Derrick Jensen

[Dimentio]

As an anti-primitivist, I am curious in looking into their arguments, so I watched this video with their new ideological guru and alpha-male Derrick Jensen. My conclusion is that he is a great communicator, but about as deep as Barack Obama (though a lot more entertaining). His message is that of defaitism, that primitivism is inevitable, and he looks forward to it. He has in my opinion a simplified view on ecology and natural sciences, and seems to think that most resources are non-renewable.

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (http://video.google.com/url?docid=8649250863235826256&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H20GoddsI_nKUesVNOYvURc_a720FA)

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (part two) (http://video.google.com/url?docid=6557057252892383895&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H20YUP2waR9Sk65zu9XzgxyFmFPscw)

It is actually hard to not like this man as a person. Unlike most other primitivists, he looks like a "normal" person, and actually got some humor. That is making him into a very dangerous person.

[Vanguard1917]

It is actually hard to not like this man as a person. Unlike most other primitivists, he looks like a "normal" person, and actually got some humor. That is making him into a very dangerous person.

It's not him who is dangerous. Nutters like him have always existed; it's only under certain conditions that they get taken seriously. In another time, he would be dismissed as the village idiot. In today's Western culture of misanthropism and anti-progress, people like him get an audience.

[Dimentio]

Tragically enough, that process of anti-progress, originally adopted by clerical fascists in the 1930;s, were redeemed by "progressive" scholars in the 1960;s. But lets return to Derrick Jensen and the primitivist movement. Why do you think they gain popularity?

[Vanguard1917]

But lets return to Derrick Jensen and the primitivist movement. Why do you think they gain popularity?

Firstly, while the 'primitivist movement' might be gaining in popularity, we can't say that it's popular (like a popular social movement). In fact, people who describe themselves as primitivists are so marginal, so insignificant, so small in number that we shouldn't criticise their ideas independently - that's pointless and a waste of time. What we need to be paying attention to are the anti-progress sentiments that currently exist and grow in mainstream Western society.

To answer the question, primitivist ideas (anti-modernity, anti-progress, anti-development, anti-urbanisation, implicit and explicit misanthropy, etc.) are gaining in popularity in the West because, with the defeat of the working class in the 1980s, there is no social movement in the West calling for progressive social change. As a result, since no significant movement in society is putting forward a forward-looking alternative to the status quo (in the way that the working class socialist movements of the past did), criticisms of current society are increasingly reactionary in content. Reactionary and backward-looking. The mainstream environmentalism is an expression of this reaction; the primitivism of people like Derrick Jensen is a more extreme expression.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:04 pm
To answer the question, primitivist ideas (anti-modernity, anti-progress, anti-development, anti-urbanisation, implicit and explicit misanthropy, etc.) are gaining in popularity in the West because, with the defeat of the working class in the 1980s, there is no social movement in the West calling for progressive social change. As a result, since no significant movement in society is putting forward a forward-looking alternative to the status quo (in the way that the working class socialist movements of the past did), criticisms of current society are increasingly reactionary in content. Reactionary and backward-looking. The mainstream environmentalism is an expression of this reaction; the primitivism of people like Derrick Jensen is a more extreme expression.
That's probably correct. In some places where many so-called "progressives" are found, I see that primitivist ideas are gaining ground and are looked upon as genuine criticisms of the status quo. I think this is because there is no accepted alternative.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+July 03, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Alcaeos @ July 03, 2007 06:21 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 03:04 pm
To answer the question, primitivist ideas (anti-modernity, anti-progress, anti-development, anti-urbanisation, implicit and explicit misanthropy, etc.) are gaining in popularity in the West because, with the defeat of the working class in the 1980s, there is no social movement in the West calling for progressive social change. As a result, since no significant movement in society is putting forward a forward-looking alternative to the status quo (in the way that the working class socialist movements of the past did), criticisms of current society are increasingly reactionary in content. Reactionary and backward-looking. The mainstream environmentalism is an expression of this reaction; the primitivism of people like Derrick Jensen is a more extreme expression.
That's probably correct. In some places where many so-called "progressives" are found, I see that primitivist ideas are gaining ground and are looked upon as genuine criticisms of the status quo. I think this is because there is no accepted alternative. [/b]
I think there is one new ideology which may form a synthesis with progressive remnants and defeat the reactionaries. :)

[socialistfuture]

anyone that doesnt like him actually read his books?

i love them - have mainly just watched him on youtube and read articles.
he is so honest and straight to the point. modern capitalism is not working -

similar to jared diamond. the thing is derrick jensen can say all this and not come off like john zerzan - he remains clear and shows a path.

[socialistfuture]

it is not defeatism - to him defeat is species extinction and in the end the extinction of the human species and life support systems on earth.
sentinel you obv haven't read his books - or understood them. you assume primitism is barbaric chaos - primitism and voluntary simplicity. it is going and walking in the forest or climbing a mountian and swimming and enjoying seeing an eagle. you dont need to conquer or own to enjoy.

it is more of an indigenous and sharing mindset than a conquer and dominate modern mechanistic worldview. i think as global warming - climate chaos comes in and resource wars intensify people will look into move back closer to the land - and work together - rather than compete and keep this mad economic fools game going.

watch his videos on youtube sentinel and tell me what you think - actually listen.

maybe he seems normal - because he is. his views are normal with so many people i know. derrick doesnt hate technology - he lives a modern life - he doesnt blindly worship progress and all forms of technology at any cost tho.

hes prb about 50 now i think - so its not a young reckless thing - he has studied and written throught his life and these are his conclusions. they make heaps of sense.
he is nothing like obama. why do you say he is not deep and then not back it up in anyway.

