đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș ken-knabb-the-poverty-of-primitivism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:53:00. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Poverty of Primitivism Author: Ken Knabb Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: critique, John Filiss, primitivism Source: Retrieved on December 21, 2009 from http://bopsecrets.org/CF/primitivism.htm Notes: No copyright. Published online March 2001. Printed copies free on request.
In âThe Joy of Revolutionâ (1997) I devoted a brief section to
criticizing some current technophobic and primitivist notions, because
it seemed to me that these notions were becoming so widespread and so
delirious that they were obscuring more serious radical possibilities.
This text aroused a number of hostile reactions, from John Zerzan and
Fifth Estate among others. Further debate was stirred up when an
anarcho-primitivist named John Filiss posted the text on his Internet
âAnarchy Board,â interspersed with his own comments. Another anarchist
signing himself âRaycunâ made some pertinent criticisms of Filissâs
comments. When Raycun persisted in challenging Filissâs illogicalities
and evasions, Filiss solved the problem by banning him from his board!
This suppression of practically the only voice of sanity at the board
naturally put an end to any thought I might have had about taking part
in the discussion. But since Filiss did make a more extensive public
response than any other technophobes have proved capable of doing, this
may be a convenient framework in which to clarify some of the issues I
addressed.
As you can see if you go to the Anarchy Board and read the whole
exchange between Raycun and Filiss (with occasional interventions from a
few others), the replies and counterreplies by several people on several
topics at once soon become rather confusing. In the interest of clarity
I have limited myself to responding to Filissâs original comments on my
text.
The passages from âThe Joy of Revolutionâ are in boldface. Filissâs
comments are in italics. My responses to him are in ordinary type.
Ken Knabb
March 2001
Present-day automation often does little more than throw some people out
of work while intensifying the regimentation of those who remain;
Actually, I understand unemployment is at a thirty year low, unless you
mean something else by present day.
It should be clear from the context that I am not referring to the
annual ups and downs of unemployment statistics, but to present
conditions in general (as contrasted with the possible future society I
am describing throughout this chapter).
if any time is actually gained by âlabor-savingâ devices, it is usually
spent in an equally alienated passive consumption. But in a liberated
world computers and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate
dangerous or boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more
interesting activities.
Presumably computers could perform the calculations necessary for robots
to build more computers and robots. :-) Unless you meant dreadful and
disagreeable occupations like gardening, fishing, hunting, and gathering
berries and herbs. The kind of stuff we call recreation today. :-)
I was talking about eliminating âdangerous or boring tasks,â not
activities that people find pleasant.
Disregarding such possibilities, and understandably disgusted by the
current misuse of many technologies, some people have come to see
âtechnologyâ itself as the main problem and advocate a return to a
simpler lifestyle. How much simpler is debated â as flaws are discovered
in each period, the dividing line keeps getting pushed farther back.
Some, considering the Industrial Revolution as the main villain,
disseminate computer-printed eulogies of hand craftsmanship. Others,
seeing the invention of agriculture as the original sin,
I donât recall having read a primitivist reference to anything as
original sin. Where did you get that?
Primitivists do not, of course, actually use that term. My point is that
the advent of agriculture (or industrial technology, or whatever their
particular bugaboo may be) functions like the Biblical original sin: as
a simplistic mythical explanation for the origin of all subsequent
problems.
feel we should return to a hunter-gatherer society, though they are not
entirely clear about what they have in mind for the present human
population which could not be sustained by such an economy.
Like anarchists, primitivists are short on discussions of realization. I
too see that as a flaw. If a hunter-gatherer lifestyle were the most
desirable one for human beings, it would doubtless take many generations
for us to reach that state. And, if it were the most desirable type of
life for humans, there should be advantages which accrue to us for
moving closer to it. Likewise, the technological lifestyle is hardly an
example of stasis ... it is forever pushing us towards a goal of which
we can only guess. And we in this society are supposed to focus on the
advantages it brings us, advantages which may well be limited to the
context of technological society, and not seriously question the general
movement of technology itself. To that primitivists take exception, and
open a line of inquiry into ways of life outside the technological
matrix.
Except for Filissâs admission that primitivistsâ notions of how their
aims might be implemented are rather fuzzy, none of this has any bearing
on what I was talking about here. But since he has raised the issue, it
should be noted that the force that is constantly âpushing us toward a
goal of which we can only guessâ is capitalism, which by its very nature
must constantly expand or die. Capitalism has developed many
technologies, some of them harmful or dangerous, but those technologies
donât âmoveâ by themselves. The technology of cheap solar power, for
example, has scarcely moved at all because the capitalists have not
chosen to subsidize it. Chainsaws do not cut down rain forests, people
do; and they do so because they have irresistible economic incentives to
do so (whether they be capitalists who stand to make huge profits or
workers who have no other way to survive). Until the economic system is
abolished, these incentives will continue to overpower any appeals to
people to change their âlifestyle.â
Others, not to be outdone, present eloquent arguments proving that the
development of language and rational thought was the real origin of our
problems.
