"Civilization is not a natural, inevitable development. Look deeper than 200 years. "
October 7, 2010
by users of the forum anarchaos
This interview was born spontaneously and the libertarian forum anarchaos. The occasion was the presence in Italy by John Zerzan for a round of introductions of the book "Free from civilization," Henry Manicardi, with the preface of the same Zerzan. Applications, translations, contacts with Zerzan have developed in a completely spontaneous by users of the forum or people who were able to immediately close contact. An extraordinary example of the use of technology anarchist Internet, on which we would like to invite to reflect ironically. The thanks goes to Cane_Randagio, mechanical, lalla, loser to the questions, and David Hauser vladjm for translation.
What a difference between being simply against the Industrial Revolution and
be explicitly primitivist?
Primitivism sees the Neolithic revolution, ie the shift to domestication and agriculture as a factor deeper than the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution can be seen as an extension of the agricultural revolution. Opposing industrialism does not necessarily mean calling into question basic institutions such as the division of labor and domestication, which seem to many of us as the main sources of industrial life civilized and totalized. One must go deeper, I believe, only 200 years behind in order to recognize the roots of the crisis overall, in every sphere, we are suffering today.
Because the critique of modernity was not lead to a "new" compared to modern, but it must lead us to an age old one called "primitive", that man has already passed?
A "new era" based on what? What should we preserve? Nothing that is
continuing the current world order, I presume. I am reminded of the "Alter-globalization," a concept that avoids the nature of what we call globalization, just as the Left, I think, there never was a real anti-globalizazzione.
thing based on his contention that the mode of agricultural production is the source of exploitation of man by man?
The anthropological literature shows clearly what the transition to the
domestication / agriculture: the chronic war, more jobs, objectification of women, the end of the communication bandwidth (company) egalitarian drastic increase of the population, environmental destruction. For this reason, along with Jared Diamond in 1980 many people called him "the biggest mistake in history of humanity. " According to historians and archaeologists
as Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler is not the discovery of agriculture coincided with the beginning of man's dominion over nature and man. Both explain that the company that revolved around the cult of the Mother Goddess (the companies Gilani), present in virtually all of Europe and other parts of the world (Middle East, Asia, etc..) More or less from 7000-8000 a. C. 3-2500 to a. C only in relation to the Neolithic period (the worship of the Mother Goddess was also present in the Paleolithic), were so centered on the cultivation of the land but with none of this hierarchical, androcentric and violent. What is his idea with respect to these claims which seem definitely established?
matriarchal civilization is a myth. It has never existed. Feminist anthropologists, among others, the
have shown very clearly. A major source of error is the overemphasis on symbols of Dee. Look at Mexico and the ubiquitous symbols of Our Lady of Guadalupe. From there it could be concluded that Mexico was matriarchal, but instead is completely patriarchal and even sexist. Or the General Mariology of Catholicism, this means anywhere matriarchy. Various forms of New Age want to believe this myth that has no basis.
How does the primitivism against theories evolution? Darwin in the Origin of Man and the Philosophical Notebooks, contrary to what liberals believe the Nazis and the so-called "social Darwinism", tries to prove that civilization, morality, politics, altruism and solidarity are products of 'biological evolution: according to this theory, the flock and the tribe had more united and organized and therefore more likely to survive to reproduce, leaving behind the so-called "social instincts" such as love and mutual sympathy. These instincts are also present in animals and plants (Darwin goes to even speak of "plant intelligence"). If these theories are true, please do not contradict the hypothesis primitivist? Paradoxically
primitivism would appear as something anti-naturalistic, which rejects the evolutionary processes of living organisms and which seeks to impose artificially to one of these bodies a reverse path to that far below.
The domestication and civilization development are not natural or inevitable. Demonstrates the tremendous resistance, see In Search of the Primitive by Stanley Diamond. It can be argued that the statement of fascism means that was imposed by evolution, but certainly not the case. The social complexity has been and still is, carried out mainly by the division labor and specialization. But this institution is not always the rule. For example, archeology is perplexed by the fact that the forms of stone tools have not changed in a million years, despite the intelligence to change was certainly present. It was good for a stable and well adjusted, so why change them? I would say that this is a plausible explanation. Like a primitive living
the obvious inconsistency between the means employed (pc, transport, etc..) And for officers (destruction of modern civilization)?
This contradiction is a fact with which we deal. Do not we have designed this massive, alienated but eco-disaster renounce the use of these components would bring us to silence. In an attempt to contribute to the solution we are forced to use what we hope to see the end.
How do you bring the actual domestication of man, animals, the environment to the primitivism, removing the well-being by which man lives, now felt as essential now to walk on land? What is the process of abandonment of modernity and return to a primitive way of life, the conciliation process 'natural' between man and nature, not as an individual phenomenon, because the man is master of its own destiny, but as a global phenomenon?
What is that "welfare" we want to remove? Many people do not see any way sustainable or healthy, to say the least. Certainly there will be a move away from this until the impoverishment and the destruction are not deeply felt. What could happen or not, of course.
Agriculture is posed by the primitive thought as a watershed between the primitive society el'addomesticamento man. A return to pre-agricultural societies, however, would require a drastic reduction in the number of inhabitants of planet Earth. Considering that probably the birth of agriculture and livestock are a consequence of increasing numbers of beings human in the world, how do you think we can prevent that in the aftermath of a collapse of society today that future generations may be able to live as hunter-agriculture raccoglitorisenza use again? However, what will prevent this company to recur again in these terms?
A fundamental change would involve a transition process that will surely include the shift from agriculture such as horticulture industry for example. No responsible person would imagine a complete change from one day to another. There could be a return to domestic but why should we choose a disastrous path, one that has proven so? What
reading from a primitivist movement to economic and financial crisis of recent years? Should act as anarchists in the explosion in social action? What should be their strategies in the short and long term? Opposing
at a fundamental level the expansion of mass production and mass
company means that we are not part of the idea that wants to "revive the economy." The alternatives at all levels must be explored and sometimes an economic crisis leads us to this, with radical implications for the sustainability and autonomy deeper. Other events can cause doubted such as the Icelandic volcano this spring. All of a sudden Europe remained with little fruit and vegetables, which led to consider the vulnerabilities that globalization represents. This public discourse has been quite interesting from what I read myself.
What was the role of capitalism in the devastation of the planet's ecology? because according to the primitivism that role is not peculiar to the bourgeois-industrial-capitalist society but it is the poisoned fruit of every kind of civilization?
Capitalism is the last stage of civilization, just as techno is the last phase of industrialism. The problem is capitalism, certainly, but it goes much deeper than we think.
0 comments:
Post a Comment