Did Pol Pot write any literature?
Did Pol Pot write any literature?
literature is neolithic
some people even need glasses to read
Whatcha gonna do when the Democrat People Of Kampuchea Runs Wild On YOO!!!
hide yo glasses
hide yo books
hide yo Vietnamese
the Khmer are comin
writing is reactionary
I don't know,I hope he did. But I need glasses to read,I better get them fast brb
This but unironically. Writing harms memory and lead to the unfortunate decline of traditional oral literature
glasses girls are the best
I'm sure there is a stone tablet or two of his out there…
Was pol pot the closes to achiev anprim communism?
talking is reactionary
talking is technological advancement and harms traditional cave painting communication
Ooga booga oga, KARA BOĞA bong bog?
He wasn’t anprim at all, stop falling for memes. If he was close to any other type of socialists it would be Narodniks
The closest is actually North Sentinel island.
bix nood muh fugga downlo brah
He read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and because of that piece of garbage he gave up on reading and swore to never touch a book ever again
It's also the closest to a Jew free ethno state
🅱ol 🅱otists rise up
Thanks for the laff, user
Ogo ogo aga aga hehehe, panga tonga tong tong lol, Plesh slesh!
ya, baki kun ta di aga panga slesh!
::hides from mods::
Talking was before cave art. Art is another huge step of alienation and mediation after language. But they all have one thing in common, the symbol. It's reification—Society of the Spectacle speaks of this, but most of Zig Forums think it's some anti-imperialist book.
The common notion that anarcho-primitivism is about going back to primitive technologies is idiotic. Neo-Luddites are anti-technology, like total nutcase Ted Kaczynski. Anarcho-primitivism is anti-civilization. As an example; ear implants that allow the deaf to hear are objectively good—but the system of alienation and suffering behind it, that allowed it to exist is not good. If we could, we would grab the good technologies, but unfortunately, that's impossible. An excerpt from an interview with John Zerzan describes this beautifully:
>The lack of information also allows the individual to project themselves into that absence. There’s a creativity to giving one’s own personal meaning to things rather than having the meaning imposed from without.
>The price was just too high?
since you seem to be an unironic anprim, answer me this:
wouldn't the "why don't you just go make your commie commune lmao" be a valid critique for an anprim, since there doesn't seem to be much stopping you from making a primmie camp in siberia or something - or for what purpose would you be making a revolutionary change in society as us socialists generally want to do instead of utopian communes?
honestly anprim seems to be the most retarded and reactionary possible ideology, so I'm somewhat curious: can you give some complete vision or a defence of the primitivist position? aims and means towards those aims?
That's a good question. But on false premises—how are we supposed to create those communes, when our natural world is being decimated day by day, climate change forcing even existing anarcho-primitivist societies (the indigenous, such as the San or the Sentinelese) to either go extinct or adopt a civilized lifestyle (mostly the former)? We have nothing our ancestors have. No vast, untouched arrays of land, with fauna, flora to our liking. Each day more and more old-growth forests and untouched areas are being exploited for resources. It's not just a matter of going back to the caves. There is just no way we can live like our ancestors. The global system is the problem—it's what exploits us, it's what alienates us, what coerces us into itself.
Plus, we're all pretty damn domesticated. It's thousands of years of knowledge lost to civilization. All the knowledge of the plants, of fauna, how to hunt, how to even behave like an authentic human—it's all lost. Rewilding is a long process, in humans especially. Getting back and rehearsing all that is going to take at least a few generations.
No, he speaks about the mediation imposed by symbol (e.g. art or language). How we are assigned apparently objective meaning to everything. How the stars are just large clumps of particles in a constant explosion. Assigning your own elucidation is simply impossible. That's what makes us unauthentic. Or domesticated, if you will.
