A Question about Primitivism

Yes, I know there's a thread three or four down about why Primies are Primies, but what I want to know is why Primies are restricted to the OI section to begin with. Being anti-civilisation and pro-localism sounds economically leftist to me, and living without a State in small self-sustaining groups sounds even more Leftist. It appears to be Option C to Marxist-Leninism vs. Anarchism. It's anti-technology stance, which really isn't that bad considering how technology is most often used, seems to be based in the philosophy of simplicity rather than the Amish-sounding "Technology is evil!". Am I missing something here?

It's not really Option C, thats Social Democracy. And Primitivism isn't really an option anyway. It just seems like a pretty trivial idea of how to proceed in politics. Although there are lots of genuine points that are made by them about the environment, waste disposal, consumerism etc, they are pretty hopeless when it comes to proposing a way forward.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't really answer your question there, but I'm guessing it has something to do with what I wrote.

Because the BA, and the dude who started the board don't like it, and decided it was reactionary.

Just because something sounds "left" doesn't mean it's right. Being intrinsically anti-technology is clearly a mistake from a Marxist perspective, and this should be obvious to anyone who has read Marx. Furthermore, it detracts one's criticism from against capitalism to "against technology", which is completely misleading. Capitalism and class society would also be super-exploitative in a technologically primitive society, if not even more so, so technology has nothing intrinsically to do with class oppression. Technology is essentially a neutral force, whether it's progressive or reactionary depends on who is using it and for what purpose.

Socialism is, in the last analysis, ultimately about making human lives better. A technologically primitive society would not be a good place to live in, even without class oppression, because in such a society humanity is fundamentally oppressed by nature. The desire and ability to transform the natural world through labour is indeed the defining characteristic of the human species.

Personally I support the restriction of primitivism, just like I would support the restriction of the opposite extreme - treating technological advance rather than mass democracy as the central element in politics, or right-wing technocracy.

Primitivism largely has its roots in 60s marxism, largely influenced by the events of May 68 in France.

Primitivist thought has developed out of attempts to defeat alienated labor. And as far as I'm concerned, I have never seen anarchists or communists explain a legitimate answer to account for how alienated labor will be destroyed, primitivists, however, do.

The essential mistake is to see technology as the enemy rather than class society. The idea seems to be that hypothetically if all technology were to disappear tomorrow, then all alienation and oppression in the world will be gone too.

Why would a class society be less oppressive and brutal just because it is technologically more primitive? Tell me, what is the essential difference between the armies of Genghis Khan massacring innocent civilians in the millions with iron swords and the technologically advanced gas chambers of the German Nazis? Does technology make it worse somehow, or that the lives of people who were killed via primitivist means simply don't worth as much?

Conversely, alienation is caused by class oppression, not by technology intrinsically. To be intrinsically anti-technology is a ridiculous idea.

The concept of alienation shouldn't be considered in the abstract either. Fact is, socialism is based on mass democracy, and we already live in a technologically advanced age. If most workers say technology can be a good thing in socialism, then their decision will be the right one. Whatever some small fringe groups of primitivists might say on this matter are inconsequential.

Funny you are utilising an advanced piece of technology (the Internet) to fundamentally argue against technology.

You also forget that technology has advanced throughout the biological history of the human species, and not just in the last few thousand years of class society. So the desire to improve technology is an innate human trait, not something brought about by class society.

Personally, I'd rather be slightly "alienated" in an abstract sense but have antibiotics to treat serious infections than to be completely "unalienated" in an abstract sense but die from a relatively minor infection before I'm 30. Abstract dogmatism has never really appealed to me.

In a practical sense primitivism is also not a good idea because you will just alienate the majority of workers who are not anti-technology and especially workers who have pro-technology ideas due to the nature of their professions. Socialists can never take power until it has the support of the important sections of the working class that potentially could have control over the economic and industrial heart of capitalism. If there is an intrinsic flaw in the May 68 student movements is that those idealistic radical students were incapable of engaging in politics in a more pragmatic manner and link up with the wider working class.

Primitivism is a complete rejection of historical materialism, that's why. Even more so than capitalist logic, which simply wishes to halt historical materialism with prolonging capitalism, primitivists want to completely reverse human development.

It's not feasible, not practical, and it's completely reactionary.

No, thats what you're saying. Not what primitivists are saying. This is why a lot of time primitivists won't waste any time with people on the left. Because everybody on the left assumes they understand primitivism allready.

