Yeah I mean this is what I thought. Zerzan is respectable though, but I don't think primitivism is an ideal to move towards, its very backward looking like conservatism. If we go back to a primitive society, that will then be like moving thousands of years back, so what is to stop rise of feudalism etc all over again? Arguably the other strains of anarchism are forward looking as they will move towards a post-age accommodating industrialism and progress ASWELL as full human development
Derrick Jensen has said that electricity, yes ELECTRICITY, is incompatible with planetary survival.... I mean, if we continue as is, according to Zerzan and the likes of Jensen the planet will be destroyed.... Noam Chomsky said we're in real trouble if we have to embrace a Jensen ideology.... So, who knows.
What should happen? I mean, we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. And Chomsky said: we're in trouble if we need to embrace Jensen's ideology.
Or do we simply destroy the planet? I know. The planet will be around for another 5 billion years. But it may be pretty difficult for life to survive.
And, too, how do we address global warming or environmental decay? Should we care? Should we care about future generations?
even if it is not possible (obviously, it is not possible) to go back before neolitic revolution,
the analysis of dynamics that brought about current shape of civilisation and judgement of civilisations makes it easier to recognise injuries we took from it. Zerzan talks not only about symbols, the rest of critique is far more important and valid.
gggrzesiek said precisely what I was thinking. Zerzan's analysis of the symbolic is not really central to his critique of civilization. The central idea of the critique is that agriculture and civilization generated a culture of domestication where humans treat the Earth as an object to be exploited through technology and violence. Anarchists who do not address this "humans are the masters of the world" delusion will not be able to escape today's social and environmental problems.
I agree that humans should lower their global population by 90% and that we should completely abandon the use of fossil fuels. I don't see anyting inherently wrong with agriculture (correlation with hierarchy is not causation).
Technological evolution has permitted hierarchy to intensify, however it has always existed. History has demonstrated clearly that the natural system of social organization among humans is hierarchical, similar to dogs and chimpanzees.
I agree that HISTORY has shown that humans organize along almost uniformly hierarchical lines, but disagree that it shows this to be a natural, innate tendency in humans. "History" only covers the last 5% of modern man's existence on earth and only from the perspective of a single culture (the civilized). Our failure to recognize on a societal level that history is a recount a single culture (not mankind as a whole) can lead us to severely biased conclusions about the nature of man.
I'll agree that the existing historical record is limited in its usefulness. However we have had the pleasure of encountering and studying isolated primitive tribes, all of which feature patriarchal systems of organization. It's also worth noting that in spite of the massive differences in culture which exist among the various nations of today, one of the few extremely consistent features is hierarchy.
In nice to see you know of studies from different tribes. You may be interested in studies of hunter gatherers. Humans lived in ..relatively egalitarian societies.. pp 4 In other words The Leader can persuade but not command. Ibid. This relatively non-hierarchial way of living as hunter-gatherers is how humans have lived for 90 percent of human history. pp back cover
Source: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers by Richard Lee and Richard Daly (2004).
In a state of barbarity, tribes were of a smaller size and economic and political stratification was much less pronounced. Nevertheless, intra-group violence among males was likely frequent and intense, as was inter-group conflict. Humans, generally speaking, are irrational, violent and volatile. This has been demonstrated countless times in the presence of different cultures and different levels of technology.
I suggest re-examining the degree to which culture influences behaviour.
I should add that it's usually the case that the consent of the masses is necessary in order to preserve one's status as a leader. Whether it be clan leaders, feudal lords and serfs, or democratic leaders and common people. One should not underestimate the intense desire to dominate others experienced by some.
Thanks for your response. Well this is your personal opinion, can you give me actual facts to reference, so I can attempt to look up where your getting your information from for accuracy purposes? BTW I am mostly reffering to band hunter-gatherers that humanity has lived for most of its existence, which was egalitarian according Fry, Ferguson, and even to a degree LeBLanc and Keeley if one looks for it in their books.
Sorry, my friend, but you cannot count me among the faithful followers of anarchism. I do as I please, as long as I think it's unlikely that I'll be busted by cops and busybodies who have nothing better to do than tell me what I should think. I suppose that's abhorrent to you, but may I dare to suggest that perhaps I embody the spirit of anarchy more than you do. I loot the ideological supermarket for whatever I can make use of, but I won't buy into a prepackaged program of correct thinking.
"I won't buy into a prepackaged program of correct thinking."
I am not spoon-feeding you a program of correct thinking, and you basically know this. You know it but pretend not to because it is so much easier to hide behind a conceited image of nonconformity, while painting your opponent as a politically correct robot, than to actually defend your own record. I pointed out what I find is an obvious and glaring problem in your reasoning. That is called criticism, not indoctrination.
