primitive human society 'not driven by war'

[bcbm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23340252

[Vanguard1917]

Yes - but not something from which we should draw reactionary 'anti-civ' or 'deep green' conclusions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yes - but not something from which we should draw reactionary 'anti-civ' or 'deep green' conclusions.

Such as?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Such as?

You know what. "If only we go back to small-scale society... pre-industrial..." Some masturbation. "Oh, Ted Kaczynski, lead the way, yes..." To the woods, back to the source, the meandering brooks beneath the shadow of the elms, the golden sunset at last like in the time before machination and industrialisation; the original sin; now, purity anew; innocence forevermore, blissful labour planting potato seeds by hand in the Community Garden; population: 52; where everyone knows everyone and all is merry.

[Comrade #138672]

Such as?Like primitivists who say that heavy industrialization is the cause of large-scale conflicts, so according to them that means we should become hunter-gatherers again.

[baronci]

I think people can be anti-civ without being primitivists. Historically, "civilization" has in large part represented exploitation and oppression. not to mention the conquering of indigenous peoples in the name of civilization.

[baronci]

Like primitivists who say that heavy industrialization is the cause of large-scale conflicts, so according to them that means we should become hunter-gatherers again.

heavy industrialization was used by the bourgeoisie as a means of generating new and more productive capital, under the mask of "better standards of living". of course all this resulted in were massive slums, dirty air, terrible working conditions, minimal wages, and ultimately a world in which capital dominates nearly every aspect of life. i'll be one to say that i think a lot of primitivism is wrong, but i can at least see where they're coming from.

[Asmo]

'Civilization' is about as useful a word as 'natural' or 'organic', that is to say it's not useful at all because it has no solid definition. Depending on whomever is asked, I could be called anti-civ because I don't believe in any sort of civil-savage dichotomy and I like rural places, being ecologically conscious, and old crafts, or I could be called pro-civ because I'm an aspiring scientist and Transhumanist who wants to walk on Mars.

Can we not derail this thread too much, please? Primitivism seems like a subject prone to explosion. How about we discuss how our culture has been shaped to think that all human (and non-human) cultures are war-like and driven by greed and rape?
Bring on the Feminism!

[Vanguard1917]

heavy industrialization was used by the bourgeoisie as a means of generating new and more productive capital, under the mask of "better standards of living". of course all this resulted in were massive slums, dirty air, terrible working conditions, minimal wages, and ultimately a world in which capital dominates nearly every aspect of life. i'll be one to say that i think a lot of primitivism is wrong, but i can at least see where they're coming from.

Marxists would say that that's a very one-sided view of capitalism. They'd argue that capitalism has dynamic as well as destructive, anti-human features, and that we need a society which supersedes capitalism by building on its achievements.

Primitivists want to revert to a pre-capitalist society - they reject any notion of the historical progress of mankind.

[precarian]

You know what. "If only we go back to small-scale society... pre-industrial..." Some masturbation. "Oh, Ted Kaczynski, lead the way, yes..." To the woods, back to the source, the meandering brooks beneath the shadow of the elms, the golden sunset at last like in the time before machination and industrialisation; the original sin; now, purity anew; innocence forevermore, blissful labour planting potato seeds by hand in the Community Garden; population: 52; where everyone knows everyone and all is merry.

Quite! Deep ecology is bourgeois horseshit!

It's always amusing to see some of these primitivist types exhalt Kaczynski whilst still pretending to be vaguely "on the left." Haven't they ever read the Unabomber Manifesto? lol

[The Douche]

Primitivists want to revert to a pre-capitalist society - they reject any notion of the historical progress of mankind.

This is simply not true.

[Ace High]

I mean it really does depend on a person's definition of civilization. For instance, one of the greatest civilizations in my opinion can be found within the Native American societies on the land of the present-day US before their genocide. They had a near-classless society with no central state, and they left zero carbon footprint while providing free food, shelter, medical care, ect to everyone. But alot of people would say they were not civilized because they did not develop complex infrastructure or develop a central state as opposed to localized tribes. So it is all a matter of personal definition.

So tell me, can anyone define civilization as objectively as possible? I'm curious if anyone can.

[bcbm]

Like primitivists who say that heavy industrialization is the cause of large-scale conflicts, so according to them that means we should become hunter-gatherers again.

nobody says this.

[bcbm]

I mean it really does depend on a person's definition of civilization. For instance, one of the greatest civilizations in my opinion can be found within the Native American societies on the land of the present-day US before their genocide. They had a near-classless society with no central state, and they left zero carbon footprint while providing free food, shelter, medical care, ect to everyone. But alot of people would say they were not civilized because they did not develop complex infrastructure or develop a central state as opposed to localized tribes.

um this is a really rose-tinted glasses view of native american societies. some were as you describe more or less, others were complex hierarchical societies, some had slavery, etc.


So tell me, can anyone define civilization as objectively as possible? I'm curious if anyone can.

a society featuring agriculture, complex political and economic institutions, cities, division of labor and written language.

