Why?

[|Y|]

When I look at various types of anarchism the most important questions are "will this devolve into the state?" and "what mechanisms are in place to prevent the resurgence of the state?"

This is why I can consider anarcho-capitalists "anarchists" under some completely asinine scenario that could never exist, likewise the same for anarcho-primitivists. They can be anarchistic but only under circumstances that are essentially impossible.

[|Y|]

anti-technology is as preposterous as pro-capitalism

I've often come across "anti-civilization" or "primitivist" anarchists in my time being an anarchist (7+ years; though in retrospect I've always been an anarchist, just not ideologically). And to me it comes off as just as silly as "pro-capitalism" does within anarchist circles.

The only difference between primitivists and "anarcho"-capitalism is that I give them the benefit of the doubt and won't put their name in double quotes. I think they have an interesting critique on technology and I think that they do provide a lot of insight for the anarchist critique of capitalism and the state. But I will expound on that much later.

Many primitivists, like "anarcho"-capitalists, believe their vision is the "one true vision" of anarchism. That no other "form" of anarchism is achievable or desirable. This is testified by such speakers as John Zerzan and his view that science, technology, and even language are "forms of domination and power," which anarchism is against in its totality. On forums on the internet (from the flag and infoshop forums, to other magazines which make paper publication like Earth First! and green anarchy) you will find the anti-civilization sentiment in full force in anarchist circles. Many anarchist prisoners are from the anti-civilization / green anarchist camp, and are very loud that "their view" is the "only correct" view. The "anarcho"-capitalists are no different, but they are generally contained to one or two websites on the internet, involve themselves in little or no direct action, and are pretty much an empty theology in themselves.

Another similarity the two share is a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchism truly is. The "anarcho"-capitalists have had threads on certain forums praising Pinochet and Wal-Mart, and primitivists have called for the destruction of civilization along with 5.5 billion humans. Both views completely corrupt and without merit, and hardly representative of anarchism as it applies to most anarchists.

This isn't to say that they both are not anarchist, they most certainly are, or at least could be following some very narrow constraints. For primitivism to be anarchistic (fulfilling the ideas of free association and anti-hierarchy), it would require the voluntary acceptance of primitivism by every single person on the planet, and a gradual reduction in population densities as well as our reliance on technology. Sometimes a primitivist will talk about how we're doomed to destroy ourselves anyway and that would be a time at which humanity could easier move to primitivism, but I find such statements of apocalypse absurd at best, and that if humanity were to be reduced to sustainable primitivist levels, it is unlikely that other life forms on the planet would survive such a catastrophe (ironically requiring those left to utilize technology for their very own survival). So for primitivist, achieving their version of anarchism is not going to happen in any reasonable scenario.

For "anarcho"-capitalists, likewise, it would require all assets to be distributed to everyone relatively equally, without anyone working for anyone and shops being run by independent workers by themselves (with collective or family owned shops here and there). In reality this would never happen because of the accumulative aspect of capitalist property. Quickly a mob state would form and those with the "most" assets would rule over those with the "least." To qualify this let me explain. Some "anarcho"-capitalists blame the state for "monopoly powers" and for things such as patents and copyright. Anarchists have known that those things are merely extensions of rent, interest, and wage labor, but "anarcho"-capitalists find it difficult to reconcile the similarities. It is unlikely, for example, that "state capitalists" would give up "statist protection" of their assets without authoritarian committees (which are nothing but private states) in place beforehand to insure that their assets are respected by the market. This is why "anarcho"-capitalism is even less realizable than primitivism, because the constraints to which it can exist also require the voluntary acceptance of a large number of humanity, along with the very corporations that "anarcho"-capitalist don't technically support (being against patent and copyright is being against current capitalist corporations). "Anarcho"-capitalism, though, is such a discombobulated theory you can find 'ancaps' talking about how the current state of affairs is "fine," and that "we're already living in anarchism." Not even primitivists will go so far as to claim such complete sophistry!

But anti-technology arguments in general do have their own bit of sophistry. Consider, for example, the very idea that technology should be eradicated. How absurd is this from an anarchist point of view? Anarchists are for voluntary, not forced, acceptance of our way of living. We have to be, what with the whole concept of "free association." It's about as realistic as capitalism not being compulsory in "anarcho"-capitalism. Billions of people depend on technology. Thus technology is instantly necessary to achieve anarchism. Period. No question. Unless we are to believe anarchism is a "holy ideology worthy of certain people" which is a view that some anti-civilization people do have (they claim that they are capable of surviving in the wilderness, but when questioned about their stays in the wilderness I have found that they don't know anything about wilderness survival).

The reason primitivists or anti-civilizationists want to eridicate technology is simple. They believe that technology, specialization, and the division of labor, are intrinsically connected. And that specialization tends to destroy our ablity to "do things" creating dependence upon our fellow humans for something. They might argue, for example, that if you need several components for your laptop, you have to rely on the work of a few dozen different cooperatives to acquire those components. This is true. And this is the most important part of their critique. Specialization does create compelling reasons that perpetuate work and capitalism. I will probably get to that some other time. The thing is, how capitalism operates has *nothing* to do with technology. Technology doesn't require a "system" for it to exist. The primitivist critique of technology is really a critique of the capitalist production methodology. The division of labor, specialization, propritarianism, and so on. It is not actually part of the technological process as a whole, because it is entirely possible to create technologies without any of those things.

Mind you these people are quite a presence online, and while I do not call them hypocrites for that, I think that their views are out there and tend to go uncontested until recently; Andrew Flood's response being most notable.

Like "anarcho"-capitalists, their basic premise is flawed and wrong. I put "anarcho"-capitalism in my "anti-civ" category because I truly believe it has a similarily corrupt view point. The ensuing mob wars would either result in the state being reinstated (likely) or the fall of civilization itself as rival mobs competed with one another for the top of the heap. They're both just... unrealistic. Naive. Silly. And in fact, from now on, if I reference either one, it will most likely be anecdotally. I'm tired of actually caring about completely useless theories.

Here's one of my last posts to an "anarcho"-capitalist forum, done with 'em for a long time now. I needed to write this post because quite frankly I'm tired of talking to primitivists about their silliness. I'm tired of talking to anti-civ dorks about their views. I'm done with capitalists and their pathetic BS.

You may wonder what |λ| means. It means "the absolute value of lambda." Lambda being a very important concept in computer science. The lambda calculus, Lisp's Lambda, etc. It also has a double meaning in that on the flag forums and for several years now I have gone by |Y|, with my former nickname being 'anonYmous,' because I was fond of asking the question "why" back in those days. I still think it is the most important question.

[coup-detat]

That was beautifully done. I think you speak for all of us there. Enough said.

[|Y|]

Thanks, that was from my (now defunct) blog, btw.

[Zazaban]

Some of the primmie stuff is actually beyond that kind of warped. I got fed up when I saw somebody trying to argue that rocks deserved the same rights as people. And I got flamed from all around when I said that was ludicrous.

[|Y|]

The Shane99X rebuttal was the king of all rebuttals, ignoring my responses to Bookchin's "lifestylism" and wolfi's "a balanced account of the world."

[Zazaban]

Not as bad as the guy who would immediately dismiss any argument I made as invalid because I was 'brainwashed'.