Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Esperaux OP wrote

Well I appreciate that you do seem to actually desire an honest and open discussion along with giving a healthy critique from your own perspective. I'd say my main confusion is that I am still unsure if there are different anticivs besides anprims or if all anticivs are technically primitivism. Since I tend to also see a lot of anprims advocate luddism and cite Ted Kazynski who last I checked disagreed with the idea of work being able to be abolished under a primitivist lifestyle. The main two anprims I tend to run into either embrace the use and production of certain technologies such as medical treatment just not under the capitalist mode of production which is very onboard with a lot of solarpunk perspectives and the type that outright reject any technology who tend to support shaky alternative medicines. Obviously this factors into what I'm trying to say with individuals being much more complex than labels given since no single person will really have the same exact views on a subject.

I do definitely agree with the outlook however that capitalism prevents everyone from actually having available treatment. Though I would say a case can be made that medical technology does improve overtime or at least become better refined. Constant research in the field of cancer treatment has been able to better increase our understanding of cancer and how to deal with it. Improvements in earlier detection and treatment has led to an improvement in five-year survival rates. Or for example Brain surgery as well has definitely seen useful improvements leading to it being less invasive and with better methods that can spare more healthy tissue. I don't think things just naturally progress but I do think people overtime are capable of learning and sharing new things. Now obviously for anprims that are not opposed to these types of treatments and technologies I have no problem with. Though at least for me to visualize how a primitivist society would produce and utilize such technologies it seems like they'd operate under the same mode of production that solarpunk types tend to advocate.

Solar punk types aren't simply advocating collectivized industrialism either which I assume is the main impression given when they say the word technology. Again I'd say there is a lot of agreement to be found with issues like how our current society is structured and how that does indeed factor into how we get so many diseases and health problems. Any liberal assuming that something like solar punk or social ecology entails just replacing their roofs with solar panels and placing more plants in skyscrapers is severely mistaken. In order to be sustainable we have to completely rethink the economic side of production, the very way cities/buildings are designed, how technology is designed/utilized, or how we can best meet the immediate needs of our local regions from a diversity of methods for energy production or simply reducing our use of energy altogether in favor of better sustainable methods. LIke primitivism too though you will find different individuals who will have their own perspectives and views as well though.

Obivously there's a lot more to discuss because I personally do see similarities between a lot of these ideas. Usually when I see communities only looking at and repeating their own sources it reminds me of how in leftcom communities they tend to regurgitate and recycle every little piece of text or quote from Marx they can find in an endless feedback loop. This is why despite my stance on the need for more specific organizations on the ground there still needs to be more open discussion and willingness to incorporate and learn from other perspectives. This is also important too since many people I have worked with in reality tend to not even hold any specific ideology or fall under any specific label. Most people are simply tired and struggling who are first and foremost interested in fulfilling their immediate situation before anything else. Which is why I personally think it is so easy for some people to turn to the comfort and security of totalitarian types who take advantage of these people's very dissatisfaction and issues.


Kinshavo wrote

I am still unsure if there are different anticivs besides anprims or if all anticivs are technically primitivism.

No, not all AntiCiv critique or theory is Primitivist or Anarchoprimitivist, Actually I think that the minority of the current Anticiv and even what some call PostCiv critique (speaking for myself, I found no real differences between post and anti despite of the people who uses PostCiv want to distance themselves from "Primitivism influence"). And like I said earlier, I doubt any of the users here are AnpRims. Maybe the forest dweller user that leave their cabin every six months.

But maybe you won't find the other AntiCiv stuff appealing since they reject many ideas cherished by social anarchism.

A short text can be found at @library: "The Rising of the Barbarians: A Non-Primitivist Revolt Against Civilization" .

Uncle Ted and Luddites are not an unanimity. If I am not mistaken he is more close to Maoism now ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Many people here (including myself) will adopt a Luddite instance over the obvious problems technology can pose, not all the time we will be 100% considerate of the implications of such statements. I doubt anyone here stopped using phones or computers after engaging in some Luddite circle jerk. And that's ok, like other spaces we have our moments, this is a space for conviviality not hard praxis, and so on. Uncle Ted himself got much from Jacques Ellul a french Anarcho Christian philosopher.

I am not against Solarpunk as a movement, but I fear that it can be easily coopted by liberals and whitewashed into a big PR stunt for big Kapital. And I don't see Solarpunk as opposing Primitivism, I see Solarpunk being the opposite of Nihilism and the Nihilistic approach to Insurection.