[ckaihatsu]

I mean it really does depend on a person's definition of civilization. For instance, one of the greatest civilizations in my opinion can be found within the Native American societies on the land of the present-day US before their genocide. They had a near-classless society with no central state, and they left zero carbon footprint while providing free food, shelter, medical care, ect to everyone. But alot of people would say they were not civilized because they did not develop complex infrastructure or develop a central state as opposed to localized tribes.




So it is all a matter of personal definition.

So tell me, can anyone define civilization as objectively as possible? I'm curious if anyone can.


Yup -- just did at a different thread:





[T]he very *definition* of 'civilization' is 'what people figure out to do with their time in a fixed location'.


It's *not* merely a matter of personal definition because if it were, anyone could potentially be satisfied with any society that's not a hunter-gatherer one. Meanwhile that arbitrary "civilization" may not be able to cure illnesses, enable travel, provide infrastructure, interact with other societies, develop learning and libraries, and create consumer goods.

Sure, any people may be 'civilized' in the sense of getting along humanely, but what's of just as much importance is what there is to do with oneself in any given society -- stagnation is *not* good, and no one should be under any duress to "entertain" others for lack of available options.

[zoot_allures]

Quite! Deep ecology is bourgeois horseshit!

It's always amusing to see some of these primitivist types exhalt Kaczynski whilst still pretending to be vaguely "on the left." Haven't they ever read the Unabomber Manifesto? lol
You seem to be conflating a number of things that don't have much to do with each other.

Deep ecology is not primitivism. The phrase "deep ecology" is used in slightly different ways, commonly referring to:

(1) Broadly, any ethical theory/movement that extends ethical consideration to all living things, or perhaps to all ecosystems, or all natural things, etc. That is, it recognizes a whole host of non-human, non-sentient, sometimes non-living entities as being valuable in their own right, and valuable to a degree that our obligation not to destroy them sometimes trumps our own needs and desires.

(2) More narrowly, any ethical theory/movement that accepts some version of the "eight platform principles" laid out by Arne Naess & George Sessions, one version of which can be found here: http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/env-theeight.html.

(3) More narrowly still, the specific ethical theory/movement developed by Arne Naess, George Sessions, Bill Devall, etc: that is, a specific interpretation of those eight principles plus two further principles (together known as "Ecosophy T"): (1) biocentric egalitarianism: this emphasizes the equality of all kinds of life, the (in principle) equal right of all lifeforms to flourish; and (2) Self-realization: essentially, this encourages us to see all objects (including, importantly, ourselves) as constituted by their relations to other objects. You are not a person in an environment; the environment is part of what you are. The idea behind Self-realization is that once people identify their own selves with the world around them, the needs of nature will become identical to their own needs, so there'll be less need and less inclination to destroy the natural world. I could explain this in more detail but it doesn't much matter and I'm guessing you don't really care anyway.

The important point is that none of these imply primitivism. None of these imply that we should or could return to a Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer way of life. None of these imply an objection to civilization in itself, or to agriculture, science, modern medicine, art, or even industrialism in themselves (though obviously, there are deep ecologist critiques of modern expressions of many of these things).

Of course, there might be primitivists who are also deep ecologists, and some primitivists might justify their primitivism on the basis of deep ecology. But clearly, one can justify primitivism on entirely anthropocentric grounds (there are plenty of arguments for primitivism that appeal only to the benefits it will bring to humans), and one can also accept deep ecology and reject primitivism (in fact, most deep ecologists are not primitivists).

As for Kaczynski's connections to primitivism: Kaczynski isn't and never has been a primitivist. He has a number of serious objections to primitivism, as he outlines in this excellent critique of the movement: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism. So I doubt many primitivists are going to "exalt" Kaczynski, although they might be influenced in some ways by him. Perhaps you'll also be able to find some value in his work, reading the critique as an antiprimitivist. There's no shame in finding value in Kaczynski's writing; he was a fiercely intelligent man who went a little too far off the rails. Had he stuck to more conventional means of protest, he might've become known as a fine logician, philosopher, or mathematician.

[zoot_allures]

[T]he very *definition* of 'civilization' is 'what people figure out to do with their time in a fixed location'.
How does this not imply that almost any collection of people is a civilization? If I'm in my room with my friend, and we decide to record some music, then surely we're two people figuring out what to do with our time in a fixed location, hence a civilization per your definition?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are folks arguing about primitivism because we all already kinda knew that early band societies really had no social basis for "war" as we know it through most of "civilization"?

Anyway, good article and more ammunition for our side, but the debate will probably remain in the mainstream as long as there are still wars that need to be explained through human impulses which absolve other explainations such as capitalist competition etc. Hell, they tried to explain away the Iraq war with "Well, Saddam tried to kill Bush's father" as if empires mobilized huge armies out of the same motivations that start schoolyard beefs and barfights.

[Vanguard1917]

This is simply not true.

Why not? Don't they say that all went downhill after agriculture?