At least I have let my record stand, to someday be defended, rather than erasing my comments from this public space, as you have done. Why are you too ashamed of what you have written, to let it stand up to public scrutiny? Hunter-gatherers are not conscious anarchists, and they do not adhere to your rigid ideology any more than I do. H/gs tend toward pramatic behavior, and they would not hesitate to "oppress" or "coerce", say, a thief or psychopath who is disrupting their vulnerable society.
"Why are you too ashamed of what you have written --?"
I have deleted and reposted the same comments. The commenting system is buggy and won't always present comments in a thread.
"-- not conscious anarchists --"
No, and that's the beauty of it all. They were not organised anarchists, they lived in a natural state of anarchy. Political or economic systems were not needed to maintain social harmony in the absence of the prescribed roles and hierarchies that come with division of labour.
"You suggest that the right to express a differing opinion is of merely instrumental value, and that as soon as ... tribalism is achieved, we can just forget about the right to express any idea that differs from the status quo." -- from one of your comments that you deleted
I never suggested that differing opinions are not to be tolerated. You have performed a sleight-of-hand here. Reread what I have written. I said that a deviant identity is most appropriate in a deathkultur like ours.
"Individualism and the right to think critically and independently, as well as the right to march to the beat of a different drummer are highly valued by some segments of our society. These values tend to be held by social critics, [etc.] These values are important in an insane dealthkultur such as ours."
Then you write:
"But in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society."
That is correct. I see no contradiction. I say nothing about differing opinions being unacceptable. If somone thinks the group should go north to hunt, when the group normally goes south, that person's opinion should be considered. Maybe that person knows about a previously-unknown food source. But if that person says that killing animals for food is unethical, that person would (and should) be ridiculed. If that person turns to cannibalism, ostracism or expulsion would be appropriate.
"-- a thief or psychopath who is disrupting their vulnerable society."
Again, the beauty of the hunter-gatherer band society is that by its very structure it discourages the social stratification peculiar to complex/specialised/divided societies. The absence of property relations or hierarchy pretty much does away with the concept of theft and seriously anti-social behaviour. What little "division" remains is due to natural individuality, spontaneous variation in personality and temperament.
Also, I don't think I want to let you get away with the sleight of hand you perform here, jumping from the denial of basic social freedom in the hunter-gatherer society (in which context you say it is no longer "appropriate") to the more conventionally respectable opposition of theft and psychopathic behaviour. So there, it's out.
I'm happy to see that you are finally returning to the point of this discussion -- that our globalized techno-industrial civilization is unjust and unsustainable, and it is destroying the ecosystem that is ultimately the foundation of its own existence. Actually, you seem to be most focused upon the injustice of it. I think your orientation is more political, and mine is more ecological and anthropological. Humans function best in hunter/gatherer bands. We evolved to live in small groups.
Darlingelf: I don't claim to march in lockstep with John Zerzan or any of the other "superstars" or spokespeople for primitivism, anarchism, or any other ideological recipe for correct thinking. I think what I think. Some of what I think may be influenced by, or resonate with, some of what other people think. But I feel no need to restrict myself to what some ideological authoritarian has decided is correct in order to present a unified front. Maybe I'm not a "true" anarchist. Oh, well ...
What provoked me to reply to your comments in so many words is your peculiarly cynical appropriation of anarcho-primitivist ideas in the service of something that is in fact completely abhorrent to any serious anarchist (of any school). You suggest, for instance, that the right to express a differing opinion is of merely instrumental value, and that as soon as the healthy state of tribalism is achieved, we can just forget about the right to express any idea that differs from the status quo.
Yes. In our syphyllization, individualism is often expressed as the yuppie-scum "greed is good" philosophy that predominated in the mid-to late 80's and into the 90's. On the other hand, so many would-be rebels fall into the advanced capitalist trap of spectacular rebellion. They adopt a pre-packaged rebellious stle (hippie, punk, gangsta, raver, etc.; take your pick) and proceed to purchase the trappings and market commodities associated with their chosen spectacular role. Some individuals!
Oh yeah man, your right on. There is no solution. People don't see it, we are in a brave new world whether we like it or not, and we are all slowly becoming disabled. From our genetics to industrial illness, were going insane and losing feeling in our legs at the same time. Its too late for many to be independent at this point. And the ecosystem cant build itself back without the destruction of us.
I agree with you, if what you mean by "us" is Homo asphaltus shitticus, or postmodern postindustrial humanity. I still believe that we are capable of functioning as an integral part of the ecosystem, if we could somehow contain ourselves and restrict our manipulative tendencies to the manufacture and use of relatively simple tools without progressing to making use of machines, engines, factories, computers, biotech, nanotech, etc. The new wave of h/gs must institute a taboo against high tech.