Iâm not sure where you found language and rational thought together
described as twin problems in primitivist writing. I assume you mean
Zerzanâs language essay, right?
Right.
Yet others contend that the whole human race is so incorrigibly evil
that it should altruistically extinguish itself in order to save the
rest of the global ecosystem.
I think a few deep ecology types speak in those terms. Iâm not aware of
primitivists who do so.
As I noted at the beginning of the paragraph, there are different types
or degrees of technophobia (some call themselves primitivists, for
example, while others reject that label). Part of my aim in writing this
text was to force these differences into the open, so that each type
would feel obliged to publicly dissociate itself from the absurdities of
the other types.
These fantasies contain so many obvious self-contradictions that it is
hardly necessary to criticize them in any detail. They have questionable
relevance to actual past societies and virtually no relevance to present
possibilities.
Unless youâre interested in freedom, as primitive societies are the only
known examples of stable anarchist societies; and also interested in
escaping the technological nightmare we appear to be facing, with the
coming of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, advanced robotics,
cloning and genetic engineering. But maybe you have a more positive take
on these issues. What is your opinion of nanarchy, for example?
The fact that I translated documents defending one of the first
destructions of bioengineered plants (France 1998) suggests that I donât
have a very positive take on genetic engineering. But this and the other
issues Filiss mentions have no bearing on the two points I was making
here: that technophobic fantasies have âquestionable relevanceâ to
actual primitive societies (in the sense that they present distorted,
rose-colored images of them), and more importantly, that they have
âvirtually no relevanceâ to present possibilities of radical social
change (because we find ourselves in such different conditions from
those earlier societies).
Even supposing that life was better in one or another previous era, we
have to begin from where we are now. Modern technology is so interwoven
with all aspects of our life that it could not be abruptly discontinued
without causing a global chaos that would wipe out billions of people.
I think youâre bringing in your own authoritarian assumptions. I donât
recall any primitivist saying that we wished to enforce a particular
lifestyle through the barrel of a gun.
Guns have nothing to do with it. The point is that an abrupt breakdown
of present technological infrastructures (whether brought about through
a natural collapse of the global system or through a hastening of such a
collapse by antitech terrorism) would lead to the death of billions of
people. If you advocate such a solution, you should be honest enough to
admit it and to recognize the consequences:
âWhen things break down, there is going to be violence and this does
raise a question, I donât know if I exactly want to call it a moral
question, but the point is that for those who realize the need to do
away with the techno-industrial system, if you work for its collapse, in
effect you are killing a lot of people. If it collapses, there is going
to be social disorder, there is going to be starvation, there arenât
going to be any more spare parts or fuel for farm equipment, there wonât
be any more pesticide or fertilizer on which modern agriculture is
dependent. So there isnât going to be enough food to go around, so then
what happens? This is something that, as far as Iâve read, I havenât
seen any radicals facing up toâ (Ted Kaczynski, in an interview
reproduced at Filissâs âPrimitivism.comâ website).
Postrevolutionary people will probably decide to reduce human population
and phase out certain industries, but this canât be done overnight.
Where did you see the âovernightâ reference in primitivist writing?
Primitivists dodge between two different positions. That most
technologies should be abolished within a relatively short period (not
literally overnight, of course) is stated or pretty obviously implied in
many of their writings. Occasionally, however, when confronted with
common-sense objections such as I have made in this text, they may
retreat a bit: âOh, donât be silly. Where did you get such a strange
idea? Of course we donât mean that these things could be instantly
abolished. Thatâs just a common misunderstanding of our position. We are
quite aware that this will take some time. We would never dream of
forcing our views on anyone. We are merely trying to change peopleâs
perspectives so they will see that we need to move in that direction.â
Well, if that is all they mean they should have few objections to the
points I have made here and elsewhere in âThe Joy of Revolution,â since
my text is largely concerned with what we might do within the next few
years. If Filiss recognizes that it would take âmany generationsâ to
move toward a hunter-gatherer society, one might expect him to be
interested in examining the practical transitional issues I deal with.
(What new forms of popular decisionmaking could most effectively
organize the transformation of existing infrastructures and the
restoration of nature? How might certain technologies be phased out in
such a way as to cause the least harm?) But his flippant dismissal of
the practical needs for various technologies that I mention below seems
to imply that we could and should immediately abandon those
technologies.
