miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2013

Capitalismo y Destrucción


OPINIÓN. Aviso para caminantes. Por Alfredo Rubio
Profesor de Geografía de la Universidad de Málaga


27/02/13. Opinión. Alfredo Rubio expone en esta colaboración con EL OBSERVADOR / www.revistaelobservador.com algunas reflexiones sobre el espíritu o pensamiento destructivo, que tiene que ver “con aquellos que aplican todo tipo de recortes como única senda para un futuro mejor (…) son formas de destrucción de lo existente y de expropiación de los bienes comunes materiales e inmateriales. La idea de destrucción creativa en economía procede de W. Sombart, el sociólogo alemán, y fue popularizada por Schumpeter en su libro “Capitalismo, socialismo y democracia” (1942), para describir el proceso de innovación en el seno de una economía de mercado, donde los nuevos productos destruyen empresas, modelos de negocio y empleos. Se considera la energía o fuerza que hay detrás de un crecimiento económico a largo plazo. Se define como hecho clave o esencial en el capitalismo. Desde esa perspectiva, capitalismo y progreso se confunden. Dudo que nos encontremos ante algún asunto creativo. Más bien “avanzamos” por destrucción de lo existente hacia modelos “brasileños”, “chinos” o de cualquier país donde sea hegemónica la desregulación. Por tanto, avanzamos retrocediendo.

Del pensamiento mágico a los viernes trágicos
http://www.revistaelobservador.com/index.php/opinion/aviso-para-caminantes/7305-del-pensamiento-magico-a-los-viernes-tragicos.html

LA
mayoría de los días hacia las 6:30 de la mañana conecto el transistor. Mientras la cafetera exprés se calienta para hacer su trabajo, se desgrana el rosario de la información cotidiana, que acompaña y acrecienta nuestro miedo. Desde hace mucho tiempo, hasta el punto que queda oscurecido el recuerdo de otros aparentemente mejores, se nos informa del diferencial con el bono alemán; sobre marcha del IBEX y de las bolsas más importantes de Europa y el mundo; de la tasa de paro; del número de familias que carecen de cualquier tipo de ingresos. Se nos “informa” del empobrecimiento general y percibimos el aumento de las desigualdades sociales y otros etcéteras. Se van amontonando las generaciones perdidas, las olvidadas y hasta las inexistentes por invisibles.
ALGO más tarde en el tiempo, comenzó a inundarnos la información sobre una compleja casuística que alcanza desde la irresponsabilidad, por ser suave, a la corrupción: un rey, cazador de elefantes que se hace acompañar bien en sus cacerías africanas; su nieto, que sufrió un accidente aprendiendo a ser cazador; un yerno supuestamente dedicado al expolio de los recursos públicos bajo el manto protector de una ONG (sin ánimo de lucro). Un presidente del Consejo del Poder Judicial que se venía de vez en cuando a Marbella, también bien acompañado, a pasar el fin de semana con cargo a los presupuestos públicos. Tampoco quedan al margen las instituciones empresariales, con el presidente de la CEOE, alguien a quien calificar de empresario era bastante difícil; más tarde, de su vicepresidente. Los ‘EREs’ de Andalucía, que causan vergüenza ajena. Por su parte, cientos de políticos sujetos de causas judiciales por algún tipo de delito; en días cercanos, el asunto de Bárcenas, que aparentemente salpica a toda la cúpula del Partido Popular; los casos de corrupción de algunos partidos catalanes, el espionaje de políticos encargado supuestamente por otros políticos…
A través del transistor, cada mañana, también nos llegan los datos resultantes de la aplicación de estas políticas: recortes que afectan a la infraestructura que justifica el Estado del bienestar, que diferenciaba a Europa de cualesquiera otros lugares. Están afectados más o menos directamente todos los ámbitos de ese estado, por otra parte inacabado en España. Pero, como escribí en el artículo anterior, la tergiversación de las palabras sirve para que la destrucción sea llamada de cualquier manera que oculte su significado verdadero. En cierto modo, también da la impresión, de que gobernantes y oposición ignoran la complejidad del mundo de hoy. Se aplican políticas contradictorias y, cuando no, se miente sobre sus resultados. Hoy mismo se contraponen los datos europeos con los suministrados por el presidente del Gobierno en el reciente discurso sobre el Estado de la Nación. ¿Cuales son los verdaderos?


CRECE el descrédito social de los partidos políticos, que siguen insistiendo en que ellos son (toda) la política. No reconocen, ni pueden por razones obvias, que la política es más amplia y extensa que lo que representan, hacen y no hacen ellos mismos. Su corrupción no es epidérmica y de poco les vale acudir a los miles de concejales a los que no cabe atribuir beneficio alguno en su actividad, lo cual es cierto. Debieran recordar que la corrupción no es sólo económica.
AFECTADA por todo tipo de recortes, la gente sale a la calle para protestar. La indignación afecta a jóvenes, maduros y  ancianos. De todos modos, teniendo en cuenta las dimensiones y profundidad de sus efectos, parecen pocos. Todavía deben quedar depósitos de paciencia. Algunos, pocos pero significativos, carecen de fuerzas suficientes para resistir la presión y se suicidan. Sirven de aldabonazos. Avanza la sensación de desamparo y de ausencia de futuro (mejor). Entre todo esto florece la beneficencia como un nuevo furor. No estoy exactamente en contra de su ejercicio pero, recuerdo, que sirve adecuadamente como sustituta de los derechos.
ESTAS dinámicas se entrelazan hasta desembocar en la tristeza de quienes observamos los hechos. Siento mucho no poder estar alegre. Da la impresión, tengo la impresión, de que estamos inmersos en una gran crisis de todas las instituciones. No hay instituciones ni personalidades de referencia. Se está desmantelando el estado del bienestar; se debilita la democracia y la cohesión social es casi inexistente, ausencia fatal que ha construido el neoliberalismo durante décadas.
NO es fácil comenzar el día con algún optimismo. Pienso en escapar de esa atmósfera tenebrosa. Para que sigamos en ella ya están columnistas, expertos, periodistas, políticos y  sindicalistas. Pero, a estas alturas no es fácil conseguirlo. Multitud de depredadores han conseguido convertir todo esto es un erial maloliente. Un paisaje yermo por el que caminamos sin rumbo y desesperanzados. Probablemente tardaremos décadas en recuperarnos.
EN algún lugar, hace ya algunos meses, se dijo que el Sr. Rajoy, nuestro actual presidente del Gobierno, estaba sorprendido por la escasa aceptación social de sus medidas -a las que denomina o califica de reformas. Me lo creo. Una especie de pensamiento mágico nos invadió hace tiempo. Los políticos de la derecha, apoyados o expandidos por la presión de la extrema derecha, creyeron que con su sola presencia en el gobierno, tras la debacle socialista en las elecciones municipales y autonómicas anteriores, la situación cambiaría en el momento mismo de su toma de posesión. A lo largo de la campaña electoral hicieron propuestas (promesas) que acaso creyeron poder cumplir, aunque esa presunción seguramente poco fundada  nos sirve de bien poco. También es lícito pensar que todo estaba calculado.
SIN embargo, el asunto es ese del pensamiento mágico, tal vez como modalidad del puro pensamiento ideológico. Llegamos al poder político e inmediatamente esto (la crisis) se soluciona. Ese pensamiento fraguó en el imaginario colectivo. Muchos ciudadanos creyeron que así sería. En realidad, la situación quedaba explicada apelando injustamente, en el sentido de ir más allá de lo puramente razonable, a la incapacidad personal de J. L. Rodríguez Zapatero. A partir de esa mezcla de pensamiento mágico, ideología y atribución a los mercados de una naturaleza trascendental -otra forma de fe- cada viernes el Consejo de Ministros ha venido produciendo su cosecha de decretos, donde se desvirtúa la democracia, se conculcan los derechos de los ciudadanos, a los que se atribuye el peso de solventar la crisis casi en exclusiva, se amnistía a los defraudadores fiscales, se tergiversan las palabras y se alimenta la destrucción del futuro.
ALGUNOS que han formado parte de los bancos más directamente implicados en la crisis desempeñan funciones de ministros y se atreven a pontificar. Forman parte de los intercambiables, los que nunca pierden. Pero los mercados persisten en sus presiones. No se cansan de demandar reformas mas profundas. Rajoy anunciaba que “lo que hay que hacer será lo que haga”. Explica que seguirá así todos los viernes, y siguió, aunque ahora anuncia un leve giro. Ni siquiera emite un discurso falso. Se limita a actuar con esa especie de socarronería gallega: “lo que haya que hacer, lo haremos”. Es decir, nos lo aplicarán a casi todos, a la mayoría para ser más exactos. Acabado el pensamiento mágico sólo queda la ideología y, detrás de ella, los intereses más bastardos. Llama cumplir con su deber a su sometimiento a los intereses de una minoría, incumpliendo sus promesas electorales. Actúa como un irredento dirigente totalitario que asume funciones de padre nuestro: “yo se lo que hay que hacer. Lo hago -y haré- por  vuestro bien. De nada os servirá patalear, actitud que me asombra puesto que os conduzco firme y con convicción a la luz”.
ENTONCES recordé un texto de W. Benjamín, tan especial como la mayoría de los suyos,  donde venía a aclarar el carácter destructivo. Lo escribió hacia finales de 1931 y fue publicado en el Frankfurter Zeitung (noviembre). Creo que sirve parcialmente para comprender el sentido de la crisis como destrucción, algo muy lejano de aquello tan citado del capitalismo creativo de Schumpeter. No lo tomo al pié de la letra. Me ha sugerido ciertas ideas sobre la forma de invención y resolución de la crisis para una interpretación más allá del economicismo. Estas sugerencias tienen que ver con aquellos que aplican todo tipo de recortes como única senda para un futuro mejor que, en definitiva, son formas de destrucción de lo existente y de expropiación de los bienes comunes materiales e inmateriales. D. Harvey considera estas expropiaciones como formas de acumulación por desposesión. En cierto modo, como mejor se expresa el carácter destructivo es como disolución de cualquier certidumbre.


