Talk:Anarcho-primitivism/Archive 1

Merge

I merged this page w Primitive communism. See Talk:Primitive communism. CHeers, Sam Spade (talk · 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. Sam Spade (talk · 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. Sam Spade (talk · 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. Sam Spade (talk · 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. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Sam Spade (talk · 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)

"through both violent force and through spreading their ideology"- conjecture. The Mesolithic societies would have adopted agriculture with pleasure. Use actual archaeological facts or don't bother to spread your infantile POV.

• Half the sections are missing sources entirely. Dsunlin (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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". Sam Spade (talk · 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. Sam Spade (talk · 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)

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 Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 09:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• (The above is copied from User_talk:Sam_Spade#Primitivism by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC))

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!

• Primitive

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

A correspondence between an AnaPri and someone who can type up the lectures, is very possible.

-G

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.

Merge to Primitivism?

No, anarcho-primitivism is a specific social and theoretical movemement that deserves it's own page. Ungovernable Force^{The 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)

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.

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

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)

actually, Ted Kaczynski is a perfect example of a primitivist who isn't anarchist. The interview with him in Green Anarchy had several choice quotes demeaning the ideas that anarchists hold about social equality. Murderbike 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

as stated above, the interview with Ted in Green Anarchy (which is post-Manifesto) shows that he is very much unconcerned with anarchist ideals. He doesn't care about social equality in any way, and advocates a "dog eat dog" order of things. he is definitely primitivist, but not anarchist at all. Murderbike 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This section was created in response to the already deleted sentence in which Kaczynski was described as being purely against industrial society, and, in that sense, not an anarcho-primitivist, as one who seeks primitive way of living. So, what was put into to question was the fact that he is a primitivist, not if he is an anarchist. Now, you question the fact that he is an anarchist, but my answer is pretty much the same that I gave regarding him being primitivist. The fact is that for Ted, as for any other anarcho-primitivist, the two issues cannot be divided. The primitive world is a world without state and hierarchical institutions. In that sense they are anarchist. And, at the same time, their anarchist critique follows the notion that in order to defy power, we must question all dimensions that stem from division of labor, which leads them to embrace the primitive world as an ideal of anarchy.

Regarding your criticism to Ted being an anarchist, as he does not care about social equality, I must point out to his post-left anarchist ideals. That sort of preoccupation is typical in anarchist schools with a leftist orientation, such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. It is not share by all anarchists and certainly is not representative of anarchy as a whole. In that sense, Ted is more part of the individualist spectrum of the anarchist movement.Maziotis 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of References

This article has about a thousand assertions of fact and only 7 references. I could start tagging each one, but that would take a while. Instead, I put in the {{unreferenced}} tag. It refers to all the unreferenced assertions, not the seven. Cbdorsett 10:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give an example of an unreference assertion.

Most of the article is just ideological development with the proper bibliographical reference at the end. Each of the points, mention in this bibliography, is explained in accordance with the references given. How do you suggest we revise the article? Obviously we can't put a reference in the article itself for each affirmation. That would not be practical. Please be more specific as to what you believe needs to be done.Maziotis 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a few dozen {{fact}} tags. Each of these assertions is fascinating. How am I supposed to find the backing for them? Read 75 books listed in the bibliography? Footnotes and reference are put there to help people like me when they want to write something on the subject, or when they just want to feel that they are reading something of substance, not just the philosophical spewings of anonymous editors. People who are familiar with the subject area and who have the reference books in their own libraries are just the ones to put these footnotes in. Until that is done, the article is as good as unreferenced. You know what I mean? --Cbdorsett 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't agree with most of the fact tags you added. For example:

“Primitivists argue that prior to the advent of agriculture humans lived in small, nomadic bands which were socially, politically, and economically egalitarian.[citation needed] Being without hierarchy, these bands are sometimes viewed as embodying a precursor to anarchism.”

It is true that it is not a widely recognizable fact that "prior to the advent of agriculture humans lived in small, nomadic bands which were socially, politically, and economically egalitarian.". But the point that is being made in the article is that primitivists argue that this is true. This is an undisputable and very visible fact. And it is just not practical to give reference to every affirmation given. This one in particular is very accessible and widely recognizable for anyone who is introduced to anarcho-primitivism. Further discussion on the grounds of these assertions is discussed further in the article. But even that necessity is of ideological concern, and, in terms of the encyclopedic quality, a matter of content.Maziotis 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get personal here, but basically you have just butchered the article. Just try looking here on wikipedia for articles such as "democracy", "fascism" and think about applying your criterion. You will see there are many sentences there, which you can only find explanation in a political science manual, and that for which there is no reference. For example:

"Representative

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referenda. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as to how best to do so. While considerations such as party alignment, perception of voter wishes or the public interest, re-election prospects and other factors can be of influence, there are generally few binding restrictions."

