Primmies

[Plagueround]

I have a severely lifestylist friend who has recently labeled herself "anti-civ and neo-luddite". I often talk politics and philosophy with her, and I recently introduced her to some Marxist and Anarchist literature lately in an attempt to convince her of the failings of what I see as an elitist and anti-class struggle view. I applaud her concern for environmental issues, but I've been trying to get her to understand that she's going about it the wrong way. While it has convinced her of some of the failings of capitalism, she mostly used it as an opportunity to further label herself a "green-anarchist of the primitivist variety".

I consider myself capable of taking her arguments on, but despite the fact that she often turns to me for advice she shuts down to debates that challenge her belief and responds much better to published, or at least written articles (an article by me would unfortunately not qualify, she would view them the same).
Anyone have any decent articles that would help me deflate her primitivist leanings? :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't know if I can help you. I know of anti-primitivist articles, but they were published either electronically or through a printer. She may be offended. ;)

[chimx]

First let me say that neo-luddism is very much related to class struggle, but neo-luddism is not primitivism.

Two common arguments against primitivism are that it would cause a genocide on a massive scale. It is completely unsustainable to "re-wild" and humanity is entirely reliant on modern agriculture to survive.

The other is that even if it were possible, since primitivism is a regressive interpretation of human development, one would presume that human society would redevelop along similar class divisions that already occurred. It is cyclic, and does little to offer real solutions and instead tries to act as a reset switch to human history.

[Plagueround]

First let me say that neo-luddism is very much related to class struggle, but neo-luddism is not primitivism.


Ah, forgive me for not making the distinction. I wasn't implying that neo-luddism is simply primitivist, just that she identifies as such, perhaps I'll edit to make that a bit clearer. I can sympathise and agree with some neo-luddite concerns and belief, but she mostly just uses the label to mean 100% anti-technology...which is very odd because she and I communicate through computers and cell phones. :lol:

[welshboy]

to reiterate what chimx said one of the main arguments against the primitivist philosophy is that in order to attain a society that was gatherer-hunter on a global basis then it would require for the vast majority of the worlds population to die off. Lots of primmos will fudge their response to any question of this though some have actually said that a mass die off would be a good thing. How this mass die off would occur is also something they are quite vague about.
There is a distinction, slim though it may be, between 'vulgar' primitivists and anarchist primitivists. Most of those I've met who are @-Primms believe that when women have greater control over reproduction then the population will decrease naturally. How long that would take to see the worlds population reduced by around 80-90% is also quite vague.
They also routinely fail to address such issues as were civilisation to collapse then who would look after the nuclear power stations and toxic waste containment facilities all around the world to prevent disaster?
There's also the issue of folk with disabilities physical and mental. How would they fit into this world of nomadic gatherer-hunters? Would they simply be left to die or would they be allowed to become a burden on the small tribe? If someone can't walk how can they be nomadic?
Civilisation has given us untold wonders and the technology that comes with it offers us even more. We can communicate with one another from different sides of the planet cure diseases, fly, explore space.
For a couple of good arguments against primmitivism you can go here (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism) and here (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism). A lot of the negative things that a lot of primmos rail against are actually symptoms of capitalism rather than civilisation, alienation, drudgery, pointless toil etc.. are to do with capitalism rather than the fact we live in cities and don't need to groom one another for lice every day.

[Plagueround]

For a couple of good arguments against primmitivism you can go here (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism) and here (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism).

Those should do nicely. Thank you.

[apathy maybe]

The other is that even if it were possible, since primitivism is a regressive interpretation of human development, one would presume that human society would redevelop along similar class divisions that already occurred. It is cyclic, and does little to offer real solutions and instead tries to act as a reset switch to human history.
This is the only argument worth considering in most cases. (Not all primitivists are anarchists, see http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-primitivism-primitivism-t71012/index.html?t=71012 ).

Also, read that thread for some further expansion on that argument.