Lawrence Jarach's Take On Primitivism.

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Apr 20 2011 18:07

sort it out frosty, I haven't figured out what it is you are proposing though. If I understand you correctly you are positioning yourself within the insurrectionalist/post-left stream of thought, so what is your opinion on how to organize work and technology in the event of a revolution? Your critique of anarcho-syndicalists etc might be accurate but what do you propose in their place?

Maphisto86 wrote:
While I can understand why "blueprints" are often viewed with distrust by anti-authoritarians, a defense of basic principals and a general idea of post-revolutionary civilization is needed.

I agree with this, a lot of people just avoid this question by saying things like "the working class will deal with these things when the time comes". But first of all this is often just an excuse to avoid thinking about difficult subjects. And second avoiding answering in this way is a vicious circle because the working class is only going to become radical in the first place if it is convinced that libertarian communism is possible.

Maphisto86's picture
Maphisto86
Offline
Joined: 28-07-10
Apr 20 2011 21:40
dinosavros wrote:
I agree with this, a lot of people just avoid this question by saying things like "the working class will deal with these things when the time comes". But first of all this is often just an excuse to avoid thinking about difficult subjects. And second avoiding answering in this way is a vicious circle because the working class is only going to become radical in the first place if it is convinced that libertarian communism is possible.

Anti-civilization or anti-industrial critiques also damages the traditional claims of leftism; i.e. the valorization of work and the self-management of said work. I mean sure realistically a post-Capitalist civilization would need to deal with the consequences of industrialization and urbanism (nuclear waste, pollution, etc). However there is no guarentee that self-management would fix the problems of industry and that needs to be addressed. Capitalism or no, computers for example need specific metals and materials to build them. What are the consequences of said production?

"Primitivism" as the idea of merely imitating the social relationships depicted in anthropological texts and studies of "less advanced" societies is silly. However anti-civilization critiques are simply taking the emancipatory rhetoric applied to the working class and broadens it to how we as a species interact with each other, other species and the environment around us. The critiques I am referring to are better expressed in such writings as "Not Left But wild!" by Chris Kortright and Craig Evarts and other writings from Feral: A Journal Toward Wildness excerpted here.

nathorange
Offline
Joined: 6-01-12
Jan 6 2012 02:25

You are right, Black Badger. It is interesting to me that so many characters here refuse to question let alone deeply investigate 'civilised' myths. The American ethnographer, Marshall Sahlins, based on the field work of Lee, McCarthy and McArthur, tested the Hobbesian assumption that so-called primitive life was "poor, nasty, brutish and short". His synthesis concluded that indigenous people from Australia and Africa worked on average 2 to 3 hours per week to survive. He consequently labelled indigenous cultures collectively as the "original affluent society" because of the abundance of leisure time and cultural time they had outside of work.

Sahlins and others have completely debunked the idea that indigenous people

Quote:
spent all day running all day through dank forests trying to scrape together enough calories to survive.

Why do so many non-Anarcho-primitivists here (and elsewhere!) continue to peddle such a well-known myth and try to pass it off as fact? I don't get it.

Jordan
Offline
Joined: 23-12-11
Jan 6 2012 03:14
nathorange wrote:
You are right, Black Badger. It is interesting to me that so many characters here refuse to question let alone deeply investigate 'civilised' myths. The American ethnographer, Marshall Sahlins, based on the field work of Lee, McCarthy and McArthur, tested the Hobbesian assumption that so-called primitive life was "poor, nasty, brutish and short". His synthesis concluded that indigenous people from Australia and Africa worked on average 2 to 3 hours per week to survive. He consequently labelled indigenous cultures collectively as the "original affluent society" because of the abundance of leisure time and cultural time they had outside of work.

Sahlins and others have completely debunked the idea that indigenous people

Quote:
spent all day running all day through dank forests trying to scrape together enough calories to survive.

In the pre-agicultural age there was also a much smaller population than there is now (1/7000 of what it is now). The hunter/gatherer existence relies on the idea of calories being stored in the landscape and the ability to move around etc, to a degree I can't imagine being enough to sustain human kind without deliberate human design and even the amount of influence by our predecessors (even in their primitive form) on the landscape musn't be underestimated. Not only that but people living in Africa/Australia are - if we look purely at environmental factors - living much less on the edge of human survivability than we are in the north. Whether we can take good features from primitive eras is a different question from whether primitivism is practical altogether.

