a question for primitivists

[redcannon]

i don't know if this should go in the OI section, but here we go:

dear primitivists:

if you had it your way, where would humanity be right now? would they be in a pre-Industrial Revolution stage or a pre-Agriculture stage?

as I understand it, there is much debate among primitivists as to where humanity went wrong. i'd like this to be a topic of discussion

[Pawn Power]

I guess agriculture, mass sedentary food production, is what began the whole civilization ball rolling (i.e. urban centers, governemnt, elites, more rigid economic classes, militaries, etc.

So it was those vagans who didn't want to hunt no more and plant crops is what did it!

[Entrails Konfetti]

We have primitivists on revleft?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 28, 2007 06:08 pm
We have primitivists on revleft?
Not really.

But given the name (primitivist), they obviously are in favor of pre-agricultural lifestyle.

[Janus]

We have primitivists on revleft?
We don't have any active primitivists on here and they're all in OI anyways so I think this thread belongs in there.

[Rollo]

I find primitivists stupid because something as simple as an anthill is still development and technology. Lets force termites to stop living in high rise buildings. Twigs are pretty techy aswell.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:31 pm
I find primitivists stupid because something as simple as an anthill is still development and technology.
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.

I don't really see what an ant hill has to do with technology; evenso, primitivism isn't typically seen as a solution, per se. It's not about achieving a pure or perfect end but engaging in a process of rewilding.

[redcannon]

since any primitivists we do have on this forum are in OI, can an admin move this thread there, please?

EDIT: Just now saw that it was in OI

[MarcX]

any primitivists posting here should go hang themselves for using a computer.

[Dimentio]

Say what you want of primitivists, but they are attracting real sweet gals by some strange reason. At least here in Umeå.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by AmbitiousHedonism+July 03, 2007 07:49 am--> (AmbitiousHedonism @ July 03, 2007 07:49 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 07:31 pm
I find primitivists stupid because something as simple as an anthill is still development and technology.
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.

I don't really see what an ant hill has to do with technology; evenso, primitivism isn't typically seen as a solution, per se. It's not about achieving a pure or perfect end but engaging in a process of rewilding. [/b]
Ants building a hill is not labor? I'm fairly sure if we killed off all the ants and termites no hills would pop up for lack of labour on the part of the insects.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by Rollo+July 03, 2007 02:56 pm--> (Rollo @ July 03, 2007 02:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:49 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 07:31 pm
I find primitivists stupid because something as simple as an anthill is still development and technology.
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.

I don't really see what an ant hill has to do with technology; evenso, primitivism isn't typically seen as a solution, per se. It's not about achieving a pure or perfect end but engaging in a process of rewilding.
Ants building a hill is not labor? I'm fairly sure if we killed off all the ants and termites no hills would pop up for lack of labour on the part of the insects. [/b]

What are you talking about? Your ants metaphor is stupid.

The key terms there were division of labor, specialization, and stratification.

The process of producing primitive tools and weapons isn't comparable to the process of producing civilized tools and weapons...

[wtfm8lol]

The key terms there were division of labor, specialization, and stratification.

do you deny that ants employ division of labor, specialization, or stratification?

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:58 pm

The key terms there were division of labor, specialization, and stratification.

do you deny that ants employ division of labor, specialization, or stratification?
I deny ants have anything to do with this conversation. Why are they relevant?

I deny that uncivilized humans used division of labor, specialization or stratification to the extent that it exists today. That is the primitivist argument, not ants.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by AmbitiousHedonism+July 04, 2007 02:20 am--> (AmbitiousHedonism @ July 04, 2007 02:20 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 03:58 pm

The key terms there were division of labor, specialization, and stratification.

do you deny that ants employ division of labor, specialization, or stratification?
I deny ants have anything to do with this conversation. Why are they relevant?

I deny that uncivilized humans used division of labor, specialization or stratification to the extent that it exists today. That is the primitivist argument, not ants. [/b]
All metaphores aside I've yet to hear a decent explanation of primitivism that didn't have ants in it. But then again I tend to tune out because y'know without my medical treatment it's probable I would die and I'm not too big of a fan of that one.

I'de just like to use this space to clarify: I really don't care if a group of people go live in a cave and eat grass, but they're not forcing that on me.

[Punkerslut]

I'd have to agree that primitivism certainly fails. Things as simple as language, education, or art are certainly all forms of technology; and yet without these things, life would become so miserable and unbareable, making social interaction (mankind's ultimate need) valueless. Still, I think that the opinions of primitivism would be considered left, as they are particularly critical of Capitalism and the state.

[Red Tung]

Thing is a lot of "primitivists" are hypocritical primitivists because most like the idyllic lifestyle, but not the associated hardships and deprivations.

I think it would be accurate to call a wealthy executive who lives in a quaint, old-fashion country manor, but who takes the helicopter to the office as a "primitivist" would you not?

Man, I would love to be that kind of primitivist. :lol:

Why not? You can have the cake and eat it too.