LA idea de destrucción creativa en economía procede de W. Sombart, el sociólogo alemán, y fue popularizada por Schumpeter en su libro “Capitalismo, socialismo y democracia” (1942), para describir el proceso de innovación en el seno de una economía de mercado, donde los nuevos productos destruyen empresas, modelos de negocio y empleos. Se considera la energía o fuerza que hay detrás de un crecimiento económico a largo plazo. Se define como hecho clave o esencial en el capitalismo. Desde esa perspectiva, capitalismo y progreso se confunden. Dudo que nos encontremos ante algún asunto creativo. Más bien “avanzamos” por destrucción de lo existente hacia modelos “brasileños”, “chinos” o de cualquier país donde sea hegemónica la desregulación. Por tanto, avanzamos retrocediendo.
LO destructivo es la actividad o actividades que tiene dos sentidos: hacer(se) sitio o hacer sitio a otra cosa. Dicho de otro modo, la actividad propia de lo destructivo es el despejar (W. Benjamín). Tiene la consigna del hacer y, en cierto modo, del hacer liberando.
SE manifiesta de distintos modos. Entre ellos como joven y alegre, “pues destruir rejuvenece, porque quita de en medio del camino las viejas huellas de nuestra propia edad”. No menos, sus actitudes juveniles nacen de su complacencia en la idea de que desprende luz (el futuro será mejor; esto de hoy es sólo el camino necesario para alcanzar lo luminoso). En gran medida, es una actividad contraria al habitar, que consiste en dejar huellas o grafías. Este contenido, que también es una actitud, le permite presentar la destrucción como progreso, avance o modernización. Apela al “se”, es decir, lo abstracto de lo que otros hacen o dicen.  Conoce el valor de esa consigna de la moda: “se lleva”. Siempre está trabajando -o dice hacerlo.
EL carácter destructivo hace su trabajo, pero evita el trabajo creativo. No necesita la soledad de la creación sino la presencia de testigos de la destrucción que produce. Dichos testigos serán ocupados por el miedo o cegados por la luz que desprende el destructor. Sin embargo,  no se oculta. Tergiversa. Se adueña del sentido. Proclama un sentido único y manifiesto que lo posee. De la ausencia de trabajo creativo deducimos sus contenidos reales: destruye pero no ofrece nada a cambio.
BORRA las huellas de lo que destruye; no deja estratos de lo anterior. Si alguien se manifiesta ante él, reivindicando o indicando la bondad de algo de lo destruido o por destruir, le recriminará. Lo nombrará nostálgico pues, en su afán de abrir sendas, todo -y cualquier cosa- carece de valor. Habitar y esconder vienen a significar lo mismo en W. Benjamín: dejar huellas. El carácter destructivo no deja huellas ni memoria. Desaparecen las cosas y la memoria de las cosas. Los testigos de la destrucción quedarán amnésicos. En ese sentido, uno de sus mayores problemas sería una potencial reactivación de la memoria.
SIMPLIFICA lo existente: el mundo se simplifica mucho cuando se examina si es que resulta digno de ser destruido. El carácter destructivo reduce, huye de la complejidad, confirma lo lineal. Mantiene una relación de sospecha respecto de la realidad, aunque la confirma. Si lo que debe ser destruido se examina es porque es digno de ser destruido. De ahí el temor que suscita que dirija su mirada a algún asunto. En cierto modo, la simplificación de lo existente viene a ser uno de los resultados de la imagen apolínea del destructor. Este nunca dará explicaciones ni suficientes ni extensas. Lo suyo es presentarse tal y como se percibe, es decir, como perfección, serenidad y equilibrio.
OBSERVA, sin experimentar alteración alguna, con actitud elegante los inmensos daños colaterales que sus acciones provocan. En ese caso, ordenará la retirada de los escombros resultantes de la destrucción, no sin antes admirar su belleza. A su pesar, la simplificación, cercana al pensamiento mágico, no es capaz de superar  la complejidad de lo existente. Antes o después aflorará.
EL carácter destructivo no está interesado en que lo entiendan. Es más, los esfuerzos que apliquemos en esa dirección le resultan provocativos. Fomenta el malentendido de lo superficial o del ser superficial. Este malentendido le interesa. En ese sentido, hace uso de una retórica estricta, restrictiva y escasa. El carácter destructivo no requiere otra cosa que la confianza misma. Actúa desde y con la seguridad de poseer el sentido y sentirse llamado a la conducción de los humanos y las cosas en coherencia con aquel.
PROBABLEMENTE ésa sea su única condición pues, obviamente, desconfía de la democracia. De lo contrario, como es lógico, confiaría en la deliberación.
EN realidad, escribió Benjamín, “forma parte del frente amplio del tradicionalismo. Unos transmiten las cosas haciéndolas intangibles y conservándolas, mientras otros transmiten las situaciones haciéndolas manejables y liquidándolas. A estos se les llama ‘destructivos’”.
ADEMÁS, el carácter destructivo odia la memoria, siempre capaz de invertir el sentido de los libros escritos por los vencedores y presentados como libros de historia (verdadera). La memoria, con especial énfasis la colectiva, es reivindicativa. Pide la restitución, incluso cuando lo hace desde la suavidad y la fragilidad, sabedora de su débil condición. Pero, también, como dice W. Benjamín, lo destructivo mantiene sospechas sobre ser humano histórico y su “consciencia peculiar”: su desconfianza indomable respecto del curso de las cosas. Siempre tomando nota sobre lo que puede salir mal como si estuviera dotado de una innata “filosofía de la sospecha”. Esa consciencia peculiar se le opone por cuanto “el carácter destructivo es la fiabilidad en cuanto a tal”.
EL espíritu destructivo no percibe nada como duradero. Lo que le permite encontrar caminos por doquier. Donde todos -o muchos-  vemos obstáculos, murallas o, en definitiva, complejidad y vida humana, descubre un camino. Para destruir no siempre usará la fuerza bruta pues ha descubierto el valor de la consigna simplista y su capacidad de seducción.
DETRÁS del pensamiento destructivo está el culto a un dios ignoto: el mercado, es decir, el capitalismo en una fase que aún no somos capaces de comprender. ¿Se descompone? ¿Se recompone y entra en una nueva fase de esplendor?
HUBIERA querido escribir con otro tono, de otras cosas, de cualquier asunto que rezumara felicidad. Tal vez, sobre la serenidad de un jardín, atravesado por el sol, donde los pájaros trinan entre rosales y algunos árboles maravillosamente extraños... Pero este es un verdadero aviso para caminantes: estamos ante la posibilidad de tener que enfrentarnos  a problemas muy difíciles. Uno de ellos pudiera ser la insurrección social.
PUEDE leer aquí anteriores artículos de Alfredo Rubio:
- 13/11/12 La guerra de las palabras y el retroceso de la democracia
- 09/02/11 La política cultural municipal y la nada
- 08/11/11 Elogio de Emilio Lledó y su defensa de lo público
- 26/09/11 El terral sopló todos los días del verano
- 18/07/11 Lo inesperado: 15-M
- 23/06/11 La rehabilitación del vientre de Málaga
- 18/01/11 Dos textos sobre Sócrates (II Parte): La estatua de Sócrates
- 11/01/11 Dos textos sobre Sócrates (I Parte). Sócrates en la ciudad: “Debemos un gallo a Esculapio”
- 07/10/10 La Costa del Sol y el glamour imposible: de 2009 a 2010
- 09/09/10 Silencio
- 30/12/09 Conversaciones con un campesino sobre los colores, la luz y la transparencia
- 06/10/09 Qué nos deparará el futuro: sobre revistas, libros, libreros, editoriales y editores
- 29/07/09 Fragmentos, 2.
- 03/06/09 El innombrable: ¿por qué no podemos o no nos atrevemos a hablar del capitalismo?
- 12/04/09 Europa nos ha mirado. Sobre el informe Auken y la congelación del alma nuestra y de los fondos estructurales
- 10/03/09 Fragmentos
- 03/02/09 Israel: hasta la próxima
- 24/12/08 Tiempo de Navidad
- 20/11/08 El esplendor de la noche americana y los artículos de un antiguo alcalde nuestro

