Questions from a bio-primitivist on how do social anarchists hope to maintain positive liberties?

[WildVirtue]

I'm a left-anarchist, but I wanted to copy the questions of a bio-primitivist here who thinks the only hope for humanity is an anti-tech revolution. I'll link this post to them so they can see any answers people give and they might reply themselves or I could potentially quote some of their replies for them. And obviously if you sympathise more with them, then I can offer my two cents too.

Their ideology is essentially just burn everything down to try and get as close to hunter-gatherer life as possible, 'hiding between the cracks' of the feudal war-lords that would rise up. They accept the history of some tribes keeping slaves and like the idea of the able-bodied male dominance hierarchies that would likely occur:

It’s true that pre industrial societies did significant damage to the environment, but the damage they did was nothing compared to the damage that industrial societies do to nature. An anti tech revolution would be a great leap forwards for nature. Overtime nature would recover from the damage industrialism has done to it. It is true that in certain places authoritarian systems such as feudalism will be set up. But by means will we be limited to Feudalism, the potential for freedom will have sparked. True Freedom will be possible, and even in these authoritarian systems there will be far more freedom then exists in modern society. And if you want to bad enough you could escape, but in industrial society there is nowhere to run.

Anyway, they think all social anarchists are either council ancom dreamers where every step a person takes in any direction will need to first be deliberated on by a 100 councils, or mutualists, but in both scenarios they think the society would descend into feudal-capitalist hell-holes.

I've abbreviated some of their questions for clarity and to save time reading, but I'll quote their messages in full at the end also:

---

How would you hope to bring down current governments like the US?

With violent revolution, all historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this. The ELZN has stopped trying to do so.

With peaceful revolution, you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of millions to go on strike, especially with all the pressure the government would put on them and the rewards they would receive for being scabs.

As for gradual reform and dragging the Overton window leading to reform, I don’t think there is any historical prescient suggesting that this is possible.

This certainly is not happening when it comes to economic issues, and it’s highly unlikely that anything a left anarchist movement could change this. Even in the realm of social issues where this was happening for a while pushback from the right has subverted it. Less people support transgenderism now then did a few years ago. The culture and politics of a society is something that is influenced by far to many factors for it to be simply dragged consistently in one direction for decades and decades.

This plan relies on far left political parties maintaining consistent power. Given the dominance of one political party has never shown itself to be insurmountable over long periods of time, it is highly unlikely that this is a realistic goal. People are different and will always vote for different ideas, this is a fact of life and cannot be changed. Whenever a left wing party were to lose power, their polices could be revoked.

The idea that the united state’s government, or any government for that matter has the power to eliminate capitalism let alone achieve left anarchism is beyond asinine. Even the most skilled American politicians with the largest majorities haven’t been able to achieve universal healthcare. The prospect of the entire elimination of capitalism through democratic government is completely unimaginable. Combine this with the fact you will have to be competing with other parties with contradicting views who will stifle your plans every step of the way.

----

How would you ensure these communes stay true to left anarchist principles?

How do you expect to successfully organize a society as complex as the united states (let alone the world of 8 billion) into autonomous communes of 150 people that make all decisions through voting? Historical examples of left-anarchist societies far less populous and complex then the united states have already failed to do anything of the sort. The CNT-FAI was a totalitarian state that sent it's political opponents to labor camps. The free territory of Ukraine didn't even collectivize it's land. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

If centrally planned economies tend to be less efficient than market ones, wouldn't de-centrally planned societies that are planned by everyone voting on everything in a nation as advanced and populous as the united states be even less efficient and utter chaos?

If the anarchist revolution was achieved in one country, but not anywhere else, how would you deal with people wanting to buy from corporations outside of the country if they're cheaper and more efficient than the locally run anarchist coop. There is nothing stopping people from shopping/working from coops rather then large corporations. Yet basically everyone including most socialists chose to shop from amazon, and not their local coop.

