Howcome 'Primitivism' isn't considered left-wing?

[FieldHound]

I mean debating whether or not it is inevitable is one thing, but to consider the belief in the inevitability as fundamentally unethical I'm not so sure about. I disagree with christians believe the apocalypse/doomsday being imminent and am willing to debate over it (though it tends to be fruitless), but to attack them simply for believing it doesn't make sense to me.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is nothing really wrong with the position that there should be a population reduction. Usually that is reached by education, economic prosperity, technological advances, less religion and better and more accessible medical care which will automatically reduce birth rates dramatically.

What primitivism however is suggesting is to return to a a state several modes of production ago...and as a result of that several millions of people will naturally die. At least...that is the practical result of their ideology...one which they take great pains to either ignore or explain away in a convenient redressing.

[consuming negativity]

When I think primitivism, I think Ted Kaczynski. His motivation was good: he was tired of having the trees and natural environment and everything around him being destroyed and wasted. But what did he do about it? Nothing good. I sort of feel the same thing about fascists, really. They see that capitalism is draining the soul out of our society just like we do. It's just that they make the complete opposite assumptions that we do in going about fixing that problem, and they end up wanting to make things worse rather than make them better. In this sense, I consider primitivism to be a sort of third position against technological progress. Luckily, it is a very uncommon and irrelevant one, because most people see that technology and particularly the collection and distribution of information as a very good thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revolutionary socialists fight for a post-class society, one where the productive forces are developed to the extent that class stratification is impossible, a society of free access and abundance. Primmos fight for a return to hunter-gatherer societies - usually inconsistently but there you have it. They can talk about the "inevitability" of an ecological collapse all they want (it's not as if an actual socialist should allow himself to be fooled by talk about the inevitability of something) - after all the extreme christian right thinks that the Rapture is imminent as well, and they're just trying to save people by forcing them to not have abortions, be gay and so on.

[BIXX]

Revolutionary socialists fight for a post-class society, one where the productive forces are developed to the extent that class stratification is impossible, a society of free access and abundance. Primmos fight for a return to hunter-gatherer societies - usually inconsistently but there you have it. They can talk about the "inevitability" of an ecological collapse all they want (it's not as if an actual socialist should allow himself to be fooled by talk about the inevitability of something) - after all the extreme christian right thinks that the Rapture is imminent as well, and they're just trying to save people by forcing them to not have abortions, be gay and so on.

You're only talking about accelerationism, not primitivism. You seen incapable of understanding that there are multiple types of primitivism, in favor of only the accelerationist stance.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you choosing to ignore the "inevitable" part on purpose? Your burning building example doesn't work because there is a possibility of saving people, while as I can gather the opinion of primitivists is that the collapse of society and subsequent deaths of perhaps the majority is inevitable, whereas you're arguing with the idea that this collapse is preventable but with the cure/solution ignored. I don't agree that it is inevitable and I'm not a primitivist (at least not in this extreme sense which is the only kind I'm somewhat familiar with) but accusing people of being irresponsible in preventing an issue they believe is inevitable doesn't make sense. A lot of Marxists full-heartedbly believe that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, many anarchists believe that authority inevitably leads corruption, and as far as I can tell these extreme-primitivists think along these same lines, that such a huge population is not sustainable by any means and will inevitably collapse. Inevitability and prevention are incompatible, and as untrue as you think this concept of the inevitable dying off of most of civilisation to be (as I do), arguing along the lines of believers in this theory of being irresponsible doesn't make sense.

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.

[BIXX]

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.

You're being an idiot, which is a shame because I know you are intelligent.

Primitivists don't believe they can save those people from death- they're just formulating a plan for when it inevitably happens.

[Blake's Baby]

But they're obviously very wrong, and therefore they must be really stupid for believing it, or stupid and asshattish for pretending to believe it. Seriously. All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

[consuming negativity]

But they're obviously very wrong, and therefore they must be really stupid for believing it, or stupid and asshattish for pretending to believe it. Seriously. All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

Be careful with that edge you've got there. It's very sharp, and I'd lose a lot of sleep if something bad happened to you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ[ilization]" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ[ilization]" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.

[FieldHound]

No, I'm not choosing to ignore the inevitable part on purpose.

Your post makes sense.

Yes, I think that primitivists are very very wrong, and are merely adopting the position that they do because they're misanthropic/sociopathic.

I agree, in regards to whatever form of primitivism the author of "5 Objections to Primitivism" supports.

It's obvious to me at least that the 'solution' to the problems we have is not that 99.99% of the population has to die, and it's also obvious to me that any 'solution' which suggests that 99.99% of the the population has to die is in fact no solution at all. So, yeah, that being so obvious to me, I think that they must be doing it on purpose, because they're asshats.

I think this is where we disagree, because from the little that I know of this extreme branch of primitivism, they don't see the 99% dying as a solution but as a terrible catastrophe, one that is inevitable. Suppose there was a very large meteor detected lightyears away (I don't know my space talk...) heading roughly in the direction of Earth, and that while most scientists didn't think it would be a problem a handful thought it would inevitably hit our planet and wipe us all out, well I don't think that personal belief/theory would be considered a solution to anything. I think that they believe that this catastrophic ending of most human life is sadly bound to happen and that the best they can do is plan for how to organise (or not) society afterwards. Pessimistic, paranoid, even crazy, whatever you want to call it, I don't think they're necessarily bad people, in the moral/ethical sense, for believing this.

[FieldHound]

All primitivists can have the courage of their convictions and kill themselves now, and I'd not lose a second of sleep over it.

