/lit/ - Literature

>>11874546
being the anprim that i am, i burned all my books for heat during the winter so i cannot rec you any.

>>11874660
Good one!

>>11874546
Anprim reading guide/ flow-chart when?

Even if it is the "right" solution, why bother with it if it will never be implemented?

>>11874546
It's not a solution, it wouldn't provide the surplus necessary to police the re-emergence of technology.

What is the solution then geniuses?

>>11876897
accelerate

>>11876915
Good morning Nick, glad to see you've logged in!

>want to be anprim
>like air conditioning and wear glasses
What do?

>>11874546
>anarcho-primitivism
pfffffft what shit is that? is it another one of those things /pol/ made up?
even cavemen had a power structure

>>11877012
Just be an environmentalist

ANPRIM is a meme. Did people live a primitive lifestyle before the industrial revolution, in the 1700s? No.

There are no serious anti-tech authors who advocate for a return to hunter-gatherer societies. Most of them do recognize that life back then lead to a greater quality of life, both physiologically and mentally, but none of them think a return to those times is possible. How will you get people to stop using agriculture? The only goal worth working towards to is the complete destruction of the technological system. Anything else is a waste of energy. Writing books romanticizing the primitve lifestyle is useless. Thinking about how life ought to be once the system collapses is unproductive. The outcome of a revolution or collapse is unpredictable.

Pic related: Great Pyramid, King's coffer. Microscopic analysis reveals that it was hollowed out with a fixed point drill point of jewel bits and a drilling force of 2 tons. 4500 years ago.

>>11877046
It doesn't exist outside of internet memes. Every anti-tech author recognizes the inherence of hierarchies in societies.

>>11876919

>>11877119
>look mom I posted it again

>>11877108
Not true.
Read de Tocqueville, almost all of the structures post-revolution are developed well before the revolution itself.
And the catastrophe may be so great that primitive living is forced. It's also mostly about mindset.

>>11874546
technically speaking wouldn't extinction be a solution itself?

>>11877119
the analogy breaks down; the eye of sauron isnt the sun in middle earth

>>11877119

I disagree.
I think we should all tear up the roads and ride mules and live in an ecologically society and all of that. But we need technology, specifically computers and industrial machinery, as well as limited state power if we are supposed to restore the diversity and distribution of life on Earth. Too late to simply turn back, needs active measures and large scale organization.

>>11877411
The existence of mules if is the result of technological advances in agriculture. We should be riding untainted donkeys.

>>11877442
This is true. Mules are a frankenstein crime against God and nature

>>11874546
Whoever made that list is an uneducated fool who half assed the whole damn thing.

Delete it and actually read anticiv lit, start with perlman.

>>11877518
Make your own then really. Would love to see some outside the box anprim recommendations

>>11877133
Ellul and Kazcynski both wrote books on this matter. They acknowledge your point. You can prepare structures and have the blueprints for future institutions in your post-revolution society, that's a given, but you cannot influence the historical trend your society will follow. If your structures are not in adequation with the trend, they will be replaced in due time. The 'historical trend' being technological progress, which Tocqueville might have overlooked, understandably; but I don't know, I am not familiar with his works.

>>11877928
Not him but which of Ted and Elull's books do you refer to?

>>11874546
Wandering in Capital by Camette

>>11877990
Anti-tech revolution and autopsie de la révolution

>>11878020
>look Camatte I posted your name again!!!!

>>11878095
Camatte is great I'm glad other /lit/ posters are reading him

>>11878098
They aren't, you are just sperging out. Glad you think that though dipshit.

>>11875990
It will never be implemented. It will be forced upon us by the eventual self destruction of our civilization. So instead of reading political anprim books and wallowing in your despair, OP, i suggest you read survival guides, prepare and educate your children correctly

>>11874549

>bookchin
>anprim

plz neck yourself, or, if rope is too advanced for you, jump off the nearest cliff

whoops, I accidentally your entire philosophy

So you people actively want to fight machine's? Yea I wonder how that will go....
why thou? I have to act like this around most of my friends as well. But in the end I think it's this reproduced fear of progress that is going to end us (what the duck is us!?) Not machine's in and for themselves. The will of the people shouldn't target technology all together, but demand transparency and influence the self actualization of machine's in an ethical direction. That would allow you to live peacefully in a Forrest somewhere, no one should stop you from doing that. As long as you don't try to halt the progress of technology, and use the collective human fear in a peaceful way. This shit isn't even funny. Stop taking it so serious. Good luck everybody!

>>11878107
? are you okay?

