chimx]

dominate or be dominated? the resulting mentality is the same as your capitalist comrades, domination.

[saint max]

max:The kneejerk reation to "primitivism" and with it a critique of civilization as whole from some and industrial-civilization by many is telling of an antagonism towards ecology and non-civilized human centered projects.


Noxion: That's funny, I thought I was critiqueing primitivist ideology, not the concept of ecology.

And I thought I was defending an anti-civilization discourse and tradition within communism (i.e. Perlman, Camatte, Guilles), not the primitivist ideology. But that;s called framing the discourse, I guess.

Nonetheless, my point is exactly that. You are not critiquing primitivism. You're critiquing any non-anthropocentric perspective or non-cyborg ( Haraway's definition) assumption of the material world and within your (and most leftist's) veneer, contains something even more telling about your alliegance to, chimx pointed out, "domination [culture.]" And why the ultra-left ( see: riff-raff, Theorie Communiste,) etc veiws non ultra-left commies as the Left-wing of the state an capital.

now let's get into it.



max: Even if you reject the perspectives of "primitive communist" gather-hunters, You must recognize that 1) there is a broadening energy crisis 2) There is a broadening clean-water crisis (see: The World Banks "the next world war will be over clean water" statement) 3) Climate change is occuring (The glaicers are melting, "Earth hottest in 400 years"-AP, Tropical storms/hurricanes on rise...etc) It does'nt take a rocket scientist...But one was fired from NASA for publicly stating facts about climate change.


Noxion: And primitivism won't solve any of those problems. The correct application pof[sic] technology on the other hand will.

I agree, primitivism won't solve the ecological crisis, but it might be a tool some use to survive. I'm not interested in that though. I'm interested in the negative (read: negate-ive) project, that may reach a future primitive, an egoist-communism, or anarchy. Nonetheless, technology can not solve what it has created. An obvious point to make is the spread of mutated bacterias at the causal relation of the implementation of anti-biotics. Also a while up the thread you said "computers" don't beat people over the head. This is incorrect, speaking indirectly of the violence at a direct result of even my labtop--the manufacturing of the silicon comes as a result of the displaced and sweatwage-enslaved communities in the lower echelons of Indian society. Do the math.

How can this technology be correcty applied? Anything that relies on Coal, mass-usurption of clean water (i.e. irrigation for mass-agriculture), steal, Oil, and any house-hold technology after WW2 ...etc is ultimately a death ticket signed for "the idigenous peoples (of where ever...)" and a the continuation of mass-suicide of our species. Not to mentional all the non-human life that is viewed as "in the way."

Have you viewed the struggles in Venezuela recently? Or the phillipines? They all look alarmingly similar to the stuggle all life has to fight against modernization and idustrialization. Hell there's a bit of a reflection in Southern Appalachia (US) even.

No, technology solve it's self. It may however give us the tools and disturbing alienation to make possible it's execution. (that pun was intended...)

back to the other comments....


apathy: I'll say it again, the problem with primitivism is that while it has good critiques, it has focused on the wrong cause of the problems. And then it is putting forward a solution that will not work. Yes the problems exist, but not because of civilisation, just this civilisation, we can build a better one.

If we can agree on the demolition of this civilization, that's a start. Although I would posit a thorough reading of history from an ecological and materialist lens, might change one's mind. It changed the Maya's mind. (see: Guns Germs and Steal or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization )



QUOTE
Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.


Noxion: No basis for this assertion. Civilisation has been sustained for a good 3000 years at least, and high tech civilisation has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing conditions, otherwise it would be around anymore.

Is capitalism inherently unsustainable? Of course, why? Because of historic tendencies towards class antagonism and alienation, correct? Civilization as the overarching force behind capitalism (cap would not be possible without feudalism; would not be possible with out agriculture; is the material basis for suggesting a society is a civilization in Anthropology) is always in class-conflict then, not only that, civilization is constantly in flux because of the contradictions of the gender-binary and race relations. Furthermore, civilization is always made unsustainable because it's logic cannot except a peace-treaty nature as you and others have so eloquently asserted. Oh, and civilization has existed for about 7-10,000 years, whereas human societies have been around for about 3 million years. That means less that %1 of human existence has been "civilized" and even less within capitalism and industrialism. Why then are the problems above, you agree are happening, only occurring now? Could it have something to do with industrial and postindustrial technologies? With civilization? How is that sustainable?


