Anarchism vs. Primitivism
tags:
This important pamphlet looks closely at the fundamental conflicts between anarchism and primitivism.
It traces primitivism's basic precepts back to their authoritarian roots, reveals primitivist misconceptions about anarchism, capitalism and technology, shows how the corporate media have used primitivism to discredit anarchism, and also shows how ideology-driven primitivists, much like fundamentalist Christians opposed to evolution, have picked through anthropological evidence to support their predetermined conclusions, while ignoring data that contradict those conclusions.
Sheppard also considers the many primitivist straw-man attacks upon anarchism, and asks: What kind of an anarchist movement do we want - one that looks often ugly, authoritarian social reality in the eye, with the aim of transforming it into something something that will lead to freer, happier lives for all of us on planet Earth, or one that wastes its time fantasizing about a non-existent Golden Age, and that would result in the deaths of billions if its precepts were followed?
This pamphlet was originally published by See Sharp Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 2003. It has been digitised by libcom.org with full permission of the publisher. Any errors in formatting or spelling are solely our own.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Oct 27 2008 16:59
#2
Glad I found this posting. Always thought that some in the so called "Anarchist Movement" had more in common with this type of primitivist nonsense than they do with any form of class struggle anarchism/communisim.
Had a few run ins with these types of idiots in the 80s and 90s. Spacers like the Green Anarchists who had fuck all in common with real life politics and were just off on a lifestylist ego trip up their own arses. Anything that kicks this kind of twat out of the anarchist arena is good by me.
May 12 2010 19:38
#3
a rather late comment, but here it goes...
It seems to me both sides of the argument merit some consideration in the greater scheme of things. I don't think either side of the argument is willing to accept that we are all struggling to make our lives more open, more free and with some sense of accountability and integrity along the way. No grand theory, no matter how methodical or dialectical the process, will catch a glimpse of the reality of people's lives living day-in and day-out in a world where we are exceeding well beyond the tangible, finite ecological limits of our planet--thus, requiring us to challenge our long held assumptions about the efficacy of "progress" and "prosperity" in a mantra of perpetual economic and material growth.
Whatever way our collective resistance to domination materializes, it should be met with a critical eye, but also should be met with respect and with the promise that the fundamentals of a truly free and open society not be exclusive to a certain epistemology but be recognized in an all-inclusive forum built for differing views and diversity of opinions.
After all, no matter how much we feel strongly one way or the other about our political or lifestyle convictions, we have to come together and find a way where our "commonalities" of liberty, self-determination, voluntary association, mutual aid, etc. hold far more weight than our disagreements about the way things have been, should be or will be. We must let our experiences in the situation lead the way and not our pre-conceived ideas about the past or future set the scene.
How this can be accomplished is a mystery to me; especially if we let the capitalist machine divide and conquer us as they have always done.
in solidarity
There is a mistake in part 6. The book Into the Wild is about Christopher McCandless, not Gene Rosselini, although their stories are somewhat similar.