>>11878189
how about you read anti-tech material before sharing with us your puerile fantasies of what you think we ought to do regarding technology.

>influence the self actualization of machine's in an ethical direction
You don't even know what you are talking about for fucks sake. Techno-optimists are just techno ignorants. You are either anti-tech or an accelerationist, or you cleary know fuck all about technology.

>>11878107
Go read about your virgin Lord and Savior Nick Land.

>>11878246
I saw the acc critique thread and realized this guy thinks there's only one poster who reads camatte, and somehow gets angry about it.

He's an absolute retard since I'm 10x as read as him on accelerationism. If he even thinks anti-tech and accelerationism exist independently of each other... Lol. Plebs are fucking dumb, they can't think, they have to pick a side, even though there are no sides to the tech problem.

Now if he really is a nick land fanboy then he'll enjoy this
https://twitter.com/outsideness/status/998247047609253888?lang=en

>>11878235
Allright can you recommend any anti tech books? Do they stand a chance against free market's and accelerationism? If the latter is determined by capital wouldn't it then give consumers a certain power in how the competition plays out? Of course requiring a massive scale upper and middle class consciousness, fear might just.. accelerate

I just think its naive to believe you have a fighting chance against machine's. Is reading any of these primitivism books gonna have a convincing argument against that?

>You are either anti-tech or an accelerationist, or you cleary know fuck all about technology

Why either or? Both of them must compromise, if you believe any anti tech movement is possible in the first place a blend of regression and accelerationism must be possible. This is going to be one helluva culture war

>>11874546
>After digging into anarcho-primitivism I am convinced it is the only solution to our eventual human and ecological extinction.
How can you guys actually type out stuff like this?

>>11878608
How can you actually believe that systems are immortal? You are the deluded one. Like I said above, techno-optimists are puerile and ignorant.
You made fun of the OP for pointing out a ecological extinction. We are currently ongoing a mass extinction. How do you expect me to take you seriously? Techno-optimists hold delusions about space travel and colonizing mars when we are at the brink of death, literally. Deforestation, acidification of oceans, sea levels, global warming, overpopulation, even human dignity is at stake. But these don't bother the techno-optimist, he cares about more noble causes like allowing humanity to live on by colonizing mars and living in 12sq feet space domes *tips fedora*. Technology's most important ressource (energy) is directly affected too: dwindling reserves of oil - we won't reach fusion energy by the time we run out of oil. So the system will collapse, NASA published a study about this a few months ago. These so called techno-optimists are too coward to face the reality of technology (understandable - it's killing us) so they hide behind childish fantasies and wish for technology to solve technology's problems.

>>11878404
Ellul, kazcynski - then move on to other writers
>Do they stand a chance
? If we don't even try they we certainly don't stand a chance

>>11878174
underrated.

You're an idiot. You can't back to primitive communism anymore than you can go back to feudalism. The cat of private property is out the bag now.

>>11878174
lol

>>11874546
AP was a late nineties/early 2000's post-anarchism current, it's over. Turns out it was just a braggadocio for macho hippies and gutter punks. Jensen is a dud, Kazcynski is self-refuting and the whole thing is based on two fundamental misunderstandings: the idea that we (modern humans) aren't already the product of all the same processes that they accuse the earth/civilization complex doing and which simply can't be reserved, and the idea that the civilization starting event was a novel "un-natural" perversion from the "real" instead of the result of all the same processes that produce any other phenomena.

Still admire the ballsiness it takes to promote a political programme that argues against symbolic thought itself, but anti-civ's should really just admit to themselves that humanity got their ticket punched and now it's time to take the ride.

>>11878095
>>11878107
Underrated

>>11878260
That guy is right though.

>>11876006
Nature would be both the cause and the enforcer of a primitivist "revolution" (aka a total collapse of industrial society)

>>11878739
Mars will be colonized, and progress will continue until we completely ascend our physical forms and graduate into the next dimension. The thing is, our current civilizations will not be spared in order to create this reality. We are rotten to the core, not worthy of any advancement. Only when we shed our degenerate skins can we have any hope of making true progress. This will require 99% of people to be culled, which is not something most techo-optimists want to accept. Of course, all the higher ups fully know this, so you don't have to worry that we're in bad hands. Just wait for the fireworks that have been prophesied thousands of years ago.

>>11879407
>what is cyclical model of history

>>11878095
Wasn't me. But this alone is more valuable than anything the accelerationists ever wrote. I know you won't read it, but those with a better understanding of the world might give it some thought.

