Thoughts and opinions
Anarcho Primitivism General
Not as cool as green-utopian space communism, but still pretty cool…
(It's more human tho)
Eh, depends on the GUSC. One of the basic and founding tenets is to abandon all material posessions and stroll naked into the wilderness; we can just scrape a phaser rifle out of nuts and berries if we want. Without intermediaries, help, or commerce…
Only logical ideology
Hello fellow anprim, you're not alone here.
anarcho primitivism is just stupid utopianism. primitivism gotta be enforced by brutal violence and endless bloodbath
Anarcho-primitivism isn't a political system; it's a critique. primitivism.com
Should we compare hunting-gathering to life on earth and the age of the Universe, too?
That's not a human lifestyle.
It's an exhibit, an over-orthodoxy that reveals the madness within the sphere from which it originates. Anarchism, and with that, the broader far-left sphere holds as its premise that the world is a Schopenhauerian demon, everything that is, is there to put you down; religion, property, film, literature, you name it. All "theory" works from this point, the verdict is set, the theorist theorizes how the taking might have taken place.
By leading this ideology to its end-conclusion, primitivism reveals its premise; being human is in itself intrinsically oppressive, it binds us to the alien intrusions of language and symbolism, to the ever impersonal realm of that which is not immediate. Still, primitivism is not meant to be practiced, the harsh realities of primitive life, whether it be tribal or that of recluses and hermits, do not compute with the primitivist fantasy of a sublime childhood, no hungry man will refuse a can of beans because the alienation of the techno-capitalist system is inscribed in its label. It is a domesticated, civilized fantasy, and can only ever be so.
Being human, as in a symbolically and abstractly thinking human? Because that is not human, that is the complete opposite. That is being a domesticated human.
Yes, the take on primitive life by for example Zerzan is heavily romanticized. Of course no hungry man will refuse a can of beans. But if he knew that when he took that can of beans he would be alienized, if he knew his life would be purposeless and he would be a cog in the machine, if he knew he would lead a wage-slaving life, void of all emotion and happiness, if he knew he would lose all autonomy, all free thought, everything that makes life, life, he definitely would not take it.
You said it better than I did; to be human is not to be the creatures of flesh and bone that we are in the here or now, the human is an ideal state, our true, unaffected form. This sublime authenticity has been taken away from us, by capitalism, by the patriarchy, by neoliberalism, by consumerism, by a great many pet peeves, or in the grand realization of primitivism; by the -ism that contains all the -isms.
Well perhaps then, if we throw every can and bottle off the end of the earth, can the land of lost content be found again.
Then he would die. Leaving only those who took it alive.
That is the strangest circular reasoning I have seen yet. Why are you assuming he would die? Why are you assuming others would take it as well?
Because he's hungry.
Why are you assuming absolutely no one would?
Lifestylist sillyness grounded in a romanticised and cherry picked anthropological analysis. Google Bookchin
Zerzan-iter romantizations (bushmen can see the moons of jupiter, the !Kung can break nails with their teeth) are indeed quite severe and cherry-picked from unknown sources. But claims of supreme health, egalitarianism, strength, happiness, fulfillment, lack of property, hierarchy, division of labor, specialization? Those are definitely real, and have been documented in all non-symoblically-thinking hunter-gatherer tribes.
I mean, as a Communalist I'm sympathetic to certain pre-hierarchical aspects of hunter-gatherer societies. Particularly in-group egalitarianism, the irreducible minimum, and usufruct as property norm. But hunter-gatherer groups are also inherently short-sighted in other ways. Band and tribal groups are inherently limited as far as membership goes to the blood-tie, or kinship. The city was the negation of the blood-tie insofar as it allowed for society based on residential location rather than kinship and ancestry. It's not really a mode of living that is compatible with leftist thought in this regard.
There's certainly some aspects of these societies we can admire, but there's no reason we can't recontextualise these aspects within the context of a contemporary revolutionary society. That's literally Bookchin's program
Technology has both positive and negative aspects, though I think it would be far more negative (not to mention utopian and reactionary) to forgo technology and entirely and go back to the primitive hunter-gatherer that anprims like to romanticize. I think we a more realistic goal would be transcending capitalism and living more in tune with nature / preserving the environment is the way to go rather than adopting a “fuck all technology” stance
ignore shitpost flag
A primitive society/economy could never produce enough people/weapons to defend itself from more technologically advanced invaders. Primitivism is a dead end.
The point of primitivism isn't to create a primitivit state, it's to induce a GLOBAL primitivist revolution. Read ISaIF.