QUOTE
max: Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.


Noxion: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The fact that "traditional communities" have been destroyed and opressed in the process of serving the many is due to racism not civilisation.

Where does the vast majority of non-human and non-civilized live fit into this equation? and Who does racism serve in this context? individuals racists? No your "many." And who is this "many?" What do they "need" and why?

Noxion, there is no way around it. Civilization requires as Jensen put it, "wide-spread violence" aimed at those lower in hierarchy, and would collapse without it. That is to say, without the extraction of resources and usurpation and annihilation of culture.

I'm going to leave it at this for now. Hopefully this can generate some meaningful discussion.

kisses,
-max

[Comrade-Z]

dominate or be dominated? the resulting mentality is the same as your capitalist comrades, domination.

This is missing the issue a bit, in my opinion.

The bottom line for me is, I want to figure out the best ways to achieve my desires and be happy in life. And if the Earth becomes a desolate ball of rock, then that rather impedes my quest for happiness and pleasure. So, obviously, I will want to maintain the Earth in such a way as to guarantee my continued existence and pleasure. That means sustainability, among other things.

But it's not as if I "owe" anything to the Earth. When you talk about "dominating" the Earth, you make it sound as if the Earth is anthropomorphic or sentient, which, as far as we can tell, is not the case. So yeah, I'm going to use the Earth in whatever way I deem most conducive to my happiness. Whether you want to label that "domination" or not, I don't care.

That said, calculating sustainability is tricky business. And more technology and better standards of living do not always necessarily equal less sustainability. To think otherwise is to be thinking dogmatically. You have to look at specific situations. Oftentimes technological innovation increases efficiency, opens up the use of new, more environmentally friendly ways of production, etc.

Personally, I think getting more renewable energy production and mass transit systems online makes a lot of sense at this point. Unless you hold to the abiotic theory of petroleum production (which has its arguments, pro and con...), it's obvious that, at some point, petroleum production will cease. Maybe it will be 2040. Maybe it will be 2240. Depletion modelling on a global scale is extremely difficult guesswork at this point, especially when we can only guess at URR (ultimately recoverable reserves). In the past decade, estimates for URR have been steadily increasing, partly due to advances in technology which allow for more efficient recovery of already-existing wells and for tapping wells that previously would not have been economical and/or energy efficient (as far as having a positive EROEI--energy returned on energy invested). I definitely don't buy the peak oil "Olduvai Gorge" doomer hypothesis which predicts a peak by 2010 and massive die-offs afterwards. But oil depletion is something we need to be aware of.

That said, if we know that we will eventually have to diversify away from fossil fuels, why not start now? Why not jumpstart production of solar, tidal, wave, and wind power? Why not accelerate funding and research into fusion? (That would really be the gold mine as far as relatively safe, relatively environmentally friendly, and abundant energy production). It seems to me like the G8 are really dragging their asses on the ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) project. C'mon, not operational until 2016??? And they can only come up with $12 billion in funding? But the U.S. can build 14 permanent bases in Iraq in no time, no matter the cost.... :angry: One factor might be that, with fusion power and the possibility of almost unlimited energy production, we really could talk about superabundance of production and material goods for the first time without any doubts. And that would throw the capitalist system into all kinds of crisis and make the situation extremely ripe for communism.

An added benefit of renewables like solar, wind, tidal, and wave power is that their energy production can be decentralized, making it so that people don&#39;t have to be dependent on and at the mercy of any one entity for power. In fact, that may be a factor that is retarding renewable energy development as of yet.... <_<

[Comrade-Z]

Nonetheless, technology can not solve what it has created.

You assert that this is the case in all circumstances. I don&#39;t buy it.


This is incorrect, speaking indirectly of the violence at a direct result of even my labtop--the manufacturing of the silicon comes as a result of the displaced and sweatwage-enslaved communities in the lower echelons of Indian society.

But it doesn&#39;t have to be this way. In (technologically advanced) communist society, computers would be manufactured in a safe, clean, worker-friendly environment. Furthermore, the workers would receive whatever compensation for their work that they desired from society. Class society is the problem, not technology.


Anything that relies on Coal, mass-usurption of clean water (i.e. irrigation for mass-agriculture), steal, Oil, and any house-hold technology after WW2 ...etc is ultimately a death ticket signed for "the idigenous peoples (of where ever...)" and a the continuation of mass-suicide of our species.