It is simply not practical and a matter of a point of view to discuss the grounds of each sentence in an article. "Fact tags" are meant for assertions that can be falsified, disputable. For example: "Ghandi in 1923 said that anarcho-primitivism is great." Maziotis 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article would greatly benefit with more citations. But the "citation needed" mark is only to be used for disputable assertions that are presented as facts, otherwise its use would be simply disruptive and POV. There function is to tag a statement as to be verifiable, not to be used as a challenge for wikipedians to better improve an article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for future improvement of the article. You will find, for example, that in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines (written for Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry) this problem is discussed, where it says: “The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided."Maziotis 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External links section

There was a non-primitivist site that was doubled referenced in the external links section. I deleted those two, as they are not related to the article, but left the text concerning the negative crique of primitivism alone. I don't know if it should be delted by another criterion, but the other references to the links of the main site had to be deleted.Maziotis 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"The problem of technology"

Modern technology is roughly the same as a simple tool, on a different scale. If you use a rock you find in the dirt to carve out something, you cannot call that rock "a tool", not even a simple one - it's just a rock that you used. If you tie the rock to a stick to improvise a hammer, you then have a simple tool - but I don't see much difference between that and modern technology. You alienate the rock and the stick in order to produce the object you symbolically call "hammer", which is done on the same principle as complex machines (exploiting the way nature works - nature makes it so that the rock hits harder if it is handled through a longer handle). I don't think this is very clear on this section.

On another note, it's not so much the technology that alienates us from the task but rather ourselves. If I end up doing a repetitive task without even a tool (i.e. opening seashells with a rock), I can easily alienate myself from the task and simply make the same repetitive movement without thinking about it. The same happens with complex machinery - you can understand what the machinery is doing and how it does it, but sometimes it's just too complicated to try and understand and you just take it as granted, alienating yourself from the task at hand. The true problem lies not with the technology, but within yourself and your "mental laziness". Technology merely amplifies that fault in people that allow it to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcozelo (talk • contribs).

Those considerations are taking into account in the critique to modern technology. Have you read about Marx’s notion of alienation. He speaks about the difference of working towards a goal that results from the immediate use of a tool and to working in a tool that has a small place in the big machine, usually with the function of participating in the use of another tool. It seems that when you make an abstract comparison of the meaning of those relations to technology, you overlook the meaning of the concept of specialization, where man distances himself from the goals to which he was naturally built for. These have both physical and psychological consequences on the individual, which have been studied from anthropologists to modern political theorists of several schools, such as the marxists, anarchists and situationists. This is part of what you underline as the alienation to oneself, which in turn has consequences in our relation to others and nature.

No one argues against the fact that both the primitive and modern society have a “technological” domain and that from there we can draw similarities as to how they serve the same purpose in terms of economical and social sustainability. But there are other values implied in the way we socially organized ourselves.

Indeed several authors that take part of the critique of technology refute the idea that technology is a problem in itself and that we would merely need to abstain ourselves from its use. That does not mean that technology is neutral. The problem is that it is hard to define exactly where these social relations begin and take form of what we call “technology”. Usually most people use this term referring specifically to the machines, which is very criticized by the sociologist Jacques Ellul, in his book, “The technological society”. Don’t you think that at least this so called “mental lazineness” may be associated with the social conditions of the individual, namely the place he occupies in the economy?

It is hard to define technology. Several sociologists and philosophers, such as Lewis Mumford and Jacques Ellul, have tried to define it in relation to several other human realities. In an interview with the anarcho-primitivst John Zerzan you can find a passage where he explains a point that might help us to understand how this particular form of technologic criticism views modern technology. The key to this understanding seems to be the concept of division of labor.

Derrick Jensen:

What’s wrong with division of labor?

John Zerzan:

That depends on what you want out of life. If your primary goal is mass production, nothing at all. It’s central to our way of life. Each person performs as a tiny cog in this big machine. If, on the other hand, your primary goal is relative wholeness, egalitarianism, autonomy, or an intact world, there’s quite a lot wrong with it.Division of labor is generally seen, when even noticed at all, as a banality, a “given” of modern life. All we see around us would be completely impossible without this cornerstone of production. But that’s the point. Undoing all this mess will mean undoing division of labor.

I think that at base a person is not complete or free insofar as that person’s life and the whole surrounding set-up depends on his or her being just some aspect of a process, some fraction of it. A divided life mirrors the basic divisions in society and it all starts there. Hierarchy and alienation start there, for example.

I don’t think anyone would deny the effective control that specialists or experts have in the contemporary world. And I don’t think anyone would argue that control isn’t increasing with ever-greater acceleration. Such as in food production. I recently read that one out of every ten dollars Americans spend on food goes to RJR Nabisco. Four meat packers control 90 percent of meat processing. Eight corporations control half of the poultry industry. Ninety percent of all agrichemical and feed-grain industries are controlled by 2 percent of the corporations involved.

Maziotis 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that what you are saying in this part is that the true problem here is division of labor, and that technology merely allows a greater division of labor thereby worsening the problem. I don't think this is made very clear in this section of the article.

