Eco-primitivism: The downfall of civilization?

Gerald Jackson48 said:Unless we're talking about causing potentially fatal respiratory depression, like when someone overdoses on opioids.

To be honest, looking at how things are going, I don't see how anyone's lifespan would be particularly long in Zerzanov's utopia. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and maybe Zerzan thought of something I missed.

Or maybe he's just one of those guys who thinks life expectancy isn't all that important, as long as you're living authentically—you know, staying true to yourself and being happy.

Zoroasterix?

Most of Zerzan's books focus on critiquing civilization and everything he deems part of it, while praising pre-civilized ways of life. You won't find much in the way of practical advice or blueprints for a "primitive future," much like how Marx rarely gets into the nitty-gritty details of communism.

From what I've gathered, he definitely leans toward that second perspective.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Most of Zerzan's books focus on critiquing civilization and everything he deems part of it, while praising pre-civilized ways of life. You won't find much in the way of practical advice or blueprints for a "primitive future," much like how Marx rarely gets into the nitty-gritty details of communism.

From what I've gathered, he definitely leans toward that second perspective.

In the end, these things usually spiral into something straight out of The beach by Boyl starring DiCaprio. I always think of that movie when this stuff comes up.

The closest thing to this I've seen was my cousin. He lived in one of those nomadic hippie communes.

Luckily, it didn't end too badly for him. A childhood friend invited him to a wedding, and once the commune found out, they basically excommunicated him. They accused him of "hanging out with the bourgeoisie and people who actually get married in the traditional way" back here in America.

The biggest blow was losing his gear. They seized all his equipment, so he had to give up his stage name. That was the end of DJ techno Ranger.

Gerald Jackson48 said:In the end, these things usually spiral into something straight out of The beach by Boyl starring DiCaprio. I always think of that movie when this stuff comes up.

The closest thing to this I've seen was my cousin. He lived in one of those nomadic hippie communes.

Luckily, it didn't end too badly for him. A childhood friend invited him to a wedding, and once the commune found out, they basically excommunicated him. They accused him of "hanging out with the bourgeoisie and people who actually get married in the traditional way" back here in America.

The biggest blow was losing his gear. They seized all his equipment, so he had to give up his stage name. That was the end of DJ techno Ranger.

Actually, Zerzan isn't calling for people to start communes. He's just arguing that true "primitive" living is impossible as long as civilization exists.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Actually, Zerzan isn't calling for people to start communes. He's just arguing that true "primitive" living is impossible as long as civilization exists.

Yeah, I see he’s making a more specific distinction there. But honestly, those hippies my cousin used to hang out with avoided society as much as they possibly could. They couldn't be totally off the grid, sure, but nobody was working some typical nine-to-five corporate grind, if you know what I mean.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Yeah, I see he’s making a more specific distinction there. But honestly, those hippies my cousin used to hang out with avoided society as much as they possibly could. They couldn't be totally off the grid, sure, but nobody was working some typical nine-to-five corporate grind, if you know what I mean.

It reminds me of how Marx argued that capitalism would eventually collapse under its own weight; this guy is making a similar case against civilization itself. Essentially, these primitives are just waiting for the inevitable downfall of modern society.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Renouncing Language:

"I am writing in a language (obviously), fully aware that language itself objectifies the very resistance to being objectified. As T. S. Eliot put it: 'I must use words while I speak to you.' We might imagine replacing this sense of entrapment with a brilliant, shimmering present—but only if we can actually envision a world without the division of labor, a world free from that rift between humanity and nature that gives rise to ideology and power. Without language, living in this world would be impossible, which only highlights how radically we need to transform it.

Words betray a certain sadness; we use them to try and fill the void of unbridled time. We’ve all felt that longing to move past it, to go deeper than mere words, to shed the constant need to narrate our lives. There's a realization that when life becomes truly coherent, the need to express that coherence simply vanishes.

A profound truth lies in the understanding that 'lovers don't need words.' It’s about striving for the world of lovers—a world of face-to-face connection where even names can be forgotten, a world that understands that the true opposite of ignorance isn't knowledge, but enchantment. Only a politics that seeks to dissolve both language and time can truly be considered visionary, driven by genuine passion."

Talk about hypocrisy,

Why read Zerzan when he isn't even following his own rules? Here is a man writing books and using language.

It's just like that: 'Forward comrades, I'm right behind you.'

William Palmer7 said:Talk about hypocrisy,

Why read Zerzan when he isn't even following his own rules? Here is a man writing books and using language.

It's just like that: 'Forward comrades, I'm right behind you.'

At least he seems aware of how contradictory he is.

William Palmer7 said:Talk about hypocrisy,

Why read Zerzan when he isn't even following his own rules? Here is a man writing books and using language.

It's just like that: 'Forward comrades, I'm right behind you.'

It reminds me of how Mussolini used to act. His whole thing was "Armiamoci e partite!"—basically telling everyone else to gear up and go fight while he watched.

