The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism

by Theodore John Kaczynski

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Cultural, Anthropology

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Banger

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a good job of cutting through the patronising “noble savage” fetishising. Ted shows human behaviour to sit on a similar spectrum, regardless of the technological means a culture has amassed. There is no garden of eden paradise to return to.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliantly argued critique, but that doesn't mean it's always valid. I'd like to see/read John Zerzan and other anarcho-primitivists' side of this debate because I get the sense that he and Kaczynski are talking over and around each others' arguments and claims, rather than addressing them.

This debate is a rather technical one, based more in semantics than substantive differences, because it would seem that even after his lengthy critique, Kaczynski and Zerzan arrive at the same place.

Thus, “Regardless of whether they were good conservationists or poor ones, primitive peoples were incapable of damaging their environment to anything remotely approaching the extent to which modern man is damaging his. Primitives simply didn’t have the power to do that much damage. They may have used fire recklessly and they may have exterminated some species through overhunting, but they had no way to dam large rivers, to cover thousands of square miles of the Earth’s surface with cities and pavement, or to produce the vast quantities of toxic chemicals and radioactive waste with which modern civilization threatens to ruin the world for good and all. Nor did primitives have any means of releasing the deadly-dangerous forces represented by genetic engineering and by the super-intelligent computers that may soon be developed. These are dangers that scare even the technophiles themselves. So I agree with the anarchoprimitivists that the advent of civilization was a great disaster and that the Industrial Revolution was an even greater one. I further agree that a revolution against modernity, and against civilization in general, is necessary."

The primary difference seems to be that Kaczynski has a more nuanced, jaded view of human nature, whereas Zerzan and the anarcho-primitivists view indigenous people through the "noble savage" lens--at least, this is what Kaczynski is accusing them of.

Kaczynski goes on: "But you can’t build an effective revolutionary movement out of soft-headed dreamers, lazies, and charlatans. You have to have tough-minded, realistic, practical people, and people of that kind don’t need the anarchoprimitivists’ mushy utopian myth.”

Fine, but why do I get the impression that Kaczynski would dismiss all morals, ethics, and ideals in societal planning as "mushy utopian myth?" If Zerzan fails by not incorporating enough pragmatism into his vision of anarcho-primitivism, then Kaczynski fails by incorporating too little idealism into his own vision. And that is precisely why he turned to building bombs before trying to build community. I do not know (because I have not read the Unibomber Manifesto) if he finds a place for idealism and community elsewhere in his writing, but I suspect he does not, because Kaczynski is a nihilist first and a primitivist secondarily. Taking that to be true, I assert that Zerzan has the more difficult task. Anybody can blow shit up, but creating a workable vision for a future society is far harder than condemning the one--whether rightfully or not--we are living in now.

And that is why there is such a paucity of manifestos, plans, books, etc. wholly dedicated to the task of creating something new--and better (...or at least better than what we have now). Destruction and ideologies venerating destruction are all we really know in the post-industrialized world. The right wing, conservative strain is dedicated to paranoid conspiracies, and is hostile to the world in general. The so-called antiracist left is also hostile, dismissive of the possibility of finding hope and unity. It mirrors the right's doomsaying methodology and millenarian fantasizing about the end of the world. The mainstream political right, left and Kaczynski all agree on the pessimistic view that the world is unsalvageable, and should be obliterated. They only differ on who should remain in charge if anyone survives. Between them and the somewhat naïve but hopeful vision of Zezan and the anarcho-primitivists, I know which one I would rather choose if I picture humanity having a future beyond the next fifty years.

While I have not read much of Zerzan's work, I have read similar critiques of anarcho-primitivism as being long on vision and idealism but short on details. Whether you subscribe to the "nature is red in tooth and claw" philosophy, or picture a Smurf village-like return to Edenic innocence, both the anarcho-primitivist view and Kaczynski's criticism of it are aligned on the deleterious impacts of industrialized society. If Kaczynski is correct and Zerzan and Friends have failed to elucidate a pragmatic, actionable alternative to modern society, does that failure result from a paucity of intellectual capital, or merely reflect the enormity of the task we face? When, where, and how humanity tenders its resignation from industrialized society will not--if history offers any insight--be a well-planned, painless transition, but a chaotic, brutal one, propelled by social and ecological forces largely beyond our control, that will carry us to the brink of extinction.

