John Zerzan

[redcannon]

What's the general consenses on Zerzan? I know he was a primitivist, but at least he was anti-capitalist... On that note, does anyone care to expand on primitivism and anarcho-primitivism?

[bcbm]

Why "was?" He is still alive.

[apathy maybe]

The general "consensus" on primitivists (at least in the CC) is that they are an 'opposing ideology'. No matter if they are anarchists or not.

As to primitivism it self, there have been a few threads on the matter.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64013
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63288
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61011

There are also lots of other threads that mention primitivism. Do a search to find more.

[Cryotank Screams]

John Zerzan is NOT an Anarchist, and primitivism is idiocy, he advocates the destruction of all modern tools, institutions, and even numbers, art, and language, and going back to some romantic idealist version of some caveman society, and regardless of him being an anti-capitalist, he is still a reactionary and is hurting the movement.

Theoretically, and philosophically bankrupt.

Zerzan=Dumbass.

[redcannon]

can anyone expand on [B]why[B] primitivism is idiocy, and why Zerzan isn't an anarchist when he doesn't believe in gov't rule?

note: I'm not sympathyzing with Primitivists, I'm just trying to learn

[chimx]

Primitivism, as being influenced by early Marxist conceptions of alienation, advocates the destruction of agriculture since it is viewed as the birth of labor division and alienation. The advocate the regression to hunger/gatherer times.

The problem is that given the billions of people currently residing on the earth, that ecological model isn't sustainable in the slightest.

Some primitivists answer this problem by essentially advocating human genocide, others adopt a more "evolutionary" over "revolutionary" stance.

If you read stuff by Zerzan, you will see that he certainly isn't an idiot by any means. He raises a lot of interesting criticisms of post-industrial society. But in the end, primitivists remain mute on the issue of how to hinder the (re)development of agriculture and class society--i.e.: how to ensure history doesn't merely become cyclic around class. The purpose of communism and anarchism, in the end, is the abolition of class, but primitivism offers not assurances on this issue.

In the end, it makes for very interesting criticisms, but is theoretically lacking regarding real solutions that are at all beneficial to working peoples.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 28, 2007 02:38 pm
John Zerzan is NOT an Anarchist
Yes he is. He believes in the creation of societies based on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation, and is a staunch opponent of all authority, especially that of government and capital. He's been involved with the anarchist mileu for over 30 years, working with AJODA, Fifth Estate and others, and is today an editor of Green Anarchy and AJODA. He may be more attuned to primitivist and post-left currents in anarchist thought, but he is still an anarchist and has contributed a lot to the discourse of the movement.

[MrDoom]

Anti-human hypocrite, like all primmie scum. Nuff' said.

[black magick hustla]

Its hard for me to take Zerzan seriously when he condemns academic language while at the same time totally abusing it.

He loves fucking sophistery, he mistifies his arguments with extremely dense and unnecessary language.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I bet he is some kind of ass whole environmentalist too LOL!

[chimx]

I used to work with a green anarchist in earth first! that used to live in the same apartment building as Zerzan. According to him, he was a total asshole, and quite unpleasant to my associates daughter. Who knows if its true, or relevant for that matter... :)

[rouchambeau]

The problem is that given the billions of people currently residing on the earth, that ecological model isn't sustainable in the slightest.

Neither are the current conditions of production. 6.5 billion people cannot survive on this planet with the amount of environmental destruction that is required for industrial agriculture. One way or another, be it from environmental destruction or 'genocidal primitivists', many people will die if we do not take drastic measures to create sustainable agriculture.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:58 pm
I used to work with a green anarchist in earth first! that used to live in the same apartment building as Zerzan. According to him, he was a total asshole, and quite unpleasant to my associates daughter. Who knows if its true, or relevant for that matter... :)
Wouldn't surprise me. He's coming here on April 19th, I'm making him a collage...

