Anarcho primitivism

more and more, i think of my political identity as anarcho-primitivist. this particular mode of thought gets a lot of shit from both the left and right. I believe most people do not understand the anarcho-primitivist viewpoint and are content to mock it, but I have found a great deal of merit to what these people have to say after investigating the literature. I am loathe to assume the mantle of any political identity but I'm willing to answer any questions anyone might have about anarcho primitivism.

for the more combative among you: civilization was an unjustifiable mistake in history, and we must get rid of it if we are to live the good life. prove me wrong.

Why the fuck are you using a computer retard

I'm using a computer to communicate with other people (yourself included).

The idea that it's hypocritical for an anarcho-primitivist to use modern technology (or any technology) is commonly used to dismiss their arguments outright. The argument lacks nuance, and more than that, substance. Why is it hypocritical to use a readily available tool to reach an end? We don't know exactly, since the person who put this idea forth didn't see fit to elaborate. Just because I use technology which is available to me doesn't mean its ultimately good that that technology is so readily available.

I have had to imagine that your argument contained any nuance so as to have something to talk about, since you were content to thread shit with no substance.

Would you have done this if we weren't speaking via text over the internet, using computers?

Do you think I actually came here to care?
You are mistaken.

I think you care to some extent. Why else would you take the time to reply and write out your last post?

I responded sincerely to your nearly worthless post, and you lack the imagination and/or critical thinking skills to defend why you think what you think. Now you're copping out in the oldest and laziest way possible.

It's a slow night.
I care about the board, not your post.
I have nothing to do until a new post comes along.

So you while away the time until a 'worthwhile' post comes about, by posting bullshit? Don't waste words, cretin

Why are you tryimg to convince me to do it? Why don't you start a retarded cult and go live on some abandoned island somewhere

What? Convince you to do what? It's not even clear what you're asking.

jaghut

malazan book of the fallen

Donno what you are talking about either.

BUMP

Sup Forums is displaying its ignorance on the subject at large!! They can't wait to debate against teenage 'marxists' and liberals, meanwhile

>abandon all technology, says the man in the internet.
Unless you start unabombing, you'll not have much credibility.

This was the very first shit post, and I already responded to it:

It's always put forth as a one liner, without any explication, because the idea is without merit. Why should I not be allowed to criticize a tool, merely because I am using it? Because we're using the internet and computers and other technology to communicate, the idea that there is a better way is automatically negated?

Humans are self centered, materialistic and harmful to nature nowadays so your ideology seems a reaction to that.
I cannot reject technology altogether because it is a natural progression of humanity. But the greedy self centered materialism can end to give rise to something new.

>anarcho-primitivist
>still using Sup Forums

The idea isn't a reaction to a 'modern' formulation of humanity and resistance against civilization has continued since its inception. There have been many revolts against civilization and technology, such as that of the Luddites, and numerous peasant and slave rebellions.

'Technology' itself isn't the problem. The main critique of technology is that it is fundamentally politicized. Anarcho-primitivists aren't against technology, full-stop. They are against the idea that technology exists in a political vacuum and is immune to criticism. If you think critically about nearly all technology, it is unjustifiable and immoral, and makes our lives worse. But not all technology is bad.

Not sure how many times I will have to respond to this 'argument':

The real question is, will anyone ever present this idea as an actual lucid, clear argument? Why can't an anarcho primitivist use the internet / Sup Forums? So far no one has stuck around to explain what they mean with their worthless shit posts.

That immorality you speak of is just expressing itself through technology. The real reason is people are self centered and insecure about many things.

Don't bother, they hate black people but don't bother to move out of the country that is dominated by blacks. And half of them are mixed-race white nationalists who, for some reason, don't kill themselves.

It doesn't necessarily express itself through technology because there are many technologies which seem perfectly moral and reasonable. Also when you make broad sweeping statements about the nature of humanity without backing it up / expanding on why you mean or what your point is,, I don't have much to say.

For example your claim that people are self-centered seems to be nonsense to me, since human beings are group animals, whose physical and cognitive development is stunted when we develop isolated from a community. Without going to far, because I have no idea what you're tlaking about, we have literally evolved to be part of a communiuty, so what do you mean, we're 'self centered'? We are some of the least 'self-centered' organisms on the planet in terms of biology, neurology, evolution, and psychology.

