Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0

ziq_postcivver 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*

1

RespectWomen 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.