kingrolo wrote:
What seems obvious to me is that anarcho-primitivism as a political movement is an oxymoron. It's value isn't suitable for huge groups of people, the very idea wouldn't survive mass endorsement. So rest easy all fans of civilisation I guess.
It's not a question of being "fans of civilisation" as it in accepting the reality that more than 50% of the world's population now live in urban areas. Any political philosophy that suggests physically relocating more than half the people on the planet is off to a really bad start. It's "Year Zero" stuff and is unlikely to end well.
kingrolo wrote:
All I got from reading some of the texts associated with the term anarcho-primitivism (and I have to say that I haven't done much reading) is that it points out that the ONLY sustainable technology is a stone age one. Which is something to think about.
Except that clearly it's not true. I've heard those claims, but to define basic metal-working by a small population as "unsustainable" requires a definition of sustainability that's simply too strict to be of any use.
As I say, it presents an interesting historical narrative, but has little that's practical to offer.