"mental laziness" is strongly influenced by the person's place in the economy, but the converse is also true. If you stop caring for how the world around you works because it's just too complex for you to bother, other people in the economic hierarchy will avoid giving you more control and more information about it since odds are you'll waste it, resulting in a vicious circle that will turn you into a very ignorant cog in the big machine. This trend manifests visibly as the weight of education on what jobs are made available to you. Your education doesn't mean so much that you have acquired the know-how to deal with more complex problems as much as it means you are willing and capable of learning how to deal with them in the future. Though it is true that modern society does not facilitate breaking this vicious circle, as our jobs take away most of our time and strength needed to better ourselves and our education systems are somewhat failing in most cases.

So far as our nature goes, I believe human beings can be classified as pack animals, much like wolves, from the time when we lived in caves. We bunch up because we feel the need for company, perhaps also because by ourselves we lack claws, agility or strength to be a match for most of our predators and preys. We then compete for leadership because when we are out hunting it's hard to have everyone sit down and debate what the next best course of action is in situations that require very fast judgement. You need something that unites everyone in the same plan, be it a leader that dictates the plan (the simpler solution) or a "book" with instructions that determine what should happen next so that everyone knows what to do and what the others will do. Leadership also has a strong influence in our ability to reproduce, as people with power (and wealth which in our days is much the same as power) generaly are seen by women as more desirable. I think hierarchy is a firm part of our nature, even as hunter-gatherers, and while sedentarism and private property will greatly amplify this tendency, they are in no way the cause of it.

While it is interesting to debate these ideas and as much as I enjoy it, I think the debate in itself is somewhat out of place here since this aims to be an encyclopedia and merely provide information. My purpose in this discussion was to state that the section I highlighted in the article could be a little clearer.

Arcozelo 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as our nature goes, I believe human beings can be classified as pack animals, much like wolves, from the time when we lived in caves. [...] Leadership also has a strong influence in our ability to reproduce, as people with power (and wealth which in our days is much the same as power) generaly are seen by women as more desirable. I think hierarchy is a firm part of our nature, even as hunter-gatherers, and while sedentarism and private property will greatly amplify this tendency, they are in no way the cause of it.

Have you actually read anything within this field? I can give you extensive anthropological references for the description of primitive societies being egalitarian and non-hierarchical. If you read the hunter gatherer article here on wikipedia you will find a consensus, which I believe reflects the anthropological mainstream view, in which man is not described as a "pack animal, much like wolves". It seems that you are just throwing some very old popular notions about man's brutality in the wild, just as much as your feelings regarding women and natural selection to justify some particular view on hierarchy. You have neither provided a scientific source or a logical reasoning of your own, but merely impressions based on your common sense. Exactly what type of social relations are you trying to defend with those very old cliches? What about the idea of a woman that is with a "weaker" man for feeling "pity on him"? Is she unhealthy going against natural selection? I do not mean to suggest that this phenomena constitutes a counterpoint, but merely that there are much more variables to consider here for you to describe "our nature" and the goals of social hierarchy by such superficial descriptions. So, I don't understand how that impression of yours may relate to social power to justify a certain equilibrium. For much as you can rely on specific examples to describe social competition, there is also the concept of cooperation on the other side of this coin.

Please keep in mind that this article is about anarcho-primitivism and, in what this topic is concerned, how anarcho-primitivists see technology. I find the section in the article to give an overall good reflection of anarcho-primitivist philosophy. How exactly do you find that the section you have highlighted failed to satisfy this point? I do agree with you that, as much as this conversation may be interesting, it does not regard the debate on how we can improve this particular article from a neutral point of view.Maziotis 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism/Hypocirisy

Anybody got an idea for a title with less negative connotations (and hence less POV)? Murderbike 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very important to keep in mind that this entire concept is a festering pile of dog shit.

~~ Valentinov

I think the fact that you have all made the criticism 80% in defense of AnaPri will keep it a lot more balanced... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.205.199 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Isn't Pol Pot's regime a little bit anarcho-primitivsm, with communist touches, User:Moffis 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least. Pol Pot was what you would call a "leader", and if you check out Anarchism, you'll see that the anarcho- part of anarcho-primitivism specifically advocates a leader-less existence. Pol Pot wasn't even against civilization as anarcho-primmies are. Just against advanced industrial civilization. Murderbike 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable statement in opening.

I have removed the following statement from the opening and am bringing it here for discussion:

Some, like Theodore Kaczynski, see the Industrial Revolution as the essential problem, while others point to various developments in history such as monotheism, writing, the use of metal tools, etc.

