💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › miguel-amoros-primitivism-in-technological-society.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:26:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Primitivism in Technological Society Author: Miguel AmorĂłs Date: October 13, 2006 Language: en Topics: anarcho-primitivism, Capitalism, class struggle, environment, globalization, technology Source: Retrieved on 10th May 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/primitivism-technological-society-miquel-amor%C3%B3s Notes: Text of presentation delivered at La Mistelera social center in Denia (Alicante), Spain, on October 13, 2006. Translated in January 2014 from the Spanish original. Source: http://www.alasbarricadas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=46649&p=464914&hilit=miguel+amoros#p464914
“I am as free as nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran.”
“The Conquest of Granada”, John Dryden, 17^(th) century
As capitalism entered the phase of globalization, all of society was
immersed in a technological system that imprisons and conditions it.
Technological society is at the same time the most hierarchical and the
most oppressive society. Power, authority and wealth have been
concentrated in increasingly smaller groups, while oppression assumes
new forms and spreads, penetrating every aspect of everyday life, and
can do so all the more easily as the degree of technological saturation
of society increases. Technology seduces its victims with a promise of
freedom that engulfs and imprisons those who succumb to it. Uprooted and
domesticated individuals survive in a space that has been re-defined by
technology, in a technosphere, one that entails a way of life dominated
by consumption, work, standardization, isolation and mobility. A world
that is increasingly more artificial and uninhabitable emerges, sown
with nuclear power plants, GMOs, shopping malls, highways, toxic waste
dumps and residential zones, configuring a space where social control,
predatory urbanism and environmental destruction can develop unhindered,
and where the loss of collective autonomy and the moral and
psychological collapse of individuals are endowed with a carte blanche
for their boundless progress.
The resistance to the techno-capitalist project of total enslavement has
been expressed in the form of the protest against developmentalism, in
anti-nuclear contestation, in the defense of the territory and in the
struggles against precariousness, but it is still a long way from
unifying its anti-systemic proposals and formulating a radical project.
In the meantime, it must ward off an internal threat, that posed by
recuperation by the political system, corrupt mainstream reform groups,
neutral ecologism or the pseudo-movements of the civil society type,
those that are trying to reduce the real resistance movement to the mere
choreography of the co-management of the catastrophe, a pure electoral
base for the leaders of groups devoted to advocating the position that
another form of capitalism is possible.
Another no less important danger is posed by false consciousness and
ideological deviation. The anti-developmentalist critique is only just
emerging. It is largely spontaneous and still lacks any perspective for
reaching a unitary consciousness of the world. Under these
circumstances, the theoretical blank spaces can be badly filled with
ideologies that seek to explain the world from a particular
determination, from a limited and more or less abstract concept—such as
the role that nature or wildness might play for primitivism—by means of
sui generis simplifications based on sociological, ethnographic and
anthropological discoveries.
One of these ideas is primitivism. It was born in the 1990s in the
United States, the product of the confluence of the remnants of the
counterculture, “deep” ecology and individualist and nature-oriented
anarchism, and made its public debut in Seattle. Primitivism does not
constitute a finished system, much to the contrary, since there are as
many primitivisms as there are groups that reject civilized life and
call for a return to nature, whatever that is, which is why we shall
focus our criticism of primitivism on the ideas that are most often
repeated by all its factions.
Primitivism has passed through two stages; in the first, it appeared in
the form of an insufficient and fragmentary critique of modern society,
which nonetheless contained a kernel of truth and at least partially
clarified the perspective opened up by the anti-developmentalist
struggles. By turning back to the primitive, it sought to overcome the
contradiction between the oppressive capitalist system and the noble
aspiration for freedom that is felt by human beings.
For that reason it constituted an advance. In its second stage, the
current one, when it attempted to consolidate as an ideology and
rejected the idea of revolution, it fell into a paralyzing fatalism that
was more conducive to inspiring hiking trips than revolt, to the cooking
workshop rather than the barricade, and became, much more so than the
Black Bloc, an obstacle to the understanding of struggles and an excuse
for inactivity. Then its ideology coincided with the nature motif with
which the classical bourgeoisie imagined that it could exorcise the
evils of its own civilization. In short, the primitivist Robinsonades
have degenerated into a form of urban flight reminiscent of the
bourgeois-idyllic fantasy of the countryside. The primitivists do not
seek the roots of modern oppression in the historical appearance of
capitalism, nor in the idea of “progress” that was contained already in
the core of bourgeois ideology, but in the birth of what they call
“civilization”, which most of them situate at about ten thousand years
ago, when man passed from a way of life characterized by hunting and
gathering to one that was characterized by herding and agriculture.
Civilization as an idea was therefore opposed to that of “nature”, the
kingdom of happiness, abundance, play and freedom, which they identified
with Paleolithic society, preferably the Mousterian era, that of
Neanderthal man.