Why do you think primitivists want class society?

How can we defeat alienation? The primitivist says we can do it through a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, they are correct.

And the rest of your post talks about something other than alienated labor. But you use the term alienation, which confuses the discussion, and is why I rarely ever allow myself to talk about primitivism on here, and why I will probably not be posting much in this thread.

please go on. Im intrigued.

There are simply far to many people in the world to sustain a hunter-gather society, in order for primitivism to work billions of people would have to die and if that isn't reactionary i don't what is.

It's just easier to dismiss off hand, like a summary execution for bullshit. But in all fairness it wouldn't really affect the functioning of the board if Primmies were allowed to post in all areas.

The few here who have primitivist sympathies are top notch posters.

Well to be fair, a lot of primitivists see depopulation as something gradual and voluntary. Some don't even want to "take the whole world down with them" so to speak, but want enough forest to be left untouched for them to live in hunter gatherer bands.

Self-sustaining tiny groups and anti-civilisation/technology would naturally require a massive depopulation of earth, therefore, reactionary.

Economic regression and anti-industrialism are regressive policies. Oh the life of the hunter-gatherers, how simple it was, how lovely, the bucolic innocence tainted by evil industrial society; how I wish the tripods would come and return us to the innocence of times past... :rolleyes:

They are wrong. And besides, how do you plan to make this happen? I really don't think the majority of the workers and masses in the world will ever agree with you. So do you plan to force people to abandon technology?

Primitivism may be wrong but I wouldn't call for its destruction. But if anyone tries to impose their ideological views on the working masses, that becomes arch-reactionary and frankly they should be shot on sight for that.

Defeating alienation is useless for people like me who most probably wouldn't even be alive had we lived in a hunter-gatherer society. I was very weak and prone to illness as a child, I had a massive lung infection when I was 2 which almost killed me. I would have a major infection of the respiratory system almost every single year, often many times more.

The only reason I am alive today is thanks to modern medical technology. It was the massive amounts of antibiotics injections I had every year as a child that prevented me from dying. Without antibiotics, I would probably have perished long ago. I can never reject technology because my life is literally dependent on it.

Alienation is not the only thing I care about. I'd say survival is more important. And I don't want to have a society with class oppression, but I don't want to live in a primitivist social darwinist jungle based on the law of the "survival of the fittest" either. Tell me, what's going to happen to those who are physically weaker in your primitivist society? Do weak people not deserve as much human rights as strong people?

What is going to happen to gender roles? Whether you like it or not, advanced technology has made it potentially easier to reject rigid gender roles in society, and this may be even more so the case in the future. It is potentially possible to transcend gender in the most basic biological sense using technology. There are many women who are in the armed forces and doing all kinds of dangerous jobs today, as well as men who are working as nurses or in childcare. Should men and women have relatively rigid gender roles in your kind of society again, just like they did 20,000 years ago, so that "the men hunt and the women gather"? What if a man doesn't want to hunt but wants to do a "woman's job" instead? What will happen to trans-women like me? Would I be genuinely considered and respected as a woman in a hunter-gatherer society?

Fuck social darwinism. I say people deserve a chance at life even if they are the most unfit individuals to have ever existed on the face of the Earth. The weak deserve just as much rights as the strong.

Also, I have never seen a convincing explanation from a primitivist regarding how exactly technology produces alienation in an intrinsic sense, rather than class society.

Primitivism is reactionary and should be restricted. If there is ever a general voting on this matter, you can be absolutely sure that I would vote yes.

industrial society doesn't seem to be leading us to a very different future, most primitivists at least don't encourage running us off the edge of the cliff in the name of progress

No it's not "industrial society" but "industrial capitalism" that is running people off the edge of the cliffs.

Like I said, primitivism diverts people's attentions from the real enemy of humanity - the capitalist class.

Workers certainly don't need to oppose industry and technology to oppose capitalism.

Technology is just a neutral force. It all depends on who is using it and for what purpose.

primitivists are generally very egalitarian in their mindset and if you look at evidence of pre-civilized societies there is a great deal of evidence that they cared for the "weak," the elderly, etc

i think its stupid to expect primitivists want to return to the past they clearly want a "primitive future" that gains from the benefits of some of what we have learned inc ivilizations experiment not necessarily a full scale return even so gender roles have hardly been rigid in all gatherer-hunter societies, there are many that recognize "third genders" or similar arrangements that discount the rigidity you imagine

the entire basis of gatherer-hunter society is the survival of the tribe, not the individual and generally they take better care of their own than civilized counterparts especially in the modern age

Like I said, it's not the "modern age" in general that is the problem, but modern capitalism.

