Anarcho-primitivism, primitivism and why not all primitivists are nice people.

[apathy maybe]

(I can't remember if I'm promised this before or not. Anyway, I've just cleaned it up, added some references and so on. So, here you go.)

I won't bother explaining what primitivism is here, I assume you already know what it is (at least the basics). Instead, what I intend to do here is show that while some primitivists might "legitimately" (and I quote this because I know that there are numerous other anarchists who would refute the claim that any primitivist could be an anarchist, but allow me to explain) claim the title "anarchist", others most definitely can't.

Anarcho-primitivists are those primitivists who have an anarchist critique of civilisation (no matter how incorrect you may think it is), and thus come to the conclusion that, for an and to domination, oppression, hierarchy etc. (all those things that anarchists want to bring to an end), and the creation of a free society (etc. see previous parentheses), civilisation itself must be brought to an end.

Now that I've brought that term (civilisation) into the matter, I guess I should explain what I mean... There are a number of different definitions around the place. These range in scope and effect, from simply discussing modern society, to going in-depth into the development of writing and "complex political and social institutions" http://www.answers.com/civilization (accessed 19/02/2007). One anarchist definition describes civilisation as "a network of institutions, structures and systems that impose social relationships of dominations and exploitation" http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/wd3-3civil.html (accessed 19/02/2007). Because definitions vary such a lot, you should check the meaning of terms before condemning people based on labels... (See also the piece Anti-civilisation? Whatever do you mean? http://old.revleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=5004 .)

Then, there is another sort of primitivists. These are the environmental type and have a different reason to want to end civilisation and bring about a massive reduction in the human population. These sort often (I hesitate to say always) dislike (sometimes, I dare say, dislike is not strong enough) humanity because of the environmental damage caused by the species homo sapiens sapiens.


The difference between the two sorts is at least two fold, one would doubtfully care about how to get to primitivism (so long as it didn't cause too much environmental damage, though there are many who predict massive environmental catastrophe), and the other, to stick to the anarchist principles must refuse to promote oppressive, hierarchical, non-voluntary methods (such as the forced sterilisation of nearly everyone...).

This leaves the anarcho-primitivists in a sticky situation then, how can they get to their preferred society? For some it may well be a case of, it is a critique and nothing more; for others, perhaps they are promoting voluntary population control (though it doesn't seem to be working in most parts of the world...).




So, thus there are two sorts (at least) of primitivist, the two intersect sometimes, often anarchists are environmentalists too, after all, but there are two distinct beasts.




For the environmentalists that also care about people, there appears to me to be only one sure solution. And that is industrialisation and sustainable development. History and demographies show us that in the richer over-developed world, populations are either stabilising, shrinking, or only slightly rising (discounting the effects of immigration). Where as, the major population growths have been in the under-developed world, and that is where they continue.



There are other critiques of primitivism, most of mine that aren't based around the question "how do we get there", center on the problem of prevent the re-occurrence of technology, the "other" (racism etc.) and hierarchy. To put it basically, without ICT (information communication technology), without the ability to communicate vast distances, and to store the reasons why technology is bad..., there is nothing to stop such things from coming back! Of course, there is the other critique, that both sorts of primitivism romanticise and ignore the (pre)historical facts. Firstly, humans are capable of causing massive amounts of environmental damage with the most rudimentary of tools (see the Sahara desert for example, as well as Australia and the Americas). Secondly, hunter-gather tribes weren't the anarchist utopias that many people like to imagine (see also my paper on communism). There was often fighting between different tribes, and there were strict hierarchies within tribes (the chief and witchdoctor on top...). Again, technology is required to preserve the information that would stop environmental damage, and to rout the superstitious.



It is my opinion that the anarcho-primitivist critique of society has some weight. Not a large amount (I suggest that they are targeting the wrong target, and that it is not technology per say that is the problem, but rather the society around it).


Post-addendum: I have read that anarchism is the contention that there can be a free mass technological society. That primitivism (of all sorts) is not and cannot be part of anarchism (claim made by Andrew Flood in (among other places, no doubt) Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others. "That a free technological society is possible is - as I have argued - the central point of anarchism."
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1890 (accessed 19/02/2008) Using the definition that I use for anarchism, this is not. however, correct. Flood is welcome to his definition, I will continue to use my though. For those of you not familiar with it, it basically states that if a person desires a non-hierarchical, free, oppression-less, volunteerenist society, then that person can be called an anarchist. Very broad I know.


Post-addendum2:
"I would suggest that primitivism is essentially a catastrophistic, fatalistic, and historically deterministic philosophy---they think that all thosepeople are going to die off whether we like it or not, becuase of the predicted crisis. At which point the primitivists who survive will be able to start rebuilding an anarchist society, or whatever. No revolutionary intervention is neccesary---the crisis will destroy existing society for us, and then we can rebuild it how we like." by Nil, 2 Dec 2005 in a comment made in response to the Flood article referenced above and found at www.anarkismo.net.