How would you prevent worker coops that are most successful growing to be larger then other coops? The larger these coops grow the less patience they will have for democratization and other such socialistic methods as they will continuously get in the way of the success of the business. We've already seen this with coops such as Mondragon, which are essentially run as a regular cutthroat corporation. We'd see this far more in a society where only coops are allowed. Some businesses are simply to large to be run democratically. Large businesses would be necessary for providing the needs of a nation of hundreds of millions, so corporations like Mondragon would inevitably form.

---

Finally, here's the full context of their comments, though obviously I don't think they were accurately describing my positions, like I'm not a pacifist or solely in favour of reform through elections.

Lets go down the list of all of the hoops we would have to jump through to make Left-Anarchism a reality shall we? First of all, you'd have to somehow overthrough the most powerful government in the world without using violence. That's a pretty extraordinary task, and we've never seen any historical examples of such a thing being done. The only arguments i've heard from you guys about how you'd do such is by "striking when they're weak". I assume your strategy would be a general strike if your not using violence, but this would hardly bring down the US government. first of all you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of millions to go on strike, especially with all the pressure the government would put on them and the rewards they would receive for being scabs. So it's extremely left anarchists would successfully take out the US, or any other nation for that matter. It's worth noting that left anarchists (even those who were willing to use violence) have never successfully taken out any government, and that the ELZN has stopped trying to do so. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

How do you expect successfully organize a society as complex as the united states (let alone the world of 8 billion) into autonomous communes of 150 people that make all decisions through voting? How will you ensure that these communes will stay true to left anarchist princibles, historical examples of left-anarchist societies far less populus and complex then the united states have already failed to do anything of the sort. The CNT-FAI was a totalitarian state that sent it's political opponents to labor camps. The free territory of Ukraine didn't even collectivize it's land. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

But lets be extremely generous and assume that you've succeeded in both taking out the united states government without the use of violence, establishing a left anarchist society, and keeping it true to it's princibles with a population of hundreds of millions. Well, there are still more problems. History has shown us that centrally planned economies tend to be less efficent then market ones, decentrally planned societies that are planned by everyone voting on everything in a nation as advanced and populus as the united states would be utter chaos. So lets assume that you went with the Worker-Co-opt model. If left-anarchists were able to take over a nation as large as the united states then in all likelyhood corporations would be interested in trading with a nation as large as this. These corporations could offer far more then any worker co opt could dream of. If given the choice between worker co opts and corporations, people chose corporations. Corporations have proven themselves to be far more economically efficient then coopts are. There is nothing stopping people from shopping/working from coopts rather then large corporations. Yet basically everyone including most socialists chose to shop from amazon, and not their local coopt. When given the choice between direct material wealth and abstract political ideals people chose the former. There's no reason to belive people will act differently in a left anarchist society, so in all likelyhood corporations will take over. So, even in the absurdly unlikely event of the successful establishment of a left-anarchist society the most likely outcome is a corporate feudalist hellhole.

Even if you've somehow managed to get over all of these hurdles, you aren't out of the clear yet. The worker coopts that are most successful will grow to be larger then other coopts. The larger these coopts grow the less patience they will have for democratization and other such socialistic methods as they will continuously get in the way of the success of the business. We've already seen this with coopts such as Mondragon, which are essentially run as a regular cutthroat corporation. We'd see this far more in a society where only coopts are allowed. Some businesses are simply to large to be run democratically. Large businesses would be necessary for providing the needs of a nation of hundreds of millions, so corporations like Mondragon would inevitably form. Through this the left-anarchist society would crumble into a capitalist hell hole. Historical precedent suggests that this would happen.

As for your plan of gradual reform and dragging the Overton window leading to left anarchism or even socialism. I don’t think there is any historical prescient suggesting that this is possible and it is certainly not plausible in North America or Western Europe. There are many problems with this, but I’ll just name a few.

