A few weeks ago I had a discussion about what “primitivism” was and how it was different from “anarcho-primitivism.” Ultimately it was decided that the word “primitivism” has traditionally indicated a general outlook that sees value in some past era. On the other hand, “anarcho-primitivism” is that same tendency in the specific context of the anarchist movement. Some people also distinguished a type of primitivism that was specifically ecological in nature, separating it from primitivists who were not concerned with ecology or civilization at all (i.e., “Christian primitivism”).

The question was motivated by a statement I had made about the possibility of a “primitivism without the anarcho-.” But this statement was misunderstood. At the time, I was trying to place Freedom Club in the context of some movement, because, while we certainly belong to a general ecologically-motivated primitivist tendency, there was no movement that quite fit our ideas well enough. There were primitivist tendencies in Earth First!, but contemporary EF! is far different from what it was, and, we think, not as interesting. There are also primitivist tendencies in the conservation movement, but they are scattered. And while we do see ourselves as part of the conservation movement, we think that primitivist ideas are unique enough to warrant their own explicit advocates.

There is also anarcho-primitivism (AP). This movement comes closest to what we believe, but it suffers from some severe problems. In particular, while we could agree with the “primitivism” part—since, as was stated previously, it is rather general—we were less enthusiastic about the “anarcho-” part. I used to be an anarchist and left the movement because I could see it going in a few directions I didn’t want to go, and because I felt like it brought up questions I wasn’t particularly interested in (“Why don’t you like capitalism?”). Atticus also has various reservations about the term. She is especially attuned to the way it alienates people who might otherwise be interested in our ideas.

I could see the “anarcho-” part of “anarcho-primitivism” bringing with it these same downfalls. While “primitivism” alone inspires people to ask relevant questions and engage in discussion, adding the “anarcho-” part shuts discussion down, or inspires questions that we aren’t motivated by at all. Nevertheless, we see this as mostly an annoyance, and, since all radical ideologies will eventually develop bad names among some people in some areas for some time, we recognize that this is not reason enough to drop the label. However, the fact that the word inspires different questions than our own is a red flag.

(Note that in our specific local circumstances this is not the case, and the bad name is enough to drop the label. There are several anarchist groups working actively in Chapel Hill and the neighboring Carrboro, and we believe that many of their tactics are the reason many local people who would otherwise be on board with FC’s ideas are so averse to the word. We also don’t agree with these anarchists’ politics on some fundamental points. But they are not going to stop organizing, of course, making it more beneficial for both them and us for FC to go by a label other than “anarchist.”)

Other than that one minor reason we didn’t like the prefix, FC could see one major reason for and one major reason against using it. But the negative reason won out.

On the side of using the prefix is the fact that it gives context to the more general “primitivism,” and, ideologically at least, a context that we largely agree with. That is, the prefix adds a set of values that indicate a commitment to egalitarian social relationships and a resistance to being dominated—the exact opposite trend of modern technological progress. Because of these values, some notable ideas have come out of the anarcho-primitivist movement, like a distinction between immediate-return hunter/gatherers and delayed-return hunter/gatherers, or a restriction on some of the more vulgar definitions of rewilding. If this was all that the prefix added, then I would have argued strongly for the term, and I’m sure other FC members would have as well.

However, rather than simply enriching the ideological focus of primitivism, the prefix also restricts what primitivism could be by placing it specifically in the context of the anarchist movement. I dislike this quite a bit.

It is a general tendency of the anarchist movement to latch onto other movements that are more fully-formed. You can see this with syndicalist ideas, feminist ideas, green politics, and so forth. Anarchism, it seems, is unable to stand on its own. This could be fixed by a strong push toward an “anarchism without adjectives,” and the best effort I can see on this front right now is being done by CrimethInc.—but it might also be the only effort.

Such a lack of core values and motivating principles (beyond the general “we’re against hierarchy”) makes much of anarchism profoundly opportunistic, and it also allows for people who are otherwise not anarchists to use the label (liberals, pro-capitalists, etc.). So, in the end, the only way anarchism in its current state can continue to grow is to continue to ride the coattails of other movements.

However, FC thinks the ideas of primitivism can stand on their own. I have envisioned this so far as a “primitivism without the anarcho-,” but it might be best to call it “primitivism with a capital P.” The way I see it, capital-P Primitivism would be narrower than lowercase-P primitivism in that it is a movement rather than a tendency; and it would also be broader than anarcho-primitivism, which is specifically in the context of the anarchist movement. And truthfully, given the social climate of anarcho-primitivism, we see a kind of capital-P Primitivism existing already, and in need only of a name. There are many within the AP movement who wish the ideas were accessible to a broader audience and are tired of some of the things the “anarcho-” prefix brings.

However, this conception neither rejects anarcho-primitivism nor competes with it. Rather, capital-P Primitivism would focus on developing anti-authoritarian ideas within Primitivist thought itself, without needing to reference an external movement. For example, if such a broad Primitivist movement existed, I along with some others would recommend that the ideal be nomadic hunter/gatherers, or immediate-return hunter/gatherers, since, among other things, they were intentionally egalitarian, and were prone to developing underneath or within wild processes rather than over or in spite of them.

There would also be none of the ambiguity the “anarcho-” prefix brings. Right now, several tendencies are developing within the anarchist movement, some of them incompatible with Primitivism and some of them extremely similar. Should the ones that are extremely similar to Primitivism win out, then perhaps a distinction would be unnecessary in the future. At the very least we could call the two movements allies. But as long as the future of anarchism remains as uncertain as it is now, it would be best, in FC’s opinion, for Primitivists to stay away from the label “anarchism” as a first-use term.

Arguably, we could continue to use the “anarcho-primitivist” label and simply advocate for forms of anarchism that are closer to Primitivism. But, again, “Primitivism” encourages questions about wildness, industry, and civilization whereas “anarchism” encourages questions about capitalism and law, without really directing energy toward the infrastructural material conditions that produce these things. That is, the fact that anarchism doesn’t inspire the right questions is a real problem given the character of the revolutionary conditions we will be facing within the next several decades. Check out “Primitivism without the Anarcho- (Part II)” to read why.