Would the revolution require near universal support then? Otherwise a technologically advanced faction could dominate the planet, it would seem.
I'm not sure. I criticize technology; I don't know the details of how we would achieve that. Ted Kaczynski has some outlook, but I don't know if it's perfect.
It's worth criticizing, but I'm not sure being "anti-technology" is reasonable.
It's uopianism similar to transhumanism except the opposite direction. Probably one of the worst currents to rise in anarchism from the post-left and best left to rot in the tomb of the 90's and early 2000's.
Well, I think it's worth being highly critical of the effect that mechanized industry and now high technology has had on our people/planet/ecosystems, but the solution isn't to "go back" to a primitive state. It's just not realistic. We have to figure out how to use technology in a sustainable, prosocial way.
In fact, so much damage has already be done to the planet by technology that we will almost certainly have to use technology to rehabilitate it.
The argument of "it depends on who uses technology" is null. Alienizing technology can only be used for one thing, no matter who uses it; for alienization.
The idea of technology being a neutral, discreet thing and whoever is in charge can use it this way or that way, that's really missing the point. It's inseparable from the system, it's the incarnation of the system and it's always been that way. You can't take a totally alienating technology and use it for anything except more alienation, more destructive impact on every level from the psyche to the rest of the biosphere. Globalisation is a kind of buzz word at the moment and once again the lefties have come up with a soft core thing. Globalisation is nothing new; what's happening now is just the latest round of excesses.
What are some examples of the inherently alienating technologies you have in mind?
Why don't you just become a buddhist already?
Why is agriculture "alienating" ?
from one of Zerzan's articles:
Agriculture, the indispensable basis of civilization, was originally encountered as time, language, number and art won out. As the materialization of alienation, agriculture is the triumph of estrangement and the definite divide between culture and nature and humans from each other.
Agriculture is the birth of production, complete with its essential features and deformation of life and consciousness. The land itself becomes an instrument of production and the planet’s species its objects. Wild or tame, weeds or crops speak of that duality that cripples the soul of our being, ushering in, relatively quickly, the despotism, war and impoverishment of high civilization over the great length of that earlier oneness with nature. The forced march of civilization, which Adorno recognized in the “assumption of an irrational catastrophe at the beginning of history,” which Freud felt as “something imposed on a resisting majority,” of which Stanley Diamond found only “conscripts, not volunteers,” was dictated by agriculture. And Mircea Eliade was correct to assess its coming as having “provoked upheavals and spiritual breakdowns” whose magnitude the modern mind cannot imagine. “To level off, to standardize the human landscape, to efface its irregularities and banish its surprises,” these words of E.M. Cioran apply perfectly to the logic of agriculture, the end of life as mainly sensuous activity, the embodiment and generator of separated life. Artificiality and work have steadily increased since its inception and are known as culture: in domesticating animals and plants man necessarily domesticated himself. Historical time, like agriculture, is not inherent in social reality but an imposition on it. The dimension of time or history is a function of repression, whose foundation is production or agriculture. Hunter-gatherer life was anti-time in its simultaneous and spontaneous openness; farming life generates a sense of time by its successive-task narrowness, its directed routine. As the non-closure and variety of Paleolithic living gave way to the literal enclosure of agriculture, time assumed power and came to take on the character of an enclosed space. Formalized temporal reference points — ceremonies with fixed dates, the naming of days, etc. — are crucial to the ordering of the world of production; as a schedule of production, the calendar is integral to civilization. Conversely, not only would industrial society be impossible without time schedules, the end of agriculture (basis of all production) would be the end of historical time.
Hmmm, but doesn't modern technology allow us to do agriculture with a tiny fraction of our labor capacity? Would it still be alienating if a small group of people worked a small amount of time to produce all the food everyone needs?
Then you remove the alienation from agriculture, and move it to industrialization.
Even then, I think you haven't read the article. The sole reason isn't because lots of people work in agriculture; the reason is because agriculture alienates us from the innate, as written in the excerpt.
I read the excerpt, but I don't buy it. Technology used reasonably could free us from toil so that we could focus on higher things, including appreciating the beauty of nature.
It's been used and it destroyed the beatuy of nature, replacing it with artificial beauty; the land becomes an instrument of production, the species become objects. When you aren't dictated what's beautiful, when you LIVE with nature, only then can you appreciate true beauty.
Two articles that might help you understand:
Right, that's how it's been used, but MUST it be used that way? What about the technology that's being used to collect the trash out of the oceans and other waterways?
