In the real world
Oct 20 2009 22:24
#62
Oct 20 2009 23:03
#63
Well as far as primitivism is concerned, if that's what they believe then I can't get down with that. That isn't really anarchistic thought at all, more like fascism. To advocate the death of most of the world's population really doesn't jive with the idea of anarchism, sounds pretty elitist. I had always thought that primitivism referred more to back to basics, anti-technology kind of ideology, but if that's what it's about that's just not cool. I have a hard time in believing that all of those who call themselves primitivists feel that way though. Now as to your statement that you don't think you have all the answers, I like that. Neither do I. I just don't like the thought of one specific group of anarchists posing as superior to all others. Each person is different, therein lies the beauty of anarchy.
Add:
I do not object to the ideas expressed in primitivism, although I do not feel the same with them, unless they seek to dismantle actively other groups who aren't acting against them. If people want to live primitivist lifestyles, more power to them, so long as they don't try and force me to do the same.
Oct 21 2009 00:10
#64
tina wrote:
Yes!
Crap. I don't even wanna get into all the various logical fallacies in this all too typical craptacular piece from Infoshop, but here's some comments.
Quote:
Lifestyle anarchism is a phrase used sometimes by anarchists to criticize apolitical hangers-on in the movment. That is, people who dress the look or live in certain ways, but who don't really act on the basic tenets of anarchism.
No, it is primarily used to describe anarchists that think small personal choices and/or living "outside the system" is a viable strategy for the abolition of state and capital.
Quote:
By their definition, over 90% of anarchists are not anarchists!
I must have missed the anarcho-census that establishes the numbers of people who consider themselves anarchists or class struggle anarchists. This percentage is pulled out of thin air and sounds like it comes from the pages of a fanzine.
Quote:
You can see why this is a silly use of the phrase and why it causes needless divisions between anarchists.
These divisions have existed before lifestyle anarchism was coined and will exist after the term's popularity dies down.
Quote:
Conflation of Primitivism with Post-Left Anarchism
While not all post-leftists are primitivists (the rest are vague insurrectionarys), I have never met a primitivist that wasn't a post-leftist.
Quote:
The probem with this essay is that Freeman was an authoritarian leftist who wrote the essay to attack the anarchistic consciousness-raising groups being organized by feminist women at that time. Freeman was in favor of building mass parties in the Leninist mode and was alarmed at the anarchist ideas taking hold among radical women.
So because someone is a Marxist, they have nothing worth saying? That's ridiculous. In that case, better remove all the analysis of class, gender, race, patriarchy, sexuality, that anarchists have because much of it originates from authoritarian leftists.
Whether Freeman personally advocated Lenininst modes of organization or not is irrelevant, unless it is actually advocated in the essay being considered.
It's a mistake that because an authoritarian leftist criticizes supposed anarchists decision to be anti-formal organization, that automatically we need to side with the latter out of a sense of ideological unity that doesn't exist.
Quote:
It is far better to actually talk about group process problems than to wave a decontextulaized essay over people's heads.
The reason it is waved over people's heads is because it recognizes the problem and why it is a problem. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel through isolated discussion when your viewpoint is more or less expressed and easily available through text/internet.
Quote:
One of the more disturbing examples of nonsense in the anarchist movement is a recent effort by some anarchists to demonize consensus decision-making,
It's just as recent as some anarchists pushing this form of decision making as the only model (around 30 years old).
Quote:
which is an inherently anarchist process used by thousands and thousands of groups around the world.
There is nothing inherently anarchist about any form of decision making, I would argue, but definitely not consensus, which didn't even come out of anarchism and whose status as a primary form is younger than some of the posters on this forum.
Quote:
Real democracy is a messy process, often requiring meetings that drag on for hours.
LMAO. You wanna talk about dragging on for hours....consensus takes much more time up. To say otherwise is to reveal one's inexperience in one or both forms of decision making.
Quote:
Consensus is a form of participatory democracy which empowers individuals to be involved in the decision-making process of groups.
Yeah, because people are not involved in directly democratic decision making such as majoritarian or supermajoritarian voting. Nonsense.
