primitivism

[Delirium]

As this word gets thrown around a whole lot lately here, we should discuss what it is.


Primitivism is the pursuit of ways of life running counter to the development of technology, its alienating antecedents, and the ensemble of changes wrought by both.

Technology is here defined as tool use based upon division of labor...that is, tool manufacture and utilization that has become sufficiently complex to require specialization, implying both a separation and eventual stratification among individuals in the community, along with the rise of toil in the form of specialized, repetitive tasks.

full article (http://www.primitivism.com/what-is-primitivism.htm)

[chimx]

Your quotation does a good job of emphasizing the Marxist foundation of primitivist ideology, much more so than anarchist ideology (though ironically most primitivists identify with the anarchist current). Labor division and alienation are viewed as intrinsic to technological society. Obviously the primitivist mantra develops: "destroy civilization". It is a rash and ill-conceived jump of a solution. However much we may dislike the goals of primitivism, I personally think their criticisms are certainly important. Too often people have the tendency of ignoring the problems or alienation suggested by primitivism for the simpe fact that it was raised by primitivists, as if that in itself warrants its dismissal. Labor division, specialization, labor alienation, etc. are phenomenon that any technologically founded communist society is going to have to deal with, and not ignore as reactionary primitivist dreams.

I would also like to note that many primitivists adhere to primitivist ideoloy to emphasize the need to examine alienation within technological society. Not all of them advocate mass genocide, forced population decline, and other absurdities that are often suggested by the technocratic crowd on this website. Plenty view it as an "unattainable truth," a necessary dialectic or tension to place upon an unquestioning technologically developing society. Personally I think it is unfortunate that this website chooses to generalize and lump them all into one group for OI. It is a diverse ideology that raises interesting questions, to say the least.

[sexyguy]

Of course there will be alianation in any post revolutionary society. Their will also be racism and bullying of every description. How could it be otherwise when we are standing up-to-our-necks in the shit of capitalism economicaly and culturaly in every way. Takeing power from the incresingly chaotic warmongering capitalists will be the easy part as resent history has demonstrated, Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam etc, etc. Holding the power long enough and firm enough against anyone who would drag humanity back to the hidously insane blood thersty racket of democratic capitalism we now live under, is more difficult. Again as resent histry will testify.

Alienation will get trashed when capitalism gets trashed once and for all time.
It is the inevitable incurable recurrence of uncontrollable imperialist CRISIS which ultimately dictates the potential patterns of world developments; and it is in the DEFEAT or BREAKDOWN of existing ruling-class structures within the endlessly complex turmoil of that global economic-system crisis that the forces for socialist REVOLUTION finally come together for the taking of power forever away from the capitalist bourgeoisie to allow the PLANNED flourishing of the whole planet for the equal benefit of everyone on it and the generations to come.


"Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work." From Marx Letter to Arnol Ruge 1843

ABC OF SOCIALISM

A is for ailienation it made me the man that I am, and
B is for the boss whos a bastard, a bourgios who don't give a dam.
C is for capitalism the bosses reactionary creed, and
D is for dictatorship laddy, but the best prolearian breed.

[chimx]

Alienation will get trashed when capitalism gets trashed once and for all time.

How do you propose to do away with alienation, in the sense of labor division, sans capitalism? Look inside your computer. You will see diodes, resistors, capacitors, copper wires, magnetic disks, fans, cooling units--all made in different factories by different specialists. You do an excellent job of calling capitalism "demonic," but offer little in the way of solutions to what primitivists worry about.

[sexyguy]

Alienation will get trashed when capitalism gets trashed once and for all time.


How do you propose to do away with alienation, in the sense of labor division, sans capitalism? Look inside your computer. You will see diodes, resistors, capacitors, copper wires, magnetic disks, fans, cooling units--all made in different factories by different specialists. You do an excellent job of calling capitalism "demonic," but offer little in the way of solutions to what primitivists worry about.

I won't selectively quote you, as you do me.

For anyone who wants to check, I said (FIRST LINE!)alienation will continue post revolution.

Am I bothered "about what primitivists worry about"? :D

[BobKKKindle$]

How do you propose to do away with alienation, in the sense of labor division, sans capitalism? Look inside your computer. You will see diodes, resistors, capacitors, copper wires, magnetic disks, fans, cooling units--all made in different factories by different specialists. You do an excellent job of calling capitalism "demonic," but offer little in the way of solutions to what primitivists worry about.

