anarcho primitivism is a load of shit. stick anarcho in front of anything you want but it does not make you an anarchist. the majority of people here are class struggle anarchists, we have absolutely nothing in common with primmo clap trap. primmos are against the class struggle and are thus against us. i really dont think you will find what you are looking for on these boards the black and red star should have warned you. 
Labor fundamentalism
Not to be a dick, but have you read much anarchist theory?
I suggest starting out with the FAQ, it's got a nice little index so you can hop around and look for further reading to answer these types of questions.
Quote:
There is also anarcho-primitivism (which I like), but it isn't considered "true" anarchism. Why? Common argument is "people will die without technology". This allows "true" anarchist to dismiss anarcho-primitivism altogether. But anarcho-primitivism isn't simply about living in the wild. Extreme alienation exists in this world, especially in rich countries. It's not common to find anyone worried about this, except anarcho-primitivists.
And it requires exterminating the majority of the population. 'Anarchism' has a long history of organizing workers to take over industry themselves, not to eliminate most production and the workforce along with it.
Read some history - anarchists have actually had some quite large scale projects in the past, such as social revolution.
Quote:
I think that you can't change the system without changing people. Leninists had their revolutions by convincing people that they're oppressed. And what happened? They became the new ruling class. People were too stupid to understand that they simply gave the power away and didn't gain anything themselves. Today people are still stupid. But times have changed and the old method (merely showing the people that inequality exists) won't work. OK, maybe you think that people are not stupid? In that case we would be living in anarchy already. We have a chicken and egg problem here. Which came first - stupidity or the State? Anyway, you can't stop the chicken (stupidity) from laying new eggs by destroying the egg (the State).
So you think that convincing people to abandon technology and half their life expectancy is a better idea? You'd have to be pretty stupid to go for that.
I think that libertarian-communists by in large aren't guilty of the "nihilistic critique of everything" stuff... and if anyone's guilty of it, it's Zerzan, the Unabomber, and company.
Class struggle Anarchism has a conception of how we want to change the world, and how we need to go about doing it. This stuff is all still subject to debate, but if you want to accuse people of having an orientation towards nihilism and inaction, you should probably start with the Primitivists and Post-Leftists. But this is all beside the point, because primitivism is not some sort of "competing version" of anarchism, nor in any way related to our political view whatsoever.
Lots of us do think that it's of huge importance to organize workers. Maybe you just disagree with us???
You really think that oppressed people are stupid and responsible for the existence of the state?!!?!?! Ouch. that's just nasty and misanthropic... though expected, as most of the primitivist stuff I've read is positively dripping with misanthropy.
Do you really think that being anti-state is the crux of the issue with us anyways?????
I'm not trying to sound hostile, but you should really read some anarchist theory before coming on here and calling us all idiots.
Torizen wrote:
When anarchists talk about other things, for example, racism, they blame capitalism for it, as if capitalism is the source of every problem there is. I hate capitalism too, but I think it's stupid to blame capitalism for everything
Strawman: An arguement that one proposition (anarchism) is better than another proposition (capitalism) does not logically entail that the first proposition is perfect or wthout flaw, If i said i prefer sitting on the beach to walking fown the high street, it does not neccesarily infer that i like being shat on by sea gulls and getting stones in my shoes.
Quote:
. The answer always will be "organise workers" or something like that.
Strawman: The answer given on here would be to organise in your workplace or community. Where do you work ? Where did your folks who put food on your table for years work?
Quote:
There is also anarcho-primitivism (which I like), but it isn't considered "true" anarchism. Why? Common argument is "people will die without technology"..
Well obviously.
Quote:
I think that you can't change the system without changing people. Leninists had their revolutions by convincing people that they're oppressed. And what happened? They became the new ruling class. People were too stupid to understand that they simply gave the power away and didn't gain anything themselves. Today people are still stupid. But times have changed and the old method (merely showing the people that inequality exists) won't work. OK, maybe you think that people are not stupid? In that case we would be living in anarchy already. We have a chicken and egg problem here. Which came first - stupidity or the State?
An interesting historical perspective here, whereas some of us might argue that the state was formed by the concentration of capital, the rise of the merchant and propertied classes, technological advances and the centralising nature of enlightened absolutism in europe and so on, you seem to be presenting a very different hypothesis. In fact i'd say that your idea that the state was formed because people are stupid is an interesting deveopment of boy george's famous thesis on war.
Quote:
I hate capitalism too, but I think it's stupid to blame capitalism for everything.
agreed, and there are some who do that, but most would (correctly) point out that capitalism inherited and exploited and intensified pre-existing gender/race/social-status distinctions.
but what i'd really like to do is discuss TOR.
Some days ago on a site on Tor (http://tor.eff.org) internal network somebody called libertarians (ancaps) market fundamentalists. This description made sense to me, since I've seen them arguing everywhere that the market is the ultimate source of freedom, happiness, etc. But I also see anarchists and socialists in general mostly talking about the means of production not being owned collectively by the workers. The difference between anarchists and other socialists is that anarchists view the State as a tool of the capitalist class. If you think about it, isn't that labor fundamentalism? When anarchists talk about other things, for example, racism, they blame capitalism for it, as if capitalism is the source of every problem there is. I hate capitalism too, but I think it's stupid to blame capitalism for everything.
Anarchism is too negative. You can find criticisms of almost everything. For example, school, work, etc. But, instead of creating altenatives, anarchists criticise the possibility to create alternatives and continue to participate in the system. Anarchists have created relatively few projects, for example, Food Not Bombs. But, since critising everything is so common in anarchism, it's easy to find people who think that FNB has nothing to do with anarchism, since it doesn't serve the interests of the working class. Well, I already know that asking these people what exactly to do is worthless. The answer always will be "organise workers" or something like that.
Another funny thing about anarchists is participating in demonstrations, knowing that the State doesn't like that and knowing that they can be beaten by cops. I watched video on YouTube where some Russian anarchists had some confrontation with cops and they were shouting "follow your law". What's the point of it? Showing non-anarchists that the State is evil because it doesn't follow it's own law? Law is not a fucking deity, it can't protect you.
There is also anarcho-primitivism (which I like), but it isn't considered "true" anarchism. Why? Common argument is "people will die without technology". This allows "true" anarchist to dismiss anarcho-primitivism altogether. But anarcho-primitivism isn't simply about living in the wild. Extreme alienation exists in this world, especially in rich countries. It's not common to find anyone worried about this, except anarcho-primitivists.
Yeah, I know that anarchism has extended to opposition to authority in general, but we probably have to thank about this to individualist anarchists, since it has nothing to with the fucking labor. Still, I've seen some users even on this board say that they would happily execute pedophiles (and probably other people they don't like, too). This makes me worried.
I think that you can't change the system without changing people. Leninists had their revolutions by convincing people that they're oppressed. And what happened? They became the new ruling class. People were too stupid to understand that they simply gave the power away and didn't gain anything themselves. Today people are still stupid. But times have changed and the old method (merely showing the people that inequality exists) won't work. OK, maybe you think that people are not stupid? In that case we would be living in anarchy already. We have a chicken and egg problem here. Which came first - stupidity or the State? Anyway, you can't stop the chicken (stupidity) from laying new eggs by destroying the egg (the State).