Green Anarchism

[Rosa Provokateur]

I've been reading up on green anarchist theory, some primitivist and some not. It interests me and I wanted to know what you guys thought about it and if theres any insight I could be given. Pro and anti opinions are all welcome. Specify if your talking about primitivism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

alot of comrades here are progressive so they hold little or no sympathy for primitivists. i disagree with primitivism, but i love nature, and small communal living in a more natural setting. so i wouldnt be called a progressive.

[victim77]

I disagree with the hatred towards primitivism (though am not a supporter of it) and I feel we should always be cautios about how we are effecting the environment when we progress.

[bellyscratch]

So basically if you think the environment is as or nearly as important as the human species you're a primitivist?
Could someone please expand on this

[mykittyhasaboner]

from my understanding, primitivism would mean you want to do away with industry and remain completely in a agricultural society. im not sure if im completely correct but that would be the jist of it.

[bellyscratch]

oh ok, cheers. So wanting to change industry into a more 'green' activity is not primitivism then?

I can see the attraction of primitivism, but i find it makes more sense to progress technologically with consideration of the environment at all times as this could in theory help neutralise the damage industry has done and is doing at the moment.

I personally see socialist revolution as the first stage in improving society, after that moving towards a more environmentally friendly way of living, if that makes sense.

[Jazzratt]

We must be considerate towards the ecosystem that supports us until it is no longer necessary, green anarchism posits we should forever be mindful of the biosphere and as such I oppose it.

[shorelinetrance]

So basically if you think the environment is as or nearly as important as the human species you're a primitivist?
Could someone please expand on this

thats usually what the idealogues of the left say.

[victim77]

We must be considerate towards the ecosystem that supports us until it is no longer necessary, green anarchism posits we should forever be mindful of the biosphere and as such I oppose it.

And when do you see it to become no longer necessary? If we just put the environment at the bottom of the list once we have fixed our mistakes we will just set our selves up for more problems in the future.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So basically if you think the environment is as or nearly as important as the human species you're a primitivist?
Could someone please expand on this

No, a primitivist believes in getting rid of all technology and returning to a hunter-gatherer style of living like the Bushmen or Inuit. This includes getting rid of agriculture, animal domestication, and science.

Green anarchists al agree that a cut in technology is needed but not all are primitivists; I for one wouldnt mind seeing the human race get rid of the tv or the car.

[misanthroshit]

but if we don't have cars how are we going to drive to walmart to get cheap televisions? something tells me you haven't thought this one through.

[eXacto]

Primitists (not green anarchists) also believe that illnesses are made by mother nature to control her system. They are against medicins and flue shots and stuff...They're simply nuts. I can understand eco-activism (people are fucking up my world!) But getting people (lots of them) killed by diseases in name of mother nature , No comfort , no privacy and living like cavemen is not the way...Primitism is in my eyes just a crapload of radical (and utopian) nonsense.

[misanthroshit]

in some ways i dig what the primitivists are about, mostly because i totally loved fight club. the world would be very exciting if i got to run around the woods with my blowgun trying to take down some small game for my meal. the thing is i can do that now if i want. where primitivists are kind of assholes is when they try and force everyone else to be primitivists.

[thejambo1]

primitivism would need the near total destruction of the human race, leaving nowt but a few people to hunt and gather!! a load of utopian crap that should be ignored and not even bothered with.

[bellyscratch]

I love the idea of primitivism! i'd miss my laptop though if we had to live like that :(

[The Douche]

No, a primitivist believes in getting rid of all technology and returning to a hunter-gatherer style of living like the Bushmen or Inuit. This includes getting rid of agriculture, animal domestication, and science.

Green anarchists al agree that a cut in technology is needed but not all are primitivists; I for one wouldnt mind seeing the human race get rid of the tv or the car.

How about we get cleaner fuels for cars?

What is wrong with TV? TV will be an excellent tool, post revolution for people to discuss thier ideas and make real progress in the new world and it will expose so many people to new ways of thinking.

How can you support the destruction of television but use the internet? They seem like they're on the same level to me.

[Rosa Provokateur]

How about we get cleaner fuels for cars?