It's not really an ideology. It's a critique. A critique of civilization, human progress, technology. It goes deep down into how civilization shaped us into those blobs of nothing. Those cogs in the machine. Civilization is bound to collapse, like all of them, and it has shown that any apparent change toward a better human condition just resulted in the opposite, with an unfortunate side effect of eating the Biosphere. I think maybe people will get tired of being robots staring blankly at computer screens. Maybe they will find that dull. If not, of course nothing will happen.
why does this matter? didn't you just quote a person opposing a given, objective worldview? just go in siberia and decimate history, then when the Civilised Man comes you can think of us as mythical creatures, or if its just climate change, god's anger or some shit. frankly I'd support a primmie experiment in siberia under a global communist system, it would be fascinating from a scientific point of view.
now this is peak spook. do you even conceive the underlying philosophical assumptions/arguments?
how do you ever see this happening? and how do you suppose to prevent the emergence of language? how do you convey to others that language shouldn't become a thing without language/symbols?
extremely unconvincing. if I ever had to choose between the nazis and the primmies, I'd be the first in line to join the SS. there I'd be, flammenwerfer in hand, dodging spears or some shit.
then again I ultimately value civilisation beyond all else. permanent primitivism would be the equivalent of extinction. fortunately idealism isn't a thing and a primitivist year zero would just result in a new start for civilisation.
What is the foundation for what is "good" in primitivist thought ?
How do you determine what is valued ? If you rely on relativist thought with no metaphysical foundation, I can say the value was not high at all and in fact if one billion humans had died to get that single picture that would have been justified, and it would be equally valid statement.
You're completely dodging the question here. I mean, Kaczynski was totally able to live a primitivist lifestyle and he never complained about it. Say what you want about him, at least he lived his ideas unlike self-proclaimed primitivsts who live their lives online talking about how everyone is enslaved by technology. It is entirely possible to live that way, you just don't want to and you refuse to admit it because it would reveal that you are a hypocrite so you go through all these mental gymnastics about how you can't do it because "society" is stopping you from doing so, when it really isn't. No government would care if you went out into some remote area and built a few huts or whatever.
What "knowledge"? Do primitivists even have a theory of epistemology ?
So empirical knowledge of how to hunt, make fire, and shelters is somehow acceptable but when empiricism leads to knowledge of matter itself it's "bad." How do you people even come up with these ideas ?
Also, a little thought experiment. Say civilization was entirely destroyed and human beings went back to living like simians. One of your tribesmen notices that the seeds from plants become plants themselves when they are placed in soil and decides to plant some more in hope that he could feed the whole tribe with little effort. What would you do ?
Kill them. The real redpill is that to enforce primitivism we must construct a mechanical God and fill it with the proper soul that can enforce it as the one true way of living and ensure human prosperity. I’ve thought this over, it will happen
"I'm not an NPC U R"
Ew, linguistics wankery.
What a grand and intoxicating innocence
Only the most advanced form of technology can enforce the greatest and most natural form of human-living
What do you mean why does this matter? Civilization is coerced, we can't really live alongside it, as I've explained. You've actually implied that yourself.
Of course. The fact that our instincts, feelings and thoughts are all shaped by civilization is no mystery.
When we remove it, it's sure to be gone forever. Civilization is just a phase. That small civilizations soon surfaced again does not prove this global, destructive Leviathan will get back on its legs. How are we going to get back here when we've already depleted most resources, starved the Earth of the Biosphere and basically started making stuff like agriculture impossible thanks to climate change? People don't want to live in this mess. They are forced. They'll would take every chance to destroy it, if only they could have a chance.
Critique of language and symbol, on the other hand, is highly philosophical and theoretical so far. I'm not sure if it's a precursor to civilization. Maybe it does alienate us a little, but perhaps it isn't as bad as we think.
To answer to the second part, this hypocrisy argument is quite childish. "If you are a communist, why don't you live in Venezuela?" That's the same kind of argument. We need technology to make people think, to spread the word. Grunting and throwing rocks from a cave is not going to inspire anyone.
Well, I tried my best.
You seem autistic. Sorry, I had to say that.
There is none. I'm simply saying everyone would agree that letting deaf people hear is a good thing.
Well, maybe if you were in the place of an Indian living in the sewers, scavenging the urban hell-hole of New Delhi you'd change your mind. Human suffering is terrible. Why do those people have to suffer for those first worlders with their fantasies?
