From: "Mike P" <wobbly8-AT-mail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:03:09 -0500
Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism


<SPAN id=obmessage>Sorry, for the lateness of this reply, i don't get to use a computer often. 
<P><SPAN id=obmessage></P>
<P><"Mike P" (I think, he didn't actually sign what he wrote) says ></P>
<P>Is this some sort of legal contract??<BR><BR><...In this extended meaning, it is fair to say that anarchism, ALL forms of anarchism, is a phenomenon  of the "left". It therefore follows that, by this extended  meaning, either the primitivists are themselves on the "left" politically speaking, or they are nothing to do with anarchism.><BR></P>
<P>What does it matter if statists sat on the left hand side or the right side of parliament(or whatever they called the hole)? Anarchists for the most part are anti-political, they have no desire to participate in the State. Why then insist upon associating with those who stand on the left hand side of the government? Anarchists are anarchists and i hope that if there is a revolution there will be no institutions to stand on the left or right side of. i am opposed to decree, whether it be for my benefit or not.</P>
<P><BR><<why call ourselves anarchists if we are really traditionalists and conservatives?><BR><BR><it is not a question which has any meaning when directed towards those anarchists who disagree with the "primitivists" (or, in other words, to all anarchists).> <BR></P>
<P>Why, do you have some sort of veto power or something? if an anarchist suggests to me that they adhere to certain traditions, i should definitely call them on it. anarchy has nothing to do with ideology or tradition.</P>
<P><< question for you>><BR><Fr who? Who is this "you"?></P>
<P>I was addressing the individual who made the remark, not the holy anarchist choir.<BR><BR><BR><<on of domination, what place does tradition have in the anarchist critique?>><BR><BR><"Tradition" isn't the issue. HISTORY is. Some airheads take the view that "anarchism is anything you want it to be". But what if you want it to be the project for establishing a utopian colony on the planet Mars, and you accept that, in order to achieve this, you will, unfortunately, have to establish a ("temporary") world government to finance and organise this huge project? What if you want it to mean that you reject anybody else having dominion over you, but you think that you becoming Ruler of the World is perfectly compatible with your "anarchism"?></P>
<P>How is tradition not the issue. if someone says the traditions of anarchism are important for present practise and i ask why they adhere to traditions, Tradition is the issue. That's basic logic and critical thought. Further, history itself is a tradition, a tradition of States and the civilized. If history is some Truth never to be touched, please explain the anarchist part to me and i'll step in line.</P>
<P>So instead of installing a universal government we produce a universal definition of anarchism according to History. Anarchy becomes something sacred, it becomes entrenched and all encompassing. You would perhaps refuse to admit this is a religion and a State. Where does individuality come into your definitions and anarchist encyclopaedias? Do you forget that people have dreams apart from what you would like to see? (it is interesting that you came up with this nonsense. you have an interesting way of telling people i distort what people say and then change what i have said to mean something completely different. You make a wonderful His-storian)<BR></P>
<P><The reality is that anarchism has a historical existence as a movement. This movement has been rich and varied and will produce more richness and variety in the future. But nevertheless anarchism is not just "anything you want it to be". It has meaning. Saying so is not appealing to "tradition". Instead it is just a simple matter of understanding history and using plain common sense.></P>
<P>Please give references to this historical existence as a movement. i've never heard of it. Rich? i thought it was a working class movement?? Are you saying anarchy is whatever you want it to be? What about those poor suckers who don't have an understanding of history, nor common sense? What shall anarchist doctrine say of them?<BR><BR><<Are you an anarchist simply because you believe in certain traditions?<BR> <That question is really so stupid it isn't worth answering. Nobody is an anarchist just because they believe in tradition.></P>
<P>So what worth do these traditions have? Why are you holding onto the shitrope with such fury?<BR><BR><<do we run carrying black/red flags to collectivize the call centres, do we c ontinue offshore oil drilling, how about developing an anarchist industrial revolution? As absurd as many primitivist critiques are, many answers to these questions are equally ridiculous.>><BR><BR><ARE they, now?><BR>Yes they are, but i'm not sure about this very moment. i have made such simple suggestions on infoshop before, but being a less dedicated historian than yourself i don't have the will to go find it. Perhaps i could pay you for your services. my point was that (if you believe me) 'primitivist' questions which do have some relevence get knocked down as quickly as certain 'leftist' questions/critiques.</P>
<P><BR><So, having asserted that "many" anarchists' answers to these questions are ridiculous, can you give me just ONE example of a named anarchist who thinks the problems of society would be solved by collectivising the call-centres? The reason for asking for a name is so that we can apply a bit of scientific <BR>method here, by first of all checking with that individual to see whether this is in fact their view (and not just YOUR version of their view), and then attempting to take some sort of census to check whether or not this view is, as asserted by you, held by "many" anarchists.></P>
<P>I thought you said anarchy involved common sense. It should be common anarchist knowledge that primitivists attack leftists and leftists attack primitivists. like i said go take a look at infoshop, or ask chuck0. i have no problem with someone making critiques of what i say, but when the attacks are pointless and do not address what i myself said, i will not waste my time.<BR><BR><You say you're no t a primitivist, and I accept that, but you certainly seem to have a couple of things n common with them, namely, a tendency towards extremely sloppy thinking, and a liking for building a straw man in (your) image of your opponents in order to more easily knock it over.></P>
<P>Or more likely, i call a straw man a straw man. you have distorted everything i said and then blame me for building a scarecrow. You make good points at times, but your thinking can be equally sloppy. (please don't ask for the documentation, we all know it's true.)<BR> <BR><By the way, I took part in my first demonstration about the environment in 1970, the first of many, a "bike-in" in London. During that demonstration, I got into an argument with one of the organisers of the event. She wanted a "Green Belt" around London, whereas I wanted to abolish London. I kind of like the vision of a post-London society described by William Morris in his "News From Nowhere".></P>
<P>This sounds interesting, could you go into a few details as to how the abolition of london would look? (if you don't have time i understand, perhaps where to look in news from nowhere would also help)</P>
<P><Nothing useful has come from the "primitivists", just a lot of ill-thought-through waffle.></P>
<P>But, i asked what we can take from them? as i mentioned, your sloppy thinking. Consider Rousseau, perhaps there is little anarchism which can come from his writings, but Bakunin was able to take his writings and create a very important anarchist critique of democracy. Similar things can be said of christianity, fascism, marxism etc. If we did not read what these ideas were actually saying we would not be able to develop a thorough anarchist critique. Surely, there are things to be criticized in primitivism, but we have to do so in a manner which allows for ideas, not just yes or no democratic opinions. i have found positive ideas for myself in primitivist anarchist writings. Perhaps, if you read these writings  you will be even further in opposition to primitivism and have developed your anarchist critique of such methods. i did not mean to suggest, 'read it and then you'll see they are right'.</P></SPAN></SPAN>
-- 
<p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com<br>
<a href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01" target="_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</a></p>