I doubt that it can be done, since a publisher was once happy enough to publish it. And if anyone has depended on this article, no matter how "primitive" you find it now, you would be disrupting the flow of scholarship. Whether that is ethical or not depends on your frame. Who now "owns" the work in a philosophical (not legal) sense.
But, let me change the frame a bit. Your dissatisfaction with your early work is nothing more than a sign of growth. If your best work is in your past then you have stopped moving forward.
I've been told that some poets, occasionally at least, sometimes cringe at their early work. But that is because they have gone beyond it. And that early work likely let to later, better, work. The same is probably true for you.
You did the best you were capable of at the time. You have advanced past that stage. Celebrate it.
Note that I've assumed that the paper doesn't contain actual errors or, worse, cause harm. If that were the case then the original author is an excellent person to provide a follow up paper dealing with the issues. That would be superior to a retraction in many ways.