Various Authors a Dialog on Primitivism

8/12/2019 Various Authors a Dialog on Primitivism

1/35

Various Authors

A Dialog on Primitivism


2/35

2

Contents

A Dialog on Primitivism: Lawrence Jara interviews John Zerzan . . . . 3Why I Am a Primitivist by Miael William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Why I am not a Primitivist by Jason McQinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Primitivist strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Fredy Perlman and the Fih Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Earth First! and Deep Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Which Primitivism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Primitivism as ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Neither back nor forward, but wherever we choose to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Critiques of Civilization, Progress, Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

e Qestion of Primitivismby Alex Trotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Why Primitivism (without adjectives) Makes Me Nervous by

Lawrence Jara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Authoritarian primitivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Vulgar primitivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Anarchist primitivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

For an anti-ideological anarcho-primitivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


3/35

3

A Dialog on Primitivism: Lawrence Jara

interviews John Zerzan

ere are many prejudiced caricatures and objections concerning primitivism;for example that its proponents want to go back to the Stone Age, or that anymove away from industrialcapitalism wouldresult in animmediate mass die-offof thousands ifnot millions ofhumans. ese dismissals showcase alack ofseriousness onthe partofanti-primitivists,andtheir refusal to engageinany kind of substantial dialog around the issues of the origins of capitalism andthe various mechanisms of social control and domination. While understandablecoming from non-anarchists (who are engaged in promoting one or another formofdomination and exploitation),such a knee-jerkreactionfrom anarchists andantiauthoritariansis causeforconcern. Canit reallybethe casethat theissues

of industrialization, urbanism, centralizedtechnologies, andthe furthering ofhierarchicalpower relationsthatarisefromthese phenomena are off-limitstoanarchist discourse?

AsfarasIcantell,mostprimitivists onlywant to go back asfarastheIron Age.As for the supposed mass die-off, this devastation wouldnt touch the majority ofpeople in the non- and semi-industrial areas of Asia, Africa, and South America,who are already experiencing mass starvation and death. People in these placesare sufferinganddying at the hands of the current regimes ofausterity imposed bythe International Monetary Fund, and occasionally backed up by US/UN militaryforce. en theres the overproduction and exporting ofcash crops (with itsdisruption of traditionally sustainable land use and agriculture, and the reliance on

petro-chemical fertilizers and genetically engineered seed) to offset governmentdebts. e idea that these areas need to become even more industrialized in ordertosave theirpopulations from starvation and mass deathisthe self-servingposition of the brains behind the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA,GATT, WTO, etc. It isappalling that many anarchists seem to believe the assumptions and conclusionsof these technocrats, bankers, and capitalists.

In order to clarify some of the misunderstandings about primitivism, I initiatedthis dialog withJohn Zerzan,considered bymany to bethe maintheoretician andspokesperson of anarcho-primitivism, one of the newest trends within antiauthor-itarianism.

Lawrence Jara: ere are many ecologically minded anarchists these days,from SocialEcologiststo Green Anarchists, to Earth Firsters, to primitivists. Itseems that there are many areas of overlapping concerns and analyses, but also


4/35

4

differencesinterms ofstrategiesforpromotingthesevisions ofa beer future.Green anarchistsforexample,seemtotaketheirstrategic cuefromthe directaction wing of Earth First!, while not necessarily espousing the EF! ideas of neo-Malthusianism. Primitivism,on the otherhand,seemsto be a moretheoretical

perspective, celebrating (critically, of course) the pre-civilization 99% of humanexistence when there was no state or any other institutionalized forms of politicalpower. Social Ecology, as articulated by Murray Bookchin, seems to emphasize therationalabilityofhumanstointervene ethicallyand wisely inthe naturalworld,while leaving much of the industrial base of modern capitalism untouched asidefrom some sort of federated quasi-syndicalist self-management. Social Ecologiststakethe existence ofurbanindustrialismforgranted,while primitivistdiscourserejectstheinevitabilityof it.SocialEcologists build onthe assumptions of leism(which has social control as one of its foundational principles) and their analysesand strategiesforsocialchange comefromit. Mysenseisthatprimitivismis acritical and analytical framework, while green anarchists engage in actions that

make sensefromthat framework. Wouldit be correct to say thatwhile allsocialecologists are leists, not all green anarchists are primitivists? What are thedifferences as you understand them?

John Zerzan: Yes, allsocialecologists seem to embrace not onlymass pro-duction and highly developed technology, but also the division of labor anddomestication that undergird them and drive them forward to new levels of stan-dardization and estrangement. Social ecology is perhaps the last refuge of the le,asgreenawareness necessarilyspreads.But it is alsotruethatgreen anarchistsmay actually hold onto some of the same basic institutions. Im referring to thosewho explicitly reject the primitivist point of view. To me primitivism (and I usethetermreluctantly,as shorthand,hopingit does nothardeninto anideologyor dogma) means questioning and rejecting such basic institutions as division oflabor and domestication. Green Anarchist (U.K.) is very clearly primitivist, reject-ing civilization and its basis, agriculture (domestication). e founding editor ofGreenAnarchy (U.S.), on the other hand, is a green anarchist but not a primitivist.He has no problem with domestication.

What I fear, as the new movement develops, is the age-old enemy, co-optationor recuperation. Green anarchism sounds good, its the coming thing, but it maybetoovague or flabby.Whatdoesit reallymean? Howfardo green anarchistswant to go,see the needto go? What institutions does Green Anarchism placeoff-limits to critique, that are not part of the deepening crisis?

LJ:efirstand seeminglymain objectionthrown ata primitivistoutlookisthat millions willdieimmediatelywhether through starvation orgenocide, if

the state and industrial civilization were dismantled. How do you respond to thisaccusation?


5/35

5

JZ: Civilization has always told people that they cant survive without itscomforts and protections. Outside the city walls lie danger, chaos, death. Wevealways been held hostage to civilization, which is not to forget that billionsofpeople now inhabit the planet. Perhaps the key word in your question is

immediately. In other words, if the whole prevailing apparatus vanished instantlysomehow, millions probablywould die. (Many have died and continueto dieuntimely deaths under the present system, by the way.)

e key isin how a changeoverwould come about. Perhapsthe onlyway itcould happen is when most people decide that change needs to happen, and thusbecome involved in making it happen. When/if this occurs, a transition would becreatively undertaken in the interests of those involved. Not in an instant, but asquickly and thoroughly as possible.

Briefly, one specific example is a new paradigm for food. e work of Mollisonand, even more, Fukuoka, for instance, show that a great deal of vegetables can begrown in very small areas. is method not only avoids the great energy waste of

global transportation, storage, etc., but can move in anti-domestication directions.Fukuokas no-work approach reminds me of the Johnny Appleseed story, whichcertainly also had anti-private property implications.

LJ:e line that civilizers throw at the rest of us concerning survival remindsme of the same line that technocrats throw at the rest of us about so-called labor-saving devicesfreeing up our time sothat it can be used formoreinterestingandfunthings. Infact,all these devices have madeit possiblefor the workersoperatingthemtoincreasetheirproductive output for the same wage as beforethe introduction of the device. e labor-saving is on the bosss side: he can saveon the wage-labor he has to expend, thereby increasing his profits. Its the typicalauthoritarian lie: this is for your own good. Do you think it would be possibleto invent a device that actually would be time-saving and still be acceptable fortechnophobes or primitivists?

JZ:I recallsomeone with Fih Estate asserting,about20 years ago, that theresimply is no labor-saving device.Basicallymeaningthatwhen anymachine ordevice is deconstructed, it can be seen to contain more congealed or required laborthan is actually saved by its use. is would include all kinds of hidden inputs,such as storage, transportation,marketing,etc. Ive neverheardthis assertionrefuted.

Forme, however, it is not so much whetheror not thereis a saving, work-wise, as whether or not division of labor is involved. If division of labor destroyswholeness, autonomy, non-hierarchy, that is more important. In fact, it may bethatonlynon-division-of-labordevices(like a leveror incline)are actually labor-

saving.


6/35

6

LJ:e critique of civilization and technology leads to some interesting ideasfrom a philosophical and even epistemological perspective. For example theconclusion that you have drawn concerning the process ofsymbolic thought(language,music,numbers, art): that it resultsin domestication,and that it is

domestication of plants and animals that then leads to civilization, which in turnwould be impossible without institutionalized hierarchies and political power. Yetclearly we cannot reject the use of language or music or other forms of symbolicthought today.Does a critique necessitate arejection? Idont like automobiles orcomputers, but I have one of each. Because I have a critique of their manufactureand use withinthe parameters of21st centuryAmericanindustrialcapitalism,does that mean that I cant use them? If I didnt have the critique, would I be offthe hook in terms of my responsibility for the continuation of their hegemony?

