Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:46:36 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism


hello all

Chuck0 wrote:
> >>Sorry, Iain, but that's a poor excuse to marginalize a movement
> >>controversy that goes back over 60 years.
> >
> > 60 years? I was under the impression it was only (at most) about
> > 10 years old, in its extreme version anyway.
> >
> > But eco-anarchism does date back a long way -- at least to Kropotkin.
> 
> There were primitivist debates happening within the Japanese anarchist
> movement in the 1930s. They may not have used the label, but the
> rhetoric and arguments were amazingly similar to today's controversies.

No, they were not. The anarcho-communists you were talking about were
arguing for a return to a decentralised, peasant based economy within
the context of a predominately peasant based economy. They were not
talking about "civilisation collapsing" in a highly developed industrial
society where most people are separated from the land. That is an
important difference.

The Japanese anarchists of the 1930s were interesting people. They were
taking Kropotkin's ideas and applying them to a peasant society. I don't
think they were suggesting the end of, say, agriculture and even basic
industrial techniques on a small/medium-scale.

> > Most of the general public
> >>doesn't understand nuances within the movement and think we are all crazy:
> >>
> >>http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=779109
> >
> > and we should not make it worse!
> 
> Why not? I should have been more clear in my statement.
> 
> Some of the general public thinks that we are nuts. Many just don't know
> anything about us.

I think we need to help show that we are not nuts, and that means
saying we don't want the end of civilisation overnight. And hospitals
and such like.

> I don't know Iain, I think anarchists who march with the Stalinists make
> it worse for us in the public's eyes.

Talking part in anti-war marches is somewhat different. I went on all
the London ones. I "marched with" Stalinists, muslims, trots, and
liberal
democrats. But for every one of them I "marched with" I marched with
1000+ normal people. And I tried to get anarchist ideas to them.

maybe its different in the US, but over here the anti-war marches were
popular protests. I did not think Stalinists were that numerous in the
US :)

But anarchists should be calling marches, that is true!

> And what's wrong with being who we are? I've spent many years trying to
> put a good face on anarchism, but I have to admit that we have a right
> to be ourselves, even if that perpetuates bad stereotypes.

I don't see there is a contradiction. We should present our ideas in
clear, simple language and over the basic objections. Primitivists,
as far as I see, don't do that.
 
<snip>

> > Primitivists seem to reject this pretty obvious fact in favour of
> > talk of "civilisation" collapsing and the dismissal of federations,
> > workers' control and "industry". which sounds like a nightmare to me,
> > as it would most people.
> 
> The problem with your argument is that primitivists don't agree on this
> stuff. Some of them see primitivism as a warning about what could happen.

so they are primitivists because primitivism would be so
terrible?!?!?!?!
Ultimately, leninists don't agree on lots of stuff -- but trots and
stalinists are not that fun!

The primitivists I've come across talk about civilisation collapses.
That
only means one thing, sorry. If I had to choose between the mass
starvation
that would cause and the continuation of modern society, I would pick
the
latter. Luckily, that is not the choice we have.

> Hey, I'm against industry!

I'm against the current industrial system and aim for a more
eco-friendly
system which combines appropriate technology and agriculture. I just see
that it will take a wee while to achieve. I don't talk about the
collapse
of civilisation and other such nonsense. I talk of social revolution and
present ways of achieving a better society.

That is the key issue for me. Primitivism has no revolutionary
perspective,
preferring flippant radical sounding words to clear analysis.

Iain