OscailtIs primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and othersA reply to primitivist critiques of 'Civilisation, Primitivism and Anarchism'2005-12-01T20:09:46+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=1890http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifPDF versionhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17022005-12-01T20:09:46+08:00Andrew FloodI hope to be able to make available in the next month or so a PDF pamphlet that ...I hope to be able to make available in the next month or so a PDF pamphlet that combines the original essay, this essay and a 'Weird things primitivists claim' FAQ.Updates to footnoteshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17042005-12-01T21:37:39+08:00AndrewI'm going through the links in the footnotes and a couple have changed. Here ar...I'm going through the links in the footnotes and a couple have changed. Here are the new URLS <br />
<br />
No 11 - the 2nd URL is now at <a href="http://question-everything.mahost.org/2005/01/critique-of-civilisation-primitivism.html">http://question-everything.mahost.org/2005/01/critique-of-civilisation-primitivism.html</a><br />
<br />
No 14 - (infoshop) has moved to <a href="http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2005012715260752">http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2005012715260752</a>Great articlehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17132005-12-02T12:57:04+08:00Adam Weaver,Dealing with the practicality of primitivism and the question of 'Does it offer ...Dealing with the practicality of primitivism and the question of 'Does it offer a real alternative to capitalism and the state?', this article is great and hits many of the arguements right on the nail. <br />
<br />
But I'd like to put out there an arguement that I don't think is included strongly enough in the article that I'd like to think hammers the nail in the coffin for primitivism (and its more intellectual based counter part, "post-leftism"). <br />
<br />
Despite the fact that primitivists and post-leftist claim to not put forward a program and bend over backwards to avoid or obfuscate a concerte definition of their political stances (case in point around Zerzan and math and his response to the population question), I think these politics, their intellectual roots and their practical implication deserve a more thorough rendering.<br />
<br />
First, clearly primitivists and post-leftist are not revolutionaries or social revolutionaries of any sort. They have hardly advanced any sort of idea on how to overthrow capitalism and the state, nor seem to believe it would be possible or even desirable. Second, these politics are clearly have little to do with anarchism and have everything in common with extreme individualism and a degree of overlap with classical liberalism (as discussed in the article about Hobbes 'state of war' and the need for the state). <br />
<br />
But most importantly, we need to examine the practical implications of what primitivists explicitly (and what post-leftists seemingly) advocate- that the vast majority of humanity perish from the planet. Say if rapid industrial collapse were to happen and agriculture and the like ceased to exist or even if it was somehow brought about by small groups of people smashing SUVs. Also assume that capitalism is not smart enough to prepare and avert the situation- what would happen?<br />
<br />
Overwhelmingly the people to die, and to die first, would be the world's most impoverished, the poor, the working class, women and most of the "third world" and people of color world-wide. Basically, anybody without the resources, power and social privileges to control the dwinding food and resources supply. Just like New Orleans and Katrina, the few rich and wealthy (and mostly white) would find the means to escape and be comfortable and those left behind to suffer and die would be the poor (and mostly black and brown). To me it is literally shocking and offensive to think anybody would publicly advocate politics with these implications. <br />
<br />
I mean this half seriously- but it seems to me that if the primivists really wanted to advance the politics they actually put forward they should be holding rallies in support of Structural Adjustment Plans or the war in Iraq or maybe should be getting jobs in FEMA under the Bush administration. These current, very real and manmade crises are moving us closer to the above scenario- and that's why I oppose them absolutely.<br />
<br />
But in all seriousness, primitivism and to some degree its more mushy, more anti-revolutionary, further ill-defined sister, post-leftism, deserves to be called to task on the nature of their politics. <br />
<br />
The dust bin of history would be far too kind for these ideas. What these politics need is a bio-disel fueled incinerator. OK, now that I've gotten out alot of frusteration, back to important things. ; >Catastrophism and Historical Determinismhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17182005-12-03T02:14:33+08:00Nil"Even if primitivists could magically convince the entire population of the plan..."Even if primitivists could magically convince the entire population of the planet to have few or no children this process could only reduce the population over generations. But if a crisis is only decades away there is no time for this strategy...."<br />
<br />
I would suggest that primitivism is essentially a catastrophistic, fatalistic, and historically deterministic philosophy---they think that all thosepeople are going to die off whether we like it or not, becuase of the predicted crisis. At which point the primitivists who survive will be able to start rebuilding an anarchist society, or whatever. No revolutionary intervention is neccesary---the crisis will destroy existing society for us, and then we can rebuild it how we like. <br />
<br />
All the primitivist arguments critiqued here as ridiculous start to make more 'sense' when you realize the overall frame. The frame itself is still plenty critisizable. It's an excuse for inaction and muddled thinking.some thoughts on our orientationhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17212005-12-03T22:04:54+08:00prole cat1- "Generally responses to the essay from primitivists were often a lot more con...1- "Generally responses to the essay from primitivists were often a lot more constructive then what I expected…"<br />
<br />
My experience with primitivism has also been that some of the adherents are more sincere and intelligent than my understanding of the ideology would have led me to expect. When my only exposure to primitivism was via Time magazine and the internet, I was contemptuous. When I made a tactical alliance with some primitivists to oppose the building of yet another Wal-mart (for one example), I learned to respect some of them as individuals, even as I continued to take issue with many of their ideas.<br />
<br />
I suspect that if we (class struggle anarchists) had a clearly defined program for alternative technology, there would be somewhere else for the more reasonable primitivists to go. But failing that, a radical who is seriously alarmed about, say, global warming- a quite reasonable concern!- is left to choose between liberal reformism, primitivism, or class struggle anarchism (which is widely perceived as not taking ecological concerns very seriously. More about that below.)<br />
<br />
2- "…any specialization is a bad thing according to most primitivists."<br />
<br />
Although not directly related to this article and its anarchism vs. primitivism thesis, I'm pretty sure that some left Marxists have a critique of the specialization of labor as well. So primitivists oppose any specialization, I take it. Well, I'm one anarchist who hopes there will be no place for assembly lines in the future free society. If class struggle anarchism has a clearly defined critique or position regarding the specialization of labor, it is not at all clear to me. <br />
<br />
3- A question, out of curiosity: Does religion predate civilization and the state? I'm thinking it does.<br />
<br />
Finally, Andrew has written an excellent article. I have read many good critiques of primitivism from a class-struggle perspective. Now, however, I think it would be beneficial to see more (some? any?) articles about the ideas of class struggle anarchism regarding alternative technologies. Not a detailed blueprint, necessarily, but a general outline that is not framed as a response to primitivism. That is to say, we could stop reacting to primitivism, and start enunciating a positive vision. No wonder people think we don't take ecology seriously, if the only time we talk about is in response to primitivism! I'd attempt it myself, but I know that there are others far more knowledgeable and better qualified. (And if these articles already exist, I apologise in advance. No offense intended, just trying to help move us forward.)<br />
<br />
in solidarity,<br />
pcPop questionhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17242005-12-04T17:41:06+08:00PrimalWaryou seem to heavily rely your critique on "the population question". well, you'r...you seem to heavily rely your critique on "the population question". well, you're right there right now there are 6 billion people on the planet. primitivists and our writings have never claimed otherwise. the claim that "..and it(population) continues to rise" it not substanciated in you essay, and in fact the opposite seems to be happening.(i recogize that i have not cited a sorse but its cus i cant seem to locate it right now). so we have 6 billion people, 6 billion is way beyond the carrying copacity of fuctioning ecosystems, and even beyond the amount that organic agriculture can support as its been artificially expanded by petrocemicals. this is not sustainable, a rebalancing of population levels is inevitable reguardless of the actions of primitivists. that is not a creation of primitivist theory but an established scientific fact, and not one that sits well he stomach to say the least, but it is real nonetheless. so how did humanity come to this?