JZ:As for how to dismantle symbolic culture itself, all I can say is that first thetopic needs to be addressed. It hasnt been yet, so lets start there. But a critiquedoes mean arejection,otherwiseitsjust talk, justmore accommodationto what

is. Inthe samevein,people maydeny thata problem exists;but this may turnout later to have been an unforgivablefailure ofmoral imagination. Historyhasjudged, over and over, that for subsequent generations, ignorance and denial donotexcusethe complicity inherent in doing nothing. Acquiescenceto slavery,Nazi ascendancy, and Stalinist terror are only three of many recent examples. Alot of contemporary authors present a near-complete indictment, only to cop outat the very end. Any number of books say, in effect, Naturally, I dont advocateactually dismantling the present society. I just mean that we have to think aboutitdifferently.Orsome similar inconsequentialnonsense. ats how people getpublished.

LJ:Isee yourpointabout therelation ofcritiquetorejection. AndIhave noproblem withtheideathatshouldtheindustrial infrastructure become unusable,Id have to turn to alternate modes of transportation and communication. Inthe meantime,doesit make senseto usethetechnologiesthatexist in order tospread these critiques? Im thinking about the new website primitivism.comwhich,uponfirsthearingtheterm,soundstotallyabsurd. Yet the site containsthe best essays on the topic Ive seen in one place, plus theres a discussion boardwhere the assumptions of primitivism are challenged and refined. You and I havehad alreadyhad discussions aboutusingradio andtelevision. Where, ifatall,dowe draw the line of not using what we might consider to be the most destructivetechnologies? Is it up to each of is to decide? And wouldnt this drawing of theline create a moral hierarchy in terms of ranking the worst technologies?

JZ:We are all complicit in the reproduction of society. We all live in it, not on

some otherplanetor in a gatherer-huntermode. SoIam generallywaryaboutfeeling able to establish priorities about the use of technologies.


7/35

7

But Im notsure a moralhierarchy isinvolvedintryingto avoid being com-pletely arbitrary about it, on the other hand. In other words, various technologieshave different characteristics which make some more estranging than others.Some are more mediated, artificial, and remote. Radio is less colonizing than TV, I

would say. Non-commercial cable-access TV does not have all the negatives thatnetwork television does. ere are some obvious distinctions, even if one couldargue that at times other factors might override them. Perhaps, for example, anurgent need to communicate with a lot of people in a given situation.

I guess this tends to get into the knoy question of media, related but somewhatdifferent. Ifwe concludethatwe needto use certaintechnologies so as not to beat a severe disadvantage, we should remember what they consist of and not forgetto make such analysis clear.Who elsetriesto discussthe nature of technologyand its consequences?

LJ: ere are things about modern civilization that are indispensable for the con-tinuation of urban existence-sewage treatment for example. Is a primitivist vision

at all compatible with urban life? Does it necessitate the abandonment of cities?Whataboutpeople who want tolivein cities,and who could(hypothetically)be able to develop an anarchic method of controlling and maintaining urbanismwithout the more unsavory aspects of it? (Im thinking here of the anarcho-syndi-calist tradition specifically.) Would green anarchists denounce and/or oppose thishypothetical anti-hierarchical, antiauthoritarian urbanism as incompatible with atruer anarchic vision? And if so, how would that not be an ideological objection?Iguess what Im geing at here isthat there seemsto be in primitivism (as atheory) and green anarchism (as its practice) just as much danger of ideologicalrigidityand dogmatism asin anyother theory. Arethere anypossibilitiesfortransitional stages between urbanism and primitivism? If not, doesnt that makeprimitivism maximalist,with all theinherentmoralism ofa maximalistprogram?

JZ:I want tolivein a cityatpresent, for variousreasons. Language,art,etc.are alsointeresting,evenindispensable giventhe presentconditions. But in adisalienated world wouldthese compensations orconsolations be necessaryorinteresting? e Case AgainstArt, for instance,does not reallybash art; it ismainlyan exploration ofhow artarrived,along with alienation. e corollaryquestion, again, is whether arts role will always be needed.

Geing back to the city, think of all the negative developments that bring citiesinto existence. What are they for? Commerce, rule, taxation, specialization, etc.,etc. Take those away and wheres the city? e things that sustain a city are stillpartof the problem. Maybeinits place wellsee fluid sites of festival, reunion,play. Who knows?


8/35


9/35

9

We have always been held captive bycivilization, invarious ways. Atsomepoint the captivity may not seem worth it to most people, as life, health, freedom,authenticity continue to dwindle away.

LJ:Whenyou wereinLA,and onthetour you had ofparts ofEurope andthe

East Coast, were there any questions that people asked you that made you thinkabout some of the assumptions that you took for granted? Did any experiencesprod you to think about the distinguishing characteristics of primitivism/greenanarchy? What was the worst experience on your travels? e best? JZ: Ifrankly dont remember being challenged all that much, maybe because primitivisttheses are a novelty to so many people. e main opposition came from anarcho-leists, oen desperate in their defense of the old anarchism, the failed, superficial,workerist, productionist model. I didnt hear anything new in their protestations,except, in their defensiveness, evidence that they are losing and know it.

eturnouts were good, therange ofquestions good, and I sensed arecep-tivenessto newideas. Infact, the main hit I gotoverallwasthe awarenessthat

something new is needed. I didnt have any negative experiences, really.LJ:Whatarethe main objections(andtheirshortcomings) to primitivismthatderive from old anarchism? How are they different from the non-anarchistprotestations? Youtold me abouta SocialEcologistat thetalkyou gave at Yale,where she stood up, denounced primitivism and you, then stormed out of the room-effectivelyshuing down anypossibilityofdiscussion,heated orotherwise. Iscondemnation like that typical of the interactions you have with anarcho-leists?

JZ:Classicalanarchismis afixed bodyof ideasthat is not fully informed bythe conditions of contemporary society. e plight of both outer nature and innernature has worsened hugely, in my opinion, since the 19 th century. us we areled to question what used to be givens, question and indict some basic institutionsthat seem to be at the root of our present extremity.

Anarchism, insofar as it wants to remain part of the le, does not appearto wantsuch questioning. Itmaybe thatnon-anarchists are more opento newperspectives than dogmatic old anarchists. Hope Im wrong, but Social Ecologists,[and] various leist anarchists seem quite closed to examining basics like divisionof labor, domestication, technology, civilization.


10/35

10

Why I Am a Primitivistby Miael William

Ifasked if Im a primitivist Id answer that I am, although the term is notreallysatisfactory. Ipreferanticivilizationist, thoughthathas its problemstoo.Labels are quitethe pain in the ass. At one point Istopped calling myselfananarchist because I didnt agree with most anarchists but I did start calling myselfan anarchist again eventually the name belongs to me as much as anyone else.

Primitivism is an extreme response to an extreme situation of industrialism outof control. For me, simply critiquing the present techno-structure is not enough:Iwant to beginto dismantleit. HowfardoIwant to go? Howfarcan we go? Idont know. at remains to be seen.

I grew up in the fiies and sixties, the last era of unvarnished techno-optimism.Not that there isnt a strong, even omnipresent, pro-tech sentiment today. But ithas been tempered by a widespread realization of the extent to which industrialism

has degraded the planets ecology.Ibeganto movetoward a primitivistpositioninthe earlyeighties under the

influence of the Fih Estate and writers such as Perlman, Ellul, Camae, andZerzan. However, these writings only gave me a theoretical basis for what Ialready intuitivelyknew: civilizationis anintegralpartofalienation. In otherwords, my instinctive dislike of techno music is completely normal.

In the anarcho-primitivist milieu no theoretical orthodoxy reigns. Influencesare wide-ranging, from post-situationist to Stirnerist to taoist, deep ecologist,classicalclass strugglelibertarian-communist, tothe approach of John Zerzan.ere is no lack of room for anyone who wants to carve out a space!

In recent years theFih Estate, which in the seventies and eighties did much

to set the basis of a primitivist approach, has moved to a less radical, or in a termemployed by FE editor Peter Werbe, a more modest outlook. In the leers col-umn of the previous Anarchy, a correspondent of Werbes quotes him as saying:Atpresent, I feela lilefoolish advocatingthe end ofcivilization when whatthat looks like is Congo or Afghanistan. Congo or Afghanistan? In the Congo aregionalwar istaking placeinvolving halfa dozen states.Acting as a perkfor Zim-babwes participation, for example, is access to diamond mines. In Afghanistanvarious radical Islamic outfits formerly fighting the Soviets subsequently beganfighting among themselves. e last I heard the Taliban were clutching copies ofthe Koran, not old Fih Estate reprints from the eighties.