Mass suicide of our species? Where did you get that from? :wacko:

We can harvest and use coal without shitting on local groups of people. Class society is the problem, not technology. Same thing with water, steel, oil, etc.


Not to mentional all the non-human life that is viewed as "in the way."

So what? If non-human life (or human life, for that matter) is drastically impeding my happiness, then of course I&#39;m going to try to make it so that that factor is no longer "in the way," whether that means dispossession/execution of a ruling class, killing a misquito, etc.


Have you viewed the struggles in Venezuela recently? Or the phillipines? They all look alarmingly similar to the stuggle all life has to fight against modernization and idustrialization. Hell there&#39;s a bit of a reflection in Southern Appalachia (US) even.

I fail to see how these struggles transcend ordinary class struggle and entail opposition to the entire technological paradigm.


It may however give us the tools and disturbing alienation to make possible it&#39;s execution.

This is why primitivism is dangerous and reactionary.


Civilization requires as Jensen put it, "wide-spread violence" aimed at those lower in hierarchy, and would collapse without it. That is to say, without the extraction of resources and usurpation and annihilation of culture.

No, class society is the problem. I don&#39;t see why you can&#39;t grasp that.

And who cares if certain cultures are annihilated if those cultures are bad?&#33; Would you cry tears over the destruction of Nazi culture? How about 11th century feudal culture in Europe? How about 21st century feudal culture in the Middle East, where women are still viewed as second-class citizens? What about the cultures of the ancient slave societies?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

An obvious point to make is the spread of mutated bacterias at the causal relation of the implementation of anti-biotics.

That&#39;s why we develop new antibiotics, rather than let bacterium spread as they did before the invention of anti-biotics.


Also a while up the thread you said "computers" don&#39;t beat people over the head. This is incorrect, speaking indirectly of the violence at a direct result of even my labtop--the manufacturing of the silicon comes as a result of the displaced and sweatwage-enslaved communities in the lower echelons of Indian society. Do the math.

That&#39;s a consequence of the economic system currently in place, you moron. Change the economic system to something more egalitarian and that&#39;s no longer the case. Oppression is not inherent within technology, it&#39;s inherent within non-egalitarian means of production.


How can this technology be correcty applied? Anything that relies on Coal, mass-usurption of clean water (i.e. irrigation for mass-agriculture), steal, Oil, and any house-hold technology after WW2 ...etc is ultimately a death ticket signed for "the idigenous peoples (of where ever...)" and a the continuation of mass-suicide of our species.

Develop energy sources which don&#39;t rely on coal or other non-renewables, such as fusion and the classic alternatives, and using some of that energy to distill and otherwise clean dirty water and seawater, and as a side-effect emissions which cause climate change will be significantly reduced.

That is what will solve the problem, not primitivist defeatism.


Not to mentional all the non-human life that is viewed as "in the way."

Oh no&#33; Those poor insects&#33; I&#39;m so heartbroken&#33; :rolleyes:


Have you viewed the struggles in Venezuela recently? Or the phillipines? They all look alarmingly similar to the stuggle all life has to fight against modernization and idustrialization. Hell there&#39;s a bit of a reflection in Southern Appalachia (US) even.

Only in your own imagination. Why don&#39;t you ask the people of Venezuela and the Phillipines to get the real answer?


No, technology solve it&#39;s self. It may however give us the tools and disturbing alienation to make possible it&#39;s execution. (that pun was intended...)

Nonsense, as I have demonstrated above. When somebody murders someone else, do we punish the person, or the gun/knife that they used to commit the crime? Obviously, we send the person to prison, since the murder weapon has no intentions of it&#39;s own.


Why then are the problems above, you agree are happening, only occurring now? Could it have something to do with industrial and postindustrial technologies? With civilization? How is that sustainable?

It&#39;s a consequence of the myopic nature of capitalism.


Where does the vast majority of non-human and non-civilized live fit into this equation?

It doesn&#39;t.


and Who does racism serve in this context? individuals racists? No your "many."

Racism is assuming that the small group of indigenous peoples living on land containing a resource you need can&#39;t be negotiated with in any fashion, and then forcibly removing them and treating them like shit along the way.