First of all, Kaczynski is not an anarcho-primitivist, or, at the very least, his status within the movement is very controversial. Therefore, quoting or paraphrasing him in the opening is ill-advised. But, if he is going to be quoted or paraphrased, there should be a quoted source for the statement. Second, it is never a good idea to have unsourced statements in the opening, as it casts doubt upon everything that follow. This particular fact tag has been there, as one can see, since February. Certainly, enough time has elapsed for someone to have sourced that sentence. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think it's fine to take unsourced statements out of the lead, I can see why people would include Ted here. He HAS claimed to be an anarchist, and has been interviewed by explicitly A-P magazines, though I don't really know if he's ever called himself an anarcho-primitivist, or if he's just been co-opted into the fold by some admirers. I think Maziotis would know more than me, we had a discussion about this once before. Murderbike (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue in Talk:Anarcho-primitivism#How primitivist is Ted Kaczynski? Maziotis (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That Book Real?

The J.T. Henderson book cited, "Anarchy and Apocalypse: How Humanity Fucked Up" only appears on this page and in pages directly quoting this page's description of anarcho-primitivism when I search google for the title.

It doesn't appear to be. I struck it from the page. Owen (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rastafari

Should Rastafari be added under "See also" header? Rastafari's rejection of Babylon seems pretty anarcho-primitivist. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Any system of thought that relates to culture or progress critique, can in some way be related to primitivism. But I believe it would be tiresome and wasteful to list them all. Check out another example of a religion related to that rejection of language you pointed out, regarding rastafarism, which I found the other day, called Shamanism.

Basically, the more conservative traditionalist views on things could always be linked to this body of thought in contrast with the more rational and progressist ones. There are no golden rules for such criteria and it is hard to not get lost in the generalization of things. My vote is no. If you still want to add it, I ask that you respect the chronological order.Maziotis (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

single source on criticisms of technology section

I have very little knowledge on how to edit wikipedia properly, and no time to learn so i figured it would be best to lay out the problem in the hope that some one who actually knows what there doing will edit it. The entire critique of technology is taken from an article called "An Introduction to Anti-Civilization Anarchist Thought and Practice" its pretty much a cut and paste Job, there's probably reason to believe that this was put by an opponent of primitivism in order to discredit it, or that the person who wrote "Anti-civilization thought and practice" put this them self, simply due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of primitivist articles in fact go in to a much more specific and much less restricted view of what exactly a tool is, which i will be willing to reference if any one else wants the references. Figured i would just say it came from one source however since i don't really know the intention behind who ever wrote this so it isn't really appropriate to accuse them.

AnagramMan (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

change made to criticisms of technology.

the part draws entirely from a single source, whilst predominantly this single source is an accurate description of anarcho-primitivism it does also contain views which are in fact in a very small minority within anarcho-primitive circles, i decided the best thing to do was to delete the parts which we're a minority view as they do not accurately represent anarcho-primitivism as a movement but are nothing more than the ideas of one primtivist who is in fact nothing more than a web blogger. Upon reading the article as a whole i concluded that a majority of it was not simply this articles personal views, but views drawn from common beliefs by a majority of anarcho-primitivists, so it seemed only necessary to remove the parts that did not accurately describe the views of a majority or anarcho-primitvists —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnagramMan (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All anarcho-primitivists believe that modern technology, stemming from division of labor, alienate us. The part you remove was taken from a anarcho-primitivst primer, found on the green anarchy website. Your argument would make sense if the article in case were the "green anarchism". Indeed only a minority in that movement (anarcho-primitivists) reject all technology that is associated with mass society.Maziotis (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Primitivists v. Greens v. Green anarchists

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

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

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

That sounds like a threat...that you would be "insulted" if so and so said something about your "green" status and "they'd better be careful..." I thought you guys were about love, peace and harmony. Also, how can a group, that claims to not want to have anything to do with "government", rally around a flag? HA! You guys fall right in line with the bible-bangers we got soooooo many of. Scratch the surface of ANY human being, bucko, and this is what you find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.242.101 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research.

The vast majority of the article is unsourced. I assume this is by design as some sort of protest against objective thought. If sources are not found, I'm cutting out the OR. Zazaban (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I removed all the original research. If anyone can find sources, it can come back. Personally, I'd like to have more content, but SOURCED content. Half of the stuff I removed seemed somewhat POV as well. Zazaban (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. You removed without explanation of your motions. Post more detail on what you would like to remove rather than assuming it is OR.Brokendoor (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, use tags instead of being lazy. Most editors use "sources needed" tags instead of deletion.Brokendoor (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

The fact is that he knows that there is no POV, and that this is what anarcho-primitivism stands for. Might be useful to read wikipedia:DICK Maziotis (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've given this a good thought, and I have come to the conclusion that I have been a complete asshole. Argh, this happens every time I get a cold, dammit. I apologize. P.S. The POV I was referring to was mainly in tone. But I shouldn't have bloody deleted it... Crap. Good god am I sorry. :( Zazaban (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And if you want to tear this down, add sources to the criticism section. I think that's the way to go. ;) Maziotis (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Population minor change