Rejecting Culture

"Nowadays, it’s almost considered common sense—if not a requirement—to assume that culture has always existed and will continue indefinitely. Yet, it’s pretty clear there was an incredibly long period of non-symbolic human existence, perhaps a hundred times longer than civilization itself. During that era, culture actually developed at the expense of nature. But today, it feels like symbolism—much like alienation—is viewed as eternal. This makes any questions about our origins or ultimate goals feel pointless. We’re so trapped within the logic of objectification that those calling for new rituals or symbolic ways to 're-enchant' life are completely missing the mark. You can't fix something with symbols when what we lost was gone long before symbols even mattered. As Lévi-Strauss (1978) suggested, he was thinking of a specific kind of wisdom used by ancient peoples—a wisdom that people in the modern world often mistake for pure madness."

It really comes down to a choice: either return to that non-symbolic health that once existed in all its fullness, or face madness and death. Culture has essentially led us to betray our own ancient spirit and wholeness, dragging us into an increasingly artificial, isolating, and draining world of alienation. That doesn't mean there aren't small, everyday joys left that keep us human. But as our situation worsens, it becomes clearer just how much of ourselves we have to erase in order to find any kind of redemption."

Melissa Stewart6 said:There are definitely parallels there with the hippies and the counterculture of the sixties. Besides, since you were praising Zabriskie Point, I'm guessing you're a fan of the counterculture movement too.

Look, I might be a fan of the counterculture, but I draw the line at drug addiction. True counterculture is supposed to be about emancipation, whereas being hooked on substances is about as far from freedom as you can get. Even this idea of emancipation proposed by Zerzan completely misses the mark. Civilization is actually what provides us with liberation from the brutal demands of nature, yet Zerzan seems hell-bent on dragging us right back into its teeth.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Unless we're talking about causing potentially fatal respiratory depression, like when someone overdoses on opioids.

To be honest, looking at how things are going, I don't see how anyone's lifespan would be particularly long in Zerzanov's utopia. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and maybe Zerzan thought of something I missed.

Or maybe he's just one of those guys who thinks life expectancy isn't all that important, as long as you're living authentically—you know, staying true to yourself and being happy.

Zoroasterix?

Sure, I get it. If you’re living like a wild animal, totally immersed in nature and stripped of any higher thought—since thinking acts as a sort of "buffer"—then how long you live doesn't really matter, mostly because in that state, you aren't even conscious enough to care.

Weekend Warrior

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, I might be a fan of the counterculture, but I draw the line at drug addiction. True counterculture is supposed to be about emancipation, whereas being hooked on substances is about as far from freedom as you can get. Even this idea of emancipation proposed by Zerzan completely misses the mark. Civilization is actually what provides us with liberation from the brutal demands of nature, yet Zerzan seems hell-bent on dragging us right back into its teeth.

Drug use is essentially a pillar of counterculture, much like that craving for raw, unmediated experience or trying to break free from the constraints of time. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Zerzan himself was a former sixties activist.

Have you ever read Charles Reich's *Greening of America*?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Weekend Warrior

Drug use is essentially a pillar of counterculture, much like that craving for raw, unmediated experience or trying to break free from the constraints of time. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Zerzan himself was a former sixties activist.

Have you ever read Charles Reich's *Greening of America*?

Sure, it might be a factor, but it’s hardly the defining characteristic. It's like saying drug use is central to rock music—it exists there, sure, but it isn't the soul of the genre. You can't argue that rock music or a counterculture ceases to exist just because you take the drugs out of the equation.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Weekend Warrior

Drug use is essentially a pillar of counterculture, much like that craving for raw, unmediated experience or trying to break free from the constraints of time. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Zerzan himself was a former sixties activist.

Have you ever read Charles Reich's *Greening of America*?

I haven't. What's the gist of it?

Weekend Warrior

Amanda Jackson5 said:Sure, it might be a factor, but it’s hardly the defining characteristic. It's like saying drug use is central to rock music—it exists there, sure, but it isn't the soul of the genre. You can't argue that rock music or a counterculture ceases to exist just because you take the drugs out of the equation.

I haven't. What's the gist of it?

We’ll just have to wait and see if that part actually matters or not.

Weekend Warrior

Amanda Jackson5 said:Sure, it might be a factor, but it’s hardly the defining characteristic. It's like saying drug use is central to rock music—it exists there, sure, but it isn't the soul of the genre. You can't argue that rock music or a counterculture ceases to exist just because you take the drugs out of the equation.

I haven't. What's the gist of it?

So, Reich wrote about the three levels of consciousness.
The foundational mindset starts with that classic Wild West persona. Think of the rugged frontiersman—a true individualist who lives by a strict "every man for himself" code, with God watching over it all.

The typical consciousness of the mid-century American is exactly what we’re talking about here. It’s that conservative, deeply conformist mindset where a person's entire sense of self-worth is tied to external validation—whether that's prestige from their university, approval from their employer, or just keeping up appearances with the neighbors. It is the quintessential one-dimensional rebel described by Marcuse.

