Talk:Anarcho-primitivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just wanted to say that I'm glad this page has been cleaned up a whole lot since the last time I glanced at it. It's much more coherent and well spoken. Thanks to those that worked on it.

Criticism section not appropriate location for criticism of criticism

That some primitivists are naturists seems to be a rather minor point in their philosophy to deserve a place in the closing sentence of the introduction. --12.208.107.102 07:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Green anarchists are NOT always primitivists. This is implied both on this page and the anarchism page. Many Greens are tecnhnologists, but anti-pollution technologists.

I agree. I changed the link [[primitivism|green anarchists]] bcuz of this -- and it just redirects :'( We need a green anarchism article! -- Sam

The green anarchism link still redirects to primitivism... As a non primitivist Green anarchist I could take offense and go start a flame war over this ;-) , agreed we need a seperate GA page, my version of GA is probabably far more in line with Colin Ward/Alan Albon/Freedom/Clifford Harper utopian visions than unabomber, etc as fetishised by Paul Rodgers era Green Anarchist magazine... quercus robur

does the black & green flag need to be so big?

No, it doesn't. -- Sam

It would also be nice if the flag were explained; is it the flag of some particular organized group of anarchists? Bryan

It is not the flag of any particular group. It has simply become widely adopted by green anarchists, and is derived from the red anarchist flag which uses red instead of green. Vera Cruz

I think this is how it is: anarchists use/d blacka nd red flags. The black flag was a flag that is not a flag, in a way (nice and ironic, of course) -- no symbol or colours (black being the absence of colour). The red, I think, was to represent communism and/or revolution, both seen by many as the means and end of social change.. These two were carried seperately, and are sometimes made into one (see Anarcho-syndicalism). The flag here is a play on that: the anarchist black is there, the red replaced with green. The green, I assume, is for the harmony primitivists desire to have with nature. Or some stuff like that. -- Sam

i think this flag is better seen as the green anarchist flag-primitivists probably have a tree and a mushroom and a starving guy on their flagVera Cruz Seeing as how more people (and a larger percentage) are starving NOW in the techno-industrial modern world than at any other point in history (or pre-history) perhaps the starving guy WOULDN'T appear on the primitivists flag if they had one.

Note that all greens are not primitivists but all primitivists are greens. Vera Cruz

On Flags, "the workers' flag is deepest red - it shrouded oft our martyrs dead". The Red Flag came from dipping clothe in the blood of someone who had just been injured or killed. The Black Flag also originated in demonstrations where black symbolised those who had been killed. They were only later appropriated by political groups. Harry Potter

--- Be careful of the word "Greens". That means Green Party to me. I am a primitivist and would be insulted by the implication that I thought civilization could be reformed (and I think that is a widely held idea among primitivists). The flag is decidedly a green anarchist flag and more appropriate for the green anarchist page. Manchineel

Contents

[edit] Wow

How can anyone actualy follow this philospophy (since cars and pollution and mass-extinction and mass starvation at an unprecedented level are so great)? If anyone here knows anyone who even remotely agrees that all technology is bad, and that we should return to being primitive apes I will truely be admazed. If anyone who belives in this philosophy is reading this comment, they're being a hypoctrite, in that they can't use the technology necisary to read it. How can anyone possibly agree with any of this. Wow. Tobyk777 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty out there. I can respect the asthetics of "living wild" or whatever, but I do like my technology and it's obvious that we can't support our population without modern agricultural techniques.

It is obvious.. therefore population will decrease and a lot of people will die, should we return to our natural lifestyle. Read Unabomber or watch Fight Club before posting "how can anyone support this!?"-kind of stuff. Nobody can live like you're supposed to live in here. Only people with a slave's min can adjust to this society. Plus it's getting worse every day.

Modern agricultural techniques are highly destructive and promote desertification while putting toxic chemicals into the environment. And just because agricultural technology has supported the population this long does not mean the it forever will be able to.

I also think it's a bit un-anarchist to want to force this idea on other people.  (It isn't as if people are actually be bludgeoned with an idea.) I know people who lean in that direction and I've met some people that want to "destroy civilization" including agriculture and language. Look up Feral Faun. Aelffin 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are both missing the point, but unfortunately i have no time to go into specifics here. But i recommend you both to take a look at zine Species Traitor and its fourth issue. Although i don't fully agree with everything there, it puts up some tough guestions about this whole civilized order. And i think the point is not anymore about "what we want", because it's coming to be extremely clear that we can't control the world around us. It's more about "how can we survive?".