"A population crash is inevitable and desirable"? I don't think so. This strongly suggests that what Noam Chomsky's ill-formed voice says is right, that primitivists advocate mass murder or genocide. Cite this anywhere at all, seriously. No one is saying this, it's a common myth among critics who don't usually read any of the literature. Even in the infamous badly written Green Anarchist issue from the UK (MANY years ago) where the positive references to the gas attacks in the subways of Asia. This was likely not totally serious, the view of one person which has never been repeated by anyone, and certainly not evidence of any kind of trend of thinking in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.159.233 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most do support that statement. I have never met a primitivist that does not want a population crash. Some have prayed for a major pandemic with glee. Zazaban (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Source? Brokendoor (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• John Zerzan, On the Transition Postscript to Future Primitve This suggests a transition and not a population crash as desirable. Brokendoor (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "So if, as seems likely, any transition will take centuries to achieve then the primivitist critique of "traditional" anarchism becomes little more than a joke -- and a hindrance to meaningful anarchist practice and social change. It shows the contradiction at the heart of primitivism. While its advocates attack other anarchists for supporting technology, organisation, self-management of work, industrialisation and so on, they are themselves are dependent on the things they oppose as part of any humane transition to a primitivist society. And given the passion with which they attack other anarchists on these matters, unsurprisingly the whole notion of a primitivist transition period seems impossible to other anarchists. To denounce technology and industrialism as inherently authoritarian and then turn round and advocate their use after a revolution simply does not make sense from a logical or libertarian perspective." - An Anarchist FAQ This is criticism of anarcho-primitivist skepticism showing that a "transition" would have hold "authoritarian" elements based on primitivist skepticism. While I could argue that an anarcho-primitivist would see any anarchistic transition away from civilization as more flawed than authoritarian, ultimately anarcho-primitivism may posit an anarchistic-civilization-in-transition-to-not-civilization as authoritarian in some way, else the transition wouldn't need to overcome anything. Brokendoor (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• On a sidenote, some idiot slipped a subtle comment into the article in the form of a "please keep in mind the human population was only 100,000 etc etc" under the section about lack of conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.242.133 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

I don't know if this is interesting to anyone other than me, but anarcho-primitivism plays a role in Ken MacLeod's novels.[1]Prezbo (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that to be very interesting. Is there a book where the link is more explicit? Is there a direct reference to the ideology of anarcho-primitivism at any time, or is that link just about his description of a post-industrial, primitive society? Maziotis (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a direct reference to anarcho-primitivism in the books. His first series of books take place in a world where anti-technology radical environmentalists with a tribal sort of lifestyle are a significant social/political/military force; as that interview suggests they're usually one of the villains. Other characters call them "greens" or "barbarians." The Star Fraction is the first book in the series.Prezbo (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will check out those books, as they should deal with important political issues that I am interest in, whatever the perspective of the author may be. But I guess it would also be interesting to find similiar fiction where the "greens" are not the villains :) Maziotis (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is almost WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

Isn't this article very, very long? Does it really need 15 lengthy sections about the primitivists' concepts of society? I'd copy-edit it myself if I knew more about the subject matter, but unfortunately I don't. However, I can't imagine this can't be summed up in a tighter form. Any comments? (Started archiving this Talkpage, by the way. Nothing is deleted, it's been moved to archives by year. See nav box at the top of the page.) Yintaɳ  23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Started some copy editing on the article but quite frankly I give up. Apart from the opening it's one long diatribe that constantly repeats itself and goes through great lengths to explain minor details. Even the "Criticism" section has been turned into propaganda for the movement. I'd love to take a serious axe to it and turn it into something that's better readable and more to-the-point (like the related Anarcha-feminism article is, for example) but I don't have the time to wade through all this. Maybe later. Yintaɳ  22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised that a political movement is not refuted in an encyclopedic article. It is only natural that we find a criticism section with arguments and rebuttals, which should reflect the relatively balanced debate in society (there being intelligent people on both sides of every issue). I guess this happens in every other school of thought, except when lack of sources don't allow this to happen. Having said this, I don't dismiss the fact that this section might need some work, or that we don't have to delete some primitivst rebutalls that are inproper. Personally, I try to keep the common refutations of primitivism on the article, even when they are not sourced, if I myself recognize them to be quite common. I think it's great we have the opportunity of presenting the current discussions in the article and let people be aware of the issues people are raising, no matter which "side" you are on.

About the changes in the the article, as I have said in the summary, you have deleted some good, valid points. I understand that some of the text might be somewhat redudant, but I think it would be better for you to delete the whole section and rewrite it, some of the times. Maziotis (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than deleting a lot of the information, it may be more appropriate for some sections to be moved to the broader category of Green Anarchism and linked to from this article. I was thrilled when I found this article introducing the subject adequately in such a small space. Without these subjects covered somewhere under Anarchism, I find that there is not enough information in Wikipedia to be useful as a meaningful introduction to Anarcho-primitivism. I did not find the skimpy amount of information under Green Anarchism to be sufficient as an introduction. On the subject of the amount of information in the Anarchism articles, I would like to see a few similar sections added to the other Anarchist articles. Phoenix Aglow (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

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?".