We need to seriously consider how we will deal with all the practical
problems that will be posed in the interim.
If it ever comes down to such a practical matter, I doubt if the
technophobes will really want to eliminate motorized wheelchairs;
We could open a line of inquiry into a way of life that stressed
physical ability and awareness, making one far less likely to be
paralyzed by accident ... or a way of life without automation, such as
cars or factories, making one far less likely to be paralyzed by
accident ... or a way of life where people are in better physical
health, and less likely to suffer the problems of illnesses like
strokes, making them far less likely to be paralyzed by traumas like a
blood clot in the brain. Cure is a more difficult proposition, but as
far as the nervous system goes, modern allopathic medicine hasnât been
very effective as of yet. But to be honest, even I would look to that
rather than plugging the convenience of electric wheelchairs.
My point in this paragraph is that even the most fervent technophobes
will probably have enough common sense to abandon their dogma if they
ever face this kind of practical choice. I do not think that Filiss
would really advocate eliminating motorized wheelchairs as long as lots
of people needed them, even if he felt, quite rightly, that certain
social changes could reduce the need for them in the long term.
or pull the plug on ingenious computer setups like the one that enables
physicist Stephen Hawking to communicate despite being totally
paralyzed;
I donât know much about him, or why heâs paralyzed.
What difference does it make? Presumably Filiss is poised to respond
that whatever it is was caused by civilization. Hawking is afflicted
with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (âLou Gehrigâs diseaseâ). I donât
believe anyone yet knows what causes it.
or allow a woman to die in childbirth who could be saved by technical
procedures;
Childbirth is pretty routine in primitive societies.
Spoken like a real man. As Raycun put it: âPretty routine, yeah. Either
the mother dies, or she lives with much worse health, or she lives.
Either the baby dies, or lives for a little while, or it lives. All
pretty routine occurrences.â About 500,000 women die in childbirth each
year, most of them in the less developed parts of the world.
Imagine that, in a newly postrevolutionary society, a woman is in danger
of dying in childbirth unless she has a caesarian operation. Someone
says, âLetâs call doctor so-and-so. Sheâll know what to do.â Will Filiss
step forward and say, âSorry, you canât do that. My comrades and I have
cut the telephone lines so we wonât be so dominated by technology.
Besides, childbirth is pretty routine in primitive societies, so whatâs
the problem? She probably should have taken some herbs or something. In
any case, if some sort of operation is needed, it should be done with
stone implements â precision metal instruments require industrial
production, and thatâs a no-no.â
Of course I do not suppose that Filiss or any other primitivist would
really respond in that way. But if not, just what would they propose to
do?
or accept the reemergence of diseases that used to routinely kill or
permanently disable a large percentage of the population;
Like cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, alzheimers ... no, wait,
those are diseases which are limited to civilization. :-)
I was obviously not referring to the latter diseases (which are largely
provoked by the stresses of capitalist society and are likely to
significantly diminish when that society is abolished), but to the many
that are not limited to civilization. Some of the more well known ones,
such as smallpox or diphtheria, did indeed originate with the
domestication of animals and urban population concentration. The fact
remains that those diseases now exist, and that primitives are even more
susceptible to them than are civilized people (the latter having
developed some immunity over the centuries); which is why so many
aboriginal populations were decimated upon being exposed to them. (See
Jared Diamondâs Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.)
In any case, there are countless other diseases that have never had
anything to do with civilization. âAmebiasis affects 10 percent of the
worldâs population, most of it in the Third World. The population at
risk from malaria exceeds 1.2 billion, with an estimated 175 million
people actively infected today. African trypanosomiasis (the curse of
sleeping sickness) and American trypanosomiasis hold 70 million people
at risk, and infect about 20 million right now. Schistomiasis,
worldwide, afflicts no fewer than 200 million people; filariasis and
leishmaniasis 250 million; hookworm 800 million; onchocerciasis, a
common cause of blindness in the tropics, 20 millionâ (Lewis Thomas, The
Fragile Species). These and other maladies have afflicted primitive
peoples for thousands of years, and in all that time no ânatural
healersâ or ânatural remediesâ have succeeded in stopping them. Most can
be routinely cured by modern medicine.
or resign themselves to never visiting or communicating with people in
other parts of the world unless theyâre within walking distance;
Beats writing letters and e-mail. :-)
In-person encounters are of course nicer in many ways than long-distance
communication. Does that mean we canât have both? At the risk of stating
the obvious, Filiss is making these very remarks on an Internet
discussion board, which is enabling him and other like-minded people
around the world to link up with each other and spread primitivist
propaganda to their heartsâ content. Iâm not saying that this is
necessarily hypocritical â it may be reasonable to temporarily use
certain methods even if you ultimately hope to eliminate them.
