Anarcho-Primitivism

[Sentinel]

On this board we consider primitivism to be an opposing ideology, and those adhering to it are restricted to this forum. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not this policy is appropriate -- that is an administrative issue and such are discussed in the CC, which has voted (with the outcome 46-14) to implement this guideline.

Instead it seeks to find out how our broadest membership -- revolutionary leftists of all varieties, rightwingers and other restrictees, and last but not least the primitivists themselves -- interpret the concept of primitivism and especially it's anarchist variety. As the topic description says, what I'm curious about is as follows:

What exactly constitutes, in your eyes, a primitivist doctrine/ideology? And how does it, again in your opinion, differ from other critiques of technology and modern civilisation?

I would also like to add, that this is not an evil, sectarian transhumanist conspiracy to get anyone restricted for simply contributing in the thread and describing their personal definition of primitivist positions -- even playing the devils advocate for those is perfectly 'ok', as long as one makes it clear that is the case.. ;)

***

I am not asking this because I'd lack a definition of my own, as I don't. I'm doing so because I'm curious about yours. I do personally agree with the 'mainstream' sentiment, that a primitivist can be described as someone who the two below paragraphs accurately describe:

Primitivists blame technological progress and the modern civilisation it has given birth to for the social and environmental problems that plague mankind. Some, such as the 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski think the industrial revolution was the critical point when 'things went wrong'. Others argue mankind should not have abandoned the hunter-gatherer stage of development for agriculture.

According to them technological progress is mainly to blame for the hierarchical society we live in. But this 'realisation' does not yet make a primitivist -- it is the solution they are proposing that does: they advocate deindustrialisation, either a regression or the complete abolishment of technology, in some cases even the abolition of spoken and written language, and generally the return to a more primitive form of society. Some say out loud, that a return to a 'wild' state (rewilding is the word) is the only way to escape the alienating and oppressive modern society.

Well, my personal opinion is of course that primitivists are batshit (guano) insane, and I hope most of you agree. Further social and technological development, with a world revolution to abolish capitalism as it's main tenet is the solution to mankinds current problems if you ask me. But arguing over this sentiment of mine is not really the purpose of this thread, any more than discussing the decisions of the CC, or our set of guidelines.

Instead, once again, tell me what primitivism means to you!

[Demogorgon]

To be honest to me it means crazy people who want to wipe out most of the world's population in order to fulfill idle caveman fantasies.

[More Fire for the People]

Anarcho-primitivists are those who respond to the alienating phenomenon of modern technological 'Last Man' society in a way that identifies the alleviation of this as a reinstitution of a tribalist past rather than a subordination of the means of production [ including technology ] to a material human community. Hence they're not even on the same playing field as leftists.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:36 pm
They are a bunch of nuts who want to push mankind back into the dark ages.
They are misinterpreting alienation. Given the vagueness of that expression, that is not too hard to do it. Most anarcho-primmies sincerely believes that technology is artificial and that it do not matter if you use horses or tractors. They are not intelligent, but generally harmless.

Those who are harmful are the ideologists behind them.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Removal of dependency of technology. Believing it would be better for humanity, higher technology resulted in the capitalist consumer society we have today. (if we are to believe the Anarcho Primitivists)

I wouldnt immediatly call them nuts or crazy...

[ComradeR]

People who want to create some fantasy pre-industrial utopia.

I wouldnt immediatly call them nuts or crazy...
Really? I would describe people like the Unabomber as nut jobs.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:49 pm
I wouldnt immediatly call them nuts or crazy...
No, wrong is a much more apt description.

Primitivism to me seems to come in a myriad of flavours (mainly Pistachio (green and tastes awful, like the ice cream).) but they all seem to identify technology and science as the cause of exploitative and inefficient uses of technology. This is of course, when spelled out utterly ridiculous. Technology is asocial and it can be used in any way.

Personally I find the sane primmies more frightening than the complete fruitloops.

[RedCommieBear]

Primitivism is the belief that all forms of modern technology (including agriculture) are inherently evil, and would like to see the return hunter-gatherer society 10,000. It is completely incompatible with leftism; we want to see proletarian control of the means of production, not destruction of the means of production.

But I have a question for everybody. What is your opinions on the Luddites? I guess primitivists like to claim that the Luddites were advocating primitivism, but I've also heard that Luddites that weren't protesting against technology, but rather the change to the free-market system accompanied by the industrial revolution.

[Morpheus]

A primitivist is someone who opposes industrial society and advocates an agrarian, pastoral, horticultural or hunter-gatherer society.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Say if the world had a revolution and the 6.5 billion people said " lets go for primitivism"

So everyone start to destroy technology. And 50 years later, when lots of the technology is gone, but still massive cities exist and loads of the population has died of age and loads more died of hunger and illness (due to a lack of industrial farming and modern medicine) the rate of destruction would slow as the population kept getting smaller and less time could be put to destroying technology since the large amount of time needed for self sustainment.

