The music of this is 'Smokescreen', on 'The Mighty Quark', by Mark O'Sullivan. Amazon doesn't seem to sell it! Youtube has it - this doesn't seem to like urls though.
I think the acellerated growth and cotinued expansion is something related to evolution itself. There are people who think that we will be surpassed and will continue to merge ourself with technology and machines, but it will not be very nice if we take this path with a individualistic/egocentrist culture and economic paradigm we have now. So I invite people to see exaclty the opposite opinions of John Zerzan with the movies Zeitgeist Addendum and Zeitgeist Moving Forward found here on youtube.
@ jortylbro what do you propose in place of capitalism which means people opening their own companies such as you neighborhood bakery and local coffee shop and even your local pot shop.
This video is private property and subject to whatever lame ass copyright law that seems to infest this site like a fire breathing dragon. I'm going to break my computer over my own head.
The things that annoy me about primitivists is it seems like these guys wax philosophical and tell us to go out and risk our asses legally and morally by committing crimes but dont do shit themselves. And the other thing is technology may be oppressive and all but the internet has done more to spread and legitimize anarchist ideas, communes, co-ops etc. than anything ever has.
@timothyxmcveigh There was a time when anarchists, primitivists simply didn't exist 'cause it was no need for it. The dominant culture has brought so much havoc and so many "solutions" since there will always be people that don't wanna live this way. And why force them? I can bet that this civ. wouldn't be under "constant threat" if the people living in it had respect for those on the outside and those that simpy don't wanna live this way (the natural world incl.)
I am personally repulsed by the idea of primitivism, it's an idea that puts the environment before human welfare, however I think John Zerzan is very respectable as an intellectual and a good contributor to anarchist theory in general.
@EnergizerBunny804 ok, let me ask you one simple question: How will you be able to live or those that comes after you if the enviroment gets turned into dust? How are you going to live on a dead planet?
or does that not matter? "I will be dead, so I don't give a shit" is that it?
and what is human welfare? if I ask a tolowa Indian I'm pretty sure he/she won't have the same view on what is human welfare that you have.
I really dislike Zerzan. All his ideas will do is get idealists shot. You want to change the world? Get into politics, start a business, organize a team of lobbyists. Burning some random guy's car will not change public policy, nor will it make me stop buying clothing, food, vehicles, housing and computers. All it will do is make that guy angry, and probably call the police.
@PlankKydo so what you mean is that you don't like when people attacks your way of life? but its ok that your way of life inflicts damage on those that lives outisde it? the natural world with all its life for example, other humans that don't share your worldview about living in a dead, cold place.
primitivism - what proofs are there that there were no wars and no strife for 2 million years? ... since neighbouring bands of chimps will and do fight ( territorial) it is likely that neighbouring bands or expanding populations of early humans would have fought in some respects - there would have been tensions, and these may well have been solved by violent struggle between individuals. We consider pacifism higher ideal( do we?) or is it just part of continuum within what it is to be human
@Breizh07 so when chimps get into a brawl now and then.. thats war? what the hell do you call when people get into a fight at the bar? is that a war too? I do belive that pacifism is in us. We as a species are not in reality violent on the scale that is today in the civilized world. We learn to be this way, we learn to become arrogant, narcissists that care more for a dead item than actual living beings.
If you are a true anarchist, you need to go live in the woods. Look at Mr. Zerzan. He's talking about advocating vandalism as a form of political expression while he's in his house with his bullshit music video presentation. How can you stop the human condition toward progress? You can't. But you know what? I bet that if I were to engage in "property damage" around Mr. Zerzan's home would have a different opinion about his beliefs.
@TheKSE1 Agreed. Also, he somewhat propagates war mentality, which is again a conditioning of and conformist to our sick culture. But it's impractical to expect a complete alternative, as of. He probably feels his message must be manifested by utilizing technology, for now. Which, of course, is conforming to the social construct and abiding by the dominating system, rather than abolishing it. Perhaps he hopes to influence many who will help to see his efforts through, in the coming generations.
@TheKSE1 we are losing faith in your idea of progress. what will you or anyone else do about it if we don't go to work? probably violence and incarceration. there is a huge difference between personal property and "private" corporate property.
@TheKSE1 You can fuck off and die for all I care. I've been working my ass off as a baker for 20 goddamn years and all that ever happens is that we get wage-freezes and vacation pay taken away. Corporate money is no different than feudalism and if you work your way to the top of the scheme you're basically a parasite on someone else's labor. Retirement is a fraud and and empty promise.
@TheKSE1 strange that you would consider my simple choice to make food for people a "shitty choice". i expected a decent, modest living. i wasn't volunteering to be exploited and robbed of vacation pay already earned by industry standards. i wasn't volunteering to earn less money as years go by. but it really is par for the course with "civilized" trading practices going back throughout all of American history. Sitting Bull was right.
why waste time on this?if only all minds focused on one thing, to advance technology and medicin will be just fine, but wasteing time on this is just plane stupid
before civilization, agriculture, etc. there was a much smaller population. today, the population is so vast and way to vast to be able to transform back into a primitive state. but if it werent for civilization the population wouldn't be anything near to what it is today.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah imagine if we all went back to hunting, or even a small part of us. Animal populations are already dwindling, we'd drive them into extinction. Unless we set ourselves up with genetically modified plants that can provide better sustenance and then get rid of the tech.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Two million years of peace... that's inspiring. But many would agree that peace is boring. That's why people enjoy watching sports, or playing world of warcraft. Witnessing two opossite forces moving against each other can be more exciting and entertaning than simply observing one and only force sitting at rest...