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:58 pm
I used to work with a green anarchist in earth first! that used to live in the same apartment building as Zerzan. According to him, he was a total asshole, and quite unpleasant to my associates daughter. Who knows if its true, or relevant for that matter... :)
I thought he lived in a cabin in the woods or something. No seriously, I read that he lives in some very remote area in Oregon, not in some apartment building.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by FoB+March 29, 2007 08:40 pm--> (FoB @ March 29, 2007 08:40 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 07:58 pm
I used to work with a green anarchist in earth first! that used to live in the same apartment building as Zerzan. According to him, he was a total asshole, and quite unpleasant to my associates daughter. Who knows if its true, or relevant for that matter... :)
I thought he lived in a cabin in the woods or something. No seriously, I read that he lives in some very remote area in Oregon, not in some apartment building. [/b]
Uh, no... he lives in Eugene, in what appears to be a normal residential area.

[Vanguard1917]

John Zerzan is a primitivist extremist whose reactionary ideas have nothing whatsoever in common with progressives.

The good news is that he's an extremely marginal intellectual whose ideas aren't taken seriously by any significant number of mentally healthy people.

[YSR]

I've actually heard he's a really nice guy. He just crashed in somebody's dorm room when he came to my college a few years ago. A guy who goes here and Zerzan are friends.

That being said, not only do I think his theories are silly, I also cannot stand his writing style. There are a zillion better primitivist writers than Zerzan. As Marmot indicates, his writing is mostly sophistry.

I can't deny he's an anarchist, but I'd like to tell him that forcing massive die-off seems rather authoritarian to me.

(If you're interested in primitivism, I'd look up Marshall Sahlins The Original Affluent Society, which is short and available online. The anthropological primitivist perspective is a lot more compelling to me than Zerzan's Marx-influenced stuff or the deep ecologists' idealist viewpoint.)

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

can anyone expand on [B]why[B] primitivism is idiocy, and why Zerzan isn't an anarchist when he doesn't believe in gov't rule?

note: I'm not sympathyzing with Primitivists, I'm just trying to learn


I know that this is an ancient (no pun intended) thread, but I was reading the latest AJODA (an anarchist journal with primitivist and post-left tendencies) recently and it got me thinking again about Zerzan and primitivism in general.

Here's the deal with primitivism and Zerzan, its poster-boy: primitivism is not anarchism if in some hypothetical post-revolutionary society, primitivist ideologues try to push anti-civilization on communities. However, if primitivist communities can coexist with other types of communities who embrace technology, then it is anarchistic. But I fear that the former is true, that Zerzan and other primitivsts are intolerant of other types of communities, unlike most social anarchists I talk to, for whom pluralism is acceptable as long as it doesn't oppress them.

So, the same goes for Zerzan. I fear he's disingenuous as an anti-authoritarian, because he (perhaps) believes his off-the-wall ideas should be pushed on ALL society, which would be domination and oppression, hence antithetical to anarchism.

[StalinFanboy]

Most of the Anti-Civ people that I know and hang out with do not propose any sort of starvation, or genocide. They advocate voluntary population control.

I don't necessarily agree with the anti-civ critique (I've brought this up a few other times), but I think to blow it off as "insane" without having read it is completely stupid. I have no wish or urge to revert back to the stone age, but there are a LOT of problems I have with modern culture and civilization that go beyond class.

That being said, I have't read any of Zerzan's stuff, and I find the Green Anarchy journal to be a wordy and boring read. I am reading some of Derrick Jensens stuff however, and I quite like him, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. He brings up a lot of really good points about the sustainability of the current way we live, especially in the West. He also brings up excellent arguments against the dominance of capitalism, and the insanity of pacifism.

[The Douche]

I know that this is an ancient (no pun intended) thread, but I was reading the latest AJODA (an anarchist journal with primitivist and post-left tendencies) recently and it got me thinking again about Zerzan and primitivism in general.