[socialistfuture]

He has in my opinion a simplified view on ecology and natural sciences, and seems to think that most resources are non-renewable.

could you back that up please with quotes.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:18 pm
it is not defeatism - to him defeat is species extinction and in the end the extinction of the human species and life support systems on earth.
sentinel you obv haven't read his books - or understood them. you assume primitism is barbaric chaos - primitism and voluntary simplicity. it is going and walking in the forest or climbing a mountian and swimming and enjoying seeing an eagle. you dont need to conquer or own to enjoy.

it is more of an indigenous and sharing mindset than a conquer and dominate modern mechanistic worldview. i think as global warming - climate chaos comes in and resource wars intensify people will look into move back closer to the land - and work together - rather than compete and keep this mad economic fools game going.

watch his videos on youtube sentinel and tell me what you think - actually listen.

maybe he seems normal - because he is. his views are normal with so many people i know. derrick doesnt hate technology - he lives a modern life - he doesnt blindly worship progress and all forms of technology at any cost tho.

hes prb about 50 now i think - so its not a young reckless thing - he has studied and written throught his life and these are his conclusions. they make heaps of sense.
he is nothing like obama. why do you say he is not deep and then not back it up in anyway.
An ideology may advertise itself by promising endless mountain promenades, beautiful landscapes, love, compassion and aesthetics, but what matters is not emotion, but what it actually wants to do. A lot of libertarians advocate their ideologies in a similar manner.

You cannot get rid of technology without seeing society fall back into a lower capacity to utilise heat in production, and hence a lower standard of life. Primitivism, no matter if it is seemingly left-wing and advocates free love, anti-authoritarianism and hippie-style aesthetics, is a reactionary doctrine in it's relation to the productive forces.

Unless of course, when Jensen and others are talking about "destroying technology", they somehow somewhat are misinterpreted and actually mean the replacement of the price system with a system which will give all people equal access to the fruits of labor which modern technology has allowed us and capitalism is denying us.

[Sentinel]

watch his videos on youtube sentinel and tell me what you think - actually listen.

That would be Serpent you are adressing, this is my first post in this thread. But I agree with him, this guy seems like a clear case primitivist. As we restrict primitivists, it will be only fair that even open primitivists get to express their views on him.

Moved to OI.

[Dimentio]

I have seen those videos. That is why I linked them.

[socialistfuture]

who voted on revleft restricting primitists?

id like to see why it was done and by whom.

sorry i was mixing up serpent and sentinel - they seem so the same to me in viewpoint and ideology- you didnt quote anything to back up you accusation that he is 'defeatest'. if anything he is quite a revolutionary from most accounts i have heard of him. a green anarchist revolutionary - maybe it is those idealogical differences that are getting you - do you support the mohawk nation and the zapititas? do you support indigenous rights to self determination and things like the maori tino tangatiratanga movement?

[socialistfuture]

also this is not OI - it is science and technology. would u keep a discussion on dr Vandana Shiva in science and technology?

or is it only pro development ideologies that you support that can stay. id like an environmentalist as an additional admit for science and technology.

[socialistfuture]

this could just as easily go into discrimination as a topic

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:54 pm
who voted on revleft restricting primitists?

id like to see why it was done and by whom.

sorry i was mixing up serpent and sentinel - they seem so the same to me in viewpoint and ideology- you didnt quote anything to back up you accusation that he is 'defeatest'. if anything he is quite a revolutionary from most accounts i have heard of him. a green anarchist revolutionary - maybe it is those idealogical differences that are getting you - do you support the mohawk nation and the zapititas? do you support indigenous rights to self determination and things like the maori tino tangatiratanga movement?
I define a defeatist as a "pessimist" who believes that everything will just go shit.

[socialistfuture]

to go back to an earlier debate that was moved-
i dont want to focus on idelogy but on environment and human applications.

here is a lil info from wikipedia. can he hav some debate admin?


Derrick Jensen (born December 19, 1960) is an American author and environmental activist who lives in Northern California. He has published several books questioning contemporary society and its values, including A Language Older Than Words, The Culture of Make Believe, and Endgame. He holds a B.S. in Mineral Engineering Physics from the Colorado School of Mines and an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from Eastern Washington University.[1] He has also taught creative writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University.[2]

Themes in Jensen's work

Jensen is often labeled an anarcho-primitivist, by which is meant he believes that civilization[3] is inherently unsustainable and based on violence. He argues that the modern industrial economy is fundamentally at odds with healthy relationships, the natural environment, and indigenous peoples. Jensen's work catalogues what he perceives as the pervasiveness of abuse, hatred, rape, environmental destruction, and dishonesty (which he says serves to maintain the systemic abuse of civilization). He concludes that the very pervasiveness of these behaviors indicates that they are diagnostic symptoms of the greater problem of civilization itself. Accordingly, he exhorts readers and audiences to help bring an end to industrial civilization.

In A Language Older Than Words and also in an article entitled Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Jensen states "Every morning when I awake I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I'm not sure that's right".[4]

Jensen proposes that a different, harmonious way of life is possible, and that it can be seen in many past societies including many Native American or other indigenous cultures. He claims that many indigenous peoples perceive a primary difference between Western and indigenous perspectives: even the most open-minded Westerners generally view listening to the natural world as a metaphor, as opposed to the way the world works. Furthermore, these indigenous peoples understand the world as consisting of other beings with whom we can enter into relationship; this stands opposed to the more Western belief that the world consists of objects or resources to be exploited or used.