Of course, one could negotiate with them and possibly get nowhere. In which case, the smaller group is being needlessly selfish must by removed strongly but not unkindly, and thereafter cared for.


And who is this "many?" What do they "need" and why?

The many are the billions living in technological society compared to those who aren&#39;t. They need any resources that non-technological societies happen to be sharing land with. They need it in order to continue living the way they do.


Noxion, there is no way around it. Civilization requires as Jensen put it, "wide-spread violence" aimed at those lower in hierarchy, and would collapse without it. That is to say, without the extraction of resources and usurpation and annihilation of culture.

Your name-dropping fails to impress me. You seem not to realise that a lot of the problems associated with "civilisation" as you call it, would be a non-issue in a truly egalitarian society. It doesn&#39;t have to be this way and that is why I&#39;m struggling for it.

[FinnMacCool]

Why do we need green minded anarchisim anyways? Shouldn&#39;t destroying capitalism be sufficent? Capitalism and government are the worse enemies of the enviornment anyways. If we destroy that, then we are good.

[Comrade-Z]

Why do we need green minded anarchisim anyways? Shouldn&#39;t destroying capitalism be sufficent? Capitalism and government are the worse enemies of the enviornment anyways. If we destroy that, then we are good.

I would think so.

Like with other reforms, I don&#39;t think any significant renewable energy reforms are possible while capitalism still exists, for instance. Proletarian revolution really is needed before we can start setting up substantial renewable power, more mass transit, efficient urban development (including revamping the wacky energy-gobbling beast known as "suburban sprawl"), etc. That&#39;s yet one more incentive for proletarian revolution.

By the same token, though, green anarchy and social ecology (as long as it doesn&#39;t plunge into primitivism) are useful right now because it is good to at least have an awareness of what can be done better after the revolution.

[saint max]

MAX:Have you viewed the struggles in Venezuela recently? Or the phillipines? They all look alarmingly similar to the stuggle all life has to fight against modernization and idustrialization. Hell there&#39;s a bit of a reflection in Southern Appalachia (US) even.


NOXION: Only in your own imagination. Why don&#39;t you ask the people of Venezuela and the Phillipines to get the real answer?

Although I don&#39;t normally talk with "the people." (i&#39;m not sure where they are particularly located)Actually, at the last EF&#33; organizing conference there was quite a bit of folk from Ven and Columbia, and we did have this exact conversation--linking the struggles against industrialism, and working out the plans for how to frame the discourse and struggles for latin american solidarity offensives and Climate Change. Perhaps, it is you who should talk with folk from the global south.

[black magick hustla]

man, i always like primitivists in the sense that they do give very good criticism of postmodernity. many people think that primitivists are all about MOTHER GAIA and protecting little cute animals from the tiranny of INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY. while the latter is kinda true with much of the green radicals, there is a much more convincing argument behind the criticism of civilization and postmodernity.

however, what i do find pretty fucking insane is the attitude of many of the "insurrectory anarchists" who just want to fuck industrial civilization, without taking into account that such destruction would mean the death of millions, or if not billions of human beings.


i do sympathize with primitivists for the reason that many of them adapt situationist criticism to their theories, and i think situationist theory is really good and important. however, rather than concluding that capitalism is what really is wrong--as did the situationists--they take it further and conclude that civilization is what really is wrong.


HOWEVER

the rather pessimistic attitude of many primitivists [atleast the ones that are not ridiculous enough to think about destroying industrial modes of production] is kinda counterrevolutionary. i do think that the destruction of capitalism would be a BIG HELP to ecology, considering that the absurd consumption that brings capitalism would be probably limited by communism; workers would not want to waste alienating hours in producing smaller mp3 players, coke, and other useless gadgetery/commodities. because the communist wouldnt worry about SELLING STUFF, he would probably develop newer ways of using less resources to achieve desired results.


also, shit like nanotechnology is looking really promising.

many people in revleft do have a big misunderstanding of what drives really many primitivists.

[fitzcarraldo]

Why is everyone here against primitivism? In Havanna between 80 and 300 buildings crumble to rubble per year and do not get rebuilt. I though people here would support Castro?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:44 AM
Why is everyone here against primitivism? In Havanna between 80 and 300 buildings crumble to rubble per year and do not get rebuilt. I though people here would support Castro?
Maybe if you studied communism you&#39;d notice that Cuba and Castro are NOT communist.
Communism (as defined by Marx, the first person to even use the word frequently) - a STATELESS, CLASSLESS society.