Nevertheless, there comes a point when the gap between the ideology and
the reality becomes rather amusing. When I see these folks so glibly
pontificating over the Net about the evils of technology and the joys of
primitive life, I wonder how many of them would last a week if they were
suddenly stranded in the wilderness.
or stand by while people die in famines that could be averted through
global food shipments.
Why are they dying in famines? What is the context?
Who cares? Present-day famines are indeed largely caused by
neocolonialist domination and would eventually disappear if the world
was radically reorganized. The point is, what do the primitivists
envision doing in the meantime if they insist on abolishing
telecommunications and transportation technology?
The problem is that meanwhile this increasingly fashionable ideology
deflects attention from real problems and possibilities. A simplistic
Manichean dualism (nature is Good, technology is Bad) enables people to
ignore complex historical and dialectical processes; itâs so much easier
to blame everything on some primordial evil, some sort of devil or
original sin.
Evil, devil, and sin, huh? I think youâre laying on your own dualism
here. Iâm not responsible for every word that Zerzan, Perlman, Moore, et
al write, but I donât recall them using those words to describe what
Zerzan has called âa wrong turn.â A âwrong turnâ is far less reflective
of an incommensurable aspect of our world than the terms you bring up
are or usually are.
As noted above, primitivists obviously donât use those actual terms
(though their diatribes against âLeviathanâ or âthe Megamachineâ are
sometimes almost reminiscent of a preacher denouncing the devil). The
point here is that the crude, undialectical Good-Bad dualism which is
obvious in virtually all primitivist writings replaces any serious
objective analysis.
What begins as a valid questioning of excessive faith in science and
technology ends up as a desperate and even less justified faith in the
return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a failure to engage the
present system in any but an abstract, apocalyptical way.*
If your point is to question the validity of belief by disparaging
faith, I agree with you. To single out primitivists for this failing is
unwarranted. Unlike, say, the Situationistsâ Marxism, we actually have
examples from history and pre-history of a way of life which is in at
least some respects desirable. And it is these examples, among other
things, on which we base our body of theory.
All sorts of past societies were âin at least some respects desirableâ
(as well as being undesirable in others). The point is to determine
which aspects can be most appropriately adapted to our own situation. If
revolutionary theory cannot point to any âstableâ examples from the
past, this is because movements that threaten the existing order have
always been quickly repressed. But we can see some hints, within
ourselves and in a few brief radical situations, of what might be
possible. If we had to âactually have examplesâ of whatever we aimed at,
we would never arrive at anything new.
Technophiles and technophobes are united in treating technology in
isolation from other social factors, differing only in their equally
simplistic conclusions that new technologies are automatically
empowering or automatically alienating.
You know, Iâm really looking forward to a critique of primitivism from
someone who has actually read our literature. That is why I was a little
disappointed at Jason for being somewhat rude to Ron Leighton bringing
up a very valid criticism/question of primitivism and realization, and
doing so in a friendly and open way. Here itâs not so much that Ken is
being rude, but itâs become more and more apparent that he is not
engaging in any of the areas that we have been discussing for I donât
know how long. Iâm giving him the courtesy of a point by point
dissection of his critique, but I have yet to read a quote of ours, for
example. Rather than giving us this mainstream fare, what if he had
actually focused on some technology criticâs discussion of why
technology isnât neutral? Here is a direct question of mine to Zerzan on
the topic:
Q: âYour response to the usual claim that technology is neutral.â
A: âTechnology has never been neutral, like some discreet tool
detachable from its context. It always partakes of and expresses the
basic values of the social system in which it is embedded. Technology is
the language, the texture, the embodiment of the social arrangements it
holds together. The idea that it is neutral, that it is separable from
society, is one of the biggest lies available. It is obvious why those
who defend the high-tech death trap want us to believe that technology
is somehow neutral.â
Or he could have pulled quotes from Ellul, Sale, or whomever, and then
pointed out why he felt those arguments were incorrect. Even Bookchin
had the courtesy of quoting us.
Well, if we focus on the very passage that Filiss gives us, we find that
Zerzan falls into the common confusion between âneutralâ and âseparable
from society.â When people say that technology is neutral, they mean
that most technologies are not inherently good or bad, it depends how
theyâre used (a murderer can use a knife to kill you, a surgeon can use
it to save your life). When technophobes declare that technology is not
neutral, they mean that technologies are inherently bad and cannot be
put to good uses (or at least that any good use is inevitably outweighed
by bad side-effects). That is, in effect they are saying that technology
is separable from society, because it is bad regardless of the society.