And so the Romans would have agreed; their structures have remained testament to that, as have their famed gladiatorial battles. But to the point, just because we are not at war with one another (or the natural world, for that matter) does not mean we will be bored. You know very well that you have faound countless means of entertainment without bringing any sort of harm to another.
well, not real harm, like killing each other on cod4, or counter strike, there is no harm. It's a violent game, but actual violence is not present. It's a symbolic game. Nobody is put in danger, no real harm. I understand people in the middle east. While people on Europe and North America are killing each other over PS3. Those people in the middle east are doing it in real life. They have no PS3, no XboX360. Islam forbids sex out side of marriage, alcohol and drugs r not allowed... I understand
We are not (to my knowledge) usually killing over gaming consoles. Americans, among a multitude of other countries, are materialistic to a severely disappointing degree, but most people will not kill a fellow man over hardware. About the things Islam forbids: Drugs are unjustly banned in our culture too, but we still use them. Premarital sex and alcohol, while not forbidden, are looked down upon with such disproval that many do avoid them (again though, we still fuck and drink).
u misunderstood me. I didn't mean that people are kill each other over hardware. I mean they are killing each other inside a video game. You can imagine the thrill *sarcasm* That's why I understand people who shoot each other in real life. There is definitely more realism involved ;)
Sure there's a difference between gunning somebody down in person and offing them on a televison, but there's also a difference between stabbing one person and pushing a button in a plane to kill a thousand. The video-game makes killing somebody just as easy as pulling a trigger, and that desensitizes one, just as much as refering to a human as an "enemy" or some racial slurr will.
". The video-game makes killing somebody just as easy as pulling a trigger, and that desensitizes one, just as much as refering to a human as an "enemy" or some racial slurr will."
What's funny is, all studies show that you are a retard who spews lies and bullshit.
so called "primitive cultures" have many sports, instruments, traditions and games to keep themselves occupied. You can observe an extremely large amount of forces in nature not just one at rest. for example you need to hunt for food in a non modernized life style which is far from being at rest for you and the animal. =)
I agree that primitivist lifestyle is the most fullfulling and peaceful in history. I also like the freegan idea of living off of scoieties waste. We all have different ideas. Anarchism is great for the reaason that we all disagree with eachother.
He didn't suggest that there weren't wars during hunter gatherer times, he was saying how there wasn't mass genocide or slaughter based on the unnecessary notion of state, money, religion, etc. The wars were based on things like territory, aka food, water, etc. Humans no longer control the technologies we use, but rather the opposite.
retarded false dichotomy, he isnt a leftist at all he's an anarcho-primitivist.
war is defined as conflicts between nations or states or parties; wars like world war 1 or better yet the v war would have been impossible thousands of years ago
If you read anything that zerzan has published you would know that when he uses the term "primitive" he's referring explicitly to *band* societies, a.k.a hunter-gatherers/foragers.
likening a brief skirmish between a small number (10-30) of hunter-gatherers to organized war is patently ridiculous.
You're right. I misused the word "nihilism". What I mean to say is that this stuff is just not relevant. Only a very small group of folks that feel very marginalized in society will be interested. Humans want to better their condition, however they define it, and to a large extent, nearly all of them choose to define bettering their condition in economic terms. For this reason Mr. Zerzan's primitivism can never be relevant to most people.
They would use these cures because in the present situation they have to in order to survive in the whirlpool of industrial mass society. In a world in which these high-tech remedies are not available they would try to heal themselves with whatever natural medicine there is, or simply accept their fate with dignity. If maintaining the kind of technological nightmare in which we are currently trapped is the price we have to pay for a pill for every ill, I think it's a price too high.
Nihilism is the "idea" that nothing has value. I think that if Mr. Zerzan was a nihilist he wouldn't bother writing books about possible alternatives to a crummy system.
Corporations are more mixed than this man likes to admit in that simple analysis. The line between private enterprise and corporations (which I view as an extension of the state) is blurred, but I do believe it is still there. Especially as one is almost forced to incorporate in order to engage in successful enterprise. One ought to be careful who one throws rocks at, lest the qualifications met for a "legitimate" target for stoning apply to ones self as well.
you were displaying an explicit preference for them, so it is not unrelated, nor do I feel I am guilty of evasion when the thing I am supposedly evading is itself a method of evasion.
I would be more concerned about a McDonalds which obtains at least a large sum of its money from voluntary funding through trade then I would roads or hospitals which are almost completely devoid of any such notion of voluntary funding.
I wasn't making necessarily siding with publicly funded institutions, but I was making a distinction between the importance of the properties. A bombed public hospital would hurt a lot more people than a bombed McDonalds.
but that is to ignore how these hospitals and roads are funded. Through force. They BEGIN with a broken window, or more appropriately:broken teeth, and come into existence with the fruits of such state violence.
I look forward to reading more of Zerzan's work, particularly Elements of Refusal. I wonder what Zerzan thinks about medical technology. Wouldn't we suffer without it?
some of us will go far as cannibalisms killing your enemy or rivals no law will survive nature will just take its course until the strongest and the smart are left.
Dude, there's 7 billion ppl on the planet now. Primitive food production techniques could feed maybe 1 billion at best. Without modern technological agricultural how we gonna feed everybody.
C'mon J.Z., don't you realize that global genocide is an inherent part of your return to primitivism plan?
This is a good summary of Zerzan's perspective, although I find the monotonous repeating of the words "property damage, property destruction" to have a slightly manipulative ring to it. I am all for these sorts of actions but, considering the power of the Spectacle, I think it's a bit insidious for anarchists to be using its techniques to indoctrinate people. If you're going to act, then act out of your own initiative; not because you hear some audio track repeating over and over in your head.