I do get a bit of a kick out of this whole silly idea. I bet 99.9 percent of the people that advocate this DON'T live like chimps in the jungle. 23:36 - Fentoro

I agree. Every single one of these pitiful morons don't actually believe this and they would be just as incapable to survive in the wilderness as any other person living in a modern, industrialized, and civilized world. Primitivists can go live in the woods and die of old age at 35 if they want, but I'm going to stay in my nice, cozy home and laugh at those stuipid misguided saps dying in the wilderness. - unsigned

I'm going to try and answer you, point by point...

Tobyk777 - This is an ideology - of course it is impossible to follow it in this day and age - but that's half the point! We have no choice. We are force to live in this society, there is no option to return to this state. Surely you can see the oppression in this.

Tobyk777 - Hypocritical? No, like I said, an anarcho-primivist is forced to live in this society, and to function within it they'd have to use technology. That's like calling Stephen Hawking a hypocrite for not having been into space, despite he believing we need to do this to ensure the safety of mankind. He's not a hypocrite, he is limited by factors beyond his control - our current level of technology, public opinion, his condition and so on.

Aelffin - Anarcho-primitivism doesn't involving supporting the current population size. In a Anarcho-primitivist (AP) world, the population would be drastically lower.

Unsigned - Doesn't that scare you a bit? The fact you couldn't survive? You could compare us to a pet dog - a tame version of our old self, unable to support itself in what is actually its natural environment.

I think someone else added the bits in brackets, as they seem to go against the rest of the posts, so I'll ignore them.

I agree with the theory (in my own form) 100%, and fail to see how many more people don't, but as I said, it is an ideal - I don't live "like a chimp" in the jungle, and I probably wouldn't survive much longer than most people (maybe a little bit, as I grew up on a farm and have hunted, eat home-grown food etc). I don't plan on mass genocide, or even really promoting this, but none-the-less feel most/all problems of modern society could be removed in this system, and that life would, in many ways, be better. Vitriol 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it does not matter what you think about anarcho-primitivism because if you agree that civilization is unsustainable(and i think there is plenty of evidence to support this) it only makes sense to at least consider how your going to survive through the inevitable collapse based on where you live and what you can accomplish with the people around you, its common sense to me...everything else comes organically out of this. to me anarcho-primitivism isn't about building a mass movement anyways because the social controls of civilization are to deeply embedded. I understand the "mass" of Americans or anybody else for that matter will not agree with anarchy much less anarcho-primitivism ,but the laws and limitations of the natural world are greater then any cultures arrogance and denial. I'm going to try and bring it down what are you going to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.207.237 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You report that primitivists believe "we should return to being primitive apes." This appears to me (nothing personal) as a complete lack of knowing anything about primitive living skills (or is a cultural bias). Most primitive people had enough technology to sustainably meet their needs with only a few hours of work each day. Modern technology isn't capable of being sustainable or this efficient. Phoenix Aglow (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An anarcho-primitivist here

You wanted one, you got one== 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?"

Control is nessecary. I agree that technology is the basis of control- the more technology, the more surplus, the more social stratification. But stop being selfish and wishing for no masters, it's infantile. Most of us need restraints anyway or society would go to hell. Besides- Asteroids. Are you really telling me you would sacrifice our entire species when an asteroid collides just so you can temporarily fulfill your desire to throw your feces and rape women like a monkey? The deepest circle of hell is reserved for anti-humans like you. Not that I believe in Judaeo-Christian hell. 69.90.50.237 (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids, so what? I also have tried to convince myself that natural disasters, the kinds that would wipe out the human race, are the most substancial arguement against anarcho-primitivism. Perhaps everything is becoming more and more in our control, but we are becoming more and more under control of our technology. We simply depend on technology so much to the extent that we are no better than withering, wilting, weakened animals confined to our very own contructed zoo. A counter arguement, a huge star goes super-nova, a massive amount electromagnetic radiation renders our electronics useless. So now we are in the state where an asteroid would wipe us all out through our inability to defend or electromagnetic radiation renders our technology useless and our dependance on it causes our demise. I have been trying to work out the reason we work, the reason we exist and the reason for everything. All I have managed to come up with so far is the reason why we initially did anything was to survive, and it still is. Rewilding and a denial of technology would cause us to overpopulate, overhunt and eventually die yet continuing with an absolute denial to our roots could also potentially cause us to cease to exist. The times when life was simply is over, we are now, as ever, fighting for our survival and at the end of the day, what actually are we aiming for? To continue to exist, longevity, and so on? What ever we do is going to just scrape us though so I think the arguement in this case is, I welcome the asteroid... Maybe this earth just needs another fresh start?

