From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com> Subject: Primitivism and anarchism discussion Part 1 Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:32:26 -0000 Spencer wrote > hey, i havent really been following the thread on primitivism and anarchism, > and it interests me. could some knowledgeable person sum it op for me? thx Well, one person's summing up would be another person's complete distortion, but I will have a go. The topic started when Iain wrote that he had been in Fredom Bookshop, in London, and > saw an issue of "Green Anarchy", the US "Primitivist" paper and looking through it he formed the impression it was a load of incoherent garbage. He said he didn't know why primitivists wanted to call themselves anarchists when they rejected nearly everything anarchism was about. Chuck0 then replied that only _some_ primitivists called themselves anarchist. I asked if this meant that primitivists rejected government, but believed in the natural authority of Ug as the leader of the pack. Ali wondered why primitivists were printing a magazine anyway, they should be scratching their message on bark. Chuck0 wished he had a hundred dollars for every time he had been called a primitivist. I said "okay, you're an _alleged_ primitivist, so, as the real ones are all off scratching their message on bark, why do folk think you are a primitivist?" and Chuck0 replied that it was because he was associated with "Anarchy" magazine and agreed with their criticisms of "workerist" anarchists. Ali said "primitist logic, where after 99% of the population vanishes...seems to forget that even back in the days of yore, hierarchies of exploitation were in place." Mike P agreed that "i don't think we should take into consideration anyone's avowal that they are an anarchist after stating anything about the admission of mass death", but, while not going along with primitivism, he expressed a sort of "post-leftist" view (similar to Chuck0's?), asking "if we can agree that anarchy is a tension towards freedom and a rejection of domination, what place does tradition have in the anarchist critique? Are you an anarchist simply because you believe in certain traditions" I replied to Mike that it wasn't a question of tradition, but of history. The anarchist movement has had a continuous existence as a movement since the mid-Nineteenth Century. (See my essay on this subject, "Enemies of the State", available on line at http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1196/Politics/enemies.htm ) So it is ridiculous for people who reject everything that movement has stood for to nevertheless call themselves anarchist. Roger then brought in the arguments amongst physicists about the incompatibility between Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory. He said old farts like himself and me were like the relativists attacking the ideas of the young Turks of primitivism. I replied that I had in fact written love poems to the only young Turk I ever knew. In response to Roger saying that he came to anarchism through the usual marxian critique of capitalism and the state "like Dave", I cited a quote from me about me never having read Marx which has been in use by some folk as a sticker for a couple of years - you can read this at http://www.infoshop.org/quotes.php Chuck0 then came back to the question of "leftism", saying "Anarchism broke off from the left in the 19th century", which led into a long discussion about the political meaning of the terms "left" and "right". Much of this was really just people using these very vague terms to mean different things. Dave Dorkin wrote that the authoritarian/libertarian tension regarding government was one possible continuum, but left/right distinction at its most basic dealt with questions about equality, and in this sense anarchists could be considered "left". Iain wrote "I would feel more conformable being at a 'leftist' meeting than a rightist one. Basically, the far right will not wait until *after* the revolution to repress you..." Iain also said "I think this whole "post-left" thing is a great way to have silly arguments, but provokes more heat than fire." To which Chuck0 responded "That's funny, because you have just spent ten years writing one of the most important post-left documents around." (This means the Anarchist FAQ, available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ ) So Iain doesn't see himself as "post-leftist", but Chuck0 considers the FAQ that Iain has been working on for the past ten years "post-leftist". Which I think proves Iain's point about the uselessness of this term. Erik wondered if having views more favourable towards "post-leftism" might have something to do with being a younger generation, to which I replied "Iain is quite a lot younger than you, Erik". We then got into a side-issue about the mad behaviour of a couple of folk associated with "Green Anarchist" magazine. Somebody asked "why all the fuss about the primitivists if they are so insignificant?", to which Iain replied > Why the fuss? Because people will read this sort of stuff (about the collapse of civilisation and the death of a majority of the human species) > and consider anarchists as mad and anarchism as little > more than chaos. To which Dave Dorkin responded that he had often seen folk becoming interested in anarchism, only to be turned off by exactly this kind of thing. I wrote that I was suspicious that those who describe themselves as "post-leftist" want to rid anarchism of ideas about class struggle which had been part of anarchism since its very beginning, and of course I oppose this "Since, from my point of view, an anarchist movement without class struggle would not only be meaningless, but would actually be in the interests of the state and the ruling class". Chuck0 wrote "I am an anarchist, not a leftist", to which Roger responded "that's like saying you insist on being called a monkey but refuse to accept the title of mammal". In responding to this, Chuck0 admitted that he had once been a member of the Young Democrats. Which means that Chuck0 is "post-leftist" in the sense of having been one, whereas some of us who refuse the title "post-leftist" have never been a member of any political party. Ali (who hails from Pakistan originally) wrote that primiotivists don't know what they are talking about > Let them go and live in a village in Afghanistan > or Pakistan for a year and tell me how primitive > they want to be. Where death is everpresent, wreaking > havoc, floods, storms, droughts, wiping out half > the village with dysentery, having to eat grass > to survive. And the times that nature is nice, > the blood feud with the next village over > saps your numbers. We then got into discussing some primitivist calling himself the fake-Makhno who had said there would be no hospitals in an anarchist society. Which kinda proves Dave Dorkin's point about this sort of thing putting people off. Iain wrote "I don't reject everything primitivists say blindly. I reject it because I think it is nonsense. The valid points they do raise were generally said better by non-primitivist anarchists long before." This message is getting far too long and I still haven't finished. More in Part 2. Dave C
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005