Results 1 to 7 of 7
Primitivism
What is it?
I don't believe that technology is able to solve everything, nor is technological progress allways actual progress in my book, but neither do I pledge for the destruction of everything we have....
Does this make me a primitivist?
And actually more interesting, what the hell is primitivism anyway?
Whenever 'realism' is posed as antithesis to idealism, disasters are bound to happen.
Gobierno Negrín: ¿dónde está Nin? - POUM (Partit Obrer d'Unificació Marxista)
I think if you were a primitivist, you would actually abandon all types of large scale organization technologies. You wouldn't just halt technology, but make it completely backwards.
My understanding of primitivism is when you believe we should go back to hunter-gatherer status through deindustrialisation. Life would be better without civilization, and everyone was happier and more moral when they were primitive.
hope this helps
[FONT=Arial]"We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]----Durruti[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
A primitivist is someone who is against technology - or at least complex forms of technology.
I agree that technology does not solve everything. There must be social progress as well.
robotization of production in present system serve to capitalist to make bigger profit and robotization take job from worker. robotization of production in anarchism would bring more free time for workers so they can work something else, or they can spend more time with their friends and family.
that's big difference and I don't see primitivists as anarchists. in fact, they don't belong to this world, because we are 6 billions and how can someone organize healthy water or food or medicaments for so many people without organized production which technology make faster and easier? therefore primitivists are not in reality, people will never support their idea in which people would again die from stupid sicknessess. homeless are out of system already now and homeless die from stupid sicknessess which are result of lack of access to medicaments.
watch today, where people die more from tuberkulosis or pneumonia, of course in poor countries. so, technology can help us even more than dtoday, if it is used for benefits of people and not only for benefits of corporations (in mentioned case: pharmaceutical corporations).
"I have seen capital come, like a vampire, to suck the last drop of blood of the unfortunate pariahs. Then I came back to France where it was reserved for me to see my family suffer atrociously. This was the last drop in the cup of my sorrow. Tired of leading this life of suffering and cowardice I carried this bomb to those who are primarily responsible for social misery". - Auguste Vaillant
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^|____
|Anarchism is comming | '|";,__.
|_..._....._____===|=_|__|....,]|
"(@)'(@)****|(@)*(@)***(@)
Some links to threads that may help you with what primitivism is include:
Primitivism?
Anarcho-primitivism, primitivism and why not all primitivists are nice people.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/primitivism-t57876/index.html
Primitivism
I haven't actually read them, I just got them from the "similar threads" at the bottom of the page. Regardless.
I don't think that technology is progressive either. It is how that technology is used that makes it progressive or regressive. Take the wheel, generally speaking, using wheels as a form of transport is a good thing. A bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transport (distance/speed per amount of energy). However, you can also use wheels as part of a torture instrument.
So, no, I don't think you are a primitivist.
I wrote this in a similar thread:
- AugustOriginally Posted by me
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
You have to look at what technology is developed for. Sure, most of what is done today is to help capitalism, which in turn is bad for the worker because less work is around for them. In other words, why pay a living being when a machine can do the same thing much better, and cheaper? Naturally, a disdain for technology can come from this.
However, as stated above, were society to change, the same machines could do living a life much easier.
But...
No. In fact, progress in communism will probably be slower (as conflicts diminish and cooperation expands). Decisions will probably take more time, but will be far more safer and effective, as people work for the best of other people.
But to be a primitivist, you have to believe that the evils of the world has its origin in technological progress, not in political systems. That is, technology is formed for control by some kind of force, and it all began with agriculture. A hunter-gatherer society is their ideal because each person had only what he or she could carry, stayed in small groups, and had to live "in the nature" rather than working the nature to live for them.
Further, you are a primitivist because you want to crush this global society back to, literally, the Stone Age.
Rest asured, we came to this stage in history because of our knowledge, and the primitivists find themselves in an impossible situation, as they not only propose global mass murder, but a system that would never hold. People would still be interested in making their everyday burdens easier. Why go to different fields when you can have one yourself? Why plow for a week when an ox can do it in one day? And so on.
Even if every person agreed on it, new "Einsteins and Gallileos" would be born, sooner or later, and reinvent society. Even if we lost the ability to make electrical power (i.e. the oil ended, steampower isn't working etc) we would still have the knowledge of building wooden ships and building castles of stone.
Ironically, humans are evolved by this very same nature, and evolved to the intelligent stage we are in now. We would go against evolution by destroying what we built by the help of evolution, and in any case, what's to say new intelligent beings wouldn't evolve and do the same thing we "did"?
In short - remain communist. It isn't worth your time and money, and besides, despite us being red we're the greenest movement in history.
"In February 1991, while attending the National Grocers' Association, President Bush visited a model supermarket. When taken to the checkout counter and shown how to pass a couple of items over the scanner, he excitedly voiced his admiration for this "new technology." It was evident he had not visited a supermarket in years, if ever."
-Michael Parenti, "Against Empire"