What is wrong with TV? TV will be an excellent tool, post revolution for people to discuss thier ideas and make real progress in the new world and it will expose so many people to new ways of thinking.

How can you support the destruction of television but use the internet? They seem like they're on the same level to me.

TV takes peoples lives, they just sit around watching the damn thing 24/7 and I'm tired of it controlling people. The best way to dicuss ideas by talking with eachother either face-to-face or through correspondance like we're doing right now.

I cant control tv but the internet gives me power to talk to people of like-mind and allows me to express myself and dialogue with people who can give me ideas while I give them ideas.

[The Douche]

TV takes peoples lives, they just sit around watching the damn thing 24/7 and I'm tired of it controlling people. The best way to dicuss ideas by talking with eachother either face-to-face or through correspondance like we're doing right now.

I cant control tv but the internet gives me power to talk to people of like-mind and allows me to express myself and dialogue with people who can give me ideas while I give them ideas.

So instead of having the working class control television you want to abolish it? Who are you to deprive me of something that is an amazing tool for communication, education, and entertainment.

I watch TV almost every day, and I read books, get on the computer, go to work, and hang out with friends. So do most people, I don't know anybody who does nothing but watch TV.

Sure, it is a tool of the ruling class, but the answer that problem isn't banning it...shit.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So instead of having the working class control television you want to abolish it? Who are you to deprive me of something that is an amazing tool for communication, education, and entertainment.

I watch TV almost every day, and I read books, get on the computer, go to work, and hang out with friends. So do most people, I don't know anybody who does nothing but watch TV.

Sure, it is a tool of the ruling class, but the answer that problem isn't banning it...shit.

Then keep it but I want nothing to do with it.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems to me that the issue here isn't technology but how it's used TV's aren't inherently bad, it's just that their use in a capitalist society has an adverse effect.

Technology and industry is necessary for a prolonged survival of the human race. There has to be a balance between ensuring that technology and industry is used to protect and enhance our lives but that the environment is also defended.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Technology and industry is necessary for a prolonged survival of the human race. There has to be a balance between ensuring that technology and industry is used to protect and enhance our lives but that the environment is also defended.

I basically agree, so long that once the revolution is on I'll be allowed to live without tv and a car and have the job of protecting environment.

[misanthroshit]

I basically agree, so long that once the revolution is on I'll be allowed to live without tv and a car and have the job of protecting environment.

you can do that right now. go do it if you want to.

[victim77]

I believe public transit is the future for transportation. As for TV's I feel that instead of TV's there should be something that is like a TV-computer hybrid which would allow people to give feedback and reply rather than sit and take in the info.

BTW Your user title says Christian-Anarchist but to me Christian-Anarchism is some what of a oxymoron becuase Anarchy aims to eliminate leaders and rulers while Religion teaches people to look to a higher power for guidance rather than looking inside them selves. I believe people should have the right to worship but it should never be incorperated into you political views. That's one of the problems with the U.S, it is highly driven by christians.

[Bilan]

\

Green anarchists al agree that a cut in technology is needed but not all are primitivists; I for one wouldnt mind seeing the human race get rid of the tv or the car.

Why?

[Everyday Anarchy]

I believe public transit is the future for transportation. As for TV's I feel that instead of TV's there should be something that is like a TV-computer hybrid which would allow people to give feedback and reply rather than sit and take in the info.I believe technology such as YouTube and IndyMedia are the future of communications and media. They give every person the ability to be a journalist, comedian, producer, etc no matter what college degrees they have or how many news papers they own.


As for primitivism, I can understand the allure of it all. But it is foolish to think that the entire human species will collectively decide to abandon technology and scientific methodology.

I wouldn't mind living in an eco-village, however. I think it is a wonderful thing to live with nature rather than in conflict with it, but like I said... it's foolish and even detrimental to our health to expect humanity to live this way.

[chimx]

Jacques ellul is a anti-technology Christian anarchist, you should check him out.

As far as promotivism goes, destroying technology would have a horrible impact on human health. Imagine a world without doctors, vaccines, medicine...

That said, primitist criticism of human alienation within an industrial or post-industrial economy is certainly worth taking note of, especially with issues relating to labor division, coercion, alienation from the products of our labor,etc -- but you can get a lot of this stuff from Marx IMO

[Os Cangaceiros]

That really depends on what you mean by "green anarchism", doesn't it?