I apologise if I seem over-eager or harassing, I don't mean to, but there is one more thing that I'd like to mention. You say that the hunter-gatherer society that is to come should establish taboos and standards and enforce them in the community. I don't think that is quite what primitivists like Zerzan are proposing. Zerzan does not advocate a highly organised tribal society but a decidedly less organised and less stable band society of hunter-gatherers. A society "that does not need running."
The anarcho-primitivist logic of a society "that does not need running" is that in such a society the need to oppress the individual, for instance by enforcing communal "standards," would be much lesser than in a more static tribal culture. In a tribal culture there are too many opportunities for the emergence of authoritarian tendencies. A less settled band society of hunter-gatherers would eliminate much of the tension between the individual and the community that arise in tribal society.
Few anarcho-primitivists are in complete agreement with Zerzan. In fact, probably only Zerzan is in complete agreement with Zerzan. The central thesis of anarcho-primitivism is that the typical individual's life was much better in a hunter-gatherer culture (in terms of health, freedom, nutrition, happiness, spiritual fulfilment, etc.) than it is under the present globalized techno-industrial system of domination and alienation. War, genocide, taxes and other poison fruits of civ didn't exist.
for me one problem with the thesis would be if there was any individual life in the hunter gather stage. certainly not like we know individualism. the main quesiton: is the human ego something there are the beginning in pre-history or is it something that has been shaped by civilization? i say the latter.
people look at the individual today and assume it was the same for people in primitivist soceities, this compresses historical processes. of course there no way of knowing for sure...
I don't think it is really a problem. It is true that individualism is discouraged in h/g societies. In a famous study of Africa's Mbuti pygmies, one Mbuti tried to be a "big man" by killing an elephant, and he was ostracized. Individualism is often ridiculed. Expulsion from the group is the ultimate h/g penalty for failing to adhere to social standards, and it often amounts to a death sentence. By having less-developed egos, h/gs are in more direct contact with the world, a kind of satori.
Thank you. Individualism and the right to think critically and independently, as well as the right to march to the beat of a different drummer are highly valued by some segments of our society. These values tend to be held by social critics, rebels, anarchists, and people inclined to primitivist thought. These values are important in an insane dealthkultur such as ours. But in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society.
I agree. I would also say that the sickness of our soceity can be measured in other ways: look at the way 'individualism' is peddled in our soceity, it is internalized as ideology: the individualism of capital - this kind of ideology is the consumer expressing himself through buying. As the externalization of Subjective onto some commodity object, it isn't authentic individualism.
Perhaps informed social critics realize this, but I wish more people would.
"As the externalization of Subjective onto some commodity object, it isn't authentic individualism."
An important distinction which many critics of "individualism" seem to have missed entirely. People like Che Guevara, who said that "the individual must be destroyed," base their argument on a naive and mechanistic view of the person and his relation to the community. They confuse (1) being an individual (i.e. a conscious person) with (2) the warped pseudo-individuality of the consumer society.
However, some critics of modernity, Zerzan among them, have accused modern industrial culture of suppressing the individual and turning him to a mere cog in the society-machine. As an anarchist critic of civilisation, Zerzan would never endorse your view of the healthy community in which any expression of personality will result in ostracism or even death. You seem to have fallen victim to an overly simplistic view of the individual and the way he relates to his community.
"-- in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society."
In other words, the anarchist critique of domination is a useful tool for achieving certain goals, but as soon as those goals are met, the critique of domination can fly right out the window? This is why I find it important to emphasise the anarcho- in anarcho-primitivism. Your views may be in tune with some branch of primitivism but certainly not with anarcho-primitivism.
Your video makes a very good point. Thank you very much. I mean, even if your not completely correct, classical anarchism (with heavy emphasis on the environment of course) would be the ideal transition into anarcho-primitivism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So wait, are you saying that since civilization is oppressive, that it would be wise to basically decivilize ourselves and go back to the Stone Age practically? For those who would argue that anarcho-syndicalism and forms of similar stateless socialism are to "improve" the lives of people, undoubtedly their span and QUALITY of life would plummet.
And all this time I thought syndicalists and anarcho-communists thought it was going to improve quality of life. So this Zerzen guy thinks that's bad?
Zeran isn't a syndicalist or an anarcho-communist. He's a Primitivist looney.
There's no doubt that stateless socialism would INCREASE the quality and span of people's lives, but Primitivists want to return to the Iron Age where the average lifespan was 12 years old.
I didn't say he was; I was just responding to mr1001night's suggestion that syndicalism could be used as a method to slowly deindustrialize and return to a primitivist state.
And that's the thing I don't get: if Zerzan's views are a reaction to the "oppressive" nature of modern society that reduces standards of living , why is he advocating a return to a time when you could barely live past childhood?
"Anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Look up Medieval Iceland and see for yourself. Capitalism requires institutionalized violence in the form of the State (however geographically small the State is) to maintain itself.
So primitivism requires genocide and eugenics on a near global scale? Doesn't sound like my cup of tea whatsoever.
The most (only?) desirable aspect of primitivism is the ability to live within tight knit communities in contrast to the social alienation a modern late capitalist world is alleged to bring.
That said if you look at anarcho-syndicalism such communities can exist, like the worker co-operatives in Argentina.
"So primitivism requires genocide and eugenics on a near global scale?" Revolution doesn't and cannot work like that. That's based on the same presupposition as the anarchy=chaos argument.
I didn't mean a literal genocide, but we couldn't sustain a primitivist government is if millions of people were to dissappear. They only way I could see this happening is either literal genocie, or vast quantities of people starving as our resources get worn out.
The only reason either of those would happen would be at the fault of civilization and not primitivism (which I think you were actually implying).
I think primitivists would much rather go through a process like he implied in the video (even though I'm sure we'd all want something even better than that) so that we can avoid genocide, starving ourselves out, etc.
I am not implying a fall of society. I am saying that the industrialised level that we produce food at barely supports are population as it is. A primitivist society, no matter how it is phased in could not possibly support our population. Unless you know how to farm and be entirely self-sustaining then this is far from desirable.
I think that what you don't understand is that the "phasing in" of primitivism would mostly be centered around reducing our population. Civilization will either kill itself (which will cause billions of people to die horrible deaths), or we will kill out (in which billions of people will voluntarily stop having kids or something).
What? That's my initial point. When I said eugenics I meant massive scale selective breeding (e.g. none at all) and by genocide I meant death on a massive scale of billions like say one that would be caused by our oil running out. Did you think be genocide I meant one carried out by people like a holocaust?
Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "selective." It'd essentially be a bunch of individuals deciding not to fuel the problem by having one kid at the most.
"Primitivism" would be where we killed civilization. The genocide would be the result of civilization.
If civilization was abolished, then what would stop it from reemerging?Didn't civilization emerge because of this relatively good climate, compared to the ice age?And if this was true then wouldn't we have to do serious and long-term damage to our climate to make such a system semi-permanent?
well, once anarcho-syndicalism is actually "achieved" (wheres the dividing line between achieved adn not-yet-achieved?), wouldnt that be already a great state to be in?
symbolism isnt destructive, its just how its organized. the mind interprets the world through ideas, since that's the only way anything could ever be interpreted, so symbolism is inescapable. the idea is to properly manage ideas so they become more concrete as we go.
Do you mean that anarcho-syndicalism is the only voluntary means to accomplish some kind of primitivism? Or do you mean it is the ONLY way to achieve it?
I would agree with the first, but it seems clear that authoritarian/totalitarian governments are perfectly capable of reducing populations and destroying industry. Pol Pot was a genocidal freak that managed to do this fairly rapidly.
I agree with most of what you said in this video. I don't think human nature can truly flourish within the confines of nature, though. Makes me start to wonder if we really do have souls of some sort..
Yeah I mean this is what I thought. Zerzan is respectable though, but I don't think primitivism is an ideal to move towards, its very backward looking like conservatism. If we go back to a primitive society, that will then be like moving thousands of years back, so what is to stop rise of feudalism etc all over again? Arguably the other strains of anarchism are forward looking as they will move towards a post-age accommodating industrialism and progress ASWELL as full human development
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 8 months ago
@11mac11s Hey, I don't disagree with you. I'd love to see bankers and politicians swinging from lamp posts. We're LONG overdue for a reset.
Antiks72 1 year ago
@11mac11s I guess we're fucked either way.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Millions and million would die if Zerzan's wish ever came true. Probably billions.
Antiks72 1 year ago
@Antiks72
Derrick Jensen has said that electricity, yes ELECTRICITY, is incompatible with planetary survival.... I mean, if we continue as is, according to Zerzan and the likes of Jensen the planet will be destroyed.... Noam Chomsky said we're in real trouble if we have to embrace a Jensen ideology.... So, who knows.
eddiemaxblack 1 month ago
@eddiemaxblack Who cares what they say? Are they experts? How the fuck do they know? Oh, and their ideas aren't going to happen.
Antiks72 1 month ago
@Antiks72
What should happen? I mean, we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. And Chomsky said: we're in trouble if we need to embrace Jensen's ideology.
Or do we simply destroy the planet? I know. The planet will be around for another 5 billion years. But it may be pretty difficult for life to survive.
And, too, how do we address global warming or environmental decay? Should we care? Should we care about future generations?
eddiemaxblack 1 month ago
@eddiemaxblack eat, drink and be merry , for tommorrow we die.