Thanks once again for your always valued insight, leaf

It is simple by what I mean by self-centered. People are trying to out compete the other more instead of helping or co-operating. Technology is misused or not used as effectively for benefit of whole community or humanity itself. Our education system itself breeds this behavior.

are you a christian yet?
thats the only way to prove morals

>Let's just be like Aboriginals!
>Forever!

You are right my friend, unfortunately people on Sup Forums are far too retarded to get it.
I would assume you have read the Unabomber manifesto, now I'd recommend Desmond Morris' books. He's an ethologist, but you will find them interesting.
Now stop arguing with retards here and get reading

Have you read John Zerzan?

You can be a fucking hunter gatherer or whatever once we remove all nonwhites. Do you not understand that they are a direct threat to your existence?

I agree that our education system is cancerous. But I don't agree that people have always tried to out compete one another instead of cooperating. I think one of the present illnesses in society is the celebration of 'competitive' behavior over cooperative behavior, and the lie that this has to do with human nature. Our species came into its present state through cooperation in small communities. I see nothing which tells me there is something about human nature which makes us self-centered.

Worthless derail. My criticisms attack civilization itself, and so your dogmatic fantasy about race war couldn't be more beside the point.

I think the weakness of primitivism is that it remains trapped in Leftist thinking, primarily materialism. John Zerzan is an interesting writer, but he seems to be using a step theory of history, and I suppose you could even using the theory of technology as if it were a dominating class that needs to be erased.

And while there is some truth to this (just look at how scientists have effectively been turned into line workers producing research and outputting technology which they have no actual control over) the reality is much more intricate. Technology not only arises as a form of domination, it is also accidental, forced by necessity, and there is a back and forth in which humans domesticate the technology and technology domesticates the human. If the complexity of this relationship is not considered then the immaterial aspects of primitive life may be left out.

For example, many primitivists are opposed to transgender people. But this doesn't have so much to do with any technological considerations as it does a matriarchal outlook. Further, some anarcho-primitivists even advocate a greater population of women than of men so as to reduce the potential for violence. Effectively what this means is that a modernist understanding of war by other means would be permanently waged to keep male populations down. Technology would thus continue to exist in the mind.

Perlman is perhaps one of the best thinkers. And while the theory that militarisation is the source of civilised growth is an important consideration, the response that any organised effort to fight civilisation will inevitably lead to militarisation of the group, and thus failure, ends all ideas in paralysis.

So the problem is really the same old anarchist problem. Excellent critique and negative organisation but almost no positive creation of a post-revolutionary organisational structure and a sort of nihilist pacifism which leads other groups to militarise in their place. They are just extreme liberals.

Anarcho-Agrarianism is the true redpill.

contd
I'm not aware of any focus on spiritual growth, certainly not to the extent that we see in traditionalism. And it is spiritual growth that is needed to overcome any of the violence we face or have to engage in ourselves.

I think it is clear that such a society would only come about through a cataclysm. Otherwise we would have to create secret societies who struggle against civilisation almost as if they were Machiavellians in reverse - power politics against all power. Barbarism or becoming consumed by the technological megastructure being the major threat as it would take thousands of years to undo both the material and immaterial damage done to the earth by technologies.

The fault of traditionalists is quite the opposite in practise, although the end point is the same (liberalism). They are all too willing to create theories of the past and write histories of our ancestors while the great machine trudges on consuming all of tradition with each step forward. As such, tradition becomes a worker shovelling coal into the engines until the machine becomes a self-consuming monster. It merely serves to strengthen its enemy: progress.

This is somewhat understandable since we cannot fight technological demons on our own. But it should highlight for us the great danger and technological process that is ideology. If we do not struggle then we risk not truly understanding the traditions which we value so strongly in our books.

You say zerzan's ideas are interesting, (however) he seems to be using a step theory of history. Its not clear what you mean by this as a criticism.

What you say about technology is something many anarcho primitivists also speak about at length... I don't think anyone would argue that we can have a good understanding of primitive society given how much our minds our shaped by present society. Even anthropologists who study primitive cultures struggle to understand how people in those societies think. So I'm not sure what your point is -- when we criticize technology we talk specifically about bad outcomes resulting from technology, instead of speculating about good outcomes in its absence.

The idea that any organized effort to fight civilization would lead to militarization (and thus undesirable ends) is nonsense. Not all organizations are military organizations; not all organizations are organized in the way we traditionally think of organization; not all ideas / ways of living expired only because of an organized effort against them.

