About the critique and solutions of Primitivisms

224 posts / 0 new
Last post
AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 31 2011 17:10
BillJ wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
Where is the contradiction? I clearly stated that there is no objective truth, so you should read everything I write under that light, even if you agree or not.

You realize that saying "there is no objective truth" is an objective statement that claims to be true, right?

Only in the same way that nihilism says that the only truth is that there is no truth...

Maphisto86's picture
Maphisto86
Offline
Joined: 28-07-10
Jul 31 2011 17:33

I congratulate AnrBjotk for at least sticking with his defense of primitivism while still being civil despite the venom thrown his way. While I still do not agree at all with primitivism's solutions for modern ill's it is valuable in providing an extreme critic of the basic assumptions all of us in modern, urban society hold. Sadly though I think primitivists hold to a somewhat romantic vision of pre-civilization. Even if it was truly the original "affluent society" I doubt we can ever go back to that state. I know for certain it would be impossible on purpose as it would require an even more international effort, over a longer time period, then a truly communist world order would. Most primitivists I have read or spoke to claim that a "rewilding" is likely to come about with a civilizational collapse (many who say is inevitable anyway so we best prepare).

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 31 2011 18:28
Maphisto86 wrote:
I congratulate AnrBjotk for at least sticking with his defense of primitivism while still being civil despite the venom thrown his way. While I still do not agree at all with primitivism's solutions for modern ill's it is valuable in providing an extreme critic of the basic assumptions all of us in modern, urban society hold. Sadly though I think primitivists hold to a somewhat romantic vision of pre-civilization. Even if it was truly the original "affluent society" I doubt we can ever go back to that state. I know for certain it would be impossible on purpose as it would require an even more international effort, over a longer time period, then a truly communist world order would. Most primitivists I have read or spoke to claim that a "rewilding" is likely to come about with a civilizational collapse (many who say is inevitable anyway so we best prepare).

It's true that some primitivists romanticize the idea of pre-civilization, Kazcynski addresses this beautifully in "The Truth About Primitive Life", parts of which I have quoted here.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 31 2011 19:02

Sure, AnrBjotk keeps at it but he says the same thing over and over again.

His answers are the same regardless of the question.

We've said why an anarchist/communist society is different from a primitivist society (a world wide community versus scattered tribes see above), we talk constantly on this forum about how an anarchist-communist could happen.

He hasn't given any "HOWS" in any of his answers, ever

Q: "How will it happen???"

A: "It has to happen. It's a matter of will. I'm willing to let millions die I'm so hard. How will anarchism happen? It will be hard and not romantic (except for those who find hard, ruthless men sexy), here's another Zerzan video and a Kazcynski quote..."

Over and Over and Over again...

ACAB
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Jul 31 2011 20:02
AnrBjotk wrote:
BillJ wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
Where is the contradiction? I clearly stated that there is no objective truth, so you should read everything I write under that light, even if you agree or not.

You realize that saying "there is no objective truth" is an objective statement that claims to be true, right?

Only in the same way that nihilism says that the only truth is that there is no truth...

What is this? Are you saying that because nihilism does it you can do it as well? If nihilism claims that, "the only truth is that there is no truth", then that in itself is a "truth", which makes the statement contradictory. The same contradiction is happening in your statement. I'm surprised this needs explaining.

ACAB
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Jul 31 2011 20:07
Black Badger wrote:
Pointing out someone else's contradiction(s) does not relieve you of your own.

That's deep, mate. Notice the person started the thread to create a conversation with regards to Primitivism. I'm not here defending my ideology, rather he/she is here defending his/hers, therefore, I'm not looking to be "relieved" of whatever contradictions I may or may not hold. roll eyes

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 1 2011 03:16
RedHughs wrote:
Sure, AnrBjotk keeps at it but he says the same thing over and over again.

His answers are the same regardless of the question.

We've said why an anarchist/communist society is different from a primitivist society (a world wide community versus scattered tribes see above), we talk constantly on this forum about how an anarchist-communist could happen.

He hasn't given any "HOWS" in any of his answers, ever

Q: "How will it happen???"

