Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pop wrote (edited )

Not really sure what you mean by pre-civ and post-civ. For example, post-civ does try to reject those things (i.e it rejects civilisation; see this intro to it with first subtitle/premise "We Hate Civilisation"), so far as I understand

If you mean anarcho-primitivist vs merely anti-capitalist, just note that there are a lot of positions in-between that can be taken. Anarchists who are merely anti-capitalist are hardly anarchist, because we seek the death of all hierarchy, and there was hierarchy long before capitalism; much of which is rooted in civilisation (the social stratification that becomes naturalised in cities with the advent of agriculture)

once you dump primitivIt's not clear to me that there are large differences between anti-civ people and post-civ people in practice. I would like to hear from some users here if they know some

And, just to be clear, there are non-primitivist types who critique things like language, abstractions, time, etc. e.g. "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism".

And when you include anti-colonial thought and indigenous takes in your considerations it will also likely draw you to an anti-civ position

3

curious OP wrote (edited )

Pre-civ meaning primitivist, post-civ as in a Desert-style existence after the economic/ecological collapse.

−2

Pop wrote

I think of Desert as anti-civ rather than post-civ

I only know of one person who calls theirself a primitivist on this site

Also primitivists don't think of themselves as pre-civ, so far as I understand; hence terms like "future primitive"

2

curious OP wrote

Curious who the Anprim is? In case they respond to my post I want to see their explanation.

−3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Not the one Pop's talking about more than likely, but I'm very sympathetic to anti-civ arguments. Nobody really argues that there can be a return to pre-civ life, because civilization's impact has made that impossible. There's no opting out of the leviathan, whether it's the tyranny of capital or the tyranny of cities and the industries that keep them on life support. What's instead argued is that we've opened a pandora's box that cannot be shut, only mitigated at best, and for us to have a collective chance to survive into the future, we need to seriously critique and ultimately dismantle the structures that arose from opening that box. The way I approach technology is suspicious and somewhat hostile, but ultimately pragmatic. I use the tools I must use to survive in a world where I cannot rely on more traditional skills and means. That means having a laptop, using the internet, and using HRT both to help deal with my own body issues and to help reduce the threat of violence from breeders through 'passing'. But having these things doesn't mean I won't critique them, the necessity they've forced us into with them, or the means by which they're made and propagated. We've had some useful things arise from technology and agrarianism, but ultimately it has hurt us, hurt the environment, and forced us into a relationship with it that we cannot opt out of, cannot refuse to participate in, and that enslaves us through capital's use of these tools to restrict our food and time and living/communal spaces. This ideology is largely about learning from our past mistakes and refusing to make them again, without subscribing to a cultish mentality of positivism where technological progress can make it all better when it got us in this mess to begin with. So, no, we're not talking about burning down the hospitals or killing the disabled or trans folk (all bogeymen technofetishists love using). We're talking about how we cannot unfire a gun, and arguing that we should stop waiting for some new life-saving medicine and just plug the wound already.

6

curious OP wrote

unplug the wound

That was a damn cool turn of phrase

−3

Pop wrote

They can introduce themself if they like. They haven't been online in a few hours.

Found a quote I was looking for in the post-civ piece:

Primitivists reject technology. We just reject the inappropriate use of technology. Now, to be fair, that’s almost all of the uses of technology we see in the civilized world.

4

ziq wrote

Desert isn't post-civ, it's nihilist anti-civ.

1

curious OP wrote

Then what I'm calling "post civilization" might be "anti civ" to you. I'm referring to the inevitability of a population that lives after the current state of civilization, in comparison to the typical Anprim that wants to return to a feral lifestyle as humans.

−4

ziq wrote (edited )

Post-civ is a specific anarchist school of thought with literature behind it tho. These words all have clear definitions already.

1