Ok haven't we already established that this particular brand of primitivism doesn't represents primitivists in general? Ironic generalised thinking since you're a left-communist as lots of anti-communists I've spoke to like to paint all communists with the Stalinist brush...

Unless you're just paraphrasing but still, "the communists are responsible for the deaths of millions!" is just paraphrasing too...

[BIXX]

A few thoughts here. I want to emphasize that I'm intentionally stepping back from taking a "side" - if one can be taken in this context.

I think there's a real question here about what the left is that needs to be answered before we can figure out whether or not primitivism is part of it. Palmares response touched on it in a really useful way by pointing to the idea of a "post-left". So, is the left:

a) A historical "movement" and set of discourses - a lineage that can be traced more-or-less to the enlightenment and Republicanism? To what degree do other ideas that have engaged to varying degrees with "the left" become part of it? e.g. Are radical Indigenist ideas "left"? Was Max Schatman still left after he swung right? Etc. Depending on where one draws the line at which one "breaks" with the left, primitivism (and post-left currents generally) could certainly be understood as left.

b) Fidelity to radical egalitarianism? Primitivism probably counts as "left" on that basis, as do various millenarian religious movements, etc.

c) Fidelity to progress? i.e. Is the left rooted a particular notion of history as a movement from "necessity to freedom"? That is, is the left the bastard child of European liberalism? In this last case, Primitivism (and most of the post-left, various radical religious movements, various Indigenist movements, etc.) would not be left.

d) Is it some combination of these things? In what proportions or on what terms?

As an aside, I think "primitivist" is largely a term that has fallen into disfavour, since it projects a problematic and distinctly civilized dichotomy into the discussion - reflecting, I think, the heavy influence of academic anthropology on some iterations of primitivist thought. "Anti-Civ[ilization]" is more common now, and also represents a broadening of discussion which, while acknowledging certain aspects of "primitivist" critique, is something less than a wholesale swallowing of Zerzan.

For an interesting aside, I highly recommend reading Camatte's The Wandering of Humanity - a distinctly Marxian work which some view as an important influence on what became "primitivism". Similarly, the latter work of Fredy Perlman falls into this category. I highly recommend his extremely poetic Against His-Story! Against Leviathan! for anyone who is interested in an attempt at a post-Marxist materialist critique that represents an important early document of "anti-civ" anarchism.

I personally wouldn't connect primitivism with the left. Of course I'm ok with this as I am particularly bothered by the left.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on anti-civ thought? (Sorry if you posted them and I just didn't notice)

[BIXX]

Ok haven't we already established that this particular brand of primitivism doesn't represents primitivists in general? Ironic generalised thinking since you're a left-communist as lots of anti-communists I've spoke to like to paint all communists with the Stalinist brush...

Unless you're just paraphrasing but still, "the communists are responsible for the deaths of millions!" is just paraphrasing too...

Apparently BB is incapable of understanding that. Or they are incapable of having an honest conversation.

[Blake's Baby]

Which bit am I not getting DD? The only primitivists I know anything about were connected to the magazine Green Anarchist some years ago and this is what I'm basing my view of primitivism on. Yes, it was the most dreadful anti-human ideology that didn't seem at all sorry about the fact that they thought billions would die, in fact I got the idea they rather relished the idea as it would allow them to swan about proving they were superior. Sort of Neitzsche-in-Furs, if you will. If there are other primitivists I'm doing a disservice to by associating them with these lunatics, then that is presumably because none of these other primitivists has ever positively impressed their ideology on me to the extent that these fuckwits have negatively impressed me.

So, please, try to explain what it is I'm not getting.

[FieldHound]

So, please, try to explain what it is I'm not getting.

By your own admittance, having a small, specific and obviously unrepresentable reference point.

The only primitivists I know anything about were connected to the magazine Green Anarchist some years ago and this is what I'm basing my view of primitivism on.

And you are using this as a universal basis for all branches of primitivism. Your judgement's basis being very narrow and subjective, and the fact that you're clearly aware of this selective view yet don't see it as a bit illogical. I can't speak for anyone else but that's what I think you're not getting.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There are a number of dumb ideologies that I won't stoop to taking or debating seriously, but I don't then try to present my criticism as well intentioned discourse. 99% of people cannot talk about primitivism without making use of strawman arguments and caricatures, which is cool but stop trying to cover it up, its not working. I agree with Tim, I would say it's left wing but reactionary as hell.

[Blake's Baby]

By your own admittance, having a small, specific and obviously unrepresentable reference point...

Oh, OK, I'm too ignorant to have an opinion, is that what you're getting at?

I apologise for not being aware of the vast flocks of sensible primitivists out there wandering about telling us all that it's regrettable we're all going to die. Obviously my fault for being wilfully blind to them.

...And you are using this as a universal basis for all branches of primitivism. Your judgement's basis being very narrow and subjective, and the fact that you're clearly aware of this selective view yet don't see it as a bit illogical. I can't speak for anyone else but that's what I think you're not getting.

No, not really, because I'm not aware that there are any primitivists that aren't anti-human assholes. Perhaps there are. I've never come across any. Doesn't mean I won't. But, like everyone else, I can only base my opinions of things on what I'm aware of. If I get bitten by a dog, my opinion will be that dogs bite. You might not have been bitten by a dog. Maybe you don't know they bite. But I'm afraid you don't get to call me stupid for insisting that dogs bite.

[PhoenixAsh]

I too am very curious to these primitivists which hold such vastly differing views.

I am not saying primitivists don't have interesting points or arguments...but I am not aware of any primitivist brach that basically state we can do with all people currently pressent on this earth and who do not rely their ideology actually working on scores of people actually dying,