Alphazero wrote

I am really sorry but it seems that you are really bringing it to yourself. Far from me to elevate a single book to the level of a bible, you really seem to have not read the same book.

He did not ignore any evidence, instead he has offered a massive amount of info with references for foragers of both egalitarian and slave-working ones, exactly to make the point that they both existed for millennia.

You are right to question to definition of what forager is, using the info in the book that is presented to make the exact same point with you! that the history that we learned in school about pre-civ foragers is bollocks.

I am not dismissing you i am directly giving you my honest comments as people do in public discussions. I feel secure in doing so that i will not harm you in any way and i see you as comrade in our common struggle to dismantle this society and build a new one.

In the end it's not about understanding or learning anything new at all really, it's about clearing the grounds from all the parasites and preparing the soil to plant the seeds, parabolically. It's a trap to look for revelations in the past, there is nothing there but pain together with hope, the same as today.

keep fighting and stay strong


Alphazero wrote (edited )

The fact that you see a demarcation line before and after civilisation, equating before and after work, is the mistake in my opinion. There is no such line. Unfortunately some people were working at occasions since forever, while others were not. All you arguments follow this demarcation line which not based on facts and is merely religious obsession. This is the point in Graeber’s book too. Having spoken with people studying anthropology, the absence of this line (the allegedly agricultural Revolution) is known for decades, it’s just that only a handful among academics on the subject are anarchists to see the implications. For the rest, refer to my previous comments to avoid repetition (about the ultimatum). Lots of ego in the end of a day from your side mate, relax. The Revolution does not depend on our discussion. You wrote a very nice article which in my opinion has a weird mistake, I get it now, you believe in primitivism, that’s fine. Good for you


Alphazero wrote

a communist party is not a group of individuals who move on by discussing things and agreeing using principle of consensus... if you are referring to the fact that they did non want to publish something on their website, well, it's their site, not pretending to represent all of us

the rest that you say about capitalists and various forms of anarchists i generally agree with, cannot see why you making these points... you must be misinterpreting me

my disagreement is with basing an anti-work ethic to an alleged golden past of primitive innocence, either Rousseau's noble savage (lefties) or Hobbes' Leviathan (right wings)


Alphazero wrote

Dodging your challenges on personal level, let’s go straight to the point.

The fact that they aren’t around today, does it mean that they cannot come again? Really?

Believing as in viewing not as in religiously anticipating (really??)

I cannot see where we are disagreeing, I am merely pointing that we do not need to believe that we once fell from grace, nor we need any facts from science, like the essay in question used,, to promote the idea (anarchism) that favours our selves as individuals and as class subjects.

Why should I spend hours trying to describe something that comrades have so beautifully painted the picture of? I just posted an article from Peter which I really like. I don’t see any shame in using other peoples beautiful images.

Just to remind you what my point is here. The essay is excellent, if only we remove those paragraphs about primitivism. We don’t have to. It’s just my view. You know, as in, discussing stuff


Alphazero wrote

I do believe all that because I’m an anarchist, my point in this thread being that large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact. And, that I do not care if they weren’t. Being an anarchist is truly believing in the principle that we can and we will leave all together in peace with nature. Regardless of what you or the other side believes.

About communists agreeing with the rest is a point against someone claiming that what i say here is clearing the ground for communism, see previous comments.


Alphazero wrote

thanks for your guidance - as for my the reason of my inquiry you could not be further from the truth

i can still see no reason to stick to the myth of the noble savage to justify anti-work, the latter is in the core of anarchism (at least of the non-lefty one?) while the myth of the noble savage is... well... a myth! do we need to believe in the myth? are we supernatural religious people after all?

btw the communists are among the firsts to support the spectre of our noble past, amongst others such as... the supporters of capitalism and the state


Alphazero wrote (edited )

It's because void network are not publishers, they are a political group who form collective stance about things. They felt awkward to reduce your article themselves too and they asked (obv.) and then did not publish (obv.) Can't see really what your comment is. They do not care about 'looking bad' neither. Your article is shooting itself to the foot by using the noble savage as argument for anti-work, that's all.


Alphazero wrote (edited )

since this discussion is about another discussion that i had with Ziq, but still around the topic of anti-work and anti-civ, i will just copy here some points that i made in my discussion with ziq on his essay, hoping to help you understand my viewpoint (i hope ziq will not mind, seeing that he started the thread on this same discussion with the group)

ziq, feel free to come in the discussion with your points, will only copy here my comments from our past discussion

happy reading

We are not sure if we agree to provide any sort of scientific anthropological narrative of the sort that would make a point that 'anarchy and play VS leftist workerist, because that is how it used to be in the decent past'? The point here being, what if in some pre-historical places / times / instances hunter-gatherers were actually and unfortunately living as authoritarian slave-keeping hard working idiots? Would this fact then be removing any 'validity' from your argument, that work must be abolished? We think not, because we want all societies to be free to experiment freely through play and choose their own way of organising and living, regardless if (and not just because) this was the way it used to be in the 'origins' or in the 'true nature' of the human race (we don't know much about prehistory anyway and who cares about our 'true nature'?). Note that if we removed all reference to hunters-gatherers then your essay would still read just fine to our opinion, making a concise and clear political case against work, with references to Bob Black, Alfredo M. Bonanno, Wolfi Landstreicher, Henry Miller etc.