But even once we remove the "noble savage" trope that Kaczynski rightfully criticizes, will humanity be better off in a primitive state? Kaczynski's observations of the "reach" of industrialized society, its far-ranging ability to damage each other and our planet, are valid. And without that destructive capacity, we are far more likely to survive and to live better than we do at the end of the first quarter of the 21st Century.

[Iain Clowes · Rating 4 out of 5]

A predictable but comprehensive literature review.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anyone who has studied History knows the postulates Kaczynski makes.

Hell, even 200 years ago it was already known.

[Müslim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hapishanedeki kütüphanenin sınırlı sayıdaki kitapları ve arkadaşlarının yolladıklari ile güzel bir derleme yapmış ama yazdıkları beni pek tatmin etmedi yine de güzel şeyler var.
Altını çizdiğim yerleri aşağı ekleyeyim;

Yani solculuğun
tüm varyantlarının peşinde olduğu şey, modern
toplumun temel değerlerinin en ileri aşamalarına
götürüldüğü ve ”saf” olarak yaşandığı ”mükemmel”
toplumlardır. Yalnızca böyle bir toplumun nerede
olduğu ve buna nasıl ulaşılacağı konusunda anlaşamamaktadırlar. Teknolojik ilerlemeyi savunan sol
akımlar bunun daha fazla teknolojik gelişme ile
başarılabileceğini iddia ederken, anarko-primitivizm
gibi yüzeysel anlamda teknolojiye karşı çıkan
akımlar bu aranan ”mükemmel” toplumun aslında
insan toplumlarının şafağında mevcut olduğunu ve
oraya dönülmesi gerektiğini iddia ederler.

İlkeller savaştığında iki küçük kabileye mensup adamlar birbirlerine ok atarlar ya da
birbirlerine savaş sopalarını sallarlar, çünkü savaş-
mak istiyorlardır. Ya da kendilerini, ailelerini veya
bölgelerini koruyorlardır. Modern dünyada askerler
savaşmaya zorlandıkları için savaşıyorlardır ya da
en iyi ihtimalle Nazizm, Sosyalizm ya da Amerikalı
politikacıların “özgürlük” olarak adlandırdığı bir takım uydurma ideolojilere inanmaları için beyinlerinin yıkanması sonucu savaşıyorlardır. Her halükarda
modern asker yalnızca bir piyon, ailesi ya da kabilesi için değil, onu sömüren politikacılar için ölen
bir enayidir.

Avustralya Aborjinleri, kadın
uğruna ölümcül silahlar ile çarpışıyorlardı.250 Fakat
böylesine doğrudan ve sınırsız bir rekabet modern
toplumda hoş görülümüz, çünkü bu tarz bir rekabet
ayrıntılı ve ince bir şekilde ayarlanmış dayanışma
sistemine zarar verecektir. Dolayısı ile toplumumuz,
rekabetçi dürtülerin tatmin edilmesi için zararsız
hatta sisteme faydalı olan metotlar geliştirmiştir. Erkekler kadınlar için ya da kadınlar erkekler için yumruk yumruğa kavga etmezler. Erkekler kadınlar için
para kazanarak ya da prestijli arabalar kullanarak
rekabet ederler. Kadınlar erkekler için bakımlı olarak ve güzelliklerine yatırım yaparak yarışırlar.

Göçebe
avcı-toplayıcı toplumlar çok çekici bazı özelliklere
de sahiptiler. Başka şeylerle birlikte, bu toplumların
modern insana musallat olan stres, endişe, hayal
kırıklığı, depresyon, yeme ve uyku bozuklukları
gibi psikolojik sorunlardan görece olarak azade olduklarına inanmak için gerekli sebepler mevcuttur.

[Munta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mad lad destroys anprim

[Atrona Grizel (Sov8840)]

The moonlight here feels thicker, almost touchable.

[Adrián P. C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

⭐⭐⭐⭐Really Good.

[Vlad Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful piece debunking the myths of noble savages and ease of primitive life

[Elijah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dumb ideas (noble savage myth) debunked. If you don't hold these dumb ideas, you probably won't gain a lot from their being debunked.