When you're such a reactionary that traditionalism isn't enough and you have to go back to hunting-gathering

because a post-scarcity society wouldn't function as such otherwise?

A post scarcity society wouldn't function without the division of labour?

"yes"

I think that pretending that division of labor is inherently a bad thing, and that it hasn't existed for good reason for all of humanities existence, is stupid. Division of labor could only be abolished by full automation not some retarded eco-fascism

t. civcuck

we'll see who's saying that when the planet is suffering from overpopulation and people start killing each other for more legroom.
wealth is naturally an issue for our species, even after we get your Marxist society it will still be a largely ignored problem due to increased automation, you will be forced to remove technology ultimately anyway. Industrialization isn't sustainable.

Rhetoric and logic is a product of civilization so I guess I shouldn't be surprised :^)

Dumb argument in itself. Even more retarded considering that going back to primitive society won't abolish division of labor

Define "overpopulation" for me.

What makes you think that? Seems really counter intuitive to me. A post scarcity society would free people up to pursue multiple things.

in the sense that you can fish one day, gather berries the other, and hunt the next? yes it does.

a state in which society is littered with nothing but impersonal connections i.e. "mass society". the closer you are to a mass society, the more overpopulated.

you are forced to rely on the output of industry rather than the fruits of your own labor. that's not freedom.

What? Why?

People will continue to specialize in whatever they're best at because it's efficient and it turns out people care a lot about not starving to death or dying arbitrarily. Anprim is completely delusional and unsustainable

So much for the scientifically minded primmie!

The output of industry IS the fruit of your labour.

not if you aren't occupied with that industry.

it would seem that isn't so

...

Just because it took a long time to end doesn't mean that it didn't and wouldn't again fag.

Why not just go live in the woods? If you don't want to interact with more than a dozen people, don't want an industrial society, wouldn't mind forsaking the common intellectual heritage of humanity, and can't stand using tools you don't make yourself, it seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action. Save up a few thousand dollars, buy some land, and people will pretty much leave you alone. The vast majority of people don't think worrying about surviving the winter is very liberatory, but you can definitely do as you like.

ugga booga uck uk uk

You can occupy yourself in that industry if you want.
But really, is any two people working together unfreedom?

why don't you start a communist society in the woods? the answer is because at some point or another you will have to deal with the rest of the industrial world.

lel. rightists make the same argument against socialism. "IPHONE N SHIT GO TO THE WOOD"
you civcucks are parasites that will destroy every inch of the planet and every organism. only complete wilding can reverse course. if there's even an inch of """""civilization""""" it will rot the planet

He doesn't even has to buy the land.

there are. they're called communes. privitivist communes are not popular or just don't exist because giving up on technology is extremely retarded. fuck that, do that on your own, if you're a reject and lonely it's not my problem no one else should live life at your standards. fuck your standards.

you are still limited by material conditions regardless.

you sound like a capitalist

I don't want to start a communist society in the woods because 1) such a society could not be extended to include much of the population without first acquiring substantial capital (an objection you cannot reasonably raise because you don't mind if most people die) and 2) I want people to take what they are due as human beings instead of trying to eek out a marginal existence for themselves (an objection you cannot raise because you want everyone to be poor and live in a hut).

What does that mean?
"Material conditions" is why I want to work with people. Life is rough. Being alone doesn't help.

I don't care what I sound like. I'm not. you by forcing standards and rules sound like an statist yourself making the "anarcho" in your primitivist fantasy a contradiction.
You really are so blind that you can't see that? you should throw your spook the fuck away & get some glasses tbqh.

think of it this way: how would you decide who gets what products if the commodity is scarce? in an anprim society, whatever the tribe makes, the tribe eats. there is no dispute over who gets what because everybody more or less gets an equal amount during mealtime.

I'm not a statist, I'm simply telling you the fact that anarcho primitivism is an inevitability and our species will be forced to face it.

...

