Toward Anti-Anti-Civ.

rageagainstcapital.wordpress.com

Submitted by RespectWomen in Anarchism

Original version by Jake Tompkins, published on October 3, 2016. This is an unofficial edit; I claim no ownership over this.

There is a popular form of politics in radical circles today which argues against “civilization”. These tendencies view civilization as reliant on domination and oppression and feel that as such, civilization needs to be abolished or negated in some way. There are various different tendencies in this milieu including post-leftism, primitivism, and post-civilizationism. The general theme of these tendencies is that civilization is viewed as a source of subordination and oppression of living things, and sometimes the destruction of the Earth itself. What follows shall be a rough critique of the general idea behind these tendencies.

None of these anti-civilization tendencies has broken through the first wall of argument in the sense of offering a specific definition of what they oppose. Civilization tends to be referred to rather than defined by anti-civilizationists. When they do develop some sort of definition, it is often loose and unsatisfactory. Anarcho-Primitivist Derrick Jensen offers the definition of civilization as “a way of life that’s categorized by the growth of the cities”. This essentially confines “civilization” to be dependent not only on the existence of “cities”, but also on their apparent “growth”. This definition is limited because usually when one thinks of “civilization”, it is a broad form of society and life; not merely something as limited as “the growth of cities”. Usually civilization is referred to as modern capitalist society. Nonetheless, civilizations have existed before capitalism, and civilisation itself predates capitalism by thousands of years. Therefore, defining civilization using this metric seems equally limited.

Objectively, the term civilization can broadly be defined as a sophisticated, modern, and advanced form of society and culture. Usually civilizations are categorized by the use of writing, language, and scientific study. This is a kind of society that we should want for a our future: if people are to be free from their respective oppression, the only way to do so is to reconstruct society and replace it with one that is not organized through oppressive social institutions. This means an advanced society of free individuals in free-association with one another, working for the mutual satisfaction of their collective needs.

Anti-Civilization ideologies only hold the world back from the goal of a free society, no matter what they may be: Primitivism, anti-civilizationist individualism, or post-civilizationism. The ideas put forward by these Anti-Civilizationists do not offer a way out of the current problems that exist; they are simply contributing to these problems by ignoring the need for a consciousness based on class struggle and the foundation of a new human society.

The cause of our current woes is not “civilization” as the Anti-Civilizationists have it. It is completely possible to have an advanced society based upon free-relations of human beings, organized according to the diverse and decentralized ecological system and its needs, but this system doesn’t exist because what currently exists is a capitalist system; a system that is categorized by the appropriation and extraction of the general surplus product by a small class of individuals, rather than using said surplus product to fulfill the needs of the collective society.

This view of civilization as the source of the problems we face leads to a confusing analysis; where a vague concept is used to explain the folly of man, and an analysis that looks at how the actual institutions of society function is obscured and ignored. As such, primitivists will often assert that mass society, domestication, language, symbols, and industry construct systems of domination in and of themselves. They base this argument on a notion of the supposed “true” human nature that consigns us to living in hunter-gatherer tribes rather than in mass industrial civilizations. This is a hollow determinism; it assumes that mass industrialized societies are built on a violation of this human nature, therefore change in mass industrialized society is not even up for discussion. It assumes that mass industrialized society cannot be modified at all. Derrick Jensan argues that the importation of resources requires that these resources become dried up in their native areas and as such any society based on the importation of resources is unsustainable. Jensan is against the idea of industry; therefore, the proposal that Peter Kropotkin makes in the Conquest of Bread, that decentralizing industry into federations as to have most of what a locality needs produced in the native area can be completely ignored. However, within this resides irony due to this being a direct answer to the problem that Jensan proposes.

It is not anti-civilizationism that is needed, but a democratic and self-managed civilization inhabited by a real, human community.

3

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

theblackcat wrote (edited )

The writer seems to think primitivism / post-left and post-civ are all the same thing and makes the ridiculous claim that anti-civs are unable to define civilization.

They also have a very tenuous grasp on what 'community' means and they suggest 'real' community can only exist inside an industrial civilization.

Anti-Civilization ideologies only hold the world back from the goal of a free society

This is an especially ludicrous statement - how does continuing the toxic and destructive industrial-civilization status quo that has failed all life on the planet so magnificently since the industrial revolution give us any kind of freedom?

This reads a lot like liberals that want to apply a band-aid to capitalism rather than replace it. We don't have the luxury of playing with band-aids - the planet is bleeding out and people that refuse to see it are suffocating on their own privilege from the comfort of their air-conditioned condos.