Cuba has a STATE. That means it&#39;s not communist.

Communists support progression. We support automation of the means of production to reduce labor needed to produce human needs and luxuries. Primitivism supports abandonment of most technology, which is regression, not progression, to most of us. IMO, communists move forward, not backward.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:44 PM
Why is everyone here against primitivism? In Havanna between 80 and 300 buildings crumble to rubble per year and do not get rebuilt. I though people here would support Castro?
As critical as I am of primitivism, I think it involves more than a bunch of derelict buildings.

Also, I would like a source for that number that you likely just made up on the spot like the troll you are.

Some of us support Castro. Some of us don&#39;t. The revolutionary left movement is far from monolithic, had you been paying the slightest bit of attention.

[saint max]

the rather pessimistic attitude of many primitivists [atleast the ones that are not ridiculous enough to think about destroying industrial modes of production] is kinda counterrevolutionary. i do think that the destruction of capitalism would be a BIG HELP to ecology, considering that the absurd consumption that brings capitalism would be probably limited by communism; workers would not want to waste alienating hours in producing smaller mp3 players, coke, and other useless gadgetery/commodities. because the communist wouldnt worry about SELLING STUFF, he would probably develop newer ways of using less resources to achieve desired results.

I agree, that quite a bit of primitivists in the states have a rather pessemistic perspective that may paralize their efforts. I am not interested in that discourse. I am interested in helping others get beyond their outdated leftism, and into a politics consistent with the real material/ecological world. That&#39;s why I want to hav these conversations. Unfortunately your point about Lefties on revleft is also pretty apt and most seem to have some absurd presuppositions about any anti-civ or ecological discourse.

However your points about capitalism and communisation go to deaf ears when you follow them up with something like this:


also, shit like nanotechnology is looking really promising.

How can you suggest that with the advent of communism, the logic of progress--the driving motivations for technological society (within and without capitalist modes)--will wither? Obviously it won&#39;t if, "[nanotech] is looking really promising" to you. I must ask, in refernce to your affection towards the situationists and friends, are you concerned with the moments of life self-liberated or the mass of society sheeply changing their work schedules for a new greater good? What I mean is, Nanotech is not possible without a very beauracratic division of labor and mass-extraction of resources, that harms our species ability to live in commune with other life, and continues "workers to waste alienating hours producing"...etc Do you know a computer must be made?--How any technology containing silicone chips?

kisses,
-Max

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see you aren&#39;t actually addressing any of our points and simply insist on repeating the primitivist mantra that "technology requires alienation and oppression".

In other words, you refuse to back up your assertions, and instead rely on repeating things in order to convince people of it&#39;s validity. Sorry, truth does not work that way. Either debate properly or not at all.

[saint max]

I see you aren&#39;t actually addressing any of our points and simply insist on repeating the primitivist mantra that "technology requires alienation and oppression".

In other words, you refuse to back up your assertions, and instead rely on repeating things in order to convince people of it&#39;s validity. Sorry, truth does not work that way. Either debate properly or not at all.

first of all "the Premises" are very clearly not mine. I&#39;m only going to respond, like I have, very clearly pointing out misconceptions and falacies if I&#39;m not given anything else to continue with.

By the way, nice play with that whole "you&#39;re not argueing correctly" jab. Your hands are not only covered in corpses but excrement as well huh? It was funny, I was just about to write something like "is that it, yall?" and make my daily perverbial taint punches...but like I said before that&#39;s called framing this discourse. You make Fox news blush, hun.

Most of the responses to Jensen&#39;s premises have been almost irrelevant a discussion of his premises. "you&#39;re a primitivist," "typical primitivst dribble," and "incoherent nonsense" ...etc don&#39;t really address his concerns, nor does "i agree or I don&#39;t agree." I have&#39;nt even heard one Marxian quote for fucks sake. Theoretical discourse usually invloves some theory, some quotes and a tad bit of proof or even personal opinion&#39;s on how shit works, or how the shit can come down. The best Ive gotten ( and can hope for, it seems) is &#39;toppling capitalism will decrese the ecological crisis.&#39;This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about this board, everyones inept ability at theoretical discourse.

ps Noxion, perhaps you should read my last post directed at you and rebuttling your assumptions.

kisses,
-Max