And Hobbes made completely bizzare assumptions about the natural state of human society, that I don't think any anarchist would want to

Life expectancy was also pretty low compared to now due to the creation of medicines (but from estimates I've seen not particularly compared to the era of the Industrial revolution and before).

Redwinged Blackbird's picture
Redwinged Blackbird
Offline
Joined: 3-11-11
Jan 6 2012 03:32
Paulappaul wrote:
You really believe what Lawrence Jarach says in this? That more people will die from Industry related incidents (he also forgets that Socialism will make the workplace a safer place) then those who go without healthcare? That is just plain stupid. The notion that Native American herbal teas and such can cure cancer or provide vaccines for all sorts of diseases or treat aids or help the disabled, is again, just plain stupid.

I am probably way too late for this, but I would just like to point out that industrialization has increased the rates of cancer in the "developed world". See this study published by the University of Manchester (http://www.kurzweilai.net/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-purely-man-made) which found

Quote:
"only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer."

Giving children cancer so we can have computers seems very unanarchist.

Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said:

Quote:
"There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

Modern Medicine actually contributes to increasing global cancer rates too, most of the plastics are incinerated -which releases dioxin (http://en.opasnet.org/w/Are_the_dioxins_the_most_dangerous_chemicals_in_our_environment%3F) into the air - and hospital pharmaceuticals are flushed down the toilet and end up in our water supply. Plus, most of the world's population doesn't even have access to modern medicine so they have to breathe all the poisons in the air and drink it in the water and never get the treatment that makes industrialization worth it. Although I suppose under worker control a lot of these serious issues could be minimized quite a bit.

C

lettersjournal
Offline
Joined: 12-12-11
Jan 6 2012 03:47

Computers and cell phones cannot exist without slavery in central Africa. Nobody would voluntary work in those mines.

Jordan
Offline
Joined: 23-12-11
Jan 6 2012 04:05
lettersjournal wrote:
Computers and cell phones cannot exist without slavery in central Africa. Nobody would voluntary work in those mines.

Are you referring to the mining of the rare earth metal ore Coltan in the DRC (the so called Playstation wars)?

Edit: Whilst the DRC has most of the world's supply of it the main mining has been going on in Australia as a pretty normal industrial process with the demand of it falling over time. The political and economic state of the African region, I think has more to do with the way it's collected there, rather than the inherent nature of mining Coltan.

Tantalum is the main element they're after from Coltan. And I didn't realise it would resize it to be so small!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 6 2012 04:06
Quote:
Computers and cell phones cannot exist without slavery in central Africa. Nobody would voluntary work in those mines.

AFAIK most coltan now comes from Australia, some from China and some from Egypt. The campaign against blood coltan is (or was; I haven't looked into this for about two years) one of the few success stories from liberal campaigning.

jonthom's picture
jonthom
Offline
Joined: 25-11-10
Jan 6 2012 09:35
Redwinged Blackbird wrote:
Giving children cancer so we can have computers seems very unanarchist.

Letting people needlessly suffer from diseases that could be prevented through vaccination (and/or have the effects mitigated through medication, surgery and so on) is just as "unanarchist" IMO.

The negative health effects from industrialisation are well-attested, but I imagine at least some of these problems can be dealt with - through finding other technologies, using and re-using materials more efficiently, dropping things that are basically pointless (e.g. the massiver over-use of packaging materials), and by rejecting specific technologies that are inherently harmful.

Rejecting "civilisation" as a whole strikes me as quite frankly bizarre, to be honest, not to mention extremely harmful to folks who are quite literally dependant on technology in order to survive or have any decent quality of life.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 6 2012 10:23
Quote:
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.

Not a very good scientist... lots of things in the environment can cause cancer... sunlight being the most obvious example.

Redwinged Blackbird's picture
Redwinged Blackbird
Offline
Joined: 3-11-11
Jan 6 2012 21:15
jonthom wrote:
Redwinged Blackbird wrote:
Giving children cancer so we can have computers seems very unanarchist.

Letting people needlessly suffer from diseases that could be prevented through vaccination (and/or have the effects mitigated through medication, surgery and so on) is just as "unanarchist" IMO.

The negative health effects from industrialisation are well-attested, but I imagine at least some of these problems can be dealt with - through finding other technologies, using and re-using materials more efficiently, dropping things that are basically pointless (e.g. the massiver over-use of packaging materials), and by rejecting specific technologies that are inherently harmful.