The idea that you can consistently drag the Overton Window in one direction is asinine. This certainly is not happening when it comes to economic issues, and it’s highly unlikely that anything a left anarchist movement could change this. Even in the relm of social issues where this was happening for a while pushback from the right has subverted it. Less people support transgenderism now then did a few years ago. The culture and politics of a society is something that is influenced by far to many factors for it to be simply dragged consistently in one direction for decades and decades.

This plan relies on far left political parties maintaining consistent power. Given the dominance of one political party has never shown itself to be insurmountable over long periods of time, it is highly unlikely that this is a realistic goal. People are different and will always vote for different ideas, this is a fact of life and cannot be changed. Whenever a left wing party were to lose power, their polices could be revoked.

The idea that the united state’s government, or any government for that matter has the power to eliminate capitalism let alone achieve left anarchism is beyond asinine. Even the most skilled American politicians with the largest majorities haven’t been able to achieve universal healthcare. The prospect of the entire elimination of capitalism through democratic government is completely unimaginable. Combine this with the fact you will have to be competing with other parties with contradicting views who will stifle your plans every step of the way and the prospects of achieving any of your goals through democracy is nil

 

[WildVirtue]

My initial answer to some of these questions was that most anarchists aren't looking to recreate past anarchist experiments, we take comfort in experiments like people feeling more contented at worker coops, direct action groups shutting down old growth logging companies and lending support to destroying groups like ISIS.

So even if for example, everywhere but North Korea was a moderately oppressive market socialist country and North Korea was the one bad example of doing capitalism, anarchists would still hope for something better to come out of both of them, i.e. more progressive anarchist experiments:

Finally, even though no left party can hope to stay in power forever under representative democracies with swing voters, many countries are trending in a more leftward direction. The conservative party in the UK is more progressive than the democratic party in the US for example, but I think both are trending in a progressive direction over a long enough time period:

 

[ali]

I don't have much to say on primitivism, but on the topic of society becoming more progressive as time rolls on... I do agree that when you are talking about the long arc of history, and the quality of life of the median human being, things are better now than they were 10000 or 1000 or 100 or even just 50 years ago. But unfortunately that truth is no comfort to people in the lower quartile who might have seen a recent deterioration in quality of life in their particular circumstance. It's also small comfort to people who for whatever reason are not able to step back and appreciate the bigger picture.

The classic example is middle class people in developed countries who complain about how hard their life is and how the government is "stealing" their money through taxes or inflation or whatever, while literally billions of people around the world are living in far more desperate conditions than they are. And then they have the gall to complain about even just the tiniest fraction of said billions who are attempting to emigrate to their wealthy country.

But at the same time you have to have a bit of compassion for people who don't have the time or the awareness or the personal interest to contextualize their place in the world, or their place in history. It shouldn't be on everyone to stroke their chins and ponder the great questions of humanity every time they go to the market to buy rice, oil and salt.

Perhaps this is where anarchists can get their hooks in - by presenting a decentralized utopia where everything is local, it feels somehow achievable. People can comprehend their local community, whereas often they do not understand or care about what is going on outside of it, so a local-first utopia is appealing, even if it's not clear how it would function globally in practice. But i don't think you're going to persuade anyone who has already decided that their own personal life is worse, that actually it's better and they're just too ignorant to realize it. Unfortunately people's perceptions of reality matter just as much as the actual reality. Successful propagandists understand and exploit this.

The problem we might encounter as travelers is that if the world did exist in a network of tight-knit insular communities, where does that leave wanderers and outsiders? Personally, i am a bit uncomfortable with the clique-ish tendencies of a lot of anarchists. To me the line gets a bit blurred with all the other doomers - isolationists, survivalists, libertarians, accelerationists, revolutionaries etc... There's always this undercurrent of "the world is fucked, fuck the world, but our little clique is going to make it through the darkness". To me that's disappointingly "socionormative", if that's a word. Like, the baseline assumption is that the natural state of affairs is for humans to cluster into hyperlocal geographic communities and family-like collectives and that society won't ever function unless that orthodoxy is upheld. Something about that way of thinking doesn't sit right with me.