Myoutlookis notpremised onthelifeways ofspecific primitive groups ora

belief in the existence of a past golden age of humanity in harmony with nature(althoughthis mayhave occurred). It is based ontryingto achievethe kind of


11/35

11

world I desire along with others. But I also believe it valuable to examine groupswhich have lived in less encumbered ways, and in coming years I hope to do moreanthropological reading.

Although a critique of technique/technology is clearly fundamental, a danger

exists of emphasizing technology to the detriment of other aspects of domination.Such is the case in the works of Jacques Ellul and Ellul influenced Ted Kaczynski.Onthe otherhand Elluldoes show convincingly thatpower in modern societyis predominantly inthe hands of technocratsrather than economic orpoliticalmovers and shakers.

Agricultureremains a controversialquestion. Whetherone prefers an agricul-tural or a hunter-gatherer approach, agriculture will continue to play a role for aconsiderabletimeto come,as atransitionalphaseifnotalways an endinitself.InQebec muchtraditional landliesfallow because market forces makeit tooexpensive to grow crops. Subsistence farming has a long history in Qebec andpeople couldrenewthistradition as a wayofachievinglocalautonomy.Some

cultivated land could also be simply abandoned to the wild.Primitivism is a more radical, more negative approach than mainstream anar-chism which continues to confine its goal to self-managing the current structure,or one that is slightly modified. If the goals of primitivists appear even less likelyto be achievedthanthose ofmore conventional radicals, thefact isthat todayrevolutionaries of all stripes are far from achieving their goals. I see no need tomoderate my approach just because we live in non-revolutionary times.

Living in the city, it is impossible to avoid the corrosive effects of urban alien-ation. I aempt to aenuate them by avoiding computers, by walking whenpossible,and bystayingin contactwith citygreen spaces. At last yearslocalanarchist book fair I participated in a panel on the subject of the Internet. I arguedthat it would be preferabletofoster face-to-face communicationinstead. Ialsodo book tables at which I sell selected books and magazines.

Well, the scope of this hastily wrien article has been modest. Hopefully thisspecial issue on such an important topic will lead to a fruitful debate.


12/35

12

Why I am not a Primitivistby Jason

McQinn

e life ways of gatherer-hunter communities have become a central focus ofstudy formanyanarchistsinrecent years, forseveralgoodreasons. Firstofall,and most obviously, if we are to look at actually-existing anarchist societies, theprehistory of the species seems to have been a golden age of anarchy, community,human autonomy and freedom. Various forms of the state, enclosures of the socialcommons, and accumulations ofdead labor (capital)have been the axiomaticorganizing principles ofcivilized societiesfromthe dawn ofhistory.But, from allavailable evidence, theyseemto have been entirelyabsent inthevastprehistoryof the human species. e developmentofcivilization has beentheflipside ofthe steady erosion of both personal and communal autonomy and power within

precivilized, anarchic societies and the remnant life ways stillsurvivingfromthem.

Furthermore, inthelastseveraldecades withinthefields ofanthropologyandarcheology there has been an explicitand(initsimplications)quiteradical reval-uation of the social life of these noncivilized,gatherer-hunterand horticulturalsocieties, both prehistoric and contemporary. is revaluation has led, as manyanarchistwriters have pointed out (especially John Zerzan,David Watson[akaGeorge Bradford, etc.] and Bob Black), to a greater understanding and apprecia-tion for several key aspects of life in these societies: their emphasis on personaland community autonomy (entailingtheir refusalofnon-reciprocalpower totheir head-men or chiefs), their relative lack of deadly warfare, their elegance of

technique andtool-kit, theiranti-work ethos(refusal to accumulate unnecessarysurplus, refusal to betied downto permanentselements),andtheiremphasison communal sharing, sensuality, celebration and play.

e rise of ecological critiques and the revaluation of nature in the last decadesof the twentieth century have entailed formany a searchthrough history forexamples ofecologicallysustainable societies societies which didntdespoilthe wilderness, massacre the wildlife and exploit all of the natural resourcesin sight. Unsurprisingly, any genuine search for ecological communities andcultures predominantly turns up hunter and gatherer societies which have never(outside ofsituations wheretheywere pressured byencroaching civilizations)developed any compelling needs to build surplus accumulations of food or goods,nor toignore ordespoil theiranimalkin ornaturalsurroundings. eir long-termstability and the elegance of their adaptations to their natural environments make


13/35

13

hunting and gathering societies the sustainable society and sustainable economypar excellence.

Additionally, the cumulativefailures ofboththerevolutionarysocialmove-ments of the last several centuries and the continuing march of capital and tech-

nology in reshaping the world have called into question as never before theillusory ideologyofprogressthatunderpins modern civilization(as wellas mostoppositional movements). A progress that has promised inevitable, incrementalimprovementsin our individual lives andthelives ofallhumanity (ifonlywe keepthe faith and continue supporting capitalist technological development) has beenprovenincreasinglyhollow. Ithas become harderand harder to maintaintheliethat life now is qualitatively beer than in all previous epochs. Even those whomostwant tofool themselves(those onthe margins ofcapitalistprivilege,powerand wealth)must faceincreasing doubts about their rationalityand theirethicalvalues, not to mention their sanity, in a world of global warming, mass extinctions,epidemic oil and toxic chemical spills, global pollution, massive clearing of rain

forests,endemicird World malnutrition andrecurrent famine. Allamidstanincreasing polarization between an international elite of the superrich and vastmasses of the powerless, landless and poor. In addition, ithas becomeincreas-inglyquestionable whether the multiple pleasures ofelectric heat,chlorinatedwater,hydrocarbon-poweredtransportand electronic entertainmentwilleveroutweightheinsidious costs of industrialenslavement,programmedleisure andour seeming reduction to objects of a scientific experiment to determine at whatpoint we will finally lose all trace of our humanity.

e development of contemporary primitivist theories (and especially anarcho-primitivism) might thus seem to be an easy, logical and inevitable step fromthese foundations, although this would be to overlook other alternatives equallyrooted in resistance culture. At the least, primitivism, as a multifaceted and still-developingresponsetothe epochalcrises nowfacing humanity, deserves ourserious evaluation. It is certainly one of the several possible responses which doesaempt to make sense of our current predicament in order to suggest a way out.Yet, at the same time there remain many problems with primitivist positions thathave been expressedthusfar.As wellas potentiallyserious problems withthevery concept of primitivism itself as a mode of theory and practice. It may makesense to examine some of the sources of primitivism first in order to identify anddevelop a few of its most obvious difficulties and suggest some solutions.


14/35

14

Primitivist strands

ere are several strands ofdevelopment which seem to have more or lesscoalescedtoformthe currentprimitivistmlange of theories and practices,at

leastwithin North America(Im notas familiarwith British primitivism). Buttwo or three strands stand out as the most influential andimportant: (1) thestrand growing out of Detroits anarcho-Marxist Bla & Redand the anarchistscontributingtotheFih Estate, includingforawhile(2) John Zerzan,althoughhe andthe FE eventuallyparted ways overdisagreements about the status andinterpretation of agriculture, culture and domestication. irdly (3) some activistscoming out of theEarth First!milieu, oen influenced by deep ecologists, promotea Back to the Pleistocene perspective (the Pleistocene, being the geologic periodduring which the human species emerged).

Fredy Perlman and the Fih Estate

Although there have been hints of radical primitivism within and even beforethe advent of the modern anarchist movement, contemporary primitivism owesmost to Fredy Perlman and theDetroit Black & Red collective through which hiswork was published, beginning in the 1960s. Most influential of all has been hisvisionary reconstruction of the origins and development of civilization,AgainstHis-Story, Against Leviathanpublished in 1983. In this work, Perlman suggestedthatcivilization originated duetotherelativelyharshliving conditions(in oneplace andtime)which were seen by thetribalelitetorequirethe developmentof a system of public waterways. e successful building of this system of public

waterwaysrequiredthe actions ofmany individualsinthe mannerofa socialmachine under the direction of the tribal elite. And the social machine that wasborn became the first Leviathan, the first civilization, which grew and reproducedthrough wars, enslavement and the creation of ever greater social machinery. esituation we now face is a world in which the progeny of that original civilizationhave now successfully taken over the globe and conquered nearlyallhumancommunities. But,as Perlman points out, though almost allhumanity is nowtrapped within civilizations, within Leviathans, there is still resistance. And,in fact, the development ofcivilizations from their beginnings on has alwaysfaced resistance from every non-civilized, free human community. History is thestoryofearlycivilizations destroyingtherelatively freercommunities around

them, incorporatingthem orexterminatingthem,and the succeeding storyofcivilizations wrestling with each other, civilizations exterminating, incorporating


15/35

15

orsubjugating othercivilizations, up tothe presentday. Yet resistanceis stillpossible,and we can all trace ourancestral lineages to people who were oncestateless, moneyless and in some profound sense more free.

