Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nbdy OP wrote

My assumption is that anti-civ is saying civilization exists as a force of domination today and to be free civilization should be negated/destroyed. Whereas post-civ is based around the idea of collapse as a future event that will then allow individuals to more easily escape domination. This is just a guess so tell me if I’m wrong on any points.

9

bun wrote

Seems like a good enough model to me. I haven't come across anyone saying that collapse will definitely make escape easier, though. Just that there's reasons to believe it might in some cases and that we should be prepared for anything.

4

nbdy OP wrote

I agree with that. So then it seems like post-civ is partly a project of prefiguration?

1

bun wrote

Acts of negation vs. positive project, at core maybe. Post-civ also seems like a rebranding of primitivism to dodge misconceptions about primitivism.

4

[deleted] wrote

4

bun wrote

Lol I could see that. Maybe it's more like anti-civ-with-utopia-at-the-end-that-definitely-isn't-gonna-destroy-your-gadgets-we-promise. I also might be too dismissive today, could easily be that I've missed good contributions from post-civ stuff.

7

ziq wrote

The transhumanists that co-opted post-civ is the reason post-civ has been abandoned by anarchists.

3

Cheeks wrote

Im gonna leave this right here:

readdesert.org

4

nbdy OP wrote

Isn't desert both anti-civ and post-civ?

3

Cheeks wrote

Anti-civ, yes. Post-civ? Not so sure I would say that.

Generally speaking, I think of anti-civ as more of an umbrella term, so there's that. Post-civ is more trans humanist post modern theory.

4

LostYonder wrote (edited )

Does civilization actually exist or is it an imagined construct, much like the free market, the nation, etc.? Because the vast majority of people believe civilizations are real, there are certainly policies and actions that are taken that make civilizations manifest, but are they real?

What is a civilization to begin with? an imagined world of interconnected cultures, societies, economies, geographies? If so, where are the boundaries of any assumed civilization?

To be anti-civ is it to reject that civilizations are real or to resist against actually-existing civilizations?

Or, do we mean by civilization merely the outcome of social evolution over time, an assumption of one groups superiority over another because they are more civilized, at least in their own eyes? That too is an intellectual construct we know to be false.

How can there be post-civ when civilization doesn't even exist??? Or, is it just post-civilizational thinking???

3

nbdy OP wrote

If I close my eyes civilization goes away! Post-Civ!

1