Quote:
The anarchist critics of consensus advocate forms of process that are basically authoritarian and anti-democratic (such as majority vote) and turn around and call consensus undemocratic!
Why is it authoritarian? Because the minority has to bend to the will of the majority? How is switching this around MORE democratic?
Also, voting as a decision making process by definition cannot be "anti-democratic". Jesus, talk about shitty usage of rhetoric...
Quote:
These critics often repeat verbatim anti-consensus rhetoric that liberals and leftists often spout to keep coalition groups from using consensus.
Ad hominem.
Oct 21 2009 02:21
#65
To follow up on primitivism this covers things pretty nicely.
http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism
Quote:
The earth population today is around 6,000 million. A return to a 'primitive' earth therefore requires that some 5900 million people disappear. Something has to happen to 98% of the world's population in order for the 100 million survivors to have even the slightest hope of a sustainable primitive utopia.
looks like my numbers were a bit generous.
Oct 21 2009 05:42
#66
jweidner wrote:
To follow up on primitivism this covers things pretty nicely.http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism
Quote:
The earth population today is around 6,000 million. A return to a 'primitive' earth therefore requires that some 5900 million people disappear. Something has to happen to 98% of the world's population in order for the 100 million survivors to have even the slightest hope of a sustainable primitive utopia.looks like my numbers were a bit generous.
Wow, I stand aghast at the idiocy of such a thing. I still doubt that even half the people who advocate the idea of "running wild with the deer" understand what it would require. This is kind of way off of my original topic though, these people just plainly have no idea what the hell they are talking about. It's vastly unlikely that a sect of people dedicated to the idea of population reduction by 98% would ever succeed in their goal. The number of people who actually desire such a setting would have to be extremely small. Now maybe a few groups (about the maximum who would be genuinely interested) could pull it off for isolated villages but I can't imagine much more than that happening. Still, if they weren't actively trying to destroy the rest of humanity I could live and let live. If by some very off chance the population of earth was reduced to 2% then it is most likely that the people who think this is a good idea would have been part of the 98% who died off.
PS by "pull it off" I meant living primitively, not wiping anyone out. Just to be clear.
Oct 21 2009 05:29
#67
Iplawhead, don't get sucked into some ridiculous discussion on how primmo's are genocidal maniacs hell bent on cheerleading for AIDs and famine. This is a communist site for fuck sake, not Noam Chomsky's fan forum. If you're going to critically analyze an ideological tendency, try not to descend into inane ravings on how evil the other guy is. And Jweidner, stop spurring on the newbs to take up the banner of a decades old blood feud between red anarchists and primmos. It's off topic in the worst way.
Quote:
Many people on here believe the only way to reach anarchy is to have
a revolution organized by workers.
The prominence of workers in communist analysis is exactly because the power of capitalism lies in the workplace -- in the points of production where the material and subjective conditions of this society are constructed and disseminated. If workers in a vital sector of production go on strike, for instance, the economy is going to feel it. The general goal of communist activity is to push for workers to adopt a materialistically selfish stance (self-interest is pretty much a virtue when one is subjugated to capitalism; capital has a total disregard for human needs) and, basically, catalyze economic collapse. The 'contradiction' that commies ramble on about all the time is the contradiction between the needs of those subjugated to the working class condition (exploited labor and whatnot) and their relatively vital place in capitalist production. Capital places it's most miserable subjects in the most important area of it's power, and then leaves them to fuck off and struggle for subsistence. Conflict is inevitable and it is highly dangerous to economic stability. Marx wasn't joking when he said the critique of capital is immanent to capital itself (or some shit like that -- haven't really read much of the bastard myself).
A very simplistic way of putting it, yes; but that's really what it all boils down to. The working class has it's finger on the trigger and all it needs to do is pull it a couple of times. Of course, getting that finger to twitch is what communists and other pro-revolutionaries have been trying to do for the past 250 years and we've completely failed at it so far (past insurrections don't amount to shit, in my opinion; Spain 1936 or Germany 1918 ain't making me any freer). 
