Anarcho-Primitivism, or Anprim, is an ideology that draws very heavily from the colonialist’s ahistorical view of “savages”. At the ideology’s very core lives a continuation of colonial racism, every aspect of the ideology is drenched in colonialism.
I’ll start by explaining that the term “primitive” being pointed towards people is derogatory, that was (and still is) done to seperate the colonizers from the colonised. To put it another way, the “civilized” white men, from the “uncivilized” dark men. Further, “Primitive” Anti-Civ ideology was named by its detractors. Believers in the ideology referred to it as “Anti-Civilization”, “Pre-Civilization”, and “Post-Civilization”, and the critics - being colonialists themselves - called it “Primitivism”. If you use “Prim” for Anprim, you might as well be calling the natives of America “red beasts”, or the blacks of Africa “apes”.
Which brings us to the next issue of the ideology, the meme-y desire to treat Anarcho-Primitism as a monkey collective, or more directly, wanting to treat Anti-Civists like apes. Which, comes directly from the aforementioned colonial racism affixed to the ideology. Anti-Civ is a very wide ideology, based widely on technophobia and sentiments around the “failures of civilization”, often citing the rise of capitalism as a mistake that could have been routed if civilization had been built differently, or if it had not been built at all. They’re not “oh haha cities bad throws poop”, as many mistake them as being, they’re a structured ideology based on theories and observable wrongdoings.
The third thing I want to bring up about Anti-Civ - if I may use its proper name - is that it is very often filled with ecofascists, and right-wing chuds. Though there are leftists within the umbrella, if you take the time to visit Anti-Civ communities, you’ll find very quickly that they’re filled with hateful people. You’ll find rampant homophobia, terrible transphobia, and boatloads of racism. That makes it a predominately vile ideology, and not a community I want here on Lemmy.
Of course, I write this because /c/anprim has been made, and I dreaded the day I would have to write this out to protect - if you would - Lemmy from the terrible meme of it. And, of course, I don’t say this to be an asshole or a party pooper, but I can’t allow such a disgusting disgrace of a meme’d ideology to taint our communities. People who are aware of me would know I’m Pagan, and that I specialize - for my career - in guns from the 1800s. Those are two communities that constantly get flooded with Anti-Civ assholes, I’ve seen what happens when they become tolerated, and I don’t want that to happen here.
Honestly as a communist instance, anti-communism and anti-Marxism should be barred, which includes basically all anarchists under that umbrella.
I agree, especially once CTH gets their instance set up, that can be the big tent one, and this can be explicitly communist.
Having lenin on the sidebar has kept most of them away, but I don’t see any problem with drawing the sectarian lines at no anarchism.
I have no issues with anarchists unless they are arrogant in the face of ignorance which is, unfortunately, usually the case.
We have a rule against anti-communism in our communist instance, so anarchists are free to comment, learn and engage with our community, but any hostility against our goals, our scientific method and our historical experiences will be frowned upon, of course.
I also think we should allow anarchists. I used to consider myself one (hence my cringe-worthy username), but through conversations with a ML friend of mine, I no longer consider myself an anarchist. I’m not comfortable calling myself a ML yet, because I have yet to read Marx or Lenin and I don’t think it would make sense to call myself a Marxist-Leninist if I don’t have a thorough understanding of Marx and Lenin. Anyway, I do think anarchists are reachable. I also think that they have mostly compatible goals with communists, even if their idea of how to achieve those goals is less thought out. I understand it’s not completely compatible with the goal of communism, Bukharin made the distinction between centralization and decentralization in communism and anarchism clear. I’m kind of rambling but you get me, yeah?
that makes plenty of sense, comrade. I call myself a socialist, for reasons similar to yours. since joining this community, i am understanding more theory and will share my knowledge with others in time
I’m genuinely alright with anarchists and the libleft being here, but i’m absolutely disgusted by “anprim” being here.
Anarchists are fine as long as they have their own spaces to frolic in, and they are respectful when they come to ours. I think we ought to try to talk them out of their misconceptions rather than just bringing down the ban hammer.
so much for the tolerant left
Posted from my rock in the woods
Anti-civ types are outright reactionaries. They should be barred from any community.