I mean, I suppose that you could classify both Murray Bookchin and John Zerzan as ecological anarchists, in their own ways. But, of course, their ideologies are very different; specifically, the fact that Zerzan is, quite frankly, crazier than a shithouse rat. I see nothing wrong with ecologically responsible anarchism, in fact I feel that it's essential, but I've often wondered what, exactly, draws people to primitivism...it just seems to me to be an absurd ideology.

[Rosa Provokateur]

BTW Your user title says Christian-Anarchist but to me Christian-Anarchism is some what of a oxymoron becuase Anarchy aims to eliminate leaders and rulers while Religion teaches people to look to a higher power for guidance rather than looking inside them selves. I believe people should have the right to worship but it should never be incorperated into you political views. That's one of the problems with the U.S, it is highly driven by christians.

As an anarchist I seek to eliminate human authority while personally following what I see as the will of God; in the Old Testament it wasnt God that created kings but humans who begged Him for kings and only then did He, reluctantly, create them. The Hebrews lived communaly through jubilee and the early christians carried on this tradition by telling followers not to have anything to do with the state. Read "Jesus for President" by Shane Claiborne, he goes into the anarchist aspects of christianity and even blasts televangalists and crusaders along the way.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why?

TV has taken over peoples lives; they sit around believing it, emulating it, and even schedueling their lives according to the time of tv programs. I want people to take control of their lives and do something real instead of watching something thats fake.

As for cars, they control geography. Peoples homes are torn down for new highways, my front yard has a stop sign on it, animals natural migration patterns are cut off, all because of cars. They're burning the o-zone layer and if I try to cross the street I've got to run lest one of those metal death-machines tries to kill me.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Jacques ellul is a anti-technology Christian anarchist, you should check him out.

As far as promotivism goes, destroying technology would have a horrible impact on human health. Imagine a world without doctors, vaccines, medicine...

That said, primitist criticism of human alienation within an industrial or post-industrial economy is certainly worth taking note of, especially with issues relating to labor division, coercion, alienation from the products of our labor,etc -- but you can get a lot of this stuff from Marx IMO

Thanks for pointing me towards Ellul, I can tell I'm going to love this guy. Do you know where I can get his stuff in english?

[chimx]

amazon.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul

And if you want to read some of his books online:

http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/ellul.php

[There is No God!]

TV has taken over peoples lives; they sit around believing it, emulating it, and even schedueling their lives according to the time of tv programs. I want people to take control of their lives and do something real instead of watching something thats fake.

The internet takes over people's lives as well, porn addicts, Myspace addicts etc. - And yet you support the use of computers but not TV? Hmmmm....

[Rosa Provokateur]

The internet takes over people's lives as well, porn addicts, Myspace addicts etc. - And yet you support the use of computers but not TV? Hmmmm....

I cant control tv but the internet gives me power to talk to people of like-mind and allows me to express myself and dialogue with people who can give me ideas while I give them ideas.

[Niccolò Rossi]

My problem why green anarchism (specifically primitivism) is that they amount to nothing more than utopian's. The primitivist sees nothing more than alienation and the decadence of modern class society embodied in technology, and thus attempts to roll back the wheel of history.

[Module]

I certainly do not understand the "allure" of primitivism. An opposition to technology is completely counter productive to the liberation of humanity - it puts human beings at the mercy of curable diseases, and effective access to resources for all people, it hinders us intellectually, with, I'm from what I can imagine limited access to real intellectual stimulants of today's standards, education, and also socially - without effective communications technology human beings will be just be isolated from eachother with exception of whoever's in our immediate community.
It's just an absurd idea. An absurd, and completely reactionary idea.
Technology has been developing ever since we have acquired the ability to develop it. It is a natural human thing to do.
It has continually made our lives easier, and more enjoyable.
I just don't see anything respectable in an opposition to technology, or the idea that we should all return to a 'primitive' way of life.

As for green anarchism, from what I've gathered it places primary importance in the environment.
From where it ceases to be necessary for our survival, the environment should be something human beings seek to 'conquer', so to speak, not specifically try to preserve. Human beings should seek to be able to control the environment as much as possible to serve human ends.
In that way I disagree with green anarchism.

