Primitivist echo chamber

  1. Dimentio
    I wonder what they may debate?

    What is the purpose of this discussion group?

    In this forum Derrick's premises, conclusions and work in general are more or less accepted and are foundational to our discussions. Our discussions use them as our starting point to move out from there. This is NOT a forum for arguing about the validity of Derrick's premises and work. If you don't agree with them, we cordially ask that you don't start an argument. If you have a question, or something you need clarified, by all means ask and we will try to answer. But, if you strongly disagree with Derrick's basic premises, please take your arguments elsewhere. There are plenty of other places you can raise your objections. We don't particularly want to have to revisit "Civilization Is Bad 101" every time we open our mouths. Instead, we are trying to create a space where people can have discussions they can't generally have elsewhere.

    For further expansion on the whys and whats of this central theme, we ask you to go back and read as much of Derrick Jensen's work as you can get your hands on (his books and essays are available through http://www.derrickjensen.org).

    Definition of Civilization
    "I suddenly remembered that all writers, including writers of dictionaries, are propagandists, and I realized that these definitions are, in fact, bite-sized chunks of propaganda, concise articulations of the arrogance that has led those who believe they are living in the most advanced—and best—culture to attempt to impose by force this way of being on all others.

    "I would define civilization much more precisely,and I believe more usefully, as a culture—that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts—that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state), with cities being defined—so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on—as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life." Endgame vol. 1, p. 17


    Derrick's PREMISES from Endgame

    Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

    Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

    Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

    Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

    Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

    Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

    Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

    Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

    Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

    Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

    Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

    Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

    Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

    Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

    Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

    Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

    Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

    Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

    Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

    Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

    Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

    Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

    Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

    Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

    Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.
    Endgame vol. 1, pages IX-XII
  2. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    These people have an idealised view of nature. They don't realise that nature is incapable of looking after our interests, and that civilisation, whatever it's faults, is our best attempt to forge the material world in our image - returning to a "state of nature" is pure suicide, as sooner or later the unthinking universe will wipe us out if we make no attempt to increase our chances of survival.

    If evolution has taught us anything, it is that stagnation = death. What primitivists propose is stagnation.
  3. Dimentio
    The interesting thing with these premises is that they are just taken for granted.
  4. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx
    Another interesting thing is that they are so obviously self-contradictory.

    I'm guessing these were written on a keyboard, from the comfort of someone's home built with concrete and timber harvested from a Canadian forest, communicated over a fiber optic network laid by a government, read on a machine made in China, whose coltan was plundered in Africa and that was transported on a ship running on Saudi oil?

    Why, oh why don't the primmies just practice what they preach??
  5. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    Why, oh why don't the primmies just practice what they preach??
    Well, I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious, but one thing must be understood about primitivism. They either wish to themselves, or believe that further progress will, bring down technological civilisation. That is their goal, it's destruction and the supposed primitivist utopia which is to come afterwards -- not to live outside it.

    Similarly, we communists wish to bring down capitalism, but yet we live and work within the system -- because we have no choice, and because we have to propagandise and recruit others. The primitivists reason in the same way.

    So, in conclusion, primitivism is not a desire to live without technology, it's the desire and struggle to 'liberate' mankind from it -- using technology itself to achieve this when beneficial. In fact, many of them envision (anticipatingly) some kind of mass holocaust of mankind brought forward by technology, which the virtuous primitivists will survive and then 'start from scratch'.

    Primitivism is a doomsday prophecy, a secular rapture.
  6. Dimentio
    Well, I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious, but one thing must be understood about primitivism. They either wish to themselves, or believe that further progress will, bring down technological civilisation. That is their goal, it's destruction and the supposed primitivist utopia which is to come afterwards -- not to live outside it.

    Similarly, we communists wish to bring down capitalism, but yet we live and work within the system -- because we have no choice, and because we have to propagandise and recruit others. The primitivists reason in the same way.

    So, in conclusion, primitivism is not a desire to live without technology, it's the desire and struggle to 'liberate' mankind from it -- using technology itself to achieve this when beneficial. In fact, many of them envision (anticipatingly) some kind of mass holocaust of mankind brought forward by technology, which the virtuous primitivists will survive and then 'start from scratch'.

    Primitivism is a doomsday prophecy, a secular rapture.
    Some of them are doing more than anticipating. Take for example Earth Liberation Front.
  7. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx
    I see your point, Sentinel. And to be fair, there are some primmies out that there that do practice what they preach, mostly.

    Still, doesn't the internet strike one as a mighty strange place to spread the gospel of how horrific technology is? I'd think they'd do better stuffing leaflets in national park maps or something.

    I mean, taking your communist propaganda analogy further, it strikes me as akin to us starting a business with the goal of raising funds for socialism, or even paying for full-page advertisements in the Financial Times. Sure, we need to spread our message "anytime anywhere", but...

    Another difference is that most primmies can live in the middle of nowhere and realize their dream, whereas we cannot. Hell, their crap already saturates the internet, it's unlikely yet another post by any individual primmie will do much good.
  8. Dimentio
    I see your point, Sentinel. And to be fair, there are some primmies out that there that do practice what they preach, mostly.

    Still, doesn't the internet strike one as a mighty strange place to spread the gospel of how horrific technology is? I'd think they'd do better stuffing leaflets in national park maps or something.

    I mean, taking your communist propaganda analogy further, it strikes me as akin to us starting a business with the goal of raising funds for socialism, or even paying for full-page advertisements in the Financial Times. Sure, we need to spread our message "anytime anywhere", but...

    Another difference is that most primmies can live in the middle of nowhere and realize their dream, whereas we cannot. Hell, their crap already saturates the internet, it's unlikely yet another post by any individual primmie will do much good.
    What is wrong with starting a (cooperative) business to earn money for the movement?
  9. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx
    What is wrong with starting a (cooperative) business to earn money for the movement?
    I meant a rather traditional business whose profits rely on the surplus value of its workers, and where the non-worker owners decide the profits go to the socialist movement instead of the capitalist's bank account.
  10. Dimentio
    I meant a rather traditional business whose profits rely on the surplus value of its workers, and where the non-worker owners decide the profits go to the socialist movement instead of the capitalist's bank account.
    Sounds like a degenerated socialist business to me.
  11. Red October
    Red October
    This is just the other side of the capitalist idea of nature as purely a profit-making resource. Nature is neither a resource for us to recklessly take profit from or a sacred thing to be worshipped or held above humanity. I see no reason why a technologically advanced post-capitalist society cannot preserve nature and humanity at the same time.
  12. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx
    Sounds like a degenerated socialist business to me.
    Just as the internet is a degenerate means to spread the primitivist gospel.
    And yup, this company was once called USSR, Inc..

    Nature is neither a resource for us to recklessly take profit from or a sacred thing to be worshipped or held above humanity.
    In many respects this is the central contradiction of nature worship. The veneration of nature at the expense of human welfare is not only unnatural, it exists to satisfy artificial human desires - desires which are almost universally confined to denizens of late industrial capitalism.