Critica of "Barbaric Thoughts: On a Revolutionary Critique of Civilization"

Barbaric Thoughts: On a Revolutionary Critique of Civilization

by Venomous Butterfly Publications (reviewed by Volonta Terrarottura)

The author of this pamphlet has played a vital role in what I feel are basic projects for anarchists: critical analysis of the miserably confining and torturous situations we are in, and the rigorous exploration of an anarchist projectuality. For years, the author has been precise about what he is opposed to: all confines to the unlimited passions and desires of an egoist-communist (or is that communist-egoist?); i.e. civilization. Frequently causing me to pause, contemplate, and remember to always keep my ideas open for perpetual revision (its about questions, not answers), he is especially potent when confronting morality, ideology, and alienation. While we have some differences in outlook and prioritization, he has been a crucial voice of integrity in challenging flimsy or dogmatic pitfalls of various anarchist perspectives. Barbaric Thoughts is helpful in bringing up his explicit criticisms of green anarchist/anarcho-primitivist analyses, but it is limited to some extent in practical application due to some broad-brushed generalizations, its own rigidity, and a prioritization that seems to be anthropocentric in nature. While this is only a review (not a detailed point-by-point analysis or rebuttal), as an insurrectionary green anarchist (and reputed "closet primitivist") who appreciates many of the critiques brought up in the perpetual insurrectionalist/primitivist debate, I'll try to point out what I perceive as valuable contributions, unfortunate drawbacks, and personal disagreements with this notable pamphlet. I have stayed out of the excessive (and from what I hear, often close-minded) on-line debates of this essay, and only offer my opinions based on my personal interpretation of the reading. Barbaric Thoughts begins by asking some enormous questions: "What is a revolutionary critique? What is civilization? What does a revolutionary critique of civilization mean in the realm of ideas? What would a revolutionary critique of civilization mean on a practical level?" I feel that the author's definition of civilization is brief, but to the point: "this network of institutions that dominates our lives." Yet, I would agree with some primitivists, that the downplay (and at times, near dismissal) of an examination of the origins of these institutions can be problematic, but so can an exclusive or tightly bound emphasis on them. Ultimately, the author's general preference to focus specifically on the "present", with the aim on creating a "rupture" with the current social order is a positive motivation, but I'm not sure this can be done in a vacuum without critically looking both backward and forward (and outside "social relations") in terms of dynamics and reference points (something I'm not sure the author would necessarily dispute). He warns of a reversal of the linear and ideological notion of Progress, which he sees in some primitivists' concepts of a "singular civilization" and "returning" to an ideal or "mythical" state (rather than completely rejecting this myth). While the point is clear, there are some basic trajectories of various civilizations we can trace and compare, which might hint at some predisposition to certain types of domestication. I'm also unaware of any anarcho-primitivists who deny the multi-linear cultural evolutions of civilizations in different geographic areas (this doesn't include occasional unclear or sloppy rhetoric). With many of these cautionary dissections throughout the pamphlet, specific examples would have been really helpful, because the reader is often left with the feeling that the questionable tendencies discussed make up significant portions of the primitivist discourse. Occasional qualifiers that these are only a "few" people seem to be overshadowed by a more significant dismissive tone regarding primitivism. One of my underlying concerns with the general form of the piece has to do with the author's insistence on defining a "revolutionary critique", a subject which (in my mind) becomes a very slippery slope. I agree with the author, that any tool or critique guided by morality cannot fundamentally break with civilization, since morality is the code of that system. While I do use the term "revolutionary" as an occasional adjective when describing a more general idea, concept, or action which completely rejects or runs contrary to the current arrangement (generally, how the author seems to use the term), I have increasingly stepped away from it because I get particularly nervous when it starts to be used as a measuring stick or framework to supposedly reject ideology or morality or in limiting strategies. Much anarchist discourse has shown me that an "anti-ideology" aesthetic or motivation can easily become ideological. As a short-cut to explain radical potential, the word "revolutionary" can be helpful, but as a guideline for theoretical and practical application, it can often become quite rigid, and I feel this essay, while criticizing this tendency, also begins to move along these lines. One of my biggest disagreements with the author is his absolute dismissal of biocentrism, considering it "utterly useless" from a "revolutionary point of view" because of its inherent "moral perspective". While the origins of much biocentric thought does come from a moralist position, the push to understand our relationships with the rest of life in different and less objectifying ways (not "submitting" to "nature" as the author claims), has been part of an important shift, despite any limitations. Some anarchists have attempted to reclaim or redefine a biocentric (life-focused) outlook as a way to connect (as humans) with life outside ourselves more deeply and meaningfully, and less oppressively. The author claims that "biocentrism merely seeks the expansion of rights and protections to the non-human world without challenging the roots of the social order." This limited biocentric outlook