Hello everybody,
Sorry if this question has been asked before:
In what way (if any) is 'anarcho-Primitivism' anarchist?
Any ideas?
best wishes
Steve Booth
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hello everybody,
Sorry if this question has been asked before:
In what way (if any) is 'anarcho-Primitivism' anarchist?
Any ideas?
best wishes
Steve Booth
Is an internet message board the best place to debate this?
*starts smoke signalling*
surely in the sense that if someone says they are anarcho primitive it means they are against both technology or civilisation or whatever, and against folk having power over others. personally, i thought the phrase was more or less self explanitory.Originally Posted by Steve Booth
I think the 'deluded' adjective is enough and there's little point in spoiling its descriptive clarity by adding more labels.
it has fuck all to do with anarchism
surely it is a form of anarchism if it is about abolishing folks power over others and increasing freedom, whether you agree with it or not?
All it refers to is a lifestyle choice to remove things like medcine, reliable food supply, IT...pretty much everything that makes life easier, increases lifespan etc, and NOT to some kind of mythical 'free' society where no-one has power over another.
If you attached a (possibly) modern political idea like anarchism to it then yes, it would be anarchistic. Primitivism on it's own could lead to an horrendous level of oppression.
Surely the original poster could answer this better than most? What are your views on it now, Steve?
I'm too anti Primitivist to answer this dispassionately.
Hi there,
I'm really trying to find out what other people think. Back in 2001 I wrote a booklet 'Primitivism: An Illusion With No Future' which was for a time on the web, but the site is long gone now. There are exerpts from it in various places.
I was mulling the question at the top of this over and it came to me that I suspect nobody has ever really thought about this one. (of course I'm probably wrong on this - please put me straight if you know better) and yet it is a pretty obvious question. I suppose we all assumed that it was, because it called itself 'anarcho-primitivist'. But there are Primitivists out there who would not consider themselves anarchists.
There is a kind of danger in anarchist discussions that people who don't like something which somebody stands for then they declare that the opponents are not anarchist as a way of dismissing them. The opposite of this is a kind of charitable principle which wouldn't ask the question 'are anarcho-primitivists anarchists?' but would just accept them on face value because they describe themselves as anarchist.
Not everybody who calls themselves 'anarchist' is an anarchist. And some people who do not call themselves anarchist, are....
I have got a feeling that they are not anarchist, because the programme which primitivism infers eg "Return to Croatan" or the Kalahari Bushmen type lifeways would severely restrict the freedom of other people to eg use painkillers in childbirth or to have sewage, the internet, live in houses etc. Pretty much knock down everything that there is in society. "For the destruction of civilization" is a really bad slogan because it takes away most of what defines people as people in their present lives. It is really anti- human. Hospitals are civilization, universities are civilization, internet sites .... How would primitivists deal with people who want to keep these things?
A primitivist might well seek refuge in the John Moore style 'it is not a literal return to Croatan' defence. But that's a cop out.
It is one of those bi-polar outcome things whereby increasing the capacity of the primitivists to deliver their wishes reduces the ability to deliver on the wishes of others.
If Primitivism is an illusory postmodern programme intended in an ironic sense, it therefore doesn't offer a serious social programme to reduce or eventually eliminate the power of the state, which I suppose is one of the main things about the anarchist movement. I think in the long run something like Primitivism makes this all that much harder.
Perhaps the best thing that could be said in its defence is that it is a meaningless proposal and so doesn't impede or advance anarchy either way.
I've probably gone on too long. To answer your question, I think on balance they are not anarchists. But I really want to know what other people think.
best wishes
Steve
Right. That's true. And maybe I'm a bit grumpy, but isn't it a bit too obvious a set of propositions to have a real debate about?
My problems with Primitivism are very similar to Bookchin's; it's anti human to expect us to forgo technology. And it is - by definition - authoritarian to ban or seek to ban technology.
Furthermore, as a rationalist, I have a real problem with rejecting science and empiricism. To abandon those is to relinquish responsibility and hand it over to the supernatural. In my view, no anarchist should do that and expect to be considered truly libertarian. (Maybe I'm wrong, but higher beings are not excused from my dislike of hierarchy).
Well, I thought that too when the question first hit me. But the more I thought about it the more I saw that it cuts to the very core of what Primitivism is and why it is wrong / useless.
Surely Primitivism isn't anarchist and proclaim itself to be? It's just anti-civ/tech. You could easily combine very authoritarianism with being anti-civ (realistically I think you'd have to).
