collective, public sphere, not simply springing from afictive interior self.Anarchismhas stood, at least since Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin, for thecollectivization of decision-making and production. This in no way has meant that it has set up aunique platform on which how to do this were finally settled. Exactly because it stands for these things,it cannot offer these final solutions. The anarchist tradition being thus, primitivism cannot be calledanarchist without any violence being done to its memory. The Green AnarchyCollective has stated: For anti-authoritarian transformation, many strugglesare necessary and need to be respected along with an awareness of theunderlying connectedness.[68] What is missing here is that theconnectedness may not be readily and easily available to knowledge, it may notbe available at all. Anarchisms need, if they can survive it, to rethink thecultural assumption that power can be completely known and discussed. This would mean, of course, a radicalreshifting of anarcho-primitivist Utopia to work from life as lived instead oflife as solely imagined. Zerzanexplains anarchy as a rejection of government but of all other forms ofdomination and power as well.[69] According to Zerzan, it is possible to livein a power vacuum. The idea that thehuman world can function totally spontaneously is a direct, reactive responseto ideologies that have preached the correct ways to run the world. As a reactive response, it reproduces thesame universal command as to the right way to live, and nothing could be lessanarchic. Primitivism makes the dominantpower structures and culture an Other,[70]and in this way reproduces the very same dominant.[71] The critique of state power, party politics,of representation in general, are critiques made by many anarchists, from the19th century to the present, even the current postmodern and poststructuralistanarchists. Anarchism is not, and neverwill be pure though. It cannot stand upto its own principles and tradition if it declares itself final and thesolution to all social ills. Therefore,as it stands, John Zerzans primitivism cannot be easily declared anarchist,only hardly and primarily discursively so, by himself. In ClosingIfCivilization is the problem, how is it that civilized people can have thesolution? There is a fracture in theacknowledgement of the problem, so there must be one regarding the solution aswell. Zerzan acknowledges that the problem of Civilization is not aconsensus. However, he clings to thenotion that the solution to it is or needs to be in any case a consensus gentium. This is in line with his view of Nature, asone, unmistakable experience (maybe not in accordance with Nature itself). PrimitivistRichard Heinberg[72] notesthat it can be argued that civilization perse is not at fault, that the problems we face have to do with uniqueeconomic and historical circumstances. This is an important recognition of the complexity of social systems, oftheir internal breaks and inconsistencies that permit even some primitivists toargue that they speak from the outside of civilization, however impossiblethis is to be proven. Heinberg continuessaying: But we should at least consider the possibility that our modernindustrial system represents the flowering of tendencies that go back quitefar. The problems of the industrialsystem, its ecological, social and cultural effects, cannot be denied withoutleaving us with many