I have no patience for first world arrogance when those of us outside the West are watching the land dry up before us and the groundwater turn to poison. The West is killing everything so that Westerners can have a couple of generations of comfort before all resources are gone and all land is uninhabitable.

(Anti-civs are) simply contributing to these problems by ignoring the need for a consciousness based on class struggle and the foundation of a new human society.

This is pure hogwash. By wanting to move past industrial civilization to something that actually works, how are we ignoring class struggle? How do we not want a new society?? Post-civs want to create a world where there is no class. A new society that doesn't rely on third-world slavery and massive exploitation so that Westerners can buy their shiny new cellphones every 6 months.

Primitivism would be going backwards. Industrial communism would be going backwards. Post-civ is moving forward to something new and truly egalitarian.

4

G3PF wrote

The writer seems to think primitivism / post-left and post-civ are all the same thing and makes the ridiculous claim that anti-civs are unable to define civilization.

If it's ridiculous, why don't you offer up any actual definitions? Just saying that the claim is ridiculous isn't actually evidence against the original author.

They also have a very tenuous grasp on what 'community' means and they suggest 'real' community can only exist inside an industrial civilization.

Again, no definitions or substance given to your argument. The author actually supports their claim that a real community can exist in an industrial world in the previous paragraph, which you seem to totally ignore. Nonetheless, it more seems like an entirely semantic issue rather than giving an adequate counter to the article's contents.

This is an especially ludicrous statement - how does continuing the toxic and destructive industrial-civilization status quo that has failed all life on the planet so magnificently since the industrial revolution give us any kind of freedom? This reads a lot like liberals that want to apply a band-aid to capitalism rather than replace it. We don't have the luxury of playing with band-aids - the planet is bleeding out and people that refuse to see it are suffocating on their own privilege from the comfort of their air-conditioned condos. I have no patience for first world arrogance when those of us outside the West are watching the land dry up before us and the groundwater turn to poison. The West is killing everything so that Westerners can have a couple of generations of comfort before all resources are gone and all land is uninhabitable.

Firstly, you ignore the author's arguments in which they go rather in depth to justify their defense of the industrial world. Instead of countering them, you just make rather absurd claims without trying to provide a bit of evidence for them. Furthermore, your gripes seem to be with capitalism - something the author is explicitly against - and the author does indeed propose something to solve the issues of exploitation, albeit in a more simplified manner compared to the typical communist literature. Nonetheless, you fail to address this and seem to make statements that are more appeals-to-emotion than anything.

This is pure hogwash. By wanting to move past industrial civilization to something that actually works, how are we ignoring class struggle? How do we not want a new society?? Post-civs want to create a world where there is no class. A new society that doesn't rely on third-world slavery and massive exploitation so that Westerners can buy their shiny new cellphones every 6 months.

Here's a somewhat quality argument. However, it should be noted that the following paragraph and the former one do provide some answers to the questions you have, as I take it you haven't read the post. Nonetheless, I'll try to provide answers for you based on what I presume the author meant.

Firstly, the author's arguments are based within the context of a civilize world, and how, in their eyes, the anti-civs don't actually give any adequate solutions to anything, and thus they generally ignore class struggle and any potential salvation of civilization. Now granted, this could have been far better supported had the author provided some citation to what they were intending to say. Still, it's clear they were intending this statement under the context that an anti-civ world isn't something that, in their eyes, is an adequate solution that can provide answers.

Also, you act as if any far-left ideologies would still rely on worker exploitation in the third world. Anyone who's actually a part of these ideologies would tell you how rubbish that idea is.

2

G3PF wrote

Interesting article, certainly would like to see more of the author, particularly in tackling specific anti-civ literature.

3

zod wrote

I'd like to see this too, they refer to specific schools of thought but never quote anything directly, so it's hard to know what arguments they're countering exactly.

1

G3PF wrote

To be fair, most anti-civ arguments I've seen have been based on very poorly defined terms and don't actually give substantial arguments to counter. Nonetheless, yeah, it'd be neat to see more of this guy.

1

zod wrote (edited )

I think that's because it's a philosophy more than a science - a general way of thinking rather than a step by step guide to ideology.

1

G3PF wrote

Sure, but philosophy still relies on logical justification. Post-civ seems to have none, from my experience.