Rejecting "civilisation" as a whole strikes me as quite frankly bizarre, to be honest, not to mention extremely harmful to folks who are quite literally dependant on technology in order to survive or have any decent quality of life.

The statement was a joke and meant to be funny and provocative fyi wink

Redwinged Blackbird's picture
Redwinged Blackbird
Offline
Joined: 3-11-11
Jan 6 2012 21:33
888 wrote:
Quote:
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.

Not a very good scientist... lots of things in the environment can cause cancer... sunlight being the most obvious example.

...But nothing that naturally persists in the environment can cause the rates of cancer that we have from modern industrial capitalism. Plus she said, "it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

Humans with white skin have a lighter complexion as an adaptation to cooler climates where they would be covered up for most of their lives. A lighter pigment helps them absorb more UV (which contains Vitamin D) in climates where they wouldn't be exposed to as much sun. Darker complected folks are that way because they have more melanin in their skin as an adaptation to warmer climates with more sun. They don't need as much Vitamin D because they aren't susceptible to Rickets. It would be a dramatic change in lifestyle for a pale Scandinavian to live in Central America or Africa and prance around in a loincloth fully exposed to the sun.

Redwinged Blackbird's picture
Redwinged Blackbird
Offline
Joined: 3-11-11
Jan 6 2012 21:36
Jordan wrote:
lettersjournal wrote:
Computers and cell phones cannot exist without slavery in central Africa. Nobody would voluntary work in those mines.

Are you referring to the mining of the rare earth metal ore Coltan in the DRC (the so called Playstation wars)?

Edit: Whilst the DRC has most of the world's supply of it the main mining has been going on in Australia as a pretty normal industrial process with the demand of it falling over time. The political and economic state of the African region, I think has more to do with the way it's collected there, rather than the inherent nature of mining Coltan.

Tantalum is the main element they're after from Coltan. And I didn't realise it would resize it to be so small!

I don't think bauxite strip mines in the Amazon or open-pit copper and tantalum mines in China are that dramatic of a step up from the mines in the Congo in terms of pollution, but like people have already outlined before, "under worker control many of these things would be avoided".

Redwinged Blackbird's picture
Redwinged Blackbird
Offline
Joined: 3-11-11
Jan 6 2012 21:43
jonthom wrote:
Redwinged Blackbird wrote:
Giving children cancer so we can have computers seems very unanarchist.

Letting people needlessly suffer from diseases that could be prevented through vaccination (and/or have the effects mitigated through medication, surgery and so on) is just as "unanarchist" IMO.

Is that what anti-civ folks are arguing for? Are they calling out to destroy hospitals because they employ western science and high technology? Are they calling out for the destruction of peasant communities and family farms because "totalitarian agriculture" is the root of all evil?

In my experience, most people who are primitivist or anti-civ tend to think of it as more of a philosophy rather than a tactic. They think there is a lot to learn from the developments of mass society, extractive economies (colonialism, capitalism) and the progress of technology, but I don't see any call out to destroy humanity as we know it, nor do I see such binary opposition between anarchist communism and green "anarchy" when I actually talk to people who care about these things.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 9 2012 05:48

It would probably be better to have a clear understanding of what "industrialization" means. Does it mean people coming from various households to some common workplace and then cooperating to produce goods and services there?

The actual historical industrialization is not separable from capitalism because it was in fact a capitalist project. The factory system was created as a labor control strategy, to replace the putting out system. Workers working in their cottages or shops making things on contract to capitalist merchants, who controlled access to the market, had various disadvantages from a capitalist point of view. They couldn't ensure delivery of goods because workers could relax and not work as much if they were willing to reduce their income. Workers would steal bits of the material...such as cuttings of fabric or bits of wool...and then make their own products from this and sell them separately to supplement their income.

Under the capitalist workplace system, the practice of management of labor developed, and, again, this was motivated by desire to ensure maximum leverage over workers, to keep wages down, to resist union efforts, to force more work, faster pace, to control the conditions under which workers would labor, including the decisions about technical development. Thus the dangers to workers don't count so much to the decision-making process. Dangers and risks and injuries to workers are a form of cost-shifting, which is endemic to capitalism. It's a major source of profit extraction.

All of this suggests that an actual overall control over technical development, technological decisions, organization of work and workplaces, job definition and so on by workers themselves, would have a major impact on worker well-being and health. Recent studies in social epidemiology show that the working class doesn't live as long as the dominating classes. This is due to things like many years of exposure to stress and chemicals, and also pollution and dangers in their neighborhoods (living near huge freeways that spew exhaust fumes).