Define class. If by state (violence) enforced advantaged groups then yes, if by social cliques or other forms of associative freedom then no I cant get on that train.
define capitalism. if by state enforced privileged through corporate/mercantile law and practices of imperialism coupled with property rights violations en mass ALL for the benefit of a few then yes. If by continuing the abuse of property rights and violations of associative freedom, then no I cant support that.
Class: The stratification of people due to financial status, whether it's a result of the government or of the free market. The rich can afford better health care, better education, and have more freedom to move, giving them an advantage over the poor and perpetuating a vicious cycle where the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor stay poor.
Capitalism: A system where the means of production are owned by private individuals. There are many reasons why I'm opposed to this, and I don't feel like writing a huge essay on the topic right now.
In no system or lack there of are the means of production ever NOT owned by individuals. It is only by who and how many people seem to have a problem with.
whoever you are talking to is a bit of an idiot. Any primitivist with a brain wouldn't advocate the immediate destruction of civilization. The thing is that the human race is in what ecologists call overshoot now, which means a die-off is due, or we can somehow manage to stave it off like we have been with things like oil and the "green" revolution. So the primitivist activist has very little choices except for preach doom, maybe go out and live primitive, and raise awareness or something.
We already have mass starvation, war and death. I think the question that needs to be asked is "Will the human race be wiped out anyway if civilization continues?" If the answer is "yes" then I think that the consequences of a primitivist revolution would be preferable to the consequences of environmental destruction and war.
i agree with your statement here. it's clear that certain technologies are harmful to the enviroment regardless of whether these technologies can be considered natural or unnatural. human beings unlike many other species are born unfit to survive without technology. the problem is figuring out which technologies are essential for our survival and which ones are harmful to ourselves and the enviroment.
I don't think we are born unfit to survive without technology. We could, in theory, live off naturally occuring plants (like hunter gathers)..but I agree yeah that we must decide, if we are to use technology (& I think it is sensible), which ones don't 'mess about' with or disrupt the Earth. We can & should use certain inventions & technologies & not disrupt the balance of Nature. The problem is that greed & the limitless search for profit of the world now doesn't care for reality/the world.
lol, you guys are really confused..no technology "takes away from direct communion with natural phenomena". Who are you to say a car isn't inside nature? It's made from nature by humans & works for humans. What takes people away from real human life or 'union with nature', as you mystifying crazies would say, is alienation resulting from repressive socities, eg capitalism now!
You mistake alienations cause...unfortunatley because you yourselves are alienated! :(
of course a human being is a natural entity just like any other living creature, and many of the technolgies we create are indeed derived from natural resources but not all. human beings devise many chemicals such as plastics and introduce foreign substances into ecosystems such as oil that are often detrimental to it's continued existence. so although we ourselves are natural, many of the technologies we produces are not.
Just because we change the 'state' of chemicals of the Earth, to make plastic in your example, doesn't render plastic unnatural. It's not outside the World. We havn't produced something from nothing...just changed things around a little. Like a pizza isn't naturally found on the Earth, but it's still natural. I assume most fabrics are made by changing the natural state of plants. It's just in a different form or state now.
i don't think you have to create something out of nothing, or bring back something from out of this world to produce something unnatural, you just have to mess around with the natural state of things drastically. you consider plastic to be a slight change but i disagree. plastic is totally unlike any product that can be found in nature and can also be disruptive to the natural order of things. where as a pizza is essentially composed of the same material as nature, and is mostly undesruptive.
You're witnessing what happens when people in a primitivist society develop technology. There is a division of labor, a stratification of society based on gender roles, arbitrary class divisions, and race, among other things. This ultimately results in a grossly overgrown version of capitalism that threatens the continuation of life on our planet.
But what happens after people make a conscientious decision on a dead or dying planet not to live that way anymore and then... go back to the way things were?
Well.. I contend that whatever group they were living with would sufficiently ostracize the person in question, resulting in their starvation, loneliness, or discovery of a group who would not object to such a development.
Really, it depends on what kind of a technology it is. If, for example, it is a new medical use for a plant, the resulting medical technology is accepted and even welcomed; if, however, it happens to be something that takes away from direct communion with natural phenomena and beings, then it fails to gain acceptance. Not to mention that a primitivist would not want to persue anything beyond what is nesesary for survival and happyness.
Martin Luther King didn't have to be violent. The police were violent towards the movement he was involved in. That in itself was enough to gain attention. Whenever we're shown tapes of the Civil Rights Movement, we're shown people getting hit by cops. There was violence involved. And I'm pretty sure that the United States would risk their global monopoly for a local one.
that's true, I wish there was some way to reply. A friend of mine was saying that people in Europe in general have more control over their governments. There are riots all the time. (I'm studying abroad in Ireland) but there are never riots in the states. She mentioned that our government isn't afraid of us, and that they hold us through fear. I wonder if John is saying that a government should fear the people it governs instead of the other way around.
well you know there were riots in the late 60s, with the youth etc against the police and some got killed. Them days the youth, etc were more togther. ther wasn't the contrived cultural divide and control now.
There was a vision. Via music and so on.
the elite should fear us as thers more than they. BUT this is why the depend so much on mindcontrol isn't it? spending billions on it
the rulers don't love it when activists are violent. for an exploration of this i recommend checking out "how nonviolence protects the state" by peter gelderloos.
I will. I am sure your aware how the globalist state are getting together an arsenal of 'non lethal' weapons. the cops already are suing tasers. How do you see we can deal with this shit?
dusteroo what I think anarchists should do is dress in tuxedos, have some champaigne and then beat the pigs over the head with champaigne bottles. Long live champaigne anarchism! Just idea. LOL.
Zerzan talks shit constantly... My friend saw the motherfucker at Hollywood video rent a movie, funny how he talks shit on things like SDS and the IWW but cant even hold to his own philosophies
Zerzan does make a good point in that non violent resistance is not the be all in fighting oppression.
