Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

Dumai wrote

Anarcho primitivism is a want to return to a time before agriculture.

it actually isn't! this is what i've been trying to tell people for a looooong time

4

theblackcat wrote

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-primitivists.

That's kind of wishy washy.

nor are we suggesting a return to gathering and hunting as a means for our livelihood

Then why do so many primitivists promote doing just that?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

One person's musings don't represent the entirety of a movement. One person can't be trusted to define a movement based on their personal biases and motivations. You can only form your opinions on a movement by looking at the majority of its adherents and making your own judgements.

Most anarcho-primitivists reject all technology and see agriculture as inherently damaging. Most anarcho-primitivists advocate for a pre-agricultural society. So my judgement is that anarcho-primitivism is a rejection of technology and a yearning to return to hunter-gathering. Most, if not all postcivs have made the same judgement or we wouldn't be calling ourselves 'postciv' instead of 'primitivist'. Postciv is a direct response to primitivism's shortcomings.

There are always people that try to 'liberalize' the dogma of their philosophy and thus make the movement harder to pin down and more theoretical than praxis-based. These people annoy the fuck out of me. Like transhumanists that claim "everyone that has ever used a toaster is a transhumanist... but boy would I love to upload my brain to the cloud and live forever - which is totally unrelated to transhumanism so fuck you for equating the 2 things". They water down the meaning of the word until it means nothing.

But almost all anprimitivists a) reject technology; including agriculture and b) want humanity to return to a 'purer' hunter/gatherer state. Pretending otherwise because some random anprim claims otherwise, while clearly wanting the very things they deny define their movement is folly.

4

Dumai wrote

that's not "some random anprim", that's john moore. he was describing the early anarcho-primtivist movement as it existed in the '80s; the group he quoted in the introduction (the fifth estate) were among the first to call themselves anarcho-primitivists if they weren't the first, full stop. so if they were watering down the meaning of the term "anarcho-primitivism", good luck trying to find out what it meant before them.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I know who he is. Postciv came about because anprim devolved further and further into uselessness and needed a course correction. I don't consider one person more important than anyone else in defining their movement, whatever the movement; it belongs to all its members and can only be defined by taking all their actions and writings into consideration.

3

Dumai wrote

then you should know that calling him "some random anprim" is a bit like calling john calvin "some random protestant". kind of downplays his influence a tad

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm an anarchist, fam. Burnyouridols is what I live by.

3

Dumai wrote

sure, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of anprims will draw influence from him

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I wish they'd draw more influence from him instead of building it increasingly into a totalitarian collectivist ideology far removed from individualist anarchism.

This thread is about the differences between postciv and prim, so the postciv critique of prim is its driving force because that's why postciv exists and why there's a differentiation between the 2. Even though most anprims I know refute that postciv is even needed and would argue there's no difference.

1

Dumai wrote

i don't know how many anprims you've spoken to but all bar one i've met have sung his praises

maybe some reddit anprims approach the ideology on the basis of memes or perhaps a half-understood reading of zerzan but let's not act like reddit should be exhaustively representative of any radical tendency lol

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Singing his praises isn't the same as their real life praxis - which is increasingly caught up in idealistic moralism like talking down to me for having (used) solar panels and not being as pure as them.

The thing I find really offputting is how many anprims talk about 'making' a 'primitivist society' the way ancoms talk about making a communist society which shows how far removed from anarchy they've become.

1

ziq wrote

2

Dumai wrote

??????????????

1

ziq wrote

Um I'm literally the founder of dumaism...

1

jorgesumle wrote

Why did you found that in the Wiki? Do you know that f/anonymous has just modified it?

I am Ziq and I have made this page without listening to the arguments of the other, thus I am smart.

Bask in my intelligence, for I have the raw physical power to tear down endless amounts of straw, arranged even in the shape of a man.

0

ziq wrote

Kids should really stop abusing the anonymous accounts to attack me, it's pretty pathetic.

1

Dumai wrote

i'm laughing right now and i do not know why

1

ziq wrote (edited )

It's a response to you rejecting the postleft critique of morality the other day because 'some moral philosophers say something else... so postleft is wrong and you should stop talking about it' and now rejecting the postciv critique of primitivism because 'this primitivist philosopher says this is how it is... so postcivs should stop thinking otherwise'.

2

Dumai wrote

i mean i could already tell it was a strawman so that didn't clarify all that much

like in that conversation the other day i straight-up told you that you were free to disagree with the mainstream definition of ethics, all i wanted you to do was to be more comprehensive with your explanation so as not to confuse or mislead neophytes.

here all i'm saying the explanation of anarcho-primitivism you gave is far from exhaustive and it would probably help to represent the incredibly messy history of the movement with a little more nuance. like at least mention it, because i doubt anybody who's ever done any significant reading on anarcho-primitivism is unfamiliar with the currents moore describes in that article

1

ziq wrote

I think you were condescending and dismissive the other day. You can give your perspective without shitting on mine.

1

Dumai wrote

looking back at it now i can see how i'd come across that way and i probably should have been a bit more careful -- i still stand by what i meant and you definitely misinterpreted that but that might have been as much my fault as yours

but if i misrepresented post-leftism, simplified the movement to the point that it couldn't come across as anything but absurd, and failed to mention the possibility that it could be anything else, i'd hope somebody would flag me on that.

1

ziq wrote

You come off as dogmatic sometimes. When someone offers their perspective on a topic, you come in and link to some 'authority' giving their conflicting perspective decades ago to debunk them... and the conditions aren't even the same in 2018 as they were back then.

2

Dumai wrote

the reason i posted it is because it's still the best and most concise primer on anarcho-primitivism i know, and it immediately clears up a lot of common misconceptions about what it is, how it started, and why

it definitely should count for something that the most notable anprim contingent from the very start is nothing like what you said anarcho-primitivism is

even if you're of the opinion that anprims, by and large, do now behave the way you described (which i'm still not sure is true), it still probably should have warranted mention that they haven't always been this way and a lot of them still aren't

and also that you're not really gonna find any anarcho-primitivism of that sort in their foundational texts

i didn't post any of that with the intention of shitting on your perspective