First of all, he didn't. He relied on civilization to some extent, as he explained in Technological Slavery. But that's just semantics.
He did, indeed live his ideas—until, as explained in his manifesto, industrial machines intruded on his favorite hiking place, instead building a road. That's what forced him to abandon his lifestyle and start a new current. They didn't let him live such a life. You're supposed to be a part of this system, if you're anything else you're coerced. He also explained there how using technology to bring down technology isn't hypocrisy. Some communists try to use the capitalist system against itself. How is that hypocrisy?
The knowledge I talked about. The ancestral knowledge of the environment, how to survive, et cetera. We can't just run off to the wild and know everything by default. We have to learn about it again.
Meaning, not knowledge. A similar allegory would be, say, when you read a poem and it says "your eyes are as beautiful as the stars". Maybe I wouldn't find stars beautiful if not for that? Feeling is imposed from within that. We're shaped by it. I suggest you read Nietzsche's and Freud's theories of authenticity.
First of all, agriculture takes a lot more effort than hunting and gathering. The notion that agriculture and civilization have provided us with a stable food source and leisure time is simply disproved empirically by modern anthropological study. Just look at the Neolithic remains. Short, young humans dead from starvation. Agriculture was about nothing more than imposing discipline, just like the Industrial Revolution.
Second of all, why would I do anything? Why would the tribesman even notice or do that? Anthropology has proven that hunter-gatherer populations were coerced or into becoming agrarians, or killed. There was a very strong anti-current. A resistance movement, if you will. Fredy Perlman quite poetically speaks about this in Against His-Story, Against Leviathan!. I suggest agriculture was a mistake. An insecurity. Perhaps a drive for power. That scenario makes no sense to me.
People already knew about domestication way before agriculture. It wasn't just a random monkey that saw a seed create a plant. We domesticated ourselves, and thanks to that already knew to domesticate everything else. When the people started alienating themselves, when the first shamans came to rule that's when we've become a lost cause.
We lived without civilization for two million years and got along just fine. What's stopping us from doing that again?
Yeah, right? Except John Zerzan, unlike most linguists denies language. He doesn't want to change it, or replace it.
fallacy, no basis for what is "good"
It's not pleasant but you can't seem to make an argument why, for example, slavery is wrong, only that you don't like it. There is no primitivist foundation for any kind of metaphysics because it's entirely based upon fantasy.
It's not hypocrisy from the Marxist angle because technology is not inherently "capitalist." It merely moves according to this distributive mode. Meanwhile everything in "society" is against the ideals of primitivists yet even though you could easily stop using your phone or computer and not suffer immensely, you choose to continue to do so because you are a poser.
More fantasy. We HAVE all this information in infinitely more detail. It was never "lost." Nobody is saying that knowledge of the environment is a negative thing, but it's only you claiming that we no longer have this information (which is demonstrably false) and making up romantic nonsense in that we must "re-discover it."
It really doesn't in its most basic form. Many people keep gardens in their yard and grow fruit and vegetables while keeping full time jobs.
Tribes CONSTANTLY fought one another for hunting grounds, etc. Food was always scarce and struggle was a daily reality for people even more so then.
Because they're HUMAN BEINGS and we're naturally curious and apt to learn from our surroundings. How do you think agriculture came to be ?
From where do you think the first agrarian peoples came from ? The moon ?
Oh here we go…
No, life was pretty shit. Of course it's shit today but a different kind of shit which is slightly less shit. No amount of racist internet patronization from so-called primitivists can convince otherwise.
why does the external, noumenal state of the world matter at all, in case you are making the argument against objective knowledge? it doesn't matter what phenomena happen, since they lose their systematic meaning. what does it matter to a primmie if the god comes in the form of a lightning strike or a jet aeroplane overflight?
that's not what I mean. the whole notion of 'authentic human' requires so incredibly many philosophical assumptions of the world.
so why did it emerge in the first place?
given long enough, humans will adapt by evolution
now you're just making things up
no, I mean when you get to your symbolless utopia. how do you communicate that language is not to be created?
coming from a primmie I'll take that as a compliment.
because the expansion of knowledge/data/information is cool. Imagine how far we can go! I find it much more meaningful than perpetual wandering in the dark
because symbolic languages are useful for communication, which is a boon to survival
some people consider that a democide of deaf culture. crazy, isn't it.