Where I disagree with Zerzan is that I do think technology can have beneficial uses for humanity. We are using the computer to listen to his ideas are we not?
... but would he even have the desire to voice them if technology didn't exist? The point is, you CAN use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house.
me too, the question is 1. what are we willing to give for each comfort and 2. can we have these things and still have a liveable planet because if we don't have that we will eventually lose all the rest as well...
I see your point DoJaenin but I think the Earth is resilient. I think it is matter of humans learning to live in harmony with it. I don't see how living in a cave/grass hut would be much fun.
well chalk, i wonder the same thing. because the manifestos of most of these Anarcho-primitive call for, whether they realize it or not, a mass genocide of people by destoying the systems that are in place. As corrupt as they are, destroying these systems will cause many die due to lack of available resources. I personally feel Anarcho-syndicalism is the best and most fair structure for an industrail society.
I see anarcho-primitivism as more of a lifestyle goal than a form of society like anarcho-synicalism or anarcho-capitalism. I agree forming a society around those ideals is largely impractical due to basic advances in technology that such a simple model wouldn't allow for.
However, Zerzan offers one of the more compelling arguments here I've ever heard in favor of any form of violence, by reevaluating just what constitutes violence.
The music of this is 'Smokescreen', on 'The Mighty Quark', by Mark O'Sullivan. Amazon doesn't seem to sell it! Youtube has it - this doesn't seem to like urls though.
ToolBeing 2 months ago
doing dope? what are you straight out of the 80s?
sensibuddz 3 months ago
Demand greedy corporate parasites to grant you your freedom...
get pepper-sprayed in the eyes instead.
AwakenedSword 4 months ago
@AwakenedSword that's the reality of this insane culture.
kingxciter 3 months ago
I think the acellerated growth and cotinued expansion is something related to evolution itself. There are people who think that we will be surpassed and will continue to merge ourself with technology and machines, but it will not be very nice if we take this path with a individualistic/egocentrist culture and economic paradigm we have now. So I invite people to see exaclty the opposite opinions of John Zerzan with the movies Zeitgeist Addendum and Zeitgeist Moving Forward found here on youtube.
heraze 6 months ago
@ jortylbro what do you propose in place of capitalism which means people opening their own companies such as you neighborhood bakery and local coffee shop and even your local pot shop.
hyssop97 7 months ago
@hyssop97 local pot shop? hooray for capitalism :D (that was meant as a joke actually)
kingxciter 3 months ago
How can I subtitle this video on youtube? I want to do it, but can't (on portuguese-br)
angelorfd1 9 months ago
This video is private property and subject to whatever lame ass copyright law that seems to infest this site like a fire breathing dragon. I'm going to break my computer over my own head.
crud4 10 months ago
The things that annoy me about primitivists is it seems like these guys wax philosophical and tell us to go out and risk our asses legally and morally by committing crimes but dont do shit themselves. And the other thing is technology may be oppressive and all but the internet has done more to spread and legitimize anarchist ideas, communes, co-ops etc. than anything ever has.
timothyxmcveigh 1 year ago
@timothyxmcveigh There was a time when anarchists, primitivists simply didn't exist 'cause it was no need for it. The dominant culture has brought so much havoc and so many "solutions" since there will always be people that don't wanna live this way. And why force them? I can bet that this civ. wouldn't be under "constant threat" if the people living in it had respect for those on the outside and those that simpy don't wanna live this way (the natural world incl.)
kingxciter 3 months ago
I am personally repulsed by the idea of primitivism, it's an idea that puts the environment before human welfare, however I think John Zerzan is very respectable as an intellectual and a good contributor to anarchist theory in general.
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnergizerBunny804 ok, let me ask you one simple question: How will you be able to live or those that comes after you if the enviroment gets turned into dust? How are you going to live on a dead planet?
or does that not matter? "I will be dead, so I don't give a shit" is that it?
and what is human welfare? if I ask a tolowa Indian I'm pretty sure he/she won't have the same view on what is human welfare that you have.
kingxciter 3 months ago
I really dislike Zerzan. All his ideas will do is get idealists shot. You want to change the world? Get into politics, start a business, organize a team of lobbyists. Burning some random guy's car will not change public policy, nor will it make me stop buying clothing, food, vehicles, housing and computers. All it will do is make that guy angry, and probably call the police.
PlankKydo 1 year ago
@PlankKydo so what you mean is that you don't like when people attacks your way of life? but its ok that your way of life inflicts damage on those that lives outisde it? the natural world with all its life for example, other humans that don't share your worldview about living in a dead, cold place.
kingxciter 3 months ago
I think the one thing he got wrong was the part about war. That's just false. Other than that, true.
rebelosing 1 year ago
primitivism - what proofs are there that there were no wars and no strife for 2 million years? ... since neighbouring bands of chimps will and do fight ( territorial) it is likely that neighbouring bands or expanding populations of early humans would have fought in some respects - there would have been tensions, and these may well have been solved by violent struggle between individuals. We consider pacifism higher ideal( do we?) or is it just part of continuum within what it is to be human
Breizh07 1 year ago
@Breizh07 so when chimps get into a brawl now and then.. thats war? what the hell do you call when people get into a fight at the bar? is that a war too? I do belive that pacifism is in us. We as a species are not in reality violent on the scale that is today in the civilized world. We learn to be this way, we learn to become arrogant, narcissists that care more for a dead item than actual living beings.
kingxciter 3 months ago
Alright, time's up, let's return to the Earth now..
xs0heavenly 1 year ago
this guys a scumbag!!!!!
governmentdidit 1 year ago
Zerzan goes a little too far IMO with his opposition to language, but he makes some good points.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
AHHHHHH!!!!! !AAHHHHHHHHH!HHHHHH!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
puertoirish 1 year ago
If you are a true anarchist, you need to go live in the woods. Look at Mr. Zerzan. He's talking about advocating vandalism as a form of political expression while he's in his house with his bullshit music video presentation. How can you stop the human condition toward progress? You can't. But you know what? I bet that if I were to engage in "property damage" around Mr. Zerzan's home would have a different opinion about his beliefs.