[edit] Merge

I merged this page w Primitive communism. See Talk:Primitive communism. CHeers, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 12:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope, ain't gunna happen big guy. Kev 00:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thats not exactly a persuasive argument. I'll file an RfC. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 08:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What arguments did you give in support of this merge? None. You referanced the discussion page on each article, but on each discussion page all you did was referance the discussion page of the other article. Given your history of attempted deletes, bias import, and attempted merging of distinct concepts in the anarchism topic, I no longer feel obligated to provide arguments against your edits when you provide no arguments for them. Kev 14:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Primitivism and primitive communism are two very different concepts. Primitivism is a position advocated by certain anarchists who believe that technology is a system harmful to life and that the solution to social ills is to abandon and overturn modern technological society and return to the land. The Unabomber is one example of a primitivist. Primitive Communism is what Marxists asserrt was the earliest stage of historical development. It is not something which is advocated for modern society but an historical period. AndyL 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find that to be innaccurate, but understand there is not concensus for the merger at this time. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 16:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have attempted to bring the page more into accord w your ideas on its purpose, Andy. I also made numerous corrections to repair factual innaccuracy and gross errors of POV. From reading the old article, you might think primitive communism had basis in reality, rather than meerely the whimsical delusions of idealogues. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 16:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if one can call primitive communism "delusional" (no more than Hobbes' "state of nature" ), certainly there is evidence of hunter-gatherer societies that were collectivist and I believe there are still some around, but it is more of an ideological concept and certainly its based on information garnered when archeology was in its infancy as a science. Anyway, the point is that primitivism as a contemporary theory which advocates a return to a primitive society where primitive communism is a stage in the Marxist conception of history. They are certainly related and I guess one can say that primitivists advocate primitive communism but it should no more be redirected there than to "prehistoric" or "hunter-gatherer society".AndyL 17:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firstly I don't think anyone disputes the collectivist aspect. Its the lack of hierarchy that is delusional, by any objective measure. In any case, the article didn't used to read much different than the primitive communism article, which is why I intended to merge them. Compare kev's version to mine, and I think you'll see why I felt merger was neccessary. BTW Kev, if you insist on your revert I'll be forced to completely dispute the article, since what you are reverting to is neither neutral in its stance nor remotely factually accurate. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The user in question

Do I particularly care about your threats Jack? Nope. You stuck a couple biased statements into the article, took what was already listed as the anarcho-primitivist viewpoint and added a ton of unnecessary qualifiers, and mangled an otherwise well written piece. And BTW, this may be news to you, but that version is not mine. You see, there are many editors on wikipedia, and I am only one of them. To date, I have never contributed to this particular article before you arrived here, so I have no personal stakes in the version I am reverting to. It is simply better written, more neutral, and more accurate than your ham-fisted edits. Kev 14:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of various wiki procedures

As usual Sam/Jack is slapping on various warning labels onto articles while blatantly disregarding wiki guidelines. For example, he listed this page on RfC before even attempting any kind of dialogue on the subject matter that concerns him contrary to policy. From the RfC page:

Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.

Of course no attempt to resolve the dispute was made beforehand. Furthermore, Sam clearly wants to paint this as a problem with myself as a problem user, thus the insertion of the title "the user in question" over my response to him. Again, he seems unable to read the RfC page,

For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem.

I informed him of this slip up on his own talk page, he merely ignored and deleted it. Then Sam/Jack decided to slap the dispute titles on the article, because he wasn't getting his way. Once again, he ignored the procedure on the NPOV dispute page,

If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

Clearly Sam thinks the article biased, but there has been no specific discussion on his part of what this bias is. Certainly it is not the case that every sentence in the article is biased, so it is his responsibility to point out where he thinks that bias lies. Personally, I find it strange that he attempted to insert so many qualifiers into an article which already begins by stating in clear terms "according to anarcho-primitivists".