And for the record, you cannot exist outside given power relations -- barring you don't totally isolate yourself from other people; but perhaps power reaches beyond just human relations. You will not be 'outside' of capitalism until capitalistic relations and institutions lose their hegemonic position in human society, and even then we'll just adopt, more or less, fragmented and disordered power relations of a less insidious and reified nature (hopefully...). The point being that, in my opinion, anarchists should not waste their breath on offering materialistic or idealistic solutions to the general human population. Any 'counter-institution' you construct will simply bare the mark of modern power relations, and it will be produced by (this is to say, subjected to), and reproduce, capitalism. I can guarantee it. Altruism does not negate capital -- it just polishes it. If 'revolution' is defined as something that negates dependencies on contemporary institutions and the dominance of given relations, then what exactly is revolutionary about passing out vegan food to homeless people? What's revolutionary about providing free services to anyone at all? How is a community center revolutionary? Etc, etc.
BigLittleJ pretty much laid out why those things aren't revolutionary. Ideological conviction does not override human relations; it could be said that ideology is the plaything of human relations. So, ideology does not override capital. This is why no matter how stubbornly you argue for the radical potential of worker coops, it doesn't change the fact that worker coops still produce surplus labor, they're still waged, they're subject to the whims of the economy, etc.
So on and so forth...
Oct 21 2009 06:01
#68
Bisc wrote:
Iplawhead, don't get sucked into some ridiculous discussion on how primmo's are genocidal maniacs hell bent on cheerleading for AIDs and famine. This is a communist site for fuck sake, not Noam Chomsky's fan forum. If you're going to critically analyze an ideological tendency, try not to descend into inane ravings on how evil the other guy is. And Jweidner, stop spurring on the newbs to take up the banner of a decades old blood feud between red anarchists and primmos. It's off topic in the worst way.
Thanks for the advice but like I said before, I have a hard time believing that even half the people who call themselves primitivists feel this way and of those who do wish we could ALL go back to primitive living, less than half actually would know what the hell that would entail. If there IS such a group, which was the basis of my last post, they must be a very tiny sect of humans. I wouldn't say that my post descended "into inane ravings on how evil the other guy is". As I said, if people want to live primitively, that's their business so long as they don't try and fuck with anyone else. I'm far from taking "up the banner of a decades old blood feud between red anarchists and primmos". What I was "critically analyzing" was the idea of the described sect in question, not an ideological tendency. Also, just because I'm new on this site doesn't make me a newb, unless you were referring to my time spent on this forum alone or to the feud between red anarchists and "primmos".
Oct 21 2009 06:44
#69
tina wrote:
OK Weeler so what do you suggest for normal everyday life?Lets have some constructive suggestions!
edit: jweidner beat me to it. Groups like SeaSol, LCAP, etc. are relatively easy to set up and a directly relevant way that people can use their collective power to impose their will on bosses and landlords. - anarchism in action.
Oct 21 2009 06:34
#70
Trust me, they're no tinier than the sect on this forum; or any of the sects in the radical milieu. Just don't turn into a shrieking, moralistic type who spends all their free time exclaiming the virtues of your ideology and the evilness, impracticality, and stupidity of the other tendency. I'm not a big tent type, but I'm also not an evangelist either. Repudiating the murderous, vile nature (lmao) of primitivism will not make your ideas more appealing to people outside the milieu. I'd say the leftists are more of a threat to the human species than the primmos. You can find decent analysis and critiques among those who analyze civilization in an antagonistic way (unless you're stuck in the 1980's and your still wanking off to See Sharp Press's catalogs of Xtreme atheism!!11!!). The left-wing just wants you to go to the nearest movie theater and spend $20 on their totally awesome anti-capitalist documentaries -- and vote yes for progress, while you're at it!! Or maybe they want you to grab a gun and fight for some nationalist nutjobs. Or maybe they want you to stop striking and get back to work. Etc, etc.
