Recent comments in /f/TOTALDESERTION

ziq OP wrote (edited )

It's frustrating af because I actually did the labor of summarizing anticiv positions in that essay and they refuse to read it while claiming I'm unable to articulate said positions in an unrelated comment where I wasn't even attempting to.

10

Fool wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in So ignorant lol by ziq

Utilising dialectical materialism we can see that; by removing the material conditions of civilisation, there is no structure for classes to base themselves upon.

As such, as Capitalism collapses due to the Climate Catastrophe, Communism will naturally arise, as people are freed from Civilization.

3

kin wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in So ignorant lol by ziq

I propose a transitory step towards the primal. We should call it The Barbarian regression, this will be a period of fall of the Civilization™ where barbarians would slay Leviathan and ransack the ruins of Rome™.

We will stablish a "dictatorship of the Commons" where the fields and tree will decide what we should do with the human race. Wild Centralism will be essential to achieve this step, if the solution is outside the Wild, the Vanguard mycelial Network will need to steer the masses back in the way.

This dictatorship will wither away once the full transition to Anticiv Communism happens, so we share the same end goal actually

2

8__D wrote

This comic for the modern day (that's a link to a reddit post).

Also lol @ the fact that the only reason this theory circulated for so long was b/c it's hard to make a new drug so pharmacudical companies instead just tricked us into thinking SSRIs work (that's a link to a technews article). Also fucking double lol at pharmacudical spokespeople in this article just can't stop themselves from saying "but SSRIs still work even though the underlying theory is complete bullshit"

While the original review paper focuses mainly on the serotonin theory, an accompanying article by Moncrieff and her coauthor Mark Horowitz in The Conversation took a different tack, arguing that the evidence against the serotonin hypothesis also disproves the need for SSRIs full stop. “We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile, or even completely safe,” they write. This conflation has been a particular source of frustration among commenting psychiatrists. “Many of us know that taking paracetamol can be helpful for headaches and I don’t think anyone believes that headaches are caused by not enough paracetamol in the brain,” writes Bloomfield. “There is consistent evidence that antidepressant medicines can be helpful in the treatment of depression and can be life-saving.” [Updated July 27, 2022]

Dude its like a headache just trust me bro

4

ziq OP wrote

Reply to So ignorant lol by ziq

As Marx and Engels explain, in a primitive communist society, the productive forces consisted of all able-bodied persons engaged in obtaining food and resources from the land, and everyone shared in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be no private property, which is distinguished from personal property such as articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive communist society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed and this was because there existed no division of labour, hence people were forced to work together and thus the means of production was owned collectively by the people or the commune.

Domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture, and the subsequent urban drift, were seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society, as this transition was followed by the appearance of private ownership, patriarchy and slavery, with the inequality that those entail. In addition, parts of the population began to specialize in different activities, such as manufacturing, culture, philosophy, and science which lead in part to social stratification and the development of social classes which eventually brought about capitalism and its end stage; fascism.

The anti-civ communist seeks to avert the regression to a class system by applying dialectical Marxist principles in order to maintain a vacuum of agriculture and industry.

5

ziq OP wrote

Reply to So ignorant lol by ziq

Don't forget to post this to r/anarchism fans, since twitter screenshots of great anarchists proclaiming they're the most booklearned Marxist is now kosher.

6

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Not having a problem with the destruction of coal mines isn't quite the same as suggesting a ban on coal mines.

I don't think thats what happens at all in practice. If I made a post "do you feel that you dislike worker co op run coal mine the same as you dislike ELF cells" I highly highly doubt there would be like 1 yes. I mean people talk about disliking mines frequently on raddle.

The effects, in any case, are unlikely to reach art or coal mines.

this seems odd too. Like who do you think is sending bombs to major CEOs of industry or in general doing ELF stuff? I highly doubt its pro industry people. So its not like arguments against industry have no effect. Sure anti industry stuff doesn't work to create a lot of eco terrorists or whatever. It still has an effect not to mention destruction of industry is valorized on some level on this forum.

Okay lets analyze this meme

https://raddle.me/f/TOTALDESERTION/147942/captain-collapse-s-nifty-solutions

When I look at it I don't think the people who upvoted it just are ambivalent if coal mines are destroyed. I think its obvious people would be happy for industry to be destroyed and portraying someone who does destroy industry as a cool radical. So like it both states a moral position and then culturally encourages people to do similar acts.

I actually think the point u are arguing for is a good way to view more environmental stuff with a greater ambivalence but I don't think anti civ or primitivist arguments are separable from their moral objections to industry or promotion of a more utopic world.

0

fortmis wrote

The effects, in any case, are unlikely to reach art or coal mines. The effect is atrophy in the quality of conversations we can have as anarchists, a thinning of content, a block to mutual understanding. Which adds to the unlikelihood that either art or coal mines are affected.

Wow HELLOOOOO YESSSSSSSS. Say it from the rooftopsssssss the people need to HEEEEAR omgggggg

6

subrosa wrote

An anarchist debate about whether coal mines should be destroyed or not can easily go similarly silly directions, plenty of which I would reject on similar grounds. Not having a problem with the destruction of coal mines isn't quite the same as suggesting a ban on coal mines. There again, a default negativity doesn't hurt, if only to make room for critique.

The effects, in any case, are unlikely to reach art or coal mines. The effect is atrophy in the quality of conversations we can have as anarchists, a thinning of content, a block to mutual understanding. Which adds to the unlikelihood that either art or coal mines are affected.

9

lettuceLeafer wrote

Agree with Zerzan or not, the critique of art is simply not a policy to be enforced

I don't quite agree with this logic. For something like idk a coal mine. Anti civ people mostly have no problem with trying to destroy all coal mines. So for the people who like coal this amounts to a anarchist attempt to make it impossible to get coal. And honestly a pretty similar effect to if a government implements heavy fines and regulation on coal mining.

So on some level this opposition can resemble a call to force everyone to not partake in X thing

5

subrosa wrote

This must be something like the tenth prompt for me to write an essay or raddle post titled "against opposition". Half the conversations on reddit take the form of debate that largely resembles politics: A collective effort in coming to the most general agreement about whether we're for or against a position.

We can't quite drop positions "for" or "against" something, as we are ultimately "for" anarchy and "against" archy. And with the amount of anarchists lacking the skills or tools to navigate their positioning in regards to government, democracy, dual power and whatnot, we do need to address and clarify fairly basic anarchist positions over and over again.

But turning topics like art, technology, morality, religion, etc. into general policy, into a big battle of good vs evil, can only result in silliness. Of the boring kind. And if nothing else, anarchists would do well to get comfortable with negative assumptions about any product of the status quo. Nothing is sacred.

Agree with Zerzan or not, the critique of art is simply not a policy to be enforced. We are not having a discussion on whether or not it should be banned. We are not talking about making anything illegal. This much we can expect of anarchist writings, and of anarchist readers. Whatever these people think they're doing, it amounts to self-sabotage. Fuck these people.

11

Classicide2Announced wrote

Reply to True Story by ziq

"LET ME HAVE TWENTY CHILDREN LIKE THE DUGGARS GUILT-FREE OR YOU'RE AN ECOFASH!!11"

inb4 - someone calls me an ecofash

3