Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lettuceLeafer wrote

Primitivist Primer,

I've allready read it. It not that I'm unfamiliar with anti civ theory. It just I came away from it with the idea that the definition of civ was kinda fluid and not rigid. Which honestly I would prefer over the standard definition. Because there are some flaws with such a definition imo.

But my main point was that I who has been on raddle for a long time and have read a couple anti civ books and some anti civ articles and podcasts if I come away with the idea that civ isn't precisely defined it seems a bit odd to be so critical of people who have no real understanding of anti civ to think civ isn't well defined.

For me I like civ being more of a concept like freedom. One which can't quite be difined but everyone kinda gets the gist of what you mean.

Though overall I don't think my point is really important. It was just interesting for me as I never really viewed civ as a rigid concept from reading said theory while you did which is kinda interesting. But not anymore important than just kinda interesting tidbit.


ziq OP wrote

civilization has an exact definition in anthropology, history and politics. there's no reason anarchists would want to change the definition, and if they did, we'd just end up with more entryist bullshit along the lines of anarchy = legitimate government / people's government / communism / real democracy / real capitalism.

it's important to maintain strong definitions of our terms and never give an inch to the people who try to change the meanings of them. those people are always looking to appropriate, water-down and obfuscate anarchy so they can sell it


lettuceLeafer wrote

civilization has an exact definition in anthropology, history and politics

Like it doesn't tho. I've encountered the use of civilization in literal academia multiple times of different but similar definitions of civilization. Tho I think this point is irrelevant to my argument so I'll give it to you.

What is the point of trying to cater the definitions to explain anti civ theory to appeal to pro covers to radicalize them. I think trying to change how anarchy is talked about to radicalize people more effectively is a waste of time.

In this case I would say a more queer definition of civ is superior to a rigid definition tho both can work depending on the case.