But Zerzan also states that technology âalways partakes of and expresses
the basic values of the social system in which it is embedded.â If this
is true, then technology is not inherently bad: a liberated,
nonexploitive society will naturally create liberating, nonexploitive
technologies, just as the present alienated social system naturally
produces alienated forms (or uses) of technology.
As long as capitalism alienates all human productions into autonomous
ends that escape the control of their creators, technologies will share
in that alienation and will be used to reinforce it.
Iâd like to know what this means apart from Marxist mystification. Or
how any insight it offers could be consistently applied in a
technological society.
Itâs basically another way of putting what I just said: If you have a
system (capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce
alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies so
as to reinforce itself.
But when people free themselves from this domination, they will have no
trouble rejecting those technologies that are harmful while adapting
others to beneficial uses.
Certain technologies â nuclear power is the most obvious example â are
indeed so insanely dangerous that they will no doubt be brought to a
prompt halt. Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or
superfluous commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the
disappearance of their commercial rationales. But many technologies
(electricity, metallurgy, refrigeration, plumbing, printing, recording,
photography, telecommunications, tools, textiles, sewing machines,
agricultural equipment, surgical instruments, anesthetics, antibiotics,
among dozens of other examples that will come to mind), however they may
presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks.
Well, except that it takes work to create these items, and often to use
these items, and we are all looking for life without dead time, arenât
we?
Yes, it takes some âworkâ to create them, but such work doesnât
necessarily have to be wage labor. A life without dead time does not
mean a life where you never have to move a muscle or use your head. See
the section âTransforming Work into Play.â
Itâs simply a matter of using them more sensibly, bringing them under
popular control,
Explain. What is popular control?
More or less what practically all anarchists (until the advent of
anarcho-primitivism) envisaged. The rest of the âJoy of Revolutionâ
chapter goes into considerable detail about various possibilities of
liberated social organization.
introducing a few ecological improvements, and redesigning them for
human rather than capitalistic ends.
The difference being...? How are capitalist ends different from human
ends in the context of industrial production? And how could human ends,
as opposed to capitalist ends, be realized in the context of industrial
production?
Capitalist ends are such things as greater profits and increased control
over the workers by the owners. Human ends are such things as people
deciding what they need or what they want to do and working out among
themselves whatever seem to be the most pleasant and effective ways to
achieve those aims (including selecting, rejecting or modifying whatever
technological potentials are available).
Other technologies are more problematic. They will still be needed to
some extent, but their harmful and irrational aspects will be phased
out, usually by attrition. If one considers the automobile industry as a
whole, including its vast infrastructure (factories, streets, highways,
gas stations, oil wells) and all its inconveniences and hidden costs
(traffic jams, parking, repairs, insurance, accidents, pollution, urban
destruction), it is clear that any number of alternative methods would
be preferable. The fact remains that this infrastructure is already
there. The new society will thus undoubtedly continue to use existing
automobiles and trucks for a few years, while concentrating on
developing more sensible modes of transportation to gradually replace
them as they wear out. Personal vehicles with nonpolluting engines
What non-polluting engines? Explain.
Engines that donât pollute. Of the sort that are being developed even
now, and that would have been developed long ago if it werenât for the
resistance of oil companies, auto companies and other entrenched
economic interests.
might continue indefinitely in rural areas, but most present-day urban
traffic (with a few exceptions such as delivery trucks, fire engines,
ambulances, and taxis for disabled people) could be superseded by
various forms of public transit, enabling many freeways and streets to
be converted to parks, gardens, plazas and bike paths. Airplanes will be
retained for intercontinental travel (rationed if necessary)
RATIONED??? Rationed by whom?
By the people. Like when a dozen friends get together for dinner and
there are just twelve pieces of pie, they jointly agree to ârationâ
themselves to one piece each; whereas on some other occasion when there
are lots of pies available everyone can have as much as they want.
and for certain kinds of urgent shipments, but the elimination of wage
labor will leave people with time for more leisurely modes of travel â
boats, trains, biking, hiking.
Boats â built by whom? Trains â built by whom? Bikes â built by whom?
Since people are not now wage laborers, what is their motivation for
making these things?
As I have noted elsewhere, âIt is strange to find myself having to
explain basic anarchist positions to anarchists. When asked how an
anarchist society would work, anarchists have always replied that once
people are freed from political and economic repression they will have a
strong tendency to voluntarily cooperate in order to take care of
whatever needs doing; and that they are likely to be far more creative
in resolving any difficulties that may remain. The anarcho-technophobes
seem to have abandoned this belief... If some things are now produced in
an alienated way (under conditions of capitalist exploitation), [they
seem] to find it inconceivable that liberated people might notice the
problem and figure out some different, more sensible and pleasant way to
manage (e.g. by producing fewer of them, modifying them so theyâre
easier to make and repair, automating most of the labor, and sharing the
remaining necessary tasks more equitably)â (âA Look at Some of the
Reactions to Public Secretsâ).