Here's the deal with primitivism and Zerzan, its poster-boy: primitivism is not anarchism if in some hypothetical post-revolutionary society, primitivist ideologues try to push anti-civilization on communities. However, if primitivist communities can coexist with other types of communities who embrace technology, then it is anarchistic. But I fear that the former is true, that Zerzan and other primitivsts are intolerant of other types of communities, unlike most social anarchists I talk to, for whom pluralism is acceptable as long as it doesn't oppress them.

So, the same goes for Zerzan. I fear he's disingenuous as an anti-authoritarian, because he (perhaps) believes his off-the-wall ideas should be pushed on ALL society, which would be domination and oppression, hence antithetical to anarchism.

This demonstrates a pretty standard analysis of primitivism from the left, especially from the anarchist left. But it does demonstrate a lack of real understanding of the ideology.

As an anarchist you would say that one's rights end where they being to infringe on the rights of another right? That is why primitivists do not believe in coexistence with civilization. They see civilization as being inherently oppressive, the believe the civilization rests on the opression of 1) the earth and 2)the oppression of rural areas by urban areas.

If the eart simply cannot support as many people as we have on it (which it can't) and we are exploiting it (which we currently are) then civilization is oppressive and inherently un-anarchist.

So to really refute primitivists we must find a way to demonstrate, beyond a doubt that we can establish a civlized world which does not revolve around the exploitation of the earth (which means fossil fuels, plants, and human/non-human animals).

[black magick hustla]

The issue here is that the "anarchism" of the greens is very different from how anarchism has been historically defined as a movement. Just because you are a leftist and a Communist with capital c does not mean you are a left communist.

[Dimentio]

Voluntary population control? XD

A global hunter-gatherer society could sustain about 50 000 individuals worldwide. What would happen with the billions now living? Who has ever voluntarily chosen to starve to death?

:laugh:

I prefer Linkola. He is a right-wing primitivist who is entirely open with his hatred for the human race and with his intentions of committing genocide to further his aims of saving the red-listed birds of the world.

I would like to see a debate between Zerzan and Linkola. I hold no doubts Linkola will probably sweep the floor with Zerzan.

[StalinFanboy]

Voluntary population control? XD

A global hunter-gatherer society could sustain about 50 000 individuals worldwide. What would happen with the billions now living? Who has ever voluntarily chosen to starve to death?

:laugh:

I prefer Linkola. He is a right-wing primitivist who is entirely open with his hatred for the human race and with his intentions of committing genocide to further his aims of saving the red-listed birds of the world.

I would like to see a debate between Zerzan and Linkola. I hold no doubts Linkola will probably sweep the floor with Zerzan.
Are you deliberately being stupid? Population control doesn't mean starving one's self. It is essentially limiting how many children one has. If ever couple in the world has 2 kids, then the population level will stay the same. If every couple has one kid, then the population will start to decline. This is the goal.

[Dimentio]

Are you deliberately being stupid? Population control doesn't mean starving one's self. It is essentially limiting how many children one has. If ever couple in the world has 2 kids, then the population level will stay the same. If every couple has one kid, then the population will start to decline. This is the goal.

Zerzan wants to abolish all technology and the means to attain technology.

Abolition of technology = Less production = Mass starvation = Reduction of human numbers

That is the result of a primitivist takeover (which luckily enough is a completely non-realistic scenario)

[StalinFanboy]

Zerzan wants to abolish all technology and the means to attain technology.

Abolition of technology = Less production = Mass starvation = Reduction of human numbers

That is the result of a primitivist takeover (which luckily enough is a completely non-realistic scenario)
Way to ignore the first part of my first post. I don't know any anti-civ people that want genocide or mass starvation. I don't care what Zerzan proposes. I was responding to a point that said that ALL primitivist/anti-civ people want to just kill everyone off. Which is a gross generalization.

[The Douche]

Many primitivists believe (correctly in my opinion) that the way civlization works today is unsustainable. So they think there is a coming collapse (peak oil being a popular secario) such a collapse will result in a dramatic reduction in population.