Writings

A Language Older Than Words uses the lens of domestic violence to look at the larger violence of western culture. The Culture of Make Believe begins by exploring racism and misogyny and moves to examine how this culture’s economic system leads inevitably to hatred and atrocity. Strangely Like War is about deforestation. Walking on Water is about education (It begins: "As is true for most people I know, I’ve always loved learning. As is also true for most people I know, I always hated school. Why is that?").[5] Welcome to the Machine is about surveillance, and more broadly about science and this culture’s obsession with control.

Jensen's latest work, Endgame, is about what he describes as the inherent unsustainability of civilization. In this book he asks: "Do you believe that this culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?" Nearly everyone he talks to says no. His next question is: "How would this understanding—that this culture will not voluntarily stop destroying the natural world, eliminating indigenous cultures, exploiting the poor, and killing those who resist—shift our strategy and tactics? The answer? Nobody knows, because we never talk about it: we’re too busy pretending the culture will undergo a magical transformation." Endgame, he says, is "about that shift in strategy, and in tactics."[6]

Jensen's writing uses the first-person and interweaves personal experiences with cited facts to construct arguments. His books are written like narratives, lacking a linear, hierarchical structure. They are not divided into distinct sections devoted to an individual argument. Instead, his writing is conversational, leaving one line of thought incomplete to move on to another, returning to the first again at some later point. Jensen uses this creative non-fiction style to combine his artistic voice with logical argument.

Awards and acclaim

* 2006: Named "Person of the Year" by Press Action for the publication of Endgame.[7]
* 2003: The Culture of Make Believe was one of two finalists for the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize.[8]
* 2000: Hackensack, NJ, Record declared A Language Older Than Words its best book of the year.
* 2000: Language was nominated for Quality Paperback Book Club's New Vision Award.
* 1998: Second Prize in the category of small budget non-profit advertisements, as determined by the Inland Northwest Ad Federation, for the first ad in the "National Forests: Your land, your choice" series.
* 1995: Critics' Choice for one of America's ten best nature books of 1995, for Listening to the Land: Conversations About Nature, Culture, and Eros.[9]

anyone know of online critiques of some oh his work - im not interested in idelogy again - but in the science and environment side of this - sustainability and so on.
anyone read all of endgame?

[socialistfuture]

his website is http://www.derrickjensen.org

[socialistfuture]

another environmentalist with anti capialist views is

Derek wall - hadnt heard of him till recently.

his blog is http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/


Derek Wall PhD is a British politician and current Principal Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales as well as an environmental and social activist, academic and writer whose work concentrates on eco-socialism and the relationship between Marxism and the environment. Wall is also a Zen-practitioner and keeps a regular blog.

Beliefs

Wall is an eco-socialist and anti-capitalist who believes that "an infinitely growing capitalist economy destroys nature, fuels injustice and leads to an alienated way of life"[1]. He describes Green politics as "the politics of survival", stressing that "unless we build a green economy based on meeting need rather than greed our children face a bleak future"[1]. He adds that "a world dominated by the need for constant growth puts people and the rest nature behind a blind economic system of accumulation"[1].

[edit] Moving Beyond Capitalism

[edit] Strategies

In a chapter of Babylon and Beyond entitled Life After Capitalism: Alternatives, Structures, Strategies, Wall suggests that "conventional economics is surprisingly dangerous for a subject normally portrayed as a neutral science", and advocates the proposition of "solid liveable alternatives" by the anti-capitalist movement. Though he does not discount the "plots and plans" of the corporate lobby, American neo-conservatives free market liberals, which are "hardly secret", he criticises the tendency of many anti-capitalists to be attracted to "warm conspiracies" which "generate a personal enemy with a human face who can be challenged". Instead, he wishes to address the "structural element" of capitalism, drawing on the critical realist philosophy of Roy Bhaskar, who suggests that "invisible structures", like capitalism and language, shape society but can themselves be changed by human activity. This means that "the conspirators construct, where they are successful, new structures, but as capitalists they are themselves bearers of deeper structural imperatives to exploit labour, subjectivity and the earth"[3].

Stating that "history does not march to a predictable narrative", Wall criticises the determinism of some Marxists, on the one hand, who promote "hyperglobalisation" in an attempt to move the world closer to the apparently inevitable socialist order, and, on other hand, subsistence ecofeminists, who look to turn to clock back to the time of peasant societies. He rejects productivism in favour of "in different contexts economic arrangements that fulfil need equitably, develop humanity, sustain ecosystems and lead to cooperation"[3].

[edit] Propositions

Wall first suggests "embedded markets", embedded in society, with "state provision decentralised", as a first step to adapt capitalism. He cites the example of the Indian adivasis, who regained the land they originally inhabited and sold tea via the Fair Trade system. Here, Wall argues that "social preference rather than profit maximisation socialised economic activity". He welcomes the movements in Argentina that have seen workers occupy and reopen bankrupt factories. He applauds the work done on creating a "decentralised, socialist economy" in Cuba and Venezuela. Also, he is encouraged by the growth in Green consumerism, noting that "we cannot shop or work our way to utopia, but such projects ease present ills and point roughly to a different future"[3].

Taking on the work of Marx on the distinction between use-values and exchange-values, Wall stresses that "exchange values must be rejected", so that "economics can be bent towards serving the needs of humanity and nature rather than its own violent abstract growth". This means building things to last and sharing resources: he advocates the increased use of libraries, permaculture and the localisation of economies where possible. He highlights the Rastafarian notion of 'Ital', a form of localism in which "what is sacred is what comes from the earth and is grown locally", and where localism and internationalism are mixed "without building walls between sects" in what Wall calls a "worldwide rooted cosmopolitanism"[3].