First, I am not involved with that group, and am genuinely just asking questions. These are obviously bad things that you have pointed out that I would not attempt to defend. That said, you point to the origin and alleged trends of the group to discredit it. Does that mean that the ideology as a whole should be rejected from our instance? What about those that were unaware of its origins and simply wanted to establish a commune off-the-grid? In other words, if you were unaware of its racist origins and were not hateful as you claim many communities are? Also, are these online communities or IRL ones you have visited?
Now that I’m writing this up, I’m beginning to question whether these people would help us in a worker’s revolution, so maybe it doesn’t even matter and they belong on another instance.
Does that mean that the ideology as a whole should be rejected from our instance?
Not necessarily, comrade. Anti-Civ is a very wide-stretching umbrella term, I myself am a bit of a soft-Luddite and that counts as Anti-Civ. The issue is more with the people who utilize the ideology for the aims of “Primitive” politics. Which, happens to be a good little bit of the umbrella.
What about those that were unaware of its origins and simply wanted to establish a commune off-the-grid?
There’s a slight “all and” in that statement. Not everyone who wants to establish a commune is Anti-Civ. Though, I will say people who dream of starting a commune to escape from Capitalism are idealists, and predominately of the anarchist variety whom grew up without empty bellies.
if you were unaware of its racist origins and were not hateful as you claim many communities are?
There’s a family of reenactor archetypes, who regardless of the era being reenacted - regardless of the history being relived - believe deeply in their core that times were better back then, and that we as a society should return to it. I personally see this the most with Civil War reenactors, and Pagan era living history groups. These unaware Anti-Civers often arrive to that position by adding both social and material conditions of the modern world together. That often means internalizing racist attitudes and the redesigning of the past done by reactionaries. So to answer your question, if a person wants to live in the past, or if they want to leave society in its entirety, there’s good chances they’re hateful towards someone whom we as communists fight for.
Also, are these online communities or IRL ones you have visited?
Both, and both are equally as cringe. The IRL ones rarely directly say they’re Anti-Civilization, but like the Ancaps in public, they’ll drop hints. If you’re chilling out anywhere pertaining to the past and someone says “boy, things were better back then”, they’re probably going to be Anti-Civ to some degree. The Online ones, however, will flat out tell you they’re Anti-Civ. However the online ones also often buy entirely into the “Anprim” meme and make racist jokes plainly, so they’re a lot easier to notice.
To your comment on revolution, Anti-Civists see only one major means of changing the world, and that’s leaving it behind. If they get involved in a revolution, it’s probably just to destabilize societal enforcers in their area. And those who’ve internalized Anti-Civ as an identity would probably fight against the revolution, because we ourselves represent a civilization.
Just some answers from my own reading and personal experience.
Does that mean that the ideology as a whole should be rejected from our instance? What about those that were unaware of its origins and simply wanted to establish a commune off-the-grid?
Then when they violate the rules it will be, what do the liberals call it, a teachable moment for them. How they handle being respectfully but firmly challenged about it will give a good indicator how good a fit they are for the instance.
Also, are these online communities or IRL ones you have visited?
I’ve dealt with anti-civ types online and offline. The milieu is definitely dominated by racist, often ableist, often transphobic thinking. They take bourgeois ideology about nature and natural selection and mistake it for an actual understanding of ecology. This always has social implications because we come from nature. What is supposed to be “natural” for people then becomes a political question.
A lot of anti-civ types do literally embrace the idea of survival of the fittest as a valid way of determining who deserves to live and die. It’s social darwinism with a green twist, basically.
Many explicitly reject the entire concept of mass politics because they believe any commitment to working-class politics perpetuates industrialism which is an evil in their eyes. They accept their ideas have no merit for most people, especially workers and just sort of write off most of humanity. In this sense it is explicitly an elitist ideology.
Sort of reminds me of certain toxic strains of Christianity – everybody except the true believers are just scum who deserve to burn in hell, or at least can have their literal lives just written off.
There is variation, of course, this is a generalization, some individuals are less problematic about it than others.
But by and large the milieu is reactionary and counter-revolutionary. They’d rather let the working-class die off en masse than give us a chance to build a genuinely sustainable and equitable civilization for the first time in history.
well said, comrades @calmlamp@lemmygrad.ml @Farmer_Heck@lemmygrad.ml . You two have a lot more experience with these types than I do, and I appreciate your insight.