If "industrialism" is defined as people from various households coming together into a workplace where they cooperate to produce goods and services that people in society want, it's not clear why this feature by itself should entail any of the negative consequences of the actual industrialism of the capitalist system.

Moreover, in the course of developing productive potential of humanity, the capitalists have also facilitated the emergence of systems of knowledge and various kinds of technologies, which, if changed under a system of self-managed socialism, have a great potential for massive improvement in human well being, by taking that knowledge and productive potential and re-orienting it away from the capitalist game of surplus accrual and bureaucratic labor and social control systems.

To take an obvious example, I'm being kept alive by taking an ACE inhibitor. In all the earlier generations of my father's family I know about, all my relatives died from heart failure at a relatively young age. I think it's known there is a genetic aspect to the tendency to develop hypertension. I would suffer the same problems of hypertension and would probably not live very long if I stopped taking the ACE inhibitor. This is a relatively benign drug with typically few side effects. But it couldn't have been created without systematic study to learn about the mechanisms of blood pressure in humans, that is, to discover the stuff ACE produced by the body to stiffen blood vessels.

In regard to computers and cell phones, there are in fact real challenges here from a worker safety and environmental devastation point of view. All digital technology is based on integrated circuits as the core technology. Making of integrated circuits requires about 1000 chemicals...many of them very nastty. There are notorious brain cancer clusters among people working in that industry. In Silicon Valley there are 29 superfund sites where ICs were made in the '70s and '80s and earliier. Much of this production has been moved to east Asia in part due to increasing public pressure for environmental controls on the digital electronics industry. Electronics assembly also is an extremely nasty industry. Exposure to chemical solvents and solders are causes of cancers of various sorts, as well as notorious contamination of ground water.

Now, there are actually some known solutions to some of these problems. For example a simple citrus based solvent was developed to replace the nasty petrochemical solvents. But the industry preferred to move to other countries where it can still use the nasty stuff.

The example of citrus based solvents is an example of a relatively new field called green chemistry. This includes the manufacture of plastics from biomass rather than petroleum....plastic that actually is biodegradable. But this field exists only in a kind of academic or theoretical sense because capitalist firms have no motivation to really develop it. They can get away with the cost-shifting...onto workers and communities...of the nasty stuff they use.

I'll take one more example from the electronics industry, where I used to work. Solders are a nasty stuff workers in assembly are exposed to. They breath in the fumes and lead is a notorious carcinogen. In recent years there has been pressure to find a different type of solder. Sony for example went over to use of silver solder. But there's a problem: Silver is extremely toxic to mine and smelt. Also, if workers breath in silver solder fumes, that's also toxic. The only other known form of solder is copper solder, but copper is also toxic to mine and smelt. The largest superfund site in the USA is the former Anaconda copper smelter & mining site near Butte Montana.

But there is a solution as far as assembly workers are concerned. There has been developed a type of soldering iron that has tiny vacuum tubes built into the tip. This then sucks away the fumes to a containment vessel. But the problem is, Will capitalists use this? In fact, if workers don't force the issue, it's not likely as long as they can avoid the expense of this additional vacuum system. Now the solution itself is an "industrial" solution, that is, it is based on industrial technology. So here we have a problem of different directions for technical development in industry...and control by capitalism controls which direction is followed.

when i talk above about workers "forcing the issue" in regard to solder safety and things of this sort, here we can see that there actually is...and historically has been...a class struggle over the direction of technical decision making motivated by capitalist logic.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 9 2012 07:57

Anti-civ and primitivist seem to be used interchangeably here, and while I don't care for either, there's a subtle difference in that anti-civ folks think the collapse is inevitable and are either preparing for it or aiding in its development so we can start fresh. Primitivists don't care either way and simply find modern industrial society oppressive due to phobia of things like "language" and "time." Strictly anti-civ ideas at least offer us a few gems like "modern society is predicated on violence." Primitivist ideas are just, well, dumb.