Nonetheless, Wall envisages as the ultimate aim the rolling back of both the market and the state. To this end, he wishes to "defend, extend and deepen" the commons against enclosure as a way of giving people back their means of production. He believes that the extension of the commons provides the best model for consensus-based social and ecological management and sharing. In the same vein, Wall supports Open Source Software as one of the "new commons regimes... created with technological and social change", one which "is a stunning example of how both the market and the state can be bypassed by cooperative creativity". "Marx", he quips, "would have been a Firefox user"[3].

[Sentinel]

to go back to an earlier debate that was moved-

Socialistfuture, that debate can perfectly well continue in the thread I moved to Opposing Ideologues just a couple of hours ago. I'm positive that Mr Jensen will do just fine with just one thread concerning him open on this board.

Topics merged.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:58 pm
his website is http://www.derrickjensen.org
Oh please.

Why is it - in any way - progressive to return to a hunter-gatherer society?

[socialistfuture]

thats not what all people who are interested in him suggest.

what is progressive about self destruction from breaching resource boundaries and going into system collapse - it is possible that climate chaos will make areas uninhabitable and figures like 40% of all earths species may become extinct.

did u go to the website?

i know you love technology - in fact worship it.
primitists arent anti technology full stop - just like the luddites werent. derrick flies, lives in a house and runs a website - he is a writer - and uses a computer to write on.

he has a critique that is well founded on modern industrial civilization (ie capitalism and imperialism) and thinks it is things like patriarchy and racism and technological violence and blind progress worship that are root causes - not symptoms.

i would imagine serpent you have a critique on 'progress' (ie of the economic type) for its own sake. it is about where do humans fit in as a whole - not what can we own, kill and dominate.

i'd be interested to read a technocratic analysis of war and colonialism.

please use a little less emotional gut reactions - and take a deeper analysis. im pretty much vegan so i dont want to be a hunter gatherer - i want to garden and plant forests and do permiculture.

serpent - can u talk about modern society and where u see the future going.

[socialistfuture]

Socialistfuture, that debate can perfectly well continue in the thread I moved to Opposing Ideologues just a couple of hours ago. I'm positive that Mr Jensen will do just fine with just one thread concerning him open on this board.

fair call - i think it is about more than ideology tho.

we are talking about environmentalism and for some anti environment industrialism at all costs. i cant think of other ways to phrase it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 06, 2007 05:26 pm--> (Serpent @ July 06, 2007 05:26 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 10:58 pm
his website is http://www.derrickjensen.org
Oh please.

Why is it - in any way - progressive to return to a hunter-gatherer society? [/b]
The odd thing he doesn't even call for that. From the website:


In Volume I: The Problem of Civilization, Jensen lays out a series of provocative premises, including “Civilization is not and can never be sustainable” and “Love does not imply pacifism.” He vividly imagines an end to technologized, industrialized civilization and a return to agragrian communal life.

Emphasis added.

Now agrarian societies are not typically so egalitarian as hunter-gatherer societies.

In fact, agriculture was associated with the rise of civilization, slavery and serfdom. While modern industry is associated with the rise of capitalism, democracy, and the modern working-class movement.

I suppose he could point to some American Indian societies as a counterexample. But really those were on the road towards class society, becoming less egalitarian. Potlatch chiefs and even Inca god-emperors.

Despite having no draft animals suitable for pulling plows or carts, and no metal tools, which greatly lowered the productivity of agriculture - making it harder to produce the surplus needed by a ruling class.

So Jensen's agrarian reaction makes even less sense than Zerzan's hunter-gatherer reaction, if their followers are hoping for a more egalitarian society....

***

I'm not sure why anyone would consider these people "dangerous." They don't represent the interests of any class, are unlikely to get a truly mass following, ever.

The real danger of a return to the Stone Age doesn't come from people who advocate one; it comes from the tensions among contending nuclear-armed capitalist states.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not sure why anyone would consider these people "dangerous." They don't represent the interests of any class, are unlikely to get a truly mass following, ever.

The danger is the Western middle class culture of anti-progress which means that people like Derrick Jensen, Al Gore, Zerzan, George Monbiot, etc. get an audience. Yes, i lumped them all together. The foundation for their appeal is the same: a middle class hostility towards progress. As people who aspire to revolution (i.e. a progressive, radical transformation of life as we know it), we should be very concerned about such trends.

[socialistfuture]

well your assumptions show through - you are pro growth at any cost. prove me wrong if that is not what you belive.

there is a big difference between al gore and zerzan - in fact some deep ecologists think al gore is pretty soft on his environmentalism, he has links to oil companies and is pretty corporate and as you say 'middle class' tho maybe more upper class - i'd say he is pretty well off.

i would say three out of those for are all for revolution, radical changes (gore being the od one out as he is a social democrat maybe - ie into buisness changes - ie fixing environmental and climate problems thru working with buisnesses and corporations).

the real danger is in people like you who have no concept of ecological balance and resource management or limits to development. it is the type of 'progress' that is at question and who is progressing. it is short term economic progress that i believe you seek. so short sighted.

[Dimentio]

I would myself prefer an optimal growth system where we are using a minimum amount of input to get a maximum amount of output. The problem is that you are equalising technology with growth.

Besides, can you define what primitivism is in non-vague terms?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:59 am
As an anti-primitivist, I am curious in looking into their arguments, so I watched this video with their new ideological guru and alpha-male Derrick Jensen. My conclusion is that he is a great communicator, but about as deep as Barack Obama (though a lot more entertaining). His message is that of defaitism, that primitivism is inevitable, and he looks forward to it. He has in my opinion a simplified view on ecology and natural sciences, and seems to think that most resources are non-renewable.

