A Question about Primitivism

[Ilyich]

[Primitivism] appears to be Option C to Marxist-Leninism vs. Anarchism.

I am sorry that this is of topic, but option C is actually non-Leninist Marxism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Your answers are irrelevant if the primitivists are even partially correct.

Matters of material abundance are irrelevant to primitivists? They're certainly relevant to communists!

Also, I have never seen the issue of potential having been addressed by any kind of primitivist. How is a primitive future anything but a criminal waste of human potential on a possibly cosmic scale?

[ZrianKobani]

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?

This being a strictly Leftist site, the mods and admins have very little tolerance for post-Leftists, even post-Left anarchists like the primitivists. I think it's sad because I personally find much of John Zerzan's work inspiring and I can see how the argument against civilization makes sense. I think we need that kind of radical condemnation of industry, etc. to force us to re-evaluate our lives and that most here hate that because they can't stand someone who looks at their radicalism and says, "that's just the tip of the iceberg".

[ZrianKobani]

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.

Isn't nature currently suffering oppression at the hands of humanity and bringing the planet closer to the brink of ecological extinction? What has the Left done to not just reverse this or slow it down but end it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Isn't nature currently suffering oppression at the hands of humanity and bringing the planet closer to the brink of ecological extinction? What has the Left done to not just reverse this or slow it down but end it.

Which is why I advocate the dialectical fusion of advanced technology and environmental naturalism, rather than pure technocracy or pure primitivism.

Even following your idea here, if it's bad for humans to oppress "nature", it's also bad for "nature" to oppress humans. I don't see "nature" is essentially "above us" in some metaphysical sense and I don't worship "nature" as a distinct ontological entity.

I don't want to go back to the days where humans don't have antibiotics to treat basic infections in the name of some kind of abstract romanticist "naturalism". You should know that I'm essentially a pragmatist and the most important reason for me to be a socialist is because I care about human welfare. I hate the kind of ruthless social darwinism we have in class society where the strong thrive while the weak simply perish, and I have no interest of replacing one kind of oppression upon the weak and disadvantaged by another kind.

I care about nature and animals but if it's the choice between poor humans and other animals, the poor humans would always come first. I'm philosophically a humanist, not a naturalist, and not a technocrat. Human welfare and basic rights override both nature and technological progress.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't nature currently suffering oppression at the hands of humanity and bringing the planet closer to the brink of ecological extinction? What has the Left done to not just reverse this or slow it down but end it.

Nature is not suffering "oppression" unless you include the part of nature which is human. The current socioeconomic system is unacceptably sub-optimal for the satisfactory realisation of human welfare and potential, indeed, but that is not the same thing as "nature suffering oppression".

When it comes to the parts of nature that are not human, simple prudence behooves us to reduce our environmental impact, insofar as doing so does not impact upon human welfare. That's why I'm an advocate of compact urbanisation and other forms of human development that takes the human scales of a small town or village, and fuses it with the economies of scale and cosmopolitan benefits that come with large cities. There are many great and sweeping changes to be made in the industrial production and transportation of foods, goods and energy. Doubtless there are many other areas in which we could make improvements.

We don't have to reject technology to make this planet a place worth living on, in fact technology can be a great aid in such a task.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree that "nature" is basically an inanimate category so it can't really be "oppressed" strictly speaking. "Nature" has no sentience and no consciousness, unless you believe in the Gaia hypothesis.

I actually do support animal rights, at least rights for all vertebrate animals which possess a distinct central nervous system, beyond basic environmental concerns in the interests of humanity only. However, I certainly wouldn't put animal rights on the same level as human rights, which from a materialistic perspective is absurd given that animals do not possess a level of consciousness which is comparable to humans and from the perspective of ethical philosophy, there is no such thing as "pure rights" - rights and responsibilities are a dialectical pair and always come together. Animals don't have human responsibilities, therefore they cannot be given human rights.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is probably the main point. Because if the primitivists had it their way 95% of us would be dead.

Yeah, I mean basic survival is for sure one of the most important motivators in politics. Funny how some people don't seem to grasp that.

[bcbm]

i don't even remember posting in this thread thanks whiskey

It's not the difference between capitalism and communism at all, unless you think "technological communism" which is partly based on present-day technologies under capitalist society is not real communism, which is an absurd ultra-leftist position.

i'm sure a lot of technologies that exist today will be preserved in some form or another but their use will be totally transformed.

And it's the fault of some revolutionary leftists with their crazy fringe ideas that has made communism in general seem inaccessible for the ordinary working class of the world. It's not the fault of ordinary workers who can't accept such outlandish theories.

actually its neither

You are stupid and rude for calling people who oppose primitivism "stagnant dipshits" because you think primitivism shouldn't be criticised.

no i said that the only people fretting about primitivism are people who are equally irrelevant. i have no idea where you got that i think primitivism shouldn't be criticized. criticize away, but i think its a waste of time

And you are wrong. If all workers ever did was burning down factories, capitalism will never be overthrown.

saying that it makes sense for bangledeshi garment workers to burn down their factories =/= all workers should ever do is burn factories.

You are beginning to sound like some of those reactionary Third Worldists now, and I say this even though I'm from China originally and actually somewhat "sympathetic" to some Third Worldist arguments.

i wish i was that cool

How was industrial capitalism in Marx's day less oppressive than industrial capitalism today?

it hadn't conquered the globe

Communism is not the total destruction of the existent. That's a ridiculous nihilist viewpoint, which is against the basic principles of historical materialism.

these "basic principles" being?

And if technology is really destroyed and humanity runs into different kinds of problems in the "primitivist future" you might start blaming "primitivism"...the problem with such an existentialist perspective is the lack of long-term foresight. Just deal with problems as they emerge rather than tackle them intrinsically.

pretty sure "destroying class society and establishing a human community ie communism" is tackling the problem intrinsically

That you would consider extremist primitivism to offer better insight into human society than Marxist historical materialism is very telling...

not what i said

As I said before, I didn't say primitivism is completely stupid. However, what is stupid is to consider primitivism to be more valid than orthodox historical materialism.

not what i said

It's one thing to say that primitivism shouldn't be completely written-off, it's quite another to say that it can't be seriously criticised at all.

not what i said

Maybe you ought to read Lenin's work Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

nope