So, i think although the spirit of anarchism appeals to me, if the choice is between local autonomous communities that are potentially xenophobic versus a truly global community where migration is not only tolerated but supported and encouraged, i'm gonna pick the latter. Which probably tends more in the direction of a technocratic, Star Trek, one world government kinda thing. I dunno.

But the interesting thing is that that is a utopia i can imagine because it fits my personal lifestyle. Voluntarily single, child-free, simple living, city dwelling and full of curiosity about the world. Many people i meet do not have or want this lifestyle. They legitimately want to "own" property, to imagine that something is "theirs", and not anybody else's. They want to wake up every day and see the same thing outside their window, they want to eat the same food, they don't want anything to change. They want a partner, and kids, and they want to pass "their" wealth on to their children because that's what they see as their mission in life. And those people have just as much right to pursue their happiness as i do mine. So i'm not sure that there will ever be one particular political solution that pleases everyone.

Which is why i tend to come around to thinking that democracy is the least worst option. It's shit and doesn't give anybody what they actually want, but at least it in theory it doesn't allow an unaccountable autocrat to inflict their shitty policies on everyone forever.

Although i know plenty of apologetics living under authoritarian regimes would make the claim that even autocrats aren't forever, if you look at the long arc of history, so actually autocracies aren't any different to democracies. I suppose that's the danger of getting too abstract in political debate, you can end up inadvertently making the case for any damn shit.

 

[Beegod Santana]

In my opinion "taking down the system" is just a fantasy perpetuated by those most left behind by said system. I'm not saying they're wrong in their critiques and criticisms, but the idea that one group could not only dismantle the current government, but also somehow replace it with something better without a "billions must die" strategy just sounds like fiction to me.

My most optimistic outlook is that through herculean efforts by a network of like minded activists operating independently of each other, the general public could be convinced that the current trajectory we're on is a death sentence for future generations before it's too late. In a way, I feel like people are kinda getting there. People who are "doing well" are also stressing about the groceries, rents are beyond sane, a used car under 10yrs old is becoming a luxury item.

I'm not that optimistic though.

 

[Rune]

I am a social anarchist, prepper/survivalist, and pretty much a scholar at this point on Iernian culture..
Let me just give you a hint. Brehons Laws.

It's totally doable to have an outstanding and comfortable "primitive" lifestyle. I have everything I need to start at any time I feel like it.
If you supplement this with something like steam power and/or clockwork you will have an advanced society with minimal impact. If the grid goes down from a solar flare, if you want that level..
Thoroughly a steampunk/fantasy nerd, but the interesting thing is how real to the point of pragmatic these things can be.

Issues are mostly about establishing, getting people to give it the benefit of the doubt, and adapting.
The skill sets are not something I have 100% gotten down pat but are scientifically sound.

It isn't for the light of heart.

I can start the fire, but I need help to keep it going.

All in all, it's more a matter of setting down pride as a "modern" human to understand the ancients survived for a reason. And to understand human's best trait is adaptability. It's what got us here. Most people seem to prefer to wait until the last second to take the leap, even when they see what's coming.

You can't take war out of the equation at a large enough scale.

 

[ali]

Steam engines historically depend on burning coal and/or wood, both of which cause significant impact to people's health and the environment. In parts of the world that still practice slash and burn agriculture you can experience what it is like to live an early- or pre-industrial lifestyle and it is not pleasant.

To me this is where finding primitivism appealing in the abstract can lead to problematic conclusions - a world where billions of people boil water on open fires is going to be a more polluted and potentially less sustainable world than the one we live in right now. Industrialization and especially urbanization brought efficiency that reduces our collective footprint. So to move toward some kind of sustainable hunter gatherer or pastoralist/agrarian utopia you also need to mandate massive population culling at a level that would make historical genocides seem like small potatoes, which means eco fascism. That's not something i am okay with, despite practicing simple, vegan, car-free living in my personal life.

