Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:36:27 -0600
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-mutualaid.org>
Subject: Re: primitivism and anarchism


Iain McKay wrote:

> 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.

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

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.

> no point having a vision if you utter reject any practical means of
> achieving it out of hand! And my "vision" extends to a few years after
> a revolution -- after that it will develop as it develops. All we can
> do is paint a picture of how we get to the situation were society will
> develop in a truly free way. That vision is one of federated, autonomous
> communes based on self-management in workplaces and the community. These
> communities will have to be formed in the cities, towns and workplaces
> of capitalism -- as that is where we are now.

I think that's what most of us want, even my buddies at Anarchy 
magazine. Of course, this won't look the same everywhere, owing to 
cultural tastes and individual preferences.

Your mileage may vary.

> 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.

Hey, I'm against industry!

Chuck0