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 Agreed. Also, he somewhat propagates war mentality, which is again a conditioning of and conformist to our sick culture. But it's impractical to expect a complete alternative, as of. He probably feels his message must be manifested by utilizing technology, for now. Which, of course, is conforming to the social construct and abiding by the dominating system, rather than abolishing it. Perhaps he hopes to influence many who will help to see his efforts through, in the coming generations.
SpaceStationStatic 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 we are losing faith in your idea of progress. what will you or anyone else do about it if we don't go to work? probably violence and incarceration. there is a huge difference between personal property and "private" corporate property.
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 You can fuck off and die for all I care. I've been working my ass off as a baker for 20 goddamn years and all that ever happens is that we get wage-freezes and vacation pay taken away. Corporate money is no different than feudalism and if you work your way to the top of the scheme you're basically a parasite on someone else's labor. Retirement is a fraud and and empty promise.
Barklord 1 year ago
Then quit baking and go live in the woods.
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 great defense of your system. thanks.
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 strange that you would consider my simple choice to make food for people a "shitty choice". i expected a decent, modest living. i wasn't volunteering to be exploited and robbed of vacation pay already earned by industry standards. i wasn't volunteering to earn less money as years go by. but it really is par for the course with "civilized" trading practices going back throughout all of American history. Sitting Bull was right.
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 you take pride in stupidity and then pretend victory. i bet you live in yer momma's basement.
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 yeah, momma's basement. super mario bros...Aristotle was tool
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1 typos don't lose arguments. you're truly pathetic and desperate. when nobody wants to play your capitalist game anymore you'll cry to momma
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKSE1 1 year ago
@TheKSE1
lol. i'll mention you said that the next time we're having beer and chicken wings.
Barklord 1 year ago
Comment removed
Barklord 1 year ago
The Venus Project anyone?
chrisplus23 1 year ago
What is the opposite of property?
ninyae 1 year ago
@ninyae Love. :)
eatfurrypeople 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anarcho-anything will never happen. I sympathize a lot with Mr. Zerzan's views, but it's entirely unrealistic.
Antiks72 2 years ago
This was great. Thanks for sharing, Darganot.
TheAssholearchist 2 years ago
why waste time on this?if only all minds focused on one thing, to advance technology and medicin will be just fine, but wasteing time on this is just plane stupid
AlbertInSanAntonio 2 years ago
what a great song is that!!
can anybody tell me the name of this song?and who made it??
alptor 2 years ago
teck check: audio scenes with JZ bleed into voices overs
fastair 2 years ago
before civilization, agriculture, etc. there was a much smaller population. today, the population is so vast and way to vast to be able to transform back into a primitive state. but if it werent for civilization the population wouldn't be anything near to what it is today.
deathbox90 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah imagine if we all went back to hunting, or even a small part of us. Animal populations are already dwindling, we'd drive them into extinction. Unless we set ourselves up with genetically modified plants that can provide better sustenance and then get rid of the tech.
metabog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Two million years of peace... that's inspiring. But many would agree that peace is boring. That's why people enjoy watching sports, or playing world of warcraft. Witnessing two opossite forces moving against each other can be more exciting and entertaning than simply observing one and only force sitting at rest...
xxXghislainXxx 2 years ago
And so the Romans would have agreed; their structures have remained testament to that, as have their famed gladiatorial battles. But to the point, just because we are not at war with one another (or the natural world, for that matter) does not mean we will be bored. You know very well that you have faound countless means of entertainment without bringing any sort of harm to another.
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
well, not real harm, like killing each other on cod4, or counter strike, there is no harm. It's a violent game, but actual violence is not present. It's a symbolic game. Nobody is put in danger, no real harm. I understand people in the middle east. While people on Europe and North America are killing each other over PS3. Those people in the middle east are doing it in real life. They have no PS3, no XboX360. Islam forbids sex out side of marriage, alcohol and drugs r not allowed... I understand
xxXghislainXxx 2 years ago
We are not (to my knowledge) usually killing over gaming consoles. Americans, among a multitude of other countries, are materialistic to a severely disappointing degree, but most people will not kill a fellow man over hardware. About the things Islam forbids: Drugs are unjustly banned in our culture too, but we still use them. Premarital sex and alcohol, while not forbidden, are looked down upon with such disproval that many do avoid them (again though, we still fuck and drink).
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
u misunderstood me. I didn't mean that people are kill each other over hardware. I mean they are killing each other inside a video game. You can imagine the thrill *sarcasm* That's why I understand people who shoot each other in real life. There is definitely more realism involved ;)
xxXghislainXxx 2 years ago
But war now days is more like a video game.
Sure there's a difference between gunning somebody down in person and offing them on a televison, but there's also a difference between stabbing one person and pushing a button in a plane to kill a thousand. The video-game makes killing somebody just as easy as pulling a trigger, and that desensitizes one, just as much as refering to a human as an "enemy" or some racial slurr will.
Dargortheshadowlord 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dargortheshadowlord
". The video-game makes killing somebody just as easy as pulling a trigger, and that desensitizes one, just as much as refering to a human as an "enemy" or some racial slurr will."