Here, as in other areas, it will be up to the people involved to
experiment with different possibilities to see what works best. Once
people are able to determine the aims and conditions of their own work,
they will naturally come up with all sorts of ideas that will make that
work briefer, safer and more pleasant;
At least partially fantasy. Capitalism already rewards making work
briefer, as this enhances productivity. Safer often or usually means
REDUCING productivity, so what do you want? More pleasant? Doubtless
things could be done to make the workplace more pleasant, but production
has its own exigencies. You can only make a workline SO fun.
I donât claim that life would be 100% fun all the time (though it would
undoubtedly be much more pleasant than it is now). It would be up to the
people involved to decide how they want to balance among different
priorities â safety, productivity, fun, etc. Nor would they all have to
decide in the same way. Different communities and different regions
would choose different priorities and different lifestyles (no doubt
including various types of neoprimitivism) and people would gravitate to
the ones they found most congenial.
and such ideas, no longer patented or jealously guarded as âbusiness
secrets,â
Interesting. So youâre saying that these methods have productive value,
and are recognized as such by employers. So why would their
implementation be more likely in your ideal society than in our own?
A capitalist company has an incentive to keep such methods secret (or to
patent them) so that it can maintain a monopoly and keep its prices
high. In a noncapitalist society, where no one would have any economic
interest in such monopolization, everyone would benefit by promoting the
maximum openness of ideas and information, so as to enhance everyoneâs
skills and creativity, so that any necessary tasks would be shared
around as widely and effectively as possible.
will rapidly spread and inspire further improvements. With the
elimination of commercial motives, people will also be able to give
appropriate weight to social and environmental factors along with purely
quantitative labor-time considerations.
In other words, other factors will creep in which will ultimately reduce
productivity.
Yes.
If, say, production of computers currently involves some sweatshop labor
or causes some pollution (though far less than classic âsmokestackâ
industries),
I donât know much about the polluting or non-polluting aspects of
advanced industries like CPU manufacture. It certainly costs enough to
build their fabs. Going rate is well over a billion dollars. And those
costs reflect both enormous amounts of labor at some level, along with
activity which creates pollution at some levels, whether or not the fab
itself is producing substantial amounts of waste. Because this is not
direct pollution of a type we are used to measuring, or can be easily
measured, we may be less aware of it, but it does exist.
The fact that certain items are now made in a certain way does not mean
thatâs the only way they can be produced. As I go on to say:
thereâs no reason to believe that better methods cannot be figured out
once people set their minds to it â very likely precisely through a
judicious use of computer automation.
There are already rewards for this in our society. Companies like Ford,
IBM, and many others push for worker input to increase productivity. And
reward for that input.
So what?
(Fortunately, the more repetitive the job, the easier it usually is to
automate.)
The general rule will be to simplify basic manufactures in ways that
facilitate optimum flexibility. Techniques will be made more uniform and
understandable, so that people with a minimal general training will be
able to carry out construction, repairs, alterations and other
operations that formerly required specialized training.
When this tendency pushes against productivity, what will you opt for?
At different times, different technologies develop and are implemented
in different ways. Often technologies become extremely complex, and the
input of a specialized technician is required. E.g., RAM sticks arenât
made with tinker toys. On the other hand, businesses would prefer a more
modular approach where possible to save themselves the cost and hassle
of employees with specialized knowledge, so that tendency is already
inherent in capitalism. How would your ideal society bring out this
tendency further, and how much more can it do so?
Capitalists and bureaucrats opt for one solution or another (whether
more modular or more complex) depending on which alternative increases
their profits or their power, whereas people in a liberated society
would decide based on factors such as convenience, fairness, safety and
fun.
Incidentally the society I describe in âThe Joy of Revolutionâ is not my
âideal societyâ (in the sense of being the most perfect society I can
imagine). It is a society that I believe to be reasonably possible for
fallible human beings to create within a relatively short time,
beginning from present conditions, and that would be flexible and
pluralistic enough to accommodate a wide variety of tastes and
temperaments.
Basic tools, appliances, raw materials, machine parts and architectural
modules will probably be standardized and mass-produced, leaving
tailor-made refinements to small-scale âcottage industriesâ and the
final and potentially most creative aspects to the individual users.
I thought most of these items were already largely standardized and mass
produced. I donât think youâre implying that a typical screwdriver in
modern times was built by a smith from a hunk of iron. So what are you
implying?