A: "It has to happen. It's a matter of will. I'm willing to let millions die I'm so hard. How will anarchism happen? It will be hard and not romantic (except for those who find hard, ruthless men sexy), here's another Zerzan video and a Kazcynski quote..."

Over and Over and Over again...

Well, that IS the role of the primitivists, to be on the side of the possible alternatives. I could easily be just as rude back saying:
Me: Do you not see the implied authority of technology and how it makes any freedom impossible?
You: No. Let me quote Marx here...bla bla bla We need to force people to do something else. Besides, I love my computers and won't give it up.

ACAB wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
BillJ wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
Where is the contradiction? I clearly stated that there is no objective truth, so you should read everything I write under that light, even if you agree or not.

You realize that saying "there is no objective truth" is an objective statement that claims to be true, right?

Only in the same way that nihilism says that the only truth is that there is no truth...

What is this? Are you saying that because nihilism does it you can do it as well? If nihilism claims that, "the only truth is that there is no truth", then that in itself is a "truth", which makes the statement contradictory. The same contradiction is happening in your statement. I'm surprised this needs explaining.

My ideas follows the train of nihilism, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. How is this strange? The notion is the meaninglessness of modernity. How can we say that subjective truth is not a truth? That makes less sense...

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 1 2011 04:10
AnrBjotk wrote:

The very fact that you mention or cite that a-hole Bookchin really undermines your statements. That man has been not only a traitor to the anarchist state, but has pathetically tried to judge anarchism based on his own marxist-leninist-conservative views.

.
[/b]

Kaczynski good/ Bookchin bad! I've smoked crack once- sorry to admit it but I have to ask you if the crack your smoking is pure or did you you put some liquid acid on it? I hear you can get really high on spinal fluid of a living human...maybe that's it? We can depopulate the world if we mass market this new drug you're on.

I actually have a Kaczynski passage on my youtube favorites but it's for the funnies. Zerzan is another matter but Kaczynski is right wing which is the foundations of his inability to even consider communism as an alternative. Have you read his misinformed and sophomoric critique of communism?

Who gets to breed and who doesn't? How do we arrive at a "sustainable" population? How do you stop agriculture from arising? How do you stop primitive accumulation? If you can't answer these simple questions your entire ideology falls apart or it gets exposed as the misanthropic authoritarian tripe that it is.

duskflesh
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Aug 1 2011 04:32

I might salute you for staying civil mate.

Ok first of all, Bookchin is perhaps the most important figure in contemporary anarchist-communist theory. I don’t consider Bookchin a “traitor” simply because he wanted to distance himself from anarchism. It is fallacious to think just because I brought up Bookchin everything I said is now invalid. From what I hear his stuff on ecology is brilliant.

And I don’t think what I’m saying is just a splitter in the paw of primitivism. It absolutely destroys primitivism. My points on “ecology” and “primitivism saying primitive” each individually renders primitivism a hollow idea. The “possibility of primitivism being a mass movement” has more to do with practicality. What I’m saying should be devastating, simply because I’m a former primitivist. I know my way around the ideology, I have already spent countless hours thinking about the problems of primitivism. Actually when I look back, primitivism was simply a manifestation of the shit I was going thought with my own life. (A manifestation of my own misanthropy)

Also I have a problem with primitivist talking about a long transition period. Do you guys understand how long must you wait. How many humans existed at the same time before agriculture on the earth? (I’m not to sure on the number myself) What like a 100,000?? Lets be more conservative for your sake, lets say 10 million at most. (my point would still hold even if I said something like 100 million). How many people exist today, like 6-8 BILLION!!! Do you understand how long it would take even if the ideas of primitivism caught on to everyone on the planet??? I might add that there is still the very strong possibility that agriculture will start again. And all of this is ignoring all the points I brought about primitivism being a mass movement.

Denying consistency is not an excuse for poor thinking. I might add that if you don’t think lack consistency should not discredit your ideology, you have no basis to condemn anyone else for any lack on consistency.

ACAB
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Aug 1 2011 12:58
AnrBjotk wrote:
How is this strange? The notion is the meaninglessness of modernity. How can we say that subjective truth is not a truth? That makes less sense...

