Why are you not ANPRIM, /leftypol/?
>the agricultural revolution begins 10,000 to 12,000 years ago during the neolithic period
>prior humans were hunter-gatherers during the Stone Age tens of thousands to millions of years ago
>humans were originally scavengers before the widespread discovery of fire 1-2 million years ago and ate bone marrow and raw carcasses
>farmers were significantly less healthy and shorter than the hunter-gatherers
>humans didn't have codified law or religion until the Bronze Age
>ever since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, humans have been driving the 6th great extinction and are enslaving themselves and the planet
>primitive communism
Again?
>>2864574So far it’s the only form of communism that’s existed in the real world
Uhm it's caleld the Agricultural REVOLUTION not the Agricultural Reaction
>>2864578>slavery being anything other than counterreevolutionI reject marx and historical materialism if this is the case
"Anprim" is a meme ideology (even Ted Kazcynski rejected it).
I prefer to describe myself as a critic of civilisation in general.
<In the words of an American writer who, supported in his work by the Washington government, is not at all to be suspected of revolutionary tendencies, [’the higher plane'] ‘the new system’ to which modern society is tending ‘will be a revival, in a superior form, of an archaic social type.’ We should not, then, be too frightened by the word ‘archaic’. […] The crisis will come to an end with the elimination of capitalist production and the return of modern society to a higher form of the most archaic type – collective production and appropriation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htm>>2864572Im not a reactionnary
>>2864639“Progress” up to this point has produced this status quo you claim to hate despite it being the result of your ideology
Not to say that going away from primitive mop trough slavery and ndustrialization wasn't a shitty experience for most people involved but there's just no going back it's a fantasy and if we tried we would need to murder almost all of humanity which would defeat the whole point
>>2864653Birth rates are naturally declining
A generational project of de-growth can work
>>2864655This is far removed from anarcho primitivism and fundamentally a reformist mindset because it uses the framework of economy and gdp. Many people are still living in abject conditions of misery and we need to produce more for them and develop our technology, science and understanding of the world. At some point we will be able to abolish the division of labor and keep cornucopean productive capacities trough technical means but we need to keep going forward to reach that point
because there is no turning back without me probably dying
Because you can't convince people chasing down and antelope and living in a mudhut is better quality of life than eating treats and zoning out to zogslop on glowing screen.
>>2864572anarchists have nothing but vibes, basically dreaming of a utopia that ends with a mass genocide campaign on the 8 billion people currently alive, how is that different than the Jeffrey Epstein class utopia?
>humans have been driving the 6th great extinction and are enslaving themselves and the planetMarxist PMC liberal Zionists: "we need AI, not degrowth. I agree with my fellow Elon Musk sci-fi reading pundits in the Abundance movement of YIMBY Zionist landlords"
>>2864694It's a bit unfair, most anarchists are serious people doing quiet work, but reactionary freaks get the spotlight for their outrageously retarded takes
>>2864655>>2864669Both of those statements are idealism
One presupose the lowering of the birth rate will continue again and again, or even grow exponentially, the other assume you can scale up production to the moon with finite amount of ressources.
It's less about scaling production than improving what we already have. The resources are for all intent and purpose infinite in the near term as we get smarter ways of getting energy and resources while the solar system will become more accessible with some technological development.
Take electricity for example, it all depended of hardcore mining labor and outrageously polluting plants 50 years ago for most people who couldn't afford the too expensive cleaner solutions. Now you just buy some solar panel that will last 50 years and batteries for dirt cheap and you can run your house or an hospital in bumfuck nowhere or power a national grid. And this is because so many scientists and engineers worked on that stuff and made it so. Just like the LED tech which cut electricity consumption by so much.
Take animal exploitation, it's fucking awful! But we are working on lab meat and it will have the same impact, you won't 3D print a steak from your poop just yet but it will come and that's the realistic way we stop the slaughterhouses, cheaper and better meat, from plants and bacteries trough technology.
Technology and science allow us to find better, more elegant solutions to our everyday problems so we don't consume as much resources and don't destroy our biosphere.
>>2864689The grand total of all the effort of both Marx and his students is the current status quo, I’m curious why you don’t reject him and his thought
Hunter gatherers tend to be egalitarian because they tend to be nomadic, which makes inequality impossible because you can only accumulate as much wealth as you can carry around. Hunter gatherers that have pack animals already have a capacity to be less egalitarian, hunter gatherers that use fishing as primary source of food and live sedentarily can even create aristocracies or theocratic monarchies that use slavery.
There are also societies that do have a capacity to store value but produce and distribute it on egalitarian grounds. The actual original example of primitive communism is a native American society that used collectivised subsistence farming.