<p>
this happened as a direct consiquence of agriculture. so how then can humanity live so it doesn't come to this? move away from an intensive agricultural existence. civilizations collapse (read J.tainter, J. Dimond, www.anthropik.com) by thier very nature because the are unstable social arangements. you want to be reallistic? anarcho-primitivism is realistic in that our project(the destruction of civilization and the creation of primitive anarchy) is working in this very real context. any project that is dependent on the continuation of civilization is unrealistic. although civilizations may rise again in some places they will inevitably fall too. another part of your critique is that we agree with liberals on that without mass society it would be all against all. or this could be rephrased to say that humans are inherently violent, thus hierarchical, towards eachother and therefor without some coercive force classlessness cannot be achived(as violence creates classes).
<p>
i contend that that is not the case as humans are social animals who by nature cooperate(e.g. mutual aid). it seems that the anarcho-communist perspective that you avow is closer to the position of the liberals in that you contend that non-hierarchical association must be systemized inorder to be "realistic". the inplyed reason the nessesity of this being that becuase people do not inately associate in this way, than they must artifially systemized en mass(freely of course!!). i'm sorry man but your arguement just doesn't hold up.peak oilhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17262005-12-05T00:44:48+08:00malThough i'm an anarcho-communist, i'm also aware of the problems the industrial w...Though i'm an anarcho-communist, i'm also aware of the problems the industrial world has brought to the earth. We live in a time when the resources are getting more and more difficult to get. Please, don't forget that the inminence of "peak oil" is provoking wars for oil. Peak oil will change our mind.carrying capacityhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17272005-12-05T01:53:31+08:00meyou would need industrialism to feed the whole world... and industrialism requir...you would need industrialism to feed the whole world... and industrialism requires expansion. depleted soil takes a long while to replenish itself. ..exspeically since alot of it is already depleted, and we just spray it all with pesticides like a sponge.<br />
<br />
carrying capacity isnt based on capitialism. alot of areas have collapsed because they went over their capcity, hence...easter island.<br />
<br />
oil took over and made it so we could have as many people as we wanted...it's an ariticial capacity.Anarcho-primitivist? [1]http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17282005-12-05T03:49:16+08:00IvanIf you think anarcho-primitivism is a contradictory term, then you can call me a...If you think anarcho-primitivism is a contradictory term, then you can call me a primitivist. Since I can't see 'primitivists' labelling themselves the term must come from the outside. Personally, I am striving for anarchy as opposed to anarchism. Whereas anarchism is the theory of human mass society lacking oppression, anarchy is living with spontaneity, creativity, and nature itself. So on the same token, I can argue that anarchism is the skewing of the word anarchy, and that you have no right to call yourself an anarcho---.<br />
<br />
With where society is today, primitivists are being cast as idealists, which means we have a long way to go. But primitivism also presents an alternative to capitalism that has worked for the overwhelming majority of human life. My argument against a free technological society without oppression is its inability to operate in the best interests of the earth. (Human) Oppression aside, there will still be issues of human-centrism and dehumanisation. Do we save the forests or do we practice permaculture? Do we make crafts in the interests of happiness or do we churn out a production line/control society in the interests of productivity? And can any of these be undone if the course of action fails or will we just implement quick fixes that only minimises its symptoms? What is the ideal final result of anarcho-communism? What it lacks are examples that a mass society or even a decentralised community can exist sustainably and self-sufficiently over the long-run. So while there’s no post-capitalist mass societies/decentralised communities being constructed, I don’t know of too many examples of anyone or of any community previously living in capitalism opting out and living in the wild in support of primitivist ideals.<br />
<br />
I'm thinking that in order to attain the sustainable lifestyle, we need:<br />
1) Destruction of the capitalist way of life: 'take out dams and dismantle electrical infrastructure', dig up the asphalt superhighways and plant trees in its place, and as unusual as its sounds, consuming oil products like there’s no tomorrow, and eating more free-range organic meat (human population control).<br />
2) Construction of a new earth: relearn how to cooperate and live with the earth<br />
<br />
Also, you mentioned how “being an anarchist [you] already want to overthrow capitalism and see the economy restructured from top to bottom.” First of all I take this as a slip-up, and that what you really mean is not top-down, and not even bottom-up, but the removal of hierarchy and perception of hierarchy.<br />
<br />
I would also argue that the monetarily poor will be better able to survive the so-called collapse or crash as they can feed themselves without relying on money, while the city-dwellers, yuppies, and capitalists will be the ones unable to cope without the power system they depend on. Of course it can be argued that the crash can happen in many ways and gradually, so I’m just arguing that the legimisation of power through money may not be possible in some scenarios.<br />
<br />
--IvanIn response to Ivanhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17302005-12-05T05:06:53+08:00Red and Black"anarchy is living with spontaneity, creativity, and nature itself."