Antiks72 1 month ago
One of those things I like about mr1001, is that he seems to like to refer to Marx in these, his 'own', contexts. Intriguing.
CaptainBluebear08 1 year ago
I'm sick of seeing your face being recommended to me on youtube, what do you even believe?
clennon84 2 years ago
even if it is not possible (obviously, it is not possible) to go back before neolitic revolution,
the analysis of dynamics that brought about current shape of civilisation and judgement of civilisations makes it easier to recognise injuries we took from it. Zerzan talks not only about symbols, the rest of critique is far more important and valid.
gggrzesiek 2 years ago
gggrzesiek said precisely what I was thinking. Zerzan's analysis of the symbolic is not really central to his critique of civilization. The central idea of the critique is that agriculture and civilization generated a culture of domestication where humans treat the Earth as an object to be exploited through technology and violence. Anarchists who do not address this "humans are the masters of the world" delusion will not be able to escape today's social and environmental problems.
theGreenAnarchist 2 years ago
I agree that humans should lower their global population by 90% and that we should completely abandon the use of fossil fuels. I don't see anyting inherently wrong with agriculture (correlation with hierarchy is not causation).
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
Technological evolution has permitted hierarchy to intensify, however it has always existed. History has demonstrated clearly that the natural system of social organization among humans is hierarchical, similar to dogs and chimpanzees.
gunman806 2 years ago
I agree that HISTORY has shown that humans organize along almost uniformly hierarchical lines, but disagree that it shows this to be a natural, innate tendency in humans. "History" only covers the last 5% of modern man's existence on earth and only from the perspective of a single culture (the civilized). Our failure to recognize on a societal level that history is a recount a single culture (not mankind as a whole) can lead us to severely biased conclusions about the nature of man.
inactivism 2 years ago
I'll agree that the existing historical record is limited in its usefulness. However we have had the pleasure of encountering and studying isolated primitive tribes, all of which feature patriarchal systems of organization. It's also worth noting that in spite of the massive differences in culture which exist among the various nations of today, one of the few extremely consistent features is hierarchy.
gunman806 2 years ago
Hi gunman806,
In nice to see you know of studies from different tribes. You may be interested in studies of hunter gatherers. Humans lived in ..relatively egalitarian societies.. pp 4 In other words The Leader can persuade but not command. Ibid. This relatively non-hierarchial way of living as hunter-gatherers is how humans have lived for 90 percent of human history. pp back cover
Source: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers by Richard Lee and Richard Daly (2004).
Libertad450 2 years ago
In a state of barbarity, tribes were of a smaller size and economic and political stratification was much less pronounced. Nevertheless, intra-group violence among males was likely frequent and intense, as was inter-group conflict. Humans, generally speaking, are irrational, violent and volatile. This has been demonstrated countless times in the presence of different cultures and different levels of technology.
I suggest re-examining the degree to which culture influences behaviour.
gunman806 2 years ago
I should add that it's usually the case that the consent of the masses is necessary in order to preserve one's status as a leader. Whether it be clan leaders, feudal lords and serfs, or democratic leaders and common people. One should not underestimate the intense desire to dominate others experienced by some.
gunman806 2 years ago
Hi gunman806,
Thanks for your response. Well this is your personal opinion, can you give me actual facts to reference, so I can attempt to look up where your getting your information from for accuracy purposes? BTW I am mostly reffering to band hunter-gatherers that humanity has lived for most of its existence, which was egalitarian according Fry, Ferguson, and even to a degree LeBLanc and Keeley if one looks for it in their books.
Thank you for your time,
Libertad
Libertad450 2 years ago
Sorry, my friend, but you cannot count me among the faithful followers of anarchism. I do as I please, as long as I think it's unlikely that I'll be busted by cops and busybodies who have nothing better to do than tell me what I should think. I suppose that's abhorrent to you, but may I dare to suggest that perhaps I embody the spirit of anarchy more than you do. I loot the ideological supermarket for whatever I can make use of, but I won't buy into a prepackaged program of correct thinking.
luv2bud 2 years ago
"I won't buy into a prepackaged program of correct thinking."
I am not spoon-feeding you a program of correct thinking, and you basically know this. You know it but pretend not to because it is so much easier to hide behind a conceited image of nonconformity, while painting your opponent as a politically correct robot, than to actually defend your own record. I pointed out what I find is an obvious and glaring problem in your reasoning. That is called criticism, not indoctrination.
darlingelf 2 years ago
At least I have let my record stand, to someday be defended, rather than erasing my comments from this public space, as you have done. Why are you too ashamed of what you have written, to let it stand up to public scrutiny? Hunter-gatherers are not conscious anarchists, and they do not adhere to your rigid ideology any more than I do. H/gs tend toward pramatic behavior, and they would not hesitate to "oppress" or "coerce", say, a thief or psychopath who is disrupting their vulnerable society.
luv2bud 2 years ago
"Why are you too ashamed of what you have written --?"
