/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3826843]

What does /lit/ think about John Zerzan?

[Anonymous No.3826869]

never read anything by him but have planned on it

Any other similar authors? Besides Ted Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.3826896]

>>3826869
Daniel Quinn.

[Anonymous No.3826897]

>>3826869
oh, and Marshall Sahlins.

[Anonymous No.3826942]

>>3826869
Pentti Linkola

[Anonymous No.3826947]

I live in California. It was already been replaced by Mexican gangs, Asian technocrats and biracial rappers. I mean, it's a border area anyway, I just find it interesting that people even bother to question whether Western Civilization (or whatever) will fall.

It seems to me 'Eastern Civilization' won the Cold War. (Eastern Europe, East Asia).

[Anonymous No.3827130]

>>3826947
you have no idea what this thread is about, but that doesn't stopp you from spouting your pol nonsense anyway, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.3827334]

>>3827130
I never said I was pro-'Western' or anti-Mexican gangs. What am I stating is that Civilization fell.

[Anonymous No.3827363]

Well, I read a little about him, and I don't think we can un-invent the modern world. I would rather redirect technology towards cultural products (space programs, alternative energy) away from individualistic consumerism a la Soviet Union.

The reason we have the iPhone culture is because of the aforementioned Neoliberal division of labor amongst different cultures. It's not even 'high tech', really. It's just energy-expensive. (Paying Chinese to assemble iWidgets, ship them back using US Navy protected oil-fueled international waters).

Real technology is like 3d printers, robotics, utilizing nature for energy, state planning, etc. But American technology is all based around cheap entertainment and bureaucratic paperwork facilitation. FB is the sick combination of both.

[Anonymous No.3827366]

Go to bed, Peter.

>>3827334
>What am I stating is that Civilization fell.

So your conception of Civilization is an idealized and teutomaniacal one?

Great.

[Anonymous No.3827370]

>>3827366
>So your conception of Civilization is an idealized and teutomaniacal one?
I don't like Germanics. I really don't know where you're getting this from.

[Anonymous No.3827372]

>>3827370
>>3827363
>>3827334
>>3826947
FYI this is all me.

[Anonymous No.3827374]

>>3827363
>I would rather redirect technology towards cultural products (space programs, alternative energy) away from individualistic consumerism a la Soviet Union.

Zerzan would say that's an impossibility given that we're not actually in control of the technological apparatus, but subordinate to it. Less radical/insane thinkers like Schumacher or Illich would agree.

I would say that, and I come from an anarchist/left-communist perspective, the USSR was developing along capitalistic lines anyway, and the 'individualistic consumerism' in the US is not individualistic to begin with. Diverting funds from one technological apparatus to another ignoring what's actually wrong with the technological apparatus (it's the scale) is silly, anyway. The problem isn't that the technology isn't being used for space travel or other public spectacles, but that individuals are subordinate to the development and maintenance of the technological system.

[Anonymous No.3827376]

I think civilizations are constantly falling. like a satellite in orbit. I think sometimes they hit something that makes them lose equilibrium and either crash, leave orbit or go into a different one.those compact fusion generators that Lockheed is rolling out in a few years might be the thing that changes everything, and i sort of wonder why they're not getting more attention.

[Anonymous No.3827380]

>>3827374
>I would say that, and I come from an anarchist/left-communist perspective, the USSR was developing along capitalistic lines anyway, and the 'individualistic consumerism' in the US is not individualistic to begin with.
I don't care about the Soviet Union's ideology, perse (Leninism), just the state-centric model of technological funding.

I didn't say individualism, I said individualistic consumerism - you know what I mean by the latter term.

>The problem isn't that the technology isn't being used for space travel or other public spectacles, but that individuals are subordinate to the development and maintenance of the technological system.
We need public spectacles to create culture. It saps the selfishness out of the human being and puts in him a purpose that spans multiple life spans (creating something which will not see fruittion until they are long dead.)

[Anonymous No.3827383]

>>3827380
Cont.

The 'problem' for me is that we already have the masses of technicians and blueprints to inventions, which cannot be uninvented. Given that reality, the only option is to technical-minded people do their work and move from the market influences towards collective goals.

Just complaining about technology and lack of pure nature - well, I tried that, and I realized eventually it is just the Neoliberal ideologians mandating that technology be destructive, because technology would actually destroy their system if developed across the board, which is why they direct it towards Facebook instead.

[Anonymous No.3827396]

>>3827383
>>3827380
I tend to care more about my own personal autonomy and self-development than anything else.

While I agree that just complaining about technology and the destruction of non-human life isn't enough, I think you're ignoring just how destructive technology in general is. The USSR's state-centric model of technological funding was behind the draining of the Aral Sea, the relocation and re-education of indigenous peoples, the detonation of the largest nuclear weapon in history, among other things. It's not just the capitalists who demand that technology be destructive - advanced technology tends to be destructive regardless.

I don't care much about cultural development if it comes at the expense of my own autonomy and self-management. I'd be happy to do away with the culture industry if it means I get to live as I desire to live, subordinate to no one except who I choose to be subordinate to.