You don't understand anti civilization politics if one of your critiques is that it offers no 'post-revolutionary organizational structure', when that is practically the entire point. If you think it is criticism to restate one of the central goals of a political project as though its bad, you aren't engaging in analysis, you're an ideologue.

It has nothing to do with liberalism... like I said you don't seem to understand the beginnings.

I agree that few anarchists talk about spiritual growth -- I think this should be the main focus of anarchism. Building people up. I don't agree that traditionalism is focused on building people up but that is a pretty subjective argument (from you and I).

You say it is clear such a society would only come about through a cataclysm. But it isn't clear -- you should explain why you think this is the case.

You present the only alternative to a cataclysm as being war of secret societies vs society at large... once again its not clear at all why you think this a logical necessity. I think its true that overcoming the damage of civilization and technology will likely take an extremely long time. But I don't know why you think this claim (even if it were true) is a criticism of the idea.

No comment on your further musings on traditionalism, which seem irrelevant to me.

Anarcho primitivism is the final pill to swallow. Humanity is not ready for it yet.

Perhaps, although I think the segmented and isolated nature of such a society would lead to problems. Families isolated from the community can lead to stultification and abuse. And the only real reasons for agrarian society are militarism, fear of nature, or limited resource. It is not something that is good in itself and so should not be the basis of a society since it is organisation in reverse. Environmental necessity is replaced by ideology, so you are still trapped within a modernist thought process. And this does not rule out the degeneracy of industrial farming.

The real constraints for economy should be skillful and meaningful labour. This would rule out industrialism, but also leave the economy open enough that primary goods could be produced through agrarian and hunter-gatherer means.

Although with current populations there is basically a necessity to focus on agriculture rather than gathering and hunting.

Step theory in history is a materialist approach in which a society, or in this case technology, progresses and advances from one very clear stage to the next. While it is interesting, reality isn't quite so simple. For example, a revolution in agriculture may occur in a nation, but certain regions may be unaffected by that for hundreds of years, if not longer. Zerzan's work is nicely divided in a linear progression from abstract thought to clock towers. But history is more intricate and cyclical than that.

You don't understand my point about immaterial differences of primitive peoples, but then you go on to suggest only the materialist 'bad outcomes' of technology. As such it is negative thinking.

Militarisation isn't nonsense according to one of the most important primitivist thinkers. And you don't provide any arguments suggesting that it can be prevented either. Have you read Perlman's book?

You can keep saying I don't understand things all you want, but in all likelihood I have spent more time reading about this stuff than you have, and I am the one making actual arguments while you haven't offered anything in return. To clarify, primitivists offer an economic theory that resides anywhere between pre-modernity and neanderthal larping (even before them?). So I overstated it, they offer a dictatorship of the anti-industrialist workers. But that doesn't really count as a positive society, it is merely destructive, not creative.

You can leave the namecalling behind. That would get you killed in any primitivist society.

Agrarianism is the perfection of human life.

So what is the spiritual growth for anarchism? There is a strong tendency towards atheism, and, like liberalism, economic maintenance becomes a sort of godless ritualisation.

What are the other possibilities for primitivism besides cataclysm or eternal barbarian invasions? A referendum? Re-education until humans somehow evolve into primitivists? This is the other failing of anarchists, they have too much faith in average people and do not recognise that the lowest citizens among us can be the worst, that they are not our brothers. As such, a cataclysm seems much more likely than a spontaneous consensus to return to a long lost world.

Also, I never said that these were criticisms of the idea itself, only how they function. I am saying that both primitivism and traditionalism have an enlightenment approach and are caught up in much of the same thinking as liberalism.

I'm not sure what you mean that I 'don;t understand the beginnings.' The beginnings of what, primitivism? Or actual primitive society? I understand the former probably better than anyone, and the latter I don't think anyone understands, at least not fully.

If you do not think that anarchism has anything in common with liberalism then you need to read up more on the origins of liberalism and anarchism. Much of the ideas regarding neutral or good human nature come from romanticised ideas of nature and primitive people (basically a reversal of Hobbesian liberalism). Primitivism relies on a similar romantic notion, allow the primitive economy to take over humanity and all shall fall in place. This is a mix of liberalism and extreme marxism.

Why do you say this? What makes it perfect?