I have deleted and reposted the same comments. The commenting system is buggy and won't always present comments in a thread.
"-- not conscious anarchists --"
No, and that's the beauty of it all. They were not organised anarchists, they lived in a natural state of anarchy. Political or economic systems were not needed to maintain social harmony in the absence of the prescribed roles and hierarchies that come with division of labour.
darlingelf 2 years ago
"You suggest that the right to express a differing opinion is of merely instrumental value, and that as soon as ... tribalism is achieved, we can just forget about the right to express any idea that differs from the status quo." -- from one of your comments that you deleted
I never suggested that differing opinions are not to be tolerated. You have performed a sleight-of-hand here. Reread what I have written. I said that a deviant identity is most appropriate in a deathkultur like ours.
luv2bud 2 years ago
First you write:
"Individualism and the right to think critically and independently, as well as the right to march to the beat of a different drummer are highly valued by some segments of our society. These values tend to be held by social critics, [etc.] These values are important in an insane dealthkultur such as ours."
Then you write:
"But in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society."
darlingelf 2 years ago
That is correct. I see no contradiction. I say nothing about differing opinions being unacceptable. If somone thinks the group should go north to hunt, when the group normally goes south, that person's opinion should be considered. Maybe that person knows about a previously-unknown food source. But if that person says that killing animals for food is unethical, that person would (and should) be ridiculed. If that person turns to cannibalism, ostracism or expulsion would be appropriate.
luv2bud 2 years ago
"-- a thief or psychopath who is disrupting their vulnerable society."
Again, the beauty of the hunter-gatherer band society is that by its very structure it discourages the social stratification peculiar to complex/specialised/divided societies. The absence of property relations or hierarchy pretty much does away with the concept of theft and seriously anti-social behaviour. What little "division" remains is due to natural individuality, spontaneous variation in personality and temperament.
darlingelf 2 years ago
"-- thief or psychopath --"
Also, I don't think I want to let you get away with the sleight of hand you perform here, jumping from the denial of basic social freedom in the hunter-gatherer society (in which context you say it is no longer "appropriate") to the more conventionally respectable opposition of theft and psychopathic behaviour. So there, it's out.
darlingelf 2 years ago
I'm happy to see that you are finally returning to the point of this discussion -- that our globalized techno-industrial civilization is unjust and unsustainable, and it is destroying the ecosystem that is ultimately the foundation of its own existence. Actually, you seem to be most focused upon the injustice of it. I think your orientation is more political, and mine is more ecological and anthropological. Humans function best in hunter/gatherer bands. We evolved to live in small groups.
luv2bud 2 years ago
Darlingelf: I don't claim to march in lockstep with John Zerzan or any of the other "superstars" or spokespeople for primitivism, anarchism, or any other ideological recipe for correct thinking. I think what I think. Some of what I think may be influenced by, or resonate with, some of what other people think. But I feel no need to restrict myself to what some ideological authoritarian has decided is correct in order to present a unified front. Maybe I'm not a "true" anarchist. Oh, well ...
luv2bud 2 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What provoked me to reply to your comments in so many words is your peculiarly cynical appropriation of anarcho-primitivist ideas in the service of something that is in fact completely abhorrent to any serious anarchist (of any school). You suggest, for instance, that the right to express a differing opinion is of merely instrumental value, and that as soon as the healthy state of tribalism is achieved, we can just forget about the right to express any idea that differs from the status quo.
darlingelf 2 years ago
Yes. In our syphyllization, individualism is often expressed as the yuppie-scum "greed is good" philosophy that predominated in the mid-to late 80's and into the 90's. On the other hand, so many would-be rebels fall into the advanced capitalist trap of spectacular rebellion. They adopt a pre-packaged rebellious stle (hippie, punk, gangsta, raver, etc.; take your pick) and proceed to purchase the trappings and market commodities associated with their chosen spectacular role. Some individuals!
luv2bud 3 years ago
Oh yeah man, your right on. There is no solution. People don't see it, we are in a brave new world whether we like it or not, and we are all slowly becoming disabled. From our genetics to industrial illness, were going insane and losing feeling in our legs at the same time. Its too late for many to be independent at this point. And the ecosystem cant build itself back without the destruction of us.
