Michael Albert vs John Zerzan

[FreeLandofAIM]

Well, I'm still reading through it (Thanks for posting!) but I have to say, I do have concerns with the Parecon view, of seemingly awarding those who work hardest, seemingly based on merits.

This can lead to immeadiate inequality, as who would it be to decide who had worked hardest, and how much reward he/she would recieve?

Everybody has different skills, and there is a danger someone with one skill would be ranked than another with a different skill, and could lead to a hierachy.

Also, what becomes of those who can not work at all, the severly disabled, the ill and the elderly for instance?

In such a scenario of rewarding those who worked hardest would recieve awards, for one it appears it could end up with a hierachy, even a form of oppressive slavery of the worker, only recieving his/her due when he/she is deemed to have worked hard enough.

But how would that be decided?

I feel it would be better if everyone was awarded equally for efforts made in a co-operative commune, to ensure equality for all, and care for all.

[claptonpond]

I haven't actually read Albert yet (thanks for the link, M), but I find it hard to imagine anyone who calls themself an anarcho-communist agreeing with Zerzan.

I generally tend to agree with Murray Bookchin myself. See dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/soclife.html for one of his many critiques of primitivism and other forms of lifestyle anarchism.

[FreeLandofAIM]

Thanks for the link Clapton.

[Anarchic Tribes]

We agree with Zerzan on many things, but then I wouldn't call myself an anarcho-communist. What exactly do you not agree with him on, everything?
I think Albert is nice.
www.spunk.org/library/writers/zerzan/sp001185.txt

I first remember reading Zerzan after having done a search on 'wtf is chomsky'. www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whochoms.htm
I don't agree with everything Zerzan says anymore than I disagree with everything Albert says.

M, you mention Albert on the East & Zerzan on the west.
I'm don't know america so not sure what that says. My instinctive view of the 2, is that one is obsessed with money and the other with having fun in the sun
What do you think about them then?

[claptonpond]

Anarchic said:

We agree with Zerzan on many things, but then I wouldn't call myself an anarcho-communist. What exactly do you not agree with him on, everything?

I don't disagree with him on everything, of course. His views on indigenous solidarity, for example, seem pretty sound.

What I mostly disagree with is the way he seems to see civilisation, technology, and industry as a single, irreducible, monolithic entity. He thinks we need to get rid of the whole thing, and refuses to accept that we might be able to get rid of the oppressive aspects of civilisation while keeping the good bits. So if, for example, you have an illness that you can't treat yourself (no division of labour, remember, so if you can't do it then no-one else will be able to either), then tough shit.

In fact, Zerzan goes further in some of his writings, and claims that language and symbolic thought are inherently oppressive. Which is so fucked up there isn't really any point arguing about it (trust me on this, I've argued with primmies before - it's a fucking waste of time).

Having skimmed the debate, Albert seems about right to me, although I'd need to read more about parecon. In particular, I agree that using the label 'anarchism' for primitivism degrades the term. Zerzan's got more in common with Maggie Thatcher than he has with me.

[workerscommunes]

I probably need to re-read the whole thing but Albert seems to be the one I agree with with for the most part, although I share AIM's concerns about the danger of Parecon turning into a kind of anarchist meritocracy. On the whole though, his description of Parecon sounds like my idea of what an anarchist society would look like.

Having said that some of Zerzan's points had me picking my brains, although I didn't neccessarily agree with them. Like Clapton Pond, I don't think rejecting indistrialism, technology and civillisation is particularly neccessary or desirable. Some of his criticisms seemed pretty valid though.

If anyone here (Nature's Revenge possibly) considers themselves anarcho-primitivists, we may need to alter our founding aims and principles, as one of them mentions using technology and science to help us and the environment. Just a thought...

It's very interesting about the influence of the writers' environments on their views. However I've lived in both rural and urban areas but still agree mainly with Albert.

[FreeLandofAIM]

Definately the concern I raised with Albert was the one that stuck out for me, as I'm still readin Zerzan's, I can't fully comment on it as yet.