Critique takes more effort than moral conjecture. Primitivists are not a threat. They're just like any utopianist tendency. There's no more of a chance for the utopias of communists than there is for primmos. Neither of them are realizable. Primmos will not sneak up and genocide you in teh pooper. Most pro-revolutionaries are incredibly tame. Like, turtle neck sweater, sitting by the fireplace, eating homemade apple pie tame. Or, 'dude, I'm so fucked up on this OC and I think I might die', tame. Etc, etc.
Oct 22 2009 21:45
#71
Oh hai Bisc!! Long time no see. I really have no idea what you're on about as your above posts, while well written and full of decent enough ideas (minus the little anti-organizational slogan) make no fucking sense. What was your point? You've gone away a couple of times and come back as a couple of different things so what is it now? A primmo apologist? I really don't think so, but if not what are you trying to accomplish in your post except to score a few points off the new guy?
There is a difference you know between off-topic and thread drift and if you bothered to read the thread in its entirety you'd understand how we got to that point. There was no moralizing involved on my end only drawing the anti-civ stuff to the logical conclusion if applied. Not even the primmo boss has a clue how to reconcile his theory with reality:
Zerzan wrote:
It’s a huge challenge. You've got these great grandiose ideas, but the rubber has to hit the road somewhere, and we know that. I don’t know how that's going to work.
Of course anti-civs aren't a threat. It's just a fucking terrible idea. Period.
As for your use of the term "leftist," last time you were here (which admittedly was a few months ago and it seems that is a lifetime in the world of Bisc's political development) you seemed to have an appreciation for Dauve so can we use him as a common denominator as I'm a big fan too? Dauve, iirc has used leftist to refer to the left wing of capital and those who wish to manage others' struggles. In what way have you seen anyone here advocate for either. We are for the abolition of work as a separate activity, internationalism, for the working class's self-emancipation, and direct democracy which doesn't exactly sound like the program of those looking to install themselves as a new ruling class.
Oct 21 2009 08:56
#72
I think the whole problem is anarchists like the us crimethink lot.
Oct 21 2009 12:32
#73
allybaba wrote:
I think the whole problem is anarchists like the us crimethink lot.
i think that they are basically irrelevant and the problem is that most people have no direct experience of workplace organisation effectively delivering improved wages or conditions.
Oct 21 2009 12:45
#74
fake fake records records
Oct 21 2009 12:49
#75
fatbongo wrote:
allybaba wrote:
I think the whole problem is anarchists like the us crimethink lot.i think that they are basically irrelevant and the problem is that most people have no direct experience of workplace organisation effectively delivering improved wages or conditions.
I agree with this. I think that most people, especially younger anarchists have not been involved in as many industrial disputes as say in the 70s or 80s. This has in turn along with individualism diminished class consciousness in the United Kingdom anyway. I do think crimethink and people like them are also a problem as, they don't seem to understand that class struggle is more important than jumping in bins. I also think its alot easier for rich middle class people to 'drop out' of capitalism than for the majority.
Oct 21 2009 14:04
#76
I've been critical of Crimethinc in the past for one reason alone. I saw it as more a call to run off and hide from the problems that effect us all as opposed to standing up in opposition to the authority that perpetuates those problems. Even I have to admit, though, that there are some people within the Crimethinc camp (for lack of a better word) who do more than just drop out and dumpster dive, who realize that for real social change to take place they have to do more than just drop off the grid and so I think it's a bad idea to make blanket statements about groups like them, not to say that Crimethinc is a membership based organization, but you catch my drift. The following article found in the Crimethinc archives pretty well sums up the difference between the ideas put forth by Crimethinc and the sub-culture that is generally associated with Crimethinc. http://crimethinc.com/texts/pastfeatures/purged.php
This paragraph in particular opened my eyes, to an extent, about the the real (espoused) purpose of crimethought:
"Crimethought is not any ideology or value system or lifestyle, but rather a way of challenging all ideologies and value systems and lifestyles—and, for the advanced agent, a way of making all ideologies, value systems, and lifestyles challenging. It is not crimethought just to survive without a job by dumpstering, squatting, and hitchhiking; it is crimethought to realize that this lifestyle provides resources that can be used to revolutionize demonstration activism, or underground literature. It is not crimethought simply to distribute propaganda attacking the monotony and limited options of traditional employment; it is crimethought to create situations in which both workers and ex-workers benefit from each others’ different experiences, and consequently discover new options and new adventures that were previously obscured."