I think we have a thread for this already and it's my opinion that anprim is an unworkable method toward a set of undesirable goals, and would likely kill the ecosphere if anybody seriously attempted to transition from the current sociopolitical structure. And that becuase of these things, that OP is a colossal faggot.
You see, you are using technology to fix problems of technology itself; this is the same like medicinal technology—civilization created diesase, and needs medicine to fix it.
True enough, but what other choice do we have?
Going back or forward either way leads us to suicide. The question is, which one is more severe?
This is how we looked before systems of mutually exploiting cells forced into alienation. It's the highest stage of primitivism.
Exactly, the more we have, the more problems we have, that's why we need to go all the way: not primitivism, but archeanism.
There are many different directions "forward" could be.
True. I like to label technological "progress" human regress. What I meant is, do we advance technology, with immense consequences that could be unsolveable by technology, or do we stop—and remove all but non-alienating technology?
We could "advance" technology by developing sustainable agricultural technology, and technologies for the specific purpose of planetary rehabilitation.
I like to label non-alienating technology as technology that can be understood, created, and sustained by a single individual, without external help. Zerzan puts it this way:
For me, "alienation" isn't really the point. The point is to live sustainably without people/animals suffering.
So you do not care about psychological and physical suffering of humans? You do not care about deterioration of what makes us human?
No, I do care, but it's not clear to me how "alienation" (defined by you as specialization of labor and hierarchy of authority?) leads to psychological or physical suffering.
Abstraction from reality, artificial goals and feelings, removal of the innate, does that not sound like suffering?
what does this mean?
What makes them "artificial"?
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment… Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth.Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
grug want nature. grug dont want wageslave, grug want hunt and gather. grug want sex, grug dont want sex picture
hows 6th grade
I don't know what it's trying to entail. It's not factual, it's not universal truth. Why would man become something more than man? To be higher? To establish hierarchy?
The point I'm trying to make is that "what makes us human" isn't necessarily worth preserving. What does, "make us human" in your view, anyway?
The highest stage of primitivism is the state of the universe before the big bang. We must collapse all existence into a singularity to put an end to the chaos and suffering caused by existence.
End suffering by ending sentience.
What exactly is the anarcho-primitivist praxis?
Revolution, mass extinction, natural disaster. But that isn't decided; for anarcho-primitivism is merely a critique, not a system.
What would anarcho-primitivist revolution look like?
As I said, AnPrim is merely a critique, it doesn't necessarily call for action. You can see some sort of example of a revolution here theanarchistlibrary.org
So they're not even really environmentalists?
What do you think about rewilding?
Is that a motherfucking bow in the picture?
How shockingly technological! You call yourselves primitivists?
Maybe they should call themselves pre-agriculturalists?
The only effective way to protect the environment is to control the government. We should devise a strategy to take control of national governments, and incorporate them into an international federation devoted to protecting the planet we all depend on, and providing for the material needs of the people with a centrally planned economy.
Why not use the power of the state to rewild?
My anprim beliefs have resulted in me joining an anabaptist sect in order to gain an extended family/tribe.
And also to avoid the uncertainties/anxieties present in modern life. Ex. Will my boss fire me ir company go bankrupt.
Not to mention my job keeps me busy and fullfills the power process and i feel like ive gained my autonomy in doing this change.
Why do authoritarians keep talking about the state like it's some magic spell that grants you three wishes? It's not some empty metaphysical abstraction, it obeys its own logic.
What about the logic of the state makes it a bad tool for protecting the environment?
Independently from class struggle?
Two threads, really?
For primitivists and agrarians there is only one solution: kill them all. It goes without saying that they will never achieve their dream of reducing all of mankind to famine and ignorance, but they are a wasteful diversion of potentially good communists to a thoroughly anticommunist cause.
We really do need to reduce the world population tho, for environmental/sustainability reasons.
Through voluntary birthrate reduction.
No shit. But you can agree with that without reducing the entire planet to wiping their asses with leaves.
This has been planned and put into action so many times, yet the population is still on the rise. I don't think you guys have any realization on how the future will look like at this pace.
That's true, and that's why we need a social and political revolution.
We need National Primitivism.
This. I prefer the Posadist method to achieve this. Nuke em all.
flood the board with this shit.
Agrarianism and Primitivism ftw!
Pol Pot-style yes. more Nationalistic though
Hang yourself, cuck, agrarianism is the primary cause of human suffering. But I agree with flooding the board with primitivism.
Lmao nigga we just need to nuke the whole world. National primitivism is idiocracy