วีดีโอ

Here from that Train video because comments disabled. Could you please go into a but more detail about the pain the John Zerzan endured from Thomas? BTW, yes I'm a Thomas fan, I'm sorry if you're mad by this.

HERE WE GO

Why do Low IQ nunmums who cannot read a book Hate Zerzan? I am 74 Years old & John is 100% Right. You who think not are not educated enough to read a Comic Book.

Agfb

the fucking baby crying in the background ruined it

Can we have more Layla Abdelrahim content pls? Besides this video, all the other stuff from her I can find on TH-cam is at least 8 years old

who is the "ben" guy referenced here?

My Man, on fire

#DEGROWTH

The crying baby is an anarchist and the sound guy is a primitivist. Gotta respect these guys who live what they preach!

SUPER COOL! This video came up in my feed and I took a look at the guys face and the video title and thought, no shit I think that's John Zerzan, and I was right. I read Running on Emptiness like over a decade ago. I liked the critique even if I don't agree with much of it, and I really liked the book at the time. I still act like an anarchist behavior wise but I no longer see value in pushing it as an agenda politically - when it comes to politics I think actions are everything and intentions (and thereby to some degree words) are irrelevant. Zerzan comes off as a little too high-handed, pointlessly judgmental, and preachy for me these days.

Hi

my name is a joke name but I feel I might convert to Primitivism

Rousseau was an anti-civ philosopher before anarchism.

Why dose this crowd sound like they don't want to be there, lol😋 I think a lot of what he says is truth. 🌸

the earth has objective, real limits. 6 billion people means those people must live at a certain level of technology, producing a certain amount of things, in order to live without degrading the planet. Primitivism is the first solid conceptualization of the limits we need to impose upon ourselves if we want to live without a systemic crash. Maybe their conception of WHAT LEVEL of CIV may be off, I don't know, but the fact is, there is an objective limit that needs to be found out. Their assumption that what served us for several million years successfully is a sustainable model is maybe a good estimation. Science should be used to ascertain WHAT that level of CIV and consumption is sustainable.

Oh no not the brown people! Is she not aware that they make up over 50% of the worlds population? What the hell is she even talking about? What a worthless platitude.

The Myth of the Noble Savage. The primary staple for hunter-gatherers was fishing, not berries and roots and such. Hunting larger game was important as the food could be preserved and stored to help survive the winter, it also provided warm fur. The idea that primitive societies were more egalitarian is nonsense. They raped, enslaved, murdered, and committed genocide. They burned down forests, rerouted rivers, hunted animals to extinction, and even dug up mountains. There's one tribe in South America that kills women once they can no longer bear children, as they don't want to spend resources on someone who they feel wont produce any value for the tribe. Culture and behavior of primitive peoples varies wildly. You can't make blanket statements like that.

What is it with these clever dudes that whenever someone in the room asks a really concise and inciteful question ( dude at the end part 7) that they never seem to actually respond to the body of the question? Usually just kinda rehash something they've already said.

Western countries are now in the post industrial age, thus are no longer hotbeds of radical politics. However the newly industrializing third world might see some radicalism in the coming decades.

People need to realize who they're talking to, that's Obamas Dad!

These people are way too clap happy.

What Chomsky says about anarcho-primitivism is a defence mechanism.

I presume that John advocates voluntary population de-growth to reduce the size of the population.

ah man, this is great stuff

Every genocide in history is a result of "civilisation". Technology is a ultra-Stalinist tyrant.

If you don't criticise technology and "civilisation" you aren't anti-capitalist.

My interpretation of anarcho-primitivism is that it's not some caveman approach, but rather total non-conformity.

No offence to John, but I think he's so against Bookchin because Bookchin calle him a lifestylist.

Primitivism means I think simple living, similar to how Gandhi lived on a societal scale.

Work generally and work in factories is paid slavery.

Capitalism has created such a complex "society" that no one can given a clear or a particularly sensical answer.

What I'm saying is unlike the current world "society" which is almost exclusively capitalist, there could be multiple societies within a stateless, non-capitalist structure.

and if the collectives want to they can interact and help each other in other words mutual aid.

Also as limited as possible consensus decision making if a consensus can't be reached on issues then each group can form their own collective or a collective within a collective so everyone's happy. As I've already said I advocate abolition of money, there could be as many collectives for people who advocate that and all the other ideologies can have there own collectives

As I said I think work should be abolished, work that people don't want to do, or possibly a society without work. Bartering I advocate based on Marx's axiom From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That was a copy of an email I sent, it was meant to be a template, I'll re-do it.

Hello, I'm an anarcho-Communalist which means the abolition of money and markets; instead of using money it's based on bartering, so as you say on your site about a self-managed society, that's what a anarcho-Communalist society would be, people would do jobs they actually want to do, obviously voluntarily and people would voluntarily show appreciation. I'm pro-abolition of involuntary work a la Bob Black. That's

Technology is hyper-domestications.

Capitalism is genocidal, no primitivism. If you think the ends don't justify the means technology should be rejected, although until an authentic new consciousness arrives we're chained to technology.

god, this guy is such trash..... both parent work bc ppl pay 50% of their salary to the state. both parents are working bc the state has radically increased the cost of living through protectionist regulations and state-enforced monopoly. this guy has no empirical evidence. this guy doesnt know what he is talking about all emotional arguments and a lot of ignorance. again, this guy is just plain trash.

god, more feminist claptrap.... even if we accept that 80% of food was gathered -- that 20% was absolutely necessary to sustain life, and was far more dangerous to obtain. this is why societies praised brave men who were willing to sacrifice their bodies to go out hunting. hunter-gatherers makes more sense bc hunters usually had predominance due to the massive risks and skill their craft required. take that, feminist scholars!

Malade!

you really dont know what your talking about do you

The idea that solar panels and wind farms are small scale technologies is ridiculous. Take a look into the production of poly-crystalline silicon used in solar panels (or the rare earths in thin film pv) or the steel used in wind turbines (also energy storage still need much more development). These technologies are better than the alternatives but are still products of advanced industrial production. Anti-civilization is a dead end for me, useful as a theoretical foil but useless in practice.

They did have war. There will always be war. War was different in different time periods, for instance, many native americans "counted coup" instead of slaughtering slews of people. War for property and the subjugation of other groups mostly came from the newly developed agricultural civilizations.

You are focusing on the Agriculture in front of you and never see the 2 behind you.

It would have been interesting to hear what, "the agitated person", was saying.

I admit I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Zerzan's cause although I find him too soft. He reminds more of a hippie guru in San Francisco than a radical anarchist. It's also amusing that he berates Ted Kaczynski for his methods yet frankly admits the futility of nonviolence. Would I recommend studying Zerzan's ideas to the uninitiated? Yes, but not for his honesty. If you want cold, hard facts I'd go with Pennti Linkola or Mr. Kaczynski. Not four-eyes here.

No anarchist anywhere is currently living in their ideal scenario the majority of their daily life. Zerzan feels it's more important to get the word out about what he thinks are the inherent dangers and destructive tendencies of civilization/technology than to fit any sort of ideological purity. He wouldn't be helping anyone just out in the woods by himself.