Broke

>broke
Industrial Society and its Future

>bespoke
Against History, Against Leviathan

Anyone else here read this?

Attached: Fredy Perlman.jpg (220x337, 40K)

>Anyone else here read this?
Yes but I really don't care for romantic primitivism for anarcho-kiddies.

Attached: adorno.jpg (542x441, 51K)

As far as the comparison goes, Perlman is definitely superior to Ted. But fpbp:

what's wrong with anarcho-primitivism?

>anarcho
dumb
>primitivism
dumb
>anarcho-primitivism
double dumb

let's try this again, but this time, answer the question

Emphasis on the romantic! I haven't read Perlman in a long time so I can't be specific with my criticism but his earlier works weren't as "primitivist".

So are we doing that whole "this is the only it's ever been and always will be and if you refuse to believe there was once a time people enjoyed themselves, their communities, and the fruits of the earth without neurotic complexes, debts, or obligations to produce for their faceless overlords you're just being a sentimental child who doesn't know what life really is unlike me, a mature hard-working man whose devoted his life to marketing fast food" thing people like you do? You're not allowed to feel unalloyed joy without developing a complex, citizen. Get back to work.

It gets fucking tiresome, senpai, it really does.

>In terms of this projection, Man exists for thousands of generations as a Savage. Then, three hundred or so generations ago, material conditions become favorable for something higher than savagery. These conditions include agriculture, metallurgy, the wheel, etc. Once he has all these things, Man is able to generate a surplus product, a margin. (Turner, too, succumbs to this part of the theory.) This surplus, this margin, is what supports, literally feeds, the brave new world that now becomes possible: kings, generals of armies, slavemasters, bosses of labor gangs. Man had always wanted rulers, permanent armies, slavery, division of labor, but he couldn’t realize these dreams until the material conditions became ripe. And as soon as they did become ripe, all progressive-minded Savages leapt unhesitatingly to the higher rung.

>This theory of higher stages can be taught to small children because it is a fairy tale. There’s nothing wrong with fairy tales. But the proponents of this one claim it is something else; they are contemptuous of fairy tales.

lol godDAMN

Attached: 1213.gif (354x163, 2.78M)

Obvious tankie is obvious. You should have caught it.
"Marxists point at the Capitalist mode of production, sometimes only at the Capitalist class. Anarchists point at the State. Camatte points at Capital. New Ranters point at Technology or Civilization or both.

If Toynbee's protagonist, Mankind, is too diffuse, many of the others are too narrow.

The Marxists see only the mote in the enemy's eye. They supplant their villain with a hero, the Anti-capitalist mode of production, the Revolutionary Establishment. They fail to see that their hero is the very same "shape with lion body and the head of a man, a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun." They fail to see that the Anti-capitalist mode of production wants only to outrun its brother in wrecking the Biosphere.

Anarchists are as varied as Mankind. There are governmental and commercial Anarchists as well as a few for hire. Some Anarchists differ from Marxists only in being less informed. They would supplant the state with a network computer centers, factories and mines coordinated "by the workers themselves" or by an Anarchist union. They would not call this arrangement a State. The name-change would exorcize the beast."