may be true for those who attempt to create an ideology out of the desires to move toward more life-centered realities, but if we are to examine the roots of the social order, I would argue that the unhealthy and alienating institutions we have before us have been created from a mindset that specifically rejects a deep connection to all life. I think the over-emphasis on class struggle ("The fundamental harmfulness of this society lies in the social relationships it imposes"), at the expense of a intimate examination of our alienation from the rest of life, is troubling, in the sense that it creates artificial boundaries over our existence as "humans" (as creatures functioning solely in a human social context). In statements from various anarchists that the "environment" is an important "issue" to them, it is obvious that some see "it" as a separate "thing" to save, rather than part of us in the move towards our personal and collective liberation. The author also dismisses biocentric and deep ecologists for spending time in the legislative process. While this is an important critique of some biocentric people, it again paints the picture that this is inherent in these ideas. Anarchists with biocentric perspectives reject such avenues forcefully. It is possible to be influenced by concepts or navigate through certain terrain without automatically absorbing all of the previous baggage or reflecting contemporaries who share some similar perspectives. The author apparently feels this way about "communism", but not "biocentrism". However, the baggage of communism, despite some liberatory origins, seems far less likely to be transcended due to its horrific expression in the "real world" than any questionable aspects of biocentric views. To me, ideas and concepts are fluid and evolving, and the contemporary and commonly understood expressions of ideas are of the most relevance to our lives. Aside from all of this, the author is correct in claiming that misanthropy isn't necessarily "revolutionary", but personally (as one green anarchist speaking) some days (not everyday, or at least not all day) I can really understand some deep ecologists' pessimistic sentiment. I wish the Earth First! Journal still had a misanthropic edge (not because it necessarily reflects my perspective), just so you could see that there was some anger and sobering nihilistic energy still alive instead of "101 Ways to Build a 'Diverse' Movement" of well-socialized eco-drones (Sorry, one of the less-disciplined sides of my "revolutionary critique" oozing out thereI'll move on before I get called counter-revolutionary). Much of Barbaric Thoughts seems to focus on, or be a counter-point to, the primitivist perspective on civilization. I, like the author of the essay, have never called myself a primitivist, for some overlapping reasons, but I certainly don't have the same hostility towards the critique. In fact, my critique of civilization is greatly informed by what the author has called "presumed traits of 'primitive' societies". Should we view anthropological findings as somewhat speculative and embedded with the logic of civilization? Sure, but I don't think this necessitates throwing out the baby with the bath water. With some healthy suspicion, there is still much we can (more or less) discern from the material culture of various "primitive" societies. They lived as gatherer-hunters, they provided their sustenance on a daily basis and adapted to their environment using stone, bone, and wood, and the fact that they left so few traces is evidence of how gently they walked on the earth or how non-monumental and non-institutionalized their communities were. This is by no means completely "speculative". Also, we can look at contemporary gatherer-hunters and see similar dynamics of how people can relate to each other without coercion or institutions. Should this rigidly define who we are or where we go? Definitely not. But it can help to seriously inform us about some positive and negative possibilities of humans. I do agree with the author that decisively defining a human "primal nature" can be problematic in any absolute sense, but most primitivists attempt to make clear that what they are examining is the track record of humans, not determining finite conclusions as to what we inherently are. I also feel that some primitivists' emphasis on a "primal war", one that attempts to go beyond social perimeters and into instinctual biocentric realms, is quite provocative, even if it does step outside the author's 'path to revolution'. The subject of "collapse" seems especially troubling to the author as he dismisses those who "prepare for" an anticipated implosion of the various civilized systems, implying that those who focus on "primitive skills" cannot also be involved in a "conscious confrontation with the realities civilized reality has created." Again, defining what is "revolutionary" and what is not, he "would rather put the effort into consciously dismantling the social order through revolutionary endeavors." I too have my own concerns that a few primitivists have rejected direct conflict with the social order so that they can pursue more passive nihilist roles, but it seems somewhat understandable to me that some would take this direction. It is not my path for strategic and personal reasons, but I have no judgement of those who deal with this miserable reality in more idle or "escapist" ways, nor do I presume to "know" what is truly "revolutionary". I am cynical of "revolution" as a likely (or desirable) social dynamic. I often engage with my actively nihilistic destructive side outside the realm of "social revolution". Part of this may be how we define the "r" word, but part of it comes from a desire to not control nor to be controlled, nor predetermine the unfolding and trajectory of civilization's dismantling. Insurrectional momentum against civilization on our own terms from what motivates us is of most interest to me, but so are various methods of "rewilding" which can also be vital in challenging the civilized logic in our own lives and do not directly