Fredy Perlmans vision was taken up and elaborated upon by others involved in

the Fih Estate newspaper project, most notably, David Watson, who has wrienunder a number of pseudonyms, including George Bradford. e Fih Estate wasitselfan underground newspaper inthe60s,which evolvedinto a revolutionaryanarchistnewspaper inthe mid-70s,andtheninto an anarcho-primitivistprojectlater in the 80s. ough the Fih Estate has recently backed away from some ofthe moreradical implications of its earlierstances, it remains one of the majorstrands of the contemporary primitivist milieu.

And although Watsons work is clearly based on Perlmans, he has also addedhis own concerns, including the further development of Lewis Mumfords critiqueof technology and the megamachine, a defense ofprimitive spirituality andshamanism, and the call for a new, genuine social ecology (which will avoid the

errors ofMurrayBookchins naturalism, rationalism,and post-scarcity, techno-urbanism).Watsons work can now be evaluatedin a new collection ofhis mostsignificant Fih Estate writings of the 1980s titledAgainst the Megamaine(1998).But hes also the author of two previous books: HowDeep isDeep Ecology(1989,wrien under the name ofGeorge Bradford)andBeyond Bookin:A PrefacetoAny Future Social Ecology(1996).

John ZerzanJohn Zerzan, probably now the most well-known torch-bearer for primitivism

in NorthAmerica, started questioning the origins of social alienation in a seriesofessays also published inthe Fih Estate throughout the 80s. ese essayseventually foundtheirway into his collectionElements of Refusal(1988,and asecond editionin1999). ey included extreme critiques ofcentralaspects ofhuman culture time, language, number and art and an influential critique ofagriculture, the watershed change in human society which Zerzan calls the basisof civilization. (1999, p.73) However, while these origins essays, as they are oencalled, were published in the Fih Estate, they were not always welcomed. And,in fact, each issue of FE in which they appeared usually included commentariesrejecting his conclusions in no uncertain terms. Eventually, when the Fih Estatecollective tired of publishing his originary essays, and when Zerzan was finding itharder and harder to endure the FEs obvious distaste for his line of investigation,Zerzanturnedto other venuesforpublication, includingthis magazine,Anary,Michael Williams short-livedDemolition Derby, and ultimately EnglandsGreenAnaristas well,among others.A second collection ofhis essays,Future Primitive

and Other Essays, was co-published by Anarchy/C.A.L. Press in association withAutonomediain1994. And,additionally,he has editedtwoimportantprimitivist


16/35

16

anthologies, QestioningTenology (co-edited by Alice Carnes, 1988, with asecond edition published in 1991) and most recentlyAgainst Civilization(1999).

John Zerzan maybe mostnotoriousfor the blunt,no-nonsense conclusionsofhis originary critiques. In these essays, and in his subsequent writings

which will be familiar to readers of Anarchy magazine, he ultimately rejects allsymbolic culture as alienation and a fall from a pre-civilized, pre-domesticated, pre-division-of-labor, primitive state of human nature. He has also become notoriousin some circlesfor his embrace of the Unabomber, to whom he dedicatedthesecond edition ofElements of Refusal, indicating for those who might have beenunsure, thathe really is serious about his critiques and ourneedto develop afundamentally critical, uncompromising practice.

Earth First! and Deep Ecology

e primitiviststrand developingfromthe Earth First! direct-actioninthedefense ofMother Earth milieu is heavily entwined with the formulation ofdeep ecology by Arne Naess, BillDevall and George Sessions, among others.In this strand the Earth First! direct action community (largely based in thewestern US, and largely anarchist) seems to have found itself in search ofaphilosophical foundation appropriate to its non-urban defense of wilderness andhuman wildness and found someirresistible ammunition, ifnota coherenttheory, in deep ecology.

Earth First! as a substantially,butcertainlynotcompletely, informalorganiza-tion had its own origins in the nativist eco-anarchism of Edward Abbey (whosenature writings likeDesert Solitaire and novelTe Monkey WrenGangwerehugely influential)andthe nativist radicalenvironmentalism ofDavid Foreman

and friends. In fact, the original Earth First! oen maintained an explicitly anti-immigration, North-American-wilderness-for-U.S.-&-Canadian-citizens-only ap-proachto saving whateverwilderness could stillbe savedfromtheincreasinghuman depredation ofmining, road-building,clearcuing,agriculturalexploita-tion,grazing andtourisminthe service ofcontemporarymass consumersociety without ever feeling compelled to develop any critical social theory. However,once Earth First!expanded outof the southwestU.S.and becamethefocus ofawidespread direct action movement it became clear that most of the people join-ing the blockades, marches, banner-hangings and lock-downs were more than alile influenced by the decidedly non-nativist social movements of the 1960s and70s(the civil rights,anti-war,anti-nuclear, feministand anarchistmovements,

etc.). e contradictions between the rank-and-file and the informal leadershipin control of the Earth First! journal came to a head with the resignation of


17/35

17

Foreman and his subsequent inauguration of theWild Earthjournal with its focuson a conservation biologyperspective moreto hisliking. e new Earth First!leadership (and the new journal collectives since Foremans departure) reflect theactualdiversityof the activists nowinvolvedinthe entire Earth First! milieu

an eclectic mix of liberal/reformist environmentalists, eco-leists (and even eco-syndicalists affiliated withtheIWW),some greens,a varietyofeco-anarchistsand manydeep ecologists. But regardless of this diversity, it is clear thatdeepecology may well have the most widespread influence within the EF! milieu as awhole, including those who consider themselves to be primitivists. is seems tobe mostly because Earth First! is primarily a direct action movement in defenseofnon-human Nature,and clearlynota socially-oriented movement,despitetheoen radical social commitments of many of the participants. Deep ecology pro-vides the theoretical justification for the kind of Nature-first, society-later (if atall) aitude oen prevalent in EF! It substitutes a specially constructed biocentricoreco-centricvision(the perspective ofa unified naturalworldasLone Wolf

Circles putsit) for the supposed anthropocentric perspectives which privilegehumanvalues and goalsin mostotherphilosophies. Andit offers a nature phi-losophy that merges with nature spirituality, which together help justify an eco-primitivistperspectiveformanyactivists who wishto see a hugereductioninhuman population and a scaling-down orelimination of industrial technologyin order to reduce or remove the increasing destruction of the natural world bymodernindustrialsociety.Althoughthe Norwegian philosopherArne Naess(noprimitivisthimself) is usuallycredited withthe creation ofdeep ecology, the bookwhich originally made its name in North America was Bill Devall and George Ses-sionsDeep Ecology(1986). Arne Naess book,Ecology, Community and Lifestyle:Outline of an Ecosophy, appeared in 1990, while George Sessions contributedDeepEcology for the Twenty-First Centuryin 1994.

Whi Primitivism?

As is obvious from this brief overview (which necessarily leaves out discussionof many details as well as other important participants and influences), the strandsof the primitivist milieu are not just diverse, but oen in important ways incom-patible. To identify with primitivism can mean very different thingsto thoseinfluenced by Fredy Perlman or David Watson, John Zerzan or Arne Naess. FredyPerlman poetically commemorates the song and dance of primitive communities,their immersion in natureandkinship with other species.For David Watson,prim-

itivism first of all implies a celebration of the sustainable, preindustrial (thoughnotnecessarilypre-agricultural) life ways ofmanypeoples,which he believes


18/35

18

are most-importantly centered on tribal cultures (especially tribal religions) andconvivial tools and techniques. For John Zerzan, primitivism is first and foremosta stance demanding an end to all possible symbolic alienations and all division oflabor in order thatwe experiencethe world as areclaimed unityofexperience

without need for religion, art or other symbolic compensations. While for thoseinfluenced by deep ecology, primitivism means a return to a preindustrial worldinhabited bya smallhuman population abletolive notonly in harmonywithnature,butabove allwith a minimal impacton allotheranimaland plant (andeven bacterial) species.