Siempre hay un plan B

Siempre
    hay un plan B que demuestra que el ingenio, bien aplicado, supera al
exceso
    de inversión mal aplicada, o a la falta de imaginación...

Bien
    decía Mario Benedetti.

"¡Si
    uno conociera lo que tiene, con tanta claridad como conoce lo que le
falta!"



        Buenísimo !!!!!!


       El "Plan B"...lo más SENCILLO Y SE SIEMPRE
        POSITIVO!!!!



        Problema 01.



 Cuando la NASA
        comenzó con el lanzamiento de astronautas al espacio, descubrieron
que
        los bolígrafos no funcionarían sin gravedad (o con gravedad cero),
pues
        la tinta no bajaría hasta la superficie en que se deseara escribir.



        Solución A) Resolver este problema, les llevó 6 años y 12 millones de
        dólares. Desarrollaron un bolígrafo que funcionaba: bajo gravedad
cero,
        al revés, debajo del agua, prácticamente en cualquier superficie
        incluyendo cristal y en un rango de temperaturas que iban desde abajo
        del punto de congelación hasta superar los 300 grados centígrados.



        Solución B) ¿Y qué hicieron los rusos? ¡Los rusos utilizaron un
lápiz!




 Problema 02.


        Uno de los más memorables casos de
        estudio de la gestión japonesa fue el caso de la caja de jabón vacía,
        que ocurrió en una de las más grandes empresas de cosmética de Japón.
        La compañía recibió la queja de un consumidor que compró una caja de
        jabón y estaba vacía. Inmediatamente las autoridades aislaron el
        problema a la cadena de montaje, que transportaba todas las cajas
        empaquetadas de jabón al departamento de reparto. Por alguna
razón, una
        caja de jabón pasó vacía por la cadena de montaje. Los altos cargos
        pidieron a sus ingenieros que encontraran una buena y rápida solución
        del problema.



        Solución A) De inmediato, los ingenieros se lanzaron a su labor
para idear
        una máquina de rayos X con monitores de alta resolución manejados por
        dos personas y así vigilar todas las cajas de jabón que pasaran
por la
        línea para asegurarse de que no fueran vacías. Sin duda, trabajaron
        duro y rápido.



        Solución B) Cuando a un empleado común en una empresa pequeña se
le planteó
        el mismo problema, no entró en complicaciones de rayos X, robots,
        equipos informáticos o complicados; en lugar de eso planteó otra
        solución: Compró un potente ventilador industrial y lo apuntó
hacia la
        cadena de montaje. Encendió el ventilador, y mientras cada caja
pasaba
        por el ventilador, las que estaban vacías simplemente salían
volando de
        la línea de producción.





 Problema 03.


        Un magnate hotelero viajo a una ciudad
        Hindú por segunda vez a un año de distancia de su primer viaje, al
        llegar al mostrador de un hotel inferior en estrellas a los de su
cadena,
        el empleado le sonríe y lo saluda diciéndole: Bienvenido nuevamente
        señor, que bueno verlo de vuelta en nuestro hotel; sorprendido en
gran
        manera ya que a pesar de ser una persona tan importante, le gusta el
        anonimato y difícilmente el empleado tendría tan buena memoria para
        saber que estuvo allí un año antes, quiso imponer el mismo sistema en
        su cadena de hoteles ya que ese simple gesto lo hizo sentir muy
bien. A
        su regreso inmediatamente puso a trabajar en este asunto a sus
        empleados para encontrar una solución a su petición.



        Solución A) La solución fue buscar el mejor software con
reconocimiento de
        rostros, base de datos, cámaras especiales, tiempo de respuesta en
        micro segundos, capacitación a empleados, etc. Etc. Con un costo
        aproximado de 2.5 millones de dólares.



        Solución B) El
        magnate prefirió viajar nuevamente y sobornar al empleado de aquel
        hotel para que revelara la tecnología que aplican. El empleado no
        acepto soborno alguno, sino que humildemente comento al magnate
como lo
        hacían, el dijo: "Mire señor, tenemos un arreglo con los taxistas
        que lo trajeron hasta acá, ellos le preguntan si ya se ha
hospedado en
        el hotel al cual lo está trayendo, y si es afirmativo, entonces
cuando
        el deja su equipaje aquí en el mostrador, nos hace una señal, y
así se
        gana un dólar".



        Moraleja: ¡No
        compliques tu trabajo! Concibe la solución más simple al PROBLEMA.
        Aprende a centrarte en las SOLUCIONES y no, en los PROBLEMAS.



        Me ha encantado este mensaje, es de los
        que leeré más de una vez….



        Siempre positivo!, Nunca negativo !



        El hijo que muchas veces no limpia su
        cuarto y se la pasa viendo televisión, significa que...

        Está en casa!



        El desorden que tengo que limpiar
        después de una fiesta,

        Significa que...

        Estuvimos rodeados de familiares o
        amigos!



        Las ropas que están apretadas,

        Significa que...

        Tengo más que suficiente para comer!



        El trabajo que tengo en limpiar la casa,

        Significa que...

        Tengo una casa!



        No encuentro estacionamiento,

        Significa que...

        Tengo coche!



        Los ruidos de la ciudad,

        Significa que...

        Puedo oír!



        El cansancio al final del día,

        Significa que...

        Puedo trabajar!



        El despertador que me despierta todas
        las mañanas,

        Significa que...

        Estoy vivo!



        Finalmente por los mensajes que recibo,

        Significa que...

        Tengo amigos pensando en mí! 
 
CUANDO PIENSES QUE EN LA VIDA TE
        VA MAL...

        LEE OTRA VEZ ESTE MENSAJE !!!!!!!!!!!

  SIEMPRE HAY UN PLAN B.

domingo, 10 de febrero de 2013

A Path of Hope for the Future (2000)

Keynote address delivered at the 2000 Houston Youth Environmental Leadership Conference, 1/26/00


Quinn, Daniel.
Yesterday a teenager sent me an email letter in which he said, "I feel cheated that it's all UP TO ME. By being in the younger generation, I have to save the world before I can even begin to think of building a life for myself, or there will be nothing to build my life on." 
I think this is a profound statement and a statement of profound importance to this particular audience. I've known several generations of kids your age, and I can tell you that feeling cheated is something NEW, and something new is always worth paying attention to. 
The kids of my own generation didn't feel cheated, we felt terrified. We grew up in the coldest part of the Cold War, cowering in the shadow of the H-bomb, expecting at any moment to see the world come to an end in a nuclear holocaust. All we knew was that we had to get down to the business of getting as much of the good life as we could before the end came. We were the Silent Generation, and all we wanted was to get out there and get a job, a career, a marriage, a family, a house in the suburbs, squeezing in as much as we could before it all went up in smoke. 