I've always wondered what a red herring tastes like. Try addressing the fact that, like nihilism saying "there is no truth" is itself a truth, you saying there are no objective facts is itself an objective fact. Or that in your "train of thought", you can imply that you regard technology as both neutral and not neutral.

Quote:
My ideas follows the train of nihilism, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

Oh, shit, nevermind you just name dropped some famous philosophers, that makes your reasoning valid and sound. Maybe I should cover my ass in a similar manner...eh, Heidegger, Sartre, Hegel.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 1 2011 13:47

Ah 'there is no truth and that is the truth'. My favourite performative contradiction. You can get around it with pyrrho skepticism, but that means the suspension of all judgement, so it really doesn't work if your trying to push for a particular political philosophy (especially one based on something like the 'natural' world and its imminent destruction).

It is also worth pointing out that neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche were nihilists. I'm pretty sure Nietzsche explicitly attacks nihilism in every text he wrote.... It is better to say he was an aristocratic individualist, just like our pal Bey. Bookchin deals this sort of individualist anarchism a heavy blow here....

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 1 2011 14:31
CRUD wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:

The very fact that you mention or cite that a-hole Bookchin really undermines your statements. That man has been not only a traitor to the anarchist state, but has pathetically tried to judge anarchism based on his own marxist-leninist-conservative views.

.
[/b]

Kaczynski good/ Bookchin bad! I've smoked crack once- sorry to admit it but I have to ask you if the crack your smoking is pure or did you you put some liquid acid on it? I hear you can get really high on spinal fluid of a living human...maybe that's it? We can depopulate the world if we mass market this new drug you're on.

I actually have a Kaczynski passage on my youtube favorites but it's for the funnies. Zerzan is another matter but Kaczynski is right wing which is the foundations of his inability to even consider communism as an alternative. Have you read his misinformed and sophomoric critique of communism?

Who gets to breed and who doesn't? How do we arrive at a "sustainable" population? How do you stop agriculture from arising? How do you stop primitive accumulation? If you can't answer these simple questions your entire ideology falls apart or it gets exposed as the misanthropic authoritarian tripe that it is.

Never smoked crack, my friend, but I do enjoy my heroin (opium for the people, bla bla)
As for Kaczynski being right-wing, I wouldn't agree. He is an anarchist, true blue. His critique of leftism is at worst childish and mean, but at best he paints a good picture of the average "radical leftist" (i.e boyscout morals)
I feel like a broken record here but:

Who gets to breed and who doesn't?
How do we arrive at a "sustainable" population?

I already said I didn't know the answers to these questions, no primitivists really do. But allow me a flight of whimsy here: Kazcynski would no doubt suggest some sort of darwinist attempt, but I'm not that cold. If we assume that the coming apocalypse with the end of oil will kill of, say, 30% of the population we are getting somewhere. Second an acceptance of mortality as a part of life would also stop our societies desperate, and rather pathetic, attempt at living forever. I suggest you read Swifts "Gulliver's Travels" (the chapter entitled "A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms") and "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" to wrap your head around that one. Nature will take its, cruel, course.

Quote:
Gulliver's Travels, Chapter 33: I was going on to tell him of another sort of people, who get their livelihood by attending the sick, having, upon some occasions, informed his honour that many of my crew had died of diseases. But here it was with the utmost difficulty that I brought him to apprehend what I meant. "He could easily conceive, that a HOUYHNHNM, grew weak and heavy a few days before his death, or by some accident might hurt a limb; but that nature, who works all things to perfection, should suffer any pains to breed in our bodies, he thought impossible, and desired to know the reason of so unaccountable an evil."

I told him "we fed on a thousand things which operated contrary to each other; that we ate when we were not hungry, and drank without the provocation of thirst; that we sat whole nights drinking strong liquors, without eating a bit, which disposed us to sloth, inflamed our bodies, and precipitated or prevented digestion; that prostitute female YAHOOS acquired a certain malady, which bred rottenness in the bones of those who fell into their embraces; that this, and many other diseases, were propagated from father to son; so that great numbers came into the world with complicated maladies upon them; that it would be endless to give him a catalogue of all diseases incident to human bodies, for they would not be fewer than five or six hundred, spread over every limb and joint -in short, every part, external and intestine, having diseases appropriated to itself. To remedy which, there was a sort of people bred up among us in the profession, or pretence, of curing the sick. And because I had some skill in the faculty, I would, in gratitude to his honour, let him know the whole mystery and method by which they proceed

.