[Kropotesta]

Human beings should seek to be able to control the environment as much as possible to serve human ends.
In that way I disagree with green anarchism.
are you a Marxist?......authoritarian.

[Module]

are you a Marxist?......authoritarian.
Right.
Well, this is a discussion board, so maybe you could try to elaborate instead of just stating that.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I certainly do not understand the "allure" of primitivism.

You don't? I thought it was fairly obvious. The real allure of primitivism lies in it's identification of modern technology as being the root dehumanization, alienation and "injustice" in society. Not only does it falsely identify technology with what is in reality the product of class society, it is idealistic, envisaging a world of man connected with nature, living on and with the land.


It's just an absurd idea. An absurd, and completely reactionary idea.
Technology has been developing ever since we have acquired the ability to develop it. It is a natural human thing to do.

This is exactly what I meant when I referred to it as Utopian above.
It has continually made our lives easier, and more enjoyable.


From where it ceases to be necessary for our survival, the environment should be something human beings seek to 'conquer', so to speak, not specifically try to preserve. Human beings should seek to be able to control the environment as much as possible to serve human ends.
In that way I disagree with green anarchism.

I would agree with this in some respects. Man by his labour necessarily works upon the environment and uses it to serve his needs. However here's some food for though; Is man's current exploitative domination over his environment merely a reflection of the exploitation and domination of class society?

[Cencus]

Put yourself in the position of the lower working class and you begin to understand the allure of primitivism.

You get up before the sun 5 or 6 days a week do some really demeaning repetitive task in some factory where you are treated no better than cattle, where accidents are regular occurence because the company you work for doesn't give a toss about anything but the bottom line, and then come home to a wife that hates you and kids who only want your money, you do nothing but sleep on your days off because you have to do so much overtime to keep up with the mortgage because the wages are so piss poor, and your only escape is drink or drugs.

I did that shit for years, except the kids bit, and I tell you any alternative sounds good, even living in a mud hut, dying at 35 of some horrible manky disease.

[Kropotesta]

Right.
Well, this is a discussion board, so maybe you could try to elaborate instead of just stating that.
just a snipe at Marxist's wanting to control everything- the reason a dictatorship of the proletariat is faluted, IMO

[Vanguard1917]

TV takes peoples lives, they just sit around watching the damn thing 24/7

No, they don't. Take your patronising characterisations elsewhere.



and I'm tired of it controlling people.


Because you'd rather control them instead? I'd rather take the shitty TV programmes, thanks.


Green anarchists al agree that a cut in technology is needed

Well, Marxists and other progressives want to see much greater advancement in technological development - because it can radically improve human life on earth.



so long that once the revolution is on I'll be allowed to live without tv and a car


You don't need a revolution to do that. You can do that now.

But that's not what you really want, is it? You want everyone to live without these things. In other words, as with most eco-worriers, you want authoritarian powers to dictate how people should live.



have the job of protecting environment.


Jesus forbid.

[Rosa Provokateur]

No, they don't. Take your patronising characterisations elsewhere.



Because you'd rather control them instead? I'd rather take the shitty TV programmes, thanks.



Well, Marxists and other progressives want to see much greater advancement in technological development - because it can radically improve human life on earth.



You don't need a revolution to do that. You can do that now.

But that's not what you really want, is it? You want everyone to live without these things. In other words, as with most eco-worriers, you want authoritarian powers to dictate how people should live.



Jesus forbid.

The same can be said for your judgementalism.

I don't want to control anybody aside from myself, whats with the finger-pointing.

I'm not a Marxist... let the Marxists believe what they want and keep me out of it.

I do do it now, I just want to still be able to should the Red Army of the International decide otherwise. I want to live without these things, I will live without these things, bring on the Industrial Revolution and all her fury.

[Vanguard1917]

I want to live without these things, I will live without these things, bring on the Industrial Revolution and all her fury.


If you don't want the benefits of an industrially, technologically and scientifically advanced socialist society - e.g. its living standards, health care, education, culture, community - i'm sure socialist society can give you a patch of land where all the 'green anarchists' and 'primitivists' can retreat and build their self-sufficient rural idyll and get as 'close to nature' as they like. Just don't expect any of the benefits of living in a socialist society if you refuse to help build it.