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/houston_youth.shtml

The kids of the sixties and seventies didn't feel cheated. They were just fed up with their parents' idea that the best life was the one the Silent Generation was struggling to get--the job, the career, the marriage, the family, the house in the suburbs. They wanted to LIVE, to have a little fun, and to hell with the goddamned H-bomb. Who could blame them?
Michael feels cheated, he says, because it's all up to him. If you haven't yet been told that it's "all up to you," believe me, you will be. Of course, this business of it all being up to you is pretty standard commencement day rhetoric. Every commencement day speaker worth his or her salt has got to say, one way or another, "The future is in your hands. Today the torch passes from one generation to the next," blah, blah, blah. This in itself is not new. I heard the same thing when I was your age.

But it meant something different when I heard it. It really was just commencement day rhetoric back then. Nowadays it means something different. 

Nowadays it means something like this. My generation and my parents' generation and their parents' have really screwed things up here, and that's no joke. I can't even bring myself to look at the latest WorldWatch Institute estimate of how much time we have left to turn this around before we head down a slide from which no recovery is possible. It was 40 years the last time I DID have the nerve to look, and that was about ten years ago. 
What does this figure mean? It doesn't mean human extinction in forty years. It means we have 40 years to find a new path for ourselves, and if we let those 40 years go to waste and just go on the way we are, the momentum that is carrying us forward to extinction will be too great to overcome. So that date is not the end of it all, it's just the point of no return.Irreversible 

So when people tell you now that it's all up to you, they really mean "If you can't find what we were unable to find and our parents were unable to find and their parents were unable to find (which is another way for us to go), then you may very well live to see the extinction of the human race." 

I'm sure you haven't failed to notice what a monstrous copout this is. 

Oh yes, we--your parents and their parents and their parents--have screwed up the world royally, and we admit it!! But if YOU don't find a way to FIX what WE'VE done, then it will be YOUR fault! Not OUR fault, because we have an excuse. We were just dumb and greedy. And because WE'VE been dumb and greedy, YOU'RE going to have to be smart and self-sacrificing. Got that? 
Michael puts it in a nutshell: "By being in the younger generation, I have to save the world before I can even begin to think of building a life for myself, or there will be nothing to build my life on." 

Your parents didn't have to save the world before building a life for themselves. Maybe it would've have been a good idea--but they didn't HAVE to. So they didn't. 
You HAVE to, because if you don't, as Michael says, there will be nothing LEFT to build your life ON. 
So that's the deal. Forget about having fun. Forget about taking up some career just because it happens to appeal to you. Forget about getting the good things in life that your parents have. Forget about the six-figure salary. Forget about the BMW. Forget about the 8000 square foot house.

Those things are okay for people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Donald Trump and Steve Case, because they belong to the same old, unregenerate generation as your parents. They can AFFORD to be dumb and greedy. They don't HAVE to save the world first. YOU DO. 
Is it any wonder that Michael feels cheated?
When he speaks of being cheated, Michael unconsciously brings into play the language of games. I mean that Michael dimly recognizes that a game IS being played with him, and I'd like to take a few minutes to examine the game that's being played with him--and with you when people tell you that "It's all up to you."

In his book, The Book: or, The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Alan Watts examines the notion of the "double-bind." "A person," he writes, "is put in a double-bind by a command or request that contains a concealed contradiction. 'Stop being self-conscious!' 'Try to relax.' . . . Society, as we now have it, pulls this trick on every child from earliest infancy. In the first place, the child is taught that he is responsible, that he is a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions. He accepts this make-believe for the very reason that it is not true. He can't help accepting it, just as he can't help accepting membership in the community where he was born. He has no way of resisting this kind of social indoctrination. It is constantly reinforced with reward and punishments. It is built into the basic structure of the language he is learning. . . . we befuddle our children hopelessly because we--as adults--were once so befuddled, and, remaining so, do not understand the game we are playing." 

I hope you'll leave here today with a better understanding of the game that is being played with you. "The child," Watts says, "is taught that he is responsible, that he is a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions."

This is what you're hearing when people of an older generation say, "It's all up to you." You might say that this is HALF of the game. They themselves were told, "It's all up to you," when they were your age. But if you watch them in action, you'll see very clearly that they don't act as if it were all up to them. They act as if it were all up to SOMEONE ELSE. They were taught, just as you were, that they are responsible, that they are free agents, but they know perfectly well that this is make-believe. SOMEONE ELSE is responsible for saving the world. SOMEONE ELSE is a free agent CAPABLE of saving the world. It may not come to mind immediately who this SOMEONE ELSE is, but you'll certainly recognize it when you hear it. 
Who is everyone WAITING for to save the world? Who is EVERYONE waiting for to save the world? 
They are waiting for our LEADERS, of course. This is the other half of the game. The first half of the game is: It's all up to you. The second half of the game is: they don't have to do anything because they're waiting for the President to save the world. They're waiting for the Secretary General of the United Nations to save the world. They're waiting for some unthinkable industrial giant to save the world. They're waiting for some great thinker to save the world. They're waiting for Mikhail Gorbachev to save the world. They're even waiting for Daniel Quinn to save the world! 
Someone UP THERE, someone in AUTHORITY! 

Well, guess what, folks. There is NO ONE "up there" who is remotely CAPABLE of saving the world. Most of the people I've just mentioned aren't even THINKING about saving the world. Trust me, you will never hear Al Gore or Bill Bradley or George Bush utter one word about saving the world*. And whichever one of them is elected our next President, he will not spend a single minute of his administration thinking about saving the world. This is not something they should be blamed for, in all honesty. We don't ELECT presidents to save the world, and any candidate that campaigned on that basis would be laughed off the stage. We elect ALL our political leaders to address SHORT-TERM goals. 

The kids of your grandparents' generation were told, "It's all up to you"--and they waited for SOMEONE ELSE to save the world. 

The kids of your parents' generation were told, "It's all up to you"--and they waited for SOMEONE ELSE to save the world. 

Now the people of your parents' and grandparents' generation are continuing the game by pointing at you and saying, "It's all up to YOU." 

I'd like to try to persuade you to REFUSE to play the
game. Don't let anyone get away with saying, "It's all up to you." No. It's all up to EVERYBODY. Refuse to accept your parents' and grandparents' copout. It's not good enough to say, "We've failed, so it's all up to you." 
Tell them, "STOP failing!" Which means stop WAITING! 
Tell them, "There's nothing to wait for. There's no ONE to wait for. No one is going to save the world but the PEOPLE of the world, and you can't make it the sole responsibility of MY generation. We are the ones with no experience, no clout, no connections, no power, no money--and it's all supposed to be up to US??? What are YOU going to be doing while WE save the world?"

Obviously in the few minutes I have here I can't give you a blueprint for saving the world. But I can give you a couple of fundamental notions that I think you can follow with complete confidence. The first of these might be called Quinn's First Law. It won't surprise you. It may even strike you as obvious. Here it is. No undesirable behavior has ever been eliminated by passing a law against it. 

The second is Buckminster Fuller's Law, which is this: You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. 

Most of the time when people write to me to ask what they should be doing to save the world, there is in the back of their minds two general notions of how change takes place. One is the notion that passing laws makes things change. The other is that fightingmakes things change. We're trained to think that you really are DOING something if you're out there fighting and getting laws passed. 

But if you heed these two laws, you may think differently about this. Once again they are Quinn's First Law, No undesirable behavior has ever been eliminated by passing a law against it, and Fuller's Law, You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. 

Here is Quinn's Second Law: What people think is what they do. And its corollary: To change what people do, change what they think.

At the present time, there are six billion people on this planet pursuing a vision that is devouring the earth. That's our problem. Our problem is not pollution. Our problem is not consumerism. Our problem is not capitalist greed. Our problem is not conservative selfishness or liberal utopianism. Our problem is not lack of leadership. Our problem is a world-devouring vision that six billion people are pursuing. 

Now what can we do about this vision? We can't legislate it away or vote it away or organize it away or even shoot it away. We can only teach it away. 

If the world is saved, it will be saved by people with changed minds, people with a new vision. It will not be saved by old minds with new programs. 

Vision is a flowing river. Programs are sticks set in the riverbed to impede the flow of the river. But I don't want to impede its flow, I want to change its direction. 
Is it so easy to change a cultural vision? Ease and difficulty are not the relevant measures. Here are the relevant measures: Readiness and unreadiness. If people aren't ready for it, then no power on earth can make a new idea catch on.

But if people are ready for it (and I think they are), then a new idea will sweep the world like wildfire. 
In our culture at the present moment, the flow of the river is toward catastrophe, and programs are sticks set in the riverbed to impede its flow. Our path of hope is not to add more sticks to impede the flow. Our path of hope is to change the direction of the flow--away from catastrophe. 
I think people are ready for this new idea.

