Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

Primitive was the go-to opposition to civilization. When all available ideas, frameworks, philosophies, assume civilization to be good or at least neutral, you start by claiming the opposition. Turn the whole thing on its head. Similar to how anarchy was available in opposition to government.

A mere "anti-" combo woulda been too empty to catch on.

It's funny how even Zerzan and Tucker switched to green anarchy, primal anarchy, and "future primitive", in response to this temporal confusion.

Point is, I kinda don't give a shit. The rebrandings don't usually clarify anything, the distinctions aren't all that interesting.

I tend to be ok with 'traditional' terms, with mutualism, primitivism. You tend to seek pure negation, with anti-civ and 'black flag' anarchism. (and nihilism)

Point is, these are familiar issues with categorizing and identifying.

At their best, these greens are all critical of, opposed to, attacking, and drawing a tension that might move us beyond civilization. That's anti, going post, and critical of the past.

"Anti-civ" seems to double-function as the umbrella-term, a placeholder for everything except the things I don't like about primitivism and post-civ. The green anarchist version of "without adjectives."

/ramblings

9

ziq OP wrote

You tend to seek pure negation, with anti-civ and 'black flag' anarchism. (and nihilism)

yeah i really do just want to destroy the universe. i'm not joking when i say that. it oppresses me therefor i yearn to kill it. everything that subjugates me must die

7

subrosa wrote (edited )

thought I'd something more to say

4

another_i wrote

Seems to me anticiv says "tech is bad" and post civ says "tech is not good of bad, its how it is used.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

That doesn't make any sense because post-civ is a form of anti-civ.

Anti-Civ is a general analytical framework that contains within it various anarchist tendencies and schools of thought unified in their critique and challenging of civilization. It's an umbrella term, covering everything from post-civ to primitivists.

Post-civ, on the contrary, is a specific tendancy within the umbrella of Anti-Civ in the same way that primitivism is. Particularly, post-civ posits the critical deconstruction of civilization in such a way that allows it to, in its deconstruction, morph into something different shaped wholly by the individual communication and individual agents in a given space. You can take specific aspects of civilization to forge something entirely new. Now, with that in mind, remember that post-civ remains an ANTI-civ school of thought, so don't conflate such ideas with "well certain aspects of civilization are positive". Incorrect, and Civ as an interconnected, mutually reinforcing network is to be rejected.

3

another_i wrote

Ah, yes you are right. I was thinking of primitivism, not the larger anticiv critique. Specifically I had in mind (albeit, mistakenly) this passage:

Primitivists reject technology. We just reject the inappropriate use of technology.

From: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/margaret-killjoy-take-what-you-need-and-compost-the-rest-an-introduction-to-post-civilized-theo

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Sorta, but anprim is also a critique. By 'rejecting' they really just mean they acknowledge the alienation it causes:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-moore-a-primitivist-primer#toc5

Green nihilists and post-civs recognize it too, so the difference is really down to appearances. Postcivs try to soften their language so leftists won't react with murderous rage. But they still think civ is shit. They just say it in a more roundabout way, using vaguer terms, so leftists won't catch on as much and try to purge them

4