However, maybe, we should just continue as we are as without us perhaps another species on earth would assume our state, perhaps another species would cause as much destruction and as much chaos as us, perhaps the other species will also be trying to find ways to continue life as is, to conserve the environment, to reasearch, to discover, to learn, to make the world it's own. Perhaps, if all we are doing at the end of the day is fighting for survival then perhaps whatever we do is the right thing, so long as it makes us happy? No to the asteroid, fetch the laser. 131.227.149.210 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Above is a claim that anarchists are anti-human and deserve to go to the deepest circle of hell. Anarcho-primitivists do not need to IMPOSE a reduction in the population size, as it is inevitable without them for several reasons.

We are NOW firmly in the Earth's sixth global species extinction (caused by human industrialism and overpopulation). There have been only five previous mass extinctions on the Earth during its 4.54 billion years of existence. We know from a similar previous global warming that 1 out of every 4 plants and animals are going to die off. Such a loss of diversity is vastly reducing the Earth's robustness and ability to support life (human and otherwise).

Modern civilization's economy requires continual growth. Try being logical. It is impossible for even the best economy to grow 'infinatly' on a 'finite' planet.

When the usable oil is gone (some say 1/2 of it already is), there is no way to generate that much energy. Modern civilization cannot survive without oil.

Also, there is no way to continue industrialism (not even with so-called 'green technology') without pollution and environmental degradation continuing to add to this sixth global extinction.

Even if the Earth were not dieing, the inertia of our industrial juggernaut makes it beyond our control that it is going to cause a massive die-off of human beings. This will happen whether anarcho-primitivists encourage it or not.

The grand question is not who to point the finger at, it is "How can we survive?" A primitive lifestyle is the way human beings have SUSTAINABLY SURVIVED IN LEISURE for 200,000 years. With an exponentially growing human population, more SUFFERING WILL BE AVOIDED the quicker the crash happens. I know that anarcho-primitivism is the most COMPASSIONATE response to the suffering and mass die-off of human beings (which industrial civilization is responsible for). If you insist on damning someone for the suffering and massive die-off of human beings, you should be pointing your finger back at people like yourself. Phoenix Aglow (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section is poisoned.

Listing a number of well regarded thinkers as critics of this philosophy, then using the writing of the Unibomber to support those views poisons the well, lends credibility to a murderer, and is greatly damaging to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.71.24 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The flag

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 black and 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.

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

It needs to sourced. Is there a cite for this or is it just made up?Dsunlin (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a group, that claimed not to want to be a part of any government....even have a flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.242.101 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone who clearly doesn't understand a political ideology attempt to make sarcastic comments about how it "should" be? In answer to your question, the flag is symbolic of the movement's ideological values - the red flag was never meant to be a national one, but was supposed to be a rallying sign for the world proletariat. Same with the black flag. Nation-states don't hold the monopoly on such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.161.216 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the points about an anarchist group needing a flag, or a primitivist group using computers, get to the core issue: who cares? the essential refutation of anarcho-primitivism is that nobody seems to be living by it. "hypocrisy" is a red herring on that point: the issue is the *practicality* or *feasibility* of the position, which is made salient by the lack of viable anarcho-primitivist settlements, the lack of any tactics to transition people into primitivist economies, the lack of any program to search for land areas where the transition can be made, etc. ... instead everything is announced from the armchair. the second issue is that any sensible view of modern society must conclude that it is unsustainable, so anarcho-primitivism gets no validation just because it adopts that judgment. and finally, anarcho-primitivism draws its rhetoric, its evidence, its stereotypes and its moral concerns from modern society, modern literature, modern biological and anthropological research, modern academic social critique, and a highly romantic view of hunter-gatherer life: almost nothing in it comes from direct experience of the ecology and economy that is being advocated. this empties it of any moral force. these points are hinted at in the "critique" section; they deserve broader discussion.Macevoy (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This flag is way to bright of green, it's practically neon green. IMO primitivists use green on their flags are usually using a darker green more emblematic of vegetative matter. I don't think I've ever seen a green/black flag that was that bright anywhere in real life.Plaidman (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"primitivism"

Hi, the article seems a pretty poor description of so-called "primitivist" thought, with a fair number of errors or distortions. The one correction I need to insist on is that I (Derrick Jensen) have never claimed to be a "primitivist," because I find the term horribly racist and offensive. It implies that indigenous peoples are "primitive" and buys into the western notion of "progress," that western civilized society is more "advanced" than the more "primitive" indigenous peoples. Some of you will probably argue that indigenous peoples are indeed "primitive" because they do not have back-hoes or fellerbunchers or interstate highways, but it's a term I have not used and would never use, because I do not believe it, and find the construct racist and offensive. So please do not classify me as an anarcho-primitivist. To do so is at the very least inaccurate.

