^ No, not "working against their own best interests", just no longer working under a mindset that presumes putting their interests ahead of the interests of the rest of society. The point is precisely that white activists too often allow the notions of white supremacy that we've ALL (white, black, male, female, etc etc) been indoctrinated with to influence their actions and ideas, so that they always seek to lead and feel that they know what's best. It's nothing but the same basic notion of "white parents" helping their "colored naive helpless children", although it is disguised as philanthropy or charity or (among white upwardly-mobile but self-proclaimed "revolutionary socialists") being the "vangard" who will lead the movement. So I'm saying white leftists need to stop working/acting ONLY out of self interest (ie trying to be in charge, to preserve another version of their priviledged position in society) and start acting in the interests of all of us as ONE PEOPLE, and to do that means recognizing the need to listen to and follow the lead of the truly oppressed communities.

Now, on to the more rational comments above -- first, I'm not the person you refered to as "Tim", by the way.

I'll say that I personally don't share the specific views of primitivists. In the last couple of years I've moved from generally just describing myself as a socialist to saying (if we have to have specific terms to apply to ourselves, which I don't always mind since it does help generally sum up our views so we don't need to give in-depth descriptions every time) I'm much more of a libertarian socialist, since my views have increasingly tilted towards agreement with anarchism and away from the views and (especially) methods of most self-proclaimed socialists/Marxists/etc. I understand the notions behind primitivism, and I don't disrespect them, but I simply don't agree with some of the primary themes.

Let's take the bridge issue. I do not at all feel that society needs to ONLY have those things which every single person is themself capable of doing/building/etc. That would inherently mean, for example, that nothing should be built heavier than the average physically weakest person could lift, perhaps. It would also necessitate either FORCED education on topics some might not WANT to study (like physics and bridge-building) or erradication of knowledge that any mildly significant segment of society is uninterested in. In each case, it would require FORCING these conditions. Would you agree that under your theory of society, somebody who WANTED to study deeply and design and build a home or a bridge for themselves would not be allowed to do so, and would be PREVENTED from doing so? Would this extend into artistic expression, if someone wanted to paint images expressing private notions of existance and their experiences that perhaps many might not have the intimate personal knowledge to grasp or appreciate? Or would that artist simply be prevented from displaying it in public?

I know that what you are implying is a society where everyone is equally educated so that nobody holds status as "elites" with abilities that place them into positions of potential power over others, where society might become dependent upon their expert knowledge etc. But, how long would highschool be in such a society, one decade or two? Let's consider the idea of everyone needing eight years of medical studies, then four years of hard-core engineering and physics, plus maybe eight years of agriculture and geology...we'd all be ready to go out and start contributing in society fully informed by the youthful age of about fifty, right? Except that nobody could be teachers, since that itself implies a hierarchy of knowledge and expertise, so we'd all have to go out and get the books and educate ourselves on these things...except that nobody can be an expert so nobody can write those books, so...

See where some of us feel these concepts lead? A society you describe is not a free society, since too much would have to be forced or censored, which are things that are unworkable actually in an anarchist society. Is it easier to impose a society of total educational/skill equality, or one in which we shift values so that we don't overvalue a person based upon such skills and education nor do they seek to use their skills and education to wield power over others? If all people work for the good of society, which is an initial prerequisit for the very society you suggest, then that itself makes the issue of hierarchy in skill and knowledge a moot point, doesn't it? And isn't that more realistic, more freeing, for all of us than imposed equality by either forced education in everything or prevention of skill and knowledge exceeding a certain limit? I'd say so.

I have no problem with the fact that someone who has lived twice as long as I have has had lots more life experiences and so might have something interesting to tell me and to give me different perspectives on life and living. Well, that's a form of accumulation of additional knowledge and skills and understanding that is simply inherent in day-to-day experience of life, isn't it? How, and how much, would your notion of society seek to limit THAT type of "expertise", where literal repetition of actions and experiences grants someone more insight into something like (to use a simplistic but legitimate example) touching a hot stove, or knowing the best way and proper time to cultivate a crop in a very specific climate and terrain?

I don't want to live in a society that seeks harmony and liberty via limitation on the development and skills and maximum decrease in differences in people and their experiences. I hope to live some day in a world where such knowledge and skills are shared and developed for the common good of all, and where differences and experiences are cherished, and where people no longer seek ways to use those differences and experiences to divide us or create elite classes among us.

It is all about changing our perceptions, something that your ideas rely upon before the rest can happen. I say that once those changes take place, we won't have to limit accumulation of more knowledge by certain people, because they won't abuse their knowledge or positions. If you feel that that is impossible, that people would inherently value such people more or that such people would always try to abuse their position, you are saying you don't even trust the changes that are required for forming your own vision of society. You would also be imply something nefarious about human nature, by the way. So if the only way to prevent such abuses is to prevent such knowledge and experience, that people must be STOPPED or at least implementation of ideas based upon "excess knowledge" must not be allowed, then you aren't talking about a free society at all, nor one in which attitudes of hierarchy have even been dealt with. It's a society that distrusts not just those who would acquire additional knowledge and/or would wish to utilize it even for the common good, but also distrusts the REST of society and assumes it will ultimately resort to hierarchies of value and "herd" mentality. And I'd reject the idea that, in an anarchist society, some bridgemakers or similarly "skilled" people could hold the rest of us essentially "for ransom". since I assume some other anarchists would ALSO know how to build a bridge or would learn to do so and prevent the rest of us from being exploited.

I hope we attain a world where whatever skills a person wishes to develop, they are free to do so, and that they wish and do then apply those skills for everyone's benefit. I hope we attain a world where everyone, including you, learns not to fear the abilities of others, fear that which they themselves don't have (but obviously COULD have if they wished to study it etc), and instead embrace the idea of cooperation and sharing of what we can each personal produce and contribute. In the end, it's about trust. The world I envision trusts the people who live in it, especially since we would have presumably actually reached the point of such revolutionary change and attained a cooperative, libertarian socialistic or anarchistic social structure where values are not shaped and warped as they are now. Your vision doesn't sound like it trusts people much at all, if I can be blunt. Nor does it sound very workable, just speaking practically.

If I'm misunderstanding your points here, I apologize. Again, I see a lot of what you are trying to say in relation to the need for ideas to stand or fall on their merits, and how annonymity can help play a role in achieving that. But that's only true to the extent we continue to internalize hierarchy, really, and I still feel that we shouldn't rely on the world changing to make our own self-change easier. We use words to represent ideas and abstract concepts, as well as things in everyday life, because that's how we communicate, and we can't blame words or the existence of specific identifying words for our own shortcomings and our own lack of progress in internal rejection of the prejudices and hierarchies we are socialized with.