Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq OP wrote (edited )

probably shouldn't have been so snarky but i've had enough of people building hierarchies to diminish everything i write because of the anticiv elements

5

[deleted] wrote

5

ziq OP wrote

I don't understand why they would even want to change something that's already on theanlibrary. It wouldn't be a good look for them if the version on their site is censored.

Now I need to figure out if I should revert back to the original version of the essay or keep the edits they prompted me to make. Theanarchistlibrary has the original version while raddle has the edited one.

5

Alphazero wrote (edited )

It's because void network are not publishers, they are a political group who form collective stance about things. They felt awkward to reduce your article themselves too and they asked (obv.) and then did not publish (obv.) Can't see really what your comment is. They do not care about 'looking bad' neither. Your article is shooting itself to the foot by using the noble savage as argument for anti-work, that's all.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

political group who form collective stance about things

you're basically describing a communist party's central committee.

anarchists don't form collective stances on things, we're individuals with different opinions, not a politburo vanguard sitting in presidential palaces issuing decrees to the unwashed masses

the noble savage as argument for anti-work

the so-called 'noble savage fallacy' is an attack against anyone who believes humans are intrinsically good, which would include ancoms:

A noble savage is a literary stock character who symbolizes humanity's innate goodness

everything ancoms hold dear depends on the idea that humans want to do good; co-operate, do mutual aid, aid those unable to aid themselves, take actions that benefit everyone, put the good of the community before the self

capitalists are disgusted by the concept of the noble savage because they believe humans are naturally greedy and act out of self-interest, and that we should all be forced to compete with each other so the strongest individuals can rule supreme

blackflag anarchists (like me) typically hold that we ought to act in the interest of the greater good due to the reality that the greater good benefits the individual. what's good for me is good for you. we don't generally believe we're all innately good, just that our desires are benefited by mutuality

the concept of people being uncorrupted by oppressive structures (capitalism, statism, etc) until those structures are imposed on them is heavily integrated into communist theory. if it's a fallacy, it's not a fallacy created by anticivs.

furthermore, acknowledging that many indigenous people who live off the land structure their cultures around mutual aid and other anarchist principles isn't an attempt to glorify 'savages' (indigenous people) as you suggest, it's merely having respect for indigenous cultures and what they have to impart to us about the human condition, the climate crisis and the way we interact with our ecosystem and by extension, with each other.

it's not a fallacy to point out that gatherer-hunters don't destroy their ecosystems the way civilized people do, simply because it would go against every interest and desire they have to destroy that which they depend on for survival. the same goes for the play point I made. Play is important in gatherer-hunter cultures because it sidelines dominance and other oppressive actions and encourages the people in the group to be non-aggressive towards each other - incredibly important for their continued survival because their survival absolutely depends on mutual co-operation and friendship - something that sadly isn't the case in civilization, where competition is the norm rather than mutual co-operation

being repulsed by the idea that indigenous cultures can have anything to teach you, rejecting any suggestion that indigenous cultures can be enlightening to a city-dweller because their way of life is different from your own, and refusing to consider that information imparted directly by indigenous sources like the Hadza can be beneficial to anarchy and indeed, to our very survival, has some unfortunate implications to say the least

4

Alphazero wrote

a communist party is not a group of individuals who move on by discussing things and agreeing using principle of consensus... if you are referring to the fact that they did non want to publish something on their website, well, it's their site, not pretending to represent all of us

the rest that you say about capitalists and various forms of anarchists i generally agree with, cannot see why you making these points... you must be misinterpreting me

my disagreement is with basing an anti-work ethic to an alleged golden past of primitive innocence, either Rousseau's noble savage (lefties) or Hobbes' Leviathan (right wings)

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

my disagreement is with basing an anti-work ethic to an alleged golden past of primitive innocence, either Rousseau's noble savage (lefties) or Hobbes' Leviathan (right wings)

there was no such thing as work before civilization because gatherer-hunters used play instead of work

there is no work in numerous gather-hunter cultures that persist all over the planet today because they utilize play instead of work

there's no false statement in either of these sentences, and it shouldn't be such a controversial take considering the large numbers of anthropologists who lived and continue to live with gatherer-hunters all over the world who have documented it over and over again and written vast troves of text describing it in intricate detail

anti-work is anti-civ and anti-civ is anti-work because in the vast majority of cases, people who live apart from civilization don't utilize work in their cultures.