Primitivism as ideology

Although I appreciate and respect the insights ofmostprimitivistcurrents,there are obvious problems withtheformulation ofanycritical theoryprimarily

focusing around a primitivist identity (or any other positively conceived identity).As Bob Black has contended:

e communist-anarchist hunter-gatherers (for that is what, to be precise,theyare),pastand present,areimportant. Not (necessarily) for theirsuc-cessful habitat-specific adaptations since these are, by definition, not gener-alizable. Butbecausetheydemonstratethat life once was, that life can be,radicallydifferent. e point is not torecreatethatwayof life(althoughthere may be some occasions to do that) but to appreciate that, if a life-wayso uerly contradictory to ours is feasible, which indeed has a million-yeartrackrecord, then maybe other life-ways contradictory to ours are feasi-ble (Bob Black, Technophilia,An Infantile Disorder,publishedin GreenAnarchist & on the web at: www.primitivism.com).

If it was obvious that primitivism always implied this type ofopen-ended,non-ideological stance, a primitivist identitywould be much less problematic.Unfortunately, formostprimitivists an idealized,hypostatizedvision ofprimalsocieties tends to irresistibly displace the essential centrality of critical self-theory,whatever their occasional protestations to the contrary. e locus ofcritiquequickly moves from the critical self-understanding of the social and natural worldto the adoption ofa preconceived ideal against which that world (and onesownlife) is measured,an archetypally ideologicalstance. is nearly irresistiblesusceptibility to idealization is primitivisms greatest weakness.

is becomes especially clear when aempts are made to pin down the exactmeaning of the primitive. In a vitally important sense there are no contemporary


19/35

19

primitive societies and there is not even any single, identifiable, archetypalprimitive society. Although this is acknowledged even by most primitivists,its importance is not always understood. All societies now (and historically)in existence havetheirown histories and are contemporarysocietiesin a most

importantsense, that theyexist inthe same world evenif far fromthe centersofpowerand wealth as nation-states,multinationalcorporations and globalcommodity exchange. And even ancient societies which existed before the adventofagricultureandcivilization in alllikelihood adapted many unimaginably diverseandinnovativelife ways over the course of theirexistence. But,beyond somebasic speculations, we can simply never know what these life ways were, muchless, which were the most authentically primitive. While this doesnt mean thatwe cant learnfromthelife ways ofcontemporaryhunters and gatherers orhoritculturalists, nomadic herders, and even subsistence agricultural communities,it does mean that there is no point in picking any one form of life as an ideal tobe uncritically emulated, nor of hypostatizing an archetypal primitive ideal based

on speculations always about what might have been.

Neither ba nor forward, but wherever we oose

to go

As all critics of primitivism never tire of pointing out, we cant simply go back intime. ough this is not because (as most critics believe) that social and technicalprogress is irreversible, nor because modern civilization is unavoidable. ereare many historical examples of both resistance to social and technical innovations,and devolutions to what are usually considered (by the believers in Progress) not

justsimpler,but inferiororbackward, life ways.Most importantly,we cantgoback in the sense that wherever we go as a society, we have to make our departurefrom where we are right now. We are all caught up in an historical social processwhich constrains our options. As Marxists typically put it, the present materialconditions ofproduction and social relations ofproduction largely determinethe possibilities for social change. Although anarchists are increasingly (andcorrectly) critical of the productivist assumptions behind this type of formulation,it remains more generally true that existing conditions of social life (in all theirmaterialand culturaldimensions)do have an inertiathatmakes any thoughts ofareturn to previouslyexisting(ormorelikely imagined) life ways extremelyproblematic.

Butneitherdo we necessarilyneedto goforwardintothefuturethatcapitaland the state are preparing for us. As we are learning from history, their progress


20/35

20

has neverbeen ourprogressconceived as anysubstantialdiminution ofsocialalienation,domestication oreven exploitation.Rather,we mightdo much beerto dispense withthe standardtimelierofallphilosophies ofhistory in order tofinally go our own way.

Only without the unnecessary, always ideological, constraints imposed by anydirectional interpretations of history, are we finally free to become whatever wewill, rather than what some conception of progress (or of return) tells us we needto be. is doesntmeanthatwe can ever just ignore whatwe,as a globalsociety,are right now. But it does mean that ultimately no ideology can contain or definethe social revolutionary impulse without falsifying it. e vitality of this criticalimpulse has an existence prior to any theorizing in each and every contradictionbetween our immediate desires for unitary,non-alienated lives and allof thecurrent social relations, roles and institutions which prevent these desires frombeing realized.

Critiques of Civilization, Progress, Tenology

Much moreimportant forusthantherevaluation ofwhatare called primitivesocieties and life ways is the critical examination of the society within which weliverightnow andthe ways whichitsystematicallyalienates our life-activitiesand denies ourdesiresfora more unitaryand satisfying wayof life. Andthismust always be foremost a process of negation, an imminent critique of our livesfrom within rather than from without. Ideological critiques, while containing anegative component,alwaysremain centered outside ofour lives around somesortofpositiveideal to which we musteventuallyconform. e powerof their(oversimplified)socialcriticismsis gained at the expense ofdenyingthe necessary

centrality of our own lives and our own perspectives to any genuine critique ofour social alienation.

e primitivist milieu has developed and popularized critiques of civilization,progress andtechnologyandthat isits most importantstrength. Idontconsidermyself a primitivist because of what I see as the inherently ideological thrust ofany theorywhichidealizes a particular form of life(whetherornot ithas everactuallyexisted).But this does notmeanthat Iam any less criticalofcivilization,progress or technology.Rather, Isee these critiques as essential totherenewaland further radicalization of any genuine aempts at general contemporary socialcritique.

Primitivism as anideology is stuckin an unenviable position ultimatelyde-

mandingthe construction ofa complex form ofsociety (howevermuch disputedin particulars) thatobviously requires notonlymassive social transformations,


21/35

21

technical changes and population dislocations, but the relatively quick abandon-mentofat least 10,000 years ofcivilized development. It is an understatement tosay that this poses enormous risks for our survival as individuals, and even, con-ceivably, as a species (due to the primarily to potential threats of nuclear, chemical

and biological warfare that could be unleashed). Yet primitivism can at best offeronly indeterminate promises of highly speculative results, even under the mostfavorably imaginable circumstances: the eventual, worldwide demoralization andcapitulation of the mostpowerful ruling classes,without too manysignificantcivil wars fought by factions aempting to restore the collapsing old order in partor intotal. us primitivism,at least inthisform, is never likely to commandthe support of more than a relatively small milieu of marginal malcontents, evenunder conditions of substantial social collapse.

But the critique of civilization doesnt have to mean the ideological rejectionofeveryhistoricalsocialdevelopmentover the course of thelast 10or20,000years. e critique of progress doesnt mean that we need to return to a previous

wayof life orsetaboutconstructing some preconceived, idealized state ofnon-civilization. e critique of technology doesnt mean that we cant successfullyworkto eliminate only the mostegregious forms of technologicalproduction,consumption and control first,whileleavingthelessintensive, less socially-andecologically-destructiveforms of technology for later transformation orelimina-tion (while also, of course, aempting to minimize their alienating effects). Whatall this does mean is that it can be much more powerful to formulate a revolution-ary position that wont lend itself so readily to degeneration into ideology. Andthat primitivism, shorn of all its ideological proclivities, is beer off with anothername.

Whatshould a social revolutionaryperspective be called whichincludes cri-tiques ofcivilization,progress andtechnology,all integrated with critiques ofalienation, ideology, morality and religion? I cant say that there is any formula-tion that wont also have significant potential for degeneration into ideology. ButI doubt that we would do worse than primitivism.

I will likely continue to identify most with the simple label of anarchist,trusting in part that over time the most valid critiques now identified closely withprimitivism will be increasingly incorporated into and identified closely with theanarchistmilieu,both within anarchist theoryand anarchistpractice.Anarcho-leists wont like this process. And neither will anarcho-liberals and others. Butthe critique ofcivilization is here to stay,along withits corollary critiques ofprogress andtechnology. e continued deepening ofworldwide socialcrisesresulting from the unceasing developments of capital, technology and state will

not allow those anarchists still resistant to the deepening of critique to ignore theimplications of these crises forever.


22/35

22

We now stand at the beginning ofa new century.Manywould saywere nocloser to anarchynowthan we were a two centuries agointhetimes ofGodwin,CourderoyorProudhon. Manymore mightsay thatwe areincreasingly furtheraway.Or are we? If we can formulate a more powerful critique, more resistant to

the temptations of ideology; and if we can develop a more radical and intransigent,yetopen-ended practice,perhaps we stillhave a fighting chancetoinfluencetheinevitable revolutions still to come.