Under the present system basic products are only erratically
standardized (many irrational brand differences remain), while the
ârefinementsâ are often inappropriately standardized (to maximize
profits), forcing people to choose from a limited number of models
determined by the big companies. In a liberated society, people would
probably decide that mass production was the best way to provide
everyone with certain basic needs, while leaving other aspects to
peopleâs diverse initiatives. For example, few people would want to go
to the trouble of spinning and weaving their own cloth â this is the
sort of thing that it makes sense to mass-produce in a few factories
that could be almost totally automated â but many people might want to
take that cloth and design their own clothes to their own taste.
Once time is no longer money we may, as William Morris hoped, see a
revival of elaborate âlaborâ-intensive arts and crafts: joyful making
and giving by people who care about their creations and the people for
whom they are destined.
Time may no longer be money if you have some other media of exchange
(although I suspect you are talking about the equivalent of money under
another name), but productivity reflects productive output. And Iâm not
seeing how you are going to substantially increase the former.
Total productivity would not need to be increased. People would produce
more of certain useful items (e.g. homes for everyone) while ceasing to
produce a much larger number of things that are now produced simply to
make profits or to reinforce the system (e.g. prisons, bombs, banks,
ads, and all sorts of junk commodities).
As for the money question, instead of âsuspectingâ what I mean, it might
be more illuminating to read the section where I discuss it (âAbolishing
Moneyâ).
Some communities might choose to retain a fair amount of (ecologically
sanitized) heavy technology; others might opt for simpler lifestyles,
though backed up by technical means to facilitate that simplicity or for
emergencies. Solar-powered generators and satellite-linked
telecommunications, for example, would enable people to live off in the
woods with no need for power and telephone lines. If earth-based solar
power and other renewable energy sources proved insufficient, immense
solar receptors in orbit could beam down a virtually unlimited amount of
pollution-free energy.
And we would have carburetors that would allow 200 mpg, and lightbulbs
that lasted 100 years, and ... There are serious technical challenges to
putting immense solar receptors in space, Ken. I donât know how far we
are from this being a wise return on investment rather than just putting
solar collectors in the desert. And what would the energy needs be of a
society which can efficiently produce and launch into orbit huge solar
panels? And why would this be more likely to take place in your ideal
society rather than the present one?
Because in the present society solar power and other renewable energy
sources conflict with the established capitalistsâ profits, and their
development is therefore resisted.
Actually, I suspect that earth-based sources would suffice to fill the
needs of the society I envisage; I merely mentioned orbiting receptors
as one of many possibilities if they did not. In any case, âserious
technical challengesâ have a way of dissipating a lot faster than anyone
expects.
Most Third World regions, incidentally, lie in the sun belt where solar
power can be most effective. Though their poverty will present some
initial difficulties, their traditions of cooperative self-sufficiency
plus the fact that they are not encumbered with obsolete industrial
infrastructures may give them some compensating advantages when it comes
to creating new, ecologically appropriate structures.
This is a common misunderstanding of economics. There isnât much in the
way of an advantage for having no industrial infrastructures versus
having older industrial infrastructures. At some point the returns would
be such that they could simply build new industrial infrastructures.
I was not claiming that underdeveloped regions are in a favorable
position; I was simply noting that in a liberated social order they
might have some advantages to help compensate for their initial
disadvantages.
By drawing selectively on the developed regions for whatever information
and technologies they themselves decide they need, they will be able to
skip the horrible âclassicâ stage of industrialization and capital
accumulation and proceed directly to postcapitalist forms of social
organization.
How? By using goods and products that they opt not to make for fear of
environmental damage? To some limited extent, this is how the Western
countries operate.
No. By using products and information that they would not themselves
have been capable of developing without having first passed through the
âclassicâ stage. Under the present social system the industrialized
countries take advantage of their development to foist commodities on
Third World countries and keep them dependent on the global economy.
With the abolition of that system, people in underdeveloped regions will
be able to adopt whatever they find useful and reject whatever they feel
is not useful, instead of being forced to buy and borrow at the
capitalistsâ bidding. For example, they could quickly set up wireless
communications networks without having had to pass through the clumsy,
ugly wired stage that the advanced countries did.
Nor will the influence necessarily be all one way: some of the most
advanced social experimentation in history was carried out during the
Spanish revolution by illiterate peasants living under virtually Third
World conditions.
Some controversy on that score, Ken. Hereâs a link
www.jim.com/cat/blood.htm.