I don't find either very troublesome. These folks make up a minority within the anarchist movement and don't really gain much traction outside of narrowly distributed anti-copyright zines and internet forums. Either way, anarchists that can't imagine an ecologically balanced industrial world have no imagination, whether or not this requires a "collapse" of the current society or not.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 9 2012 11:17
Birthday Pony wrote:
anarchists that can't imagine an ecologically balanced industrial world have no imagination

I find your argument quite disturbing because it obscure the matter even further. The argument against the primos that they tend to take their revolutionary(?) ideas from the apparent technological apparatus of the current industrial society, instead of looking at the relations within this society. However, the same should apply in the other way around. Anarchist of all kinds should be aware that the primitivist folks are raising quite valid concerns about the effects of industrial technology, and the lifestyle that was fabricated in relation to its technological advances. They rather go with similar lines to the those, who blaming the banking sector for all the evils of capitalism.

I do not advocate here anti-tech perspective at all, but there's a strong case against an industrial communism. Technology as we know it today has its foundation in organising the labour in the factories. Its needless to say, that factory work was one of the major breakthrough in the development of capitalism: distributing the workforce to highly separated positions, and each one of these positions needs minimal skills to acquire, thus all the workforce do not need life-long education process and become interchangeable. The factory is essentially a organisational unit that evolved from the market relations where the workforce is available for hire. Further more, market relations also improved the idea of factories, evolving it further through logistics and adjusting, changing the wage worker position in the process of production. One can argue that the factory became the basic model of the modern life, as all activity outside of work is subjected to other's work, thus leaving you standing on the "assembly line" of local councils, courts, food stores, hospitals or airports and so on.

But keeping in mind that the factory production also product of the market relations (as the early capitalism found these in place), one is reminded to the notion that why the historical materialist method to observe and act up on history addressed such a great importance to our material conditions of humans, and the economy in particular. If we break down the rule of the market, we not just simply change the method of management, but along with it, we abolish one of the main organising method that shapes how reproduce our lives as we know it today. That is, communism poses not only a strictly political question, nor is restricted to the idea how we organise ourselves, but also raises the question that how will our technological practices would look like, how will we reproduce our life. For me, the industrial process depends on the relations of capitalism, and would break down as soon as capitalism stops functioning therefore could not solve the technological question of communism above. Neither does the primitivist refusal of technology in general, and its blind faith in "natural spontaneity" in place of industrially controlled environment. Both end is very disturbing concept for me.

So, I have a poor imagination, as I can't picture my self participating in the same industrialized production process what I'm forced to do today but in spite of you, I think this kind of questioning would move anarchism/communism toward to some more meaningful content as it has today.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 9 2012 16:21

Uhh, that was a lot of criticism for one line. By industrial I only mean not anti-technological, or with industry. I'm not sure where it looks like I meant modern capitalist industry.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 9 2012 17:41

Perhaps its my bad for the misinterpretation. Nevertheless, this criticism isn't lost completely, as I encountered quite a few anarchist or communist who can not understand precisely the critique of the industrialism in general. Look how many forum topic starts with the question "How would ... would be produced".

To avoid misunderstanding in the future, I understand the word, industrial as mass production organised in factories (or something similar under the same principles - like outsourced branches).

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 9 2012 18:38

It's all good. I may be one of the people more likely to take some primitivist concerns seriously.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 10 2012 00:46

once again words are used without clearly explaining what is meant, such as "mass production." so, if it is more efficient to have people making shoes working in a single workplace rather than scattered in their own workshops, then you have people coming together from a variety of households to make a variety of shoes that are needed by the populace. so is this "mass production"? and if so, what's wrong with it?

by "efficient" i mean takes up less of our total time and uses less other resources, such as building materials that would be needed to build many shoe workshops.

a technology is just a set of techniques for changing reality in some way. the techniques that are adopted reflect the way power is organized. the way political-economic power is organized in capitalism shapes the technology that is developed, tho it is not the only thing that affects this. what is physically possible is also a constraint.

the forms of working class resistance have a lot to do with what techniques are adopted because they need to fit in with capitalist organizational practices. soc above assumes that the particular form of specialization and job division developed by capitalism was technologically mandated. this is incorrect. it isn't a technology at all. it's a method of social control. there wasn't really any particular technical innovation in assembly lines. conveyors had been used before. it was a change in human organization, motivated by the aim of reducing labor costs and enhancing control over workers, such as use of machines to pace their work and thus force people to work harder. so the use of conveyors is the technology but the splitting up of work into routine repetitive bits was a form of organization motivated for managerial capitalist reasons.