As for population control etc, Jensen makes interesting points about the symbiotic relationships pre-civilization people had with the earth. Why do you think indigenous people used birth control/natural abortions? It was because they could recognize the carrying capacity of thier community and were not going to excede it. Which is essentialy the purpose of "civilization"; to provide humans with the ability to exceed the carrying capacity of thier communities by oppressing the earth and other peoples.

[Lamanov]

"What is anarcho-primitivism?" from the Anarchist FAQ (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9hWaklKC08Bj_1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByc2FtNTR pBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11q8v1mnc/EXP=1246411734/**http%3a//www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html)

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

This demonstrates a pretty standard analysis of primitivism from the left, especially from the anarchist left. But it does demonstrate a lack of real understanding of the ideology.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I think I'm probably more tolerant than many lefties on the subject of primitivism (did you see that I was reading AJODA?). I think I understand primitivism well enough to critique it, however.


As an anarchist you would say that one's rights end where they being to infringe on the rights of another right? That is why primitivists do not believe in coexistence with civilization. They see civilization as being inherently oppressive, the believe the civilization rests on the opression of 1) the earth and 2)the oppression of rural areas by urban areas.


We could go round-and-round on this one. Sounds like a slippery slope towards what's called "deep ecology," which basically advocates the notion that humans, per se, are the problem, not 1% of them that own multinational corporations and destroy the planet. Also, it's doubtful that the majority will ever be interested in abolishing what’s called “civilization,” i.e., the use of technology, public transportation, agriculture, going to hospitals when they get sick (you know...Extremism.), etc. This argument that a minority should be able to force its will on the majority is like saying “Hitler saw jews as being inherently oppressive, and thought that the rest of us cannot coexist with them.” Hitler may have believed this, but this doesn’t make it right. I think the theories of social ecology are much more cogent than primitivism. But as I said, primitivist communities should certainly have the right to form after some kind of revolution. But if they see it as the only righteous way, then it’s only rigid dogma and ideology.
Also, I believe the concept of “rights” is rather bourgeois. “Rights” are what some central authority, whether deistic or the State, grant us from the top-down. I believe only the individual can determine such things within the framework of a community. So, if a community has different ideas about such a phenomenon than that of the individual, they should no longer be considered “rights,” and they are insignificant. For example, I don’t have the “right” to form an autonomous, free-associating community that is moneyless, classless, and stateless on state or private property. Personally, I believe no one has a right to claim a plot of land or privatize property, and I believe that no central authority like the State should be able to claim me. But in the U.S., where I live, the State and property owner have the “right” to prevent me from doing this. Since I’m vehemently opposed to this, these “rights” are insignificant. I just wanted to include this since I find the word “rights” problematic, but I’m assuming it’s just a difference of semantics. And yes, I agree that other people’s liberties should not be infringed upon by others. This is why I would not support a group of primitivists forcing anti-civ ideology on communities whom are not interested.


If the eart simply cannot support as many people as we have on it (which it can't) and we are exploiting it (which we currently are) then civilization is oppressive and inherently un-anarchist. ).
You’re still buying the Malthusian argument and population control? I think it’s safe to say his theory has been debunked.
The world under CAPITALISM, or any system which has only one goal—to maximize profit, or surplus value—cannot sustain the people inhabiting it. True. In need-based communities however, in which food and water were not commodities, or healthcare and housing, do you really think thousands of people would starve every day? Are you really buying the capitalist's argument that this is due to food shortages? Do you realize how much food is thrown out every day because of profit-margins? Capitalist civilization, with the State acting as its safety net, is certainly oppressive. But does this mean we must abandon what is called civilizations, i.e., living in homes with amenities, using technology to develop effective means of transportation and communication, etc.? I argue that it doesn’t. It seems, at the least, this view doesn’t portray capitalism in a sinister enough light. It would suggest that capitalism is a problem, but not the problem.