Overcoming the effects of the division of labour does not necessitate the reduction of technology or even a change in the way that the non-human means of production are organised. Rather, workers will probably experience a range of tasks within their workplace. This is both a way to deal with the degrading effects of the repetition of a montonous task (as occurs in enterprises under Capitalism) and an issue of practicality, as workers will need to have experience in the entire production process in order to effectively make informed decisions through democratic workers' self-management. It should also be noted that, under Socialism, it would be possible to devote all avaliable development and research resources to automating production so as to render the participation of workers in assembly-line production redundant.

[Vanguard1917]

Your quotation does a good job of emphasizing the Marxist foundation of primitivist ideology

I don't know what kind of 'Marxism' you're refering to, but during their lives Marx and Engels were the foremost advocates of industrialisation. They saw industrialisation as humanity's greatest ever achievement, accomplishing wonders 'far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aquaducts and Gothic cathedrals'.

Whatever your 'Marxism' is, it's certainly not based on anything Marx and Engels (the founders of Marxism) had to say. At best, it's a gross distortion of their ideas.

It makes me laugh when people today try to turn Marx - the most enthusiastic advocate of industrial society throughout his adult life - into a common Green. Kind of like those 'Marxists' who Lenin criticised for trying to turn Marx into a 'common liberal'.

In both cases, the revolutionary aspect central to Marxism is lost: that aspect being the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalist mode of production which restrains human progress by restraining industrial development.

[sexyguy]

Spot on Vanguard1917

Hi Bobkindles,

All communist revolutionary theory points in the direction of a future society without capitalism, in which humans can work cooperatively to transform the world, (including human society generally and the individuals in it) for everyone's mutual benefit with constantly decreasing levels of alienation as a (the) desired goal. This is all necessary for our survival and development. But we can’t know the precis conditions pertaining after a revolutionary seizure of power and while academic speculation about such things can be stimulating and entertaining, there are just to many counter revolutionary variables to make firm predictions.

What we do know is, that NOTHING like what you are suggesting is remotely possible without completely destroying the barmy wasteful, cruelly exploitative, cut-throat war mongering crisis ridden capitalist chaos FIRST! How to DEFEAT imperialism, take power from the capitalist class and suppress it permanently, is going to be the first and main preoccupation of communists and other anti-imperialist revolutionaries until that job is done. And if anybody who thinks that some (much) of the ideological crap of capitalism won’t spill-over into even the best of workers states, had better give the matter a bit more thought.

[apathy maybe]

This is just a quick post to mention that there are different sorts of primitivism. Some are fucked up and want to see lots of people dead, some just want to see anarchism and think that technology prevents that. Some are environmentalist, some aren't.

I can't be fucked posting more then that just now.

[Vanguard1917]

To try and associate primitivism with Marxism is like trying to associate intelligent design theory with Darwinism. In other words, it's ridiculous.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 06:12 pm
some just want to see anarchism and think that technology prevents that.
Just as an aside I don't want to see any system that is prevented by our current technology.

Primitivists are those wacky fuckers that, when they're not busy advocating mas death, would like to abandon all that makes us truly free and our own masters and wish to subject their, less than suitable, human forms to all the harshest nature has to throw at them. After any decent revolution they'll be up against the wall with the capitalists and fascists.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:37 pm
To try and associate primitivism with Marxism is like trying to associate intelligent design theory with Darwinism. In other words, it's ridiculous.
Don't mislead people by implying things that I did not say. I said that Marxism acts originally as its foundation--just as the ideology of Kim Il-sung can generally be traced back to the ideology of Karl Marx. Or the ideology of Karl Marx can generally be traced back to Grachus Babeuf. I never said nor implied that primitivists were Marxists. Just a novel development of Marxist ideology.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by chimx+March 13, 2007 11:39 pm--> (chimx @ March 13, 2007 11:39 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 09:37 pm
To try and associate primitivism with Marxism is like trying to associate intelligent design theory with Darwinism. In other words, it's ridiculous.
Don't mislead people by implying things that I did not say. I said that Marxism acts originally as its foundation--just as the ideology of Kim Il-sung can generally be traced back to the ideology of Karl Marx. Or the ideology of Karl Marx can generally be traced back to Grachus Babeuf. I never said nor implied that primitivists were Marxists. Just a novel development of Marxist ideology. [/b]
'Chimx' is trying to associate primitivist ideas with Marxism in order to make them seem more credible to people on a leftwing website. It's like what the Nazis did - tried to express their reactionary ideas using some socialist language in order to win support.


just as the ideology of Kim Il-sung can generally be traced back to the ideology of Karl Marx

I don't know what 'traced back' means, but you said that primitivism has a 'Marxist foundation'. I would dispute that 'the ideology of Kim Il-sung' has Marxist foundations.


I never said nor implied that primitivists were Marxists.

You said that primitivism has 'Marxist foundations'.

