Whenever anyone advocates a transition to a stateless society, an obvious objection is that such a society would be unable to resist a dissident group trying to impose a government on it. Some responses to this objection are discussed here. However, it seems to me that an Anarcho-Primitivist society suffers from a particularly serious case of this problem.
To the best of my understanding, the basic tenets of Anarcho-Primitivism are:
In the distant past, humans lived as hunter-gatherers in small groups which relied on face-to-face interaction for societal organisation, rather than centralised government.
As a result of domestication, industrialisation etc. this arrangement was eventually replaced by states based on violent coercion.
The transition 1 -> 2 was undesirable, and we should attempt to return to the arrangement described in 1.
Fair enough, but why do advocates of Anarcho-Primitivism believe that the newly "primitive" society won't simply undergo the 1 -> 2 transition again? Indeed, the second iteration of 1 seems even more vulnerable to "civilising" influences, since, even if all modern technology is somehow destroyed, the memory of civilisation will presumably still survive amongst the people themselves.
The above line of reasoning seems so obvious, that I can't believe no Anarcho-Primitivist thinker has addressed it. However, I don't know any Anarcho-Primitivists personally, nor have I read any of their works, so I'm asking here if anyone better informed than myself can describe some of the "standard" responses to this problem.