Don't pay attention to people who talk as if saving the world is someone else's business--bigshots in international politics or bigshots in international commerce. I say again: If the world is saved, it will be saved by people with changed minds, and anyone can change a mind. I mean that. Back in the seventies, a lot of eight-year-olds came home and told their parents, "By God, you're going to stop smoking!"--and they made it stick. Back in the eighties, a lot of eight-year-olds came home and told their parents, "By God, we're going to start recycling aluminum cans!"--and they made it stick.

I've changed lots of minds, through my books--but the absolute fact is that my readers have changed more minds than my books have. A lot more.

One by one, readers did the work. Not me--people like you. Having done this work, having carried the word to parents, to children, to teachers, to friends, to relatives, even to strangers, they would then sit down and write me to say, but how can I help save the world? And I'd write back and say, "Look, you're already doing it!" 
If the time is right, a new idea will sweep the world like wildfire. 

Let me share with you the most inspirational story I've heard in a long time. This story comes to me from a high school teacher in Alaska who was using Ishmaelin a third-year science course. One of the students in his class was recognized as a probable drop-out. She was a lukewarm student at best--indifferent and uninterested. But instead of dropping out, after reading Ishmael, this young woman did the strangest thing anyone had ever heard of, including me. She took it upon herself to buy copies of Ishmael for her parents and to organize a week-long seminar in her own living room that her parents were commanded to attend in order to engage in a Socratic dialogue onIshmaels themes. From that point on, she never looked back, and no one thinks of her as a probable dropout any more. 

Let me make it clear that I'm not telling this story to because I'm proud of what Ishmael did. I'm proud of what this seventeen-year-old girl did! She found a path of hope for the future--all on her own. She didn't ask me, she didn't ask her parents, she didn't ask her teachers, she didn't ask her friends, she didn't ask anyone. 

If the time is right, a new idea will sweep the world like wildfire--because of people like this seventeen-year-old girl. 

Because of people like you. 

Because of this seventeen-year-old girl, there are two more people in the world with changed minds. That's no small thing, believe me. Because where there are two with changed minds, there can be four. And where there are four, there can be eight. And where there are eight, there can be sixteen. All because of that onethat started the whole thing by saying, "I've got to change these two minds." 

That's exactly how new ideas sweep the world like wildfire--and that's how I see it. 

That's our path of hope for the future.

*At the time this was written Al Gore was one of the folks "up there," where it was best to keep one's mouth closed about "saving the world." Being no longer "up there" Mr. Gore is now free to express his concern about the future of the world (and this speech, if it were being written today, would not include his name in this list).

Átlatl


átlatllanzadardos o estólicaes un arma propulsora muy utilizada por los pueblos precolombinos mesoamericanos, especialmente los mexicas y losmayas en Guatemala y México, así como los indígenas de Perú yColombia.
En náhuatl se le llamó átlatl, aunque en español también se le conoce como lanzadardos y estólica.
Es una corta, delgada y estrecha plataforma hecha de madera flexible y correosa que se sujetaba de unos agujeros con los dedos medio e índice. En su parte superior se colocaba unvenablo. Proporciona un impulso tan potente al venablo (el proyectil), que es capaz de perforar la piel gruesa de algunos animales, y cotas de malla de acero, como lo experimentaron los soldadosespañoles.

Índice

  [ocultar

[editar]Uso

Los cazadores precolombinos utilizaron el átlatl para sustituir el uso de la jabalina, por ser más efectivo, y aceleró la extinción de mamíferos gigantes cenozoicos[cita requerida]. Mucho tiempo después se lo reemplazó por arco y flechas, que eran todavía más efectivas. Sin embargo, varias culturas precolombinas siguieron utilizando el átlatl con propósitos bélicos debido a su mayor potencia respecto al arco. El uso del átlatl se extendió hastaAustralia; los aborígenes todavía lo utilizan y lo llaman woomera. El átlatl más viejo descubierto tiene una antigüedad de unos 19 000 años. Estudios científicos estiman que fue utilizado durante más de 40 000 años.1

[editar]Deporte

En la actualidad hay asociaciones deportivas que practican el uso del arma en contiendas organizadas. El señor Dave Ingvall hizo un átlatl con fibra de carbono y un venablo de aluminio, para lograr el récord mundial de disparo más largo con esta arma, en julio de 1995, en la localidad estadounidense de Aurora, en el estado deColorado. El venablo logró alcanzar los 258 metros de distancia.2

[editar]Véase también

[editar]Referencias

[editar]Enlace externo

What is Anarcho-Primitivism?

I. Introduction
Anarcho-primitivists comprise a subculture and political movement that, generally, advocates hunting and gathering as the ideal human subsistence method (from the point of view of sustainable resource use) and the band as the ideal human social structure (for its features of egalitarianism). While the goal may seem improbable, a primitivist would contend that more modest goals are either undesirable or unachievable within the system. The past 10,000 years have after all been largely a history of “solutions” to the problems of an agricultural society. This critique of “civilization” inherently rejects less radical ideals and claims to go uniquely to the heart of all social discontent. It is multi-faceted, drawing on several traditions of thought. These include the nineteenth century social speculators, anthropology of hunter-gatherers, situationism, anarchism, radical (deep) ecology, and anti-technological philosophy. The potential problem of implementation is largely solved by a growing consensus that an end to “economic growth” is fast approaching, making revolutionary change inevitable. The direction of that change is the focus of anarcho-primitivist interest.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-what-is-anarcho-primitivism#toc4


Anarcho-primitivism is subtly influencing society in several ways. The Unabomber’s “manifesto” enunciated many of the central tenets of anarcho-primitivism (e.g. rejection of liberalism and industrialism). Primitivists were among the protesters participating in window-smashing, spray-painting, and other vandalism at the Seattle WTO protests in December 1999. They are probably among those elusive “eco-terrorists” who carry out property destruction in the name of the Earth Liberation Front. The popular novel Fight Club (1996), which became a feature film, portrayed a group of alienated young men who reject consumerist culture and attempt to bring it to an end through massive sabotage. While anarcho-primitivism may not seem worthy of much thought or attention because it falls far outside the mainstream of political discourse, it ought not to be dismissed. It merits substantial attention solely on the basis of its harmonious integration of several historically disparate lines of thought.

II. Aims

The prefix “anarcho” signifies the anarchist rejection of the state in favor of small-scale political structures. Additionally, as primitivist icon John Zerzan (2002:67–68) explains, “I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination.” So a key distinction must be made between anarcho-primitivists and anarchists generally because, “[f]or example, some Anarchists don’t see the technological imperative as a category of domination.”
In the most general terms, they reject “civilization” in favor of “wildness.” More specifically, they call for the abandonment or destruction of industrial (and possibly agricultural) technology in favor of subsistence that is not based on the industrial “forces of production” — hence, the adoption of the “primitive” label. This means that primitivists reject even forms of production based on collective management and ownership because any production exceeding immediate subsistence needs is seen as incompatible with long-term sustainability. Derrick Jensen (2000:143) explains:
Make no mistake, our economic system can do no other than destroy everything it encounters. That’s what happens when you convert living beings to cash. That conversion, from living trees to lumber, schools of cod to fish sticks, and onward to numbers on a ledger, is the central process of our economic system.

