Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. Primitivists argue that the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. They advocate a return to "non-civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of technology for the sake of being a sustainable future.
There are, however, numerous other non-anarchist forms of primitivism, and not all primitivists point to the same phenomenon as the source of modern, civilized problems and some "ideologues" 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.
I think this ideology addresses ecological concerns in the best way for it, this is a good sign for me and not for anti-environment people.
Primitivists tend to see division of labor and specialization as fundamental and irreconcilable problems, decisive to social relationship within civilization. They see this disconnecting of the ability to care for ourselves and provide for our own needs as a technique of separation and dis-empowerment perpetuated by civilization. Specialization is seen as leading to inevitable inequalities of influence and undermining egalitarian relationships.
Primitivists reject modern science as a method of understanding the world. Science is not considered to be neutral by primitivists. It is seen as loaded with the motives and assumptions that come out of, and reinforce, civilization.
Modern science is believed by primitivists as attempting to see the world as a collection of separate objects to be observed and understood. In order to accomplish this task, primitivists believe the scientists must distance themselves emotionally and physically, to have a one-way channel of information moving from the observed thing to the self, which is defined as not a part of that thing.
Anarcho-primitivists view civilization as the logic, institution, and physical apparatus of domestication, control, and domination. They focus primarily on the question of origins. Civilization is seen as the underlying problem or root of oppression, and must therefore be dismantled or destroyed.
A larger more comprehensive description of this is the rise of civilization as the shift over the past 10,000 years from an existence deeply connected to the web of life, to one psychologically separated from and attempting to control the rest of life. They state that prior to civilization, there generally existed ample leisure time, considerable gender equality and social equality, a non-destructive and uncontrolling approach to the natural world, the absence of organized violence, no mediating or formal institutions, and strong health and robustness. Anarcho-primitivists state that civilization inaugurated mass warfare, the subjugation of women, population growth, busy work, concepts of property, entrenched hierarchies, as well as encouraging the spread of diseases. They claim that civilization begins with and relies on an enforced renunciation of instinctual freedom and that it is impossible to reform away such a renunciation.
There are some criticisms also, such as that the earth has a population of almost 7 billion people. If everyone lived as a hunter-gather, according to critics, the earth would be able to support far fewer people. Primitivists assert that the earth has long been overpopulated and that there is no possible way to support everyone that is alive today. A population crash is inevitable, they say, as can be observed by looking at any other animal population which consumes all of its resources and destroys its living environment. Critics are curious as to the fate of the other billions that would be left without food if such a way of life were adopted suddenly and simultaneously across the globe. These critics tend to view primitivism as a kind of millennialism, and the collapse of civilization as avoidable through Technological Progress. Additionally, the dominance struggles and brutal flare-ups observed in chimpanzees, our closest relatives, do not support the notion that hierarchialism and violence are strictly the outcomes of civilization, though evidence of such behavior among humans or our equally close relatives the bonobos, is lacking prior to 12,000 years ago. Some references in anarcho-primitivism, such as the author Pierre Clastres, offer an anthropological explanation of the necessity of these struggles, while embracing anarchy as the natural balance for primitive societies.
I personally support this great ideology and recommend that other people will accept it too, but what is important is the free cycle of debate to measure ideas with, as civilisation has been largely defined with censorship, restrictions on freedom and oppression holding people back, which strongly discourages from me forcing the opinions, and leaving the decision up to you.
So, what do you say now? Leave your comments below and maybe your own innovations also!
