Primitivist propaganda film

[Dimentio]

Well, this movie is the crown of pro-primitivist achievement, and shows the true seriousness and dedication of primitivists/anti-civilisationists/technological abolitionists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm1dsnTuBkM

[ex_next_worker]

Wait, technocracy is Terminator, right? Or the one with Stallone? Or Matrix?

[Dimentio]

On the contrary. Technocracy does not mess with ideas like magick or wet-nosed elves or other fairy-tale beings.

This is technocracy: http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Revy]

Honestly, it kinda freaks me out. But it's interesting.
it's total bullshit though. Technology has helped, and will help humanity in many ways.

[Dimentio]

Honestly, it kinda freaks me out. But it's interesting.
it's total bullshit though. Technology has helped, and will help humanity in many ways.

Yes, a perfect example of the mindset of the 70;s.

[Prairie Fire]

Wizards! I was just watching that film a whil eback, and couldn't get through it. Right off of the bat, I noticed the primitivism almost dripping through the screen.

To Serpent, I would say that I don't think Primitivism characterized the Seventies (not in my country, anyways,), however I'm sure there are many who would like it to, hence this movie.

[Dimentio]

Well, primitivism did not characterise the real world, where most normal sentient human beings are living. But it seems to have characterised American universities to a certain extent.

[ex_next_worker]

On the contrary. Technocracy does not mess with ideas like magick or wet-nosed elves or other fairy-tale beings.

This is technocracy: http://en.technocracynet.eu

Let's just get this straight - for the sake of it, since you lack the insight into sarcastic notions.

If we are to think and accept anarcho-primitivism as an established set of ideas, what exactly do you think does anarcho-primitivism stand for? Also, I'd like to know where you pick up the stuff that you're going to say, i.e. please quote some sources.

Because from my point of view, it seems you don't quite understand I was being sarcastic with the notions of Terminator et al., and actually making a point.
Namely, how does the idea of elves in cartoons come together with anarcho-primitivism from, say, the work of John Zerzan, Fredy Perlman, David Watson et al.?

[Dimentio]

I think that anarcho-primitivism sees technology as a force of social alienation and as a tool which superior classes uses to repress the inferior classes. With irrigation, specialisation and the establishment of complex societies, hierarchies - theocratic, bureaucratic and aristocratic - are established.

The solution, according to the AP;s, is to to some extent abolish all technologies which aren't either passive or could be made by natural materials for hand (examples being fishing rods and the like).

I do agree with the AP;s that the early humans somewhat traded their liberty from coercion by other human beings for the security of having roofs over their heads and guaranteed food from governmental warehouses.

But I disagree with the idea that technology is inherently repressive. That depends on how it is utilised. I rather agree with the marxist notion of an "U-shaped" curve of social liberties.

Why I prefer a technate before a stone-age tribe is that I will get the social freedom of the stone-age tribe together with healthcare, safety and opportunities to create the arts which I want to create.

I think that anarcho-primitivism, if its ever applied, would rather cause a somalisation of the world than a return to some sort of idealised Eden-like state of being. The destruction of the electric grids of a nation like the USA, would mean the gradual but rapid deterioration of society.

It would be more like Mad Max.

I think anarcho-primitivists are (generally speaking) very much motivated by emotions and by personal angst against society.

[ex_next_worker]

You have given me an overview - correct, to a certain extent (given that some primitivists do not argue against complete abandonment of domestication, but for example would rather return to small-scale agricultural living, and thus not accepting the totality of technological rejection)

However, you have not answered how this relates to elves?


emotions and by personal angst against society.

Define what you mean by this, please as this is a very abstract notion and I don't understand it.

[Dimentio]

It relates to elves because their vision negates itself.

It is not even slighty unrealist, but totally and completely insane. I hold very much more respect for eco-fascists such as Pentti Linkola or ANUS, because they know what the effects of abandonment of technology would lead to, and are not ashamed to state out loud that they delight in the suffering of the masses, while John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen either are totally ignorant or pretends to be, regarding the mass death and suffering which would occur.

Elves are beings which are fundamentally impossible, and that's their charm. Primitivism belongs in children's movies.

I have actually met some anarcho-primitivists before, and from what I've experienced from them all, was that they were rather sensitive artistic men who everyone have grown up quite alone-ish in big cities. Most of them thought the forests in northern Sweden were amazing.

Myself, I originate from a small village at the feet of the Scandic mountains, so it was noy uncommon to see elks or reindeer stroll around my yard when I grew up.

The anarcho-primitivists whom I have encountered all shared the characteristics that they idealised nature, some of them even worshipping it.

I agree with the anarcho-primitivists that the current mode of production is largely unsustainable, but think that we could accomplish a sustainable society with a high quality of life and an advanced technological infrastructure. We have a design and a model for a future society.

[Dimentio]

Worth to mention, apart from magic and elves, the movie is quite explicitly technologically abolitionist.

[ex_next_worker]

So what you're saying is, elves are connected to primitivism because it is unreal? In what respect is it unreal? I've met Zerzan and he has said the abandonment of technology would be gradual, since some people are already learning to reconnect to tribal ways of life, rewilding, practicing natural medicine, hunting/gathering skills, etc.

I don't see how, for example, saying the state would eventually disappear is more realistic than the eventual decline of technological dependence, a decrease in population count and a return to more primitive ways of existence.