How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Aug 2 2011 09:56

Adam and Eve didnt fare too well in the garden of eden did they?

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 2 2011 14:16
xslavearcx wrote:
Adam and Eve didnt fare too well in the garden of eden did they?

Which proves the problem with prohibition... and man's natural anti authoritative nature... What's your point? Besides, if I was Adam I would be more worried about the giant dinosaurs knockin' about...

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 2 2011 14:52

I think his point is, from the primitivist perspective, technology and agriculture are the forbidden fruit. How do you stop people, given their 'anti-authoritarian nature', indulging in their 'natural' propensity to technics

Toms's picture
Toms
Offline
Joined: 16-05-10
Aug 2 2011 15:19
AnrBjotk wrote:
xslavearcx wrote:
Adam and Eve didnt fare too well in the garden of eden did they?

Which proves the problem with prohibition... and man's natural anti authoritative nature... What's your point? Besides, if I was Adam I would be more worried about the giant dinosaurs knockin' about...

Since in the bible god throws Adam and Eve out because they were turning immortal and getting too close to Godlike status and you don't like the humans attempt at achieving greater life span.

AnrBjotk wrote:
But allow me a flight of whimsy here: Kazcynski would no doubt suggest some sort of darwinist attempt, but I'm not that cold. If we assume that the coming apocalypse with the end of oil will kill of, say, 30% of the population we are getting somewhere. Second an acceptance of mortality as a part of life would also stop our societies desperate, and rather pathetic, attempt at living forever.

Wouldn't that make primitivists to people the god to Adam and Eve for forbidding them to attempt to better their life? wink

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 2 2011 15:56
Toms wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
xslavearcx wrote:
Adam and Eve didnt fare too well in the garden of eden did they?

Which proves the problem with prohibition... and man's natural anti authoritative nature... What's your point? Besides, if I was Adam I would be more worried about the giant dinosaurs knockin' about...

Since in the bible god throws Adam and Eve out because they were turning immortal and getting too close to Godlike status and you don't like the humans attempt at achieving greater life span.

AnrBjotk wrote:
But allow me a flight of whimsy here: Kazcynski would no doubt suggest some sort of darwinist attempt, but I'm not that cold. If we assume that the coming apocalypse with the end of oil will kill of, say, 30% of the population we are getting somewhere. Second an acceptance of mortality as a part of life would also stop our societies desperate, and rather pathetic, attempt at living forever.

Wouldn't that make primitivists to people the god to Adam and Eve for forbidding them to attempt to better their life? ;)

Unlike Kaczynski, Zerzan and I (excluding Jensen who doesn't like the term "primitivist") are not trying to force anyone... "We're trying to encourage the questioning, just the questioning"

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Aug 2 2011 16:02

But its that very questioning that would need to be supressed in order to stop the development of agriculture.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 2 2011 16:04

I think you guys have been questioned laugh out loud

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Aug 2 2011 16:20

would the first post primo agricultural community begin as a TAZ?/

Toms's picture
Toms
Offline
Joined: 16-05-10
Aug 2 2011 16:38
xslavearcx wrote:
would the first post primo agricultural community begin as a TAZ?/

Taz?

(I know what you mean, just messin)

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Aug 2 2011 17:03

that sounds about right smile

duskflesh
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Aug 2 2011 17:07
Quote:
How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Did you just completely forget everything I just posted? I anticipated this very answer from my first post here. I talked a lot about how primitivism could not be voluntary nor could a social movement stop people from engaging in agriculture (simply because of the very nature of primitivism). Please reread everything I posted on this thread.