"The struggle of people against capital has only ever been seen through the narrow focus of class. The only way to be regarded as a real adversary of capital has been to actively identify oneself with the proletariat; all else is romantic, petit bourgeois etc . . . But the very act of reasoning in classist terms means that any particular class is confined within the limits of class analysis. This is particularly important when one considers that the working class has as its mission the elimination of all classes. It also avoids the question of how that class will bring about its own autodestruction, since this classist analysis prevents any lessons being drawn from the tragic intellectual fate of those people who set themselves in opposition to capital without even recognising or identifying their enemy (as with Bergson, for example). Today, when the whole classist approach has been deprived of any solid base, it may be worthwhile to reconsider movements of the right and their thinking. The right is a movement of opposition to capital that seeks to restore a moment which is firmly rooted in the past. Hence in order to eliminate class conflict, the excesses of capitalist individualism, speculation and so on, the Action Francaise and the Nouvelle Action Francaise (NAF) envisage a community which can only be guaranteed, according to them, by a system of monarchy. (See particularly the chapter on capitalism in Les Dossiers de l'Action Francaise)."
1/2

>>11879679
2/2
"It seems that every current or group which opposes capital is nonetheless obliged to focus always on the human as the basis of everything. It takes diverse forms, but it has a profoundly consistent basis and is surprisingly uniform wherever human populations are found. Thus by seeking to restore (and install) the volksgemeinschaft, even the Nazis represent an attempt to create such a community (cf. also their ideology of the Urmensh, the "original man"). We believe that the phenomenon of Nazism is widely misunderstood: it is seen by many people only as a demonic expression of totalitarianism. But the Nazis in Germany had reintroduced an old theme originally theorized by German sociologists like Tonnies and Max Weber. And so in response, we find the Frankfurt school, and most notably Adorno, dealing in empty and sterile concepts of "democracy", due to their incapacity to understand the phenomenon of Nazism. They have been unable to grasp Marx's great insight, which was that he posed the necessity of reforming the community, and that he recognised that this reformation must involve the whole of humanity. The problems are there for everybody; they are serious, and they urgently require solutions. People try to work them out from diverse political angles. However, it is not these problems which determine what is revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, but the solutions put forward - i.e. are they effective or not? And here the racketeer's mentality descends upon us once again: each gang of the left or the right carves out its own intellectual territory; anyone straying into one or the other of these territories is automatically branded as a member of the relevant controlling gang. Thus we have reification: the object is determinant, the subject passive."

>>11877928
You are misinformed on the argument, considering that you have not read de Tocqueville.
And I don't think Ellul and Kazcynski understood technology as well as people think. But I won't elaborate on this because you have a deterministic worldview, as per:
>Thinking about how life ought to be once the system collapses is unproductive.
So I don't know why you're discussing this anyways. Pic related?

>>11877119
>>11877396
Shouldn't these be using an image where the glasses are actually covering Nada's eyes?

>>11879843
No.
Think harder, not faster. The original may clarify it.

>>11874546
look into linkola and or deep ecology

>>11879870
So it's supposed to portray Google Glass as a negative version of the glasses from They Live, immersing you in illusion rather than revealing the truth?

I think the point would have been more clearly stated if the first panel had Nada without any glasses, then a transitional panel where he's putting them on, and then the final panels with the girl and the cyberpunk fantasy

>>11880340
No, if that's all it was trying to say then there would be no need to replace image.

>>11879638
You mean like the last 10,000 years of human history you stupid faggot?

>>11877530
Why did you put Kaczynski and bookchin with anprim? Are you anprim? Are you even involved in the GA mileu? Sorry I can't comprihend why anyone who is anticiv would make a list like that. It's so wrong on so many levels.

Anprim will be the only politics left at the end of this era.

>>11881566
Technique is immanent.
Capital is sentient.
Reaction is coded.

>>11880514
He’s anprim, he can barely read

>>11874546
I've heard some people say that it's wrong to classify Kaczynski as an anrcho-primitivist. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

>>11880401
What is it trying to say then

>>11880226
This. I'd rather have a Linkola/Deep Ecology chart. Ted critiques Naess but I'm more interested in the non-anarchist approaches these authors take over the likes of Zerzan.

>>11881654
His thinking doesn't have implicit liberalism (as most anprims do), he doesn't romanticise primitivism.

>>11882073
I want this also.

>>11880492
The past 10,000 years is about to be turned on its head by the dicksmack of nature.

>>11883857
Hot. Also big if true.

>>11881654
Technological Slavery Chapter 3

>>11885383
Looks great.