[Module]

You don't? I thought it was fairly obvious.
I'm aware of what the allure happens to be, but the clear disadvantages of primitivism nullify whatever possible effect it could have one me. That's what I mean by 'understand'.



I would agree with this in some respects. Man by his labour necessarily works upon the environment and uses it to serve his needs. However here's some food for though; Is man's current exploitative domination over his environment merely a reflection of the exploitation and domination of class society?
People's current exploitative domination over their environment in the form that it takes now can be seen as a reflection of the 'ethics' of capitalism - the abuse of the environment for short term profit, ignoring environmental sustainability issues.
Clearly the environment needs to be better managed, as I alluded to, to the extent that it is ultimately necessary for our survival.
The environment shouldn't be regarded as some sort of 'victim of oppression', like what conflicting_interests seems to think, rather a resource to be used, and sustained for human use, to improve the lives of human beings.

[Keyser]

Green anarchism is made up of two different, yet at times, complementary schools of thought, deep green/ecology and primitivism.

Both are reactionary, socially regressive, anti-working class and petty bourgeois and in primitivism, outright misanthropic in their theory and practice.

Green anarchism is anti-working class for the reason that unlike class struggle anarchism, such as anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism, it is anti-collectivist and promotes a form of hyper-individualism in promoting the actions of a few activists working on a very narrow set of issues and politics over class based politics, a class based struggle of an oppressed class (the working class) against the exploiting class (the bourgeoisie) and rejects a materialistic analysis of society and class struggles in favour of romantisizing the 'heroism' of a few individuals who are wholly detached and isolated from the working class, their struggles and their concerns. This in part can be explained by the fact that both schools of thought of green anarchism are primarily the manifestation of either petty bourgeois or outright bourgeois outlooks on society and the problems facing society.

Anyone who has interacted with the likes of green anarchist groups such as Earth First (I am speaking of their British section based on personal experience) will see very few, if any in some cases, evidence of working class support for their groups or working class members.

There are two reasons for this:

Green anarchist groups tend not to either recruit or gain the support of working class people and if they do it is sporadic and never on the basis of mobilising or organising the workers as a class that wages a militant struggle against the rule of capital. This is because, as I have already stated above, green anarchism and it's theory does not acknowledge that there is even a class struggle and they do not consider the working class to be the revolutionary class, the only class able to abolish the rule of capital. The fact that green anarchist groups tend to be made up primarily of petty bourgeois or lumpen ('lifestlye anarchists' who choose unemployment and refuse to involve themselves with the working class or society) individuals is the materialistic explanation for the reactionary and anti-working class ideology and theory that forms and guides all green anarchist groups.

Another reason, again one could say it also forms a materialistic explanation to this, is that the working class would not improve their lot nor would they be liberated by either the methods and theories of politics that green anarchism advocates nor would they actually be better off in a post-capitalist green anarchist society, as with the rest of society, their quality of life would be reduced on a dramatic basis, this is especially true of primitivism.

The working class, either conscienciously or unconscienciously, correctly sees that their material class interests cannot be served by green anarchism in the struggle against capital and that the type of society that green anarchism aspires to is one that they would not wish to be a part of.

Earth First is a good example of the common trait of anti-human feeling and misanthropy that seems to be inherent in the whole edifice of the green anarchist movement.

Below is a quote by a leading member of Earth First, David Foreman:


"The worst thing we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid [to the starving children]--the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let people there just starve."

Below is a quote by another deep green misanthropist and a biologist at the University of Texas, Eric Pianka:


"We’re no better than bacteria! Things are gonna get better after the collapse, because we won’t be able to decimate the Earth so much, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20 percent of us left."

In all his other lectures and seminars, Eric Pianka has made a name for himself amongst green anarchism, misanthropy and the acedemic community by consistently calling for the extermination of 90% of the human race and has praised the Ebola virus when it broke out in the Congo (formerly Zaire) in 1995.