OK, so y..."anarchy is living with spontaneity, creativity, and nature itself."<br />
<br />
OK, so you want to go live as a primitive in the forest. In order for you to be able to do that, the other people who live in your part of the word need to be OK with that. So then the question is: What sort of society will allow people to do that? Your proposal is that everyone still alive will live in a primitivist way. I think that proposal has two major problems: (1) most people aren't going to voluntarily join such a movement, and (2) even if such an arrangement were to come about (for example, because of nuclear war) it would not be stable.<br />
<br />
Elaborating on each of these points:<br />
<br />
(1) I don't think most people will get excited about life without modern medicine, communications infrastructure, shelter, etc.. I can just see the pitch now: "Hey ladies, come die in childbirth!"<br />
<br />
(2) I don't think that's a stable system. Some people will preserve, or develop anew, technology with which they can dominate others. The only way I see to avoid this problem is to get such technology into the hands of *everyone*, as opposed to *no-one*.<br />
<br />
I imagine that most advocates of an anarchist communist civilization would be OK with letting bands of primitivists live in wilderness areas. In fact, it's the only kind of civilization that I can imagine that would.infrastructure is capitalist?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17312005-12-05T08:55:42+08:00khaosivan said:
"Destruction of the capitalist way of life: 'take out dams and disma...ivan said:<br />
"Destruction of the capitalist way of life: 'take out dams and dismantle electrical infrastructure"...<br />
<br />
I would argue that there is nothing inherently capitalist about electrical infrastructure, highways, etc. In fact, industralization of this nature characterized the USSR and continues in China and North Korea. <br />
<br />
The New Deal and the first big build-out of electrical infrastructure and highways in the US is often cited (and critiqued) as one of the most socialist programs ever taken on by the US government.<br />
<br />
Is your critique with industrialization, government, capitalism, or all of them? I think i know the answer but i urge you to keep your concepts straight.<br />
<br />
thanks,<br />
khaosAnarcho-primitivist? [2]http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17322005-12-05T10:00:52+08:00IvanTo respond to red and black and khaos:
While a primitivist lifestyle is prove...To respond to red and black and khaos:<br />
<br />
While a primitivist lifestyle is proven to be sustainable, not even the believers know how to get there. And while anarcho-communists know what to do, who knows if it will work in the long-term. I know, getting a civilised person to rely on nature is like getting a hunter-gatherer to live in the city... people are accustomed to protecting the systems that sustain them. Of course, there are numerous examples of people voluntarily changing sides, the glorified ones are those who go from the civilised to the primitive (Grey Owl, Cabeza de Vaca, 'lost' anthropologists). I think travel and direct experience opens up people's minds, so I can only offer that as a start to understanding different ways of life. We have to be role models and live according to our beliefs before we go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Also I don't know where I stand on many technological issues. I do think that almost all of the current technological machinery is oppressive and controlling, but I'm not yet writing off the contributions of industrial 'progress'. So whether it is capitalism, communism (state capitalism), feudalism (king-domination), or even anarcho-communism and communalism which are not oppressive but still controlling, I'm still seeking a lifestyle that is mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy and meaningful as that of the hunter-gatherers, so that is why I have such heart-felt desire for primitivism.<br />
<br />
Thanks.What Hunter Gatherers?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17332005-12-05T15:42:38+08:00Nil"getting a civilised person to rely on nature is like getting a hunter-gatherer ..."getting a civilised person to rely on nature is like getting a hunter-gatherer to live in the city."<br />
<br />
Who are these 'hunter-gatherers' who refuse to live in a city? Are they contemporary? Historical? Mythological? Do they actually exist? Do they consider themselves 'uncivilized'? Are all hunter-gatherers past and present the same? Even when their economic activities include other than just foraging? Even when they'd rather be farming or raising livestock, but they can't afford it?<br />
<br />
I think that every primitivist who relies on anthropological evidence of this category of 'hunter gatherers' has an obligation to be aware of the controversy within anthropology over the nature of this category. (A debate which has indeed been taken up in the past by various anarchists on various sides as well. Ah, remember the days of "lifestyle anarchism" vs "social anarchism"? You can find Bob Black's response on the web, to a single (important) book by one anthropologist/historian and how that book was used by Bookchin. But the controversy goes beyond the one book. I have never seen Zerzan even acknowledge the existence of this controversy, instead just citing the anthropologists on the side he finds convenient.). <br />
<br />
One starting point is here (much else is not on the free web, of course)<br />
<a href="http://www.sil.org/~headlandt/huntgath.htm">http://www.sil.org/~headlandt/huntgath.htm</a><br />
<br />
"I'm still seeking a lifestyle that is mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy and meaningful as that of the hunter-gatherers."<br />
<br />
Such _noble_ primitives, aren't they though?Multiple replieshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17462005-12-06T23:55:52+08:00Andrew
re: Adam Weaver
Adam there are a whole lot more issues this article and the o...
