/dead/ - Post-Left

>>2619
>Why does everyone always make fun of anarcho-primitivism?
Because people don't actually engage with it and just jump to le caveman memes

>Is it actually as bad as people make it to be?
I'm not a big fan of explicitly anarcho-primitivist texts, but the people they cite are definitely worth reading, that includes Heidegger, Adorno, Clastres, Sahlins. The critique of civilization also goes well with the idea of communism as a qualitatively different type of social arrangement as opposed to the quasi-reformist stalinist conception. In a sense, ultra/post-leftist and primitivist critique are twins.

most twitter anprims seem to have a pretty spooky concept of nature and technology, but otherwise they seem fine

>>2619
Because anarcho-primitivism is retarded. Enjoy living without running water and modern amneties.

>>2634
Why do you say that?

>>2634
Doesnt a river count as running water?
And what are modern amneties but capitalist institutions that alienate us?

>>2635
>Why do you say that?
He went camping and sprayed out about anti civ stuff because it was hard and uncomfortable. Made a whole blogpost about it on /leftypol/.

>>2620
>I'm not a big fan of explicitly anarcho-primitivist texts,
What do you dislike about them?

>>2690
They tend to have a pretty reductive view pf human pre-history and only cite sources that corroborate their often almost comically simplistic narrative. I'm thinking mainly about John Zerzan and the myth of the "agricultural revolution" as the root of all evil. Many of them also suffer from the same air of self-importance that a lot of post-left texts have.

>>2619
Because it is stupid.

1. A hunter-gatherer society can only feed a few million people. If you're not up for starvation and mass extinction, don't do it. The possibility of going back is no longer there without all of us dying.

2. Many technologies, especially those that are easy to produce and whose workings can be understood by most people easely, can actually improve the quality of life without creating new hierarchies. Most anarcho-primitivists understand post-industrial technology and its problems. However, they do not remain logical but simply apply the critique to everything, even though it does not hold true anymore for a long time.

3. Most Anprims are just annoying assholes who have no respect for the problems of others.

4. There are clear ideological links to fascism and reactionary, unscientific thinking (e.g. Heiddegerianism, Deep ecology).

>>2717
>If you're not up for starvation and mass extinction, don't do it. The possibility of going back is no longer there without all of us dying.
These things are going to happen, whether we like it or not, bucko.

>Many technologies, especially those that are easy to produce and whose workings can be understood by most people easely, can actually improve the quality of life without creating new hierarchies
I agree.

>unscientific
Nice spook

>clear ideological links to fascism
>Heidegger
Explain to me how Heidegger's critique of technology relates to fascism. You can't.

>>2619
Anarcho primitivism is communism minus dialectics (hence anarcho) and a distrust of technology (hence primitivism).

>>2719
/leftypol/ tier post

>>2719
>communism minus dialectics (hence anarcho)
damn,first time I read this here,I don't even know if I want to hear the logic behind it.

>>2718
>These things are going to happen, whether we like it or not, bucko.
Can you tell me why you think that? Yes, of course, a major ecological catastrophe is right in front of us, but that doesn't mean the death of 7 billion people nor the end of agriculture and cities. It will be hard and people will die, but what you're saying is a bit exaggerated.

>Nice spook
Yes well perhaps I used a spooky word, what I was actually trying to say was that Heidegger's thinking and what is based on it is itself ideological, spooky and moralistic.

>Explain to me how Heidegger's critique of technology relates to fascism.
As an example:
Heidegger „held the Holocaust to be the logical result of the Jewish acceleration of technology, and thus blamed the Jewish genocide on its victims themselves“
di Cesare, Donatella (2018). Heidegger and the Jews: the Black notebooks

>>2722
>that doesn't mean the death of 7 billion people
Neither does a return to hunter-gatherer or nomadic forms of living

>nor the end of agriculture and cities
They won't disappear, but ecological collapse will open up spaces for societies that make due without them, just like in ancient times the desert was a refuge for people seeking to escape the great cities like Ur.

>Heidegger's thinking and what is based on it is itself ideological, spooky and moralistic
Except it's not. Heidegger's whole philosophical career is a sustained critique of the hidden presuppositions behind our modern (i.e. capitalist) way of thinking.