23/35

23

e Qestion of Primitivismby Alex Trotter

An anarchist search for the primitive actually involves multiple questions. Iscivilization itself really the problem? Is its overcoming a realistic possibility? Is itto be overthrown or abandoned?

eradicalanthropology thatmanyanarchists haverecently takeninterestin hasthe meritofdemonstratingthathumanityhas livedthe greatbulk of itstime on earth in hunter-gatherer bands free of class hierarchy, alienated divisionof labor, sexual inequality, and devastating technological warfare. In light of allthe failed revolutions of modern history it provides us with a glimpse of the onlyhuman communities that have ever really been what could be called anarchist orcommunist in a sustained and successfulway. isinitself is a powerfulcounterto Hobbesian and other ideologues who argue that the nature of the human beastrequires authoritarian controls. But drawing a politics out of this anthropology

is tricky. Civilization may well have been a mistake from the start, but it could besomethingthatwe are more or less stuck with. eidea ofprimitivismimplies, inits most radical form, a return to a golden age of hunter-gatherer society, althoughfew if any of even the most ardent critics of civilization advocate this course. Anabsolutist primitivism can arrive at the conclusion that the human species itselfisthe problem,with a resulting misanthropic nihilism.AlthoughIwillagreethatcivilization has deeply alienated humanity from the rest of nature, and that todayit seems to take on the aspect of a colossal prolonged train wreck, I dont believethatallof its products(e.g.,books,chess,wine, to name afew ofmyownlikes)are evil;some aspects ofcivilization are probablyworth preserving even asitsmore oppressive and harmful aspects deserve dismantling. We certainly need to

free ourselvesfrom atoxic overcivilization andreconcile with nature,but Iamskeptical about the feasibility and even desirability of an absolute destruction orabandonmentofcivilization. Beforereturningtothese questions, Iwillbrieflyexamine the origins of contemporary primitivism (if thats really what we wantto call it) and its quarrel with Marxism and leism.

Recent years have seen the emergence ofa green anarchism, but it shouldbe remembered that contemporary primitivism and its affines (deep ecology ex-cepted) have strong roots in European ultrale Marxism, or rather, in aempts totranscend it following the great near-revolution of 1968 in France and gatheringmomentum up tothe present time. Jacques Camae, formerlya memberofaBordiguist party, is one of the key figures and was an important influence on Fredy

Perlman and the Fih Estate. In the 1960s Stalinism was still very much dominantas an ideological opposition to capitalism, even in some Western countries such


24/35

24

as France and Italy. e rejection of Marxism involved not just Stalinism and thevarious nationalisticideologies(re)emergingfromits decay,however,butwentonto question eventheless authoritarian/ideologicaland more criticalstrandsofWestern Marxism such asleorcouncilcommunism andthe Situationist In-

ternationaland itsimitators,which had allseeminglyburned out infailure orirrelevance aer about 1970. e various theorists today associated with thegeneral idea and milieu of primitivismwent invarying directionsfromthere,mostly toward a criticalengagementwith an anarchismthathad begunto emergefrom a long eclipse. Among them Camae remains most indebted to Marx.

e Marxist schema of history had a place, albeit a rather small one, for prehis-tory inthe categoryof primitive communism,which would, thetheorywent,return on ahigher level throughthe historicaldialectic ofclass struggle. Ca-mae, and others such as Fredy Perlman and John Zerzan, came to the conclusionthat the working class could no longerbe consideredtherevolutionarysubject,and questionedthe supposed necessityof thelong detour through civilization

(thewandering ofhumanityor His-story)withitsvarious stages organizedaround modes of production. Marx, in contrast to just about any flavor of Marxistsyou canthink of, had some primitivist tendencies ofhis own, which can beseen, forexample, intheEthnological Notebooksandin his earlyParis writingson alienation, in which he pointedto communism asthe emergence ofhumancommunity, the natural man and woman whose free creativity, and not the devel-opmentofeconomicforces ofproduction, isthe goal. Athis best,Marxofferedthe perspective of radicalsubjectivity rather thanfaithin an objective processoperating by rigid teleology and economic determinism. Unfortunately, it is thelaer face of Marxism that the world has come to know all too well, and Engelsas well as Marx himself have to share part of the blame for that.

Another radical thinkerworth mentioninginthisregardis DwightMacdonald,also a refugee from le Marxism (in his case, Trotskyism), whose principal writ-ings date from the 1940s and 1950s, a time when Stalinism was even more firmlyentrenched, indeed at the zenith of its power. Macdonald was not a contemner ofcivilization as such(he was, infact, rather fond of the ancientGreeks,who were,he noted approvingly, technologically as primitive as they were esthetically civi-lized), but his well-reasoned critique of Marxism placed it firmly in the contextof the Western Enlightenment project of boundless faith in science, progress, andmastery over nature. Macdonald called for a renewal of an anarchism both indi-vidualist and communitarian, and free of the fetish of scientific socialism thathad sprungfrom classicalanarchistand Utopianthinkers as much asfrom Marx.ereemergence ofanarchism sincethe1960s hastaken a much more critical

stancetoward science andtechnology thanthatof the bearded prophets of the


25/35

25

19th century. Insofar as Macdonald helped lay the groundwork for that reemer-gence, he can be considered a forerunner of primitivism, although I get the sensethat he may not have entirely approved of it in its present manifestations.

Whatevergoodthereisthatpeople associate with civilization(e.g.,cultural,

spiritual,orethicalachievements)usuallyhasto do with something other thanjust making money, which is the alpha and omega of this society. e civilizationofCapital to the extent that it has a civilization of its own, apart from themarket andtechnology-driven mass culture is a parasitic patina overlyingtheculture of previous forms of society, which it continually decomposes, recomposes,and packages as an immense collection of commodities to be sold and consumed.Camae has described the present society in bleak terms as a material communityof capital in which the social classes of the classic Marxian polarity, bourgeoisieand proletariat alike, have been suppressed or superseded in a generalized humanslavery to wagelaborand the commodity,and in whichlifeitself increasinglytakes on the cast of virtual reality. In this society, by analogy with the Asiatic

mode of production, there may be revolts, but there is no exit through a dialecticof history.But if the proletariat (whether defined, classically, as those without ownership

ofmeans ofproduction, ormore broadly, by Castoriadis and the Situationists,as those without poweror control over their own lives) willnotserve asrev-olutionarysubjectand force ofnegationin modern society, then who orwhatwill? e antiwar, green, feminist, gay, and civil-rights new social movements(no longer very new at this point)coming out of the 1960s had theirown un-derstandable reasons for rejecting Marxism and the old workers movement, butthese movements have tended to become thoroughly integrated into capitalist so-ciety through postmodern academe and liberal or social democratic party politics.A deep ecologyperspective mightsee lile needfora human subject to effectrevolutionarychange,butmostanarchists, includingtheprimitivistsamongthem, do have a vision of social revolution. Although the society of capital seemsremarkably resilient, thereis(orwas,at least,until very recently)at leastsomecause for optimism. Resistance to all the various ideological, technological, andinstitutional supports of this society continues and seemed to be increasing dra-matically,although whatwillnow happeninthe currentdriveto war is a bigquestion mark.

e theory of the proletariat enunciated in the 19th century has lost its credi-bilitybut retains a half-lifethatcontinuestoresonate. Bob Black,who is notaprimitivistperse butshares manyelements ofa primitivistcritique of techno-logical society, put it this way: e (sur)rational kernel of truth in the mystical

Marxistshell isthis: theworking class isthelegendary revolutionaryagent:but only if, by not working, it abolishes class. Zeroworktakes the refusal or


26/35

26

withdrawalof laboras the starting pointofanyeffort to change orescapethisworld,only it rejectsleisteffortsto organize suchrefusal through parties andunions. It is necessarily ambivalent (agnostic?) on the question of civilization andtechnology. Inlooking atwaystofree humanity from work, there are different

directionsin whichtoturn. Paul La Fargue arguedforautomation underworkercontrol, as did the Situationists. In this scenario technology can be seen as a poten-tial help and not necessarily as an unmitigated force of oppression. e potentialdownside is that it entails a continued dependency on technology. en there isthe example of the hunter-gatherer peoples, who work hardly at all and dont useor need automation because nature makes available to them everything they need.Giventhat re-creating suchlifewaysintheiroriginalPaleolithicformsis nighimpossible,however, this example has practical limits as a model for transformingour own lives.