 

[laughingman]

You build the world you want to live in with whatever you have to hand. Piling it all up and burning it makes it hard to build anything new. Ash is not actually a good building material as it turns out. We are all engaged to one degree or another in our culture. We see the problems that no one seems to be working to solve. I posit that the solution to these problems does not involve conforming to or destroying the system. Rather that all of us, pick up whatever is laying around, and get to work. Move the collective line of human progress forward. If you have a problem with something, the options are not to burn it to the ground or shrug your shoulders and live with it. Outgrow the system. Let our new world be bigger and more vast then the problems we face. Also more bikes and gardens. Bikes and gardens are good.

 

[Rune]

Steam engines historically depend on burning coal and/or wood, both of which cause significant impact to people's health and the environment. In parts of the world that still practice slash and burn agriculture you can experience what it is like to live an early- or pre-industrial lifestyle and it is not pleasant.

To me this is where finding primitivism appealing in the abstract can lead to problematic conclusions - a world where billions of people boil water on open fires is going to be a more polluted and potentially less sustainable world than the one we live in right now. Industrialization and especially urbanization brought efficiency that reduces our collective footprint. So to move toward some kind of sustainable hunter gatherer or pastoralist/agrarian utopia you also need to mandate massive population culling at a level that would make historical genocides seem like small potatoes, which means eco fascism. That's not something i am okay with, despite practicing simple, vegan, car-free living in my personal life.

It would be hard to give up technology when you have lived your entire life taking it for granted.
It'd be a good way to wean people off of it at least. Also, it'd be supplementary and the steam power would be unsustainable, yes, but that should be obvious, and if we reduce our footprints enough, we shouldn't have too much of a problem being a little bad since things would have been handled by then.
We don't have to be 100% good two shoes, we just have to be responsible, self-aware, honorable, cultivate foresight/local, global and universal views, and be flexible to adjust to new circumstances.

Many of the issues we face stem from taking mother nature for granted, feeling entitled about being at the top of the food chain, and promoting parasitic/toxic values.

The goal isn't eradicating all bad. It's about maintaining the balance.

The people SHOULD lead themselves if their government is getting greedy and untrustworthy. I have a lot of arguments and complaints about where we are now.
Social anarchy just means people being informed enough to make decisions for themselves, being community based with guidance more-so than absolute rules that ignore the worth of individual life, cultivating appreciation for being able to be both leader and part of a team, it takes responsibility but can earn freedom.
A "sovereign" state that can't be sued, leaders that don't have to take accountability, even for themselves, for profit punishment facilities that ignore potentials for rehabilitation, and capitalistic mindsets that foster greed and competition to excess.
America isn't a country, it's a corrupt business.
If they really care about this place and it's people they will prioritize, encourage, fund, and improve education.


It's been done before, it's where we came from. It's an "inconvenient truth" that hurts the narrative we've been sold, the lie we have been living our whole lives.
We can have order, but that's what's unsustainable, change which can seem chaotic is inevitable. Forcing order as if it's all that matters is futile.
The argument is change vs structure, adaptability vs stability, not exactly chaos vs order. And you have to have both.

The truth hurts for a reason. Cognitive dissonance is our minds telling us something is wrong with our understanding of life. It implies a vulnerability in our structure and that change may be necessary. For those that take structure for granted, they see anything that "threatens" it as a loss. If a structure isn't stable, complaining or being bitter about it won't fix it.

We are animals, evolved or not, denizens of planetary ecosystems, part of this storied universe's tapestry, why are we so scared to keep that in mind. Simple isn't inherently bad, the word primitive is deeply misunderstood and condescends to our true nature rather than leading to sustainable progressions.

Change isn't easy but it can be rewarding.

Government only exists because we say it does.
It doesn't matter how many lethal or world destroying weapons they could wield, they still aren't a government unless there are people that agree that it is.
It's purely conceptual.
If we say it's not a government, those people that threaten lives are just dangerous, hostile, threatening, cynical and condescending would-be bullies who have few "puppet-friends" to try to push their agendas with, if any.