0

Blackcap wrote

How about just using a standard anthropological definition of civilization, based on the following characteristics:

  1. Cities
  2. Organized central governments
  3. Complex religions
  4. Job specialization
  5. Social class hierarchy
  6. Writing
  7. Public works

While not all of these are anti-anarchist (I'm certainly not against written knowledge, for example), I think it's clear that (2) and (5) are fundamentally incompatible with anarchism.

Moreover, (3) also tends to be hierarchical and authoritarian, and I would argue that (4) when taken to the extremes that civilization takes it also contains anti-freedom premises (because it makes it difficult or impossible for individuals to exit society or to even grasp and critique it in toto, due to the specialization-induced lack of knowledge broadness necessary to do so).

And that's about it. Note that anti-civilization is a categorization defined by what those of us in that category oppose, therefore there's not much it tells about what we actually positively advocate. So it's a term that's of limited usefulness.

2

poolofshade wrote (edited )

The ideas put forward by these Anti-Civilizationists do not offer a way out of the current problems that exist; they are simply contributing to these problems by ignoring the need for a consciousness based on class struggle and the foundation of a new human society.

The thing you don't seem to understand about those who adapt anti/post civ positions, is many have already come to terms with the fact that enough severe damage has been done to the planet and we've hit so many consumptive limits that there's no going back. The ship is already sinking, and there is no real way out (edit: hence the creation of POST-civ literature). People are going to have to simplify whether they want to or not, and many already are. Everything is in it's infancy, so I don't know what you're expecting.

Older, antiquated frameworks of thought utterly failed to anticipate this and offer no solutions either (why people are having to build off the work of primitivists). I'm all for decentralized communities producing things locally as a solution going forward actually, but any ideological movement that's overly optimistic and denies the reality and constraints of the situation is absolutely useless.

2

CogInTheMachine wrote (edited )

This laughable can full of straw men could also be called "Toward Anti-Antifa" and it wouldn't read that differently. It's basically standing in defense of an extremely authoritarian techno-scientific social order -like our current liberal democratic captialist order- that is still as I'm writing this, killing and oppressing countless non-human (and human) lives and melting the ice caps and glaciers. An order that, like the Third Reich, was doing it all in the name of the quest for progress, that will one day make the world a better place to live. Coz as you know it worked so well...

One day we will revive the coral reefs and all the extinct animal species, but in the meantime keep working hard for progress. It's like the capitalist mass consumer system and its industry is devoted to the betterment of life in general on this planet. Expect a Star Trek-like Type 1 civilization in a few decades with flying cars and space travel n shit if we trust Elon Musk hard enough.

The Regressive Leftist crowd just don't realize how abhorrent their own ideals are... how they are mindlessly thirsty for more blood and tears. This helps to be brandishing the same old Right-wing bogeymen so your can more safely put your own self-criticism in the closet...

1

RespectWomen OP wrote

This laughable can full of straw men could also be called "Toward Anti-Antifa" and it wouldn't read that differently.

If you use ‘fascism’ liberally (like say equating it with civilisation), then yeah I guess that it would.

It's basically standing in defense of an extremely authoritarian techno-scientific social order -like our current liberal democratic captialist order- that is still as I'm writing this, killing and oppressing countless non-human (and human) lives and melting the ice caps and glaciers.

They’re an anarchist & an anticapitalist. You didn’t read much else from them, did you?

An order that, like the Third Reich, was doing it all in the name of the quest for progress, that will one day make the world a better place to live. Coz as you know it worked so well...

Do not use Fascist comparisons, especially for somebody with little or no political power. Every victorious president has been compared to a white supremacist dictator and it’s done absolutely nothing.

It's like the capitalist mass consumer system and its industry is devoted to the betterment of life in general on this planet. Expect a Star Trek-like Type 1 civilization in a few decades with flying cars and space travel n shit if we trust Elon Musk hard enough.

No, because they’re primarily interested in profit. Everything else comes second.

The Regressive Leftist crowd just don't realize how abhorrent their own ideals are...

Tell me how you found this forum.

how they are mindlessly thirsty for more blood and tears.

That’s interesting considering that every anticap with whom I’ve spoken is interested in abolish work as we know it.

This helps to be brandishing the same old Right-wing bogeymen so your can more safely put your own self-criticism in the closet...

More babbling I see.

1

CogInTheMachine wrote (edited )

Sorry I don't do the tit-for-that style of commenting, RespectWomen. This is a forum tactic that fanatical White reactionaries have been doing for quite a while, so I won't take the bait. Either choose a different approach to online discussion, or else....