Thank you, Derrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.126.71 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to dissociate you from the label on this page while retaining your defense of anti-civilization thought generally. Let me know if there's something that I can do to make that clearer on the page. Owen (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Why is the criticisms section gone? I understand there were some problems with the last version of it because of the references to the uni bomber but could they not just be dealt with, personally when ever I see an article without a criticisms section I simply assume that the whole page is propaganda and i doubt Im the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki rules say Critique need to be integrated into the body text. That way NPOV is protected. A list of critique is a shopping list of POV without balance. --Inayity (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feminism section

I have removed the section on "patriarchy" and feminism. It had zero cited sources, stunk of original research and was heavily biased.

Really? Running parallels to domestication of plants and animals to women in society? Give me a break.

Music

"Primitivists create music as a way to promote Anarcho-primitivism." and a link to some guy's Soundcloud. Self promotion much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.148.18 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarcho-primitivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225212442/http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html to http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025125935/http://www.natustar.com/uk/naturism-begin.html to http://www.natustar.com/uk/naturism-begin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarcho-primitivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102181805/http://www.soliobrera.org/pdefs/cuaderno4.pdf to http://www.soliobrera.org/pdefs/cuaderno4.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailyillini.com/features/article_26e79450-e5c1-52c6-acf0-b1d34b3e096c.html?mode=jqm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231124901/http://www.sacredfools.org:80/CrimeScene/CaseFiles/S2/ShipOfFoolsStory.htm to http://www.sacredfools.org/CrimeScene/CaseFiles/S2/ShipOfFoolsStory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Total rewrite?

This article is terrible, especially the "origins" section, which does not go into the history of primitivist thought at all. It also regards only the anarchist aspect of anarcho-primitivism, when anti-technology and anti-civilization thought extends beyond the anarchist milieu, and those non-anarchist elements were highly influential to the development of primitivism. I suggest a total rewrite of large portions of the page. I'd be willing to do it myself, but am wondering if this is against the rules somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.133.0 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a rewriting project is a good idea. Perhaps a "total rewrite" is not wise, but this article definitely needs to be cleaned up. There are far too many sections (many of which can be combined) and too many paragraphs without citations. Citations in general are messy, and some claims are dubious. I'll start working on this. — user:jerichofalls

Okay, so I've added a multiple issues template on the top of the page, citing problems like messy references, off topic rants, disputed accuracy... Looking through the page it seems like it will require something of a "total rewrite." I propose creating a page "Primitivism (Politics)," borrowing heavily from this page, and then redirecting the page. The new title would be due to multiple issues cited in this talk page (e.g., green anarchism / non-anarchist primitivism / the generally amorphous nature of primitivism / etc.). I'll wait a little bit to see what people think about this. — user:jerichofalls —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anarcho-primitivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421223531/http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/90971 to http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/90971
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacredfools.org/CrimeScene/CaseFiles/S2/ShipOfFoolsStory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212164821/http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20121212090619565 to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20121212090619565

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

citation needed

Currently the second sentence reads, "According to anarcho-primitivism, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, alienation, and overpopulation." Is there a citation that states this is a part of anarcho-primitivism? Is there any evidence that supports this belief? 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:901D:1753:DE2F:D3B (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Within the article itself, a very similar claim comes from Wilson's article "Against Mass Society." Sometimes cited material in the body of the article does not need to be cited in the lead; what determines whether or not it should be cited is the likelihood that it will be challenged or disbelieved (see MOS:LEADCITE). I would not be opposed to adding a citation there (perhaps Wilson). I have not read through the article, so I don't know if it makes the exact claim from the lead or not. The article is freely accessible, though, so you or I can look into it.--MattMauler (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Writing of Anti-civ page

Anti civilization anarchism and anarcho primitivism are 2 completely separate (but sometimes overlapping) ideologies, could someone help write a page for non primitivist anti civ thought? Yvzcvtp (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

The section for main concepts could use more sources to back up its claims. Particularly, the rewilding and domestication subsections need the most attention in this regard. The recent themes section has a similar issue. I haven't had much luck finding sources for these sections, as rewilding and domestication keywords usually divert searches away from anarchism, but here's what I could find.

JEIHOUNI, MOJTABA, and NASSER MALEKI. “Far from the Madding Civilization: Anarcho-Primitivism and Revolt against Disintegration in Eugene O’Neill’s The Hairy Ape.” International Journal of English Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, July 2016, pp. 61–80. EBSCOhost, doi:10.6018/ijes/2016/2/238911.

el-Ojeili, Chamsy, and Dylan Taylor. “‘The Future in the Past’: Anarcho-Primitivism and the Critique of Civilization Today.” Rethinking Marxism, vol. 32, no. 2, Apr. 2020, pp. 168–186. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/08935696.2020.1727256.

Monkeybomber (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What's all this about "indigenous" peoples?

From context, I assume it's specifically referring to peoples displaced or conquered by Europeans; however, most of humanity turned to agriculture in the Neolithic, millennia before the Colonial Age. I don't understand why "indigenous" is a relevant concept in the context of anarcho-primitivism, and I feel that needs to be explained.__Gamren (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)