III. Influences and Precedents

a. Anarcho-primitivism’s internal coherence lies in its complementary and self-reinforcing synthesis of several previous modes of thought. The oldest and most pervasive of these is the romantic idea of the noble savage. This idea, popularized in the eighteenth century by Rousseau (2001), has persisted ever since (recall the Iron Eyes Cody anti-litter advertising campaign). This romanticism was adopted by the nineteenth century transcendentalists like Emerson, Thoreau, and Margaret Fuller (Pearce 146–150). However, these early radical thinkers, while admiring of the “primitives” and favoring social change, did not seek to emulate their societies: “The fact is,” Thoreau wrote, “the history of the white man is a history of improvement, that of the red man a history of fixed habits of stagnation.” (Pearce 1965:149). The white man’s “history of improvement” was the focus of another group of speculators, including Comte, Tylor, Powell, Morgan, and Spencer, who advocated unilineal cultural evolution (Bettinger 1991:1–29). The most prominent of these was Morgan who outlined the progression from savagery to barbarism to civilization. These stages were defined by increasing technological progress (originating with stone-age hunter-gatherers) resulting in a corresponding decrease in reliance on nature and the increasing opportunity for managerial and artistic pursuits (Bettinger 1991:4), but only for an elite class. Although Morgan’s categories of society roughly correspond to some of those still in use today, the idea of unilineal evolution is of no more than historical interest to anthropologists today, who no longer endorse sweeping generalizations without significant supporting evidence.
b. It was not until the 1960s that the negative stereotype of “savagery” was challenged. In 1966, the first international conference on hunting and gathering societies (entitled “Man the Hunter”) was held in Chicago (Bettinger 1991:48). The significance of this conference was to overturn the longstanding assumption that hunter-gatherers’ lives were “nasty, brutish and short,” in the enduring words of Thomas Hobbes. Marshall Sahlins famously made the case in his paper, “Notes on the Original Affluent Society,” which consolidated brand new ethnographic research from Africa and Australia. He concluded that hunter-gatherers (of the most mobile sort) could be characterized as affluent on the basis that their few and simple wants were easily met. He called this economy the “Zen way” (1972:29). Although significant problems with his source data are recognized now, his essay is still commonly assigned in introductory anthropology courses because of a lingering sense that he “had a point” (Bird-David 1992:26). Since Man the Hunter, there has been no shift in the scholarly literature back toward the negative stereotypes of hunter-gatherers. (A shift away from stereotypes in general is an obvious trend, however.) Richard Lee, a co-organizer of the 1966 conference, still publishes work propounding the study of the “primitive communism” phenomenon (Lee 1995). Participants in this revolution of hunter-gatherer studies certainly were and are aware of the romantic stereotype of the noble savage, and, if only unconsciously, they had brought it up-to-date with modern scholarship, giving it significant credibility. This primitivist trend attracted many to the study of hunter gatherers, and certainly formed a foundation for the appearance of anarcho-primitivism in the ensuing decades.
c. In a novel critique of modern society that we would now recognize as postmodernism, Guy Debord expressed in The Society of the Spectacle (1995) the vacuity of life within industrial society in terms of “the spectacle” — his term for symbolic representation run amok. In Thesis 1 he says, “All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.” (1995:12). Debord was part of a revolutionary French art movement of the 1960s, Situationism, which rejected the substitution of representation for direct experience. Like previous art movements had done, Situationsists sought to bridge the divide between art and everyday life. Primitivist Kevin Tucker (2003) makes clear that, in the decades since Debord presented his critique, the dominance of his “spectacle” has grown exponentially with the development of audio-video recording technology and the internet as mediums of communication (“medium” is a key word here, suggesting “mediate”) that replaces the direct interaction of individuals. As in the early primitivism of the Transcendentalists, Debord’s situationism implied a desire for social change, a desire that he makes explicit in a preface to a recent edition (1995:10). The above quotation of Thesis 1 also illustrates Debord’s primitivism. In lamenting the loss of a perceived past in which direct experience was universal, he paved the way for anarcho-primitivism, which would paint a clearer picture of that implicit alternative. Debord and his contemporaries were aware of political movements that had historically exhibited similar critical attitudes to social and political norms (“Situationism” 2002). Among these was anarchism.
d. Anarchism, also called libertarian socialism, has a long and complicated history beginning in Europe approximately 200 years ago “in the climate of reason” that simultaneously gave rise to libertarian and authoritarian socialism (Bose 1967:77,379). At the end of the nineteenth century, it was taking hold in the US and Europe among organized laborers. It was at this time that the stereotype of the bomb-throwing anarchist was born, fueled by events such as the Haymarket Affair (Bose 1967:253,392). However this stereotype does injustice to the idealistic motives of anarchists as explicated by its numerous philosophical proponents. The chaos they are so frequently accused of desiring is arguably the antithesis of their true motives: the widespread (socially accepted and internalized) disorder of war, oppression, greed, hunger, depression that stalks hierarchical societies is the object of anarchists’ assault. As Howard Zinn (1997:644) explains,
It is these conditions that anarchists have wanted to end: to bring a kind of order to the world for the first time. We have never listened to them carefully, except through the hearing aids supplied by the guardians of disorder — the national government leaders, whether capitalist or socialist.
The ultimate aim of anarchists is hardly different than that of other idealists throughout history. But anarchists’ optimism — their faith in the ability of human beings to voluntarily cooperate with each other — sets them clearly apart from all the others, who unfailingly require some authoritarian class for the maintenance of “order.”
It was perhaps a lapse in this long-standing faith, stemming from the lost optimism of the 1960s, that led some anarchists in search of a historical basis for their convictions — a search that led back to the origins of the first states — that is, to the beginning of “civilization” itself. These primitivist themes began to appear in anarchist publications in the 1980s, and they explicitly referenced the 1960s anthropology of hunter-gatherers (e.g. Sahlins 1972); the egalitarian band structure seemed to exemplify the anarchist solution to social disorder. The environmental movement also flourished into the 1970s, and this is reflected in the anarchist-leaning fiction of Edward Abbey.
e. Abbey’s 1975 novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang(1976), centered on a small group of radical, mostly young individuals dedicated to sabotaging the infrastructure that allowed for the taming of the “wilderness” of the American west. They are sympathetically portrayed as the underdogs in a country where political power is held by no-good despoilers of nature. The uncompromising sentiment for “eco-defense” (a novel concept itself) expressed by Abbey reflected a radical environmental ethic that was totally new and would become known as “deep ecology.” This ethic is summed-up well by its recognized founder, Arne Næss: “The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has intrinsic value. The value of non-human life forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.” (1999) It was in this context of Abbey’s advocacy of “monkey wrenching” and Næss’s eco-philosophy that the name “Earth First!” was given in 1989 to a new movement dedicated to defending the natural world by any means necessary (“About Earth First!” n.d.; “Earth First” 2005).
Derrick Jensen (2000:188) expresses “the central question” that environmental activists face: “What are sane and appropriate responses to insanely destructive behavior?” He continues, “So often environmentalists...are capable of plainly describing the problems..., yet when faced with the emotionally daunting task of fashioning a response..., we generally suffer a failure of nerve and imagination.” Earth First! reflected the first attempt to overcome this failure of nerve, but the challenge drove others to take more extreme measures. The large-scale property destruction (glorified in Edward Abbey’s novels) of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was one response to the ineffective “reformist” measures taken by many activists. The first actions claimed by the ELF occurred during the 1990s in the UK and US. Examples include the 1998 arson of the Vail Mountain ski resort, the 2003 arson of a San Diego condominium construction site, and multiple examples of vandalism at car dealerships, particularly of sport utility vehicles (“Earth Liberation Front” 2005).
The radical environmental movement was compatible with primitivist ideas, as the popular portrayal of Indians as ecologists demonstrates. “Primitive” people, especially mobile hunter-gatherers, are directly dependent on the land for their subsistence and, presumably, have a more “ecocentric” worldview than is possible in modern industrial society. There has been some dispute over this point in recent years from scholars who seem “intent on demonstrating that it is ‘human nature’ to be environmentally destructive” (Hunn 2002). Eugene Hunn attempts to put the debate into perspective concluding, “by the excellent condition of the continent when the first Europeans arrived,” that Native Americans had done something right. He continues,
That the continent was not ‘pristine wilderness’ is undeniable, since it had long been home to millions of Indian peoples. That Indian peoples had cared well for this land, had conserved its biodiversity, is also undeniable. To dispute the reality of ‘The Ecological Indian’...is to blind us to the damage done since, in the name of progress and of profit.
Thus, environmental problems came to be seen as a symptom of the far larger problem of “civilization,” which has demonstrated unconcern for any limits to “growth” to the detriment of the natural world. One individual responding to some of the same concerns with a more anti-technological focus was Theodore Kaczynski, widely known as “the Unabomber.”
f. A 34,000-word paper entitled “Industrial Society and Its Future” was published in September 1995 by theWashington Post. The Post was complying with an anonymous offer from the “Unabomber” to stop his 17-year bombing campaign in exchange for the publication of his revolutionary treatise. Sixteen mailed bombs were sent by Kaczynski, resulting in the deaths of three and injuring 23 more (Goldberg 1996). The “manifesto,” as the media called it, decries the ever-increasing dominance of technology within modern society. It calls for a revolution, not against political structures, but against “the economic and technological basis of the present society” (Kaczynski 2003:3). This tendency to aggressively challenge technological innovation can be traced back to early eighteenth-century England when advances in textile manufacturing technology threatened to make obsolete centuries of tradition. These detractors of technology, popularly called Luddites, from 1811 to 1812 sabotaged this new machinery creating an uproar in English society (Sale 1995a). Their name derives from the mythological figure, Ned Ludd, whose name served as a pseudonym in their letters of threat of and explanation for their vandalism (Sale 1995a:77–78).
Modern philosophers including Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, and Chellis Glendinning — so-called neo-Luddites (Sale 1995a:237–240) — continue to promote the skepticism toward “progress” that has surely existed as long as technological innovation itself. The difference between neo-Luddites and their predecessors is that, in the nineteenth century, new technologies were only a social threat, whereas today technology threatens the biological systems that form the basis of human existence (Sale 1995a:266–267). Kaczynski’s text is very clearly informed by neo-Luddite thought, although he does not cite the influence of any previous thinkers within it (Sale 1995b:305). Elsewhere he has said, “Technology, above all else, is responsible for the current condition of the world and will control its future development.” The ideology of the Luddites and their modern counterparts provides a crucial pillar of anarcho-primitivism.
g. A final pillar supporting the primitivist ethos demonstrates the unsustainability of industrial society. This body of work refutes those arguments that claim science will provide the solutions necessary to sustain current First World living standards in the face of massive resource degradation and depletion. It also provides anarcho-primitivists a safe, simple answer to the challenge, “How are you going to get there?” The 1972 book, Limits to Growth (LTG), was the first systematic assessment of the sustainability of modern society. More than a decade of environmentalism still had not popularly integrated ubiquitous environmental problems into a coherent message for public consumption. Earlier works like Erlich’s The Population Bomb and Carson’s Silent Spring had focused on specific bite-sized issues. LTG offered a satisfying, yet disturbing complete picture. It was the product of a research project commissioned by the Club of Rome, an international, informal group of “businessmen, statesmen, and scientists” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:ix) who wanted an assessment of the sustainability of the overall course of human society. The final report predicted that unless widespread measures were taken to reduce consumption and pollution sufficiently early, human society would overshoot global carrying capacity and ultimately face a collapse, defined as “an uncontrolled decline in both population and human welfare” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:xi). The research group reached this conclusion through the use of a computer model which was able to factor in multiple variables and the interaction between them. LTG was the first attempt to present the environmental crisis as a whole and show that it required a systematic response (Kassiola 1990:17).
Resource shortages have become a serious concern in recent years among limits-to-growth theorists. By far, the most popular and far-reaching of the theories of resource depletion concerns petroleum. “Peak oil” refers to the point at which total oil extraction (in a particular oil-field, a region, or the planet) reaches its highest point along the slope of a bell curve. From that moment on, supply begins to drop while demand persists. This phenomenon has been observed for decades, but the global economy has been able to sufficiently redistribute oil to regions where the supply has long been exhausted (e.g. Texas). The consequences of the global peak of oil extraction are only recently being considered: when global supply is unable to meet global demand, oil’s market value will begin rising ever-faster. Anything and everything that depends on oil (try imagining some aspect of out society that does not) will become increasingly expensive, and eventually industrial society will grind to a halt. It must be added, few if any of the scholars who promote limits-to-growth critiques are excited about the end of “civilization” they foresee (most hope to avert it), but, for an anarcho-primitivist, their scenarios provide a near-panacea.
The seven influences outlined above are by no means universally recognized among all anarcho-primitivists, but they are clearly visible throughout the available “anti-civilization” literature. The key writers, including John Zerzan, Derrick Jensen, and Daniel Quinn, all come from different backgrounds — the labor movement, the environmental movement, or entirely non-political — but they each synthesize elements of the above influences and add their own unique contributions.