1

RespectWomen OP wrote

This is a forum tactic that fanatical White reactionaries have been doing for quite a while,

I have literally never once heard of this association until now. I don’t spend my time lurking white nationalist fora or similar; I spent years lurking anticapitalist fora like Revleft.

Either choose a different approach to online discussion, or else...

Okay then I don’t give a toss. I’m glad that you are avoiding me.

1

CogInTheMachine wrote

And it's quite apparent that you've been lurking on Revleft to troll them, just like I did with the right-wing forums. So that doesn't quite make you genuine in regards to your pretenses.

0

RespectWomen OP wrote

r u censoring me??? y do u want to destroy free sheep??? UR THE REAL FASHIZ!!! #straightwhitemalelivesmatter

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

"Toward Anti-Antifa"

Hahaha, so true.

In Musk we trust!! Let's all suck his balls extra hard so he lets us move to Mars with him and live in a biodome sipping potato wine with all the other VIPs while the Earth burns up. Serves those fool Earthers right for not being special enough to get selected by Mr. Musk, amiright?

−1

CogInTheMachine wrote (edited )

move to Mars with him and live in a biodome sipping potato wine with all the other VIPs while the Earth burns up

Is it too late to register for being a suicidal Mars guinea pig? I find it rather strange that some people would sacrifice themselves for some billionnaires fantasies... oh wait.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

sacrifice themselves

You take that back! It's no sacrifice to give ones life over to the glorious Mr. Musk! It is a great privilege and honour and a gesture of true love! Fucking peasant.

−1

Defasher wrote (edited )

This author doesn't know the first thing about any of the concepts they're trying to critique. The strawmans are jumping out of every sentence - It's honestly embarassing.

Communism isn't going to save the world. Replacing the economic system so everyone has wealth doesn't stop us from depleting our resources and bringing about a mass extinction event.

0

zod wrote

Do you have some examples of the strawmans you say they're making?

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

There are sooo many, but I'll choose 3 at random:

None of these anti-civilization tendencies has broken through the first wall of argument in the sense of offering a specific definition of what they oppose.

Straight up bullshit. I posted several articles above that prove this argument is a fantasy.

Usually civilizations are categorized by the use of writing, language, and scientific study. This is a kind of society that we should want for a our future

Implying being anti-civ or post-civ means you don't want people to talk, read, write or study. This argument is toxic and completely inaccurate.

The cause of our current woes is not “civilization”

The author's woes obviously aren't the same as my woes, or anyone that gives a fuck about any life on planet Earth surviving the next century. The author seems to think the only problems we have are economical, and by fixing them, everything will be fine and dandy. Communism won't save the planet, it'll just make it so even more people can have a cellphone, laptop, tablet, desktop pc, 3 TVs, VR headset, e-reader, robot vacuum cleaner, amazon echo and 2 cars in the driveway. In other words, it'll hasten resource depletion, increase slavery in the third world to mine the resources to make all this crap, and make sure the planet warms up and dries out even faster than the existing scary-as-fuck estimates.

−2

RespectWomen OP wrote

The author's woes obviously aren't the same as my woes, or anyone that gives a fuck about any life on planet Earth surviving the next century.

The point is that many of the inadequacies of advance technology can be traced to the profit motive. For example, there is a minority of humans that finds radio waves deeply uncomfortable. Sustainable alternatives could be explored, but if they aren’t profitable, it’s less probable that scientists will attempt to obtain them, let alone popularise them.

The author seems to think the only problems we have are economical, and by fixing them, everything will be fine and dandy.

We need to use democratic means to decide how we wish to manage resources. Capitalism prohibits this.

Communism won't save the planet, it'll just make it so even more people can have a cellphone, laptop, tablet, desktop pc, 3 TVs, VR headset, e-reader, robot vacuum cleaner, amazon echo and 2 cars in the driveway.

Goods will be built to last. People won’t need to take more than they already have, and products could be either repaired or upgraded. By the way, some of the communists that I’ve seen oppose individually owned automobiles; public transport can suffice.

In other words, it'll hasten resource depletion,

No, my last paragraph detailed how resources could be conserved. For scarce, valuable resources, democratic input should be used.

increase slavery in the third world to mine the resources to make all this crap,

This almost sounds like a classic liberal distortion. People will labour as hard or easily as they want to, or do something else. Pressuring people to make crap would be antidemocratic.

and make sure the planet warms up and dries out even faster than the existing scary-as-fuck estimates.

