as wild, freebeings in a world of wild, free beings. All we can say is Go Ahead! However, these primitivists might claim that if a large part of theworld does not destroy industrialism, the revolution might amount to verylittle, and they are right. They willwait, then, until a large part of the world spontaneously, and withoutconsiderable organization, decides to go primitive. They will wait until everyone acts on feelingsand experiences,[64]oblivious to the fact that these same foundations of theirs are alwayspartially constructed by Civilization, or by any culture, and not solely givensof a Nature with its own divine intentionality. Zerzan prescribes the way to a primitivist revolution through thepersonal which is for him, of course the real terrain of revolutionary axis.[65] Zerzan thus believes in the primacy of humaninteriority, a very Western cultural account of action in the world, one of themain critiques made to this culture by Nietzsche.Bookchin[66]stated: Those who prescribe mystical neoprimitivism are less concerned aboutchanging society than in changing peoples inner lives. The human sciences have straddled to find outwhere culture ends and nature begins, and vice versa, for centuries now,without ever completing this impossible task. That is why we need to agree with Bookchin in stating that human beingsare social beings[67]and therefore one cannot completely separate any human from its wholeness, ofbeing both natural and social/cultural. I must assert here that this is only a predicament on the impossibilityof certain knowledge as final, not of absolute truth residing in a metaphysicalsynthesis or holism whatsoever. Forprimitivists, meaning can flow straight from Nature or from reality. Subjectivity has no place, at least asubjectivity where human creativity does not have to be represented asNatural. Therefore, the destruction ofsymbolic culture preached by Zerzan is a form of representation represented asnon-representational; that is, a representation falsified as reality. In orderto clear ourselves from Civilization, or from symbolic culture for example, weshould develop a symbolic culture of this freeing. Zerzan recognizes this but fails wheneverconvenient, it seems to actualize what this means for anarcho-primitivism aswell. If all symbolic culture iscorrupted, so is anarcho-primitivism. Ifmeaning can only come from Nature, the subject is already known, it knows itselfand the world, and does not create anything. Primitivismfor Zerzan is beyond all power relations. It is supposedly more anarchist than any anarchism that ever existed,since anarchism would be against power relations. Though anarchism may be interpreted as such,it has not stood against power per se,but against domination, a form of power. This is because power relations are not a choice. If anything is inherent in social relations,it is power. Primitivism understandspower reductively as domination, as power for domination and never as power offreedom, therefore it is doomed to reproduce domination in the world, since itwill negate any assertion of difference (of way of life, of culture, ofopinion, etc.) as ones will to dominate, when it can mean for that person orgroup a will to be freer. Primitivismcan never be a radical alternative if it does not recognize its own limits andhow it needs to always revaluate alternatives. This would be a type of anarchistpraxis, done in the