In consideringthe importance(ornot)of the working classit is well to ob-serve that most people in the world are not (post)industrial workers, but peasants.

erelationshiptothelandis most important,and the categories ofdiscourseassociated with Marx and other 19th-century radicals are still relevant, especiallythe emphasis on capitalisms origins as an agricultural revolution. Camae, whoadvocates movements based on community rather than class, has wrien muchonthis subject. e conceptofcommunity isfrustratingly vague when appliedto contemporaryWestern societies,but is easier to seeinrelationtothatgreaterpart of the world where capital has still not completely penetrated the traditionalsocieties, and social formations whose roots predate capitalism are still the norm.In his essayon the Russian Revolution,Camae emphasizedthe populist,peas-ant-based dimensionrather thanthe class-struggle dialectic ofbourgeoisie vs.proletariat. He madethe casethat the workerscouncils werein a sense exten-sions of the peasant commune, because many of the insurrectionary workersin the rapidly industrializing Russia of that time were recent migrants from thecountryside, where communalsocial forms prevailed. Today, in non-Westernsocieties, urbanization and industrialization continue to grow and capital makesfurther inroadsthroughthe same means bywhichit became establishedintheWest: enclosures andthe uprooting ofpeoplefromtheirmeans ofsubsistenceon the land. But there is stillat least a trace ofcommunitarian dimension inworkers lives. Peoplein manyparts ofAfrica and Asia, forexample,who havebecome workers in cities still have family, food, and other resources in their nativevillages in the countryside. ese regions are poor in relation to North America,Western Europe,andJapan,but inthe eventof far-reachingindustrialcollapseitis conceivabletheymightactually fare beerbased onthis survivingrelationship

to the land.


27/35

27

Ifpeasant-based socialism weretotake hold on alarge scale,manyareas ofthe world could be pulled out of the global market. But as long as capital remainssecurely in power inits metropolitan stongholds, this scenario probablywontwork. Indeed, itcan be saidto have beentried already. ird-World Stalinism

was already this aempt in many regions where, in part because of colonialism,a native bourgeoisie never reallydeveloped. Peasants have served asthe footsoldiers for many revolutions, but these have all been projects of state-run capitaloverseen byMarxistand nationalistpey-bourgeois bureaucrats.Asthe1917 rev-olution in Russia remained isolated and fought the White Terror with Red Terror,the Bolshevik party-state presided over the imposition of industrial society in thatcountry. is became a paern repeated several times disastrously throughout the20th century as many poor nations aempted to follow the totalitarian model ofSoviet or Chinese Stalinism. e world is still reeling from this process, althoughit now seems to have run its course.

Apeasant communalism free of statist bureaucatic mediation would be worthy

of support for the obstacle it could pose to the spread of capitals real dominationto everycornerof the world and all facets of life. It would still,ofcourse, bebased on agriculture, so it would not reallybe an alternativeto civilization assuch. In Zerzansview agricultureistheindispensable basis ofcivilization,andliberation is impossible without its dissolution. In the most developed capitalistnations, cities are home to the majority of the population, the separation ofpeople from the land is nearly total, and agriculture is carried out as an intenselyindustrialized process. Butpracticallyno one, including Zerzan, imaginesthateither cities or agriculture could be abandoned overnight. A transition there wouldcertainly have to be, and it would probably be a prolonged process undertaken, ifhistory is any indicator, in the teeth of determined counterrevolutionary effortsaimed at therestoration of the old socialorder (unlessthe present ruling elitessimply throwinthe towelpeacefullya seeminglyunlikelybutnot impossiblescenario). Would wethen be anticipating a withering awayofagriculture, toreplacethe Marxists withering away of the state? e abolition ofworkisa moreflexibleidea andis probablymorelikely to catch on withthe plebeianmultitudes than calls to abolish civilization and technology. But there is a certainutopian maximalisminthis as well. eseideas mightserve beeras starstonavigate by,while we sailon Fouriers seas of lemonade,seeking ourNorthwestpassage, than as actual destinations. Work can be radically minimized; it isdoubtful that itcan everbe entirelyeliminated. Aslong as were notactuallyliving as gatherers and hunters, some production must take place. Surely there hasto b e a w ay to accomplish it without domination and coercion ofour fellow human

beings,or insult totherestofnature. esmall is beautiful ideais appealing.Appropriate technologies,citygardens(horticulture),and,whereverpossible,


28/35

28

therevivalofartisanal rather thanindustrialproduction are possibilities. esheer size of the earths human population, however, might make these solutionsdifficult toimplementunderallcircumstances. Evenif industrialsocietywerecut down to size right now, the regeneration of nature could take a considerable

time. Inthe eventofanotherdevastating world war-at this moment,alas,notjust possible, but likely-resulting in the destruction of much of humansociety, thesurvivors may indeed be compelled to live as primitivists.


29/35

29

Why Primitivism (without adjectives)

Makes Me Nervousby Lawrence Jara

Anarcho-primitivism opposes civilization, the context within which the var-iousforms ofoppression proliferate and become pervasive and, indeed,possible. e aim is to develop a synthesis.of the ecologically focused, non-statist, anti-authoritarian aspects ofprimitive lifeways with the most ad-vancedforms ofanarchist analysis ofpower relations. e aim is not toreplicate or returntothe primitive, [but]merely to seethe primitive as asource of inspiration, as exemplifying forms of anarchy.

John Moore,A Primitivist Primer

Presenting a vision of a world unencumbered by hierarchical politics and tech-nological domination over human and non-human life, anarcho-primitivism hasmuchto contributeto antiauthoritarian discourse. e analytical value ofan-archo-primitivism is that hardly any aspect ofhuman culture escapes criticalexamination; fromthevery foundations ofagriculture and mass production, totheinterrelationship betweenthese phenomena andinstitutionalizedforms ofhierarchy and domination, very lile is taken for granted. Where anarchists havetraditionallycritiquedthe manifestations ofhierarchical thinking and authori-tarian social relations,anarcho-primitivists aackthe assumptions behindthatthinking.

Anarcho-primitivists are quick to point to the 99% of human existence beforethe adventofagriculture, the period of the primacyofgathering-hunting eco-

nomic and social arrangements. is primal human life-way, characterized by theabsence of institutionalizedforms ofpower,showsthatsomethingradicallydiffer-ent from the current regime of transnational industrial capitalism and politics-ananarchic arrangement infact-is notonlypossible,buthas had an enduring andsuccessful trackrecord. Further, the existence and durabilityof these anarchiccultures showsthat the developmentofa hierarchicaland predatoryeconomicand political system is neither necessary nor inevitable.

Communism, syndicalism, individualism, and feminism all have anarchists whoadhere to them to one degree or another. But without the anarcho- in front, theseideologies are merely variations on the themes of statism and authoritarianism.Primitivism is no different. e critique and rejection of industrial capitalism and

technologically dominated civilization is not the monopoly of antiauthoritarianthinkers and activists. Some who are aractedto primitivism are partisans of


30/35

30

misanthropyand other forms ofdomination. Anarchists who areinterestedinextendingtherelevance ofprimitivist ideas needto distancethemselvesfromthese dead ends.

Authoritarian primitivism

Authoritarian primitivists disregard the example of gatherer-hunters; they seethis form of culture as irrelevant. ey are more interested in non-technologizedeuro-american culturalsurvival. (ManyDeep Ecologists andthefirstgenerationof Earth First! prior to the hippie/redneck split belong in this category.) e seden-tary village societies of Celtic, Teutonic and/or Norse cultivators and hunters areseen as relevant models. at they had warrior castes and raiding as an integralpart of their cultures seems to be ofno concern to authoritarian primitivists;indeed,manyconsider this heroic. Such a predatorysystemled directly tothe

establishment of the European feudalorder; it seemsthatauthoritarian primi-tivists wish to revitalize this decentralized social and economic arrangement withthemselves asthe heads of theirown fiefdoms. eyare not interestedintheabolition of the division of labor or of the state; their model requires the adherenceto the philosophy of might makes right.

is tendency is marked by a mythical understanding of land; bioregionalism(the idea that only indigenous flora and fauna belong in their native ecosystems) ismade to apply to humans as well.Bioregionalist primitivists promote theso-callednatural or organic belonging of a particular people/nation/ethnicity to a particulargeographicalarea. exenophobic populism andracistnationalismimplicit insuch a perspectiveis notdifficult to spot. It is also easy to seethe similaritiesbetween authoritarian primitivism andthevolksgemeinschaand blutund boden

aspects of nazi ideology. is is not to say that all primitivists are crypto-fascists,but there are many characteristics of authoritarian primitivism that overlap withparts of National Socialism.