newmoongathering 2 years ago
I agree with you, if what you mean by "us" is Homo asphaltus shitticus, or postmodern postindustrial humanity. I still believe that we are capable of functioning as an integral part of the ecosystem, if we could somehow contain ourselves and restrict our manipulative tendencies to the manufacture and use of relatively simple tools without progressing to making use of machines, engines, factories, computers, biotech, nanotech, etc. The new wave of h/gs must institute a taboo against high tech.
luv2bud 2 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I apologise if I seem over-eager or harassing, I don't mean to, but there is one more thing that I'd like to mention. You say that the hunter-gatherer society that is to come should establish taboos and standards and enforce them in the community. I don't think that is quite what primitivists like Zerzan are proposing. Zerzan does not advocate a highly organised tribal society but a decidedly less organised and less stable band society of hunter-gatherers. A society "that does not need running."
darlingelf 2 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The anarcho-primitivist logic of a society "that does not need running" is that in such a society the need to oppress the individual, for instance by enforcing communal "standards," would be much lesser than in a more static tribal culture. In a tribal culture there are too many opportunities for the emergence of authoritarian tendencies. A less settled band society of hunter-gatherers would eliminate much of the tension between the individual and the community that arise in tribal society.
darlingelf 2 years ago
Few anarcho-primitivists are in complete agreement with Zerzan. In fact, probably only Zerzan is in complete agreement with Zerzan. The central thesis of anarcho-primitivism is that the typical individual's life was much better in a hunter-gatherer culture (in terms of health, freedom, nutrition, happiness, spiritual fulfilment, etc.) than it is under the present globalized techno-industrial system of domination and alienation. War, genocide, taxes and other poison fruits of civ didn't exist.
luv2bud 3 years ago 2
for me one problem with the thesis would be if there was any individual life in the hunter gather stage. certainly not like we know individualism. the main quesiton: is the human ego something there are the beginning in pre-history or is it something that has been shaped by civilization? i say the latter.
people look at the individual today and assume it was the same for people in primitivist soceities, this compresses historical processes. of course there no way of knowing for sure...
iaeruo 3 years ago
I don't think it is really a problem. It is true that individualism is discouraged in h/g societies. In a famous study of Africa's Mbuti pygmies, one Mbuti tried to be a "big man" by killing an elephant, and he was ostracized. Individualism is often ridiculed. Expulsion from the group is the ultimate h/g penalty for failing to adhere to social standards, and it often amounts to a death sentence. By having less-developed egos, h/gs are in more direct contact with the world, a kind of satori.
luv2bud 3 years ago
that is really interesting.
iaeruo 3 years ago 2
Thank you. Individualism and the right to think critically and independently, as well as the right to march to the beat of a different drummer are highly valued by some segments of our society. These values tend to be held by social critics, rebels, anarchists, and people inclined to primitivist thought. These values are important in an insane dealthkultur such as ours. But in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society.
luv2bud 3 years ago
I agree. I would also say that the sickness of our soceity can be measured in other ways: look at the way 'individualism' is peddled in our soceity, it is internalized as ideology: the individualism of capital - this kind of ideology is the consumer expressing himself through buying. As the externalization of Subjective onto some commodity object, it isn't authentic individualism.
Perhaps informed social critics realize this, but I wish more people would.
iaeruo 3 years ago 2
With this example, I see the need "march to the beat of a different drummer"
iaeruo 3 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"As the externalization of Subjective onto some commodity object, it isn't authentic individualism."
An important distinction which many critics of "individualism" seem to have missed entirely. People like Che Guevara, who said that "the individual must be destroyed," base their argument on a naive and mechanistic view of the person and his relation to the community. They confuse (1) being an individual (i.e. a conscious person) with (2) the warped pseudo-individuality of the consumer society.
darlingelf 2 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
However, some critics of modernity, Zerzan among them, have accused modern industrial culture of suppressing the individual and turning him to a mere cog in the society-machine. As an anarchist critic of civilisation, Zerzan would never endorse your view of the healthy community in which any expression of personality will result in ostracism or even death. You seem to have fallen victim to an overly simplistic view of the individual and the way he relates to his community.
darlingelf 2 years ago
Comment removed
darlingelf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"-- in a healthy h/g society, I don't really think it's appropriate to be a social deviant like it is in our sick society."
In other words, the anarchist critique of domination is a useful tool for achieving certain goals, but as soon as those goals are met, the critique of domination can fly right out the window? This is why I find it important to emphasise the anarcho- in anarcho-primitivism. Your views may be in tune with some branch of primitivism but certainly not with anarcho-primitivism.
darlingelf 2 years ago
Your video makes a very good point. Thank you very much. I mean, even if your not completely correct, classical anarchism (with heavy emphasis on the environment of course) would be the ideal transition into anarcho-primitivism.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So wait, are you saying that since civilization is oppressive, that it would be wise to basically decivilize ourselves and go back to the Stone Age practically? For those who would argue that anarcho-syndicalism and forms of similar stateless socialism are to "improve" the lives of people, undoubtedly their span and QUALITY of life would plummet.