The link Filiss recommends is a right-wing libertarian website which
retails a few biased atrocity stories and concludes that the Spanish
anarchists were too âsocialistâ because they interfered with the free
market. (A detailed refutation of this sort of thing can be found at
and
.) Granting that the Spanish revolution had its shortcomings, anarchists
and other revolutionaries have always with good reason held it up as
probably the single richest example of the potentials of autonomous
popular creativity. The fact that anarcho-primitivists are now often
seen disparaging it is an indication of how far they have drifted from
any serious consideration of revolutionary possibilities.
Elsewhere on the Anarchy Board Filiss posted an article by another
primitivist, John Moore, which includes the following passage:
âChomskyâs proud declaration that during the Spanish Revolution
âproduction continued effectivelyâ becomes a profound indictment, and an
indication that liberation has not been achieved. In an authentic
anarchy, factories would be closed or totally reconstituted,
technological production would be abandoned or radically transformed.â
In a debate that followed, Filiss claimed that this did not mean that
Moore was insisting that people must immediately abandon technological
production. But if not, why is it a âprofound indictmentâ that the
Spanish workers did not do so? Would Moore and Filiss have urged those
workers to stop producing the necessities of life or the weapons and
ammunition that were so desperately needed in the war against the
fascists? If not, just what sort of âradical transformationâ do they
have in mind?
Nor will people in developed regions need to accept a drab transitional
period of âlowered expectationsâ in order to enable less developed
regions to catch up. This common misconception stems from the false
assumption that most present-day products are desirable and necessary â
implying that more for others means less for ourselves. In reality, a
revolution in the developed countries will immediately supersede so many
absurd commodities and concerns that even if supplies of certain goods
and services are temporarily reduced, people will still be better off
than they are now even in material terms (in addition to being far
better off in âspiritualâ terms).
You have to be more clear about what youâre talking about. Give
examples, for instance.
Once their own immediate problems are taken care of,
Which problems and how?
There are dozens of examples throughout the rest of the chapter. Filiss
does not seem to have bothered to look at any of the rest of âThe Joy of
Revolution,â of which the section being discussed here is merely a small
part.
many of them will enthusiastically assist less fortunate people. But
this assistance will be voluntary, and most of it will not entail any
serious self-sacrifice. To donate labor or building materials or
architectural know-how so that others can build homes for themselves,
for example, will not require dismantling oneâs own home. The potential
richness of modern society consists not only of material goods, but of
knowledge, ideas, techniques, inventiveness, enthusiasm, compassion, and
other qualities that are actually increased by being shared around.
More clarity that people would want to do things like this. You might be
on to something, as in past eras people would help neighbors do things
like build homes, but that is before television and when building homes
was much simpler (no electricity, no indoor plumbing). People were
closer to their communities, and ... oh, wait, it is actually getting
closer to ways of life highly thought of by primitivists. :-)
Why wouldnât people want to? Itâs satisfying to help others and
gratifying to be appreciated for doing so. Thereâs nothing obscure about
what Iâm âon toâ â itâs the same sort of natural tendencies toward
cooperation and mutual aid that have been evoked by Kropotkin and other
anarchists for over a century. Thereâs no reason to believe that people
who know about plumbing or electricity or any other useful technology
will be any less generous in sharing their skills than people in
previous centuries.
[Footnote] *Fredy Perlman, author of one of the most sweeping
expressions of this tendency, Against His-story, Against Leviathan!
(Black and Red, 1983), provided his own best critique in his earlier
book about C. Wright Mills, The Incoherence of the Intellectual (Black
and Red, 1970): âYet even though Mills rejects the passivity with which
men accept their own fragmentation, he no longer struggles against it.
The coherent self-determined man becomes an exotic creature who lived in
a distant past and in extremely different material circumstances... The
main drift is no longer the program of the right which can be opposed by
the program of the left; it is now an external spectacle which follows
its course like a disease... The rift between theory and practice,
thought and action, widens; political ideals can no longer be translated
into practical projects.â
I would suggest that deepening the critique as Perlman and others have
done is a necessary part of getting any clear idea of what actions to
take. But as I said earlier, I would agree that there is far too little
discussion of realization in primitivist thought.
It seems to me that if the primitivists have shied away from discussing
how their ideal might be realized, this is because they sense that it
canât be. The ludicrous pretension that âprimitivist thoughtâ is
âdeepening the critiqueâ masks the fact that primitivism has actually
retreated from serious social critique, substituting an exotic idyll for
any strategical analysis of present possibilities. Far from fostering a
âclear idea of what actions to take,â it tends, like all ideologies, to
reinforce the existing system by encouraging passivity, confusion and
separation. Which is why its partisans â who in most cases know nothing
about capitalism but a few trendy slogans and even less about how it
might be superseded â can only oscillate between a delirious rhetorical
extremism and the most innocuous eco-reformist practices.