And larger groups of people can't share scarce goods equally why? What if Chad Thundercock decides that he's going to eat the betas' food?

"but communism isn't equal pay" - communists
????

too bad, betas have no room in our species evolution.

From each acording to his ability, to each acording to his need

You sound a bit like a social darwinist. Are you sure you oppose hierarchy?

needs can't be determined though

poor has absolutely no relevance to us. so that's literally not even an argument. we have no conception of "wealth" whatsoever. we want harmony with mother nature! that counts for a lot more than your coins and paypal accounts

hierarchy =/= class

Are you being obscure by design?

Have you ever gone more than a day or two without enough to eat not of your own choice? Have you ever been unable to afford to adequately heat your home during the winter? I bet that you'd care a little bit more about how well human needs are met if you ever had to deal with serious material privation at any point in your life. If you haven't, it's very easy to dismiss such concerns as flabby and impotent.

pshh you
not me

stupid primmies always speak in plural. Meanwhile I know there is green eco friendly technology and that autonomy is more easily achievable with technology. Good luck auto sustaining, good luck not dying at your 30 somethings.

You can calculate nutritional needs trivially. nal.usda.gov/fnic/interactiveDRI/

Your death is also inevitable, so why not kill yourself now?

hierarchy creates social classes. Always.

if you think anprims actively advocate for a primitivist society then you don't know anything about their theory.

...

post physique dude.

I know that Ted rejects the label and is fine with some pre-industrial (however that's defined) technology, but I figured that he was a big influence on them. I've also read a little Zerzan, but it didn't make much sense.

Feels good being able to see the whole range of colours. I'm a real fucking aestheticist and have a raging hard on for colour coordination. I feel bad for all my male friends, of which nearly all are colourblind to some degree. Sorry your life sucks fam.

Is freedom spending your entire day to simply survive, with no time, resources, will, energy or interest to pursue anything more?

Who is more free: the NEET who shitposts on imageboards about his ideology, pursuing other interests on the side that grant him fulfillment and pleasure - or the hunter-gatherer who has more of a chance of dying as an infant than not. Who will live a harsh life consumed with constant menial work, with little comfort, spending his life to simply survive and nothing more, only to die at the age of 24 (though by our standards he'd look 60 and be extremely unhealthy) because he fell over and cut himself on a rock, the wound then getting infected with little he or his kin can do to remedy it. Because that is an accurate descriptor of how our ancestors lived.

Freedom depends on the individual's preference, and it is not a matter of a resolute dichotomy of "free" and "unfree", but a nuanced thing, dependent on the individual and many factors of their circumstance.

You will always have hierarchies, even family is a hierarchy.

overpopulation is an ecofascist meme

We're running out of resources because of fat fuck americans stealing everything. Get rid of them and the so-called "overpopulation" problem goes away.

...

dumb ancap

He's a crypto fascist

Why does Holla Forums take a mentally ill murderer seriously? He got spooked by an edgy little kid, and decided to knife him to death and then claim self-defense.

Communism is anprim with a few added steps

Elementary solution to that: abolish the family in it's current form. inb4 the bourgeoisie nuclear family is human nature and has always been the dominant model of familial organization

How a non-hierarchical family would look like?
Also, even if you abolish the state, you will need some kind of militia to defend your commune, how any kind of military organization be efficient without hierarchy?

gave you a dumb answer, the better answer is "because technoindustrial society is a single interconnected and highly organized and regimented supply web"

I have ancom sympathies, but to be honest I expect ancom society to look post-industrial.
Maybe some isolated supply chains can be maintained and we can keep some technoindustrial "islands of stability," but without either a market, central planning, or a FALC-Tier genuinely massive international grassroots movement, expect our biopower to slip from the levers/shackles of industry when no one wants to work in a coal mine anymore and it can't be spun as a personal duty like scrubbing toilets.

...

is that cyborg hunter-gatherers?

ya its the PC term for human genocide

literally planet of the apes

how do you quantify ability? how do you quantify need?