What utter rubbish. I'm an anarchist-communist and I don't agree with the BS that anarcho-primitivism (or other so-called luddite tendencies) 'are in no way compatible with anarchism.' The only fake anarchists I know of are third positionists and "anarcho"capitalists. Anarchists, by definition, are opposed to all forms of domination. Anarcho-Primitivists are opposed to domination as well as technology, civilization, etc and thus can be anarchists. All anarchist do not agree on the nature of technology and probably won't in the near future.
This tendency to redefine anarchism so as to exclude all streams of anti-authoritarian thought you don't like is sectarian nonsense. Stop imitating the Marxist sects.
BTW, the luddites were actually rebelling more against early capitalism and it's enclosures then against all forms of technology, per se.
>Can you give evidence that Brian isn't capable of engaging in a
>rational discussion?
Brian is capable of engaging in rational discussion but has not done so in the debates over technology, instead using strawmen & logical fallacies against Chuck. Frequently (but not always), when people substitute rational arguements with strawmen&logical fallacies it is because they do not have a well-thought out critique of their opponet's position.
>Because anarchism, at it's core, does not attack object and material
>things, it criticiese concrete, real social relationships. It does not
>objectify these relationships and project their qualities onto
>inanimate objects, like you are trying to do.
Most primitivists claim that technology & industrialism are social relations. You ought to read their writings before rejecting it.
And even if they didn't consider it a social relationship, there's no reason why one cannot both oppose domination and think a physical thing is wrong. Theoretically one could be both an anarchist & think that wind is evil. That may be a particularily stupid variant of anarchism, but the two beliefs aren't necessarily incompatable.
Chuck0 wrote:
>The "anti-technology critique" is basically a critical approach towards >the use of technology in our communities and our world. It asks
>questions that are about accountability, sustainability,
>responsibility, and approriate use. It asks fundamental questions that
>any radical should be asking about institutions in our capitalist
>societies.
I think there's a crucial distinction between saying technology should be reformed and saying it should be abolished (the same is true for industrialism). This can be compared with critics of capitalism: the liberals say we just need to reform it to remove the most glaring problems whereas we point out that those problems are the results of more systemic causes: capitalism, the state, etc. The same can be said of technology and/or industrialism - are the various problems like code red days, toxic waste, etc. just flaws in industrialism that can be fixed with various reforms (such as abolishing capitalism) or are they results of deeper more systemic problems within the nature of industrialism? No one in this discussion has really addressed this but are instead dancing with straw men.
-- Joe R. Golowka JoeG at ieee.org Anarchist FAQ -- http://www.anarchyfaq.org
"PATRIOTISM, n. 1) The inability to distinguish between the government and one's "country"; 2) A highly praiseworthy virtue characterized by the desire to dominate and kill; 3) A feeling of exultation experienced when contemplating heaps of charred "enemy" corpses; 4) The first, last, and perennial refuge of scoundrels.
PATRIOT, n. A dangerous tool of the powers that be. A herd member who compensates for lack of self-respect by indentifying with an abstraction. An enemy of individual freedom. A fancier of the rich, satisfying flavor of boot leather." -- from The American Heretic's Dictionary