If you consider helping people a bad thing, then you should kill yourself. Your phiolosohpical argumentation adds nothing to the argument.
Beacuse people suffer? People suffering is quite terrible not only from my, but from their point of view.
I said the system, not technology. Ever heard of accelerationism? Jeez.
Well duh, but if I sent you into the wild forest would you already know how to survive, know every plant, et cetera? You wouldn't. We have that knowledge, collectively, but most don't actually know it in a way that lets him practice that. Your philosophical mind gymnastics are getting on my nerves now.
Entirely missing my point. I don't have time for your rambling, grab a link with references rewild.com
There is literally no proof for prehistoric warfare. Anthropologists agree that instead of fighting for hunting ground, humans instead avoided conflict and moved places. The notion that human lives used to be "nasty, brustish and short" is absurd, as disproven in the Man the Hunter meetings.
I explained already.
Life was infinitely better than ever before. Not only were we healthy, living long lives, but also were the happiest ever, had immense leisure time (in fact, work was play for us, as the !Kung demonstrate, so we really had no work but all play), were peaceful, and didn't destroy the world around us. You can read more here rewild.com
Are you inbred? If my primmie land becomes 50 degrees celsius and scorches everything it does fucking matter. Get a grip.
It does, yeah. Nietzsche and Freud explain it pretty well though. So does Zerzan.
Definitely not evolution. People had already planned it beforehand, perhaps. Some say it goes as far as meat-eating that caused this. But I digress.
And how is civilization evolution?
Hah, people want to be exploited and depressed, suffering in the hell hole of this mess. The mass shootings speak for themselves. I bet the people of the sprawls in China or India love their lives.
I digress. Perhaps people will have no need for it. All the poets say the deepest of feelings can never be put into words.
I find that uncool. I don't like it when everyone agonizes just so we can know more. I mean, what's the instrumentality apart from it being cool?
That didn't answer my question and is completely unrelated, but still—it's not really a boon to survival. We didn't have language and have gotten along just fine. Freud, the arch-rationalist said that he thought humans were telepathic originally.
Perhaps. Maybe it isn't good at all.
Divine punishment. too bad.
isn't this a pretty critical question for primmies? how about you answer this seriously?
point is that people will prob survive even under conditions that cause a mass extinction event and collapse of civilisation, to then eventually build a new civilisation
and clearly they all dream of a world where there is no symbolic language. get a hold of reality. your manner of absurdity is the privilege of those whose superficial material needs are fulfilled and yet find themselves unsatisfied, like all reactionary fantasies.
its another pretty key question. what if you get to your primmie utopia only to see it rebuild civilisation and the symbols you so loathe? all for naught?
Yeah, I'm finding it very hard to find the right words to reply to this. so I shan't. suffice to say the sentiment would be… negative
if you are looking for some fundamental meaning behind it, there is none. anywhere. like you choose to value feelings and fantasies, I choose to value the forward match of humanity. that there isn't a single direction, a line to march in isn't even a problem, if someone wants to make the critique of naive belief in progress.
no it isn't. people want to survive, so they do things that aid them to that end.
lysenko said that two seeds planted close together would help one other grow
if nothing else, this conversation quite concretely proves my hypothesis of primmies being the most reactionary, idealist ideologues and not only in abstract political theory terms
We really don't know the answer. We had the capacity for civilization way before it surfaced, yet it didn't happen. Why? I don't know.
Why would they?
Strawman. Suffering more won't better their future. They want to be happy, not agonize. Civilization requires their suffering. Maybe they don't know that, but it does.
And why would it, again?
Okay. Well, if you value the extinction of humanity, that's your thing. I want people to be happy, affluent and free. Anarcho-primitivism seems to be the only pragmatic option.
Language doesn't help them with survival.
Well, think about it—how did we even communicate without language? It might as well have been telepathy, in a way.