The "Third Consciousness" concept was actually quite groundbreaking when that book came out back in 1970. It describes a whole new counterculture. A typical person in this movement tends to be deeply skeptical—not just of the government, but of older generations and established rules in general. They’re very direct, act naturally, and have a real appetite for experimentation, whether that’s through things like marijuana or other lifestyle shifts. They’re playful, open-minded, and driven by one core value: absolute freedom.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Weekend Warrior

We’ll just have to wait and see if that part actually matters or not.

Weekend Warrior

So, Reich wrote about the three levels of consciousness.
The foundational mindset starts with that classic Wild West persona. Think of the rugged frontiersman—a true individualist who lives by a strict "every man for himself" code, with God watching over it all.

The typical consciousness of the mid-century American is exactly what we’re talking about here. It’s that conservative, deeply conformist mindset where a person's entire sense of self-worth is tied to external validation—whether that's prestige from their university, approval from their employer, or just keeping up appearances with the neighbors. It is the quintessential one-dimensional rebel described by Marcuse.

The "Third Consciousness" concept was actually quite groundbreaking when that book came out back in 1970. It describes a whole new counterculture. A typical person in this movement tends to be deeply skeptical—not just of the government, but of older generations and established rules in general. They’re very direct, act naturally, and have a real appetite for experimentation, whether that’s through things like marijuana or other lifestyle shifts. They’re playful, open-minded, and driven by one core value: absolute freedom.

Every different culture is going to shape a person's development and final state of consciousness differently—honestly, the guy is just stating the obvious here.

Humans have been using marijuana and other naturally occurring substances for thousands of years; that isn't some groundbreaking revelation. What *is* a relatively recent phenomenon is that during the 20th century, these things were criminalized for completely irrational, uninformed, and dogmatic reasons. If he truly wrote what you're claiming, then he is catastrophically ill-informed and shouldn't be treated as a reliable source of information at all.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Weekend Warrior

We’ll just have to wait and see if that part actually matters or not.

Weekend Warrior

So, Reich wrote about the three levels of consciousness.
The foundational mindset starts with that classic Wild West persona. Think of the rugged frontiersman—a true individualist who lives by a strict "every man for himself" code, with God watching over it all.

The typical consciousness of the mid-century American is exactly what we’re talking about here. It’s that conservative, deeply conformist mindset where a person's entire sense of self-worth is tied to external validation—whether that's prestige from their university, approval from their employer, or just keeping up appearances with the neighbors. It is the quintessential one-dimensional rebel described by Marcuse.

The "Third Consciousness" concept was actually quite groundbreaking when that book came out back in 1970. It describes a whole new counterculture. A typical person in this movement tends to be deeply skeptical—not just of the government, but of older generations and established rules in general. They’re very direct, act naturally, and have a real appetite for experimentation, whether that’s through things like marijuana or other lifestyle shifts. They’re playful, open-minded, and driven by one core value: absolute freedom.

Honestly, that whole "new counterculture" vibe went mainstream a long time ago. It isn't really "counter" anymore; if anything, it's been absorbed into the fabric of modern conservatism. It seems to me that today's 30 and 40-year-olds take this supposed "counterculture" for granted, treating it like some inherent, natural human trait rather than a specific movement. At least, that's true for those who don't bother picking up a book, and they definitely make up most of the crowd.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Honestly, that whole "new counterculture" vibe went mainstream a long time ago. It isn't really "counter" anymore; if anything, it's been absorbed into the fabric of modern conservatism. It seems to me that today's 30 and 40-year-olds take this supposed "counterculture" for granted, treating it like some inherent, natural human trait rather than a specific movement. At least, that's true for those who don't bother picking up a book, and they definitely make up most of the crowd.

Well, it was only "new" when the book was actually being written. While you have a point, you're missing the fact that as soon as any movement hits the mainstream, it stops being a counterculture altogether. Besides, seeing as most hippies eventually turned into modern neoliberals, and given that you view the era of 1970 as more progressive than today, it's pretty obvious you realize the counterculture failed to achieve its ultimate goals.

There is no going back to the way things used to be

Melissa Stewart6 said:At least he seems aware of how contradictory he is.

In that case, we probably shouldn't call it eco-primitivism. Maybe something else instead, like the path to anarchism or eco-primitivism.
It would be a phase where people still lean on symbols and culture, but only to eventually dismantle them—stripping away everything else before finally letting go of their own culture too.

We just have to make sure they don't trip up by trying to deconstruct the path to anarchism first.

William Palmer7 said:In that case, we probably shouldn't call it eco-primitivism. Maybe something else instead, like the path to anarchism or eco-primitivism.
It would be a phase where people still lean on symbols and culture, but only to eventually dismantle them—stripping away everything else before finally letting go of their own culture too.

We just have to make sure they don't trip up by trying to deconstruct the path to anarchism first.

Eco-primitivism isn't just about Zerzan, even if he is the most famous figurehead. Some thinkers within the movement wouldn't advocate for such a massive regression.