Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

[deleted] wrote

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

i practically need medication to feel human most days and if it comes down primitivism vs transhumanism i'm more inclined to prefer the former over the latter. i don't really like either movements as a whole but i'll take john moore over william gillis any day.

also you really shouldn't use words like "primitives" derogatorily! that is literally the language of colonialism you're using there.

2

[deleted] wrote

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

no, not at all. while i probably don't have anything in common with the image of primitivism you've got in your head (i don't think it's desirable or even possible to "go back to the stone age") i think primitivism has a lot of untapped potential that is best evident in the work of people like john moore.

that said it's obvious primitivism hasn't lived up to this potential at all, and as you're probably aware, the quality of primitivist discourse on the internet is really bad. so i wouldn't call myself a primitivist or anything. at a pinch i might call myself post-civ.

1

Random_Revolutionary wrote

What's wrong with gillis? I've only read one text of his and I found it quite woke.

5

Dumai wrote

his transhumanist politics seem to centre on "the recognition that social liberty is inherently bound up with material liberty, and that freedom is ultimately a matter of expanding our capacity and opportunities to engage with the world around us" (his words), which historically has not been true at all, for reasons any radical should know? i mean the industrial revolution vastly expanded human productive and creative capability in material terms while also giving rise to generalised wage labour? an increase of "material liberty" doesn't necessarily provide you with a higher degree of agency, which means even isaiah berlin with his positive/negative liberty dichotomy is more useful in this regard than gillis. if a liberal has a more developed conception of liberty than an anarchist, i'd say something's gone very very wrong here.

and besides, "free human 'individuals' shaping 'nature' according to their 'will'" is like, bourgeois subjectivity 101? i don't know. gillis seems like a good guy but he's also a huge dork.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

AnPrimitivism isn't a collectivist anarchism so that's a bit of a strawman. Individualist anarchists don't have any aspirations to assert control over society.