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

[FieldHound]

From the little I know of it ("5 Common Objectives to Primitivism and Why They're Wrong") I'm not an advocate but am curious to know why it's not considered leftist round here. Is it the sort of "elitist" attitude? Is there more to it that I don't know about? I've been meaning to read some Zerzan but haven't got round to it yet. Would you consider it right-wing, or syncretic, or what? Sorry if this is in the wrong section, please move to 'Opposing Ideologies' if that's where it belongs.

[Sasha]

it depends, primitivism in its caricature of forcing people to abandon civilization by forcibly destructing (medical) progress, targeting scientists etc is considered a reactionary ideology much like maoist third worldism is here. not because we dont recognize the revolutionary leftist origins of these movements but because it has morphed in to a reactionary movement at odds with progress (and if i'm honest because their adherents are particularly disruptive of discussion, while many other ideologies have their own pet subjects they dont tend to interject them in every totally unrelated subject discussion as MTW's, hardline primmies and religious folks tend to do).
but many users on this board (many mods and even admins like myself included) are influenced by a whole range of anti- and post-civ writers and movements and they are frequently discussed here.

[Tim Cornelis]

I regard it as leftist. But also highly reactionary.

[Palmares]

Well, I hope this thread doesn't become a flame war...

But coming from an anti-civ perspective (as opposed to one critical of it), I think the fact that it fits in the spectrum of so-called "post-left" (or post-anarchist) does point to it not being "left" in the most traditional sense. But it's hardly alone in this respect, as egoist/nihilist/insurrectionalist anarchists fit in this loose category too.

Same roots (in the Eurocentric sense), different branches.

[BIXX]

To be fair I am anti-civ but not primitivist. I wouldn't associate with the left or post-left because they both are kinda lame imo.

I don't regard primitivism as left because of the qualitative differences it has to the left.

[Blake's Baby]

How 'primitivist'? I've heard primmos claim that the earth will never be healed until there are only 50,000 humans left on the planet. So, they are saying that advocate a way of living that requires the deaths of 6,999,950,000 people (more than 99.99% of the human population) or thereabouts.

No way is that 'left' under any definition of 'left' that I'm aware of.

[Lord Testicles]

If a reactionary is someone who wants to return to a previous state of society then primitivists are as reactionary as they can come, no?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be fair I am anti-civ but not primitivist. I wouldn't associate with the left or post-left because they both are kinda lame imo.

I don't regard primitivism as left because of the qualitative differences it has to the left.

Are all your posts basically about yourself?

[Sasha]

How 'primitivist'? I've heard primmos claim that the earth will never be healed until there are only 50,000 humans left on the planet. So, they are saying that advocate a way of living that requires the deaths of 6,999,950,000 people (more than 99.99% of the human population) or thereabouts.

No way is that 'left' under any definition of 'left' that I'm aware of.

most primmies that think earth would better off with less humans tend to see mass human die off earlier as unavoidable then something which should be actively worked towards (and even the former are not representative of all primmies).
maybe all doomsday preppers are a bit crazy but almost none of them is antrax spreading or forcing laced kool-aid on little children crazy

[Blake's Baby]

Oh well obviously 'not trying to save people' is so much better than 'actually killing them'.

As in, locking the doors of a burning building is much better than leaving the doors open and shooting them as they come out.

[Sasha]

Another caricature, like said most primmies see collapse of civilisation (civilization as in the the sense of capitalist society) as unavoidably, as being intrinsic to capitalism (quite a Marxist concept), not the dying of people is desirable, the collaps of capital is, and they are envisioning how an socialist society could be build on its ruins.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, like I said, it's OK that billions of people die, as long as you you didn't actually kill them yourself, you don't actually have to, you know, try and help save them.

It's anti-human fuckwittery and anyone promoting it should be strongly encouraged to live up to their ideology and kill themselves to leave more room for the rest of us.

[Hit The North]

Another caricature, like said most primmies see collapse of civilisation (civilization as in the the sense of capitalist society) as unavoidably, as being intrinsic to capitalism (quite a Marxist concept), not the dying of people is desirable, the collaps of capital is, and they are envisioning how an socialist society could be build on its ruins.

Except that Marx didn't see capitalism and civilisation as synonymous nor that the end of capitalism would be the end of civilisation. And Marx would laugh at the notion of a post-capitalist socialist society being a lower mode of production. So not very Marxist at all.

[BIXX]

Are all your posts basically about yourself?

Well, when I am giving my point of view it makes sense to talk in reference to myself.

[BIXX]

Oh well obviously 'not trying to save people' is so much better than 'actually killing them'.

As in, locking the doors of a burning building is much better than leaving the doors open and shooting them as they come out.

Um... primitivism might actually be looked at as the way they see to save people, things like rewilding etc... being a way to survive after the collapse.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Technology isn't the enemy, and in fact technology came in existence precisely because people didn't want to eat berries and raw meat for eternity.

Are all your posts basically about yourself?

Tendency: Egoist Anarchism

[Martin Luther]

I thought the whole idea of primitivism in Marxist terms was to bring about regress in the means and mode of production, so it can only be reactionary.

[Blake's Baby]

Um... primitivism might actually be looked at as the way they see to save people, things like rewilding etc... being a way to survive after the collapse.

But the collapse has to happen.

What we are trying to do is prevent the collapse in the first place.

Can you really not see the difference between those things?

'After I set the building on fire, 800 people burned to death but when a couple of people escaped I gave them a drink of water.'

'I stopped some nutcase who was trying to set the tower-block on fire.'

They really are very different.

[Skyhilist]

I think what's being said isn't that primitivists necessarily want collapse or even don't want to stop it - they just have a really fatalist position and think that no matter what we try to do collapse will happen. And this causes them as a result to focus on building society after collapse as opposed to trying to stop collapse (which they think couldn't possibly work due to their fatalist stance). It's not really a rational train of thought. But that also isn't to say that primitivists are "ok" or "want" billions of people to die, they sort of just think it'll happen regardless and is unstoppable usually.

[FieldHound]

But the collapse has to happen.

What we are trying to do is prevent the collapse in the first place.

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.