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (http://video.google.com/url?docid=8649250863235826256&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H20GoddsI_nKUesVNOYvURc_a720FA)

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (part two) (http://video.google.com/url?docid=6557057252892383895&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H20YUP2waR9Sk65zu9XzgxyFmFPscw)

It is actually hard to not like this man as a person. Unlike most other primitivists, he looks like a "normal" person, and actually got some humor. That is making him into a very dangerous person.
Am i the only one who sees the irony of a primitivist using the internet to get his propaganda across? :lol:

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 08, 2007 06:25 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 08, 2007 06:25 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:59 am
As an anti-primitivist, I am curious in looking into their arguments, so I watched this video with their new ideological guru and alpha-male Derrick Jensen. My conclusion is that he is a great communicator, but about as deep as Barack Obama (though a lot more entertaining). His message is that of defaitism, that primitivism is inevitable, and he looks forward to it. He has in my opinion a simplified view on ecology and natural sciences, and seems to think that most resources are non-renewable.

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (http://video.google.com/url?docid=8649250863235826256&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8649250863235826256% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H20GoddsI_nKUesVNOYvURc_a720FA)

Derrick Jensen ~ Endgame (part two) (http://video.google.com/url?docid=6557057252892383895&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Derrick%2BJensen&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D6557057252892383895% 26q%3DDerrick%2BJensen%26total%3D27%26start%3D0%26 num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H20YUP2waR9Sk65zu9XzgxyFmFPscw)

It is actually hard to not like this man as a person. Unlike most other primitivists, he looks like a "normal" person, and actually got some humor. That is making him into a very dangerous person.
Am i the only one who sees the irony of a primitivist using the internet to get his propaganda across? :lol: [/b]
No, just about every anti-primitivist "notices" that and makes some asinine remark about it, but its really about as ironic as an anti-capitalist using, say, a computer and internet connection bought from capitalists?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The thing is though technology doesn't need capitalism or capitalist motives in order to develop. Primitivism as one of it's defining tenets holds technology to be some sort of evil.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:08 am
The thing is though technology doesn't need capitalism or capitalist motives in order to develop. Primitivism as one of it's defining tenets holds technology to be some sort of evil.
Both seek the destruction of our current society in one form or another, but are still trapped within it and thus make the most of its tools to accomplish their goals. :rolleyes:

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:08 pm
Primitivism as one of it's defining tenets holds technology to be some sort of evil.

Primitivism holds that the technological process is a product of alienated social relations and requires alienation, hierarchy and exploitation, along with ecological destruction, in order to continue going on. The use of these technologies tends to reproduce that alienation and exploitation.

The attempt to improve technology and extend civilization via communism is self-managed exploitation at best and technocratic dictatorship at worst. Primitivism wants to destroy not only the products of civilization (technology, industry, etc) but the logic of civilization (industrial obedience, mass production, routine).

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by AmbitiousHedonism+July 09, 2007 05:04 pm--> (AmbitiousHedonism @ July 09, 2007 05:04 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 01:08 pm
Primitivism as one of it's defining tenets holds technology to be some sort of evil.

Primitivism holds that the technological process is a product of alienated social relations and requires alienation, hierarchy and exploitation, along with ecological destruction, in order to continue going on. The use of these technologies tends to reproduce that alienation and exploitation.

The attempt to improve technology and extend civilization via communism is self-managed exploitation at best and technocratic dictatorship at worst. Primitivism wants to destroy not only the products of civilization (technology, industry, etc) but the logic of civilization (industrial obedience, mass production, routine). [/b]
And how would life be under primitivism then? ;)

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:46 pm
And how would life be under primitivism then? ;)

I don't know.

There are two trends in primitivism: one that argues civilization will collapse on its own from an ecological disaster or industrial crisis as a result of its own logic, and another argues that civilization might be slowly unlearned and abandoned by most civilized people and/or destroyed by the conscious effort of anti-civilizationists.

Each path would obviously lead to different ways society w/could be restructured. Familiar aspects in all of them tend to emphasize reliance on knowledge of local ecology, plants, animals; how to survive without electricity, industrial food supply; learning how to work together in a tribe without chiefs; breaking habits and traditions like monogamy, gender roles, ownership; keeping the pace of the sun and the seasons, not an alarm clock or punch card.

[Dimentio]

Idealism. The amount of energy one could use in a society determine how much time people will have to develop relationships. Whi we assume that people would have 16 hours of work in a technocratic society, and 35-50 hours in a capitalist society, in a primitivist society (i.e a society there energy usage is more equal with the production capacity of the human body) we will have about 124 hours of work to sustain one individual.

Are you a primitivt sympathiser as well?

[bcbm]

in a primitivist society (i.e a society there energy usage is more equal with the production capacity of the human body) we will have about 124 hours of work to sustain one individual.

What are you basing that number on? Most anthropologists agree that gatherer-hunter societies were quite leisurely and actually did very little "work" in the sense you seem to be using it- probably under 10 hours a week.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 07:53 pm

in a primitivist society (i.e a society there energy usage is more equal with the production capacity of the human body) we will have about 124 hours of work to sustain one individual.

What are you basing that number on? Most anthropologists agree that gatherer-hunter societies were quite leisurely and actually did very little "work" in the sense you seem to be using it- probably under 10 hours a week.
That would require a minimisation of Earth's population to about 500.000-1.000.000. Due to the extreme loss of available energy due to the primitivist programme, would'nt a lot of people perish? Since Jensen is more about agriculture than hgs;s, I am assuming that he wants to return to the "good old days" when people worked cultivating the land.

indivuduals globally. And why utilise that strategy when we have an opportunity to feed 10-20 billion individuals and yet keep a functioning environment. Everything we would need to do is to stabilise the population at 4-7 billion people.