Intrinsically I'm neither pro-technology nor anti-technology. Technology is just a tool, like the hammer in your hand. It's rather stupid to consider an inanimate tool as the ultimate bogeyman that is destroying humanity, rather than sentient human agents who are using these tools, like capitalists and dictators.

It's like the incompetent carpenter who constantly blames his/her own tools for the sub-standard jobs he/she does.

Rather than blaming human technology, why not blame humanity itself?

I agree that technological advances in certain areas aren't really a good thing, but it would be contrary to the objective of human welfare in general to reject technology in the broad sense, particularly life-saving technologies like medicine. In a genuine socialist society, technology would be firmly in the hands of the working class, and the direction of technological progress would be completely controlled by the masses in general in a democratic manner, rather than by the capitalist state or corporate boards of directors like it is today.

inseparable as it stands

a few tree huggers and mailbombing mathematicians probably isn't going to sink or swim the communist project

no but they have a long history of preferring to burn the factory down than occupy it

maybe

the modern age was born through capitalism everything that exists because of capitalsim eeverything that exists exists for capitalism.

a sattelite defense grid or a predator drone or a cctv system or a civilization designed for the automobile is not a neutral tool. capitalism is the main problem sur ebut it create severything in its image

there is much to save and much to destroy. i disagree with primitvisim but their critique is important and a communist technological society would bear little resemblence to a capitalist one. marx wrote about the merger of town and country or w/e i think this is important, especially in the "green" era...

They are not inseparable intrinsically. That's the important distinction. Unless you think a communist society cannot be technological.

They are trying to influence the masses with their incorrect ideas, and diverting people's attention from anti-capitalism.

And as Marx and Lenin pointed out, "burning down the factory" rather than occupying it is a sign of ideological immaturity by certain workers. It's hardly something one should praise, let alone emulate.

Socialism and communism would still be "modern" in the technological sense.

But the core technologies behind all of these things are still neutral. Satellite defense grid can be used to protect the Earth from comet collisions; Missile technology is useful for space exploration; Real-time surveillance can be useful for doctors monitoring their patients, parents monitoring their baby children, or the monitoring of real criminals in rehabilitation centres.

Not a single core technology is intrinsically reactionary. It's only particular forms of applications that are, which are fundamentally based on the reactionary nature of the human agents who are controlling them.

There is probably some truth in that, and I do support environmentalism generally, just not those extremist tree-hugging lunatics. But I wouldn't overstate this point either.

Yeah, primitivism is not completely without its points, but I would say the same thing about Third Worldism, especially given the fact that some people here simply reject the existence of Western imperialism outright. Personally I oppose the restriction of Third Worldism even though I don't agree with it, just like you oppose the restriction of primitivism even though you don't agree with it either, but the reality is that both are restricted ideologies. RevLeft isn't a perfect forum for anyone here. (What's more funny is how some fools think the two are actually linked, that Third Worldism should be restricted because it is "primitivist" or some such nonsense. I mean I agree Third Worldism is wrong, but to even think that Third Worldism is intrinsically "primitivist" just shows one's utter ignorance on this matter)

hicup

a commuist society can be technological but it will bear little or even no resmeblance to capitalist society as it exists today, in the process of taking control we will destory much and change even more. today capital is no differnet than industrial society they developed togehter and support each other to develop an "industrial communism" would require basically a rebirth from the ashes of the hell we live in

i'm pretty sure "green anarchy" doesn't even publish anymore and whatever other "influence" they have is limited to the stagnant pools of dipshits who inhabit the left and worry about this kind of shit. most people would rather watch "dancing with the stars" and, frankly, i would too

they never lived in bangladesh, i trust them more than marx really

no communism would mean death to the modern era

excuses are all equal. i'll oppose technological development that benefits capital until capital is gone. as it stands, every development is within the logic of capital and benefits capital. fuck that

i don't really suport "tre hugging lunatics" either but i see the point of primitvisms critique and its mostly ignored and thats too bad because i think they undertsnads modern society better than most marxists

i havent said anything about restriction or whatever i dont really care i see valuye in all those critiques even though most third worlists are trolls