What's funny is, all studies show that you are a retard who spews lies and bullshit.
mecher3k 1 year ago
I don't think you'd find it as exciting if you were at the end of a blade. :P
metabog 2 years ago
so called "primitive cultures" have many sports, instruments, traditions and games to keep themselves occupied. You can observe an extremely large amount of forces in nature not just one at rest. for example you need to hunt for food in a non modernized life style which is far from being at rest for you and the animal. =)
opeth867 2 years ago
I agree that primitivist lifestyle is the most fullfulling and peaceful in history. I also like the freegan idea of living off of scoieties waste. We all have different ideas. Anarchism is great for the reaason that we all disagree with eachother.
newmoongathering 3 years ago 4
Zerzan re%
ddrumsman549 3 years ago
He didn't suggest that there weren't wars during hunter gatherer times, he was saying how there wasn't mass genocide or slaughter based on the unnecessary notion of state, money, religion, etc. The wars were based on things like territory, aka food, water, etc. Humans no longer control the technologies we use, but rather the opposite.
drukqsi 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, he does. And it shows us how stupid and ludicrous his speech is. Zerzan is not a leftist. He's just a mad reactionary.
Nafarra 3 years ago
retarded false dichotomy, he isnt a leftist at all he's an anarcho-primitivist.
war is defined as conflicts between nations or states or parties; wars like world war 1 or better yet the v war would have been impossible thousands of years ago
PearlThePrimitivist 3 years ago 3
Did he just suggest primitive people didn't have wars?
shunyotube 3 years ago
Yes, he do. And it shows us how stupid his speech is. Zerzan is not a leftist, he's just a reactionary.
Nafarra 3 years ago
If you read anything that zerzan has published you would know that when he uses the term "primitive" he's referring explicitly to *band* societies, a.k.a hunter-gatherers/foragers.
likening a brief skirmish between a small number (10-30) of hunter-gatherers to organized war is patently ridiculous.
ShootSmallChildren 3 years ago 6
You're right. I misused the word "nihilism". What I mean to say is that this stuff is just not relevant. Only a very small group of folks that feel very marginalized in society will be interested. Humans want to better their condition, however they define it, and to a large extent, nearly all of them choose to define bettering their condition in economic terms. For this reason Mr. Zerzan's primitivism can never be relevant to most people.
jfalkine11 3 years ago
They would use these cures because in the present situation they have to in order to survive in the whirlpool of industrial mass society. In a world in which these high-tech remedies are not available they would try to heal themselves with whatever natural medicine there is, or simply accept their fate with dignity. If maintaining the kind of technological nightmare in which we are currently trapped is the price we have to pay for a pill for every ill, I think it's a price too high.
masameus 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I posted that to the wrong thread.
masameus 3 years ago
Sorry, but this borders on nihilism. I don't think there is any positive value here.
jfalkine11 3 years ago
How does it border on nihilism?
KafkaCrow 3 years ago 4
Nihilism is the "idea" that nothing has value. I think that if Mr. Zerzan was a nihilist he wouldn't bother writing books about possible alternatives to a crummy system.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't believe anyone is taking this guy seriously!
jfalkine11 3 years ago
He's a pretty intelligent guy and he has made an interesting critique of civilisation. I'm not a primitivist, but I respect this guy very much.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago 22
LIke the below, I cannot advocate property destruction (except state property, will no casualties), but protests are useless.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I cannot advocate destruction of private property. Now, if a state building is burnt down... I will not shed a tear.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Corporations are more mixed than this man likes to admit in that simple analysis. The line between private enterprise and corporations (which I view as an extension of the state) is blurred, but I do believe it is still there. Especially as one is almost forced to incorporate in order to engage in successful enterprise. One ought to be careful who one throws rocks at, lest the qualifications met for a "legitimate" target for stoning apply to ones self as well.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
So, you would be more concerned about a damaged McDonalds or Paris Hilton's car then you would be about a public hospital or road?
jortylbro 3 years ago
thanks for the red herring. Are you saying you support forcably funded public roads and hospitals?
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
And you come back with another red herring. Whether or not I support public roads and hospitals is irrelevant to the question I asked.
jortylbro 3 years ago
you were displaying an explicit preference for them, so it is not unrelated, nor do I feel I am guilty of evasion when the thing I am supposedly evading is itself a method of evasion.
I would be more concerned about a McDonalds which obtains at least a large sum of its money from voluntary funding through trade then I would roads or hospitals which are almost completely devoid of any such notion of voluntary funding.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
I wasn't making necessarily siding with publicly funded institutions, but I was making a distinction between the importance of the properties. A bombed public hospital would hurt a lot more people than a bombed McDonalds.
jortylbro 3 years ago
but that is to ignore how these hospitals and roads are funded. Through force. They BEGIN with a broken window, or more appropriately:broken teeth, and come into existence with the fruits of such state violence.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
I look forward to reading more of Zerzan's work, particularly Elements of Refusal. I wonder what Zerzan thinks about medical technology. Wouldn't we suffer without it?
castingtherunes 3 years ago
John Zerzan is a very insightful guy, his work difficult to disagree with. He also strikes me as very humane and I like him very much.
YourTubeSpellChecker 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that chick wsas pretty hot, but the rest was fuckin gay.
kawkashin 4 years ago
lol u have a point my friend
mariovalspi 3 years ago
Pretty hi-tech video. Nice.
VictorEremitatheBand 4 years ago
Turn the volume up. Please. =)
BIZKID25 4 years ago 2
some of us will go far as cannibalisms killing your enemy or rivals no law will survive nature will just take its course until the strongest and the smart are left.
philos4r 4 years ago
Dude, there's 7 billion ppl on the planet now. Primitive food production techniques could feed maybe 1 billion at best. Without modern technological agricultural how we gonna feed everybody.