<p>re: Adam Weaver</p>
<p>Adam there are a whole lot more issues this article and the one that preceeded it could have gone into. The <a href="http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1451">earlier article</a> did briefly touch on the issue you raise that in the event of a crisis "Overwhelmingly the people to die, and to die first, would be the world's most impoverished, the poor, the working class, women and most of the "third world" and people of color world-wide", specifically what I wrote was that <em>Instead the first to die in huge number would be the population of the poorer mega cities on the planet. Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt have a population of around 20 million between them. Egypt is dependent both on food imports and on the very intensive agriculture of the Nile valley and the oasis. Except for the tiny wealthy elite those 20 million urban dwellers would have nowhere to go and there is no more land to be worked. Current high yields are in part dependent on high inputs of cheap energy.</em></p>
<p><em>The mass deaths of millions of people is not something that destroys capitalism. Indeed at periods of history it has been seen as quite natural and even desirable for the modernization of capital. The potato famine of the 1840's that reduced the population of Ireland by 30% was seen as desirable by many advocates of free trade. So was the 1943/4 famine in British ruled Bengal in which four million died. For the capitalist class such mass deaths, particularly in colonies afford opportunities to restructure the economy in ways that would otherwise be resisted.</em></p>
<p>I am however somewhat wary of such arguments as they tend to be over used - a softer version of calling your opponent a fascist. The argument might be correct but it may also cause the person you are trying to convince to switch off. It still is certainly one of a whole range of issues that others might find it useful to expand on. </p>
<hr>
<p>re: prole cat - Capital Terminus Collective</p>
<p>If you reckon there is a need for more articles looking at the environment from a class struggle presepective I'd advise you to go ahead and start researching them. You already have access to the net and this alongside a good local library and a willingness to put the hours in will enable you to research and then write up just about anything in my experience. I can say that the next Red and Black Revolution will carry an article on the whole Peak Oil panic, otherwise the collection of <a href="http://struggle.ws/wsm/environment.html">WSM articles on the environment</a> may be useful. </p>
<hr>
<p>re: PrimalWar</p>
<p>You have a point on global population. Forecasts in the longer term (100 years time) <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/population/Story/0,2763,531071,00.html">expect</a> that it will be falling from the peak of 9 billion it is expected to hit around 2070. But the 100 year figure is still expected to be 8.4 billion which is 2.4 billion greater than today's figure. So there is no comfort for primitivists in these figures although they are encouraging for those of us who seek to avoid rather than embrace the crisis capitalism threatens to bring on. The figures also make clear that among the factors that will cause the population to fall are a rise in living standards and access to technology. We already know this as in the wealthier parts of western Europe population growth has been negative for some time - there is quite a debate to be had around this on another day.</p>
<p>I'm familar with some of the books you recommend but while these do show 'civilizations collapse' they don't show that civilisation collapses (outside of some rather special circumstances eg Easter island). By this I mean the earth has played host to wide range of civilisations and thankfully these have collapsed. I don't want to be living under a Pharoah for instance. But civilisation has continued as the collapse of individual civilisations just resulted in space being made in which new (and frequently better) ones could develop. A simple example - Rome is gone for some time but the alphabet we are communicating in was used by them. It's <a href="http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/alphabet.html">origin</a> is very much older (1900bce) and it has passed through a number of civilisations to reach us. This continuity of civilisation is all around us, the numbers we use, the food we eat, the clothes we wear are often things that have come to us through civilisations that have not existed for hundreds of years. Those civilisations have gone but the civilisation they contributed to remains with us today. Also I'm an anarchist, I'd be rather upset if in 100 years time the current western civilisation we have which is dominated by the likes of George Bush and Bill Gates had not collapsed to be replaced with something a lot better. </p>
<p>The anarchist communist perspective is that association is not only natural but it is inevitable. Kroptkin was one of the early theoriests of anarchist communism and he coined the phrase 'mutual aid' to describe the basis of this. It is the promitivists (and classic liberalism) that cannot see (large scale) association without coercian.</p>
<hr>
<p>re: mal</p>
<p>Yes 'peak oil' is quite close, anytime from this year to a few decades away. But remember 'peak oil' does not represent the point at which oil runs out (most of it will still be in the ground) but the point at which production <strong>starts</strong> to decline. The effect will be an increase in oil prices that will have the greatest impact on the poor but for the rich will probably just mean a switch to more efficent cars and a new opportunity to make profits. It might prove to be a tipping point for US civilisation which is very energy dependant but civilisation will survive as will capitalism. The revolution still needs to be fought for</p>
<hr>
<p>re: me </p>
<p>Yes it is true that current level of western agricultural production depend on significant fossil fuel energy inputs. There are however other ways of getting quite high food outputs from more intensive organic methods. Andit may well be that over the period where oil rises in price much of the gap will be filled by alternative energy sources and a much more efficent use of energy. In some countries like Denmark this is already very advanced. If not that capitalism will allow the poorest billion to starve just as it has in other periods of history.</p>
<hr>
<p>re: Ivan</p>
<p>Anarchism has a history - playing with words does not take this history away.</p>
<p>When you say "primitivism also presents an alternative to capitalism that has worked for the overwhelming majority of human life" I guess you mean that of the 160,000 odd years humanity has been on the planet that for all but the last 12,000 we have been primitivists. This is true but tells us nothing because civilisation not only emerged from that primitivism but there is no going back. That earth only supported maybe 10-30 million hunter-gathers and even so those people wipped out the large animals of the Americas and Australia. It wasn't sustainable even then and it impossible for the 'overwhelming majority of human life' that lives today because 6 billion of us cannot live as hunter-gathers. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://worldatlas.com/citypops.htm">city dwellers</a> of today are not mostly yuppies but the populations of Lagos, Mexico City, Cairo, Mumbai and Calcutta. And unlike the tiny wealthy elite of New York or Toyko (for instance) the vast majority of these people are so poor that the crash you fantasise about can only leave them to starve. The wealthy elite have the wealth to escape the cities if need be and to monopolise the remaining oil supplies. </p>
<p>So while there is nothing wrong with "seeking a lifestyle that is mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy and meaningful" there is a problem when the consequences of your fantasy would be mass starvation for the global poor. Seek your lifestyle in a revolution that would mean freedom for them as well. </p>