Farming is not the core issue, it is just one way to viably store enough wealth to have wealth inequality and by extension classes. This does not make class society inevitable
>>2864653> we would need to murder almost all of humanity which would defeat the whole pointI mean we might be heading towards this point where the majority of humanity might die to climate change so this point isnt really legitimate
>>2864750The population dying doesn’t do shit, just look at the black plague, 60% of all feudalism dying and it was a nothingburger
>>2864756okay but thats not what my point is. My point is that using population death to argue against anprim, doesnt really hold to scrutinity. For the tech progress path also will cause a lot of people to die, too
>a nothingburgerI would argue climate is different because its far more global population death than the black plague. Theres also other negative consequences (stable climate gone, vast regions of the world becoming unhabitable, a lot of industrial raw resources already having been used, etc etc). But personally I dont believe we will head back to anprim but more closer to something simmilar to 1600s-1700s industrial conditions. A form of painful degrowth
>>2864756the black plague played a huge role in the ending of feudalism lmao
>>2864759>But personally I dont believe we will head back to anprim but more closer to something simmilar to 1600s-1700s industrial conditions.Maybe, I think it is a bit silly to compare the future to the past, I've become a firm believer that the party is pretty much over and we won't be able to live like this for very long as agriculture and industry on the current scale is just going to collapse (remember the 2020 chip crisis? it had a bunch of factors, but one of them was due to fresh water shortage).
But that doesn't mean a "return to year X" simply because we're not returning, contrary to the 1700s we've also amassed an enormous bank of knowledge, books will last for a while and teaching a kid how to read isn't that hard. We will enter in an age of scavenging, we'll use the metal scraps and electronics for as long as we can.
Also, so many people still don't get that we're going have to live in a world we are not adapted for, human ingenuity is impressive, and we can find solutions to the most godly tasks, but ultimately we are still biological creatures bound to this world and none of this is sustainable for very long, especially since we're pretty much blasting through all the thresholds.
>>2864572Earth cant sustain 8 billion hunter-gatherers + these primitives would get conquered by more advanced competitors.
>>2865070The earth can't sustain 8 billion people in industrial society either
The human population must decline by choice or by force
>>2865075Fertility rates have fallen plummeted everywhere, comrades cell phone and porn make it more convenient and easy to beat off than to actually meet people and have sex.
based and PolPotPilled
>>2865079Ironically, heat also might play a roll as spermproduction is pretty sensitive to that
>>2865194Don’t forget microplastics
>>2865196Probably, I don't think that has been conclusively proven yet though, but I doubt it helps.
Also a lot of people seem to fail to realize that climatechange is cumulative damage and accelerating fast. If we want humans (and other species) to survive long term we need to get carbon put of the air and fast.
>>2865335It’s either that or generating big, heavy clouds through spraying aerosol in the air
>>2864572I don't want to go back to being a hunter gatherer scrounging to survive and dying of any random disease I catch, simple as
>>2865335What I always wonder about climate change is that all the predictions are around 2050,but if it's exponential, how fucked is 2100 then ? or 2200 ?
>>2864653Stalinist anarcho-primitivism doesn't care about death statistics.
>>2865075Dude, there was less than 1 ppl betwix 1050 and 1850, that's crazy
>>2865339Possibly both, but sulfur particles in the sky should really be a last resort, after we already did everything we could do.
on a "positive" note, using biochar has been shown much more effective for carbon capture then previously thought. All the rest is mostly underwhelming at best afaik.
>>2865388Very much so, it's really bad.
Anprim is a meme ideology created by people's spooks about a biblical Armageddon or it's equivalent (Cilmate Change, Industrial collapse). And anprim is ultimately a reactionary ideology wanting to go back to a mythologized version of time before civilization.
Going anprim will not save humanity, keeping some form of industry will be the best way to help save humanity in the long run. Earth has been in different climate changes before and will do so again.
>>2865075>According to anthropological and ecological estimates, the global carrying capacity of hunter-gatherers is approximately 8–30 million people.Its even more wasteful and harmful to the environment than what I expected.
>>2865580>Earth has been in different climate changes before and will do so again.yes and we didn't evolve to live In those climates and the vhange is happening freakishly fast.
I agree going anprim won't save anything because it's all too late anyway, we need coordinated long term efforts and we can not do it with our governments since they don't give a shit for anything except maintaining whatever the fuck we have now.
>>2866451wait a minute thats a climateshitpost meme. Are you a fellow user of that place?
>>2864572The ice age ended and there's no mega funa. Sorry farmcels won its oger.
>We have to go le back to le past when it was le better
Basically fascism
>>2875066>fascism is when you kill mammoths with a spearwow
Unique IPs: 38