graeber attempted to dismiss this simple reality by confusing people who subsist on farmed food with gatherer-hunters for some reason: https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/143440/-/comment/249245

a communist party is not a group of individuals who move on by discussing things and agreeing using principle of consensus..

forcing your insular ideological beliefs on others (e.g. me) isn't "discussing things and agreeing using principles of consensus", friend. you presented me with an ultimatum: to censor myself and agree to adhere to your personal ideological convictions if I want to participate in your project.

It would be like me editing all your comments on raddle every time you praise city culture because it offends me. You wanted to strip out the spine of my argument - the thing that demonstrates why play can be the solution to work. And you wanted to do it because I mentioned how gatherer-hunters utilize play to make my point. that's an incredibly ego-driven response, to be so opposed to me speaking positively about cultures that you see as idk - barbaric?

Just IMO.

btw i edited my previous comment a few times to better get my thoughts across, including once after you replied

3

Alphazero wrote (edited )

The fact that you see a demarcation line before and after civilisation, equating before and after work, is the mistake in my opinion. There is no such line. Unfortunately some people were working at occasions since forever, while others were not. All you arguments follow this demarcation line which not based on facts and is merely religious obsession. This is the point in Graeber’s book too. Having spoken with people studying anthropology, the absence of this line (the allegedly agricultural Revolution) is known for decades, it’s just that only a handful among academics on the subject are anarchists to see the implications. For the rest, refer to my previous comments to avoid repetition (about the ultimatum). Lots of ego in the end of a day from your side mate, relax. The Revolution does not depend on our discussion. You wrote a very nice article which in my opinion has a weird mistake, I get it now, you believe in primitivism, that’s fine. Good for you

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I don't think Graeber demonstrated it at all, in fact he willfully ignored the troves upon troves of evidence to the contrary, including the staggering quantity of new evidence from anthropologists living with today's gatherer-hunters, as several anthropologists and anarchists who have critiqued the book have explained.

And his examples that purported to expose gatherer-hunter cultures as oppressive were incredibly flawed to the point where his prime example was a culture that enslaved people and forced them to grow food for them. That's not a gatherer-hunter culture, it's a royal family that goes fox hunting while their slaves grow their food. His other examples were essentially fish farmers who exclusively controlled the fisheries and stockpiled the fish to build hierarchy and rule over others. Their diets were almost completely made up of dried fish. These aren't gatherer-hunters, these are examples of early civilization. They were land-owning lords.

Dismissing me as a 'primitivist' for recognizing the tradition of play vs work in gatherer hunter culltures is a strong reaction. I don't desire a return to the primitive, I only desire to understand the reasons we've gotten to the desperate position we're in, to pinpoint the decisions we made that led us here, and find ways to approach the unprecedented in natural history ecological disaster that has taken hold of the entire world.

Peace and love.

3

Alphazero wrote

I am really sorry but it seems that you are really bringing it to yourself. Far from me to elevate a single book to the level of a bible, you really seem to have not read the same book.

He did not ignore any evidence, instead he has offered a massive amount of info with references for foragers of both egalitarian and slave-working ones, exactly to make the point that they both existed for millennia.

You are right to question to definition of what forager is, using the info in the book that is presented to make the exact same point with you! that the history that we learned in school about pre-civ foragers is bollocks.

I am not dismissing you i am directly giving you my honest comments as people do in public discussions. I feel secure in doing so that i will not harm you in any way and i see you as comrade in our common struggle to dismantle this society and build a new one.

In the end it's not about understanding or learning anything new at all really, it's about clearing the grounds from all the parasites and preparing the soil to plant the seeds, parabolically. It's a trap to look for revelations in the past, there is nothing there but pain together with hope, the same as today.

keep fighting and stay strong

2