Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0

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.

3

zod wrote

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

-2

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 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?

0

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.

3

RespectWomen 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.

-1

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.

1

RespectWomen 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.

2

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?

1

RespectWomen 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?

4

zod wrote (edited )

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

0

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.

2

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.

1

RespectWomen 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.