IV. Synthesis

John Zerzan (1994,2002) adds the most academic voice to the chorus. While his writing style is the least accessible, his critique is by far the deepest. He seeks the root of all domination, and this path leads him deeper into prehistory than even the origins of agriculture. Art, language, number, time, and even symbolic thought have been subjects of Zerzan’s interrogation. For him, each of those serves to mediate humans from the direct experience of the world that Guy Debord elegized. Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael (1995), is undoubtedly the most widely read book questioning the basis of civilization. It is a novel that revolves around a Socratic-style dialogue in which the reader learns how civilization came to be and what humanity has forgotten as a result. Derrick Jensen provides a uniquely psychological analysis of modern civilization, drawing on the work of R. D. Laing and Erich Fromm. He uses his own experience of child abuse to show how the same types of relationships are manifested on a larger scale throughout society (2000). He also assesses the psychology of hate groups in terms of its relationship the dominant culture (2002).
All of these individuals agree that civilization was a mistake that has had disastrous consequences for human and non-human life, and it will continue to wreak havoc until people decide to stop it or until it collapses under it own weight. After one of these events occurs, the planet will finally be able to begin recovering from 10,000 years of human domestication.
Picture yourself planting radishes and seed potatoes on the fifteenth green of a forgotten golf course. You’ll hunt elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center, and dig clams next to the skeleton of the Space Needle leaning at a forty-five degree angle. We’ll paint the skyscrapers with huge totem faces and goblin tikis, and every evening what’s left of mankind will retreat to empty zoos and lock itself in cages as protection against the bears and big cats and wolves that pace and watch us from outside the cage bars at night....
[Y]ou’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you’ll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower.... [T]he air will be so clean you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles. (Palaniuk 1996:124–125)
The above quotation from the popular novel Fight Club is a vivid description (some might say caricature) of a world in which industrial civilization has been survived by the kinds of small-scale societies to which anarcho-primitivists aspire. There are two modes of thought on how people can affect this outcome. The first, advocated by Daniel Quinn (2000), is that it can only be accomplished through the dissemination of a new “vision” through society, which will inevitably result in the radical transformation of civilization necessary to end the destruction of the natural world. Quinn feels that without first “changing minds” all other efforts will be fruitless. However, this strategy has been criticized for a lack of urgency. Derrick Jensen (2000:182) conveys this urgency well:
Many perceive the pain of denuded forests and extirpated salmon directly in their bodies: part of their personal identities includes their habitat — their human and nonhuman surroundings. Thus they are not working to save something out there, but responding in defense of their own lives. This is not dissimilar to the protection of one’s family: why does a mother grizzly bear charge a train to protect her cubs, and why does a mother human fiercely fight to defend her own?
The more common response among primitivists reflects this urgency and calls for direct action that will bring an end to the destruction wrought by industrial technology as quickly as possible.
A legitimate objection to destruction of the infrastructure of industrial society is that it would inevitably lead to the deaths of millions. Aside from the high probability that such a scenario will eventually occur, if current trends continue, without any help from saboteurs (Meadows, et. al. 2004) and that the sooner that catastrophe occurs the less “disastrous the results...will be” (Kaczynski 2003:3), an anarcho-primitivist would argue that such objections exhibit naïveté about the reality of technological progress.
You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it. (Kaczynski 2003:121)
The increasing incidence of cancer is probably the most ironic consequence of this “progress.” In terms of the human health that modern medicine ostensibly improves, the cancer epidemic provides a striking wake-up call to advocates of medical technology. It generally agreed that cancer is a disease caused primarily by the lifestyle of Western Civilization (Moss n.d.; Ransom 2002). All the same, life expectancy has increased in the last 100 years (“Life Expectancy” n.d.; Stobbe 2005). This begs the question of which is more important, quantity or quality of life.
The consequences of modern technology are certainly far greater for nonhumans, as they are not its intended beneficiaries. The present global rate of extinction is estimated between 100 and 1000 times the (normal) background rate (Levin and Levin 2002). As a result of large-scale logging, less than two percent of U.S. forests were more than 200 years old in 1997 (“U.S. Forestland” n.d.). Every introductory environmental science textbook describes in detail the seemingly endless atrocities perpetrated against the natural world. Fisheries are being harvested at rates far in excess of the maxim sustainable yield. The same chemicals responsible for the human cancer epidemic transform diverse productive land and water habitats into barren waste dumps.
Anarcho-primitivism seeks a return to a wild life free from the culture that seems to be doing its best to destroy the planet, a life that humanity successfully realized for nearly all of our time on this planet (Rosman and Rubel 2004:181). What this entails in the modern context is a small scale society that is independent from the global industrial economy, but said society would also not be restricted by the modern constraints of property and imaginary borders. It would be self-sufficient, subsisting successfully on the local land as well as any scraps which civilization (or what is left of it) provides. It would lack the desire to control or subdue the life forms upon which it depended. But most importantly, such a community would have a visceral sense of and relationship to a physical place.

