Anarcho-Primitivism

[Akira]

Are there any others here who consider themselves of this thinking?

Or am I the only one.

[bcbm]

Shouldn't you be shitting in the woods?

[Rollo]

Uhhhh... Why is a primitvist using a computer?

[Forward Union]

Wow, the last two posts displayed a wonderful misunderstanding of Primitivism. Like communism, most primitivists don't see it as a lifestyle choice, but a material necessity. Of course, I strongly disagree, but the criticisms presented are just slander.

No, no one here considers themselves primitivist, but in real life I do know a few who are pretty deacent people, and dedictaed activists.

[Akira]

Originally posted by Rollo@Aug 31 2006, 05:27 PM
Uhhhh... Why is a primitvist using a computer?

Necessary evil for communication of acquiring minds.

[Akira]

Originally posted by Love Underground@Aug 31 2006, 05:34 PM
Wow, the last two posts displayed a wonderful misunderstanding of Primitivism. Like communism, most primitivists don't see it as a lifestyle choice, but a material necessity. Of course, I strongly disagree, but the criticisms presented are just slander.

No, non one here considers themselves primitivist, but in real life I do know a few who are pretty deacent people, and dedictaed activists.

I was hoping there would be others here , but in a sense it does not surprise me that there is not.

I do like this site though because other Anarchists are here and many people seem to be against the current system in place. I suppose that is part of the reason why I joined here.


Thankyou for being a much more kinder fellow.

[rouchambeau]

Uhhhh... Why is a primitvist using a computer?

Uhhhh... Why are so many communists working for a wage?

[jaycee]

i´m not a primitavist althgough i am quite sympathetic to many of its ideas, however i don´t think technology is the problem, the problem is class society. the rise of civilization was in many ways comparable to a´fall´ for humanity but this was because it was civilization was intimately linked with the rise of class society. The communism of the future will regain many things which were lost from primitive communism but on a higher level, i.e it will retain tecnology and many other developments which were only possible through the development of the productive forces under class society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by rouchambeau@Aug 31 2006, 06:41 PM

Uhhhh... Why is a primitvist using a computer?

Uhhhh... Why are so many communists working for a wage?

Because communists need to work in order to survive and have a reasonable standard of living.

Primitivists don't need to use computers. They use them because the technology makes their lives more convenient and allows them to access information and communicate.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Akira@Sep 1 2006, 03:25 AM
Are there any others here who consider themselves of this thinking?

Or am I the only one.

As far as i'm aware, yes.


Some questions,

How do you intend to see an anarcho-primitivist brought into existance?

Class war?

Revolution?

How are we to get from capitalism to primitivism?

And what of people who reject primitivism as a philosophy of human organisaton? Like for example, other anarchists, anarchists-communists etc. If they want to continue with advanced technologies, will they be allowed to do so?

Would you work to sabotage an anarchist society that was not primitivist?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Akira@Aug 31 2006, 05:37 PM
I do like this site though because other Anarchists are here and many people seem to be against the current system in place. I suppose that is part of the reason why I joined here.


Thankyou for being a much more kinder fellow.

No problem. But don't expect an easy time here, Primitivists are regarded as opposing ideologues, so your posts will be limited to the OI section. And yet stalinists only get restricted if they misbehave, it's a strange world

However, I look forward to productive debate.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Love Underground@Aug 31 2006, 11:34 AM
Wow, the last two posts displayed a wonderful misunderstanding of Primitivism. Like communism, most primitivists don't see it as a lifestyle choice, but a material necessity. Of course, I strongly disagree, but the criticisms presented are just slander.

Who is making criticism? I was a primitivist for several years. I understand it perfectly well: it is bullshit and a drain on revolutionary movements.

Fuck primitivism.

[Rollo]

I was asking a valid question to further expand my knowledge of primitivism.

[ComradeOm]

Didn't we have a policy of restricting primitivists on this forum?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah we do. Say goodbye to Akira.

[Sentinel]

Didn't we have a policy of restricting primitivists on this forum?

Yes indeed.

So this thread should be moved to Opposing Ideologies so that Akira may continue the debate after his restriction. I'd like to see BD's questions answered, and have some of my own as well:

If your position is to destroy all technology on earth and you do strive for a global primitivist revolution, how are you going to justify the suffering and/or deaths of everyone who is dependant of technology to survive?

Those who depend on it for medical reasons? Those with illnesses or other complications that could be cured with it? Not to mention those who will starve to death if it's removed? Is their fate a 'necessary evil', 'collateral damage' or maybe even a 'sacrifice' to 'Mother Nature'? :angry:

Also, are you one of those primitivists who believe that the removal of technology is necessary to save the earth from becoming unhabitable? Or one of those who want to 'save' nature from human impact, nevermind if positive or negative and think humans are breaking the 'law of nature'?