Even if we conserved the antienvironmental methods and practices, what makes you so certain that only a few people would care that the planet is dying?

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

The point is that many of the inadequacies of advance technology can be traced to the profit motive. For example, there is a minority of humans that finds radio waves deeply uncomfortable. Sustainable alternatives could be explored, but if they aren’t profitable, it’s less probable that scientists will attempt to obtain them, let alone popularise them.

There you go again with the strawmanning. Postcivs and most anticivs support sustainable technology that can be produced without exploitation.

We need to use democratic means to decide how we wish to manage resources. Capitalism prohibits this.

We're already using democracy. It's why we're in this mess. Rule of the majority does not work.

Goods will be built to last. People won’t need to take more than they already have, and products could be either repaired or upgraded. By the way, some of the communists that I’ve seen oppose individually owned automobiles; public transport can suffice.

You just described postciv, genius.

This almost sounds like a classic liberal distortion. People will labour as hard or easily as they want to,

You have no understanding of how things like cellphones are made. Africans aren't going to do that kind of labour voluntarily. Unless you can make it locally, there's no way it's being made without exploitation. Your industrial communist utopia where everyone gets everything we have under capitalism for free is not happening. Millions of free people aint gonna slave in mines so everyone on the planet can use twitter on their 8 slightly different devices.

1

RespectWomen OP wrote

There you go again with the strawmanning. Postcivs and most anticivs support sustainable technology that can be produced without exploitation.

Is that so?

Technology, like civilization, can be seen more as a process or complex system then as a physical form. It inherently involves division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation by power (those with the technology). The interface with, and result of, technology is always an alienated, mediated, and heavily-loaded reality. No, technology is not neutral. The values and goals of those who produce and control technology are always embedded within it. Different from simple tools, technology is connected to a larger process which is infectious and is propelled forward by its own momentum.

We're already using democracy. It's why we're in this mess. Rule of the majority does not work.

No we aren’t. The bourgeoisie makes the rules and tells us how to think. They use their money to purchase votes and manipulate the poorly educated. It is the illusion of democracy: it’s the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (to put it in Marxist terms). Businesses are the most obvious examples of antidemocratic places.

You just described postciv, genius.

I described socialism. Do these look like fellow primitivists to you?

You have no understanding of how things like cellphones are made.

You got me on this one, but I do know that working conditions in China & elsewhere are even worse than they are in most of the Occidental World. They are in dire need of workplace democracies.

Africans aren't going to do that kind of labor voluntarily.

Even if they want useful devices? But I do agree that few people would agree to labour in places devoid of safety regulations.

Unless you can make it locally, there's no way it's being made without exploitation.

I could give mining a shot. It sounds like good exercise.

Your industrial communist utopia where everyone gets everything we have under capitalism for free is not happening.

All liberals agree with you on this.

Millions of free people aint gonna slave in mines so everyone on the planet can use twitter.

Probably because Twitter is trash. But seriously, if people still want to use crappy social networks, they could do some volunteer work as miners. There’s no reason for them to toil for twelve hours a day with almost no breaks and no safety regulations. Overproduction is something that we all want to solve.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Lmao @ you linking to a primitivist text to prove what postcivs and anticivs believe. How many times do you need to be told that they're 3 different things? This is getting tedious here.

On your heated defense of sacred democracy, you need to brush up on your ideology.

So at heart, we are against democracy because its very existence maintains this division that we’re seeking to abolish. Democracy does nothing but maintain the existence of alienated power, since it requires that our desires be separate from our power to act, and any attempts to engage in that system will only serve to reproduce it.

Democracies of any type make decisions via elections, the very essence of which transfers one’s will, thought, autonomy, and freedom to an outside power. It makes no difference whether one transfers that power to an elected representative or to an elusive majority. The point is that it’s no longer your own. Democracy has given it to the majority. You have been alienated from your capacity to determine the conditions of your existence in free cooperation with those around you.

"There is an important distinction here. Parties are political in their claim to represent the interests of others. This is a claim to alienated power, because when someone takes power with a claim to represent me, I am separated from my own freedom to act. In this sense, anarchists are anti-political. We are not interested in a different claim to alienated power, in a different leadership, in another form of representation, in a regime change, or in anything that merely shuffles around the makeup of alienated power. Any time someone claims to represent you or to be your liberatory force, that should be a definite red flag. We are anti-political because we are interested in the self-organization of the power of individuals. This tension towards self-organization is completely orthogonal to democracy in any of its various forms."

