to the fore. The discussion is far from the level ofabstraction that Zerzan uses. Many academicshave come to the conclusion regarding hunter-gatherers that there remains aconsensus that such an invented categoryhas produced sufficient insights for CHAGS[33]conferences to continue![34] In fact, if the category hunter-gatherershas provided any benefit at all, it is with respect to actions taking placetowards these societies thus labeled, most of all research and forums ofdiscussion that have taken place. Thereis no consensus on what constitutes a hunter-gatherer society within academia,there is only a discourse produced around it, (re)producing institutions andsocial action towards the people thus labeled. Thesame book brings an article by Mark Pluciennik in which he shows how theinterest in subsistence-based societies has been pervasive in Europeanculture and not in other cultures, and how this has to do precisely withEuropean myths of progress and salvation. Other cultures in Asia for example did not necessarily believe in aunilinear, progressive history. The highinterest in hunter-gatherer societies as symbolic of an Other began withEuropean discourses on progress. It istainted with this origin and so today, every time one discusses those societiesas examples, a whole history of images of economic production or the lack of itcome to life again; that is, everything that so-called hunter-gatherers havebeen used to stand for or against come to life when they are discussed. Thus, by calling another society even if anon-existent one gatherer-hunter[35]an example for the world, is actually a discourse that can have power only incultures where the preconditions for this belief already exist. Capitalist, Western societies areparticularly prone to the images of hunter-gatherers or gatherer-hunters,because economic development has helped define their identities. Non-Western and semi-Westernized societieswith less economic development will pretty much ignore primitivism thus, asthey have. Primitivists argue that prehistoriccultures represent anarchy, meaning that they are examples of anarchism inpractice, not to be copied, only to inspire. Primitivist John Moore for example says: Although primitive culturesprovide intimations of the future, and that future may well incorporateelements derived from those cultures, an anarcho-primitivist world would likelybe quite different from previous forms of anarchy. Primitivism is not wholly flawed in itsromanticism about prehistoric or native cultures. With the wish to look to indigenous culturesfor examples, there is not only a critique of cultures - particularly thosegeared to capitalism - that need change to make life better for more people,but also a preoccupation for cultural diversity survival that is genuine, fortheir own right to exist, as well as their mode of subsistence to endure,which, compared to capitalist societies, is usually more respectful ofnature. However, there is also anoutright disrespect for cultural diversity, in the claim to knowledge of theright way to live, of the true human being that is particularly violent inZerzans morality and dogma. A dogma ofcultural disintegration.Civilization and IndustrialismOn the critique of industrialism, Zerzan matched his ideas with DerrickJensens. Jensen has been veryinfluential for primitivist ideas. Zerzan also imitates Jensens writing style, which interweaves differentideas and speculations about aspects of Western culture, bringing in indigenouslife as an opposite to it, for its supposedly direct experience of natural truth. One could also say here that