A weak response to primitivism

Brian Oliver Sheppard's book "Anarchim vs. primitivism" is an attack on anarcho-primitivism or neo-primitivism, written from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective. The primitivists are a current within the anarchist milieu which argues that abolishing the state and capitalism isn't enough. They also want to abolish most or all technology, and move society back to a pre-industrial stage. The most extreme primitivist, John Zerzan, wants to go all the way back to the Palaeolithic and perhaps the Neanderthals. More moderate primitivists are apparently ready to settle for a libertarian version of the Iron Age or the Middle Ages.

The more "main line" anarchists write blistering attacks on primitivism with a regularity I find perplexing. Murray Bookchin did it all the time, Chaz Bufe did it too, and now comes Sheppard. One wonders why? The only possible reason is that primitivists and regular anarchists (including anarcho-syndicalists) belong to the same social milieu. This is richly ironic, since the anarcho-syndicalists in particular claim to be oriented to the labour unions and the working class. If so, why bother attacking people like John Zerzan, who most workers or left-wing activists have never even heard of? I've heard of anarcho-primitivism, but that's only because I've read Bufe decades ago!

[SOME GENERAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PAMPHLET]

Personally, I'm neither a classical anarchist nor a primitivist. I suppose most anarchists would consider me an unregenerate statist. (They are right!) Still, I must say that Sheppard's criticism of primitivism is rather weak. While Proudhon, Bakunin and Krapotkin weren't primitivists, their emphasis on decentralization, the peasantry, artisans and local mutual aid does reflect a very early version of industrialism, rather than the full blown version reflected by Marxism and certain forms of syndicalism. Thus, the anarcho-primitivists aren't completely out on a limb when attempting to fuse classical anarchism with eco-radicalism. Sheppard further attacks Dave Foreman and Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber), but they aren't anarcho-primitivists. Both are more "right wing", especially Kaczynski. Foreman, despite his action antics, might not even be particularly radical.

The author's main argument against primitivism is that affluent, modern Westerners don't want to give up their technology. Well, obviously not, but so what? The real question isn't what anybody "wants", but what is actually needed to solve the ecological crisis. Another main argument is that primitivism, if implemented, would lead to the death of billions. While this is certainly true, once again, it misses the point. The real question is whether or not overpopulation is a problem. The author tries to have it both ways, sometimes arguing that it isn't, sometimes proposing various ways to fight overpopulation, for instance by getting rid of natalist religion, giving people access to free contraceptives, etc. Sheppard also loves poiting out that the primitivists don't live as they learn. Thus, Zerzan watches TV, Fifth Estate use computers and Green Anarchist use the web. But the personal hypocrisy or contradictions of the primitivists don't necessarily invalidate their critique of modern civilization. I don't eat organic carrots, nor do I drink rain water, but what does that say about the reality of climate change or the need for organic agriculture? Not much, either way. I eat a lot of candy, too, which would make any moralistic preaching on diabetes from my part somewhat comic, but that doesn't mean diabetes isn't a threat, especially if you do eat a lot of candy...

Sheppard's arguments against the primitivists are based on a kind of middle-class populist "common sense", but these kinds of arguments can be used against anarcho-syndicalism, as well!

[PRIMITIVE PEOPLES]

Sheppard's attacks on the cultures of primitive peoples aren't convincing either. He confuses the Palaeolithic and Neolithic with pre-industrial but hierarchic societies in the Americas at the time of the conquista, even mentioning the Aztecs and the Incas. In passing, he shows his true colours (?) on the woman question: "Iroquois women, for example, made most of the important decisions in their society. (A matriarchal society, it is important to remember, is still of course a hierarchical society.)" Now, we can't have that, can we? For all we know, most or many Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultures were indeed egalitarian and peaceful. Since they were stateless cultures, it's strange that an anarchist like Sheppard rejects them out of hand. (As an unregenerate statist, I'm equally fascinated by the egalitarian, peaceful high culture of the Indus Valley, and the presumably peaceful but hierarchic high cultures of Norte Chico and Minoan Crete.)

