We restrict primitivists because most of the people here don't understand what primitivist ideology actually is, and the technocrat/vg1917 crowd has gone to great lengths to falsify the belief system of primitivists. You for example:
Results 1 to 20 of 53
Technocrats and primitivists
As Dean pointed out in the informative and consistent thread about why we ban fascists, it is true that we technocrats individually have played a significant role in the definition of primitivism as a reactionary current.
What I disagree with is Dean's opinions on why primitivists are restricted, which he claims is entirely due to technocratic influence, which makes it sound like there is a hidden anti-primitivist agenda on revleft run by a secretive cabal of technocrats.
Technocrats are not opposed to environmentalism, and technocracy is not, as it's critics on revleft often state, and some of it adherents sadly believe, a position which is dogmatically in support of technological development.
Technocracy is a humanist position, which wants to free human beings from excessive labor, exploitment, and partially focuses on engineering solutions to accomplish that goals. That is because technocrats believe that executive power never should be used to administrate human beings, only to administrate machines.
The reason why I am a technocrat is because I adopt a humanistic and environmentalist standpoint. We cannot have a socially and ecologically unsustainable system in a limited world, and needs to utilise energy accounting as a means to elevate the human condition toward a higher and more fulfilling quality of life, where the person herself controls more of her time and thus have more time to define herself, while machines are doing more and more labor.
Primitivists on the other hands, believe that the means of production is the problem alongside capitalism, and thus wants to destroy the productive and technological base for a post-capitalist society.
We have experience from parts of the world where the standard of life has rapidly declined, to prove that technological and infrastructural regression diminishes the resources available, and thus both create human suffering and tensions between those who are worst off under that new economic regime. Ethnic warfare is a typical consequence of collapsing infrastructure.
Primitivism is essentially an idealist stand-point, while any rational material basis for environmentalism per definition must be based around anthropocentric premises, that what we are doing for the environment should benefit humanity, not regress it.
Primitivism, on the other hand, focuses on the supposed alienating effects of machines and modern infrastructure upon the human existence. I respect if a person may feel that she like to live her life without modern infrastructure, but I think that should be a matter of choice. While no technocrat will try to force you to possess a computer, primitivists want to force everyone to move back 300, 3 000 or 30 000 years, to societies with a material base which did not support any pretensions of equality, self-realisation beyond food and sexual urges, or any progressive human development.
A primitivist collective in a modern world may work because the value systems which our current technological standard allows for leads to demands of equality, of freedom of expression. But in a savage world where our ability to utilise resources for the common good is decreased, we will soon see human values deteriorate into something resembling more primitive and less humanistic perspectives.
Some libertarian right-wingers, sincerely think that everyone would be rich under a free market system. They are nutters, but in any case more progressive than even the most beardy left-wing anarcho-primitivist.
Finally, I would like to state that primitivism is idealist to the point of being a metaphysical project, and that it has nothing to do parasiting on the left, which must embrace progress - not because progress is objectively good - but because progress elevates the human being, and makes room for reforms.
Thus, the reason why a lot of us oppose primitivism is not because we are computer geeks, nerds or that we want to install bureaucracy (neither of these accusations against technocrats are true), but because that we, like many other progressives, be they marxist-leninists or libertarian communists, recognise the danger of primitivism as a reactionary animal which in its characteristics bears resemblance of conservative currents rather than progressive, and that no matter how many dreads the primitivist in your student corridor has (nothing bad 'bout dreads).
We restrict primitivists because most of the people here don't understand what primitivist ideology actually is, and the technocrat/vg1917 crowd has gone to great lengths to falsify the belief system of primitivists. You for example:
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
In reality, that is the final consequence of that thinking. The primitivist analysis see civilisation, which is (partially with a big P) a result of advanced technology as identical with capitalism.
They're both as crazy as each other.
I agree, either start restricting technocrats or stop restricting primitivists.
Serpet: primitivists don't think civilization is identical to capitalism. That doesn't even make sense.
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
Care to elaborate what is crazy about wanting to install a non-capitalist economic system based on physics?
Although Technocrats don't want to set back civilisation 300, 3,000, 30,000 years.
Although I'm sure they differ, I find trans-humanism to be especially bizarre. I don't think a society should invest so much attention on technology that is unnecessary. I suspect that the definition of necessity can easily be different depending on who you talk to but I feel that this obsession with technology or indeed with turning humans into invincible creatures poses some rather dubious questions.
Transhumanism is not necessarily an inherent part of technocracy, although many technocrats or technocrat-sympathisers are transhumanists in the same time. There are transhumanists with every brand of political outlook, from left to right.
You want to replace capitalism with gravity?
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
There are primitivists with every brand of political outlook from left to right.
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
No, with energy accounting.
http://en.technocracynet.eu
Physics is the study of matter and movement.
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
Yes, and energy accounting is based - as it sounds - on the matter of energy involved in the production of a specific item. All individuals are given an energy certifikate with an equal allowance to a specific share of the total enegy capaciy during a given time.
Last time I checked, thermodynamics was an important feature in the movement and transformation of matter, which in its turn is a major feature of production.
Chimx, please define what exactly constitutes "primitivism" in your view.
As far as I'm aware, primitivists want at the very least a return to pre-industrial society. That can never be anything other than an extremely reactionary position.
As for technocracy, I've never really been able to see any fundamental difference between technocracy and communism, with the sole exception of the fact that technocrats actively think about the role of technology in a future classless society. A technocratic society is for all intents and purposes a communist society.
(transhumanism, on the other hand, is something I find loathsome and dangerous)
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop
"Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." - mikelepore
Primitivism means a lot of different things, but what you just said covers most of it. What's important is that you'll very rarely find "revolutionary primitivists" and most see it as a gradualist approach or I've also met primitivists that viewed their ideology as a dialectic within anti-capitalism to counter the "theory of progression" thesis.
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
if falling birthrates as observed in most western nations are an indication of an "advanced nation" then i would consider the transhumanist program rather important to sustain production.
our populations are aging and we will not have the manpower to replace them or take care of them after their retirement for much longer.
immigration helps but its not a permanent solution the only way out in my eyes would be to extend the life's of people so that they can be productive for much longer.
anyway transhumanist technology is going to develop anyway as a continuation of medical science and the capitalists will be the first to get their hands on it.
what matters is that we get this technology into the hands of everyone.
and i think that this could end up as the best argument for communism namely perfect health and a very long life for everyone.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Technocrats are Eurocentrists par excellence. Eventually, they'll take up jobs working in the applied sciences departments of corporations.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
Eventually, most people get to work somewhere. There are all kinds of technocrats, from university professors, to haircutters, volunteers, students. I wonder where the eurocentrism bit comes in?
Sure, even Marx stated that the revolution would begin in the most advanced nation.
you are describing economics, not physics. This has nothing to do with physics.
"delebo inquit hominem"
"You are my creator, but I am your master.''