He has claimed on this page that the primitivist belief that some prehistorical societies lacked coercive hierarchy is "delusional", yet in the face of his bold slapping of an accuracy dispute on the article he has done nothing at all to verify either his own claims or any counter-claims to the primitivists with a single citation from any source. Again, ignoring the procedure outlined on the accuracy dispute page he has not bothered to: 1) insert a disputed section in the talk page explaining exactly what he believes is factually inaccurate, 2) insert "dubious" labels in the article itself where appropriate, 3) detail the "more than 5 dubious points" required to justify the accuracy dispute title.

In other words, as usual, Sam is trying to create the appearance of using wiki procedures whilst actually doing his very best to undermine them. He has tried this not only on this article, but also on the anarchism, libertarian socialism, and even anarcho-capitalism articles. Each of those page historys and talk pages currently show the kinds of underhanded techniques Sam is engaging in. I therefore kindly request the following: Sam needs to indicate exactly which statements he finds contrary to NPOV and explain why further qualifiers are needed when this page already indicates that this is merely "according to primitivists" and when the very purpose of this page is, in part, to detail what primitivists believe. Second, he needs to explain -exactly- which statements he believes to be inaccurate, preferably even give some evidence of why we should believe they are inaccurate so that they can be altered/removed. These steps must be taken for the warning labels he has slapped on to be justified.

On a personal note, I would appreciate an apology to the editors of wikipedia for having attempted to unilaterally remove this page by merging it with primitive communism without even attempting any dialogue beforehand. It reeks of his previous attempt to delete the libertarian socialism page and to import his own political perspectives on the anarchism page, neither of which he has ever apologised for after wasting a lot of time for a lot of people. But somehow I seriously doubt Sam has the integrity to do any of these things, so the simple following of wikipedia policy is all I'm demanding. Kev 22:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This Article DOES Need Work

It needs:

  • to clear up that the adoption of agriculture was not a world-wide phenomenon -- that it took place the in the area known as the fertile crescent and then spread from there as those peoples leading agriculturalist lives took over the rest of the world (through both violent force and through spreading their ideology).
  • how about some anthropological evidence that is used to support the stance? ..For example, "The Original Affluent Society" by Marshall Sahlins http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm
  • I think it could benefit from a catagorical organization of the content. Any ideas? That way there could be something like this:
  1. a general overview/introduction simply describing what it is
  2. then a section outlining the primitivist beliefs and reasoning (which would allow us to state the primitivist stance without being labeled as biased)
  3. a section on the history and current going ons of the movement/community
  4. suggested reading
  5. external links
  6. see also
  • I think the suggested readings section could use better organization. Maybe alphabetical and/or by author? Maybe short synopses that layout out how they relate to primitivism?

Thor Andersen 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great, glad to have you. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 08:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And glad to have you back Sam. Its been three days and you've made lots of wiki edits but have yet to address your own criticism of this article. As such, I'm pulling the NPOV and accuracy disupte tags pending justification. The needs attention and cleanup tags will stay temporarily in the hopes of attracting more people editors like Thor Andersen. Kev 14:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam

Sam/Jack, why are you continuing to revert without engaging in discussion over the specific content you find problematic? Getting petulant and throwing up a bunch of warning labels is no excuse for reasoned discussion of exactly how your edits are justified. Kev 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider beimng called "petulant" or whatever other unfortunate characterizations you might like to make "reasoned discussion". [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 21:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I've repeated myself over and over on this one. You know what I'm waiting for, and I will continue to revert your edit/reverts until you show enough respect for the other editors of wikipedia to explicate your complaints with specific sentences and statements from the article that you feel need work. This is what was required by the wikipedia procedures you invoked, and its all I'm demanding at this moment. Kev 22:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you care about policy, try starting w Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, etc... I offered to discuss particulars, and you responded w incivility. If anyone other than User:Kevehs wants to discuss anything, I am open. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 22:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gee, that was some olive branch there. I've listed my requirements, happy to let you do whatever you want to this article when you can defend your edits. Kev 23:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray Andy!