C'mon J.Z., don't you realize that global genocide is an inherent part of your return to primitivism plan?
edyersh 4 years ago 2
it's not genocide it's nature, survival of the fittest. Watch some vids on Trans-humanism and eugenics, that's genocide.
BIZKID25 4 years ago
There will be mass starvation, war and death if our civilization keeps going the way it is. What do you suggest?
jortylbro 4 years ago 4
This is a good summary of Zerzan's perspective, although I find the monotonous repeating of the words "property damage, property destruction" to have a slightly manipulative ring to it. I am all for these sorts of actions but, considering the power of the Spectacle, I think it's a bit insidious for anarchists to be using its techniques to indoctrinate people. If you're going to act, then act out of your own initiative; not because you hear some audio track repeating over and over in your head.
Stirner123 3 years ago
I suggest abolition of the state.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 4
So do I, but I also suggest abolition of class and capitalism.
jortylbro 3 years ago 12
Define class. If by state (violence) enforced advantaged groups then yes, if by social cliques or other forms of associative freedom then no I cant get on that train.
define capitalism. if by state enforced privileged through corporate/mercantile law and practices of imperialism coupled with property rights violations en mass ALL for the benefit of a few then yes. If by continuing the abuse of property rights and violations of associative freedom, then no I cant support that.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
I'm using the typical definitions here
Class: The stratification of people due to financial status, whether it's a result of the government or of the free market. The rich can afford better health care, better education, and have more freedom to move, giving them an advantage over the poor and perpetuating a vicious cycle where the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor stay poor.
jortylbro 3 years ago 2
Capitalism: A system where the means of production are owned by private individuals. There are many reasons why I'm opposed to this, and I don't feel like writing a huge essay on the topic right now.
jortylbro 3 years ago 4
In no system or lack there of are the means of production ever NOT owned by individuals. It is only by who and how many people seem to have a problem with.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
You're right, I just worded it badly. I meant a single individual.
jortylbro 3 years ago
thats not true
bryanmay138 3 years ago
whoever you are talking to is a bit of an idiot. Any primitivist with a brain wouldn't advocate the immediate destruction of civilization. The thing is that the human race is in what ecologists call overshoot now, which means a die-off is due, or we can somehow manage to stave it off like we have been with things like oil and the "green" revolution. So the primitivist activist has very little choices except for preach doom, maybe go out and live primitive, and raise awareness or something.
itsacorporatething 4 years ago
We already have mass starvation, war and death. I think the question that needs to be asked is "Will the human race be wiped out anyway if civilization continues?" If the answer is "yes" then I think that the consequences of a primitivist revolution would be preferable to the consequences of environmental destruction and war.
YourTubeSpellChecker 3 years ago 5
All technologies are natural (made by natural beings...), it's the result of the technology that is the problem.
robertbly 4 years ago
i agree with your statement here. it's clear that certain technologies are harmful to the enviroment regardless of whether these technologies can be considered natural or unnatural. human beings unlike many other species are born unfit to survive without technology. the problem is figuring out which technologies are essential for our survival and which ones are harmful to ourselves and the enviroment.
longinusmaximus 4 years ago
I don't think we are born unfit to survive without technology. We could, in theory, live off naturally occuring plants (like hunter gathers)..but I agree yeah that we must decide, if we are to use technology (& I think it is sensible), which ones don't 'mess about' with or disrupt the Earth. We can & should use certain inventions & technologies & not disrupt the balance of Nature. The problem is that greed & the limitless search for profit of the world now doesn't care for reality/the world.
robertbly 4 years ago
lol, you guys are really confused..no technology "takes away from direct communion with natural phenomena". Who are you to say a car isn't inside nature? It's made from nature by humans & works for humans. What takes people away from real human life or 'union with nature', as you mystifying crazies would say, is alienation resulting from repressive socities, eg capitalism now!
You mistake alienations cause...unfortunatley because you yourselves are alienated! :(
robertbly 4 years ago
of course a human being is a natural entity just like any other living creature, and many of the technolgies we create are indeed derived from natural resources but not all. human beings devise many chemicals such as plastics and introduce foreign substances into ecosystems such as oil that are often detrimental to it's continued existence. so although we ourselves are natural, many of the technologies we produces are not.
longinusmaximus 4 years ago
Just because we change the 'state' of chemicals of the Earth, to make plastic in your example, doesn't render plastic unnatural. It's not outside the World. We havn't produced something from nothing...just changed things around a little. Like a pizza isn't naturally found on the Earth, but it's still natural. I assume most fabrics are made by changing the natural state of plants. It's just in a different form or state now.
robertbly 4 years ago
i don't think you have to create something out of nothing, or bring back something from out of this world to produce something unnatural, you just have to mess around with the natural state of things drastically. you consider plastic to be a slight change but i disagree. plastic is totally unlike any product that can be found in nature and can also be disruptive to the natural order of things. where as a pizza is essentially composed of the same material as nature, and is mostly undesruptive.
longinusmaximus 4 years ago
What happens if certain people in a primitivist society develop technology? Are people pursue technological innovation opposed with violence?
Luke12000 4 years ago
You're witnessing what happens when people in a primitivist society develop technology. There is a division of labor, a stratification of society based on gender roles, arbitrary class divisions, and race, among other things. This ultimately results in a grossly overgrown version of capitalism that threatens the continuation of life on our planet.
neroadam 4 years ago
(continued)
But what happens after people make a conscientious decision on a dead or dying planet not to live that way anymore and then... go back to the way things were?
