G3PF

2

G3PF wrote

Straight up bullshit. I posted several articles above that prove this argument is a fantasy.

I pointed out why this rebuttal is wrong in another post,

Implying being anti-civ or post-civ means you don't want people to talk, read, write or study. This argument is toxic and completely inaccurate.

Blatant cherry picking. What was actually said was "Objectively, the term civilization can broadly be defined as a sophisticated, modern, and advanced form of society and culture. Usually civilizations are categorized by the use of writing, language, and scientific study. This is a kind of society that we should want for a our future: if people are to be free from their respective oppression, the only way to do so is to reconstruct society and replace it with one that is not organized through oppressive social institutions. This means an advanced society of free individuals in free-association with one another, working for the mutual satisfaction of their collective needs." Far more in depth than your assertion.

2

G3PF wrote

The first article you linked is rubbish - it gives an abundance of assertions without any attempts at arguing for them, and generally gives plenty of poorly defined and ambiguous wording and phrasing that seems to only actually make sense if you yourself are a post-civ. However, as it is intended to briefly inform about post-civ, it fails miserably.

Humorously, the author actually addresses one of the definitions of civilization given by that first article within their post! The one by Jensen, of course. The author's gripes with Jensen's argument of what civilization is also applies to the Wikipedia (by the way, that's hardly a scholarly source for trying to write a philosophical paper on why post-civ is good) definition given. Of course, in the regard to an anti-civ society, by some aspects of that definition, it would actually mean that post-civ is merely civilization in itself! For instance, the usage of division of labor and agriculture as means to support the idea of civilization, as I'm sure a post-civ society would involve co-operation among people, with certain individuals performing certain roles in whatever groups they're in. One major issue with this definition, however, is the 'social hierarchy' one used, as it implies that it's necessary for a civilized world. Of course, it's likely just pro-capitalist nonsense that's trying to presume any ideology that argues for the abolishment of hierarchy means that they aren't civilized. This, of course, is ridiculous, as I don't think anti-civs would consider communism or anarchism to be outside of civilization.

The second article you linked is much better, and what the first one should have been. The rebuttal to anarcho-primitivism is rather quality I'd say (though I do have a few gripes, such as the author's assertion that stonework and flight are science), however the argument falls flat at the author's critique of civilization. Firstly, the author's assertion of more leisure time in primitive societies is rather silly, as what they describe merely seems to be civilization, albeit a more simplified form of it. Indeed, there's no reason to assume that, under certain reforms, we couldn't achieve a better and safer version of all of this under a more advanced civilization! After all, under the more primitive (for lack of a better word) society the author proposes, there wouldn't be any scientific advancement to be able to prepare for things such as say, disease, ferocious predators, or natural disasters. Also, a lot of the anti-civ arguments are just unsupported by any logical justification, and can all generally be surmised as issues with capitalism and other failed economic systems or the current state of society - both of which we can abolish and reform, respectively. Indeed, the OP's post actually can be said to be an adequate rebuttal of this by pointing out that a civilized world is indeed possible! Of course, it could've been a lot more in depth, but to be fair the OP wasn't responding to this piece in particular, but rather giving a general defense of why civilization is indeed worthwhile.

Of course, there are more issues, such as within the outline of a post-civ world, that are either strawmans, unjustified assertions, the middle of the road fallacy, and also a lack of properly defining a post-civ world, which is in support of what the author's saying. It just gives rather vague examples that can hardly be taken up as evidence for a post-civ societal structure being worthwhile! There's no theory in place here, rather just a brief overview of a hypothetical society that can hardly be said to be an argumentative structure of one, as it's outrageously ambiguous with no attempts at actual justification. It's also based on the assumption that such a thing will even work out as the author says it will, again without actual justification. Adding on to this, one could argue that the proposed society counts as civilization too, albeit a more primitive form of it! Furthermore, the definition of civilization given here seem to be rather vague and arbitrary, while seeming to be more emotionally charged than anything. So, the OP's critiques do indeed still apply, as no adequate system has actually been proposed here, and no legitimate theory has been given.