My first post in this thread explains just why such a claim is simply ludicrous and nonsensical.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 13, 2007 11:40 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 13, 2007 11:40 pm)
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 06:12 pm
some just want to see anarchism and think that technology prevents that.
Just as an aside I don't want to see any system that is prevented by our current technology.

Primitivists are those wacky fuckers that, when they're not busy advocating mas death, would like to abandon all that makes us truly free and our own masters and wish to subject their, less than suitable, human forms to all the harshest nature has to throw at them. After any decent revolution they'll be up against the wall with the capitalists and fascists. [/b]

chimx
I would also like to note that many primitivists adhere to primitivist ideoloy to emphasize the need to examine alienation within technological society. Not all of them advocate mass genocide, forced population decline, and other absurdities that are often suggested by the technocratic crowd on this website. Plenty view it as an "unattainable truth," a necessary dialectic or tension to place upon an unquestioning technologically developing society. Personally I think it is unfortunate that this website chooses to generalize and lump them all into one group for OI. It is a diverse ideology that raises interesting questions, to say the least.

Jaazzratt: Primitivists are a diverse group. Many of the people called primitivists around here, do not want to see an end to technology, but rather simply a reduction in technology and a decentralisation of it. Lumping all primitivists together as advocating "mass death" is stupid, some might (but they aren't anarchists).

I have no problem with restricting the "anti-human" primitivists who would force the destruction of technology (and thus a quick and massive reduction in population). But there are those who advocate a slow move towards both population decrease and the reduction of technology.

Some primitivists hate technology because it is harmful to the environment (often not knowing about the massive changes humans have caused in the environment without technology, for example Australia).

Some hate technology because they feel that it creates hierarchy.

Some don't hate technology, but simply industrialised civilisation. These people don't necessarily advocate getting rid of all technology, just the harmful ones.


Some primitivists want to go back to hunter-gather society, some basic subsistence farming.


There are so many types, that lumping them all together is just stupid.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 10:11 am
Jaazzratt: Primitivists are a diverse group.
And every branch is batshit and stupid. What's your point?


Many of the people called primitivists around here, do not want to see an end to technology, but rather simply a reduction in technology and a decentralisation of it. Decentralisation: Okay. Reduction: Over my (and billions of other's) dead body(ies).
Lumping all primitivists together as advocating "mass death" is stupid, some might (but they aren't anarchists). I chose the word 'death' over 'killing' or 'murder' because I know not all of them are insane enough to actually want to deliberately kill people, but every single one of them will be advocating the reduction of technology that makes medicine possible. What they advocate will shorten our life spans and increase our death rates.


I have no problem with restricting the "anti-human" primitivists Anti-technology is anti human. Without it we're nothing more than slightly inferior primates.
who would force the destruction of technology (and thus a quick and massive reduction in population). But there are those who advocate a slow move towards both population decrease and the reduction of technology. The outcome is the same no matter how fast you do it: Less tech and less people and this is an unacceptable thing for a leftist to advocate.


Some primitivists hate technology because it is harmful to the environment (often not knowing about the massive changes humans have caused in the environment without technology, for example Australia). Their reasoning is irrelevant, if they hate technology they are not leftist.


Some hate technology because they feel that it creates hierarchy. :lol: and they say that with a straight face?


Some don't hate technology, but simply industrialised civilisation. These people don't necessarily advocate getting rid of all technology, just the harmful ones. And these ones are the worst. Industrial civilisation is just something that has happened and it has massively increased our capacity to develop useful technologies. It's also incredibly arbitrary to talk about harmful technology - harmful to whom, or what? And what if "good" technology relies on "bad" technology (For example machines for performing keyhole surgery rely on electricity which is generating using, what I assume these primmie nutters would call, "bad" technology.) and what about further technological development? Would people be prevented from researching "bad" technology? That's also a stupid idea because a lot of interesting "good" tech has come out of research for "bad" tech - the microwave oven for example started as a military project.



Some primitivists want to go back to hunter-gather society, some basic subsistence farming. And how do they prevent us getting out of such an existence?



There are so many types, that lumping them all together is just stupid. Their are many types of racist group. We have White Supremacists, White Nationalists, White Separatist - more in fact if you count Black Nationalists and so on. We still lump them together. We still lump Free Marketeers with proponents of the current system. All types of primitivist are anti-human scum.

[chimx]

You said that primitivism has 'Marxist foundations'.

My first post in this thread explains just why such a claim is simply ludicrous and nonsensical.

Primitivist ideology developed out of novel interpretations to early Marxist writings on alienation. You can deny that until you are blue in the fact, but it is still a fact.

Jazzratt: how much primitivist literature have you read? You seem prone to liken them to nazism, holocausts, mass-death, etc., but I'm curious how much reading on the ideology you have done. Is you understanding of primitivist thought limited to casual anectodal references on revleft?