So to really refute primitivists we must find a way to demonstrate, beyond a doubt that we can establish a civlized world which does not revolve around the exploitation of the earth (which means fossil fuels, plants, and human/non-human animals).
Well, yes and no. You act as if primitivists are speaking empirically, like there are no intelligent arguments to counter a great deal of what they say. I’m not saying that I support a sectarian rift in anarchism (though it seems many social anarchists and primitivists do), as this eats up so much time in journals and discussion in the anarchist milieus. But the new world is to be created by all, not individual anarchist activists or authors. I think it’s safe to say that human ingenuity could easily pave the way to an anti-capitalist model that was free of hierarchy, profit, and environmental degradation in which ecological harmony was of the upmost concern, without going primitive. I’m optimistic about this, which is why I’m not a primitivist.

You also connote that all the theory is in the primitivist milieu. This is certainly not true. Social anarchists have went in depth in many instances in describing options for a new world, and prefiguring a society without domination.

[The Douche]

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I think I'm probably more tolerant than many lefties on the subject of primitivism (did you see that I was reading AJODA?). I think I understand primitivism well enough to critique it, however.

Your understanding of primitivism is certainly better than most. Also, I don't consider AJODA to be "primitivist" just post-left, with some primitivist writers.


Also, it's doubtful that the majority will ever be interested in abolishing what’s called “civilization,” i.e., the use of technology, public transportation, agriculture, going to hospitals when they get sick (you know...Extremism.), etc.

The question is though, ought the majority have the freedom to destory the earth and everything on it. When you say majority you are refferring only to human animals, what if we count every plant and every non-human animal, because they are all effected by our destruction of the earth. The does your majority still believe in civilization?

The issue of rights is valid, but not really linked to this discussion a better term would be "freedom"(s).


You’re still buying the Malthusian argument and population control? I think it’s safe to say his theory has been debunked.


Absurd! There really is an unsustainable number of people on this planet. Could advances in sciene create enough food and energy for all of us if they were organized socially instead of under capital? Yes, probably, but that does not adress the fact that there are still to many of us for the earth to naturally support. Do you know what the term "carrying capacity" means? It is the number of people that a local community can actually support. Think of the place you live (your town), think of how many people live there, if food wasn't trucked in daily would it be able to support that many people? If not then you have exceeded the carrying capacity of your environment, and if we artificially inflate carrying capacities (by bringing in more food and more power etc) then the population will continue to rise.


I think it’s safe to say that human ingenuity could easily pave the way to an anti-capitalist model that was free of hierarchy, profit, and environmental degradation in which ecological harmony was of the upmost concern, without going primitive.

While I am not fully convinced of this, I do agree, mostly because I hope for it. But it will certainly mean (in my mind) a "civilization" which is very different from the current one. And its why I think we need to stop shunning primitivists with a knee-jerk reaction, because they offer a valid critiscism and valid input for things post-revolutionary society must consider.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Absurd! There really is an unsustainable number of people on this planet. Could advances in sciene create enough food and energy for all of us if they were organized socially instead of under capital? Yes, probably, but that does not adress the fact that there are still to many of us for the earth to naturally support. Do you know what the term "carrying capacity" means? It is the number of people that a local community can actually support. Think of the place you live (your town), think of how many people live there, if food wasn't trucked in daily would it be able to support that many people? If not then you have exceeded the carrying capacity of your environment, and if we artificially inflate carrying capacities (by bringing in more food and more power etc) then the population will continue to rise.

This says it pretty eloquently.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secE6.html

This link provides a great bulk of information debunking Malthusian theory from AFAQ, and it is certainly stated more eloquently than I could put it.

[Dimentio]

Way to ignore the first part of my first post. I don't know any anti-civ people that want genocide or mass starvation. I don't care what Zerzan proposes. I was responding to a point that said that ALL primitivist/anti-civ people want to just kill everyone off. Which is a gross generalization.

No, he does'nt want it. But what is important is not what someone wants, but what the results will be. I am looking at the results for humanity, not the ideals.

We cannot judge people by their ideals only.

We must judge by the results of the implementation of their plans. They have a more important weight than how much they want people should just hug each-other and stroke each-other's genitals.