And what about Jensen's analysis of the "inevitability" of social collapse? It sounds more religious than based upon science.

[bcbm]

That would require a minimisation of Earth's population to about 500.000-1.000.000. Due to the extreme loss of available energy due to the primitivist programme, would'nt a lot of people perish?

Given what AH has already explained about how most primitivists view a possible "future primitive," it is obvious that yes, there will be less people on earth. However, in neither scenario is it due to any sort of malicious "primitivist programme." Under the first scenario (civilization collapses), it is due to the inherent logic of civilization that things collapse and that billions will die. Under the second scenario (people adopting primitivism), there would probably be efforts to reduce global population naturally over time, or some such thing. A slow abandonment, metered to current population demands.


And why utilise that strategy when we have an opportunity to feed 10-20 billion individuals and yet keep a functioning environment. Everything we would need to do is to stabilise the population at 4-7 billion people.

Having food isn't the only thing that makes a decent life. Primitivists would probably argue that the structures and methods required to sustain such a population force alienation and some level of hierarchal and exploitative society. They'd also probably disagree that the environment could continue functioning indefinitely with such an expansive industrial development.


And what about Jensen's analysis of the "inevitability" of social collapse? It sounds more religious than based upon science.

All civilizations that have expanded beyond their resources have collapsed. Jensen and his peers see our civilization going down that same road, and extrapolate that it will meet similar results.

[Dimentio]

In fact, most pre-modern societies were and is more repressing and exploitative against humans than the current capitalist society. In hunter-gatherer societies, social conformity and taboos are very pervasive. If I were a bushman, I would literally be obliged to take part in all activities of the extended family. We could also see that agricultural societies with their feudal protectors, scutage, social repression and uncertainty led to social states which were quite repressive.

[bcbm]

Which is why neither primitivists nor anti-industrialists argue for a wholesale "return to the past." They argue for more free social relations based on past modes of production that they believe enabled more free societies to exist.

[Dimentio]

That is similar to the traditionalist assertions that we should imply traditional European values based on caste-ideologies and aristocracy on our social relations. The problem with that analysis is that it ignores that the social relations are a product of their time and their mode of production.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:30 pm
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores that the social relations are a product of their time and their mode of production.
I don't think this is absolutely true. I think different social relationships can occur than simply what did... which doesn't seem to be too out of line with communist thinking. After all, if we achieve a communist society in this lifetime, the method of production will not be altogether different from what existed under capitalism, it is just a matter of who controls it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:35 am
I would myself prefer an optimal growth system where we are using a minimum amount of input to get a maximum amount of output. The problem is that you are equalising technology with growth.

Besides, can you define what primitivism is in non-vague terms?
Ahh... You closet capitalist you...

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by ZX3+July 09, 2007 08:46 pm--> (ZX3 @ July 09, 2007 08:46 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 06:35 am
I would myself prefer an optimal growth system where we are using a minimum amount of input to get a maximum amount of output. The problem is that you are equalising technology with growth.

Besides, can you define what primitivism is in non-vague terms?
Ahh... You closet capitalist you... [/b]
There are growth in all sorts of systems, not only in capitalism. In a technocracy for example, growth will be what happen when we will find more efficient ways to use energy, hence increase the productivity without having an equal impact upon environment. Not to say that technocracy always balances production wit consumption without any waste (even market economies have waste since businesses must estimate how much people will consume, while a technate always knows that because of energy accounting).

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+July 09, 2007 08:39 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ July 09, 2007 08:39 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 02:30 pm
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores that the social relations are a product of their time and their mode of production.
I don't think this is absolutely true. I think different social relationships can occur than simply what did... which doesn't seem to be too out of line with communist thinking. After all, if we achieve a communist society in this lifetime, the method of production will not be altogether different from what existed under capitalism, it is just a matter of who controls it. [/b]
Nay, that is socialism. Communism is an automated system which distributes things according to needs, without accumulating wealth to a small elite or to anyone.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 09, 2007 03:54 pm--> (Serpent @ July 09, 2007 03:54 pm)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 08:39 pm

[email protected] 09, 2007 02:30 pm
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores that the social relations are a product of their time and their mode of production.
I don't think this is absolutely true. I think different social relationships can occur than simply what did... which doesn't seem to be too out of line with communist thinking. After all, if we achieve a communist society in this lifetime, the method of production will not be altogether different from what existed under capitalism, it is just a matter of who controls it.
Nay, that is socialism. Communism is an automated system which distributes things according to needs, without accumulating wealth to a small elite or to anyone. [/b]
I don't think communism being entirely automated is, uh, central to the thinking of most communists.

[Dimentio]

To both Marx and Bakunin, that was what they had in mind. :D

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:00 pm
To both Marx and Bakunin, that was what they had in mind. :D
Marx and Bakunin believed in Automation some hundred years before the concept and technology even existed? :huh:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+July 09, 2007 10:17 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ July 09, 2007 10:17 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 04:00 pm
To both Marx and Bakunin, that was what they had in mind. :D
Marx and Bakunin believed in Automation some hundred years before the concept and technology even existed? :huh: [/b]
They both lived during the 19th century, which was almost as technologically progressive as the 20th century. In fact, a person born in 1818 and dead in 1889 would recognise an immense difference between the technological level at his birth and his death. :)

[bcbm]

They both lived during the 19th century, which was almost as technologically progressive as the 20th century.

