I already answered that question, unless you mean that you think a system must be imposed on literally every person globally all at once in order to be considered successful.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I already answered that question

Where?

unless you mean that you think a system must be imposed on literally every person globally all at once in order to be considered successful.

Anprim as a movement considers the existence of an agricultural society anywhere on the face of the Earth an intolerable threat that must be annihilated, so yes their definition of "victory" necessarily entails the ability to enforce their vision on the entire world (or at least all the arable parts).

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Where?

In the first paragraph in my first comment in this thread.

"They're not expecting this to happen by magic, they're expecting to convince people of their ideas then form communities of people who share those ideas."

Anprim as a movement considers the existence of an agricultural society anywhere on the face of the Earth an intolerable threat that must be annihilate

Are you interested in learning or are you here to tell everyone about what you're pretty sure anprims believe?

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you interested in learning or are you here to tell everyone about what you're pretty sure anprims believe?

I was under the impression the goal of the movement was to abolish civilization. Is it something else?

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And the goal of communism is the abolition of class, money, capitalism, etc. Nobody's done this so far, so all communists are failures?

Not to mention that I don't think "abolishing civilization" is a real thing anyone actually thinks is possible. Any two humans is civilization, we're gonna use tools and provide for one another and build stuff and all that. The goal is to deindustrialize, to what extent is a matter for debate.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think "abolishing civilization" is a real thing anyone actually thinks is possible.

Zerzan calls agriculture "the indispensable basis of civilization" and says "Liberation is impossible without [agriculture's] dissolution." I would call advocating the abolish Thing A, which you acknowledge as necessary for the existence of Thing B, a call to abolish Thing B.

The goal is to deindustrialize, to what extent is a matter for debate.

Interesting. What is the range here? How far can you get from "abolish all agriculture" before the label ceases to apply?

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How far can you get from "abolish all agriculture" before the label ceases to apply?

How far can you get from "everyone shares the communal toothbrush" before the communist label ceases to apply? Again, I would draw a firm distinction between the internet meme ideology no one actually believes in and the actual ideology people actually talk about.

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/anarcho-primitivism-civilization-symbolic-culture-and-revolutionary-rewilding