For example, Derrick Jensen doesn't even go so far. He is an advocate of small-scale agriculture. Do you see the gradual dispersement of urban centres that dissolve into peripheral, community-like farm living as an unrealistic goal?

Nor are they some kind of universal theoreticians, so there's basically no ground on which the strand of anarcho-primitivsts, if they may be called as such, agree on how to get from A to B.

Given that we've had attempts (well, actually still have) of Marxist sects at attempting to conciliate technology and social equality which massively failed, would you say they are elves as well?

Anyway, I'd like to hear out your proposal for this sustainable, large-scale societal project. I'm not really interested into reading huge amounts about it, so...

[Dimentio]

I don't only see the goals as unrealistic, but as undesirable and unnecessary, because the intent is profoundly idealistic and reactionary.

NET is not proposing a large-scale project, rather a bottom-to-the-top approach of a network of communities known as eco-units which are using solar energy and automatisation to produce what they need to sustain themselves within the ecological carrying capacity of their regions.

Distribution will be allocated through energy accounting.

[Tatarin]

I've met Zerzan and he has said the abandonment of technology would be gradual, since some people are already learning to reconnect to tribal ways of life, rewilding, practicing natural medicine, hunting/gathering skills, etc.

This must happen on a global scale - every society must abandon technology, gradually or not. What institutions, groups, individuals etc. would oversee this transition? What are the guarantees that neighbouring nations won't simply invade the "de-industrialized" country once it looses much of its former power?


I don't see how, for example, saying the state would eventually disappear is more realistic than the eventual decline of technological dependence, a decrease in population count and a return to more primitive ways of existence.

The "withering away of the state" is overseen by the people, who controls that state. It's not that the state one day decides that it will simply vanish. As society progress, useless aspects will be abandoned, closed, because they no longer serve the people.

Also, your point assumes that people will "wake up" and return to the wild. What is missing here are the material conditions for this to happen. Take houses that are already built. Why would anyone abandon them? On the contrary, they would be the first things to be fought over, especially in the "first world" countries who largely are located in colder climates.


For example, Derrick Jensen doesn't even go so far. He is an advocate of small-scale agriculture.

This may sound well for the first, second, third generations. But what is to stop the fourth and coming generations from reinventing and restarting industrial society? Even if we assume all books simply vanished, all knowledge of this previous industrialized societies are forgotten or withheld, the fact remains that we did get here from scratch, and there is no reason that prevents people from doing it again.


Do you see the gradual dispersement of urban centres that dissolve into peripheral, community-like farm living as an unrealistic goal?

Again, that requires the full syncronization of all people into that one goal. Who is to say that I and my fascist group can't simply walk in with our guns and assume control of that area? Or the old police and military forces? Hell, the constitutional monarchies of today can go back to full fledged feudalism should it be necessary.

[Prairie Fire]

In regards to Serpents comments about primitivism on the campus, today I had the pleasure of watching a student-performed abstract movement theatrical piece, and the theme was "Humynity vs Mother nature". A brief synopsis is nature begins pristine, a man fucks with everything,kills and intimidates animals and trees, and then nature gangs up on him and kills him.

I'm not certain if this counts as "primitivist", but it certainly sees industrialization and humyn social accumulation as an enemy.



Primitivism belongs in children's movies


No it doesn't. I understand the point that you are trying to make, that primitivism is juvenile and ridiculous, but the problem is that primitivism (and most other reactionary social themes, from patriarchal oppression to nationalism,) is promoted in childrens movies and fiction. The development of a bourgeois world-outlook begins very young.

[Dimentio]

Well, the ideal would be if it would be completely taken away to the realm of fantasy litterature, and stay there, as much as flat-Earth worlds are existent in fantasy books.

As for primitivism being bourgeoisie, I do not really know. It is'nt really supportive of bourgeoisie economic or political interests.

I think it has been grown out of a bourgeoisie environment and is supported by bourgeois notions of romanticism and nature-mysticism, but that it does not really have any role to play within bourgeois political strategies.

[Tatarin]

But having seen this movie now (Wizards), it is also interesting to note how it basically debunks itself.

For example, two sides are born. One wizard is good, the other one is evil. So the evil doesn't come with the technology, but the fact that the evil wizard wants to conquer the other lands. One also finds that the "good side" also use technology, guns being the prominent ones.


As for primitivism being bourgeoisie, I do not really know. It is'nt really supportive of bourgeoisie economic or political interests.

That might be true, but from what I've read of them, they don't really oppose exploitive ideologies, say, like feudalism. And what would a post-apocalyptic world have as ideology? As I pointed out in learning, if a collapse came tomorrow, then there probably would be some societies who were somewhat egalitarian, but most would "follow the leader".

I just can't imagine a group of nazis running out in the forrest to live a primitive life after a collapse...

[Prairie Fire]

As for primitivism being bourgeoisie, I do not really know. It is'nt really supportive of bourgeoisie economic or political interests


Perhaps petty-bourgeois; owning land in the wilderness, and "getting away fro it all"
is the dream of the petty bourgeoisie.

[Dimentio]

Do really everyone who belong to a class "dream about" the same thing?

[Dimentio]

In Sweden, most shop-owners and bureaucrats and lawyers already own "summer houses" at the country-side, and spend all the summers there fishing, cutting wood and steaking themselves red underneath the sun.

Instead, their Nirvana is to travel to Menorca or Islas Canarias and get drunk there. That's paradise.