re: Andrewhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17502005-12-07T10:25:52+08:00IvanThanks for bringing discussion to this topic by the way. To expand on PrimalWar'...Thanks for bringing discussion to this topic by the way. To expand on PrimalWar's point, I don't think we should be looking at numbers that strictly. 6+ billion people is not sustainable given that groundwater tables are falling, soil loss/erosion/salination/pollution is decreasing quality and yields, desertification, fertilisers will run out when oil does, sea animals are in great decline. It's been said even all-out vegetarian organic agricultural-based diet will not sustain our current population.<br />
<br />
Regarding peak oil: while it is true that our oil supply is half-consumed and that we're producing more oil than ever, once we start the decline, into the second half of the oil supply, it will be consumed in no-time and be pricey and increasingly energy-intensive to search for and mine. We are an oil culture in products and design, so with demand skyrocketing and capitalism extracting for the greatest consumption in the least amount of time in the interests of short-term profit, there is not enough foresight to consider investment of the oil in alternative energies/plastics/...<br />
<br />
What I'm trying to say is that we are putting ourselves in situations (population, oil, resource use, pollution,...) in which we exploit to extinction, and the only thing saving us is the glimmer that some miracle technology to divert our exploits to something else instead. We have finished extraction from our capital and we are in debt, so to get out of debt we have to sacrifice our assets by cleaning up the situation. So barring some great spiritual awakening, I think we have to unfortunately accept that the current unsustainable population level is due to borrowing from our future, and that in order to dig out of debt, we unfortunately have to expect a decline. And I hate to end with this, but despite the situation humans are in, we are still a long ways from extinction and that any living things and environments in danger of extinction be given a priority to revive.Division of Labour [1]http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17542005-12-07T21:43:38+08:00JamesThe division of labour is one the foundation stones of primitivist critique of c...The division of labour is one the foundation stones of primitivist critique of civilisation. The division of labour is necessary to develop even a low-level civilisation which results in specialists (or specialists result in civilisation). Primitivists argue that specialists accrue power due to their command of important skills. This becomes a self-perpetuating mechanism as they can use their power to suppress opposition due to dependence that the wider population has on them.<br />
<br />
Anarchists have argued since Bakunin’s time that it is not the division of labour per se that results in a class society, but the appropriation by a small elite of the produce of the division of labour. This gives them power and it is a self-perpetuating mechanism as they can hire “one half of the working class to attack the other half”.<br />
<br />
The anarchist solution has been to introduce some form of communist distribution of goods, wealth etc. So the efficiency and diversity that the division of labour enables is not lost, but the negative class divisions are avoided. In short, mutual aid dissolves the problem, and makes large, densely populated libertarian societies possible.<br />
<br />
Obviously, anarchists are aware of the dangers of too much specialisation. This is why from Kropotkin to Parecon, libertarian socialists have advocated a mixture of mental and manual work, or balanced job complexes to help ensure a fair society..<br />
<br />
In a sense, then, primitivism is a repudiation of the traditional anarchist optimism that people can organise on a large scale without exploiting others.Division of Labour [2]http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17622005-12-09T05:33:22+08:00AnarchoAndrew has produced a good article, one which builds on the original one. The si...Andrew has produced a good article, one which builds on the original one. The silence of the primitivists says it all, I think.<br />
<br />
As for the division of labour, I think that the Japanese anarchists had it right. They were against the division of labour as it involved turning people into specialised labourers. Instead they argued for a division of work, so that people would do many tasks and develop all aspects of themselves.<br />
<br />
It may seem a slight different, but it's an important one.Response to Andrewhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17632005-12-09T15:16:30+08:00Adam WeaverThanks for your response. For the reasons you stated exactly, I alwasy resist us...Thanks for your response. For the reasons you stated exactly, I alwasy resist using the 'f' word (facist). It doesn't really help your arguement. But I wouldn't be truthfull if I didn't think there was a degree of truth to it.Read Daniel Quinnhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17892005-12-15T05:40:48+08:00Janos Birojanosbiro at yahoo dot com dot brNot everything in primitivism is a waste. First: critique of civilization does n...Not everything in primitivism is a waste. First: critique of civilization does not mean we have to "go back to be hunter-gatherers", it only mean we lived in a sustainable way once, and we can live again, beyond civilization. Second: you cannot say that there’s nothing wrong in the development of expansive agriculture (it’s not just any agriculture) 10,000 years ago, because it caused a destabilization of human population, that have being stabilized for 90,000 years at least. As any living population, stability means the species are well adapted to its environment. A rapid drop OR a rapid grow means the specie is trying to adapt to changes. In this case, a cultural change that ends with the natural cycle of food availability. Every living creature in this world naturally has a small oscillation in their population, but, they stay stabilized. Since that event we call agrarian revolution, our population have never stopped growing, it means it never stopped trying to adapt, because no mammal has ever lived this way. Evolution gave us tribes, we became humans in tribes. We didn’t invent tribal life. That’s the way of life we were born adapted to. It’s the persons who think that mass society it’s the most natural way for humans to live that needs to give some explanation. And until now there’s no explanation that’s not ethnocentric or anthropocentric. Daniel Quinn is not a primitivist, but his ideas may answer some of your questions.emhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment17962005-12-15T23:46:09+08:00Chekov"Every living creature in this world naturally has a small oscillation in their ..."Every living creature in this world naturally has a small oscillation in their population, but, they stay stabilized."<br />
<br />
Over 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct - a stability of sorts, but not one that is very attractive from the point of view of our species.This entire article is answering a question no one should have askedhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment18032005-12-16T13:15:02+08:00AndyThis article is rather misdirected in its focus. It seeks to decouple anarchism...This article is rather misdirected in its focus. It seeks to decouple anarchism and primitivism. Not only is the severing of these two schools of though rather irrelevant, but fails to give actual alternatives necessary to either camp. <br />
<br />
The author contends that “primitivism is of no practical use” based on the feasibility of attaining such a system. The author feels that a massive die-off is either to hard to enact or that such events will not happen in the future. The author even states ““capitalism and the way it uses technology has given us an unstable and unsustainable economic system...although I may not believe 'the end is nigh' I do accept that things cannot go on as they are without major problems”. Although the author may not see the end as near, the end is still there, still coming. And that is what we must focus on. The end of capitalism. Not what comes after.<br />