But automation wasn't developed until the 1950's by the Air Force, and I thought Marx believed communism could occur at the technological level that existed in his lifetime?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 10:24 pm

They both lived during the 19th century, which was almost as technologically progressive as the 20th century.

But automation wasn't developed until the 1950's by the Air Force, and I thought Marx believed communism could occur at the technological level that existed in his lifetime?
Marx meant that socialism could be achieved within his lifetime, and it was the early Marx. The late Marx was more tolerant and philosophical than angry.

[socialistfuture]

marx was an industrialist and engels wrote a little bit more on environmental factors aii, under capitalism today we have food shortages, lack of clean water, deforestation, ecological devastation, mass inequality, obesity and starvation, dispossesion and homelesness, endless war, far reaching violence, large militaries who often work with mining and oil companies (see iraq or west papua), human rights violations, not to mention large extinctions of species and melting of ice caps, desertification, slavery and endless other ills. you cannot better manage these things - a lot of them need to be stopped and mass changes to happen,
otherwise all you are doing is repeating the pattern with a new system and set of rulers.

socialism cannot be a cousin of capitalism, it needs to end certain activities and practices. is socialism is not democratic then it is dictatorial - similiar to capitalism.
there are limits to what a society can do and still call itself ethical and legitimate.

[Vanguard1917]

We can all complain about the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Progressive change involves going forward and surpassing capitalism - not going backwards and retreating from capitalism.

No matter what reactionaries like Derrick Jensen say, humanity never solved anything by standing still or going back. That's conservatism.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:34 am
marx was an industrialist and engels wrote a little bit more on environmental factors aii, under capitalism today we have food shortages, lack of clean water, deforestation, ecological devastation, mass inequality, obesity and starvation, dispossesion and homelesness, endless war, far reaching violence, large militaries who often work with mining and oil companies (see iraq or west papua), human rights violations, not to mention large extinctions of species and melting of ice caps, desertification, slavery and endless other ills. you cannot better manage these things - a lot of them need to be stopped and mass changes to happen,
otherwise all you are doing is repeating the pattern with a new system and set of rulers.

socialism cannot be a cousin of capitalism, it needs to end certain activities and practices. is socialism is not democratic then it is dictatorial - similiar to capitalism.
there are limits to what a society can do and still call itself ethical and legitimate.
I am in agreement with that. And the cures, guess what, needs to be partially technological in nature.

[socialistfuture]

yeah i agree with u, because if they are fully technological nothing has changed. the exploitation and domination of corporations - and it usually makes no difference if they are state corporations.
it is not a matter of retreating (going to live on a commune and leaving politics would be retreating), it is amatter of a slightly different revolution to what vanguard wants. he wants simply a more democratic form of capitalism - which presumably has socialist rulers (similar to china? but with slightly more democracy?)

i want better technology ie windmills, offshort windmills, sea turbines and many forms of solar plus localised biofuel (as in not from the amazon and brasilian and other rainforests).

vanguard can u find quotes of derrick saying he wants to be a hunter gatherer - are you confusing him with john zerzan? derrick jensen is no reactionary - takes many similar positions to dead prez - ie critisizing the prison system, school system and government.

i would say an alignment os different ideologies is needed at times to battle capitalism because it is so powerful - and that is what things like the world social forum and anti G8 counter protests are. this is bigger than marxist lenininsts or small anarchist groups. the left will fail if it attacks anyones whose views dont fit exactly with theirs.

[Dimentio]

Windmills? Better? Because you like their look or what?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:13 pm
vanguard can u find quotes of derrick saying he wants to be a hunter gatherer - are you confusing him with john zerzan? derrick jensen is no reactionary -
Well, I found and commented on a clearly reactionary Jensen quote back on the first page. In its way worse, or at least more nonsensical, than Zerzan and the hunter-gatherer people.

You didn't respond. I think you're dodging the real issues here.


takes many similar positions to dead prez - ie critisizing the prison system, school system and government.

All kinds of people are against the status quo - the question is, what are they for? From what direction are the opposing the status quo?


i would say an alignment os different ideologies is needed at times to battle capitalism because it is so powerful - and that is what things like the world social forum and anti G8 counter protests are. this is bigger than marxist lenininsts or small anarchist groups. the left will fail if it attacks anyones whose views dont fit exactly with theirs.

Dude, don't fit exactly? The question is, are we trying to move forward or return to the past. This is not a minor question of not fitting exactly.

If we're supposed to unite with anyone who will bring more warm bodies to a protest, why stop with primitivists? Why not fascists, Patrick Buchanan also participated in the Seattle anti-WTO protests....not suprisingly, given their protectionist, economic nationalist content. Down with that foreign steel and other imports....

No, what's needed to bring down capitalism is not an alliance of "different ideologies", you're still thinking far too small.

What's needed is a mass movement of working people and all the opressed and exploited. And any whiff of primitivism or returning to the past is something that really turns off most people for good reason.

[socialistfuture]

Despite having no draft animals suitable for pulling plows or carts, and no metal tools, which greatly lowered the productivity of agriculture - making it harder to produce the surplus needed by a ruling class.

you support the ruling class?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:21 pm


Despite having no draft animals suitable for pulling plows or carts, and no metal tools, which greatly lowered the productivity of agriculture - making it harder to produce the surplus needed by a ruling class.

you support the ruling class?
I do.

I support the people as a ruling class.