Where does the "cake" come from? Who cares! :lol:

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:29 pm
i don't know if this should go in the OI section, but here we go:

dear primitivists:

if you had it your way, where would humanity be right now? would they be in a pre-Industrial Revolution stage or a pre-Agriculture stage?

as I understand it, there is much debate among primitivists as to where humanity went wrong. i'd like this to be a topic of discussion
Wouldn’t the idea of a primitivist using a computer kind of violate their ideology. just a thought ;)

[The New Left]

Its a simple solution to a complex world. A simple solution for simple people...

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Iron
Wouldn’t the idea of a primitivist using a computer kind of violate their ideology. just a thought

I think even within primitivist thought there is different ideas about how much of civilisation is the root of all evil, or however you want to put it. Some may well see it as a method of passing on their message etc etc to use a computer.

Im kinda tired of hearing people saying that same old boring criticism (though still valid). As if like noone thought about that one...

But yes, a strict primitivist is very unlikely to use such technology.

I do wonder how John Zerzan lives though?

But yeah, I dont think there have been many primitivists on this board, especially since they get treated like shit and banned etc. I do remember this one cool guy who was an old school member then came back and had become a primitivist. I wont hang him for that, but due to his persecution, he became very aggressive in return. And then was banned for, in my opinion, questionable reasons.

[Tower of Bebel]

If we go back in history, alienation "grew" rapidly at the end of the 18th century. But I do not see a reason to push everyone back to 18th century society. It's just sick. They must be reformists who want to end indsutrialisation gradualy.

[TheTickTockMan]

Unlike most of the leftists here at RevLeft, I do not see how "imposing man's domination over nature" will be of any benefit whatsoever. I believe that anthropocentrism fosters a backwards view of nature, in which the universe spins around humanity -- essentially taking a libertarian's view that "I am God over myself and all that I see, my good is the ultimate good" to a collective vision, replacing I and myself with humanity and itself. It isn't individualism of the self, it's individualism of the species, putting the survival of life as we know it on a back-burner to petty, selfish, short-term human needs. I also believe that technology tends to foster dependence, and to a large extent, has been highly destructive to the survival of life on earth.

However!

I believe that technology holds the key to solving this problem. Once humanity has achieved the technological level to begin expanding throughout the whole of inanimate, lifeless space, I believe it has the moral duty to do so. Only once humanity on earth is eradicated may the planet return to pristine wildness, for even primitive man caused mass extinctions and disruptions in the natural order.

I believe that this solution provides a wonderful compromise between the position of the primitivist and the techno-fetishist. Instead of trying to force coexistence on earth, we can render human influence on the planetary ecology negligible simply by evacuating and expanding freely to the rest of the universe, terraforming barren planets and expanding life as we will.

In other words, life, as we know it, is a precious and wonderful thing, and our universe is largely barren and lifeless. Earth shall not remain a harbour for life forever -- in 2 or 3 billion years the expanding sun shall render it a barren rock. Thus, it's our duty to escape the planet and spread life elsewhere, thus cutting off the threat of extinction forever.

@~TTTM

[Idola Mentis]

Hadn't heard of primitivism until I started reading revleft. Reducing technology/complexity seems like an impressively stupid strategy for improving our support structure.

If I was about to invent such a belief system, I'd get working on energy troughput. A lot of our problems today are caused by the megalomaniac scale of the things we do. Reduce scale and reduce energy consumption, but increase complexity as much as possible. Complexity tends to be good. (example: a hundred small farms with diverse output rather than one megafarm with one output. Use small scale biopower rather than some megamultimonstermachine out of National Geographic's nightmares. And so on.)

[Dr Mindbender]

i think wanting to go back to pre-industrialisation is anti-science and anti-progressive.
Therefore primitivism is ultimately reactionary.

[EwokUtopia]

I can respect them as people in real life (at least the ones I met), but honestly
Why the hell would they be on the internet?

[Idola Mentis]

Thinking a bit more on it, I don't see why people shouldn't "go back" if they feel that's the right way to live. Indigenous people all over the world are fighting for much the same cause as the primitivists.

The sad aspect of the thing is that indigenous people are anything but "primitive". It would take a lifetime of training for primitivists from an average western suburban background to be able to survive by a true "primitive" lifestyle. The knowledge bases of "primitive" communities are immense, difficult to aquire, and require a huge variety of very complex skills. A society which is primitive in the sense of members living a simple life, with a very limited knowledge base, a small set of activities, transmitting easily aquired skills etc. would have the long term survival chances of the proverbial whelk in a supernova.

Of course, the step further, to universal primitivism, would involve a massive dieback of the human species. Such an ideology could get nearly as nasty as nazism.

[bluescouse]

How far back do they want to go? If you go back to an agricultural/pastoral society, isn't it likely that it would lead to a return to an agricultural/pastoral type of state, ie robber barons, feudalism, slavery, etc.