Honestly, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later.

i declare primtivism to be dead, all anyone at libcom has to now when trying to debunk primitivism is just fall back to this thread and salvage and develop its arguments(and maybe do some research on some of the exact numbers, ecology/environmental biology, and the history of civilization)

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 2 2011 17:15
xslavearcx wrote:
would the first post primo agricultural community begin as a TAZ?/

It is my belief that TAZ is perfect for primitivism, as there would be very little trace. However, as I have mentioned, there are still issues like taxation, death of wildlife, salmon, polluted water, and so on. However, a functional TAZ primitivist commune should be something to explore further.

duskflesh wrote:
Quote:
How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Did you just completely forget everything I just posted? I anticipated this very answer from my first post here. I talked a lot about how primitivism could not be voluntary nor could a social movement stop people from engaging in agriculture (simply because of the very nature of primitivism). Please reread everything I posted on this thread.

Honestly, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later.

i declare primtivism to be dead, all anyone at libcom has to now when trying to debunk primitivism is just fall back to this thread and salvage and develop its arguments(and maybe do some research on some of the exact numbers, ecology/environmental biology, and the history of civilization)

The "people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later" is what Robert Anton Wilson calls "Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover will prove" i.e if you think there is a god you will find evidence for it, if you think there isn't one, you will find proof of that. This goes back to my "no objective truth" rant. It's common for all mankind. Honestly, when you "discovered" leftism, how much did you look for negative info on it?

I think it is you who aren't listening, friend. I keep saying that primitivism MUST be voluntary, and until it is, it is no threat to your Stalinist ideals (just joking, but u get the pic)

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 2 2011 17:55
Quote:
Being alive in nature, before our abstraction from it, must have involved a perception and contact that we can scarcely comprehend from our levels of anguish and alienation. The communication with all of existence must have been an exquisite play of all the senses, reflecting the numberless, nameless varieties of pleasure and emotion once accessible within us.
- John Zerzan
duskflesh
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Aug 2 2011 20:44
AnrBjotk wrote:
xslavearcx wrote:
would the first post primo agricultural community begin as a TAZ?/

It is my belief that TAZ is perfect for primitivism, as there would be very little trace. However, as I have mentioned, there are still issues like taxation, death of wildlife, salmon, polluted water, and so on. However, a functional TAZ primitivist commune should be something to explore further.

duskflesh wrote:
Quote:
How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Did you just completely forget everything I just posted? I anticipated this very answer from my first post here. I talked a lot about how primitivism could not be voluntary nor could a social movement stop people from engaging in agriculture (simply because of the very nature of primitivism). Please reread everything I posted on this thread.

Honestly, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later.

i declare primtivism to be dead, all anyone at libcom has to now when trying to debunk primitivism is just fall back to this thread and salvage and develop its arguments(and maybe do some research on some of the exact numbers, ecology/environmental biology, and the history of civilization)

The "people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later" is what Robert Anton Wilson calls "Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover will prove" i.e if you think there is a god you will find evidence for it, if you think there isn't one, you will find proof of that. This goes back to my "no objective truth" rant. It's common for all mankind. Honestly, when you "discovered" leftism, how much did you look for negative info on it?

I think it is you who aren't listening, friend. I keep saying that primitivism MUST be voluntary, and until it is, it is no threat to your Stalinist ideals (just joking, but u get the pic)

Do you understand that you are digging yourself into a deeper hole???

Ok in order for “anarcho-primitivism” to work and still be “anarcho-primitivism” it needs to be voluntary, but I have shown that “anarcho-primitivism” in a significant mass scale can never be voluntary. You are helping the degeneration of your own ideology. Most primitivist prefers to use the “inevitable environmental apocalypse” argument (which I might add has yet to be proven), for good reason I might add.

Also if you admit that there is "no objective truth" and people pick their belifes only basied on what appells to them, you are admiting that primitivism will never be a mass movement. Since no one will acccept such an bleak misanthropic vision.

Bookchin deals with the romanticism/bs very effectively(http://libcom.org/library/socanlifean7). Also, our socioty has progressed in a way that we no longer need to oppress each other for survival, something we can’t say for a primtive socioty.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 2 2011 23:30
AnrBjotk wrote:

Never smoked crack, my friend, but I do enjoy my heroin (opium for the people, bla bla)
As for Kaczynski being right-wing, I wouldn't agree. He is an anarchist, true blue. His critique of leftism is at worst childish and mean, but at best he paints a good picture of the average "radical leftist" (i.e boyscout morals)
I feel like a broken record here but:

Who gets to breed and who doesn't?
How do we arrive at a "sustainable" population?