Should primitivists and the misanthropic section of the deep ecology movement ever have their nightmare scenario put into practice, we would witness a genocide on a proporption that would supercede all other genocides in human history, including the Nazi holocaust, for the death toll would run into the billions, most likely above the five billion mark.

This deep and inherent hatred of humans by primitivists and some deep ecologists is a natural formulation and one could say a logical conclusion to the ideologies of both schools of thought of green anarchism.

One common trait by green anarchists is to reject rationalism and science, to reject logic and material analysis. Green anarchists replace rationalism, science, logic and material analysis with mysticism and a retarded worship of 'nature'. The countless references to 'Mother Earth', the 'Earth Goddess' and the allure of all things 'wild' is a reflection of this retarded mysticism that green anarchists propagate.

Inanimate entities such as the Earth and ecosystems and unquantifiable and abstract notions such as nature are given the mysticsm that is usually conferred to gods and deities by green anarchism. Nature and the earth are to be either worshiped or feared and not understood through rational analysis or science, goes the line of thought that green anarchism propagates.

No doubt the logic of this retarded ideal sees human beings as a plague or an infestation of parasites that feeds and sucks of the life of 'Mother Earth' or 'Mother Nature'. Like the anti-semitism of the Nazi's (who saw the Jewish people as a 'parasitic plague') the end result of green anarchism is to rid the earth of this 'plague' or humans and like the Nazi's in relation to the Jews, that means a genocide.

Whether each and every individual member of the green anarchist movement supports this bloody conclusion or not is completely irrelevant as material conditions and the demands of the theory and ideology of green anarchism will lead to such a bloody and murderous conclusion.

Like other socially regressive, reactionary, anti-emancipatory and anti-working class ideologies, be it fascism, racism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism or tribalism, green anarchism seeks to turn the clock back of human progress and like all the other reactionary ideologies, it hates progress and opposes any and allattempts by human beings and human societies to improve and evolve.

On a final note, I wholly oppose all forms and all schools of thought of green anarchism.

It is a thoroughly reactionary and regressive trend that will never oppose capitalism or challenge the power and status of capitalism and should it ever have the opportunity to put it's horrific and anti-human ideas into practice, society will only ever regress into barbarism and the lowest froms of human existence.

Green anarchists are no friends of the working class or the revolutionary struggle, they are not my comrades, they sit on the side of the class enemy and like the bourgeoisie, they must be opposed and crushed.

[Pawn Power]

. Just don't expect any of the benefits of living in a socialist society if you refuse to help build it.

What a bizzare threat. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

The problem is not progress, but progress which is not sustainable enviromentally. I certainly think that a number of actions on the part of mankind need to change. The fact that we now have an extra continent of litter floating in the Pacific ocean is testiment to the fact that recycling initatives are needed.

[thejambo1]

i think keysers post was spot on, green anarchism/primitivism has nothing to do with class struggle or the working class. it is in my opinion a load of shit and should be consigned to other forums well away from revleft!!

[abbielives!]

i think keysers post was spot on, green anarchism/primitivism has nothing to do with class struggle or the working class. it is in my opinion a load of shit and should be consigned to other forums well away from revleft!!

I disagree Green anarchism simply means ecologically focused anarchism, the term has been coopeted by primitivists because their idealogy is not strong enough to stand on it's own. we should not allow primitivist to control the discourse surrounding enviovmental issues.

[Keyser]

What a bizzare threat.


Why do you say that?

Vanguard1917 made no threat, simply a good point.

Why should primitivists rail against the 'evils' of technology, civilisation and progress only to enjoy the every benefits of technology, civilisation and progress themselves?

If they wish to live in the caves, mountains or jungles and write rubbish articles opposing medicine, science and technology then they can do that themselves. They should just not expect the rest of society to waste the very resources, benefits and technology that they hate so much on them.

[Pawn Power]

Why do you say that?

Vanguard1917 made no threat, simply a good point.

Why should primitivists rail against the 'evils' of technology, civilisation and progress only to enjoy the every benefits of technology, civilisation and progress themselves?

If they wish to live in the caves, mountains or jungles and write rubbish articles opposing medicine, science and technology then they can do that themselves. They should just not expect the rest of society to waste the very resources, benefits and technology that they hate so much on them.

It is a threat in the sense that he claims that they would be denied the benefits of socialist society.

