Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CaptainACAB wrote

But what about the children?!

Fucking god. I'm tired of this rhetoric.

But, uhh, yeah pretty weird how all of those different "anarchos" (and the one "anarcha") are separated as though they're all mutually exclusive (the syndies are the odd one of the bunch, of course) and that you can have anarchy without one of them (again, save for syndies).

Yadda yadda yadda civs cause a lot of unnecessary death (and dead children, but why is that somehow worse? Millions dead is still millions dead) from easily prevented disease because cities containing multiple species of animals, large populations of humans, terrible waste management/disposal methods, and sedentary lifestyles is how diseases rapidly mutate and become pandemics. More so with transportation to other cities (with different environments), overuse of antibiotics, and other factors. It's like no one's ever played plague inc, or something.

What even is a "high quality of life"? Everyone's obsessed with their own mortality, so it almost always seems to come to lifespan.

11

LittleHelp wrote

Can someone explain to me please where this hatred of anprims even comes from? Like, is there some specific cause? Because these kinds of messages just fall apart immediately on inspection, so they can only be motivated by some kind of extreme feelings?

Like. The context of the post is that all anarchists are supposed to coexist in their utopia the way they want, with the implication that the ancoms & solarpunk ppl can just build their nature destroying planet-devastation factories wherever they want unopposed, can keep livestock torture machinery in any capacity they want and nobody can do anything ab it bc we are living under anarchism and apparently that means living without accountability (and I don't feel like i'm simply exaggerating to make a point, my wording might be less enthusiastic and euphemistic than how they would put it but "keeping all the industry, but we'll be nice about it" seems to be the gist of the ancom ideology).

So that's all fine and good, but when it comes to primitivism, some kind of idea is constructed out of nowhere where they, for example, kill children. Like. Ancoms actually DO want industry. It's not an abstract constructed consequence of their actions, it's just literally their livestyle. I meanwhile struggle to imagine anprim livestyle would be to kill children. The criticism is only leveraged against anprims though, ancoms are generally perceived as totally fine. Even though, at the same time, ironically, large scale industrialization actually will & does destroy the planet, and you can't have children without a planet, so there's that.

Another thing; admittedly something I know very little about, but aren't there non-industrialized people living on earth right now? Aren't there still indigenous people on the planet today that don't use technology and aren't part of civilization? So is the argument here that these people mistreat their children? Am I supposed to believe that, if given the chance, that person making that argument in the thread above, would just go in with their communist peace tanks and save all the children from those people? Or do they have some arbitrary defense about how their point that "primitivists are ableist child killers" doesn't apply to all the indigenous people around the world?

Like, why??? Why do people argue that way about primitivism? I honestly don't understand it. Even in real life, when I bring up anti-civ or primitivist ideas, many anarchists will reflexively be hostile to it. It's not just an internet phenomenon. To me it seems like people actually just flat out want all the fruits and luxury that capitalism gives them, except they want to feel better about all the harm that it does, so they imagine some utopia where all the harm doesn't happen and claim that they are working towards that, without having any real back-up plan in case that doesn't pan out.

And when people so vehemently refuse to engage with primitivism, which would pretty much be the back-up idea in case it's not actually possible to have a healthy planet and large-scale industry both at the same time, then it just leads me to believe that they would just simply prefer capitalism and all the harm it causes to not having phones and cars. Maybe I'm being unfair here but I really really struggle to empathize with these kinds of responses.

10

CaptainACAB wrote

Another thing; admittedly something I know very little about, but aren't there non-industrialized people living on earth right now? Aren't there still indigenous people on the planet today that don't use technology and aren't part of civilization?

Yeh.

Or do they have some arbitrary defense about how their point that "primitivists are ableist child killers" doesn't apply to all the indigenous people around the world?

They believe that anprims/anti-civs want ideological dominance and want to enact total social upheaval via revolution. Because several billion lives depend upon civilization, this would logically lead to a lot of deaths (how civ is dismantled so easily and quickly in their minds, I don't know). What they're missing is that anprims aren't social anarchists, and are closer to so-called lifestylists.

Like, why??? Why do people argue that way about primitivism?

Most people are genuinely ignorant about prehistory and buy into that hobbesian narrative of a "cruel, brutally short" life; regardless of research proving otherwise, they think humans died at the age of 30, had no form of medicine, no form of care for the disabled, and so on. Pro-civs have no reason to critique this because they see civilization as an objective good; identifying as anti-civ to them is like identifying as "evil" to a moralist: at best "misguided", at worst "malevolent", "genocidal", or even "insane".

10

Fool wrote

From reading a lot of the earlier criticism of Primitivism, while there was already a strong division with Bookchin's efforts, the main push started around 2010 in response to some sort of split within the Green Anarchist movements wherein Eco-Fascist groups started to really show their colours and a some people blame Primitivism because they didn't disassociate fast enough.

I'd add more broadly the same people accuse anything related to Nihilism/Egoism of being fascist (but Post Structuralism is fine...)

7

ziq OP wrote

Ancom1: "We can all co-exist, the anprims in their woods and the ancoms in their mega industrial civilization (that dries up those woods)"

Ancom2: "No no no, we have to kill the anprims, who will think of the children?"

Ancom3: "I'm also worried about the children, comrades. Let's take a vote to decide how to proceed..."

8

NeoliberalismKills wrote

These people really would've supported the colonization of Indigenous populations outside the "Western world" as unfortunate but necessary "for the sake of the children" criticizing their refusal to accept their medicine.

5

ziq OP wrote

They already do every time they defend mass industry, which completely depends on colonization and genocide.


Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022 May she rest in piss

4

kinshavo wrote

To quote Novatore:

“I am with you [ancom] in destroying the tyranny of existing society, but when you have done this and begun to build anew, then I will oppose and go beyond you.”

7