whether assembly lines were adopted wasn't a purely technical question. it wasn't a question of efficiency in a neutral sense. it was a political decision, motivated by a human control agenda, a labor exploitation agenda. once a certain type of social organization of work is adopted then some technologies will be adopted rather than others because of how well they fit the power or control schemes. an example is the origin of computer numerical control machine tools, as described by David Noble. there were actually two competing technologies in the post-World War 2 era: numerical control and playback. Playback was GE's system and used a skilled machinist to make a tape that could then be used to run machines. Numerical control however required breaking down the machine instructions through a coding language, to take the control over machines away from machinists and give it to a new layer of programmers or engineers. Each could do the same task. NC was favored because it promised to eliminate the dependence on skilled machinists, and allowed for complete deskilling of machine operators. So one technology was favored over another because of how it fit in with a capitalist managerial agenda.

there is no such thing as "technology" in the abstract completely driving the shaping and character of industry as operated by capitalist corporations. to some extent technical decisions are determined by objective considerations that do not depend on the class system, but many decisions are shaped by the logic of capitalism.

nathorange
Offline
Joined: 6-01-12
Jan 11 2012 12:08

Jordan, you said:

Quote:
people living in Africa/Australia are - if we look purely at environmental factors - living much less on the edge of human survivability than we are in the north.

From this statement I assume you live in North America and have never visited either central Australia or Southern Africa. Drought and water availability are very real environmental factors that predominate in these arid landscapes. To say that native people in these locations somehow have it easier than tribes in the Northern Hemisphere is to misjudge the challenges they face. And yet they seem to be able to make a living quite well. The issue, I think, is not where these people make their living but how. The simple answer is that they are not interested in production for surplus. They take only what they require. I think this is the take home message.

Also, I think it is unwise to assume that all Primitivists endorse a nomadic hunter-gatherer way of life as the only means of food production in an anarcho-primitivist future. To begin with, not all pre-agriculturist societies were pure hunter-gatherers. Many tribes were semi-nomadic or sedentary, engaged in small-scale gardening as well as hunting. Modes of food acquisition for non-agricultural people have always existed within a continuum, and so it is a mistake to tar all "non-civilised" peoples with the same "hunter-gatherer" brush. This misunderstanding too often dominates discussion from both Primitivists and Anti-Primitivists alike. I just wanted to put that out there.

So if gardening (especially permaculture) is understood as a whole-heartedly Primitivist food-production strategy in conjunction with hunting and gathering, where lies the impracticality of the Primitivist philosophy?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 11 2012 08:52

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Jan 11 2012 11:08
Birthday Pony wrote:
Anti-civ and primitivist seem to be used interchangeably here, and while I don't care for either, there's a subtle difference in that anti-civ folks think the collapse is inevitable and are either preparing for it or aiding in its development so we can start fresh.

I would actually think that all anarchists, bar the AnCaps, are anti-civ in that they try to abolish what this shameless wikipedia plug describes (I know it's bad form to quote wikipedia but hey...)

Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state[11]. State societies are more stratified[12] than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:

- Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian[13].
- Horticultural/pastoral societies in which there are generally two inherited social classes; chief and commoner.
- Highly stratified structures, or chiefdoms, with several inherited social classes: king, noble, freemen, serf and slave.
- Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.[14]

Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies.

Maybe anti-civ is the wrong word, in our case "post-civ" would be more like it.

nathorange
Offline
Joined: 6-01-12
Jan 11 2012 13:49

Oh the irony...

nathorange
Offline
Joined: 6-01-12
Jan 11 2012 13:51

Oh the irony...(RE: Rob Ray's posted image above)

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 12 2012 06:37
Railyon wrote:
Birthday Pony wrote:
Anti-civ and primitivist seem to be used interchangeably here, and while I don't care for either, there's a subtle difference in that anti-civ folks think the collapse is inevitable and are either preparing for it or aiding in its development so we can start fresh.

I would actually think that all anarchists, bar the AnCaps, are anti-civ in that they try to abolish what this shameless wikipedia plug describes (I know it's bad form to quote wikipedia but hey...)

Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state[11]. State societies are more stratified[12] than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:

- Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian[13].
- Horticultural/pastoral societies in which there are generally two inherited social classes; chief and commoner.
- Highly stratified structures, or chiefdoms, with several inherited social classes: king, noble, freemen, serf and slave.
- Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.[14]

Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies.

Maybe anti-civ is the wrong word, in our case "post-civ" would be more like it.

They're both, primitivist and anti-civ, referring to an ecological collapse, disaster, society, whatever more than anything. But for the very reason you point out, I find anti-civ (if we're being strict about drawing lines) to be more compatible with anarchism.