Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alphazero wrote

I do believe all that because I’m an anarchist, my point in this thread being that large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact. And, that I do not care if they weren’t. Being an anarchist is truly believing in the principle that we can and we will leave all together in peace with nature. Regardless of what you or the other side believes.

About communists agreeing with the rest is a point against someone claiming that what i say here is clearing the ground for communism, see previous comments.

2

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact

And yet...they aren't around anymore; the anti-civ critique of large-scale industrial society is more comparable to present societies than what you believe will come.

And, that I do not care if they weren’t.

That's called "faith", and it's the realm of the "supernatural religious" people that you're attempting to disassociate with and tack on to primitivists.

I do believe all that because I’m an anarchist, my point in this thread being that large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact. And, that I do not care if they weren’t.

Being an anarchist is truly believing in the principle that we can and we will leave all together in peace with nature. Regardless of what you or the other side believes.

Blind faith and wishful thinking don't sway me, nor do I define anarchists as having these qualities.

You don't have to prove that " large egalitarian social structures" existed, nor do you have to disprove that civilization and surplus resources lead to hierarchy; but if you're going to try to convince anyone here that civilization can be used for the benefit of anarchism, you should make a better case for it than "facts be damned, this is what I believe in". If you can't do that, then you're wasting everyone's time; if you can, then do it; you made the claim, prove it.

Tell me how industrial civilization can produce unlimited resources for several billion people without impeding on their autonomy while avoiding mass extinction of multiple species and environmental devastation while also making sure no one has to work while also making sure that the means of inventing, manufacturing, using, and distributing technology doesn't rely on the coercion and exploitation of the global south and its people while also uniting several billion individuals to unite under this shared banner.

Don't send me some text someone else wrote either, you were sure enough of yourself to come here and argue, use your own words.

3

ziq OP wrote

Tell me how industrial civilization can produce unlimited resources for several billion people without impeding on their autonomy while avoiding mass extinction of multiple species and environmental devastation while also making sure no one has to work while also making sure that the means of inventing, manufacturing, using, and distributing technology doesn't rely on the coercion and exploitation of the global south and its people while also uniting several billion individuals to unite under this shared banner.

making this my email signature

4

Alphazero wrote

Dodging your challenges on personal level, let’s go straight to the point.

The fact that they aren’t around today, does it mean that they cannot come again? Really?

Believing as in viewing not as in religiously anticipating (really??)

I cannot see where we are disagreeing, I am merely pointing that we do not need to believe that we once fell from grace, nor we need any facts from science, like the essay in question used,, to promote the idea (anarchism) that favours our selves as individuals and as class subjects.

Why should I spend hours trying to describe something that comrades have so beautifully painted the picture of? I just posted an article from Peter which I really like. I don’t see any shame in using other peoples beautiful images.

Just to remind you what my point is here. The essay is excellent, if only we remove those paragraphs about primitivism. We don’t have to. It’s just my view. You know, as in, discussing stuff

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Dodging your challenges on personal level, let’s go straight to the point.

"Dodging" is an apt term for what you're doing.

The fact that they aren’t around today, does it mean that they cannot come again? Really?

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it can, with all of the problems of the here and now; I'm not really willing to base my worldview on what "could" happen, especially when there are practical, reality-based factors that you're willfully ignoring, such as "how exactly do we get from the here to anarchotopia?"; you know, the action-based part that we actually care about.

Believing as in viewing not as in religiously anticipating (really??)

I've yet to see you prove your beliefs; which would be exceedingly easy to do if they had basis in reality.

I cannot see where we are disagreeing, I am merely pointing that we do not need to believe that we once fell from grace, nor we need any facts from science, like the essay in question used,, to promote the idea (anarchism) that favours our selves as individuals and as class subjects.

Anarchists don't because they're already anarchist; anarchists also don't make up a majority of any group. If your goal as an anarchocommunist is to bring about anarchocommunism, then you need numbers; which you don't exactly get without convincing arguments. I'm no anarchocommunist, what exactly can you do to sway me, or anyone else on this forum, to a neutral or even positive position on civilization?