[Anonymous No.3827404]

>>3827396
There has been a lot more scientific work done on ecology since which was missing from the static Soviet ideology and is now well-known world-wide, especially among younger people who would influence new systems. That was a closed system unfortunately. A globalised one would be better.

BTW, I phrased myself wrongly. I mean to say Neoliberals were exaggerating the damage of technology,not causing all tech dmg. Global Warming which while not untrue has become a religion of sorts where people ignore technological, non-consumer solutions, favoring 'green' fetishes.

Anyways. I am all for lone individuals to go live in the woods. Don't care for the childish selfishness as a social base though. In fact this is pretty much what ensures Neoliberal dominance: that everyone insists there are no priorities but individual wants, which translates easily into market demand and no respect for 'authority' (elders, tradition, collectivist social progress).

[Anonymous No.3827411]

>>3827404
cont.

The development of new technologies beyond FaceBook and Drones and drugs for older people would cause serious problems to the ruling order in the United States and Eurozone. Even if they weren't state-funded, just the plain creative development of new things, simple or complex, would remind everyone this is a pretty crummy environment.

Despite all I said and it's not really a contradiction, ideally speaking I'd probably be an organic farmer.

[Anonymous No.3828787]

>>3826843
>being a primitivst
>owning a cat
>having bad eyesight

Truly a marter.

[Anonymous No.3828905]

>>3828787
His cat isn't that attractive.

[Anonymous No.3829048]

First Dan Quinn and now this, what the fuck /lit/, civilization is the only noteworthy production of life in billions of years of existence.

So what if it is unpleasant for some individuals presiding in it, you can have civilization and the prospect of progress or epochs of pointless fuckery.

Anarcho-primitivists are among the lowest of humans

[Anonymous No.3829059]

>some people who would be dying of smallpox in a cave at the age of 4 are living relatively unappealing lives, lets throw away twelve-thousand years of progress

[Anonymous No.3829066]

>>3829059
people with shitty pleb genetics don't deserve to live

[Anonymous No.3829069]

>>3829059
Forget the idea of progress. The reason civilization is not worth throwing away is simply because it's the sum of human activity, and we are humans, and there is no reason to be down on ourselves.

[Anonymous No.3829112]

>>3829069

I would compare it to a person growing old. Your liver starting to shut down and your skin becoming wrinkled and your memory not being what it used to be, and the inevitability of continued decay and ultimate death, doesn't compel sane human beings to immolate themselves or try to stop the relentlessness of entropy by removing all the parts of themselves that are degenerating; not that it would do any good.

The same with civilization. Decay is a natural process and less damaging than trying to remove it. And then this metaphor breaks apart, because a rotting limb should be removed as opposed to one that has degenerated from the aging process and for the civilizational equivalents how to do we tell the difference between the two.

[Anonymous No.3829147]

>no drink
>no internet
>no refined women
>no literature
>not being a flaneur
>no welfare

Primitivists pls go.

[Fandroid !3Io5v0K9.M No.3829153]

What do you guys think of this doc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx-G1uhRqA

[Anonymous No.3829154]

>>3829147
>>no welfare
NEET pls go

[Anonymous No.3829171]

>>3829154
No.

I've found the answer, These primitivsts think society needs to go for them to be happy but it's much easier to use it to your purpose. They try to throw out the bathwater and don't even realise they could be the babby.

[Anonymous No.3829191]

>>3829147
>2013
>being a filthy materialist

How do you call yourself an intellectual?

[Anonymous No.3829197]

>>3829171
>2013
>wanting to be a filthy little babby

do you have any self-respect?

[Anonymous No.3829205]

>>3829197
Yes, but it isn't reliant upon other people's opinions of me as a member of society but rather on my ability to do as I please regardless of their opinions.

[Anonymous No.3829206]

>>3829191
>not being decadent

How do you?

[Anonymous No.3829217]

>>3829191
Do you have the original serious wizard love picture?

[Anonymous No.3829304]

Unlike Zerzan, Ted K. doesn't advocate "neo-primitivism." His manifesto cites medieval societies -- both Western and Eastern -- as positive examples. He isn't opposed to all technology, only devices which require complex networks of regional trade and hyper-specialization of knowledge/skill.

Zerzan is an absolutist. Pulling society back to pre-modern tech levels isn't good enough; he wants the world to regress to a pre-agrarian lifestyle.

I think Ted K.'s view is more reasonable.

[Anonymous No.3829327]

>>3829304
>Unlike Zerzan, Ted K. doesn't advocate "neo-primitivism." His manifesto cites medieval societies -- both Western and Eastern -- as positive examples. He isn't opposed to all technology, only devices which require complex networks of regional trade and hyper-specialization of knowledge/skill.
Seems like K's ideas would fit in line with mine. I believe in bringing back medieval city states, ditching suburbs, and bringing back organic farming, but keeping the internet.

[Anonymous No.3829434]

>>3829206
just look at oscar wilde in that picture

grade-a faggot

He looks more like a greasy little puppet than a man. He was also an insecure little bourgeois bitch who couldn't write to save his fat ass.

Decadence is for people without brains.

[Anonymous No.3829435]

>>3829434
and dicks