Good edits! I no longer feel the article is either factually inaccurate, nor biased. Thank you very much. I do think we should leave at least the "in need of attention" header up for awhile tho, since the article lacks discussion of the history of the concept, methods utilized (apparently eating roadkill?!?) and so forth. Anyways, thanks alot for your help Andy, its a massive improvement :D [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 09:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

I find it weird that the biggest section of this article on anarcho-primitism is devoted to critisizing it.. The "Primitivism on small geographic scales" section critisizes arguements that aren't presented earlier in the article. Also, I don't see how it's fair to critisize anarcho-primitivism for not holding up to judao-christian-capitalist values (violence, life-span). I think those are relatively moot points anyways, because the point of Marshall Sahlins's article (as I remember it) was to describe material wealth as relative to our desires. The second source for that section doesn't make it clear whether things have gone bad for the !kung only in recent years as the outside world has put pressure on them, in which case it is not a valid criticism at all. I also don't see how the criticism of Primitivism in particular on large geographic scales is valid. Nothing works on a large scale. The marketplace isn't working on a large geographic scale. It's just not sustainable. Primitive societies on the other hand have been shown to self-regulate their scale to a size that does support sustainability. And finally, the Michael Albert quote doesn't say anything at all. --Thor Andersen 20:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of your opinions are corrct IMO (for example your quite right about primitives self regulating the size of their communities to sizes dramatically smaller than modern nations), but in order to be NPOV they would need to be added with citations, added to whats already there, balancing it by addition rather than subtraction, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this requirement is that several of the criticisms in the criticism section are currently lacking any citations at all, and in fact are being modified to meet the whims of particular editors. So in accordance with your own stance the NPOV thing to do would be to remove them completely until they are properly documented. However, wikipedia generally frowns on removing content, so until proper documentation can be found for the criticisms themselves there is nothing wrong with supplying primitivist counter-balance that is not cited. Kev 02:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My emphasis was on not deleting, and adding cited info. I didn't bring up citations because I thought their wern't any, quite to the contrary I happen to know that much of what Thor Andersen says is true, and so it should be pretty easy to cite. I just feel that citations and weblinks on it would be good for the reader. If he has problems finding cites for primitives self regulating community size for example, I'd be happy to help him find cites for that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, could you clarify which of my opinions are not correct. --Thor Andersen 04:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as what I don't agree with,
"I don't see how it's fair to critisize anarcho-primitivism for not holding up to judao-christian-capitalist values (violence, life-span)"
is a moral relativist opinion, and I am a moral absolutist. Also the part about the !kung's misfortunes being based largely on the outside world doesn't minimize its signifigance to me, The only fair way to judge anything is its success or efficiency, and their lifestyle (like that of nearly all primitive peoples) hasn't meshed perfectly with the modern, outside world. That fact is noteworthy.
"The marketplace isn't working on a large geographic scale. It's just not sustainable."
is an opinion which I don't resoundingly agree with, but I do think a brief discussion of globalism vrs. localism would be good on this page. Likewise, Michael Albert's debate with John Zerzan should probably be discussed, but I agree the quote is pointless as is. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This is a little something called a straw man:

"Some posit that it would be implausible or even impossible for a world population of over 6 billion to adapt to social organizations limited to tribal structures of 30-40 people. Even after a massive Nuclear holocaust it is hard for many to imagine that civilization would not quickly reorganise. This criticism against primitivism suggests that primitivism could only be attained temporarily, and under scenarios which most people would consider to be nightmarish dystopias."

(ALL the criticisms in this article are to varying degrees straw men and fallacies of appealing to belief) which isn't necessarily a problem if the point of the "Criticisms" section is simply to display a highlight of common/mainstream criticisms. Yet if that's the case, this quote needs to be rephrased in a way such that it is obvious that it is simply reporting a common criticism, not arguing for one. Furthermore, I feel it would also be fair to conclude the various ways in which all these criticisms are argumentative fallacies. Any views on this? --Thor Andersen 10:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The "they" in this sentence is ambiguous:

"Many primitivists counter this by stating that although not all primitive societies live in anti-authoritarian ways, they take influence from the cultures and societies that did."

It obviously refers to primitivists, but doesn't feel like it. --Thor Andersen 10:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Merging criticisms

Is there a compelling reason to leave the criticism section chopped up into three sections? It seems to me that the current format is jarring and disjointed. I propose that we merge the sub-sections unless someone wants to flesh them out further, making the divisions necessary. - Nihila 02:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok, so long as no content is lost. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from my talk

Hi, I see that you reverted some changes on the primitivism article that I made. Specifically, I'd like to disagree with your reinstatement of the opening line that reads: Primitivism or anarcho-primitivism is an anti-technological critique of the origins and progress of civilization.