(Are then primitivists our comrades? Well, I would have to say that they aren't really. We may well be "fellow travellers" on this road to anarchy, but even the anarchist primitivists have major flaws in their thinking, strategies and plans. As such, I reject all primitivists from the inner-inner circle of my ideological comrades. But, because of the ideas and reasons, because of the emotional desire (and end to hierarchy, and, perhaps, environmentalism), I would not say that the anarchist primtivists are enemies.)
This paragraph is also reproduced in "What is anarchism, an attempt at building a framework".

[Black Dagger]

For those of you not familiar with it, it basically states that if a person desires a non-hierarchical, free, oppression-less, volunteerenist society, then that person can be called an anarchist. Very broad I know.

I think an important aspect of 'what defines an anarchist' is how they organise for an anarchist society - not just their goals - but how they achieve them. Indeed, 'means shape ends' type arguments are often brought up in anarchist criticisms of authoritarian socialists - so why exclude this from your definition?

After all, most marxists desire 'a non-hierarchical, free, oppression-less, volunteerenist society' that is basically communism - a stateless classless society - so many if not most serious marxists would be erroneously included as 'anarchists' by this definition - this is why i think it is important to stress anarchist means when defining 'what is an anarchist?' - how we get there not just, 'what do we want'.

[apathy maybe]

Well, that is certainly true, and I've stressed that in other pieces (have a quick look in the Anarchist group). What I have tried to stress here is the difference between authoritarian primitivists (as it were) and anarchist primitivists. Hence why I said,
that anarcho-primtivists "to stick to the anarchist principles must refuse to promote oppressive, hierarchical, non-voluntary methods".

I'm trying to say that anarchists are OK, even if they are misguided; and those primitivists who want to use authoritarian methods to get a primitivist system aren't OK.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, that is certainly true, and I've stressed that in other pieces (have a quick look in the Anarchist group). What I have tried to stress here is the difference between authoritarian primitivists (as it were) and anarchist primitivists. Hence why I said,
that anarcho-primtivists "to stick to the anarchist principles must refuse to promote oppressive, hierarchical, non-voluntary methods".

I'm trying to say that anarchists are OK, even if they are misguided; and those primitivists who want to use authoritarian methods to get a primitivist system aren't OK.

Do some primitivists actually support authoritarian measures in order to reduce the human population?

My understanding has been that they're just expecting a "breaking point" in human history, followed by a mass extinction of some sort.

[Dimentio]

To understand non-pacifist anarcho-primitivism I recommend to look at Derrick Jensen.

Endgame part 1
Endgame part 2

[Kropotesta]

erm alot of primitivists believe that the population will naturally fall due to infant mortality, lack of healthcare, food, water etc until we get to a sustainable population.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

erm alot of primitivists believe that the population will naturally fall due to infant mortality, lack of healthcare, food, water etc until we get to a sustainable population.

Doesn't mean that sustainable society won't be technological.

[Kropotesta]

primivitism is the rejection of technology and civilisation as awhole.
not entirely for enviromental reasons either.

[Vanguard1917]

After all, most marxists desire 'a non-hierarchical, free, oppression-less, volunteerenist society' that is basically communism - a stateless classless society

Marxists also believe that such a society - a modern communist society without classes and states - can only exist alongside highly developed economic conditions. Thus we can have no sympathy for the neo-Malthusians and anti-development eco-worriers that exist within the non-Marxist movements.

I was at an 'anarchist meeting' once where people were moaning about the masses in China and India having refridgerators in their homes as a result of economic development and rising living standards.

'If people in China and India were to have the same living standards that we do in the West, we would need 10 planets!!'

As a Marxist, you realise that you have nothing whatsoever in common with these middle class Western eco-miserabilists masquerading as 'anti-capitalists'.

[Dean]

I think an important aspect of 'what defines an anarchist' is how they organise for an anarchist society - not just their goals - but how they achieve them. Indeed, 'means shape ends' type arguments are often brought up in anarchist criticisms of authoritarian socialists - so why exclude this from your definition?

After all, most marxists desire 'a non-hierarchical, free, oppression-less, volunteerenist society' that is basically communism - a stateless classless society - so many if not most serious marxists would be erroneously included as 'anarchists' by this definition - this is why i think it is important to stress anarchist means when defining 'what is an anarchist?' - how we get there not just, 'what do we want'.

I don't see Marxism as distinctly un-anarchist. Vanguardism is, but I think Marx's theories can be utilized in a sense of continual decentralization, which itself shapes the end - a primarily decentralized, unauthoritarian society.