Anarcho-Primitivism should be taken as what it says on the tin, against government and against civilisation. Whether or not you think it desirable makes it no less reasonable a use of the word anarchism. Those of us concerned with the association of our politics and theres should remember that for the most part we can distinguish ourselves by our behaviour, the struggles we engage in and honest criticism (as opposed to hysterical sectarianism).
So it's completely acceptable to use the term anarcho-capitalism as well then.Whether or not you think it desirable makes it no less reasonable a use of the word anarchism.
Given how precious some people are about the (mis)use of anarcho- as a prefix then accepting as reasonable the term anarcho primitivist means accepting the term anarcho-capitalist as well. IMV.
Property is a form of authority ks, so capitalism and anarchism contradict one another in a way that anarchism and primitivism doesn't.
Restricting technology is a form of authority too...
In my opinion very moderate anarcho-primitivism can be considered a form of anarchism. However primitivism's association with anarchism is largely just a case of bad luck.
i suppose you could, though, (irrespective of how unlikely succeeding in this is), be anti-authorotarian, and personally believe that the only way we can be happy and fulfilled is in a primitive state without technology, and also not believe in having the right to ban folk from using it, but hope to convince them against it by spreading your ideas (which if youre against language as well may have to be done by example more as things progress/regress) in the same way that most more "mainstream" anarchists wouldn't want to "ban" folk saving money or trading or stuff, and someone who was a true anarchist who also believed technology would save us wouldn't want to ban someone from trying to personally lead a primitivist lifestyle. I'm sure there are some folk who call themselves anarchoprimitivists who dont take this approach, but mebbe some of them are actually just primitivists, and this doesn't change anything about the first group.
Others still may think that whatever they do civilisation's going to collapse totally at some point, so try and prepare so that when primitivism comes around it will be anarchoprimitivism and not authoritarian.
I'm not trying to say these views are right or wrong, so don't get into rippin it apart that way, just saying that folk like that could validly be called anarchoprimitivists cos of their beliefs.
We wouldn't want to "ban" people from saving money or trading, we'd want to make it pointless, like stamp collecting. Before it became pointless, we would have to destroy the state and the ecomomy and replace it with communism. That revolution would involve the authority of the many against the few, so anarchism is authoritarian, but in a good way.
"Anarcho"-primitivism usually seems to come down to lifestylism (fuck off and die in the woods alone) or authoritarianism (make everybody else join you in shivering and starving), IME.
Yes but you can be against something without wanting the authority to abolish it.
Primitivism has nothing in common with anarchism.
Whoever said that primitivism and property ownership are mutually exclusive? My tribe and I might start getting very pissed off you start mooching around 'our' hunting ground...I'd also posit, as someone else has, that by enforcing lo-tech (which you'd have to - what if 10% of the population sensibly said 'Fuck that, we want our technology'? Are you going to force them to give it up and start living in the bush?
I mean do you have some kind of Eden-esque view of what primitivism would be like? NO medcine, no complex music, no writing, nowthing like the diversity of artistic expression. Freesing cold, no guaranteed food supplies, no guaranteed heat...you serisouly think it's some kind of cave dwelling utopia? As a species we'd be back down to our most primal and violent instincts within a generation - if not sooner.
So all this talk of 'we need to achieve a communist society first'...you think that after 2 or 3 bad winters or dry summers that people are still going to be some kind of supre happy hippy club? We'd be at each others throats over a fucking dog bone within 25 years.
I think you're confusing me for a primitivist. I think a lo-tech society is a terrible idea.
What I am saying is this:
You can be a primitivist without it contradicting your anarchism.
You cannot be a capitalist without it contradicting your anarchism.
Also (in response to what you've written above):
I made no comment on whether capitalism and primitivism contradicted one another (but I do not think that they do)
In the situation outlined above, the anarcho-primitivist would have to find a way of not enforcing their beliefs onto the non-primo 10%, either through compromise or through seperating societies. Crap idea sure, but not logically coherent.
Sorry sorry, it wasn't aimed specifically at you - I didn't think for a second you are moron!!
It must've been someone else who made the point about property and capitalism...
Kyser, capitalism is a systematic system of oppression, and hence incompatible with anarchist philosophy.
Primitivism is a lifestyle choice, and hence not necessarily incompatible with anarchism. However, an international primitivist society, although it might technically operate "without government" could in no way come to fruition without the elimination of large sections of the human population. Hence, it's very difficult to reconcile with anarchism, and is more akin to various forms of millenarialism or survivalism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