contradict insurrectionary activity. Learning methods of living without civilization (institutions, industrialism, production, technology, etc) can be some of the most potent and concrete aspects of an anti-civilization anarchist praxis and can break down significant aspects of mediation in our lives. Again, how does this conflict with attacking the system more directly? I find the author's discussion of origins (alienation, language, time, etc.) somewhat engaging, in ways limited, and at times unconvincing. He describes alienation as "the separation of our existence from ourselves through a system of social relationships that steals our capacity to create our lives on our own terms." I feel this adequately addresses aspects of the alienated dynamic, but he dismisses the notion that humans (in a general sense) may have once had more intimate relationships with nature, from which they have become separated. He considers this "quasi-mystical" and paralleling "Christian theology" in that it requires "redemption from a fallen world". While these parallels are interesting interpretations, I don't think that is quite how most primitivists view the unfortunate shifts towards civilization, nor the processes of going feral. We have become alienated from ourselves, each other, and the rest of our world through various processes of domestication, and yes, primarily due to "social relationships". I'm not convinced, however, that the sources of alienation that primitivists frequently describe do not also find most of their origins in "social relationships," especially if one considers major parts of our disconnect to be a product of our domestication. He goes on to attack John Zerzan (often taking cheap shots), calling him an evangelist for talking to the media and "going to conferences to present his message", and who "found a saint in the Unabomber". Evangelical tendencies go hand-in hand with those with ideological tendencies, and while there may be a grain of truth in this assessment of John, these seem to be minor underlying tendencies, not overt motivations he is an anarchist at heart. The author, however, seems so fixated on debunking Zerzan, that he takes a good point, like the caution against the reification of social relationships when searching for origins, and produces some questionable ideas about time and language. Referring to the destruction of rooted languages by the ruling order, the author states that "the 'loss of language' does not make us less alienated or less civilized, simply less capable of communicating with each other", confusing a critique of language itself as a mediated mode of expression and comprehension, with a horrific process of standardization by global capitalism (which primitivists frequently critique as well). He goes on to warn against a limited critique of time in which he emphasizes a look at current social relationships, again aside from its origins, and cautions against limiting and pre-determining wildness, but at the exclusion of primitive people's experiences. I appreciate the author's description of class struggle as "the struggle of the exploited, the dispossessed, the proletarianized against their condition." Generally, I tend to agree with much of the way the author describes "class" and its role as a fundamental dynamic of civilization. But it is certainly not the only dynamic, even if you are solely concerning yourself with social relationships. Claiming that an anti-civilization project is "at root a class struggle and an egoist struggle" has its limitations, and is never fully argued in the text. Social stratification is without a doubt inherent in civilization and appears early in its trajectory, but the separation or fracture of ourselves from life (human, ourselves, and other beings), from wildness, runs deep, and I would say is a fundamental aspect of civilization. Do social relationships play a major role in this? Sure, but not exclusively. The author acknowledges the importance of technology in influencing social relationships, but what about the technological arrangements that new social relationships are constructed upon? We can play the chicken or the egg game until we are all run over (without ever even crossing the road), or we can attack that which we perceive or understand to be the origins, logic, dynamics, and manifestations of control in our lives. And yes, in-depth discussions of our perspectives are also vital, but not when it becomes an ideological battleground over who really has found the origins or who's critique offers the most effective strategy for "the dispossessed". Part of me really relates to the idea of the struggle against civilization being a "project of reappropriation of stealing back what has been taken from us", if what the author is talking about is our autonomy and our lives, but I am still left wondering If we are solely focused on human relationships, what does that mean for the rest of life? Why does a "revolutionary critique" revolve solely around human relationships? Can we really heal (if that is desirable for the author) from the wounds of civilization with this seemingly anthropocentric perspective? We don't exist in bubbles. We are interconnected with other humans, species, and phenomenon, and we are also individuals. This requires an ability to relate in complex ways with our environments places where contradiction and connection seem to cross paths. There are definitely sections of Barbaric Thoughts which made me cringe, but there are also parts which forced me to question some of my own, and other anti-civilization anarchists' tendencies. And while both my insurrectional(ist) AND primitiv(ist) friends will consider me soft and not critical enough towards the "other side", these are my opinions, and I reject ideological membership on either team. It is well worth the read, but with an extra-critical eye and non-defensive heart. Its good to know where people are currently at, so we can accurately determine our connections with them based on transparency rather than speculation or assumptions. A lot is said by putting it out on the table.