In a post-capitalist society, a communist/technocratic society, the people will soon live as an aristocracy, living in abundance, while an integrated, automatised infrastructural system is doing all work. That is what we strive for, though.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:21 am


Despite having no draft animals suitable for pulling plows or carts, and no metal tools, which greatly lowered the productivity of agriculture - making it harder to produce the surplus needed by a ruling class.

you support the ruling class?
Obviously, my point is that more productive agriculture is more likely to produce a ruling class, plus feudalism, slavery, caste systems, etc. So unless Jensen is planning to make everyone somehow forget how to use draft animals and metal tools....you're going to get class society, not the Iroquois.

For the second time, read the post and respond to the actual points. Unless you're just a troll.

[socialistfuture]

you seek one class? a rulling class of all?



Dude, don't fit exactly? The question is, are we trying to move forward or return to the past. This is not a minor question of not fitting exactly.

If we're supposed to unite with anyone who will bring more warm bodies to a protest, why stop with primitivists? Why not fascists, Patrick Buchanan also participated in the Seattle anti-WTO protests....not suprisingly, given their protectionist, economic nationalist content. Down with that foreign steel and other imports....

No, what's needed to bring down capitalism is not an alliance of "different ideologies", you're still thinking far too small.

What's needed is a mass movement of working people and all the opressed and exploited. And any whiff of primitivism or returning to the past is something that really turns off most people for good reason

im sorry but primitism is simply strong environmentalism with an added part of the return to the past.

also know as deep ecology, deep green or in australia the most hard core get called
'ferals' or hippies. most are not anti technology - they are anti technology as a solution to environmental problems.

do u class earth first! as primitist? and green anarchists and eco socialists? are west papuan tribesmen and people fighting against a mine and occupation primitist? do you therefore not support the rights of tribal people?

i support amazonwatch and survival international and so on, to me big buisness and a lot of unethical corporations like Monsanto, Rio Tinto, mc donalds, nike and so on are the enemy. that does not mean i want to bring conflict to their workers - i want them to leave and find better more ethical jobs. i hate mines not miners.

derrick jensen is very popular amongst anarchists and environmentalists. i suggest you read a couple of his books. he doesnt advocate destroying all memory of modern technology - he thinks modern capitalism is suicidal - i agree.

[Severian]

Yeah, you're still not dealing with my points.

[socialistfuture]

so what do you propose?
capitalism causes class conflict and hierarchy. in fact its prob as extreme as its ever been bar when there was straight out slavery (which still exists today just in less places in the world).

derrick jensen is not responsible for class - what is the point you are trying to make severian?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:16 am
so what do you propose?
I propose you stop dodging around and finally read and respond to my post on the first page of this thread. I propose that you explain to me how you're going to have an agrarian society that's not a feudal or slave society.

More generally? I propose continuing economic and social progress towards a post-scarcity economy, aka communism.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:05 am

im sorry but primitism is simply strong environmentalism with an added part of the return to the past.

That's the hollowed out version of primitivism that folks on this forum have every reason to reject as an opposing ideology. Deep Ecology is a bizzarre form of mysticism that espouses a mostly misanthropic worldview.

Anarchist-Primitivism wants the oppressed to consciously reject industrial society not merely because it is destroying the earth but because it is breeding misery and alienation for humans.

[socialistfuture]

your second line sums it up for me. i believe that industrialism leads to monocultures and corporate domination - or in a social democratic alternative the corporations are state run - a form of state capitalism.

communism has never existed i would imagine most pro industrialist marxists on this forum would say?

it is not a return to the past for me, but a decend future i seek - one with clean water, food for people who dont have it now and a clean atmosphere (coal being one of the main problems with this one),
i dont think its about primitism vs industrialism - well neither are preferable for me - i am vegan so dont want to hunt, and an environmentalist so dont want an industrial wasteland for my home.

be good to have another way to argue this in the science and environment thread.
maybe going into futurism as well.

~

[Dimentio]

Oh gosh what that avatar disturbs me...

Anyway, are you for an agrarian society, yes or no?

[socialistfuture]

not in full - i want some wild areas and prob tiny industrial sectors. i am not anti all factories, industry and things like computers and so on. i like bikes etc - so things like that need t be made.

i like localised industry and am not into things like free trade - i like fair trade. maybe we should better have this discussion by email.

yes i am agrarian but into permiculture not large scale monoculture - i guess i am int villages like what the zapatista communities have, and real ig on indigenous societies.

the modern capitalist world however is nearly 50% industrialised - so there is a lot to take into consideration. i can tell you some books and reports and movements i find interesting and inspiring.

are you into agrarian society?

[socialistfuture]

in response NO if that means humans dominate most of the space of the planet, if it is more balanced and it is shared space agrarianism then maybe YES.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:57 am
in response NO if that means humans dominate most of the space of the planet, if it is more balanced and it is shared space agrarianism then maybe YES.
If we are using vertical agriculture and hydroponics, we could reduce the space which we are nurturing crops on and increase forest lands. If we on the contrary all would move from the cities and start farming in traditional/ecological agriculture, there would be no place left for other species or for ecological diversity.

[socialistfuture]

i belive that we need a decrease in population and also mass permiculture including like you mention - food grown in the cities.

i like a project in new yorn which is about growing food on the roofs of buildings and increasing greenbelts.

i prefer the wilderness but the reality is a lot of people live in urban areas, so that must come into any environmental anylasis.

i still value peasants and people who live close to the land, i dont however think people should toil endlessly to make landlords and others rich. kings deserve what charles got.

vandana shiva and subcomandante marcos are two of my heroes - both rather different but very influencial for me. derrick jensen i enjoy reading, he reminds me a little bit of tom brown. and i guess people like Henry David Thoreau.