>the Holocaust to be the logical result of the Jewish acceleration of technology
Strike the word "Jewish" and you end up with exactly what Adorno & Horkheimer said. I'm not disputing Heidegger's early sympathies with nazism, it's just that nothing in his philosophy is inherently fascist, in fact it's quite the opposite.

>>2723
>Neither does a return to hunter-gatherer or nomadic forms of living

idk fam, farming and industrial food production are whats are more efficient than just hunting and gathering. we get more food out of every square-inch used. i see no realistic way to feed 7 billion people just from what grows naturally.

>>2723
>>that doesn't mean the death of 7 billion people
>Neither does a return to hunter-gatherer or nomadic forms of living
Bruh

>>2723
>Neither does a return to hunter-gatherer or nomadic forms of living
Hunter-gatherer societies can feed about 3 people per squaremile on fertile land. If we assume that the area of fertile soil will decline in the near future, there won't be much left to live on. All but a few hundred million of us will starve.

>They won't disappear, but ecological collapse will open up spaces for societies that make due without them, just like in ancient times the desert was a refuge for people seeking to escape the great cities like Ur.
That sounds very defeatist, why should we leave the cities and villages to the capitalist and state authorities and retreat to the deserts where life is, undeniably, shittier and we are helpless against the attacks of the system due to lack of resources. We are always potential customers and workers. They will not just leave us alone. Indigenous peoples who live exactly like this have been intrigued into the machine of capital by force for hundreds of years.

>Except it's not.
I'm not an expert on Heidegger, but I'm pretty sure it is.

>Strike the word "Jewish" and you end up with exactly what Adorno & Horkheimer said. I'm not disputing Heidegger's early sympathies with nazism, it's just that nothing in his philosophy is inherently fascist, in fact it's quite the opposite.
And since you mention Adorno, why refer to Heidegger (NSDAP) at all when the Frankfurt Boys give the same critique without the anti-Semitism and the hollow retoric of Eigentlichkeit?
The problem is that Heidegger did not strike the "Jewish" but, at least in private, also held exactly these views for many years. Heidegger and Adorno both observed the same problem, but Heidegger remains with a ill defined modernity and the Jew, while Adorno clearly names and explains capitalism and instrumental logic as causes.

>>2736
>Heidegger and Adorno both observed the same problem, but Heidegger remains with a ill defined modernity and the Jew, while Adorno clearly names and explains capitalism and instrumental logic as causes.
It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.

Made by DENGOPRIM GANG

>>2736
There's no way to save most people. Ecological collapse is already underway and we have no means to reverse it, or even just to mitigate it. Mass starvation is inevitable unless you find a way to feed people your moral platitudes. Stop pretending that primmies are wrong for accepting the reality of the situation.

>>2722
It most certainly means mass starvation. Agriculture does not work in a sterile room, it relies on the ecosystem. But large scale agriculture has killed off the ecosystem that it relies on. As the species that grant us so-called "ecosystem services" (of course "experts" can only thing in terms of markets) die off, it will be increasingly expensive to grow anything until large scale agriculture will become impossible. Small scale agriculture might survive, but nothing comparable to what we have today. There will be no way to keep 7 billion people alive, most likely not even a single billion. Stop pretending otherwise.

>>2738
Yes, Father, I will stop on working to improve my life conditions and accept the coming Judgment Day.

>>2741
t. believes The Revolution™ will fix all our problems and usher in heaven on earth

>>2741
I am not the one who has been preaching this whole thread how everyone will be magically saved if we subscribe to the correct ideology even through the facts make it absolutely clear that it is impossible. You are deluded.

>>2743
And what ideology was that exactly?

>>2742
t. Capitalist Realist

>>2745
You can scratch the "capitalist" out. Capitalists still believe that large scale agriculture is sustainable and happily keep on destroying the ecosystem for government subsidies.

>>2738
Sure, we might see ecological collapse, mass starvations and millions of refugees, but none of that is gonna stop the capitalist machiene from running if you ask me.

also
>reality of the situation
nice spook