that division of labor would be washed away bythe progressive history of capitalist development, Zerzan on the other hand,and perhaps reactively to Marx, thinks that more is not better. On this account, history has proven him atleast partially correct, since capitalist development has not led to moreworkers organization and the appropriation of the means of production in anyinternational, sustainable way. Divisionof labor, and its corollary, alienation, have brought about problems thatrequire change. This change certainlydoes not have to be final, and it would be illusory to think that in humanmatters anything is. We certainly do notdepend on any one social theory or class consciousness in order to act forsocial change, though thinking is always necessary. Zerzans most scathing critique of Marx isthis: Despite his analysis of alienated labor, much of the explicit core of hisphilosophy is virtually a consecration of work as tyranny.[45] According to him, division of labor makes theworker weak, dependent and subordinate. Anarchists can agree to this. Butanarchism also has shown that not all work is monotonous or assembly-line, asZerzan believes. This lack ofrealization of the pleasure involved in work for many people however few orprivileged, or however few examples of anarchist work we have challenges anycritique to work as bad per se. To understand work without understanding thepleasure involved for many is the same as trying to understand crime insocieties without understanding that there is also pleasure involved in manycrimes. Anothermajor critique Zerzan makes of industrialism is when he echoes the ecologicalmovements in their critiques of the devastation of nature, of consumerism, ofproduction for its own sake. He showshow consumerism and production are not advances of society, or progress initself: they were pursued consciously and instigated. Needs are fabricated, even the need for kindsof food are instigated, promoted, and advertisers know this very well.[46] Industrialization creates its own markets.[47] This is all well known by manyenvironmentalists. However, to deal withthe environmental problems of today, which are real, Zerzan has only onesolution: to go primitive his one and only solution for everything. Since he sees the Problem as one thing,Solution will also be one for each and every problem human societies havecreated. To argue for a limit to profit,to a negotiation on real peoples needs with regards to production, forexample, are actions which would be regarded by Zerzan as reform, notrevolutionary, therefore unworthy. Onthis subject, it is worth citing his colleague Derrick Jensen: The whole reform versus revolution question is just bullshit because ifwe all sit around and wait and plan and get ready for the great warrior'srevolution there's going to be nothing left once we get there. At the sametime, if all we do is reform work there's nothing going to be left anyway.[48] Art and religionDesire,in discourse is a claim that cannot be easily contested. That is, when talkingabout desire, part of human interiority, we only have limited access toit. Therefore, any claim made abouthuman desires is unfalsifiable, because, if we are to believe Freud, desire islinked to unconscious elements and since the unconscious is unknowable, so isdesire. For Zerzan, we will have art refused in favor