<br />
So how do we end capitalism? <br />
<br />
Burn it out. And let it burn itself down. We must stop enacting all this legislation to “protect” the environment. We must stop recycling. We must stop trying to live on the earth now as though we can create sustainability while capitalism is still around. Because no matter how many acres of forest we save and no matter how many milk jugs you send to the recycling bin, the transnational corporations are still going to be there. And the will be around for longer, because we have saved so many resources for them to use later.<br />
<br />
So how do we burn it out? Squander ever resource we can get out hands on. Contribute to global warming as much as possible by using fossil fuels. Kill as many species as possible. I know you are already probably pissed off about saying this, but stick with me. <br />
<br />
Lets face it. Everything I'm saying we should do, burn fossil fuels and trash the environment, is going to be done inevitably by corporations and governments. Kyoto is a sad joke, and its a joke that doesn't even look like will get much support. And corporations just care about money, so they are not going to listen. So all of this destruction and terrible things like destroying the world population is inevitable. <br />
<br />
Second, if we cause all of this destruction rapidly, instead of in slow motion, there is the chance that some parts of the earth might remain intact. Life adapted to the ice age, something will adapt to the global warming. Maybe humans even will. Maybe not, but humans certainly won't live a fulfilling life under a capitalist society anyways. <br />
<br />
My point is that we must stop trying to figure out what we are going to do. It is impossible to tell what society will emerge from this phoenix like rebirth. But that does not matter because we can't know what to do until we create a world in which we can do something. Capitalism has precluded the ability of an anarchist or a primitivist society from emerging. So until we get rid of capitalism it seems that all of this talk about “social system x” and “social system y” is rather fruitless.Very Upliftinghttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment18172005-12-18T15:46:51+08:00David Ravedaverave_14 at yahoo dot comMr. Flood, congradulations on this eloquent article, it did a very good job of d...Mr. Flood, congradulations on this eloquent article, it did a very good job of dismissing serious libertarian doubts about the significance of human proggress. Keep up the good work.reply to Andyhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment18182005-12-18T16:11:03+08:00David Ravedaverave_14 at yahoo dot comAndy, then what good is standing for peace and fighting for justice? Should we i...Andy, then what good is standing for peace and fighting for justice? Should we ignore human suffering? You must think human life is cheap.against false dichotomieshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment18192005-12-19T11:59:36+08:00acaI wanted to briefly add a bit more context to this discussion. Since I'm tired,...I wanted to briefly add a bit more context to this discussion. Since I'm tired, I won't say much, but if people are interested, I'm sure they can follow up on their own.<br />
<br />
Ideologues and writers on both sides of the "red vs. green" debate tend to perpetuate false dichotomies and conceal the roots of this discussion. Basically, I wanted to make clear that anti-civilization theory is rooted in concern with the class struggle, and was largely developed by people engaged with the problems posed by the class war as it raged in the 60s and 70s. Today, a lot of the thinking has devolved into collapsism, but that is far from the only strain of thought. For example, I'd ask people to contrast John Zerzan's thought today (which is deeply ideological bullshit) with his writings from the early 70s (eg. "Unions vs. the revolt against work").<br />
<br />
To be clearer: The struggles of the 60s and 70s were of a qualitatively different sort than those of previous periods. However intense these struggles were, they mostly did not lead to the formation of councils. Instead, workers seemed to be moving towards "the refusal of work," through sabotage, absenteeism, checkerboard strikes, etc. all across the industrialized world. Instead of taking the factory, radical workers were leaving it.<br />
<br />
People from a number of different perspectives started thinking about why this was. A central theme to these discussions was the nature of increasingly-complex and global production, which inhibited genuinely democratic production processes. Furthermore, people began calling into question the neutrality of production processes. It seemed clear that many forms of industrial production were designed not for efficiency in work, but to police and dominate workers (e.g. Taylorism, neo-Taylorism). The factories themselves were thus unusable in a free society (the economic equivalent of the question of "how can one think freely in the shadow of a church?").<br />
<br />
Finally, ecological perspectives were raised, and just as clearly as this essay argues that primitivism must mean the death of 5.9 billion people, its clear that industrial production (in its current form, or anything similar) will kill everything on earth, whether in 50 years or 200.<br />
<br />
My point is that I think this conversation is really stilted because people insist on seeing in only black and white. I consider myself to be anti-industrial, and anti-civilization, and am primarily concerned with "social questions" and workplace/community struggles.<br />
<br />
A final redudancy: Zerzan (as of the past two decades) and the Species Traitor folks are idiots, and while claiming to be anti-ideological, assert that anarcho-primitivism is the only true way to be against civilization.<br />
<br />
Recommended reading: <br />
Fredy Perlman <br />
Jacques Camatte<br />
Midnight Notes Collective (not anti-civ, but see the essay by Zero Work in Midnight Oil)<br />
Rene RieselMore replieshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment18332005-12-22T23:43:47+08:00Andrewre: Ivan
If you are going to make claims along the lines of "strictly. 6+ ...<p>re: Ivan</p>
<p>If you are going to make claims along the lines of <em>"strictly. 6+ billion people is not sustainable given that groundwater tables are falling, soil loss/erosion/salination/pollution is decreasing quality and yields, desertification, fertilisers will run out when oil does, sea animals are in great decline. It's been said even all-out vegetarian organic agricultural-based diet will not sustain our current population."</em> it would be very useful if you could provide some sources for these claims.</p>
<p>Some of these just repeat arguments that are already dealt with - for instance oil will not run out (for a long time), it will just get a hell of a lot more expensive. Others state as facts (eg with regard to soil erosion) that are actually highly contested areas of research. And while someone, somewhere may have made that final claim I'm not aware of any evidence for this I am however aware of <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/asoa-ops040403.php">studies</a> that show organic corn yields from crop rotation are only 7-9% less than fertilizer yields. </p>
<p>In making apocalyptic forecasts it important not to simply state what you already consider to be truths - apart from anything else these things change - as already shown in the essay for instance capitalist investment into alternative energy sources is no longer on the hippie ben and jerry fringe but making up a large percentage of ads in the economist. Provide some facts to back up your assetions - if you think 5.9 billion need to die you owe them that at least. </p>
<p>re: Janos Biro </p>