 

[Inhibition]

I have left anarchist sympathies, but being honest I've given up on wide scale change.

During my life I have a relatively small footprint. I won't reproduce, and when I die it will end the bulk of any negative impact I've left on this planet.

I still keep anarchist principles in mind (opposing authority, oppression, domination, and offering aid) in how I personally interact with others, but for the species as a whole I don't see a good future. I don't have faith in humanity from a sustainability standpoint, nor from a relations standpoint in either a state or stateless form, with or without civilization.

Climate change is the threat to all of humanity, but for me the genocide in Gaza exposes aspects of humanity that make me doubt whether the species as a whole is worth saving. The fact that in modern day, you can have a live streamed genocide, and you have politicians and members of the general public supporting it, while the arming and funding only increases. You could say during past genocides there was an element of detachment that is inevitable, because humans couldn't communicate on a world wide level so they should by default lack the ability to empathize, but this is no longer the case.

I'm personally ready to wind down and stop being human. I see my future more as like getting my affairs in order and trying to make the inevitable more peaceful. If I can die with less regrets and more positive experiences, that seems like the most realistic thing I can hope for.

 

[SuperFluous]

If you work your fingers to the bone, you get boney fingers and partners that you Love more than yourself, shelter, food, the freedom to do what you want without asking anyone for anything. Travel to any place in the world. the only catch is patience and fortitude and the ability to conquer the fears of life, if I did it anyone can. My Life is Golden only because I struggled through it
It doesn't happen over night

 

[BobbinGoblin]

Ope double posted

 

[BobbinGoblin]

Skimming over morning coffee (decidedly not grown in my region) with a few thoughts to add....

I recently helped host a gathering in northern Michigan with anarcho-primitivist roots and the central question of this 17th Winter Gathering was "how do we rewild ourselves?" Especially amidst a technological society that has progressed beyond what our monkey brains evolved to even comprehend - faster than we can evolve. There is a throughline of individual rewilding (and freedom) being connected to that of the collective. And these being rooted in small acts of resistence - gathering together, sharing food, music, dancing, creating, destroying. There is also the side of intellectualism where this posts seems to originate - many of the philosophies expoused at this gathering can be found in the zine Black and Green Review.

On the opposite end from primitivism: have you read The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin? Speaking of anarchist ecperiments, this novel portrays the fascinating evolution an anarchist society might experience if left alone for 200 years.

But I believe, beyond theory, what can we little peons really do? We can continue to connect and build community - live our lives in a way that fulfills the need to rewild and thrive as well as striving (the collective strive) for the world we want to see. As well as learning from the past and present (from the atrocity of the genocide in Gaza to the history of Cambodia).

Ya know, think globally, act locally and all that.

 

[sevedemanos]

not that my thoughts on the subject make any difference as the world will carry on in the exact same trajectory we began with, and i tend to prioritize my time living in the moment over conversing seriously over topics i dont have the credentials to, nor any remotely pertaining profession by which i could hope to gain anything out of the effort. and calories are limited.

but in my humble opinion there isnt necessarily any right way to govern any particular social sphere. because wrong will typically be righted again in short order, or eventually at the very least. dictators get assassinated, kings overthrown, weaker tribes with bad politics wiped out by their enemies and democracies fallen into their own decadence. there are both good and bad attributes to all these and the rest. and the precursing social and cultural elements that any one demographic have risen from will always serve as the impetus by which they carry on with their lives. im talking early imprinting. its a matter of preference, bottom line. and if some people prefer to worship, let them. and if others prefer to renounce the former and turn their attention to the stock market, well let them. its a very big world out there and where one man might be stifled another sort may thrive.

give me any monarch, guru, priest, or military general and i will be more inclined to look at their ethical code and conduct, not their political persuasion quite. because there are truly some nasty people out there that do some truly horrific things to others whether they are prince or pauper, and i consider it my responsibility and everyone elses to keep watch for that namely. but that is only my reality. that, and climate change.

it all comes down to you the individual. and there are 8 billion of us. make it count.