Like what is the enforcement mechanism for “nobody is allowed to grow crops or build things anywhere on Earth”
Or do they actually expect the entire global population to unanimously decide they don’t want potable water or antibiotics anymore
Like what is the enforcement mechanism for “nobody is allowed to grow crops or build things anywhere on Earth”
Or do they actually expect the entire global population to unanimously decide they don’t want potable water or antibiotics anymore
We don’t at all, that’s why this site has emotes like
, we freely acknowledge that a non-trivial number of people oppose our project and thus implementing that project requires violently suppressing them.
Yes, that is what I said.
Okay but my main question is how they intend to impose their project upon everyone else.
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.
Where?
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).
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.”
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?
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.
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.
Interesting. What is the range here? How far can you get from “abolish all agriculture” before the label ceases to apply?