<p>What does being <em>"beyond civilization"</em> mean if it does not mean a return to the food supply methods of hunter-gathers? These are concrete questions we are dealing with - it does not do to evade them by simply saying we do not have to <em>"go back to be hunter-gatherers"</em>. What food supply methods are you suggesting that do not require a form of civilisation to organise them? </p>
<p>Your talk of population stability is just a restatement of the old reactionary Malthus. We have already escaped the "natural cycle of food availability" - that is what the agricultural revolution was all about. That <em>"natural cycle of food availability"</em> was what limited the population of the world to less than 100 million, today there are 5900 million of us - there is no going back. </p>
<p>And why should we be concerned with what is natural anyway? If anything this is another term that is often used to hide a reactionary agenda, in particular in relation to women. Our escape from some of the 'laws' of nature is to be celebrated and not mourned.</p>
<p>re: Andy</p>
<p>I do not think <em>"a massive die-off is to hard to enact"</em> I am simply against an ideological project that requires the death of 98% of the human population. I am more than happy it is <em>"to hard to enact"</em> as I am entirely against such a reactionary ideology .</p>
<p>The rest of your post just illustrates how little primitivism has in common with anarchism - your fantasy of mass destruction (and the unmentioned mass death that would accompany it) reflects the mind set of the far right. Perhaps you meant it as a joke - if so it is not funny.</p>
<p>re: aca</p>
<p> What does it mean to be <em>"anti-civilization"</em> in the way you use it. I understand what Zerzan means - I can't see what you are proposing (rather than opposing). </p>
<p>You say <em>"many forms of industrial production were designed not for efficiency in work, but to police and dominate workers"</em> but even the use of 'many' rather than 'all' hints that there were also forms of industrial production designed for efficiency. And even if these did not exist why could a free society not create them? </p>
<p>I would expect that the construction of a free society would involve drastic transformations in how we produce the goods and services we need. The first step might be the running up of the red and black flag over the existing workplaces but soon after I'd expect many to be abandoned and others to be transformed beyond recognition. But the idea that every worker will simply forget about his or her need to eat and wander off into the forest I don't get. </p>
<p>The transformation of civilisation is the project at the heart of anarchism. </p>
Primitivism is also part of the anarchist tradition.http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment20912006-01-25T17:50:16+08:00malYou can trace back its roots in the 19th century french and spanish naturist mov...You can trace back its roots in the 19th century french and spanish naturist movement. They were mostly what we can consider "primitivists". Don't take for granted that the spanish classical anarchism was monolithic: there were naturists, vegetarians, esperantists, spiritualists, individualists, pacifists, etc. with the most known syndicalists and insurrectionists. (Most of this people were working class)
<hr>
<i>This comment was moved from http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2212</i>re: malhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment20922006-01-25T18:49:21+08:00AndrewI'm afraid your post simply reminds me of those 'anarcho' capitalists who take 1...I'm afraid your post simply reminds me of those 'anarcho' capitalists who take 19th century individualists like Tucker and try and convert them into their ideological forerunners.
<p>
There were significant 'back to the earth' and naturist movements connected with both 19th century and 20th century anarchists. But they were not primitivists who wanted to abandon civilisation. Rather they sought to create spaces (sometimes as colonies) where they could practise self-supporting agriculture.
<p>
I actually (organically) grow a fair percentage of my own vegtables. Does this make me a primitivist? I don't think so. In any case my argument is not against anarchists who do want self sufficency - it is against primitivists who want to abolish / overthrow civilisation and return to hunter gathering. If there are people who call themselves primitivists who by this only mean they want to personally return to a simple life, either individually or through colonies, my argument really does not apply to them.
<p>
An additional point. You say not to "take for granted that the spanish classical anarchism was monolithic: there were naturists, vegetarians, esperantists, spiritualists, individualists, pacifists". Quite why you imagine I think it was monolithic I'm not sure but none of these sets you list were equivalent to todays primitivists and most of them were actually either CNT members or connected to the CNT. The 1936 Saragossa congress which preceeded the revolution actually spent quite a bit of time discussing setting up naturist colonies.
<p>
I argue in some detail in this essay and the previous one why primItiivism is a break from anarchism - if you want to convince me I'm wrong it would be better to address these arguments then to try and invent primItivists in the CNT!primitivists and naturistshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment21862006-02-06T03:25:43+08:00NilWell, to be fair, 19th century anarchist naturists, spiritualists, vegetarians, ...Well, to be fair, 19th century anarchist naturists, spiritualists, vegetarians, etc., are to some extent ideological forerunners of anarchist primitivists. The mystical/spiritual embrace of 'nature' among some anarchists and other radicals is not a brand new thing. I would agree that _some_ current primitivists (anarchist and not) have taken the trend in a rather pathological direction. Of course, many anarchist primitivists are also just confused or ideologically incoherent--something that could be said of many contemporary anarchists of many stripes, unfortunately.ATTN: Andrewhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment22492006-02-18T23:35:20+08:00GK4First, thanks for the helpful critiques of primitivism. When you finalize them ...First, thanks for the helpful critiques of primitivism. When you finalize them for the PDF, please review typos (such as 1994, when you probably meant 2004). <br />
<br />
Second, in one of your comments, you mentioned "the next Red and Black Revolution will carry an article on the whole Peak Oil panic".<br />
<br />
When will that issue be online? Are any of the peak-oil-related articles already available?<br />
<br />
I'm interested in this topic and would like to read more anarchist (and other positive radical) perpectives. Thanks.old time anarchists even more unrealistichttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment23022006-02-28T01:22:02+08:00SoulmanIt's laughable that you ridicule primitivists for being unrealistic. Logically,...It's laughable that you ridicule primitivists for being unrealistic. Logically, old time anarchists like yourself are even more unrealistic. You want a free mass society. Guess what? Mass society is inherently not free. The history of civilization has proven that! Primitivists desire the improbable. You desire the impossible. At least the primitivist aren't so foolish as to pretend they have realistic plans.mass society can be freehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment23062006-02-28T15:57:56+08:00Toby B"You want a free mass society. Guess what? Mass society is inherently not free. ..."You want a free mass society. Guess what? Mass society is inherently not free. The history of civilization has proven that!"<br />
<br />
Um, no, not at all. History is littered with rebellions by the oppressed. Its true that none of these rebellions has yet produced a free society, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. In fact, these rebellions foreshadow or prefigure what a possibe future mass free society could look like. There is no iron law of oligarchy in history. <br />
<br />
"At least the primitivist aren't so foolish as to pretend they have realistic plans."<br />
<br />