V. Prospects

Much of the anarcho-primitivist community is restricted to the pages of anarchist magazines and websites. This is community in a very loose, virtual sense, but in the modern context this form of “community” is almost surely a prerequisite of any new zeitgeist. These are real individuals writing, reading, and thinking about anarcho-primitivism across the world, and their common interest connects them. This “community” is only significant insofar as it has the potential to lead to face-to-face interaction, however.
There are some signs of actual emerging communities which advocate and apply (to an extent) the principles of an anarcho-primitivist philosophy. The first large-scale secular movement that exhibited some “primitivist” themes was the outbreak of communes during the late 1960s (Houriet 1971). The hippie subculture idolized the Native American cultures of the southwest like the Pueblo, Hopi, and Zuni (1971:198). Synonymously called the “back to the land” movement, these intentional communities emphasized that the land was true basis for the economy (1971:153, 181). The hippies advanced few of the philosophical and none of the empirical arguments that have become available in the last 35 years as justification for a non-civilized life, and their communities have all but disintegrated. In the early 1980s, the various threads of primitivism began to cohere into the independent worldview outlined above.
Today there are a few groups of people who actively seek out community that approximates (as closely as is feasible) an anarcho-primitivist alternative. Most loosely connected to anarcho-primitivism are so-called primitive skills gatherings, at which attendees camp in an undeveloped area and learn a few skills of self-sufficient survival including bow and arrow making, friction fire-starting, edible wild plant identification, animal tracking, and shelter construction (“Primitive Skills” n.d.). For some, the interest in these meetings may be more hobby-oriented than ideological, but the skills they teach would be of definite use where the necessities of life are not provided by a global industrial economy.
Wildroots is the name of a self-described “radical homestead” in North Carolina. One resident participated in a brief interview (Anon. 2005) providing the following information. It began with only two individuals and the population has since doubled. Two are from the “upper middle class,” one from the “middle class, and the other from the “working class.” Visitors are welcome and typically stay for a few weeks in the spring and summer. “There aren’t really rules, except that if anyone new wanted to live there long-term and build a dwelling, the four of us would all have to agree on that.” There are also no “economic limits to ‘membership’.” The group lives on 30-acres of lush land which is owned outright. All of the members have spent time at larger intentional communities, and one member has lived at one.
“We are pretty heavily influenced by many of the same ideas even if we haven’t all read the same books. Many of us are into Chellis Glendinning and Derrick Jensen.” Clearly, Wildroots is philosophically rooted in anarcho-primitivism. The resident said that Wildroots was not the only attempt at a primitive community and cited two examples in Washington state (“the Institute for Applied Piracy and the Feral Farm”).
It should be clear, by now, that there is a reasonably solid canon of anarcho-primitivist philosophy available, which provides the seeds for what could potentially blossom into a movement. Several periodicals (Green AnarchySpecies TraitorGreen AnarchistFifth Estate,Live Wild or DieThe Final DaysGreen Journal,Disorderly ConductCracks in the EmpireDo or Die, andQuick!) are dedicated to anarcho-primitivist theory, and the most widely circulated American anarchist magazine,Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, frequently features primitivist viewpoints (Zerzan 2002:3). The Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently sees the potential of a radical environmental movement, since it has deemed eco-terrorism the number one domestic terrorist threat. The small communities currently in existence may represent the budding of this movement or they may not. In either case, the arguments in favor of anarcho-primitivism should be evaluated openly by mainstream society because, if its claims are valid, their implications are immediate and uncommonly far-reaching.

Works Cited

Abbey, Edward. (1976) The Monkey Wrench Gang. New York: Avon.
About Earth First! (n.d.) Retrieved November 17, 2005, from Earth First! Worldwide: www.earthfirst.org
Anonymous. (2005, Nov 26). “Re: Interview.” Personal email to the author.
Bettinger, Robert L. (1991). Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum.
Bose, Atindranath. (1967). A History of Anarchism. Calcutta: World.
Debord, Guy. (1995). The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone. (Original 1967)
Earth First! (2005, November 15). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 17, 2005, fromen.wikipedia.org
Earth Liberation Front (2005, November 17, 18:24). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 17, 2005, from en.wikipedia.org
Goldberg, Carey. (1996, September 21). “Diaries Disclosed In Unabom Hearing,” The New York Times, Saturday, Late Edition — Final, Section 1; Page 1; Column 5
Houriet, Robert. (1971). Getting Back Together. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.
Hunn, Eugene S. “In Defense of ‘The Ecological Indian.’” Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, Edinburgh, Scotland, September 9, 2002. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from www.abdn.ac.uk
Jensen, Derrick. (2000). A Language Older Than Words. New York: Context.
— . (2002). The Culture of Make Believe. New York: Context.
Kaczynski, Theodore. (2003). Industrial Society and Its Future. Retrieved December 4, 2005, from CrimethInc X.tk: www1.shellkonto.se
Kassiola, Joel Jay. (1990) The Death of Industrial Civilization: The Limits to Economic Growth and the Repoliticization of Advanced Industrial Society. Albany, New York: State U of New York Press.
Lee, Richard B. (1995). “Reflections on Primitive Communism.” 252–268. In Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution and Social Change. Ed. Tim Ingold, David Riches, James Woodburn. Washington: Berg.
“Life Expectancy by Age”, 1850 — 2003. Infoplease. Retrieved December 7, 2005, fromwww.infoplease.com
Levin, Phillip S., and Donald A. Levin. (2002, Jan-Feb). “The Real BioDiversity Crisis.” American Scientist, 90, 1, 6–8.
Meadows, Donella H., Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.
Moss, Ralph W., PhD. “Cancer: A Disease of Civilization?” Retrieved December 7, 2005, from New Age Journal:www.newagejournal.com
Næss, Arne. (1999). The Deep Ecology Platform. (Original 1989). Retrieved November 17, 2005, from Nancho Consults: Arne Naess: www.nancho.net
Palahniuk, Chuck. (1996). Fight Club. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Pearce, Roy Harvey. (1965). The Savages of America: A Study of the Indian and the Idea of Civilization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original 1953).
“Primitive Skills Gatherings”. Retrieved December 7, 2005, from Traditional Tanners: www.braintan.com
Quinn, Daniel. (1995). Ishmael. New York: Bantam.
— . (2000). A Path of Hope for the Future. Retrieved December 6, 2005, from Ishmael Community:www.ishmael.org
Ransom, Steven. (2002). “Death by Doctoring, Part 2 of 2.” Retrieved December 7, 2005, from Nexus:www.nexusmagazine.com
Rosman, Abraham, and Paula G. Rubel. (2004) The Tapestry of Culture: an introduction to cultural anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. (2001). On the Inequality among Mankind. Vol. XXXIV, Part 3. The Harvard Classics. (Original 1754). Retrieved November 13, 2005, from Bartleby.com: www.bartleby.com
Sahlins, Marshall. (1972). “The Original Affluent Society.” 1–39. In Stone Age Economics. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. (1995a). Rebels against the future: the Luddites and their war on the Industrial Revolution: lessons for the computer age. New York: Addison-Wesley.
— . (1995b, September 25). “Unabomber’s Secret Treatise: Is There Method In His Madness?” The Nation, 261, 9, 305–311.
“Situationism”. (2002). The Art Industri Group. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from Art Movements Directory:www.artmovements.co.uk
Stobbe, Mike (2005, Dec 8). “U.S. Life Expectancy Hits All-Time High.” Retrieved December 8, 2005, from Yahoo! News: news.yahoo.com —
Tucker, Kevin. (2003, Spring). “The Spectacle of the Symbolic.” Species Traitor: An Insurrectionary Anarcho-Primitivist Journal, 3, 15–21.
U.S. Forestland by Age Class. Retrieved December 7, 2005, from Endgame Research Services:www.endgame.org
Zerzan, John. (1994). Future Primitive and Other Essays. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.
— . (2002, Spring). “It’s All Coming Down!” In Green Anarchy, 8, 3–3.
— . (2002). Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilisation. Los Angeles: Feral House.
Zinn, Howard. (1997). “Anarchism.” 644–655. In The Zinn Reader: Writings on disobedience and democracy. New York: Seven Stories.