I can link you to more in depth texts if you want, but knowing you, you'll continue to cling to whatever the fuck tankie politics you've branded yourself with.

I described socialism. Do these look like fellow primitivists to you?

Motherfucker. One more time. Postcivs are not primitivists. Did it take this time? I've lost count of how many times I've told you this and linked you to literature that screams it.

Even if they want useful devices?

Would you risk your life mining minerals every day and die young so everyone can have a new ipad every xmas? Don't fucking answer that. You've never worked a day in your life and you're never gonna Mr. "I do manual labour when I go to ikea to buy a new cabinet to display my vintage He-Man action figures in".

I could give mining a shot. It sounds like good exercise.

Don't make me puke you insufferable bourgie.

Comments like that are why white people will never learn.

0

RespectWomen OP wrote (edited )

Lmao @ you linking to a primitivist text to prove what postcivs and anticivs believe. How many times do you need to be told that they're 3 different things? This is getting tedious here.

Point made. An anarchist friend simplifying postciv as a form of primitivism, coupled with your ideological specification in March, threw me off.

On your heated defense of sacred democracy, you need to brush up on your ideology.

You mean this? I’m not interested in so‐called ‘representational democracy’, if that’s what you had in mind.

I can link you to more in depth texts if you want, but knowing you, you'll continue to cling to whatever the fuck tankie politics you've branded yourself with.

I’m not a Leninist, but I can see how you might make that mistake given my (arguably misplaced) willingness to work with them.

Motherfucker. One more time. Postcivs are not primitivists. Did it take this time?

Apparently. I should have doublechecked that post that you made a few months ago.

I've lost count of how many times I've told you this and linked you to literature that screams it.

I must have missed it in this thread, or maybe you posted it elsewhere on the site.

Edit: you did post them, sorry. My adrenaline was probably so high that I completely forgot about it. I’ll give them a look.

Would you risk your life mining minerals every day and die young so everyone can have a new ipad every xmas?

Given my clinical depression and the apparently useless regulations, yeah, I guess so.

Don't fucking answer that.

Too late; I’m a huge asshole.

You've never worked a day in your life and you're never gonna Mr. "I do manual labour when I go to ikea to buy a new cabinet to display my vintage He-Man action figures in".

I understand that mining and furniture assembly are apples and oranges, so I guess that I was being pedantic when I specified what manual labour I’ve done.

(Also, I don’t collect toys or use display cases. I’m in my twenties.)

Don't make me puke you insufferable bourgie.

Would you prefer to put a gun to my head instead?

On a side note, I’ve never owned a business, but my mum owns a tiny one wherein she’s (almost always) the only employee.

0

G3PF wrote

Straight up bullshit. I posted several articles above that prove this argument is a fantasy.

I pointed out why this rebuttal is wrong in another post,

Implying being anti-civ or post-civ means you don't want people to talk, read, write or study. This argument is toxic and completely inaccurate.

Blatant cherry picking. What was actually said was "Objectively, the term civilization can broadly be defined as a sophisticated, modern, and advanced form of society and culture. Usually civilizations are categorized by the use of writing, language, and scientific study. This is a kind of society that we should want for a our future: if people are to be free from their respective oppression, the only way to do so is to reconstruct society and replace it with one that is not organized through oppressive social institutions. This means an advanced society of free individuals in free-association with one another, working for the mutual satisfaction of their collective needs." Far more in depth than your assertion.

2

robosap1ens wrote

how so?

2

RespectWomen OP wrote

He’ll probably link to this, an article which itself contains dozens of unsupported conclusions.

1

theblackcat wrote (edited )

Considering the non-sourced, wildly inaccurate and grammatically atrocious opinion piece you've posted, that's a little bit cocky don't you think?

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

Not sure what your question is asking, but read more about one of the things this clown is pretending don't have any actual theory behind them.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-post-civ-a-brief-philosophical-and-political-introduction-to

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/usul-of-the-blackfoot-post-civ-a-deeper-exploration

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/margaret-killjoy-take-what-you-need-and-compost-the-rest-an-introduction-to-post-civilized-theo

0

zod wrote (edited )

So post-civilization isn't actually against civilization by the sounds of it? Just the current exploitative civilization we have?

4

Defasher wrote

When people say something is 'civilised', they're turning their nose up at anything they consider 'uncivilised'. Picture an old-boy English imperialist wanker wearing a safari hat, strolling around Africa, telling everyone they're a bunch of uncivilised savages. Then think about the hardships and horrific injustices perpetrated on Africans for generations as the old-boys try to 'civilise' them... all the while enslaving them for their labour.

