force. In this manner, it does not revaluate thevalues of colonialism and European culture; it simply uses them somewhatdifferently. Primitivism does notreflect on its cultural origins. As a distinguished Brazilian thinker, PauloFreire, would say: those who dont reflect, repeat.Zerzan showshe cannot sustain any foundation to sustain Civilization as equal todomination. He claims a foundation, onlyto claim later that there is another foundation: Therehasnt been unanimity as to civilizations most salient characteristic (...) Butdomestication stands behind all these manifestations, and not just the tamingof animals and plants, but also the taming of human instincts and freedoms (...)To name, to number, to time, to represent symbolic culture is that array ofmasteries upon which all subsequent hierarchies and confinements rest.[39]Sincehis mission is to destroy domination, and he cannot find adequate singularfoundations for it, his way out has been to call every semi- or part-foundationa part of Civilization, the object parexcellence that is the claim to foundations while he has not been able tofind one.Withinactions proposed against Civilization, the revolt against industrialism is amust for primitivists. This was betterrepresented for Zerzan with the Luddites. They were groups of English workers that, between 1811 and 1816,rebelled and destroyed textile machines, for they believed that they wereresponsible for unemployment.[40] However, Zerzan asserts, that the resistanceto work was also resistance to discipline, to the control of time andspontaneity. The Luddites knew unionismalready, but many rejected it. Theirmachine-breaking of this period cannot be viewed as the despairing outburst ofworkers having no other outlet.[41] For Zerzan, the Luddites serve as an exampleof calling the whole of capitalism into question.[42] Is this a surplus claim with regard to theLuddites? The Luddites represented, forZerzan, the negation of centralized organization and resistance. However, there is little evidence today thatcan confer this to be true, for a reason similar to the problem of thehunter-gatherers Zerzan likes: they are all dead, cannot speak for themselves,cannot be interviewed for example. By hisrejection of command, Zerzan can be called a proper 21st centuryanarchist, since much of anarchist discourse today, especially in the UnitedStates, is centered on spontaneous organization. It is the politics of Thisversus That, of Spontaneity versus Command. This politics certainly has its important effects, but also its limitsof action, as any politics. Moreimportantly for our analysis of Zerzans discourse here though, is the factthat to vow for spontaneity is a political discourse, so his claim to thedissolution of politics cannot be sustained in his own social practice.MurrayBookchin, expressing a major problem within anarchism today said: I have seenanarchists disrupt meetings and even break them up because they objected toorderly discussion.[43] Lifestyle anarchists are against anyorganization (but many still organize collectives, journals and websites)because they cannot stand to bear their own hypocrisy of egotisticnon-participation. Primitivism arguesfor no work as a means to justify its apathy and disengagement from theproblems of actual communities and social groups that need active alliances,participatory ones.Zerzanshares with Marx the assumption of division of labor as the fundamental aspectof domination. He writes about the inner logic of civilization, which is, atbottom, division of labor.[44] Although Marx stressed this point to critiqueclass domination, and believed