Anarcho primitivism

Read Kacyznski. He gives specific examples of how technology limits and forces you to become dependent on it.

Take cars for example. At first they were just a way to get around easier and faster, but as they became more and more adopted the society shaped itself around cars and now, at least in America, it's effectively impossible to travel or have any meaningful life without using them. Legs, things most people are born with, were once sufficient, now something external to people is now necessary in order to live a normal life.

If cars and other motor vehicles went away then society would adapt back to a state where they aren't necessary. What's your point? I still don't have to walk or ride an animal to get to the other side of the country.

My point was quite clear. The abilities you are naturally born with are limited by technology. Technology at first was a way to extend and increase your natural abilities, but now it only serves to replace and obsolete them, making you dependent on something external to you, taking away freedom and placing limitations.

Considering he wrote an essay that was him talking shit about anprims I would be surprised if they liked him.

Unless the technology (car) is physically retraining me from using my natural abilities (legs) then it isn't replacing those abilities and technology makes them obsolete BECAUSE it is more efficient and powerful and thus grants me more power than nature would have otherwise left me with. Technology ITSELF does not limit my freedom but simply removes limitations that we are all innately born with.

Anarcho primitivism = Eco fascism

That book is meme tier and doesn't have solid criticisms of his theory.

Bookchin took multiple big steamy dumps on deep ecology and anarcho-primitivism.

Spores. They are everywhere, especially in your head. You are being bred by the spores. Chosen for your duplicity and compliance with the fungus overlords. Don't be like these fucking hippies. Be a true American and rape the Earth to your hearts content. She probably loves it anyway.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

unworkable

Technology carries some issues with it thus it must be entirely rejected and the human race must be allowed to be collapse into a state of constant conflict, anti intellectualism and most forms of comfort because someone didn't read Leviathan.

...

...

Basically you combine reactionary thought of a rose-colored past golden age with the nobel savage myth which let you to the conclusion that you have to trigger a mass extinction event to get rid off most of humanity.

Wait, are there actual Post-Left anarchists on this board? I thought the Stirnerfaggotry on here was purely a meme

It is effectively preventing you from using your natural abilities because society has be built around your legs being obsolete. Any limitations to supposedly removes just leads to new ones being created.

Someone hasn't read Kaczynski.

Are there insurrectionary anarchists on this board?

Kaczynski is not and never has been an anprim. He is against industrial technologies, and has expressed that it might be beneficial to abandon more than that, but he never once has written about the abolition of the state and has dismissed Zerzan has a naive utopian.

He is specifically against industrialism and mass-technology but also against generally civilization. He's knows that primitive life wasn't perfect and had its problems and wasn't utopian, but he still believes it was better than what came after. Most anprims in general rarely focus on the state, they're usually just egalitarian and anti-hierarchical.

And from what I understand Zerzan has rejected him as well, but it also seems like Zerzan has reneged on most anarcho-primitivism in general these days, seems like he's just a vague green anarchist

A few years ago he wrote an essay entitled "The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism." He rejects the label, and I don't think it fits him very well. His core argument has to do with the importance of autonomous goal setting and achievement for human flourishing rather than the egalitarian basis of anarcho-primitivism or the exhalation of nature above humanity of the deep greens.

I've read the essay. It's mainly a critique against how many anprims believe in the "noble savage" myth and have anachronistic, liberal views of primitive living. He has nothing against egalitarianism. And as far as I know, he believes a primitive life or one closest to it is the best system for human flourishing, effectively making him an anprim.

He specifically says in his manifesto that he does not want a revolution against the government. This cannot be explained away as being motivated by pacifist sentiment, in light of his actions.

youtube.com/watch?v=KBHVlV1CX7s

Don't remember him stating that. He doesn't want a political revolution obviously, but one against the entire industrial system, which would necessarily lead to the collapse of the government.

"This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society."

Yes, that's just what I said. The aim isn't specifically against the state but the state would automatically be destroyed if the revolution succeeded, nor could it exist like it currently does in a non-industrial society.

how retarded must you be to believe this

they never had the means to understand disease

Primmies are a funnier example of an end result of the postmodernist myth that human beings are incapable of critically analyzing anything without reasonable lack of bias.

Marx attributes the original rise of class society to the fact that the development of agriculture allowed people to produce much more food than they needed to survive. The people who were responsible for the management of this productive surplus became the first ruling classes as their role became cemented through the generations. Thusly, humanity moved out of the stage of 'primitive communism'.

Anarcho-primitivists believe that it is either impossible or undesirable to move toward a communism characterised by highly developed productive forces. Their position is that the only truly classless, free society is one under 'primitive communism'. In other words, when Luxemburg said that our choices going forward are 'socialism or barbarism', a certain group of special olympians responded 'I'll take the barbarism, thanks.'

In theory the goal of anarcho-primitivism is the complete erasure of all post-agricultural social and technological development. In practice a pre-agricultural society could only feasibly support a tiny fraction of the current human population. Every prominent anarcho-primitivist is a well-off first-world academic, meaning that them and their milieu will of course not be the ones to be wiped out in the necessary revolutionary omnicide.

So after all that, the 'actual goal' of anarcho-primitivism ends up being 'kill all the darkies'.

Is sucking dick okay in an Anprim socity?

Freedom from Bug Planet

Only if your tribe ain't homophobic, or you is girl

Sucking dick is bourgeois

it's the dumbest conception of "freedom". it's like when right libertarians say you have the "freedom" to run an unregulated business but we'll take away all the social services you were relying on. Anprims, anti civ, deep ecologists take away most of the things that most of us like to give us "freedoms" few if any people who aren't middle class nature lovers care about. if you are imposing an undesirable life on on the majority of people you are an authoritarian no matter how you dress it up or pretend that people are just "brainwashed" into liking technology (it's the same misanthropic everyone who disagrees with me is either sheeple or evil bullshit)

With no survivors?

who /Tedpill/ here