Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

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.