Of which, the former is a secular (?) doomsday prophecy really not very different from those the superstitious rabble in their temples, and the latter is an anti-human position. Both positions are utterly moronic though.

Welcome to RevLeft!

[MrDoom]

I simply can't see how humanity could support itself without tools or ideas. It was because of natural forces that we evolved the ability to use tools in the first place.

The best we can do is create a society where the productive forces are such that all needs can be met, and where all humans are equal. Starting over would just start the cycle again: eventually one of your neo-troglodytes are going to find some way to do things better, and boom: civilization begins again.

[apathy maybe]

I have s strong environmental tinge, and I was a primitivist for about 5 minutes once. Then I saw what was wrong with it.

Ignoring any problems of attempting to bring about a return to x or y stage in history (where x is hunter gatherer and y is subsistence farming), there are problems with these stages.


Firstly I will explain why I like technology (especially ICT, information communication technology). Then I'll explain why primitivism will not be able to prevent the resurgence of many of the problems that they seek to critique in civilisation, because they do not have this technology.

I love technology, I think it is great, at least the non-polluting sustainable kind. It enables knowledge to be stored forever, and communicated across the globe. One of the biggest differences between rich and poor today, is the access to this IC technology (including between over and under developed countries).

The ability to communicate with someone across the world reduces the irrational fear of the 'other'. Being able to see that black and white and yellow skinned people all live very similar lives does a great deal to help cure racism. Access to knowledge tends to remove irrationality and superstitions from society. Knowing how lightning is formed, means that you won't worship a thunder god.

Primitivism removes this access to technology. It brings back racism, where the people just down the river are different, they become bad. Superstitions and religions start popping up again as people seek to explain natural phenomenon. Where as today we have science to explain things, in primitive cultures they have religion. Religion is another major problem.

ICT reduces irrational hatreds such as racism, and other irrational forms of behaviour. It creates a more equal society; if everyone is educated, the priests can't pull the wool over your eyes. Primitivism removes this ICT, replaces with the superstitions and irrationalities of the past.

Even before the questions of "how to get there?", the question of "is it a good thing?" should be asked first and answered with a no.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)So this thread should be moved to Opposing Ideologies so that Akira may continue the debate after his restriction. [/b]

Yes I support this move, a mod?

MrDoom

The best we can do is create a society where the productive forces are such that all needs can be met, and where all humans are equal. Starting over would just start the cycle again: eventually one of your neo-troglodytes are going to find some way to do things better, and boom: civilization begins again.

And actually of course this is another reason to reject primitivism.

With out the ICT that I mentioned earlier, there is no way the various groups around the world are going to be able to agree to only use a certain level of technology. Sooner or later, one of the groups is going to start farming and building houses. Then you'll see war between groups over the best bits of farm land. Gunpowder will be discovered and wars will really be nasty (relatively).


Where as, if you keep the level of technology we have now, but stop using the bad bits (coal power for example), if you reduce your dependence on energy and so on. You can have a society which is sustainable, does not impact largely on the environment. You can also keep all the social advances that primitivism would be chucking out.

[Akira]

Originally posted by jaycee@Aug 31 2006, 05:41 PM
i´m not a primitavist althgough i am quite sympathetic to many of its ideas, however i don´t think technology is the problem, the problem is class society. the rise of civilization was in many ways comparable to a´fall´ for humanity but this was because it was civilization was intimately linked with the rise of class society. The communism of the future will regain many things which were lost from primitive communism but on a higher level, i.e it will retain tecnology and many other developments which were only possible through the development of the productive forces under class society.

i´m not a primitavist althgough i am quite sympathetic to many of its ideas, however i don´t think technology is the problem, the problem is class society. the rise of civilization was in many ways comparable to a´fall´ for humanity but this was because it was civilization was intimately linked with the rise of class society. The communism of the future will regain many things which were lost from primitive communism but on a higher level, i.e it will retain tecnology and many other developments which were only possible through the development of the productive forces under class society.

I believe technology is a major problem ,but I don't believe it fully to be the only problem.

I think elitism and technology is a dangerous thing mixed together. Today we can see this plainly with the modernized weapons of mass destruction and amongst many other issues.

Industry destroying our ecological world would be another thing to look at.

Finally the social impact of materialism,economicism on our social and moral values as human beings seems to be slipping in a modernized world which to me makes human beings susceptible to dehumanization.

Technology was created for the benefit of man and it was suppose to be a neutral creation. Since it's creation unto now it has been anything but neutral and the social ramifications of the affects of it are anything ,but progress in my eyes.

Other things I think needs to be considered is human nature and the social aspect apart of technology.

As for my version of Primitivism my views may be different from other Primitivists.

Some Primitivists support a hunting and gathering system ,but myself I lean more towards agrarianism,villages or small tribes.