The Neoprimitive aim is the total collapse of modern society and modern so-called civilisation together with all its controlling mechanisms and structures so that humanity returns to an archetypal state of being in which the genuine human values can once again be expressed without any dependency upon technology, State, or corporations.
Neoprimitives reject modern technology (i.e. the so-called advances since the 1970s involving microchips, the Internet, mobile communications, CCTV, and digital media, etc), because modern technology fosters a virtual reality that undermines, erodes, and destroys real human meaning and interpersonal solidarity by replacing it with an addiction to, and a dependency upon electronic gadgets that lead to individual isolation, separation within families, and disparity within communities, thus undermining and destroying the genuine human values that are necessary for a healthy social community to progress and flourish.
As the Fifth Estate stated in 1981: "Technology is not a simple tool which can be used in any way we like. It is a form of social organisation, a set of social relations. It has its own laws. If we are to engage in its use, we must accept its authority. The enormous size, complex interconnections and stratification of tasks which make up modern technological systems make authoritarian command necessary and independent, individual decision-making impossible." Thus technology alienates us from our own Self, from others, and from the natural world - it is the drug of the masses, and it is the means of State and corporate control over every aspect of our life and work from birth to death.
Our dependency on technology makes us lazy, stupid, impatient, irritable, brain-fogged, angry, Greedy, and uncaring - it brings NOTHING positive to the human condition. Most Neoprimitivists however don't reject useful machinery and pre-1970s electronic advances of modern life, such as electric lights and motorised vehicles, because there's a very fundamental difference between these and the technological systems as described above - principally the defining marker is of WHO is in control. You can wire up your own house and run it off your own microgeneration sustainable power system (i.e. solar), you can make your own battery vehicle and recharge it via a domestic wind/water turbine, you can build and/or repair many domestic machines including some stand-alone electronic devices, you can use walkie-talkies freely without a network connection, you could even build a radio receiver and transmit from your own local station - YOU are in control - however, you could never build a microchip or a mobile phone or a DVD player, plus every operation of your technological and digital devices requires your connection to and dependency upon a corporate network, and a corporate bill to pay, and a bank account, and a plastic card, etc, etc. So the issue is one of CONTROL and DEPENDENCY upon an authoritarian system that dictates the terms of your life, and generally the issue of modern technology is not specifically about the actual DEVICES themselves - i.e. an unconnected PC using an independent operating system (not Microsoft!) is a useful tool for writing letters, however dependency upon such a tool for playing computer games alone for hours on end IS a Neoprimitivist issue, as is the issue of Greed and rampant consumerism associated with modern technological devices.
Neoprimitivism is about repairing and healing human society, and about assisting it to return to its roots prior to the advent of modern technology, and prior to the advent of all forms of mass citizen control that have been imposed upon us via the Gov, EU, UN, and multinational corporations, and even prior to the societal imposition of modern conventions upon us, so that all citizens are free from any dictates regarding how they choose to live - for example; people could choose to have very conventional relationships, or one person living with several spouses, or have 'group' marriages in which everyone is partnered with each other and share childcare among all the adults - there would be no social 'convention' to break or to adhere to, except in those communities where the members decided to adopt their own agreed conventions - it certainly wouldn't be up to the Gov, or EU, or political parties, or the Left or Right to dictate the way we should live as free citizens.
The original aim of anarcho-primitivism was not to replicate or RETURN to the Primitive, but to view the Primitive as a source of inspiration that exemplifies true anarchy (or Statelessness). However such a RETURN to the pre-techno Primitive cooperative union of networked communities IS the aim of Neoprimitivism, and THIS is the significant difference between the two ideologies. You could say that anarcho-primitivism is the THEORY, philosophy, or the academic pondering about a return to the Primitive, while neoprimitivism is the ACTION aimed at getting us there. Neoprimitivism seeks the TOTAL destruction of the Leviathan; the beast that is modern society, the machine that is modern civilisation - we piss on it! But for those who don't understand this ethic it's all too easy to misunderstand and believe our intention is to harm PEOPLE, but the aim couldn't be further away from that fear. For the Neo ALL life is precious; from nature, to animals, to people - so to cause them harm is completely anathema.
People are a big difficulty as they become so entwined with the system that Neos can feel like those people and the Leviathan are one and the same (especially its controllers), however the primary ethos that all Neos and citizens need to remember is that the people have become so blinded, brainwashed, and fogged by the system that it controls them so completely it's become impossible for them to think of life being possible in any other way - the people can't be blamed or harmed, because they're as innocents corrupted; they've been manipulated into total dependency upon technology, modern civilisation, and the State - they've become addicted to it even though it's harming them, and their children, and their futures.
Neoprimitivism aims to REMOVE the addiction, and the controlling systems, and the technology, and the State control - it is TRUE anarchy - it aims to remove the Leviathan that is modern civilisation and State/corporate control, and return human society to its archetypal form that focuses on the genuine human values of family, home, community, cooperation, and harmony with nature. This does NOT mean living in caves (unless you chose to do so). The power would be with the people, and they could form any kind of society or community they chose to make - for example; our society would function beautifully without technology or State/corporate control as a nation of interlinked cooperative, self-sufficient, autonomous working communities that consisted of independent non-profit 'businesses' that traded throughout the network on behalf of their communities to meet everyone's needs so we'd all be comfortable and have what we needed. There wouldn't be any system, mechanism, or structure of State or corporate control - as on many tropical island communities and in many forest tribes; decisions would be made by each community with members having an equal voice, with perhaps a small elect of citizens such as tribal Elders holding the casting vote when the community was undecided. If any laws or conventions were to be imposed then the community would decide them - and the communities would be free to admit or reject anyone they chose to be a member, which would create a wide variety of different types of community with their own laws and conventions that they were happy to live with - basically this would be a return to the days of independent autonomous small village communities that existed prior to feudalism, visited by travelling traders who'd sell or exchange goods from their own community and return with goods needed by their own people.
The only continuing dilemma is the discussion about whether the imposition of Primitivism upon society is akin to forcing a control mechanism upon them in a dictatorial way similar to how the State and corporations currently rule our existence; and if that's so, then the triggered collapse of modern civilisation could not be justified. The answer to this needs a lot of thought and discussion about whether it's in the best interests of humanity and the progress of society to cut it off from State and corporate control and technology, and therefore force it to struggle as it re-forms itself and gives birth to a new type of civilisation, which will be a hard and possibly long chaotic process before it succeeds - or whether it's best to remain on the course we're currently fixed on so that humanity becomes 100% dependent upon technology and 100% controlled by the State and corporations, because people feel reassured by tight suppression and the feeling of security they have in isolation from others? Do we have a definitive answer?
But how could real Primitiveness be brought about anyway? Well the most radical way would be via an act of nature that caused a collapse of global authority systems and technology - i.e. a big meteor strike, or a mega Mass Solar Ejection. Or a similar catastrophe wrought by Gov such as a global nuclear war. Any of these global events would reduce the population to a primitive state. Similarly if terrorists or anarchists planted strategic EM bombs that wiped all computer data and killed global comms this would remove all our digital technology and could be a precursor of returning to the Primitive if citizens then refused State control and rebelled against it. The final way is dealt with in some length in my previous essay entitled "The Modern Primitive" that involves collapsing the system covertly from within.
Anarcho-Primitivism UK
http://anarchoprimitivism.ning.com/
View my profile on Anarcho-Primitivism UK