Any thoughts?
Oct 21 2009 17:01
#77
Quote:
Dauve, iirc has used leftist to refer to the left wing of capital and those who wish to manage others' struggles. In what way have you seen anyone here advocate for either. We are for the abolition of work as a separate activity, internationalism, for the working class's self-emancipation, and direct democracy which doesn't exactly sound like the program of those looking to install themselves as a new ruling class.
Huh? I never even implied Libcom was a leftist site. What the fuck are you bitching about? It's obvious that this shit hole (out of the collective shit hole, anarchist forums on teh internetz) is where the cool, ultra-lefties go to hang out and whine about primmos and talk about cool, ultra-left communist stuff. You need to take a breath, man. This isn't 1985. You're not Chaz Bufe. So let's try not to go into a RAGE any time someone says 'primitivist' or 'leftist'! 'Kay?
...and Crimethinc = progressive politics cloaked in half baked Situationist rhetoric. They're not even worth critiquing. It's only worth critiquing something or someone when you know you're going to get something out of it intellectually. But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a 'primitivist apologist'.
Oct 21 2009 17:16
#78
well bisc i guess that was the point of my post. you spent like 10 paragraphs and i was none the wiser when i finished what the hell you were trying to get at. why bring up leftists if it wasn't directed as a slur? talk about off-topic.
rage? i didn't even bring up TEH GUNSHOW!!!!1111
Oct 21 2009 18:27
#79
Quote:
It's obvious that this shit hole (out of the collective shit hole, anarchist forums on teh internetz) is where the cool, ultra-lefties go to hang out and whine about primmos and talk about cool, ultra-left communist stuff.
You've got to admit, he's got us there.
~J.
Oct 21 2009 18:33
#80
Indeed. Not to say this site being a shithole is anything special. Mostly everything to do with the radical milieu is shitty and hole-y. Sometimes I feel thankful that I don't actually, personally know any radicals. The horror stories are abundant.
You have a very nice library. 
Oct 21 2009 23:23
#81
bisc why are you acting like a butthurt spaz? no one here is consumed with hatred for primmos, nor have said primmos been a subject of discussion for a while now. Fair enough about "radical milieus" but it seems to me you spend a lot of time reading up on the very "cool ultra-left communism" you deride above.
Oct 22 2009 01:11
#82
I wasn't deriding anything. I was poking fun at Libcom, not at ultra-left communist theory. And yeah, I do enjoy ultra-left literature. It's better than listening to some activist yarn about social change, 'real alternatives', and the evil bankers. It's nice to take a breather from the populism of the anarchist milieu.
As for primmos; I would say it's difficult for many people outside of the very small, tight knit Libcom clique to step into this place and get cozy with the atmosphere and popular ideas of it's users. Whether you're aware of it or not, some circles outside of Libcom think this site is filled with bloodthirsty anti-primmos. Just as @news is regarded as the 4chan of anarchist websites, Libcom is regarded as the snarky, British anarchist website that is generally hostile to anyone who doesn't fit the bill of an ultra-left communist. You're either cool, a loser lifestylist, or a crazy, obscure individualist who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Can't say I necessarily agree with that, but this site is definitely a niche site, like Anti-Politics or the recently revived Red and Anarchist Action Network forum. So not everyone's going to be happy with it. 
It's impossible to please everyone even with general sites.
I came onto this thread and saw another comment about how primmos want to kill everyone, and it pissed me off, yeah. It's like when I hear some douchebag painting communists, and communist theory, as totally irreconcilable with anarchism. As if there's some huge chasm between the two tendencies. These arguments are fallacies. And worst yet, they're fallacies that have been proven to be so time and time again, but there's always some jerk with too much time on their hands making shit arguments and spurring on age old ideological skirmishes (although, can't say I can portray myself as not guilty of doing so). It's inane and it's annoying. So I spoke up. I'll leave it at that and won't say anything more.