Well.. I contend that whatever group they were living with would sufficiently ostracize the person in question, resulting in their starvation, loneliness, or discovery of a group who would not object to such a development.
neroadam 4 years ago
Really, it depends on what kind of a technology it is. If, for example, it is a new medical use for a plant, the resulting medical technology is accepted and even welcomed; if, however, it happens to be something that takes away from direct communion with natural phenomena and beings, then it fails to gain acceptance. Not to mention that a primitivist would not want to persue anything beyond what is nesesary for survival and happyness.
sacredthornapple 4 years ago
The perfect movie. This is why i love sweden; we have the best movie editers in the world.
Bollibompa 4 years ago
what about the peaceful protests of the Civil Rights Movement, as encouraged by Martin Luther King?
What about thatr the powers that be are SO tooled up that they wouldn't think twice of nuking millions that threaten their monopoly?
I am just asking question
zezt 4 years ago
Martin Luther King didn't have to be violent. The police were violent towards the movement he was involved in. That in itself was enough to gain attention. Whenever we're shown tapes of the Civil Rights Movement, we're shown people getting hit by cops. There was violence involved. And I'm pretty sure that the United States would risk their global monopoly for a local one.
buckskinman 4 years ago
thats a very interesting reply, I had never seen it that way!
But, you dont reply about how the rulers LOVE violence and war, and infiltrating movements doing violence.
For example. some say Alex Jones was inciting violence pre 2001 and this coula brought in real tight controls on freedom
zezt 4 years ago
that's true, I wish there was some way to reply. A friend of mine was saying that people in Europe in general have more control over their governments. There are riots all the time. (I'm studying abroad in Ireland) but there are never riots in the states. She mentioned that our government isn't afraid of us, and that they hold us through fear. I wonder if John is saying that a government should fear the people it governs instead of the other way around.
buckskinman 4 years ago
well you know there were riots in the late 60s, with the youth etc against the police and some got killed. Them days the youth, etc were more togther. ther wasn't the contrived cultural divide and control now.
There was a vision. Via music and so on.
the elite should fear us as thers more than they. BUT this is why the depend so much on mindcontrol isn't it? spending billions on it
zezt 4 years ago
yea.... I guess we're all screwed... hahaha unless we live primitively like Zerzan thinks we should. No government, no tyranny
buckskinman 4 years ago
Its important to begin exploring Permaculture and learning to live WITH Nature and not against it
zezt 4 years ago
the rulers don't love it when activists are violent. for an exploration of this i recommend checking out "how nonviolence protects the state" by peter gelderloos.
briansaccount 4 years ago
I will. I am sure your aware how the globalist state are getting together an arsenal of 'non lethal' weapons. the cops already are suing tasers. How do you see we can deal with this shit?
zezt 4 years ago
Property damage, Property damage..Property destruction...LOL..
One great thing of protests is those cops wear some cool riot gear..LOL.
I think the caveman at the end needs a shave. LOL..haa..haa..
chalk20 4 years ago
I've always had the same stance; what does holding a sign in protest do? NOTHING.
That's why I either write a very long, descriptive letter, or instigate a riot; a true revolution.
dusteroo 4 years ago
dusteroo what I think anarchists should do is dress in tuxedos, have some champaigne and then beat the pigs over the head with champaigne bottles. Long live champaigne anarchism! Just idea. LOL.
chalk20 4 years ago
Zerzan talks shit constantly... My friend saw the motherfucker at Hollywood video rent a movie, funny how he talks shit on things like SDS and the IWW but cant even hold to his own philosophies
lactatinglucy 4 years ago
Zerzan does make a good point in that non violent resistance is not the be all in fighting oppression.
Where I disagree with Zerzan is that I do think technology can have beneficial uses for humanity. We are using the computer to listen to his ideas are we not?
chalk20 4 years ago
... but would he even have the desire to voice them if technology didn't exist? The point is, you CAN use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house.
DoJaenin 4 years ago
Good point DoJaenin. However I still like creature comforts like a roof over my head, good food, and a hot shower. :)
chalk20 4 years ago
me too, the question is 1. what are we willing to give for each comfort and 2. can we have these things and still have a liveable planet because if we don't have that we will eventually lose all the rest as well...
DoJaenin 4 years ago
I see your point DoJaenin but I think the Earth is resilient. I think it is matter of humans learning to live in harmony with it. I don't see how living in a cave/grass hut would be much fun.
chalk20 4 years ago
well, if it wasnt for computers , maybe we could have more of traditional human contact where we could sit together and talk more often.
but yeah thats a logical point, afterall if the destruction of systems may rely on their inner contraditions
decodedmonkey 3 years ago
Even though I do not agree with most of what Zerzan says..I think he is interesting to listen to. I always like listening to different perspectives.
From listening to Zerzan it sounds like he has major disagreements with Chomsky.
chalk20 4 years ago
well chalk, i wonder the same thing. because the manifestos of most of these Anarcho-primitive call for, whether they realize it or not, a mass genocide of people by destoying the systems that are in place. As corrupt as they are, destroying these systems will cause many die due to lack of available resources. I personally feel Anarcho-syndicalism is the best and most fair structure for an industrail society.
nickreed11216 4 years ago
I see anarcho-primitivism as more of a lifestyle goal than a form of society like anarcho-synicalism or anarcho-capitalism. I agree forming a society around those ideals is largely impractical due to basic advances in technology that such a simple model wouldn't allow for.
However, Zerzan offers one of the more compelling arguments here I've ever heard in favor of any form of violence, by reevaluating just what constitutes violence.
Darganot 4 years ago
excellently put. I shall reconsider my stance.
nickreed11216 4 years ago
zerzan a voice that must be heard
queensbridge 4 years ago 3
viva cuba
sammmm13 4 years ago
I wonder if in Anarcho Primitive Society there will still be good pizza joints? LOL..:)
chalk20 4 years ago