But who will make the choice of who is worthy of reaping the goods of communism?

[Keyser]

It is a threat in the sense that he claims that they would be denied the benefits of socialist society.

Again it is not a threat. Read Vanguard1917 and my post again.

Primitivists say that they oppose all technology, medicine and progress.

They made that choice, No one else forced it upon them.

In a socialist society, everyone will be involved in society and it's labour. Primitivists refuse to be a part of society, they think the very concept of human organisation or society is 'oppressive'.

Why should the rest of society work and labour to produce the goods whilst primitivists sit on their backsides in their little 'wilderness colonies' or their 'eco-communes' writing articles about the 'evils' of society, technology and progress and making statements about human beings being 'vermin' or a 'plague on Mother Earth' and the need for billions of humans to be killed off?

That would just make them parasites upon the rest of society. A socialist society is a society that has overthrown the rule of a class of human parasites (the bourgeoisie) and in a socialist society what we don't need is another set of petty bourgeois parasites (primitivists) living off the labour of workers whilst they spew their hatred of humanity.

[Pawn Power]

Again it is not a threat. Read Vanguard1917 and my post again.

Primitivists say that they oppose all technology, medicine and progress.

They made that choice, No one else forced it upon them.

In a socialist society, everyone will be involved in society and it's labour. Primitivists refuse to be a part of society, they think the very concept of human organisation or society is 'oppressive'.

Why should the rest of society work and labour to produce the goods whilst primitivists sit on their backsides in their little 'wilderness colonies' or their 'eco-communes' writing articles about the 'evils' of society, technology and progress and making statements about human beings being 'vermin' or a 'plague on Mother Earth' and the need for billions of humans to be killed off?

That would just make them parasites upon the rest of society. A socialist society is a society that has overthrown the rule of a class of human parasites (the bourgeoisie) and in a socialist society what we don't need is another set of petty bourgeois parasites (primitivists) living off the labour of workers whilst they spew their hatred of humanity.

Maybe you don't know what a threat is?

–noun 1.a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
In this case, the threat, or punishment, would be not allowing certain individuals or groups, "primitivists" (but why not lazy people, Democrats, or those who just don't want to help?) access to the pleasures, comforts, and benefits of socialist society.

Vanguard was not saying that one does not get these things because one doesn't want them but because one "refuse to help build it."

So, if your not with us, your against us... and your gonna starve, freeze, etc.

But who to enforce who get these delicious socialist benefits?

[Vanguard1917]

In a socialist society, everyone will be involved in society and it's labour. Primitivists refuse to be a part of society, they think the very concept of human organisation or society is 'oppressive'.

Why should the rest of society work and labour to produce the goods whilst primitivists sit on their backsides in their little 'wilderness colonies' or their 'eco-communes' writing articles about the 'evils' of society, technology and progress and making statements about human beings being 'vermin' or a 'plague on Mother Earth' and the need for billions of humans to be killed off?

That would just make them parasites upon the rest of society. A socialist society is a society that has overthrown the rule of a class of human parasites (the bourgeoisie) and in a socialist society what we don't need is another set of petty bourgeois parasites (primitivists) living off the labour of workers whilst they spew their hatred of humanity.


Keyser, very well put. And i agree with what you say in your other post: 'deep ecology' and 'primitivism' are deeply reactionary and anti-working class.

The same goes, however, for many of the sentiments expressed in mainstream environmentalism - which is now part of official ruling class ideology worldwide.

Pawn Power:

Vanguard was not saying that one does not get these things because one doesn't want them but because one "refuse to help build it."

So, if your not with us, your against us... and your gonna starve, freeze, etc.

But who to enforce who get these delicious socialist benefits?

No. You're not thinking.

If you're against a society of advanced science, technology and industry, how do you justify wanting to be entitled to the benefits of such a society?

[Keyser]

Maybe you don't know what a threat is?

Maybe you need to learn how to read people's posts.

Vanguard1917 never made a threat, you put the word there, not him!


–noun 1.a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:

Going by that very definition, Vanguard1917 never made a threat.