So, what i think is a flaw is that, by the time the human world population actually got around to destroying the technology, the actual people who carried out the revolution would be long dead and their ideas would die because their is no media to keep it going, outside word of mouth.

So, like after a while, people would realize they can farm crops and so pre-history would begin all over again.

has this been thought of before? Or am i the first? ;)

[Anatta]

A primitivist is not someone who doesn't recognize the irony of posting on this forum?

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:16 pm
has this been thought of before? Or am i the first? ;)
Libcom's article (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism) on the fallacies of primitivism covered the population problem quite well.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:37 pm
A primitivist is not someone who doesn't recognize the irony of posting on this forum?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Hilarious, comrade!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[bretty]

I hardly am educated on the subject but I think one possibility for the longing for primitivism is the nostalgia of pre-capitalist perversions. I don't sympathize with the primitivist ideology because it is a misleading solution. However I think the problem is essentially the commodity fetishism and the technological fetishism of capitalism. All the corrupt media outlets, the hyper-consumerism, the superficial societal normalities we are surrounded with all accumulate with reactionary primitivism.

Just my thoughts,

-Brett

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:25 pm
I hardly am educated on the subject but I think one possibility for the longing for primitivism is the nostalgia of pre-capitalist perversions.
They had better perversions pre-capitalism?


I don't sympathize with the primitivist ideology because it is a misleading solution. However I think the problem is essentially the commodity fetishism and the technological fetishism of capitalism.

People who talk about technology fetishism are just as bad as those who talk about bourgeois decadence - it is basically a condemnation not only of our ability to advance beyond our limitations but also of our desire to have and use the fruits of our technology. The only problem with "commodity fetishism" I can see is the capitalist method of producing commodities, otherwise all luck to you if you want lots of stuff.

[QUOTE]All the corrupt media outlets, the hyper-consumerism, the superficial societal normalities we are surrounded with all accumulate with reactionary primitivism. /QUOTE]

This seems confused to me. What superficial societal norms are you talking about and why is primitivism a major aspect in the accumulation of the things you mentioned? Also, is there a non-reactionary primitivism?

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 21, 2007 10:36 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 21, 2007 10:36 pm) [quote][email protected] 21, 2007 10:25 pm
I hardly am educated on the subject but I think one possibility for the longing for primitivism is the nostalgia of pre-capitalist perversions.
They had better perversions pre-capitalism?


I don't sympathize with the primitivist ideology because it is a misleading solution. However I think the problem is essentially the commodity fetishism and the technological fetishism of capitalism.

People who talk about technology fetishism are just as bad as those who talk about bourgeois decadence - it is basically a condemnation not only of our ability to advance beyond our limitations but also of our desire to have and use the fruits of our technology. The only problem with "commodity fetishism" I can see is the capitalist method of producing commodities, otherwise all luck to you if you want lots of stuff.


All the corrupt media outlets, the hyper-consumerism, the superficial societal normalities we are surrounded with all accumulate with reactionary primitivism. /QUOTE]

This seems confused to me. What superficial societal norms are you talking about and why is primitivism a major aspect in the accumulation of the things you mentioned? Also, is there a non-reactionary primitivism? [/b]
Sorry the first part of my post was confusing after re-reading it. I mean to say that they are nostalgic for pre-capitalist societies and it is a distorted way of looking at the evolution of the human condition.

I'll post more later. Time for work.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Wow, y'all really hate primitivism. I'm not a primitivist but I sympathize with some of the sentiments.

As I see it, Anarchist-primitivism is initially a critique of the relationship between society and an individual. While anarchoprimtivism's contemporary central concern is technology, it's fundamental critique is individual autonomy and desire. Civilization itself, anarchoprimitivists argue, is the product of the alienation of humanity from the natural world. Domestication, rationality and symbolic thought [one or all of the three, a-ps argue] separate an individual from his self (species-being anyone?) and creates a social neurosis - civilization - which leads to all the fucked up things that happen in the world.

Anarchoprimitivism wants to recapture the free and wild self through the destruction of domesticated behavior (and with it the destruction of civlization) and return to a primitive relationship with the natural world.

It's kinda mystical bullshit, but I think it's strongest aspect is the critique of mass society and efficiency/industrialization (which Leftists tend to adore).

[chimx]

AmbitiousHedonism hit the nail on the head, so I won't reiterate what s/he just said. I would add that it has been my experience that anarcho-primitivists do not generally adhere to an ideological praxis in the same sense as syndicalists, marxist-leninists, etc. I see the appeal to primitivism as being more philosophical or mystical, in the same sense as the early European Romantics were opposed to man's alienation from nature. Of course we probably wouldn't restrict Percy Shelley for his Romantic tendency's, because they were artistic abstractions and not a political ideology. Generally the same holds true for primitivists.