Talk:Anarcho-primitivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives

Untitled[edit]

Primitivists v. Greens v. Green anarchists[edit]

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)

The flag[edit]

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)

Wow[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Questionable statement in opening.[edit]

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[citation needed].

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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Population minor change[edit]

"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)
  • "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)

Original research.[edit]

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)

This is almost WP:NOTTEXTBOOK[edit]

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)

In popular culture[edit]

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)

The criticism section is poisoned.[edit]

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)

"primitivism"[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.