He simply stated that he would be more than happy after a proletarian revolution and in a socialist society to see primitivists live by their own word and desire, ie; that they withdrwal from society and civilisation and live at one in their 'wilderness' and that they do not partake in the benefits of modern and progressive society, they want to live like this.

I'll ask you a question:

Why should the working majority support the small groups of primitivists if they refuse to assist and labour in such a society?

Why should a town work collectively and then have to part with some of it's resources to people who refused to partake in the labour in making them and then follow a political ideology that not only urges people to drop out of society but to destroy it too.

I do not follow the liberal bourgeois or petty bourgeois notion of human rights, that everyone has a equal right to say what they want or do what they want. Counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries (religious fundamentalists, fascists, capitalists and primitivists) will have no rights or freedom if they pose a threat to a socialist society.

[Pawn Power]

If you're against a society of advanced science, technology and industry, how do you justify wanting to be entitled to the benefits of such a society?

I understand that. Clearly society would not need to "provide" for people who don't what or "expect" to be provided for. But then, why would you say this,
Just don't expect any of the benefits of living in a socialist society if you refuse to help build it.
Why would someone expect something they don't expect? Why would that warrent mentioning. I could be misunderstanding this somewhat ambigous statement but it seems that what you were alluding to is that if you don't help build you can't reap the benifits.

The question is, will people who refused to "help build" a socialist society be "provided" for?

[Vanguard1917]

Why would someone expect something they don't expect?


I don't know. You tell me.


I could be misunderstanding this somewhat ambigous statement but it seems that what you were alluding to is that if you don't help build you can't reap the benifits.

Yes, you're right.

[Pawn Power]

Going by that very definition, Vanguard1917 never made a threat.

He simply stated that he would be more than happy after a proletarian revolution and in a socialist society to see primitivists live by their own word and desire, ie; that they withdrwal from society and civilisation and live at one in their 'wilderness' and that they do not partake in the benefits of modern and progressive society, they want to live like this.

I don't want to get into semantics, so I will just say that, it appeared to me that "don't expect" signified some sort of warning. Why would it even need to be mentioned unless it is assumed that some of those un-helpful primmies expected something later on!



I'll ask you a question:

Why should the working majority support the small groups of primitivists if they refuse to assist and labour in such a society?

Ahh, so what I was getting at emerges...

Again, why would is this being mentioned if nothing is being "expected"? What needs to be supported, as you stated before, if they live outside of society?


I do not follow the liberal bourgeois or petty bourgeois notion of human rights, that everyone has a equal right to say what they want or do what they want. Counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries (religious fundamentalists, fascists, capitalists and primitivists) will have no rights or freedom if they pose a threat to a socialist society.

So, it is a theat (though, indeed, premature). Some people, or groups of people, will be denied certain "rights," whatever that may mean. Sound like "punishment in retaliation" to me. :lol: You don't do as we say, or you didn't "contribute" sufficiently in the past, then you don't get "rights."

To be sure, I also believe that capitalist and fascists should't habe cetain "rights," but I don't think may of them will exist in a post-capitalist society to be denied them. ;)

[thejambo1]

abbielives, you are of course right i was being to general in lumping green anarchists and primmos together. they are of different in outlook and "greens" are anarchists while primmos are most definately not.

[Module]

Can you, Keyser, please explain to me what exactly is "petty bourgeois" about human rights?
That is, assuming you're going by the same definition as everybody else on this board.
General idea of human rights around these parts, and probably your's too, is that you are allowed to do what you want as long as it doesn't impact on other people.
I don't see how primitivists will 'pose a threat' to a socialist society if they plan to live outside of it.
What's more, you don't get to decide what is considered threatening and what isn't. The workers do.
And I highly doubt that the average person is going to be as extreme as you as to declare primitivists without 'human rights'.

[MarxSchmarx]

And when do you see it to become no longer necessary? If we just put the environment at the bottom of the list once we have fixed our mistakes we will just set our selves up for more problems in the future.

Well the whole point of "sustainability" is to be, um, sustainable. If the system is sustainable, by definition it will not generate "more problems in the future"

[Comrade Krell]

Hey Kids 15-20, Do You Think Humanity Must Revert To A More Or Less Medieval Existence Or Face Environmental Catastrophe?

We Have An Ideology For You! Green Anarchism!