Anti-civ is a critique and nothing else.
Post-civ is a set of proposed 'solutions' which basically come down to 'compost and recycle civilization away'.
Anti-civ is a critique and nothing else.
Post-civ is a set of proposed 'solutions' which basically come down to 'compost and recycle civilization away'.
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