While primitivism is clearly characterized by luddism, it is first and foremost a perspective in opposition to civilization (something which is not built on technology alone). The origin of civilization was agriculture (domestication of food), which, in its infancy, was not dependent on significant technology. Thus the opening sentence does not entirely make sense (unless civilization is in reference to industrial civilization only). Please let me know if you disagree. - Nihila 15:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not very much, you make a good point. I was actually trying to emphasize anarcho-primitivism so as to distinguish it from other forms of primitivism (like the primitive baptist church, for example). Also I thought the link to technology was cool. So... lets find a way to weave in lots of good links (like luddite for example), and differentiate between anarcho-primitivism and other types. I'm gonna copy this to Talk:Primitivism, I hope you don't mind. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming, disambiguating

I was thinking the content on this page should be moved to Anarcho-primitivism, and that Primitivism should be a disambig page for primitive art, and various forms of religious primitivism. There also should be a page on Primitive man, or "primitives" or whatnot. Thoughts? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. --Thor Andersen 09:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, look what I found!
(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Amish

I noticed at the bottom of the page the Amish are included as a 'See Also', I didn't take it out assuming you had a good reason to have it there but does it really fit? It seems like the Amish are simply resisting further technology but they're fine with their current level (and according to the article have been known to officially 'up' it at yearly votes). Beyond this they aren't really working toward any kind of societal change, egalitarianism etc, they're just kicking it until Jesus comes back. I would put the Amish as luddites and not primitivists in that they're fearful of technology but not actively working to revert or change society.

Make sense?

Saline

It seems to me that the "see also" section is often used for even tagentially related subjects in many of the wiki articles. While they are arguably few, I do think there are some parallels between the amish attempt to maintain their community integrity by rejecting certain forms of technology that they believe will create a dependence for them on the outside world and the similar attempt by many primitivists to abolish all technology for similar reasons. Kev 02:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly why the article is untenable. Current content needs to be moved to Anarcho-primitivism (or whatever) and this page needs to be a merged w primitive as a redirect. See above, this article neglects Religious primitivists. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think actually, anarcho-primitivism needs to be rolled into this article, not the other way around.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 13:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Kev, I was under the impression that Primitivists (capital P to represent the movement) resist technology for the reasons of creating a new society based on equality and justice. Thats why I differentiated the motives of the Amish and Primitivists (particularly as this article discusses). It seems to me that motive is the crux in this case. Although I do think you're point about 'see also' housing even tangentially related subjects as a pretty good reason to keep it there. I guess I'm just wondering what the Amish community would think about Primitivism but for some reason I get the feeling they're not going to weigh in on this here.

Sam (and Che kind of), I think this might actually prove the article isn't untenable, although I have to admit, I'm not completely clear on why you believe it is lost. You seem to want to roll it into Anarcho-primitivism but I think Kev's concern is that not all primitivism (lower case to represent a state of being) is anarchist and vice versa. This is kind of my concern with the Amish, while they're 'primitive' by our societal standards, they're pretty certainly not anarchist. I'm just further wondering if they're (the Amish) really 'Primitivist' as a movement or not. If they're really just primitive and not Primitivist it seems at least to me kind of misleading to leave them on the page. But then again it does seem tangentially applicable.

I propose a coin flip, the ultimate arbiter of all great disputes.

much love, Saline.

Well actually, I proposed the opposite. Primitivism seeks to abolish society all together, where as anarchism seeks to establish non-hierarchal society. Which is why I suggest that the anarcho-primitivism article be rolled into this one.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Primitivism does not seek to "abolish society all together." It merely wishes to abolish civilization. Primitive SOCIETY would still exist.

Ah! Well, I'll leave you guys to argue about that but I think you've made my point again. The Amish aren't interested in either of those goals (they intend to maintain their hierarchical society) the only relationship is that they reject technology to a certain degree which again, tangentially makes sense but I think is ultimately misleading. I think I've decided what I'm going to do, I'm just going to add a short sentence after 'the amish' link that discusses why its there and why it maybe shouldn't be. Sound good?