WC, concerning changing the aims and principles, I would say contacting nature's revenge on the matter and what the wording should be if such a change should happen, should occur, although of course, everyone should be consulted on it.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Very few (if any) of the "anti-tech" crowd advocate a return to the Stone Age, yet technophiles--from Bookchin to LaRouche--constantly portray "primitivists" as wanting exactly that.

insurgentdesire.org.uk/openletter.htm

I've mostly lived in rural enviroments and that could well be one reason that I care more about the enviroment than money. Although it could be the other way around. Zerzan on time is great. Albert on athletics gives me the same concerns that I share with AIM. All wealth is dependant? Why? If we really must have money (although I see no need for it), why shouldn't everyone have the same amount? To say that someone should get more money because of effort, ability or intent, is no different than saying they should get more because of any other stupid reason. So we know Albert's views on golf. I wonder what Zerzan would have to say on such matters.

[FreeLandofAIM]

I do believe technology could be put to good use, the research into alternative fuel to oil, hospitals to care for the sick etc.

I too, have lived in rural areas all my life.

I would say that neither the pro tech or the anti tech are neccessarily wrong, as long as either side does not try to impose it's will upon the other within a commune, then each school of thought should be respected, as long as they do not infringe on one another.

But that is probably where the problems could begin.

Technology can be bad, that is true, it can indeed be used as a form of oppression.

But so can anti tech.

There is negatives and positives to the issue, and I'm really undecided and undecisive on either issue, but I can see the arguements both schools of thought put forth.

[claptonpond]

Workers said:

If anyone here (Nature's Revenge possibly) considers themselves anarcho-primitivists, we may need to alter our founding aims and principles, as one of them mentions using technology and science to help us and the environment. Just a thought...

I'd be a bit surprised if an anarcho-primitivist chose to be in an avowedly anarcho-communist region. The primitivists I've come across tend to be quite anti-communist...

Clearly neither Albert nor Zerzan are communists, nor do they claim to be. The criticisms of Albert here are pretty sound. I think the problems with Zerzan are much more fundamental though - his Manichaean approach to civ/tech just doesn't sit well with me at all. Not that I think technology's always good or anything - parts of his critique are fair enough - I just don't think it's inherently and irredeemably bad.

Again, Bookchin. He da man.

[Anarchic Tribes]

I'd be a bit surprised if an anarcho-primitivist chose to be in an avowedly anarcho-communist region.

[Anarchic Tribes]

I wouldn't call myself an anarcho-primitivist or a communist. I came here because I was invited and stayed because I liked what I saw. We are nomads and were travelling through anarchy when we received an invitation for here. I saw veggies discussing reality, protests and activism.
I didn't post here for a while due to the barbecue. I mean really, can you imagine, I've got meatheads to the right of me, meatheads to the left. My summer smelt of burning flesh whilst I struggled to grow my veg with a peg on my nose.
The reason that I prefer Zerzan to Albert is because he is driven by passion not money. He is lives by his heart not his head. I wouldn't choose to live as either one of them as I am happy with my own life, but John shares many of my own values whereas Michael is against them (in his head not his heart).
Now then, who's for a round of golf? I'll beat you naturally, so you'll get paid more. Who gives a shit what it's doing to the enviroment?

[Anarchic Tribes]

Tis called love

[Anarchic Tribes]

Don't be afraid. Tis love, not fear.
Golf, now that's another matter.

[theyellowspot]

i'd have to take neutrality on both of these over-rated guys. though i've never been able to find an writer/theorist to be 100% in line with my beliefs, i think both men have a lot of good analysis, but i'd favor something in between. i do believe that all technology is destructive to the planet, and quite a bit inherently oppressive, i don't realistically think that we'll ever be able to get rid of it, though i think ParEcon is a bit lacking as well. I don't think it really goes far enough, and doesn't seem to be that far from capitalism fundamentally. i'd like a mix, neo-hunter/gatherers over here, workers taking over their (preferrably relatively environmentally sound) factories over there.