#I think he would he the type to read Nietzsche and develop mental illness about it. He does also strike me as a Hegel guy

[anglerflsh]

can you believe he's a history major

[ultraviolet-techno-ecology]

What do you think of genuine primitivism? As in the one described in John Moore's Primitivist Primer? Feminist, anti-colonial, and otherwise pro-marginalized, just with the belief that civilization and technology should be radically critiqued.

TL;DR - It’s a whole lot of nothing. John Moore spends most of the time presenting information from Zerzan - and others to a lesser extent. Almost all serious questions are resolved with some form of “There is no blueprint!” which isn’t a good enough answer when commentary regarding other topics seems to be lacking in long term considerations. For a more detailed analysis… (Avoiding most of the rehash of Zerzan and others and sticking mostly to Moore’s writing.) —–

“Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-primitivists” […] “Individuals associated with this current do not wish to be adherents of an ideology, merely people who seek to become free individuals in free communities in harmony with one another and with the biosphere, and may therefore refuse to be limited by the term ‘anarcho-primitivist’ or any other ideological tagging.“

The article begins with an excellent example of non-thought. It suggests first and foremost that having a detailed coherent position or ideology automatically some conformist style nonindividual. 

———-

“The aim is to develop a synthesis of primal and contemporary anarchy, a synthesis of the ecologically-focussed, non-statist, anti-authoritarian aspects of primitive lifeways with the most advanced forms of anarchist analysis of power relations. The aim is not to replicate or return to the primitive, merely to see the primitive as a source of inspiration, as exemplifying forms of anarchy.”

We continue by defining the aims of Primitivism in vague academic terms of ideology - and second by what it is apparently not. You are left to fill in your own definitions of things like “Non-Statist” and “Primitive Lifeways” which means this entire sentiment can be read in various radically opposing ways. At no point is anything of material consequence stated.Fascists could easily read the above paragraph as an invitation for a new form of “Blood and Soil” since they typically mentally juxtapose themselves as the oppressed freedom fighter anyway.

—————-

“From the perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as revolutionary. Marxism and classical anarchism, for example, want to take over civilization, rework its structures to some degree, and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in civilization remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely because the aspects of civilization they question are minimal.“

If you see 99% of life as remaining the same after the removal of Capitalism, what exactly are you defining as 99% of life? Anticapitalist revolution implies work, housing, food & diet, healthcare, technology, community, schedules, life events, goods, tools, transportation, relationships both interpersonal and environmental, etc - are all being radically transformed. WHAT IS THE REMAINING 99% OF LIFE? THE FACT THAT I SLEEP IN A BED? 

———–

“Radical ideologies on the Left seek to capture power, not abolish it. Hence, they develop various kinds of exclusive groups - cadres, political parties, consciousness-raising groups - in order to win converts and plan strategies for gaining control. Organizations, for anarcho-primitivists, are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power. Politics, ‘the art and science of      government,’ is not part of the primitivist project; only a politics of desire, pleasure, mutuality and radical freedom.“

Short of claiming - absurdly - that Anarchist groups like Food Not Bombs are somehow conspiring to take over the government - I really see no reading of this paragraph that isn’t simply an appeal to long wolf actors and a dismissal of solidarity on a conceptual level. The “Politics of desire, pleasure” does nothing to challenge the image of primitivists as white people looking to have forest orgies.

———–

“Technology is the sum of mediations between us and the natural world and the sum of those separations mediating us from each other.“I’m no philosopher, but I think you will find that “consciousness” is being described here better than Technology.  

——–

“What about medicine?Ultimately, anarcho-primitivism is all about healing - healing the rifts that have opened up within individuals, between people, and between people and nature, the rifts that have opened up through civilization, through power, including the State, Capital, and technology. The German philosopher Nietzsche said that pain, and the way it is dealt with, should be at the heart of any free society, and in this respect, he is right. Individuals, communities and the Earth itself have      been maimed to one degree or another by the power relations characteristic of civilization. People have been psychologically maimed but also physically assaulted by illness and disease. This isn’t to suggest that anarcho-primitivism can abolish pain, illness and disease! However, research has revealed that many diseases are the results of civilized living conditions, and if these conditions were abolished, then certain types of pain, illness and disease could disappear.“

This is exactly what people are referring to when we describe Primitivism as a lethal ideology. My genetic eye disorder isn’t going to be cured by societal transformations - it’s just going to leave me suffering the consequences of blindness. The diseases nearly eliminated by vaccines are not going to just stay away because we changed society. This entire paragraph is profoundly suggestive of able-bodied privilege beyond parody. 

———-

“Animals as well as human communities in the state of nature do not proliferate their own kind to the point of pushing all others off the field.’ So there’s really no reason to suppose that human population shouldn’t stabilize once Leviathanic social relations are abolished and communitarian harmony is restored.��

This is factually wrong. Prey animals without adequate predator populations DO reproduce to destructive degrees. Humans are able to populate the way they do because we have no regular threat of predation - and because we have access to modern medicine. While I could point to things like the Wisconsin Whitetail population as evidence of destructive breeding - it would be easy to attribute that to other phenomena. Instead might I point toward the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone (Link) which resulted in increased biodiversity since local prey population was no longer dangerously inflated. This is once again inadvertently suggesting that Humans need to die in large numbers to create a better society.