Why should I spend hours trying to describe something that comrades have so beautifully painted the picture of?

I don't care if you do or don't. I already knew you couldn't.

The essay is excellent, if only we remove those paragraphs about primitivism. We don’t have to.

That's a blatant lie, considering the fact they wouldn't publish the essay without them.

3

Alphazero wrote

The essay can be published, it is ready, in both English and Greek. We just cockfighting over the distant past of humanity. It’s all about the writer’s ego, well respected ofcourse.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I'm a little confused, the changes I made to the essay remove the reference to human cultures of the past, so what exactly is the problem? Just publish the new version I wrote for you rather than stripping away paragraphs that provide vital narrative continuity -

https://raddle.me/wiki/anti-work

Anthropologists who study some of the few remaining gatherer-hunter bands of people in various parts of the world today have frequently noted how, unlike authority-based tribes in neighboring lands, the anarchistic, non-hierarchical bands of people such as the Hadza in Eastern Africa emphasize acts of play rather than work. (Read my "Eradicate Left Unity: Make Bands, Not Communities. Anarchy, Not Leftism" essay for more about this.)

is this in any way advocacy for what you consider primitivism? am I saying we should return to the stone age? I'm simply making reference to specific indigenous people in a region of Eastern Africa

if you've replied to my email since my last response, I haven't seen it because that whole conversation was giving me anxiety (so i stopped checking my email). last I heard, you wouldn't publish it unless I removed all reference to gatherer hunters, including modern ones

edit: and like i said, you can remove the parenthesis referencing graeber that you objected to, it's not important to the essay

4

CaptainACAB wrote

I stand corrected on that point, at least.

2

Alphazero wrote

i am not trying to convince you to change how you feel about civilisation, i am just saying that in order to pursue anarchy we do not need to believe that in the past we were great and that civilisation just came and screwed things up, this belief does not offer much, if it doesn't cause confusion

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

The argument isn't that we were great, it's that we had no ability to rule or destroy the world because everything we did was isolated and thus had a minimal impact. Furthermore, we actively preserved the ecosystem and helped spread beneficial-plant food forests because we weren't insulated from the effects of the natural world's destruction as we are currently (due to the work system), and depended on its continued balance for survival. Instead of working to exchange our labor for food as we do now, we just took food directly from the land without needing to work. There's an immediate cause and effect - so when your survival depends on the health of a forest vs the success of the paper mill you work at, you're going to preserve the forest at all costs otherwise you'll starve, while the paper mill worker will sacrifice the forest for a short term meal ticket, not caring that the next generation will starve when the paper mill runs out of trees to process (due to their alienation from the ecosystem and perceiving themselves as seperate from it; civilized).

Civilization gives us the authority to casually impact the world in ways that will be felt by every lifeform on the planet for millennia. Every bottle of water coming off the assembly line is contributing to global ecocide, mass extinction, desertification, and forcing mass migration. Civilization is able to cause all this disaster because it's completely pervasive and alienating. There's no way to get away from it or its effects.

The anti-civ argument is that replacing capitalism with communism won't do enough to change this. The root of all authority is civilization, not simply who controls the means of production.

Without civilization, the harm any individual or group can do, the authority they can wield, is limited to their immediate surroundings. With civilization, the harm is amplified across the entire planet, and nearly everyone becomes guilty of doing harm because there's simply no way for them to opt out of civilization. Every meal a city or farm dweller eats is participating in destroying the ecosystem rather than renewing it.

So arguments that posit "there were some bad people around before civilization so anticiv = bad" completely misunderstand the nature of civilizational hierarchy. It isn't isolated, it's expansive and forces everything everywhere to wither up and die.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Being an anarchist is truly believing in the principle that we can and we will leave all together in peace with nature.

I disagree. I'm an anarchist bc I can't stand people and I like to struggle n fight against people.

3