From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: primitivism and anarchism
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:14:54 -0000




Chuck0 wrote


>> You know, Iain, I wish the FAQ had more positive stuff like this, 
>> because you and I can agree on this


and I commented 


> Make that "you, I, and the vast majority of anarchists
> who are alive now or who have ever been alive at any time"


Of course there are as many different anarchist opinions
as there are anarchists. But nevertheless there are some
things that you can say are true of  _all_  anarchists,
Wanting to get rid of government is one of them. Another
thing that is true of all, or virtually all, anarchists
is the idea that getting rid of government would lead to 
a de-centralisation of population. Not a die-off of vast
swathes of humanity, as some eco-fascistic "primitivists" 
clearly want, you understand, but a drift or movement 
of population away from places which exist solely 
or mainly as centres of government or bureaucracy. 

Mind you , there are some anarchists who  _like_  city
life, there are some who screw their faces up at the idea
of life "down on the farm". I have heard it argued that
the good things about city life are cultural, that you 
can access more variety of people, music, food, entertainment,
etc. in the big city. But even anarchists who kind of
like living in the big city, for this reason, tend to 
acknowledge, when you talk things through with them, 
that places like London would inevitably lose a lot 
of their population in a society without government. 
There would be a de-centralisation of variety 
of people, music, food, entertainment, etc.  

Another thing that virtually all anarchists would agree
on is that some products of this society are positively
harmful and would have no place in their ideal society.
So for work-places producing such products, it would
either be a case of "beating swords into ploughshares",
or, if this was not possible, then closing the place down.

Since these are fairly basic things that I think all,
or virtually all, anarchists would agree on, when 
Chuck0 said
  

> there are anarchists walking around who don't see 
> much change in how we would live.


I questioned that assertion, and asked him to name
just  ONE . The reason for asking for the name of
an individual is so that we can check with that individual 
to see whether this is true of them, or whether it's
just Chuck0's mistaken impression of their views. 

The question relates specifically to  _individuals_ .
It would not be an answer to the question to give the name
of a group or organisation, for instance, the IWW. The reason
why giving the name of a group or organisation would not
answer the question is that this would make it virtually
impossible to check. If you contact the IWW, for instance,
and ask them for how they see things developing in the longer
term  _after_  the revolution, you are unlikely to get any
clear answer, because the members of the IWW (some of whom
call themselves anarchist and some of whom do not) will 
have different views on this. They will either spend forever 
trying to come to an agreed group position on this, or, 
more likely, simply decide that they have more important 
things to do with their time in the here and now. However, 
if you ask an  _individual_  member of the IWW about this, 
and make it clear that all you are asking for is their 
individual opinion, and not IWW policy, then you are more 
likely to get a quick and reasonably clear answer. So, 
Chuck0, even if you think that members of such-and-such 
group "don't see much change in how we would live", 
you have to come up with the name of an  _individual_  
member of that group who you believe this is true of, 
so that we can check with them to see if it's true.

Dave C