Authoritarian primitivismis also characterized by the promotion of theideathat there are too many people in the world relative to too few resources. Sucha perspective is supposed to be based on scientific analyses. e elevation ofScience(notempiricism,but the belief thatScienceis some kind ofneutralandobjective endeavor,a pure method ofarriving at Truth) to anideology leaveslargerquestions unexamined. Politicaland ideologicalassumptionsinform allscience, and no knowledge is separable form the use to which it is put. e fieldof biology is no exception. Biologism, a belief in the accuracy of euro-american

biological science, plays a major part in the uglier manifestations of authoritarianandvulgarprimitivism. If the assumptionisthat the multitude of traditionally


31/35

31

dispossessed people are a threat to the few who possess much, then any scientist especially biological determinists will provide the rationale for maintainingthat dispossession.

e mantra of too many mouths tofeed is as old asit is false. Biological

research has nothing to do with the deliberate destruction of tons of grains in orderto maintain maximum profits, the waste of water and plant foods to maintain themeat industry, or government subsidies for the dairy industry; these are politicaland economic policies.But itdoes have everythingto do withthefield ofgeneticmodification of seed crops, which is supposed to feed the multitudes, but is usedmerely to maximize profits for the patent-holders of whatever frankenfoods result.Clearly biology is not some neutral way of examining life. Even so, authoritarianprimitivists latch on to the most reactionary pronouncements of neo-Malthusianbiologists as if it were the only game in town. We are treated to such memorableterms as carrying capacity with no examination of what it is thats being carried.It isnt the human and non-human populations of a given ecosystem; it is of course

the current organization of industrial capitalism and the profits of the beneficiariesof it.

Vulgar primitivism

Vulgar primitivism may be characterized primarily by a romantic idealization ofprimal cultures.From this type ofprimitivist we can hear uncritical celebrationsofgatherer-hunters as egalitarian and peaceful people who live without any divisionof labor, in total harmony with themselves, each other, and their environments.In these cultures there is no state to be sure, and the locations of power are rarelyinstitutionalized and almostalways distributed horizontally. ere are other types

of cultures that share these same characteristics. Pastoralists possess domesticatedanimals and engage in small-scale and subsistence agriculture, and they have noinstitutionalized power structures either; this type of culture is certainly worthyof study for the same reasons gatherer-hunters are. But vulgar primitivists havelileinterest in pastoralists and small-scale agriculturalists. isis a selective(some might say manipulative) use of the anthropological literature.

e accusation of primitivists wanting to go back to the StoneAge is most ap-plicable to vulgar primitivists. Some primitivists proudly proclaim that they reallydo want to live that way, if we can believe many of the articles in the mainstreampress concerning contemporary anarchists. e most serious primitivist theoristsIknow,and whose essaysIveread,advocate a simplernon-industrializedlife,

with much lower impact on the environment; they are interested in permaculture,composting toilets, wild foods, self sufficiency and generally living off the grid.


32/35

32

etechnological levelofsuch a culture would mostclosely resemblerural lifeinthe pre-IndustrialRevolution era,combined with a backtothelandethos oflate 20th century America. Tools and production methods up to and including the16th throughthe early 19th centuries mightbetotallyappropriatefor thatkind

of life. is model also fits in well with the idea of local, small-scale autonomouscommunitiesthatnetwork or federate with each other-a usual (butnot the only)anarchist model.

Vulgarprimitivists alsolatch onto biologism. is can be seenin some prim-itivistdiscourse concerning overpopulation. e anti-primitivistaccusation ofpromotion ofamass die-off comesinto playhere,andthe morevulgarprimi-tivists are reluctant to respond to it, apparently because they dont think a massdie-off ofhumans would be such a bad thing. e misanthropy inherent inthis perspectiveis self-defeatingforantiauthoritarians. Misanthropy veryeasilylends itself to authoritarian ideas and practices; if people in general are inherentlystupid and destructive,doesnt itmake senseto have some kind ofenlightened

leadershipto oversee us,so thatwe donthurtourenvironments orourselves?isis one of the mostbasic authoritarianlies. In addition, thereis a clearcon-tradiction to this generalized misanthropy from within primitivism: how canvulgar primitivists justify the idea of an implacable human drive for destruction ifhumans existed so well forhundreds andthousands of years-withoutdestroyingtheir environments and each other?

e people who should be held directly accountable for the rampant destructionof the natural world are the scientists who (re-)engineer its genetic structure, thecapitalists who profit from its exploitation, and the ideologists who justify all ofit. is is a small part of humanity (both historically and contemporarily); eventhough a majority of people in the North benefits from the continuation of thisregime ofdestruction, responsibilityshould be placed whereitbelongs-withthosewho create and maintain that regime. Primitivists discredit themselves when theyblamehumanity (as ifwe were some kind ofplague). is diverts aentionaway from the real culprits.

Vulgarprimitivists havetakenthe accusations hurled atprimitivism byanti-primitivists as badges of honor. So they promote the reactionary ideas that thereare too many mouths to feed, and that a critique of industrial technology neces-sarilymeansreturningto a Paleolithic existence. eyare knee-jerk anti-anti-primitivists with nearly no capacity for independent critical thinking, nor do theyseem capable of threading their way through a coherent discussion about what itactually means to reject technological society.


33/35

33

Anarist primitivism

Aself-conscious anarcho-primitivism needs to begin with a critical examina-tion of the gatherer-hunter cultures that are discussed in various ethnographies.

Anarcho-primitivists need to show that this type of culture is a valuable theoreti-caland philosophicalguidefor living without industrial technology,capitalism,and the state.

ere are several questions that need to be answered when relying so heavilyon anthropological literature, however. How much of the ethnography is based onthe (possibly idealized) interpretations of the anthropologist doing the fieldwork?How muchisthe supposed egalitarianism of the actualculturerecognizabletous as antiauthoritarians? Is the supposedlack of violencerecognizableto us?Arethe sexual division of laborand the separate spheres ofactivitybased ongender,age,and ability recognizableto us as positive examples ofa stateless,non-hierarchical culture?

What if gatherer-hunter cultures do not provide us with fully positive modelsofanarchic cultures those that an average anarchist would recognize as agood place to live? Does it undercut the primitivist critique if there is lileorno reliance on ethnographies ofgatherer-hunters? Probablynot;no seriousanarcho-primitivistpromotes an uncriticalemulation or adoption of foraging,pastoralist,and small-scale agriculturalistculture. What is neededis a criticalexamination ofsuch cultures and the various ways the people in them havemanagedto exclude and prevent the formation of institutionalized structuresofdomination and exploitation. Combined with an equally critical anarchistanalysis of the banal system of technologized industrial capitalism in the Northand the regime of brutal accumulation and extraction of wealth from the South,

anarcho-primitivism could become the most coherent analytical framework forunderstanding and combating the current trend of globalization.

For an anti-ideological anaro-primitivism

Many primitivists adhere to ideas that are pulled from one or more of thethree tendencies Ive identified for the purposes of this essay. It is ofcrucialimportance for anarcho-primitivists to promote self-examination and a critiqueof the untenable positionsthat various primitiviststake.When primitiviststalkabouta visceralorspiritualconnectiontotheland andthe plants and animals

living there, anarcho-primitivists need to caution them about the relationship ofthis kind of mysticism to authoritarian ideologies. When primitivists talk about


34/35

34

overpopulation andcarrying capacity,anarcho-primitivists needto pointoutthe reactionary nature of Malthusianism.

Similarly, when anti-primitivists accuse primitivists of being in favor of a racistmass die-off, anarcho-primitivists need to remind them that it is the people in the

un- or partially-industrialized South (whom anti-primitivists patronizingly wantto protect)who willsurvive any temporary-orpermanent-collapse of industrial-ized capitalism. ey possess the best resources to survive any such disintegration.Infact, it isthosefully integratedinto and dependentontransnationaleuro-amer-ican capitalism who would suffer most when the store shelves are empty and theelectricity stops.

An anarchist primitivism worthy of support would reject scientism, biologism,andthe selective and uncriticalembrace ofanthropological researchinto gatherer-hunter cultures. It would also reject the reactionary misanthropy of blaming allhumans for the domination and exploitation carried out by the rich and powerful.Further, itwouldreject theinstinctive humanism of liberalism and socialismin

favorofa balance betweenthe actualneeds ofhumans andthe preservation andintegrity of the natural world.


35/35

eAnarchist LibraryAnti-Copyright

May21,2012

Various AuthorsA Dialog on Primitivism

Two part special in Anarchy AJournal ofDesireArmed 5152Retrieved on February 21st, 2009 fromwww.insurgentdesire.org.uk
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/

Various Authors a Dialog on Primitivism

Documents

Transcript of Various Authors a Dialog on Primitivism