Yep Kev 18:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] critique a bit much

Seriously folks, how can anything deserve this much critique. When looking around at other similar articles (marxism, anarchism, etc) you will find zero, none, no, not a bit of criticism. This is because articles are suppose TO EXPLAIN the subject NOT CRITIQUE it. This is not a message board to rant on with your opinions about something but an encyclopedia.

Anarchism and marxism have their own pages of critique, either embodied within a sub article (Anarchism and capitalism) or their own. Because Anarcho-primitivism is notable, and there has been notable, published critique about it, then there is cause for inclusion within the article, to retain balance. --albamuth 05:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anarcho-primitivism

Its extremely obvious this page is about anarcho-primitivism, not about the broader subject of Primitivism. A page move should be requested. Sam Spade 15:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Albert

Could somebody please provide evidence supporting the claim that Michael Albert is notable? --Thor Andersen 10:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

its hard for me to imagine why this idea would need formal critics, a 5 yr old could point out its obvious flaws. Sam Spade 11:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Michael Albert has been interviewed on Australian national radio.
davidzuccaro 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
IMHO what's more relevant is whether not Michael Albert is a notable critic of primitivism and this site: http://www.zmag.org/debateprim.htm would seem to support this. In any case, if there's a wikipedia entry on someone, and it has survived requests-for-deletion, then s/he is probably notable, independently of whether or not s/he is a notable critic of primitivism. The Michael Albert page has been around for over two years and nobody seems to be arguing that he's not notable. Boud 17:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page titling schemes

Do most people who want to elimitate (all but rudimentary) technology and civilization identify as anarchists? I was under the impression that many would advocate local/tribal forms of government. It seems that this article has more to do with primitivism than "anarcho-primitivism," and the latter really only needs to be a brief article that states that anarcho-primitivists are self-identified anarchists who are primitivists and discuss the noteworthy individuals and groups. The main article should be about primitivism (anarcho or otherwise) and adress that philosophy in more depth.

No they wouldnt. They see the social structure which developed with agriculture as the enemy. Hunter gather tribes (which humanity spent most of its history as, so allegedly we are evolved to live as and so will be happiest as) had no use for such structures as local government.

[edit] No anarcho-primitivist editors

It's a shame we can't get any real anarcho-primitivists in here to work on this article --since they "abandon technology." RJII 14:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Some might engage with computer technology and use it against itself so that others in the future won't have to. I don't think self-sacrifice is something that all primitivists would necessarily be opposed to.

[edit] technology/society

The article presents anarcho-primitivists as a cohesive group. Are there any schisms? For example are there any who reject the state/society and want to rewild, but dont see technology as intrisnicly connected to state/society and reckon they could incorporate some. Are any that advocate a limited version due to the worlds population.

The article seems very critical of all anarcho-primitivism. Quite possibly because it treats anarcho-primitivism as a cohesive ideology. I cant contest that for all mankind to go back to hunter gathering wed need a few hundred more planets. However, societal critique can be really really good even if the solution is a pipedream (ie marx). I would be very suprised if the alienation claims do not have near universal support by evolutionary psycology. Crippled Sloth 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course every anarcho-primitivist does not agree with every other anarho-primitivist when it comes to technology, domestication, symbolic culture/thought or language. And about everyone returning to hunter-gatherer -lifestyles immediately, Zerzan himself has said (if i remember correctly it was in discussion with Lawrence Jarach about primitivism, check insurgentdesire) that a good practice would be "creating edible landscapes", what i interpret to mean forest gardening approach to growing food that still contains some domesticating elements but is a great step towards de-domestication, and able to produce big amounts of food in limited space and with low energy input. Personally i think that's the best way to avoid (or limit) die-off.