I already said I didn't know the answers to these questions, no primitivists really do. But allow me a flight of whimsy here: Kazcynski would no doubt suggest some sort of darwinist attempt, but I'm not that cold. If we assume that the coming apocalypse with the end of oil will kill of, say, 30% of the population we are getting somewhere. Second an acceptance of mortality as a part of life would also stop our societies desperate, and rather pathetic, attempt at living forever. I suggest you read Swifts "Gulliver's Travels" (the chapter entitled "A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms") and "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" to wrap your head around that one. Nature will take its, cruel, course.

How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Why was Chomsky on Kaczynski's list of people to kill? Kaczynski openly denounced the socialist/anarchist left and sorry to tell you my friend but the anarchist movement has always been about the struggle between workers and capital. All anarchists are socialists, even the early American "individualist" anarchists (not "anarcho" capitalists).

And the answer to "how do you stop agriculture from arising and how do stop primitive accumulation is with the use of force. What do you do with all of the knowledge we've attained? Science, physics, math etc that has lead to the industrial revolution? An information purge?

Anyway this thread relates:

http://libcom.org/history/green-communism-responses-our-reply

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 3 2011 02:59
CRUD wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:

Never smoked crack, my friend, but I do enjoy my heroin (opium for the people, bla bla)
As for Kaczynski being right-wing, I wouldn't agree. He is an anarchist, true blue. His critique of leftism is at worst childish and mean, but at best he paints a good picture of the average "radical leftist" (i.e boyscout morals)
I feel like a broken record here but:

Who gets to breed and who doesn't?
How do we arrive at a "sustainable" population?

I already said I didn't know the answers to these questions, no primitivists really do. But allow me a flight of whimsy here: Kazcynski would no doubt suggest some sort of darwinist attempt, but I'm not that cold. If we assume that the coming apocalypse with the end of oil will kill of, say, 30% of the population we are getting somewhere. Second an acceptance of mortality as a part of life would also stop our societies desperate, and rather pathetic, attempt at living forever. I suggest you read Swifts "Gulliver's Travels" (the chapter entitled "A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms") and "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" to wrap your head around that one. Nature will take its, cruel, course.

How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Why was Chomsky on Kaczynski's list of people to kill? Kaczynski openly denounced the socialist/anarchist left and sorry to tell you my friend but the anarchist movement has always been about the struggle between workers and capital. All anarchists are socialists, even the early American "individualist" anarchists (not "anarcho" capitalists).

And the answer to "how do you stop agriculture from arising and how do stop primitive accumulation is with the use of force. What do you do with all of the knowledge we've attained? Science, physics, math etc that has lead to the industrial revolution? An information purge?

Anyway this thread relates:

http://libcom.org/history/green-communism-responses-our-reply

Chommsky works at MIT... that's why. But does it matter? Would it made any difference? He killed people, doesn't matter if it was Ralph Nader or George Bush, it doesn't make it ok. Pol Pot has already proven that forced pseudo-primitivism doesn't work.

duskflesh wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
xslavearcx wrote:
would the first post primo agricultural community begin as a TAZ?/

It is my belief that TAZ is perfect for primitivism, as there would be very little trace. However, as I have mentioned, there are still issues like taxation, death of wildlife, salmon, polluted water, and so on. However, a functional TAZ primitivist commune should be something to explore further.

duskflesh wrote:
Quote:
How do you stop agriculture from arising?
By again creating awareness. You know conditioning? Remember my little rant about heroin addiction? If we know what lies at the end of the path, we will avoid that path like the dickens. Even if it means a "little" more work.

Did you just completely forget everything I just posted? I anticipated this very answer from my first post here. I talked a lot about how primitivism could not be voluntary nor could a social movement stop people from engaging in agriculture (simply because of the very nature of primitivism). Please reread everything I posted on this thread.