And all this time I thought syndicalists and anarcho-communists thought it was going to improve quality of life. So this Zerzen guy thinks that's bad?
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Zeran isn't a syndicalist or an anarcho-communist. He's a Primitivist looney.
There's no doubt that stateless socialism would INCREASE the quality and span of people's lives, but Primitivists want to return to the Iron Age where the average lifespan was 12 years old.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
I didn't say he was; I was just responding to mr1001night's suggestion that syndicalism could be used as a method to slowly deindustrialize and return to a primitivist state.
And that's the thing I don't get: if Zerzan's views are a reaction to the "oppressive" nature of modern society that reduces standards of living , why is he advocating a return to a time when you could barely live past childhood?
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
I don't understand it either, it astounds me how anyone can take Zerzan seriously.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
But free-market capitalism is also a ridiculous ideology.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago 2
Or the idea that anyone who supports unfettered capitalism can call themselves a "Libertarian".
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
Well, that's me. I'm an anarchocapitalist. It's based on the concept of "spontaneous order."
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
"Anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Look up Medieval Iceland and see for yourself. Capitalism requires institutionalized violence in the form of the State (however geographically small the State is) to maintain itself.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution!" - attributed to Emma Goldman.
Irtidad 3 years ago 3
So primitivism requires genocide and eugenics on a near global scale? Doesn't sound like my cup of tea whatsoever.
The most (only?) desirable aspect of primitivism is the ability to live within tight knit communities in contrast to the social alienation a modern late capitalist world is alleged to bring.
That said if you look at anarcho-syndicalism such communities can exist, like the worker co-operatives in Argentina.
Synskin 3 years ago
"So primitivism requires genocide and eugenics on a near global scale?" Revolution doesn't and cannot work like that. That's based on the same presupposition as the anarchy=chaos argument.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
I didn't mean a literal genocide, but we couldn't sustain a primitivist government is if millions of people were to dissappear. They only way I could see this happening is either literal genocie, or vast quantities of people starving as our resources get worn out.
Synskin 3 years ago
The only reason either of those would happen would be at the fault of civilization and not primitivism (which I think you were actually implying).
I think primitivists would much rather go through a process like he implied in the video (even though I'm sure we'd all want something even better than that) so that we can avoid genocide, starving ourselves out, etc.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
I am not implying a fall of society. I am saying that the industrialised level that we produce food at barely supports are population as it is. A primitivist society, no matter how it is phased in could not possibly support our population. Unless you know how to farm and be entirely self-sustaining then this is far from desirable.
Synskin 3 years ago
I think that what you don't understand is that the "phasing in" of primitivism would mostly be centered around reducing our population. Civilization will either kill itself (which will cause billions of people to die horrible deaths), or we will kill out (in which billions of people will voluntarily stop having kids or something).
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
What? That's my initial point. When I said eugenics I meant massive scale selective breeding (e.g. none at all) and by genocide I meant death on a massive scale of billions like say one that would be caused by our oil running out. Did you think be genocide I meant one carried out by people like a holocaust?
Synskin 3 years ago
Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "selective." It'd essentially be a bunch of individuals deciding not to fuel the problem by having one kid at the most.
"Primitivism" would be where we killed civilization. The genocide would be the result of civilization.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
If civilization was abolished, then what would stop it from reemerging?Didn't civilization emerge because of this relatively good climate, compared to the ice age?And if this was true then wouldn't we have to do serious and long-term damage to our climate to make such a system semi-permanent?
spaz3586 3 years ago
well, once anarcho-syndicalism is actually "achieved" (wheres the dividing line between achieved adn not-yet-achieved?), wouldnt that be already a great state to be in?
symbolism isnt destructive, its just how its organized. the mind interprets the world through ideas, since that's the only way anything could ever be interpreted, so symbolism is inescapable. the idea is to properly manage ideas so they become more concrete as we go.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
I agree.
Irtidad 3 years ago
Syndicalism as a transition to Primitivism... Intriguing concept...
WeWillWinAnarchy 3 years ago 5
Do you mean that anarcho-syndicalism is the only voluntary means to accomplish some kind of primitivism? Or do you mean it is the ONLY way to achieve it?
I would agree with the first, but it seems clear that authoritarian/totalitarian governments are perfectly capable of reducing populations and destroying industry. Pol Pot was a genocidal freak that managed to do this fairly rapidly.
comradepinko 3 years ago
I agree with most of what you said in this video. I don't think human nature can truly flourish within the confines of nature, though. Makes me start to wonder if we really do have souls of some sort..
graaaaaagh 3 years ago