Some primitivists, advocates of veganism, do not even accept hunting and
imagine a past epoch where the ruminants provided the model for an
exemplary life. They are supporters of permaculture, a variety of
“sustainable” agriculture, and of eco-villages. For the primitivist, the
“free society of free producers”, or “anarchy”, as they used to call it
seventy years ago, is not a society that will be, but something from
which they extract their poetry of the past, a society that already
existed in the confines of prehistory, when, at the most, one million
people with a life expectancy of less than thirty years inhabited the
Earth. The life of freedom was identified with the nomadic lifestyle,
with the Pacific tribes, with the reign of the instincts and the
passions, with the “wild” condition, that is, one that was not
domesticated by “civilization”, the source of all evils, of authority,
of patriarchy, of property, of war, of slavery, of technology, of the
city, of classes, of science, etc. This idea of primitive man is by no
means recent and is far overshadowed by the notion of “homo sylvaticus”,
the man of the forests, first documented in European codices from the
12^(th) century that were based on ancient Greco-Latin and
Judeo-Christian traditions. In the Middle Ages teleology had excavated
an abyss between man and nature that was just as deep and as wide as the
one that capitalist artificialization is now digging, which is why it is
not at all surprising that the stereotypes of the two eras should be
similar. This myth would survive in the Enlightenment and Romanticism in
the figure of the “noble savage”, elaborated on the basis of American or
Australian models, and would even contaminate the rigorous analyses of
thinkers like Marx and Engels, who also believed in a primitive
communist Golden Age. The primitive has during this entire period been
the reflected image that is opposed to the typical personality of any
particular era: that of the medieval villager whose life was regulated
by religion; that of the enlightened bourgeois who sought Reason in the
code of nature; that of the revolutionary who aspired to a free society,
fraternal and without aristocrats; or that of the romantic frustrated by
the ugliness of capitalist industry; just as it is that of the mass-man
of globalization in today’s world.
We could devote ourselves to discussing, with reference to the same
sources, this alleged primitive freedom, since there is ample evidence
that the custom of killing other human beings, seizing territories and
destroying the environment was prevalent in very early stages of human
evolution. If we turn to the matriarchal family, we are unable to
distinguish between it and what now is called the single-parent family,
which is not exactly a factor conducive to freedom. On the other hand,
agrarian societies were not necessarily class societies, nor did the
Neolithic period absolutely coincide with an “agricultural revolution”
that gave rise to hierarchy, the city and “civilization”. Historical and
anthropological studies, however, are not the strong suit of primitivist
ideology, which only has resort to them to give shape and unity to its
discourse, rather than in order to get closer to the truth. Because man,
and society, are defined by the way they appropriate the fruits of
nature, it is absurd to imagine an epoch where this was not the case,
and human behavior was identical to that of the animals. The evil
“civilization” of the primitivists is nothing but a moment of history.
From the dawn of humanity and over the whole course of its historical
development, the human creature has never found freedom and happiness in
a pure state. Neither his initial stages nor his latest ones, however,
no matter how hard it is for us to believe this, have been epochs of
simple barbarism. Oppression compelled the creation of the concept of
freedom. Every instance of barbarism has also been an instance of
culture. Artisanal knowledge, philosophical and ethical thought,
literature, art, medicine, scientific knowledge, law, psychoanalysis,
etc., have all provided enough material to develop egalitarian social
consciousness and orient conduct towards freedom and the realization of
desire. History has not been a mistake, or a deviation from a happy age.
By referring back to previous epochs as if he wanted to escape from
history, the primitivist identifies the process of humanization of the
world with that of the domestication and artificialization of man. Such
a reduction condemns freedom to the status of a mere detail of a utopian
dream, one that is just as impossible to attain as the return to the
state of nature, when in reality freedom is only the reward of the
victorious struggle against barbarism, and therefore against that same
domestication and artificialization. To use a sylvan metaphor, freedom
is thus not the consequence of life in the forests, but the fruit of the
struggle against deforestation. Freedom is not a lost natural state but
a social reality that is reformulated at each historical moment.
The rejection of the class struggle, its organizational forms, its
solidarity projects, and its revolutionary goals, cannot fail to have
consequences when the time comes for action. The primitivist tends to
ignore the struggles of the oppressed, just as he ignores History, since
according to him these struggles have never pursued anything but power.
Since he does not aspire to change society but to flee from it, he does
not feel that he is implicated in its conflicts. We shall not ridicule
his attempts to go back to nature since everyone knows that such a
return to paradise is impossible and he only refers to this goal as a
source of inspiration. But this inspiration does not bring him closer to
reality, it does not reveal to him the anti-capitalist—and
anti-technological—potentials of conflicts, but keeps him in a state of
waiting, hedonistically expecting that a catastrophe will resettle a
disillusioned humanity in the aboriginal jungle and put rational thought
back on the road of instinct, magic and voodoo.
Not at all being inclined to amuse ourselves in the search for the
causes of oppression in the emergence of symbolic language or the
domestication of the horse, we must instead concentrate on the most
proximate causes: the logic of profit and productivity, material
interest as the motivating principle of society, the market as its
regulatory mechanism, instrumental reason; we are referring to the
capitalist system, and specifically to its phase of globalization. There
are, of course, more distant causes, prior to capitalism: the division
of labor, the state, the Mega-machine, hierarchies, religion, property,
classes, war…. The anti-developmentalist critique, the historical heir
of the thought that emerged from the class struggle, must not ignore
these causes, or else it would only serve the reproduction of oppression
under other forms, but it knows that these causes have attained their
maximum level under capitalism, and that they are currently shaped by
the capitalist chisel. This even applies to religious faith, which now
takes the form of the fetishism of techno-science. Capitalism is the
master of the world and therefore every real struggle is and will
continue to be an anti-capitalist struggle. The short-term objectives
that must be established, as partial as they might be, cannot be
satisfied in capitalism. To make production decline to the level of
twenty years ago, to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy products,
to put an end to the factory farming of domestic animals, to drastically
limit the use of fossil fuels, to prohibit the private vehicle, to
freeze the accounts of the real estate developers and construction
companies, to reconstruct the polluted territories covered in concrete
and asphalt, to restore the commons, to restore the urban gardens, to
municipalize, de-urbanize, dismantle energy industries and power plants,
recycle, use local products, re-use things…. These are the practical
measures that can help construct a minimum anti-developmentalist
program. The defenders of technological progress will call it
extravagant, but the ultra-developmentalist plans that the greed of
their promoters never ceases to bestow upon us are even more
extravagant.