3 ms·

Not the OP - but to my mind this is missing the point. It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not readin

by PJDK 6y ago

Not the OP - but to my mind this is missing the point. It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not reading this, this is what Ted Kaczynski believed". But Kaczynski murdered people to get his ideas read - I don't want that to be a way that political ideas make it into the mainstream. If the ideas are good enough they can stand on their own two feet - plenty of not unabombers have written similar stuff so why not have articles about them? Also I feel like the majority of political systems discourage letter bombing as a marketing technique - it's not unique to capitalism.

jonnypotty 6y ago
The entire point is that he did have to kill people to get his message out and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world. Your argument that "why do they not have articles about them", well they do, but they didn't get their manifesto published in a national newspaper in full. You want to live in a world of goodies and baddies go ahead. I'm not saying that not wanting people to be blown up is uniquely capitalist. What I am saying is that people seeing the _value_ of their actions as whether they encourage or discourage good or bad behavior is very capitalist. It's also arrogant, self centred and intellectually moribund.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world Except that it didn't. Anarcho-primitivism was fringe, and it's still fringe. Maybe you could say that it changed the way anarcho-primitivists thought about stuff a little bit, but that could've been achieved without murdering people. It doesn't take much effort to "get a message out" to a tiny community of intellectually-curious thinkers.
- PJDK 6y ago
  He managed to extort his way into the national press - but I don't see why he should continue to be rewarded for his crimes. These ideas might be worth exploring further but there's no need to explore his version of them. Considering everything fair game regardless of it's origins or consequences feels extremely capitalist to me (well probably libertarian - but I don't feel like capitalist is a particularly well defined ideology).

by PJDK 6y ago

jonnypotty 6y ago

The entire point is that he did have to kill people to get his message out and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world. Your argument that "why do they not have articles about them", well they do, but they didn't get their manifesto published in a national newspaper in full. You want to live in a world of goodies and baddies go ahead. I'm not saying that not wanting people to be blown up is uniquely capitalist. What I am saying is that people seeing the _value_ of their actions as whether they encourage or discourage good or bad behavior is very capitalist. It's also arrogant, self centred and intellectually moribund.

zozbot234 6y ago
> and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world Except that it didn't. Anarcho-primitivism was fringe, and it's still fringe. Maybe you could say that it changed the way anarcho-primitivists thought about stuff a little bit, but that could've been achieved without murdering people. It doesn't take much effort to "get a message out" to a tiny community of intellectually-curious thinkers.
PJDK 6y ago
He managed to extort his way into the national press - but I don't see why he should continue to be rewarded for his crimes. These ideas might be worth exploring further but there's no need to explore his version of them. Considering everything fair game regardless of it's origins or consequences feels extremely capitalist to me (well probably libertarian - but I don't feel like capitalist is a particularly well defined ideology).