In regards to the third article you linked, much like the first one, it is based on vague and baseless assertions without theoretical justification. It continues the trend of poorly defined ideas and vague assertions that don't seem to have any basis. Furthermore, it just recycles the previously given definitions by Wikipedia and Jensen. The first definition it gives, too, is outrageously vague and meaningless (which the author agrees with).

To summarize, all the articles you've linked (and yes, I've read through all of them) give vague and meaningless assertions and fail to actually propose a theoretical society, with the best thing given being in the second article, which is little more than a setting for a book, rather than an actual theoretical basis for a society. Thus, all of the OP's arguments still heavily apply, and if anything you've just provided evidence for how they do.

2

G3PF wrote

The writer seems to think primitivism / post-left and post-civ are all the same thing and makes the ridiculous claim that anti-civs are unable to define civilization.

If it's ridiculous, why don't you offer up any actual definitions? Just saying that the claim is ridiculous isn't actually evidence against the original author.

They also have a very tenuous grasp on what 'community' means and they suggest 'real' community can only exist inside an industrial civilization.

Again, no definitions or substance given to your argument. The author actually supports their claim that a real community can exist in an industrial world in the previous paragraph, which you seem to totally ignore. Nonetheless, it more seems like an entirely semantic issue rather than giving an adequate counter to the article's contents.

This is an especially ludicrous statement - how does continuing the toxic and destructive industrial-civilization status quo that has failed all life on the planet so magnificently since the industrial revolution give us any kind of freedom? This reads a lot like liberals that want to apply a band-aid to capitalism rather than replace it. We don't have the luxury of playing with band-aids - the planet is bleeding out and people that refuse to see it are suffocating on their own privilege from the comfort of their air-conditioned condos. I have no patience for first world arrogance when those of us outside the West are watching the land dry up before us and the groundwater turn to poison. The West is killing everything so that Westerners can have a couple of generations of comfort before all resources are gone and all land is uninhabitable.

Firstly, you ignore the author's arguments in which they go rather in depth to justify their defense of the industrial world. Instead of countering them, you just make rather absurd claims without trying to provide a bit of evidence for them. Furthermore, your gripes seem to be with capitalism - something the author is explicitly against - and the author does indeed propose something to solve the issues of exploitation, albeit in a more simplified manner compared to the typical communist literature. Nonetheless, you fail to address this and seem to make statements that are more appeals-to-emotion than anything.

This is pure hogwash. By wanting to move past industrial civilization to something that actually works, how are we ignoring class struggle? How do we not want a new society?? Post-civs want to create a world where there is no class. A new society that doesn't rely on third-world slavery and massive exploitation so that Westerners can buy their shiny new cellphones every 6 months.

Here's a somewhat quality argument. However, it should be noted that the following paragraph and the former one do provide some answers to the questions you have, as I take it you haven't read the post. Nonetheless, I'll try to provide answers for you based on what I presume the author meant.

Firstly, the author's arguments are based within the context of a civilize world, and how, in their eyes, the anti-civs don't actually give any adequate solutions to anything, and thus they generally ignore class struggle and any potential salvation of civilization. Now granted, this could have been far better supported had the author provided some citation to what they were intending to say. Still, it's clear they were intending this statement under the context that an anti-civ world isn't something that, in their eyes, is an adequate solution that can provide answers.

Also, you act as if any far-left ideologies would still rely on worker exploitation in the third world. Anyone who's actually a part of these ideologies would tell you how rubbish that idea is.

Reply to comment by /u/zod in Toward Anti-Anti-Civ. by /u/RespectWomen

2

G3PF wrote

To be fair, most anti-civ arguments I've seen have been based on very poorly defined terms and don't actually give substantial arguments to counter. Nonetheless, yeah, it'd be neat to see more of this guy.