.../end of rant
Oct 22 2009 02:08
#83
Bisc wrote:
I came onto this thread and saw another comment about how primmos want to kill everyone, and it pissed me off, yeah.
As far as I can tell no one's said that the primmos will as a group intentionally kill off 98% of the earth's population. What's been argued is that the logical outcome of primmo thought (hunter gatherer society) is that most people would have to die off. As far as I know only a tiny tiny minority of primmos actually advocate stuff like releasing sarin gas in the Tokyo subways.
Oct 22 2009 02:29
#84
jweidner wrote:
i'm off to the vet so i haven't much time, but for starters i'm guessing you don't know that primitivists basically think 85% of the world's population should just fuck off and die.
Oct 22 2009 21:46
#85
Quote:
There was no moralizing involved on my end only drawing the anti-civ stuff to the logical conclusion if applied. Not even the primmo boss has a clue how to reconcile his theory with reality:Zerzan wrote:
It’s a huge challenge. You've got these great grandiose ideas, but the rubber has to hit the road somewhere, and we know that. I don’t know how that's going to work.
Of course anti-civs aren't a threat. It's just a fucking terrible idea. Period.
Oct 22 2009 03:28
#86
"thinking that people should fuck off and die" is different from releasing sarin gas in subways.
Oct 22 2009 03:52
#87
weeler wrote:
fake fake records records
these just people with ideas...
Oct 22 2009 18:32
#88
OK so in the Real World!
Is it worth our creating a framework for after the revolution or not until after it?
In the real world, we have children to feed, need somewhere to live, need to learn & have something useful to contribute, and a way of socializing.
Apart from the strong arguments for & against groups,. I'd like to see some suggestions for those, OK if you want for after the revolution.
Workers coops go without saying, its classic stuff. How would we transfer food to & from other countries? Would these other 'countries' also have to be anarchist? I ask this for a time when one 'country' might have reached an anarchistic system. I remember when butter was handed out after a glut in the '80s, that kind of food distribution could work really well.
I really do think we all pretty well agree on the ends.
Is it worth today saying to people in situations where we need to feed, house & clothe ourselves, how it can be done better? Some people see the point of what I am saying & others don't.
Who is looking after you today (if someone else is)? Have you asked them what they think?
Oct 22 2009 18:57
#89
tina wrote:
Workers coops go without saying, its classic stuff.
no, they really don't.
to be honest i literally have no idea what you're actually asking...
tina wrote:
Apart from the strong arguments for & against groups,. I'd like to see some suggestions for those, OK if you want for after the revolution.
you seem to be assuming the posters here are "a bit utopian" whilst advocating pie-in-the-sky things like charity minibusses and free public transport. the real world is one where it makes absolutely no difference what 'anarchist solutions' you dream up because we have no power to implement them. what is important is increasing the power we have over our own lives, i.e. class struggle, not fantasising about how great free busses would be.
i mean a list of stuff my organisation (Solidarity Federation) has been involved in in the last 12 months: supporting strikes across the country, workplace organising, practical support for factory and school occupations, confronting fascists and preventing them from openly organising, supporting migrant workers' self-organisation, picketing in support of victimised workers and comrades, organising public meetings and so on. all these things are practical, everyday expressions of anarchism, and unlike free busses or anarchist ambulances, actually exist in the real world.
Oct 22 2009 19:08
#90
tina wrote:
Yes!
ah, this explains a lot. infoshop is 'big tent' anarchism, for clowns. it's par for the course there to describe critical thought as 'sectarianism' and try and unite all self-described anarchists in a nice big ghetto where nobody can question their ideas. it's not sectarian to point out my politics share nothing in common with primitivists, the ELF, ALF, national liberation cheerleaders, individualists, insurrectionists, mutualists, NAMBLA-ites and so on. but Dead End has already addressed that nonsense masquerading as a debunking of nonsence.
except where i explicitly stated that we don't think we have all the answers. i'm off to the vet so i haven't much time, but for starters i'm guessing you don't know that primitivists basically think 85% of the world's population should just fuck off and die. that is NOT the type of society i want to live in and i definitely don't consider them "comrades." more later.