its belief in itself as vanguard of all human liberation. If there are so-called postmodern thinkersthat fail to help us elucidate social and political problems, their thoughtmust be questioned. But they cannot bejudged from Platformist[79]standpoints, because this would be to say that everyone needs to have the samegoals in life, and that they must be languaged the same. We can critique each other as much as wewant, but to fail to see how our critiques always already come from our ownstandpoints and that they are not much more than this, standpoints isauthoritarian. It seems like one of themain problems of anarchism today remains that of the past: how to deal with itsown authoritarian views, values, and actions in the world. In order to debase capitalism, anarchism mustdebase itself as the sole presumptuous promoter of freedom, justice, orequality, whatever they might mean in practice.JohnLandau[80]explains Civilization for us, and he could well explain primitivism the same:Civilization is Envy, it hates itself, the other side is greener, we must haveit, the greed that comes from worthlessness, the desperate blotting out of thewhole, therefore the feigning of superiority to save face, whoever saves themost face wins. The other side herecould be the primitive; Civilization could be read as primitivism. If Primitivism is the perennial belief inthe necessity of a return to origins,[81]it is just another form of symbolic culture, fraught with potentials fordomination. If one single way of life,who now make up less than one hundredth of one percent of the worldspopulation[82] shouldbe the guide for the rest of the world, surely this ideology cannot be calledanarchist in the sense of the struggle for freedom and possibilities fordifference. To speak for the other is a dangerous thing. To deny that the other always speaks from acertain cultural and symbolic context is to miss opportunities forintervention. Primitivismis a form of cultural resistance muchmore than political resistance, evenwhen it claims to be against all forms of culture, as Zerzan does. It is thus because it determines the rightway to live, to live culturally without engaging in the change of powerrelations. Cultural resistance is not atall separate from political resistance: it affirms identity and community (onlywhat can be discoursed as primitive) although it does not engage in thetransformation of societies and forms of domination except through culturaldiscourse. Zerzan recognizes resistancein work relations. What if he recognizedresistance in cultural relations? Manyof his critiques could remain the same, such as that regarding the negativityof environmental destruction. Otherswould need a total change, such as the total destruction of symbolic culture hepreaches. More fundamentally, Zerzanianprimitivism as a doctrine could be thus radically revised. Civilization exists as cultural forms, whichcan be changed from inside. Primitivism is this want of struggle, in particularto change forms of domination, and any such want is laudable, but not whendisengaged from assessing its effects on particular lives as lived. Primitivismaccording to Zerzan remains what it set itself to be. As a realization, it would like to be total,that is, everything that it says would need to be actualized. It would be the actualization of the spiritof refusal.[83] Refusal would