You write the following: 'The point of anti-work, stripped of all the garbage leftist and Marxist ideology that’s been rapidly consuming it (I blame Graeber for kickstarting this process), is to treasure your fleeting existence and spend it doing things you want to do.' Can you please clarify if you blame Graeber for kick starting the process of consuming the anti-work point with garbage leftist and marxist ideology? Again, we are not sure if this point is well supported anywhere else in the essay and, as with the previous comment, we think that if we removed this parenthesis then your essay would still read just fine.

Thank you for the links, personally I find your perspective interesting and I respect it. I have just a couple of disagreements with the way you put your arguments forward as i feel that we, the anarchists, are losing ground sometimes by sticking to what to my opinion are ill informed ideas - here is an example of what i mean from your essay:

'For millennia, play was all humans knew' - this is not a correct statement, how can we know what was all that we knew? recent evidence suggest that we also new work and slavery back then, even money. Work and oppression did not arrive with agriculture and / or civilization, those came much much later actually...

'Gatherer-hunters had no need of work because everything they needed to prosper was free for the taking' - modern people also do not need work but we still do it. We are trying to understand why.

'It wasn’t until we started burning down our ancient food forests to form permanent settlements, cultivate crops and extract non-renewable resources from the land that work displaced play as the driving force in human society.' - Yes but why did we start doing that in the first place? it seems that you are using the fact to justify it by itself, instead of looking for a reason.

'If other cultures embraced the constructive play that gatherer-hunters use, the protestant work ethic would soon lose its death-grip on public consciousness.' - this suggests that all gatherer-hunters have this strategy of play, like this is inherent characteristic of their means of production

Your 'friend' Graeber had recently revealed the wrong conceptions that we have about the egalitarian foragers in his last book, he preempted the main points here:

(responding to ziq if there is evidence that money predated the alleged agricultural revolution...)

Evidence is plenty and has been for decades, Graeber merely collected it and presents it in the book with plenty of references, to make the point that, the story of the allegedly agricultural Revolution that kick started civilisation is a lie, it was made up in the enlightenment period in the religious image of a Fall from Grace, to suppress the sensation that was spread in western society, when the native Americans made publically lots of critique to our way of life and the civilisation that we all anarchists want to dismantle, more or less like you want

In any case, we do not need any evidence or Graeber or our ancestors or any enlightened forager of the present or the past, to prove to us what we know already: that anarchy and the revolution is the only way to overthrow this world and to build a new one

However civilisation started and regardless of how and when,

in the present we want to change everything, and we do not need this backed up by any anthropology or history science!

The book is interesting read that will shock you and you do not need it, it’s just really really interesting stuff to read about what was really going on in prehistory (believe me, we don’t have a clue!)


Alphazero wrote

because in his article he claimed that once upon a time foragers and hunters all they knew about was playing and joy (how can we know what was happening 20000 years ago??), hence.... we must abolish work (!)

this is not political analysis, this is dogma based on irrelevant assumptions about the past

primitivism and anti-civ are not far from each other to my personal opinion


Alphazero wrote

Sorry for all the trouble. Void Network is an anarchocommunist group, followers of Kropotkin and Malatesta theory. We don't believe anarcho primitivism can be a proposition for the antiwork movement in our era. For us antiwork thesis don't lead back to the jungles, we want free people in the cities living with mutual aid and social care, we promote the emancipatory use of anarchist sciences and social aware technologies, we love overpopulation and we want humanity to be capable to feed us all for free, humanity,... not the "nature". All the recent research about paleontology proves that the anarchoprimitivist narration is imaginary and irrelevant to the real situations of human societies. There are existing egalitarian tribes, there are existing hierarchical tribes but we are not living in tribes, we are living in cities of millions and millions of people. To lead us back to the jungle, to destroy the cities, to destroy agriculture- will cause millions and millions of dead people, starvation and sickness- this can not be our proposition for the future generation as anarchists. Anarcho Primitivism helped us to see nature and our lives in different perspectives when it appeared in the late 80s, we even invited Zerzan to Greece and organized his talks in Athens. It was a movement that rejuvenated ecology and defended wild nature in an organised way in our era. But, for us it can not be an ideal example for the organization of the future societies. Of course an anarchist society must protect nature and the people can decide to live as hunter gatherers if they like- as long as they know how to protect the wild animals and not extinct them to feed themselves. But for sure we don't accept any kind of ideology that wants to force all humanity back to an imaginary 20.000 before christ era. For that reason we believe that the "small societies" anarchoprimitivist paradigms you give to your text are irrelevant to our lives, irrelevant to the antiwork movement, and unfortunately destroy a good and useful article. Thank you for you contact, I hope you understand that this world go round also with the help of mutual criticism and we hope you will feel benefited from our comments and not angry...