Civilisation is a word used by the rich to shame the poor into slavery.

0

G3PF wrote

The first article you linked is rubbish - it gives an abundance of assertions without any attempts at arguing for them, and generally gives plenty of poorly defined and ambiguous wording and phrasing that seems to only actually make sense if you yourself are a post-civ. However, as it is intended to briefly inform about post-civ, it fails miserably.

Humorously, the author actually addresses one of the definitions of civilization given by that first article within their post! The one by Jensen, of course. The author's gripes with Jensen's argument of what civilization is also applies to the Wikipedia (by the way, that's hardly a scholarly source for trying to write a philosophical paper on why post-civ is good) definition given. Of course, in the regard to an anti-civ society, by some aspects of that definition, it would actually mean that post-civ is merely civilization in itself! For instance, the usage of division of labor and agriculture as means to support the idea of civilization, as I'm sure a post-civ society would involve co-operation among people, with certain individuals performing certain roles in whatever groups they're in. One major issue with this definition, however, is the 'social hierarchy' one used, as it implies that it's necessary for a civilized world. Of course, it's likely just pro-capitalist nonsense that's trying to presume any ideology that argues for the abolishment of hierarchy means that they aren't civilized. This, of course, is ridiculous, as I don't think anti-civs would consider communism or anarchism to be outside of civilization.

The second article you linked is much better, and what the first one should have been. The rebuttal to anarcho-primitivism is rather quality I'd say (though I do have a few gripes, such as the author's assertion that stonework and flight are science), however the argument falls flat at the author's critique of civilization. Firstly, the author's assertion of more leisure time in primitive societies is rather silly, as what they describe merely seems to be civilization, albeit a more simplified form of it. Indeed, there's no reason to assume that, under certain reforms, we couldn't achieve a better and safer version of all of this under a more advanced civilization! After all, under the more primitive (for lack of a better word) society the author proposes, there wouldn't be any scientific advancement to be able to prepare for things such as say, disease, ferocious predators, or natural disasters. Also, a lot of the anti-civ arguments are just unsupported by any logical justification, and can all generally be surmised as issues with capitalism and other failed economic systems or the current state of society - both of which we can abolish and reform, respectively. Indeed, the OP's post actually can be said to be an adequate rebuttal of this by pointing out that a civilized world is indeed possible! Of course, it could've been a lot more in depth, but to be fair the OP wasn't responding to this piece in particular, but rather giving a general defense of why civilization is indeed worthwhile.

Of course, there are more issues, such as within the outline of a post-civ world, that are either strawmans, unjustified assertions, the middle of the road fallacy, and also a lack of properly defining a post-civ world, which is in support of what the author's saying. It just gives rather vague examples that can hardly be taken up as evidence for a post-civ societal structure being worthwhile! There's no theory in place here, rather just a brief overview of a hypothetical society that can hardly be said to be an argumentative structure of one, as it's outrageously ambiguous with no attempts at actual justification. It's also based on the assumption that such a thing will even work out as the author says it will, again without actual justification. Adding on to this, one could argue that the proposed society counts as civilization too, albeit a more primitive form of it! Furthermore, the definition of civilization given here seem to be rather vague and arbitrary, while seeming to be more emotionally charged than anything. So, the OP's critiques do indeed still apply, as no adequate system has actually been proposed here, and no legitimate theory has been given.

In regards to the third article you linked, much like the first one, it is based on vague and baseless assertions without theoretical justification. It continues the trend of poorly defined ideas and vague assertions that don't seem to have any basis. Furthermore, it just recycles the previously given definitions by Wikipedia and Jensen. The first definition it gives, too, is outrageously vague and meaningless (which the author agrees with).

To summarize, all the articles you've linked (and yes, I've read through all of them) give vague and meaningless assertions and fail to actually propose a theoretical society, with the best thing given being in the second article, which is little more than a setting for a book, rather than an actual theoretical basis for a society. Thus, all of the OP's arguments still heavily apply, and if anything you've just provided evidence for how they do.

