Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.


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.



ziq OP wrote (edited )

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

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