[edit] question

is there a movement similar to anarcho-primitivism that is not related to anarchism ? Unixer 12:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think anarcho-primitivism might be a misnomer, as I think Zerzan simply says "primitivism" (although Zerzan is, of course, an anarchist.) It seems like primitivism in the strongest sense (return to hunting and gathering) would be effectively anarchist, but there are a variety of ideas that head in that direction that don't necessarily have to be anarchist, such as the Gandhian idea of sarvodaya (that article itself isn't informative, but you can look elsewhere). There are also ecovillages, which I suppose wouldn't necessarily have to be anarchist. Sarge Baldy 00:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An anarcho-primitivist here

You wanted one, you got one. I don't believe that technology is evil either. I just think that the best lifestyle one could have would be the primitivist lifestyle. Who wants to work their entire lives? Who wants to struggle in order to survive? Who wants to do what their boss tells them to, even if you don't wish to? How about when you were younger, if you're parents told you to do something? The basis of primitivism is not anti-tech, but anti-control. Controlling others forms the basis of civilization. Civilization makes technological advancements for warfare and to try and keep the general population happy. I have no problem using technology to spread the idea around. Read this quote: "No group on earth has more leisure time than hunters and gatherers, who spend it primarily on games, conversation and relaxing."(Kirkpatrick Sale, "Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision"). Are you telling me you'd rather work like hell your whole life for a few comforts that civilization can provide? Oh and as a side note, I would consider the Unabomer as a green anarchist, not a primitivist because he is specifically against the Industrial Revolution. And as for that question by Crippled Sloth, you can look into Neo-Tribalism, but if you're focusing on non-anarchy, you should realize what that means. Also, one can't just say anarcho-primitivist is anti-tech, or that they just want to be hunter-gatherers because it's deeper than that. It's about true freedom, none of that total bull you get about America being founded on freedom. Some more recent hunter-gatherers were cattle herders, and the American Indians are also not an example of a primitivist society, even they had signs of civilization. This article does a nice job of showing the specifics, but it doesn't directly say it being outright against being controlled or controlling others. Primitivists are the only group that are against the control of any life, be it human, plant, or animal. There may even be a few green anarchists who are not primitivists that are against control. Reread this article and look closely at all that's said, then tell me if you still think, "How can anybody believe in this stuff?"

[edit] Merge to Primitivism?

No, anarcho-primitivism is a specific social and theoretical movemement that deserves it's own page. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not merge. Anarcho-primitivism refers to a specific form of anarchist conceptualization, while "primitivism" is a broader term that might be use by non-anarchists, and outside politics. The distinction of the two is necessary.Maziotis 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anarcho-primitivism is distinct, and a philosphy in and of itself, and should not be merged with Primitivism. Whiskey Rebellion 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section needs references

There are lots of stuff in criticism section that need reference. For example paragraph: "Other research also indicates that primitive societies like the !Kung were not as affluent as previously thought. The !Kung instead had a life expectancy of thirty years, high infant mortality, a workweek at least equal to that of today, and periodic starvation with marked decrease in body weight."

What research indicates that, and how that's applicable to general anarcho-primitivist theory?

Those paragraphs without reference should be removed, if no reference is found.

[edit] Discussion on end of civilization

Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

All of our technology today is the result of the efforts of specific scientists throughout history. In modern society, your average person could not build a t.v., computer, refridgerator, or even a toaster if left to their own devices. The mass of human population is living comfortably of the efforts of our predecessors, and they did nothing to deserve it. They cannot claim to have helped create their glorius society in any way, yet most of them would die if they had to leave it and enter the natural world. The result is a modern people who are too weak from easy living to survive without the dillusions that they call the "real world." It would be interesting to see the weak rooted out this world by the collapse of civilization. It would be interesting to see the wealthy die once people wake up and realize that money is an evil dillusion. It will be interesting.Wooden Bear 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Wooden Bear

[edit] How primitivist is Ted Kaczynski?

Theodore Kaczynski’s proposal is still in favor of a shift to living in the wild. Since he is an anarchist and he states clearly in his manifesto that his proposition is the wilderness, I would like to know what are these “features” of the civilization that he would like to keep. If you read “hit where it hurts” and the response of other primitivists, you might understand that this insistence to deal with the industrial system above all else has got to do more with an issue of the revolution’s strategy.

There isn’t a defense of pre-industrial societies in absolute, at any point of his writings. He does make comparisons in order to express, for example, how modern societies have devolpt psychological problems to which the explanation must concern more that overpopulation. But at no point he defends any of these “features” as being part of the description of a better future society.

I believe that the setence in the first paragraph, concerning ted's views on society, is wrong and we should change to the one before.Maziotis 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/a/Talk%7EAnarcho-primitivism_52e7.html"