[rouchambeau]

How far do primitivists take the word "technology"? Does technology include the creation of hammers? How about fire?

[Vanguard1917]

Primitivist ideology developed out of novel interpretations to early Marxist writings on alienation.

Then all we can say is that they grossly misinterpreted Marx's early writings in order to make it serve their reactionary ends.

This is from the German Ideology (one of Marx's earliest writings, written in 1845), and it shows how central industrial, agricultural and technological progress is to Marx's view of human liberation:

'...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and...in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food, drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. 'Liberation' is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...'

[chimx]

Which is obviously why nobody calls primitivists Marxists. Come on guy. you aren't this dense. It is an off shoot of Marxist ideology and heavily influenced by the young Marx's writings.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:59 pm
How far do primitivists take the word "technology"? Does technology include the creation of hammers? How about fire?
It depends on the individual!

There are so many variants around. Some want a situation similar to how the Aboriginal people lived in Australia before the European invasion. Except that if they want it for environmental reasons, they ignore the huge amount of damage done to the Australian environment which happened when humans first got there. And if they want it for anarchistic reasons, again they ignore the facts, Aboriginal societies were not anarchistic.


What I have been trying to explain, is that there are different types who want different levels of technology for different reasons.

[Vanguard1917]

It is an off shoot of Marxist ideology and heavily influenced by the young Marx's writings.

Which makes as much sense as saying that traditionalist Catholics are influenced by Darwin.

[jaycee]

I've used this before but i think its quite good

i think that the capitalism obviously produces a certain type of technology (or rather gives rise to certain types)and much of it has negative effects. I don't only mean obvious things like cars polluting (both the air, noise pollution and pollution to the eyes, i.e motorways and dirty streets etc) and nukes but also more subtle things. For example t.v is damaging because of the way we live our lives, watching too much(which is also connected to its alienating anti-social aspect), not exercising. Both of these are connected to things like the hours we work, lack of community etc.

Also another subtle way in which capitism turns technology into a negative thing is reflected in a thing that happened to me recently. I was had just had a spliff with a mate and then we went outside, when i left the house i suddenly felt a great deal of stress leave me. I think this was due to getting out of the cramped confined space which houses are. This is not a criticism of houses but rather a criticism of the lack of community and extreme alienation in modern capitalism. Therefore the fact that people in older societies (especially primitive communist societies) had small houses (generally) was not very important this was because they tended to only eat and sleep in their house and the majority of their time was spent outdoors with the community. Under capitalism technology reflects one of the most widespread sicknesses of our time (alienation) and everything is built in accordance with this, everything becomes more and more confined and seperate to everything else.

Basically communist humanity will develope technology in a non alienating way and therefore will produce it in what Marx called the 'natural laws of beuty'. I think it is false to say either humanity will go 'back to nature' or it will advance technology, it will do both as producing technology is clearly a major part of human nature and alienation stems from acting in ways which is contary to human nature or turning central parts of human nature into oppressive forces as labour is now. It will return to primitive communism on a higher level , 'a return made conscious' as Marx put it.

Therefore primitivism does have a valid point in terms of seeing primitive communism as quantifiably better than capitalism in that it alienation and mental repression was far less developed. However that is no reason to throw away the progrssive aspects of human development

[Vanguard1917]

Therefore primitivism does have a valid point in terms of seeing primitive communism as quantifiably better than capitalism in that it alienation and mental repression was far less developed.

'Mental repression'? Television 'is damaging because of the way we live our lives, watching too much'? Primitive societies were 'quantifiably better than capitalism'?

There's a lot of junk on TV, that's true. But i'd still rather live in a modern industrially developed country, rather than in a primitive society, where life expectancy was around 20 and around 1 in every 2 newborns died before they reached the age of two.

Putting up with repeats of Friends every fucking Sunday afternoon is a small price to pay for the relatively enormous advantages of living in modern industrial society.

Marx's critique of alienation and estrangement in industrial capitalism did not for a single moment lead him to condemn industrialisation itself. Marx saw industrialisation as humanity's greatest ever achievement.

[jaycee]

i said quantifiably better in a pschological/ 'spiritual' sense (the word spiritual i think is a good description, even if i don't beleive in spirits as such). However, capitalism was necessary to raise the productive capacity. Communism will be the synthesis of the good and bad aspects of all stages of human history.

Marx certainly never said that we should simply return to the primitive stages of development, but he did speak about a 'return made conscious' and a 'return at a higher level'. Marx also refered to the 'sewage' of civilization and Engels spoke about the emergence of class society and civilization as a 'fall'.