Well, how does it? Also, anarcho-primitivism is way more anarchistic than any other anarchism. It's so contemporary it denies even division of labor and specialization.
actually I'll go back a step:
so what's the difference between dying in some random natural disaster like a volcanic eruption, and climate catastrophe for a primmie community?
so you just think it randomly happened and for whatever reason won't 'randomly' ever happen again, just cause? you can't even assert that much with confidence? isn't that quite a big hole in your plan?
well your plan means certain extinction when the planet fries, mine has the potential for humanity to keep going - if longevity is something you value.
ANGRY BEAR AHEAD
like other animals? from which our higher-capacity brains managed to develop more and more complex systems?
Anarcho-primitivism is what the Sentinelese have.
Hunter-gatherers can survive one, but not the other.
And you haven't answered my question. It definitely wasn't random, as I explained before—people were already domesticated before civilization. And the plan is to rewild, or de-domesticate.
So your idea is to fry this planet, and onto the next, leaving toxic worlds behind? The Universe is going to die anwyays, right? The billion years humanity could live as hunter-gatherers in the future, with happy affluent lives way overblows suffering for a few more billions years. At least for me.
Sure. How do other animals communicate? The pheromones and stuff are kind of telepathic, or so I think.
Exactly. And you can see how mad they are at us trying to force their lifestyles at them.
Yes we can and we will. We are on the brink of ruining the ecosystem of this planet and we'll go onto others and destroy them too. We're like viruses and I like that. You have no argument against me except "kill yourself."
Pheremones are literally a form of language. Yet human language is somehow a "bad kind."
So you care about human survival? Why? What value does humanity have to you? You have no basis for value except your own sentiment as has been demonstrated, and which means very little as there are less primitivists than there are hermaphrodites in the world.
If that's your attitude.
Symbolic thought is the "bad kind", as I've explained so many times.
I literally said I don't. Learn to read. I said I care about happiness. About living a fulfilling meaningful life. That's it. Jeez, I can't believe you people have no empathy whatsoever.
You are a utopian anprim. You must understand the scientific primitivism of the future. You are like the utopian socialist confronted with the scientific socialist.
Knowledge awaits, biomechanical apotheosis awaits:
And I care about humankind reaching singularity, absorbing everything in its path.
There can be only one
That's cool. If we could get to the point of every human being happy through technology, and it was closer than a collapse, then I'm definitely for it. But unfortunately, everything shows that we're heading for a total disaster.
The transhumanist concept of singularity, in a way—everything transferred directly between participants without symbolism. I guess we once had an original singularity. Heh.
no, I mean what difference does dying in one make compared to the other, from the perspective of the primitive tribe?
now you're just playing semantics. what then caused the 'domestication' or whatever, and why won't that happen again? you are killing history so no learning from the past allowed.
why not give everyone a permanent heroin high instead? I've heard it makes one very happy.
quite, but what you think has less connection to reality than your average high-fantasy novel aimed at young adults. Pheromones are smell, calls are auditory, body language is visual. and it's not like humans don't still use all of those in one way or the other to communicate.
I don't know. I've never been in a tribe.
Well, searching for precursors is a dumb task, to an extent. We search for the most sensible precursor, domestication. If we remove it, it's doubtful to surface again. Maybe it's been with us forever. That doesn't mean we shouldn't rewild.
If that works out, sure, but from observation you can tell we're never going to achieve that. The world is already collapsing.
They do, but those don't mediate us away from reality like symbolic culture.
Why the fuck care about meaning when you're going extinct?
Well yeah, I agree, finding the culprit is one of the concepts I haven't really studied well. I'm sure the people will find a healthier, affluent lifestyle better. If someone has a drive power, it's up to them to take care of it. Otherwise, I don't really have an answer.
Language doesn't really reduce happiness, and I never claimed that. I also claimed the critique of language is highly experimental. The !Kung are real happy hunter-gatherers, yet they have language, art, music, and religion—they deny any form of agrarianism and domestication, for whatever reason.
Perhaps. See above.
Pol Pot did nothing wrong
Lash lash! Klang nang jong, cosh xosh tong tong
Howe could you kill a god?