Honestly, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later.

i declare primtivism to be dead, all anyone at libcom has to now when trying to debunk primitivism is just fall back to this thread and salvage and develop its arguments(and maybe do some research on some of the exact numbers, ecology/environmental biology, and the history of civilization)

The "people chose what they want to believe and then fill in the reasoning later" is what Robert Anton Wilson calls "Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover will prove" i.e if you think there is a god you will find evidence for it, if you think there isn't one, you will find proof of that. This goes back to my "no objective truth" rant. It's common for all mankind. Honestly, when you "discovered" leftism, how much did you look for negative info on it?

I think it is you who aren't listening, friend. I keep saying that primitivism MUST be voluntary, and until it is, it is no threat to your Stalinist ideals (just joking, but u get the pic)

Do you understand that you are digging yourself into a deeper hole???

Ok in order for “anarcho-primitivism” to work and still be “anarcho-primitivism” it needs to be voluntary, but I have shown that “anarcho-primitivism” in a significant mass scale can never be voluntary. You are helping the degeneration of your own ideology. Most primitivist prefers to use the “inevitable environmental apocalypse” argument (which I might add has yet to be proven), for good reason I might add.

Also if you admit that there is "no objective truth" and people pick their belifes only basied on what appells to them, you are admiting that primitivism will never be a mass movement. Since no one will acccept such an bleak misanthropic vision.

Bookchin deals with the romanticism/bs very effectively(http://libcom.org/library/socanlifean7). Also, our socioty has progressed in a way that we no longer need to oppress each other for survival, something we can’t say for a primtive socioty.

People seem to accept misanthropic capitalism very easy... So I repeat: Abandon a dead trail and build a new path ("time to forget an old empire and build a living republic")

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 3 2011 06:12
AnrBjotk wrote:

Chommsky works at MIT... that's why. But does it matter?

Have you actually read his analysis of "leftism"? You probably hold the same understanding as him which is a sophomoric dare I say pathetic right wing understanding concerning the goals of communism.

Chomsky wasn't the only "leftist" he tried to kill and just because he teaches at MIT doesn't mean he's a engineer or physics professor. I think Ted was smart enough to figure that out- he targeted Chomsky for his political beliefs. Anyhow, tell me what you agree with below:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread136173/pg1

You lambasted a person for quoting Bookchin then turn around and lay praise on this mans work. What the fuck is wrong with you?

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Aug 3 2011 14:19
CRUD wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:

Chommsky works at MIT... that's why. But does it matter?

Have you actually read his analysis of "leftism"? You probably hold the same understanding as him which is a sophomoric dare I say pathetic right wing understanding concerning the goals of communism.

Chomsky wasn't the only "leftist" he tried to kill and just because he teaches at MIT doesn't mean he's a engineer or physics professor. I think Ted was smart enough to figure that out- he targeted Chomsky for his political beliefs. Anyhow, tell me what you agree with below:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread136173/pg1

You lambasted a person for quoting Bookchin then turn around and lay praise on this mans work. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Do you honestly think I haven't read his manifesto? I know it by heart, man.
I agree completely with the "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." This is so obvious I'm ashamed I didn't see it before I discovered Kaczynski.
Leftist always take the side of the underdog, this is because they themselves have deep feelings of inferiority, very much like Nietzsche's Slave morality. Now, taking the side of the underdog is of course an important role, don't get me wrong, but there is more to it. Have you read Hesse's Steppenwolf? It has a wonderful description of a leftist: They always wear clothes that are either second hand, or look it, they drive crummy cars, don't pay much attention to appearance or hygiene, no matter what their income is. All in all, they enjoy suffering. They enjoy being the minority. And like Kaczynski says: If all of the leftist terms were met, they would still complain; Their role is in opposition.
As for oversocialization; I'm no poet, but remember thinking this: A leftist would probably use a table spoon to dig the garden, as a table spoon and a shovel are equals and no one should say one it better than the other, and the leftist always chooses the underdog.. See?

As for feminism, Kaczynski is talking out of his ass...

I'm more of a leftist than a right winger (of course I am neither, I'm an anarchist) but I sometimes admire the right wing view... They can do whatever they like, they can shoot whales with shotguns and stab African babies with rusty tin cans... And they have something no leftist has: pride.

His analysis is of the psychology of the leftist, not of communism of the left in general. And for someone who has been member of the biggest left wing parties in my country (and here they are proper left, like violent overthrow left) I have seen these people many many times...