2

RespectWomen OP wrote (edited )

All right then, I gave you links a closer look, though I did partially skim the second one. (I totally forgot about them the other day.) You may be unsurprised to know that their theory doesn’t appall me. For example:

We post-civilized aim to prove that decentralization of our culture, economies, and politics is both possible and desirable. Every smaller group (some might use the word tribe, but I personally shy from it) would make its own decisions, maintain its autonomy, and solve problems in the ways that suit its constituency. Some might turn to high technology to meet their needs and desires. Others might live more simply. But the borders between the groups will most likely be blurred, with individuals, groups, and families moving between social spheres. Honestly, it would socially be much like today, if you removed the hierarchy between groups and actively avoided the centralizing influence of civilized culture.

This doesn’t sound that different from a world that we want. If civilisation must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to hierarchies, then yes, you can call all of us anticiv. On the other hand, it seems like the essays strongly imply a preference for survivalism and simplistic but not strictly primitive technology: recycling, to put it simply, which are features that many people, including the poor, would be hesitant to adopt or prefer. Even so, it’s a leap of logic to assume that your sceptics are bourgies or yuppies, but that was probably retaliation for my mistaking of you as a primitivist or suggesting that you were extinctionist.

1

ziq_TNG wrote (edited )

Borrowed from reddit:

None of these anti-civilization tendencies has broken through the first wall of argument in the sense of offering a specific definition of what they oppose.

civ is essentially a globalized system of genocide aimed at waging war against life on earth in order to "civilize" it - render earthly life as docile, vulnerable to exploitation, and obedient for the benefit of the ruling castes/classes. it operates and maintains itself through law and law enforcement and can and will suspend the law when deemed necessary by the rulers, especially if it means destroying what civ codes as "uncivilized" - unable to be exploited effectively and must therefore be wiped out in order to protect those deemed "civilized."

any system of law and order, as far as i understand, is entirely reducible to the genocide enacted by the rulers of civil society and their loyal followers. all the rules created by a law-based society are only meaningful to the extent they can be violently enforced. anyone who wants to be a king wants civ to exist, because being a king is meaningless in a world that doesn't give kings any chance to enact genocide against whoever. there's no benefit to being a king when there is no regime that elevates him in power and privilege over everyone else. what we live in now throughout the world is also ruled by kings, only now the kings have diversified in form - as political parties, corporations, war machines, nation-states, landlords, militaries, capitalists, etc.

Objectively, the term civilization can broadly be defined as a sophisticated, modern, and advanced form of society and culture. Usually civilizations are categorized by the use of writing, language, and scientific study.

speaking of not defining anything clearly...all of those terms are incredibly loaded. sophistication is almost always talked about as something based on made-up standards masked as objectively true. modernity is a concept borne of the ideology of progress that tries to frame civ as inherently always improving life on earth over time no matter what. and advancement is merely a different word used to describe the progress that's framed as "beneficial." also seeking knowledge (which can be done outside of science) and spoken/written language aren't inherently tied to civ - they just seem to characterize civil societies because those societies tend towards forcing specific engagements with the world that are predictable, intelligible, and controllable by the rulers of those societies. they also enforce the gradual homogenization of humanity (everyone is socially pressured to write in a certain way, communicate in a certain way, know in a certain way, etc.).

The ideas put forward by these Anti-Civilizationists do not offer a way out of the current problems that exist; they are simply contributing to these problems by ignoring the need for a consciousness based on class struggle and the foundation of a new human society.

pointing out an oft-ignored reality of oppression is essential to figuring out how to live peacefully.

a democratic and self-managed civilization inhabited by a real, human community.

democracy is still a -cracy and therefore an inherently stratified system that operates on the binary of civility against incivility. it's all law and order and therefore only a leviathan that masquerades as friendly and enacts genocide at a slower pace and through a smaller scale.

so fuck this article and fuck civ! *burps loudly and hops like a frog*

0

RespectWomen OP wrote

democracy is still a -cracy and therefore an inherently stratified system that operates on the binary of civility against incivility. it's all law and order and therefore only a leviathan that masquerades as friendly and enacts genocide at a slower pace and through a smaller scale.

No it is not. This is a complete misinterpretation of the author’s theory. They aren’t advocating for a bourgeois democracy like in North America or elsewhere. They aren’t even interested in mindless majority rule. We want a democracy that keeps all involved satisfied. I posted a link to this in reply to Defasher.

As for the rest of ‘your’ points… none of us supports genocide, rulers, law, political parties, or other such nonsense. It’s really a question of whether these features are integral to civilisation.

1

ziq wrote

How can democracy keep everyone satisfied when it requires varying degrees of compromise as a rule? What happens when the same people are forced to compromise every time and they realize they're powerless?

1