this is quite revealing isn't it!PDF pamphlethttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment24922006-04-05T22:54:41+08:00AndrewI've just uploaded a new version of the PDF that contains both essays to http:/...I've just uploaded a new version of the PDF that contains both essays to <a href="http://struggle.ws/pdfs/andrew/primitivism.pdf">http://struggle.ws/pdfs/andrew/primitivism.pdf</a>Andrewhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment25752006-04-30T14:26:43+08:00Janosjanosbiro at yahoo dot com dot brThinking again, do not read Daniel Quinn. Read Konrad Lorenz, you will understan...Thinking again, do not read Daniel Quinn. Read Konrad Lorenz, you will understand enough about biology and evolution to see why we CAN'T escape nature laws, we can only fool ourselves that we escaped. To escape from nature = to get extinct. I'm not hiding any reactionary agenda, nature has limits, we are animals, our culture must change from it's real bases. We should rethink civilization as a project of acumulation and expansion that can't go on forever in a limited world. I'm not a god to tell people how they should live, and tribal way of life was not revealed by any theory, was given by evolution, by natural selection, and if you keep thinking ou got everything figured out and human reason is master over nature's wisdon, you are only going the short way to extinction. We are not in an two way road, we are in a million ways road, even if you can't imagine how to live sustainably in a complete new way, that does not mean theres no other way but the ones we already know. We are creative, we are not in the end of history.Response to "Civilisation, primitivism and anarchism"http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment104232008-11-05T03:09:51+08:00KipawaHere is a response to Flood's article "Civilisation, primitivism and anarchism" ...Here is a response to Flood's article "Civilisation, primitivism and anarchism" (in french): <br />
<br />
<a href="http://endehors.org/news/civilisation-anarchie-et-anarchisme" title="http://endehors.org/news/civilisation-anarchie-et-anarchisme">http://endehors.org/news/civilisation-anarchie-et-anarc...hisme</a>Classical Left anarchism is unrealistichttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment120222009-12-16T02:24:49+08:00KaleviIs primitivism realistic? The state of primal anarchy has been a reality for hum...Is primitivism realistic? The state of primal anarchy has been a reality for human beings for millions of years, while there has yet to be a single anarchist technological mass society. I think that pretty much settles the question. Primitivist anarchism is a realistic future scenario while technological mass society anarchism is pure folly. <br />
<br />
How did you think an entire complex society would ever adopt anarchism? And once established, how would a society like that remain anarchist? Complex societies require a shit load of bureaucracy to function. How would a bunch of anarchists manage that? Even on a municipal level it wouldn't work.<br />
<br />
Anarcho-primitivism is perfectly sensible in its critique of technology because that is the material basis of mass society, the matrix in which this system of domination functions. Target that matrix and the system of domination will collapse with it.Really "realistic"?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment127852010-09-13T05:52:19+08:00Red and Black ActionSomeone called "Kalevi" makes an argument that presents "primitivism" (or her/hi...Someone called "Kalevi" makes an argument that presents "primitivism" (or her/his oxymoronic term "anarcho-primitivism") as "realistic".<br />
<br />
A quick look through this "response" shows it to be a perfect restatement of most of "primitivism"'s absurdity:<br />
<br />
- "The state of primal anarchy has been a reality for human beings for millions of years": <br />
>>humans have only been around at most 120,00 years. Earlier types of hominid are not "human beings"...<br />
<br />
-"while there has yet to be a single anarchist technological mass society": <br />
>>barring Ukraine, Korea, Spain... but why worry about history?<br />
<br />
-"How did you think an entire complex society would ever adopt anarchism? And once established, how would a society like that remain anarchist? Complex societies require a shit load of bureaucracy to function. How would a bunch of anarchists manage that? Even on a municipal level it wouldn't work": <br />
>>this argument might as well come out of standard liberal toolkit - its simply an argument that democracy is impossible, and that is one of the many reasons that "anarcho-primitivism" is an oxymoronic notion. If you can't envisage an anti-authoritarian society, with the actual humans who live on this world, you cannot reasonably be called an anarchist/<br />
<br />
-"Anarcho-primitivism is perfectly sensible in its critique of technology because that is the material basis of mass society, the matrix in which this system of domination functions":<br />
>> again, here we go. The question of what TYPE of modern technology is ignored; we have something here that reads like a caricature of Marxism: "technology" creates something bad called "mass society". Actually, society is the "matrix" of "technology", and a society based on a "system of domination" will have technology to match. So, change society and you change technology, not the other way around. <br />
<br />
-"Target that matrix and the system of domination will collapse with it" -<br />
>> because "Kalevi" confuses cause with effect, her/his logic is also confused (I leave aside the absurdity of writing against technology ... on the internet too...) and her/his strategy is peculiar. Somehow Kalevi and her/his pals are going to "target" technology and so, end "mass society". Since pretty much everyone else is going to oppose this, "Kalevi" and co. will a) either eke out their lives writing this drivel and posing, b) or will have to use a super-technology (like the germ bomb in "12 Monkeys") to kill everyone else (not very "anarcho" and not very "primitivist") or c) will need state power and a Pol Pot-style regime (not too "anarcho" either, but certainly anti-technological).<br />
<br />
From primitivism to capitalism and the statehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment127942010-09-20T08:37:32+08:00WayneIn any case, so-called primitive society eventually developed into modern societ...In any case, so-called primitive society eventually developed into modern society. That is, humanity once had stateless, classless, societies and they developed into the statified, capitalist, world of today. From *that* came *this.* If we should somehow magically return to that (primitive, preclass, preagricultural, preindustrial society) what is to prevent humanity from once again evolving into this (the industrialized class-divided urban society of capitalism)? Primitive society failed. What we need is not a return but something new. This is the program of revolutionary communist-anarchism.Is primitivism realistic?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1890#comment159392015-06-11T01:07:26+08:00Harrissbisbyharriss at gmail dot comI know that this essay is old, but what I consider to be an interesting question...I know that this essay is old, but what I consider to be an interesting question came to mind as I was reading it. I am going to ask my question anyway, even though this is an old article. My question is: You (Mr. Flood), speak of a free society, but how would you personally define such a thing? I'm sure everyone has a different definition of both "Society" and "free". Furthermore, couldn't it be argued that the concept of society in and of it's self is constraining? And therefore, isn't it possible that "Free society" is a misnomer? Isn't it assumed that to live in a society one must follow certain rules (Such as not murdering fellow members of society), and thus forgo certain freedoms? This is not to say that I think that societies, or civilization or technology, or certain restrictions on freedom are bad things. I'm just curious about definitions of freedom.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Harriss