The problem of medicine and Primitivism is tricky, people assume that Primitivism is inherently transphobic (for denying the opportunity of meds for people) and ableist (for a perceived non consideration of the diverse needs that people have). I can say this is not the case, but then we will go to a different discussion where we will question trans and queer core values and ability and human bodies/biology. This is not a settled issue even from a Primitivist perspective.

And to be honest, internet is not the best medium to have a good talk for opposing views. We don't have eye to eye, face expressions, word intonation etc.

I probably have more friends like you IRL than I have AntiCiv people in my entire life, and when we come to discuss these issues I find that we have more in common than differences, but we do have different views on important topics, this is not a reason for me to stop supporting them IRL and vice versa. With organizations and groups this became a different issue.


Esperaux OP wrote

Thanks for the suggested source. I think my main information on anticiv mainly comes from "Take What You Need and Compost The Rest" which at many points seems to be very much in line with solarpunk perspectives. I genuinely think the so called divide between solarpunk and anticiv mainly comes through miscommunications and a clash of optimistic and pessimistic personalities. I think the above video is actually a very good introductory into this.

Also Ted started leaning towards Maoism now? I think last I heard through someone having mail correspondence with them that they became more vocally critical of eco nationalists at least.

I think it is fair to say solarpunk has its risks with cooptation just as much as anticiv or any other nature movement can in regards to more unhelpful movements.

Also on the transphobia and ablelism accusations on primitivism I think folk like Zerzan came out in opposition to transphobia. With a lot of the discussion being more around the overall abolition of gender. Though I have noticed in my own interactions there are indeed people who use the disguise of primitivism to mask the fact they simply embrace the return to tradition narrative.

Also yes I agree internet is extremely horrible for discussing opposing views. On the ground discussion is definitely a lot more productive or at least voice discussions. It's hard for me to read people through online discussion so I could very much be misunderstanding the overall intentions people may have. I would like to specifically state however my intention overall is not to attack anticivs. A lot of terminology I use may also give off the wrong impression but to try and be as specific as possible my overall stance is that I think solarpunk and anticiv are not as different as they are made out to be, that primitivism would exist under the communist mode of production with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and that simply collectivizing the means of production is collectivist not communist. I also think social ecology is indeed a valuable concept to apply to anarchistic principles since it highlights the importance of how we structure ourselves and how that reflects onto how we interpret and treat the environment around us.


ziq wrote

my main information on anticiv mainly comes from "Take What You Need and Compost The Rest"

That's postciv


Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Oh I didn't know that. I actually just checked and funnily enough saw you provided a previous explanation on the difference between the two too. So would it be safe to describe post civ as the non-primitivist anticiv approach? If that is the case too would post civ not be similar to solarpunk types advocating not just simply current society but with solar panels but actively rethinking how we view ourselves in terms of things like production, consumption, and organization? I apologize in advance if I have been bugging you on about this I don't mean to just hassle you for every little thing but I am trying to do better to listen and learn from others when possible.


ziq wrote (edited )

btw if you're looking at old threads from 3-4 years ago where i (ziq) talked about postciv, you should know my defasher user account was a lot more honest about my actual politics at that time. the ziq account was my nice welcome to raddle fluffy admin account (so it promoted postciv) while defasher was more unrestrained and unapologetically anticiv.

when raddle was new i tried to be nice to leftists and even tankies so they wouldn't shun me (and by extension, raddle) for being a green nihilist, but i no longer care to cater to people who would march me to the wall at the first opportunity


Esperaux OP wrote

Understandable. I don't think anything good really comes from aligning with or making Stalinist/Maoist types feel welcome. Often it just leads to any critique of their idols becoming a controversial topic.

Also thanks for the more in depth explanation on postciv and anticiv. I think a majority of so-called socialists also tend to preserve aspects of capitalism which is why when I refer to communism I mean in terms of the mode of production which I feel helps more inclusively describes a way of living that anprims also describe. Production merely being collectivized I think best describes things like Marxist-leninism or anarcho collectivism which don't actually address systemic factors that lead to the exploitation of individuals and nature. Such solutions merely place the hell of capitalism on the boss and not the existence of the firm itself. Which if I'm not mistaken anprims better describe this relation as simply collectivized industrialism? Again that's just the terminology that I use from my own influences it also doesn't help that my previous influences do partly come from leftcoms who I've come to heavily disagree with.


ziq wrote

postciv is green anarchy for people who feel the need to kowtow to reds. it's like demsoc vs communism or communalism vs anarchy. it's non-offensive, watered down and unprincipled. but at least they won't be called primmies by commies

primitivism is one form of anticiv among many

yes postciv is like solarpunk