[THE ABOLITION OF WORK]

At one point, Sheppard makes fun of the anarcho-primitivist notion that "work" can be abolished in a non-technological society: "As they'd look in disdain over their shoulders at the `workerist' anarchist civilization they have left, they could delight in pursuing the very hard work of foraging and constructing shelter for themselves, deluding themselves that that is not itself work - albeit a hard sort of work not aided by the machinery that anarchists back in the hi-tech society have expropriated from capitalist rule. In the end, the primitivist will be working much harder than his `workerist' cousin, no matter how hard he may try to convince himself that he has liberated himself from toil." While it's certainly true that anarcho-primitivism has a utopian-hippie flavour, much research suggests that Palaeolithic peoples really didn't work very hard. As for hard-working, agricultural tribal peoples, many of them want to keep their traditional lifestyles rather than be swallowed by New Delhi suburban sprawl. Does Sheppard believe this to be an inherently irrational position? Besides, his own viewpoint could also be criticized for being utopian - is it realistic to believe that nobody would work hard in a super-technological society? Is complete automation and robotization really feasible?

[IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL?]

Further, Sheppard believes that modern technology is neutral, and therefore can simply be taken over by the anarcho-syndicalist labour unions and hence be "self-managed" on that basis. This is naïve, certainly for an anarchist! I can understand Marxists who argue like this, since Communist regimes, of course, don't self-manage anything, but run the entire economy from a tightly knit centre. But how can modern technology be "self-managed"? That's not prima facie clear, and even Sheppard believes that some technology is inherently dangerous, such as nuclear power plants. But surely the problem goes deeper than this: a hoe can be dangerous, too, but a nuclear power plant is impossible without an entire centralized structure around it, including a state to make sure nobody sabotages it, not to mention the control necessary to ensure safe storage of the radioactive waste, to stop theft of plutonium, etc. The nuclear power industry *cannot be* self-managed, and most states probably couldn't control it sufficiently either (it's difficult to imagine Jeffersonian America or CNT-run Aragon with nuclear power).

[THE STATE AND ALL THAT]

As you may have gathered by now, I don't think we can get rid of the state, unless civilization collapses entirely, at which point the question will become redundant (and so will Sheppard's criticism of primitivism). It's difficult to envisage an ordered transition from one system to another without some kind of state power, not to mention the need for defence, diplomacy, international trade, etc. In his most lucid moments, even Bakunin seemed to have understood that one cannot abolish the state immediately, and it's interesting to note that he expressed support for the Union during the American Civil War, while criticizing the North for being too centralized. But both the Union and the individual Northern states were...well, states. (Proudhon, by contrast, supported the Confederacy, but that, too, was a state power!)

It's not very likely that Nestor Makhno could have abolished the state had he somehow taken power in the Ukraine. Rather, the Ukraine would have become a new state, perhaps a more radical version of Stamboliski's Bulgaria. The CNT-FAI didn't even try in Spain. After all, they joined the popular front! Had CNT somehow managed to take sole power, Spain would either have become something akin to Sandinista Nicaragua or Tito's Yugoslavia, depending on how the CNT would have treated the other political currents after an anarchist take-over. Occasionally, even Sheppard hints at some higher authority at work in his supposedly self-managed society: "But an anarchist society worthy of the name would not allow those holding religious beliefs to impose them upon others, nor would religious beliefs be allowed to influence decisions of production and distribution." Who's to stop that, I wonder? (And what would happen to the Amish?)

[A STRANGE IDIOSYNCRASY]

Final point. What on earth does Brian Sheppard have against permaculture? :-D

[SUMMARY]

In sum, I can't say that "Anarchism vs. primitivism" have managed to conclusively refute primitivism. The future may not be primitive, but then, anarcho-syndicalism has also seen its better days, hasn't it?