[Anti-Traditional]

You know what. "If only we go back to small-scale society... pre-industrial..." Some masturbation. "Oh, Ted Kaczynski, lead the way, yes..." To the woods, back to the source, the meandering brooks beneath the shadow of the elms, the golden sunset at last like in the time before machination and industrialisation; the original sin; now, purity anew; innocence forevermore, blissful labour planting potato seeds by hand in the Community Garden; population: 52; where everyone knows everyone and all is merry.

To be honest I wouldn't mind that kind of life, if it could co-exist with modern society of course.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why not? Don't they say that all went downhill after agriculture?

I think there's a mistake here, made by both yourself, and many primitivists (if there are many primitivists - sometimes I suspect they're a bogeyman this side of 2005), in that your statement is literally true, but misses the point. In human societies, "agriculture", the state, and forced labour have all tended to emerge together, and coincide with narrowing of diets, religious/cultural homogenization, drop in life expectancy, conscription, etc. - but is "agriculture" the original sin"? I'm personally highly skeptical.
To begin with, various forms of horticulture and pastoralism have been practiced by extensively by classless non-state peoples, and agriculture is often defined in such a way that it suggests specifically the type of monocrop sedentary grain farming associated with states. Defined this way, agriculture necessarily implies a particular types of social formations, and can easily be (mis)construed as causal.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem here though, and there seems to be evidence that, while sedentary agriculture is ripe for seizure by military/political elites, it doesn't necessarily give rise to them - that subject populations of serfs/slaves/peasants/whatever are often conquered, rather than organically birthing their rulers.
Getting to my point, shit is way messier than either "primitivists", or knee-jerk anti-primitivists seem to want to grapple with. On one hand, "going back" isn't "simply" a matter of abandoning fixed-field monocrop grain agriculture; on the other "civilized" narratives of progress beginning at said agriculture tend to wildly distort both its historical truth and its benefits.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he very *definition* of 'civilization' is 'what people figure out to do with their time in a fixed location'.





How does this not imply that almost any collection of people is a civilization? If I'm in my room with my friend, and we decide to record some music, then surely we're two people figuring out what to do with our time in a fixed location, hence a civilization per your definition?


Look, if you're going to insist on quibbling over interpretations of definitions, go right ahead -- you'll be doing it alone. Here's a description, for the record:





Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.[13] Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy, and other cultural traits.

All civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence. Growing food on farms results in a surplus of food, particularly when people use intensive agricultural techniques such as irrigation and crop rotation. Grain surpluses have been especially important because they can be stored for a long time. A surplus of food permits some people to do things besides produce food for a living: early civilizations included artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers. A surplus of food results in a division of labor and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

[Jimmie Higgins]

To begin with, various forms of horticulture and pastoralism have been practiced by extensively by classless non-state peoples, and agriculture is often defined in such a way that it suggests specifically the type of monocrop sedentary grain farming associated with states. Defined this way, agriculture necessarily implies a particular types of social formations, and can easily be (mis)construed as causal.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem here though, and there seems to be evidence that, while sedentary agriculture is ripe for seizure by military/political elites, it doesn't necessarily give rise to them - that subject populations of serfs/slaves/peasants/whatever are often conquered, rather than organically birthing their rulers.
Getting to my point, shit is way messier than either "primitivists", or knee-jerk anti-primitivists seem to want to grapple with. On one hand, "going back" isn't "simply" a matter of abandoning fixed-field monocrop grain agriculture; on the other "civilized" narratives of progress beginning at said agriculture tend to wildly distort both its historical truth and its benefits.

From what I understand, the traditional Marxist explanation argues that agriculture gave rise to classes and states (and IMO, this makes sense if seen in an "uneven" development, not some mechanical recipie of ag leads to a clear class differentiation leads to states) not because an elite can more easily take over or rule ag. Communities, but because unlike gathering where you labor for immediate use, agriculture allows for a small surpluss which then allows for small differences and diversification in relations to the labor process. And because longer planning is needed, people who can track and record crops, people who can focus on the defense of crops, or basic nubs of priest and soldier classes, have a social use and initial benefit.

Also in this sense, historical progress doesn't imply any moral superiority or whatnot, just that agricultural societies could grow larger, could develop armies and were therefore an "advance" over communist band and semi-class societies. In fact any historical advance of class societies is going to be contradictory, because it is an advance in an exploiting and divided society.

[Alan OldStudent]

I don’t know how valid this study is, but let us for the sake of argument say that it is a valid description of Paleolithic humanity. Bear in mind that if our species of humans, homo sapiens sapiens, have existed for 200,000 years, and the Neolithic revolution occurred about 10,000 years or so ago, that means the human race lived without warfare being a major feature for over 95% of humankind’s existence.

Now consider that a common cultural assumption of capitalist ideology is that going to war is human nature. Doesn’t this undermine some of the ideological underpinnings that apologists for militarism make? If we lived for the first 95% of our existence without much war, why could we not build a socialist or communist future that abolishes war? The usual bourgeoise answer to that question is that it’s contrary to human nature unless we have some kind of big international policeman, like an imperialist superpower, no?

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don’t know how valid this study is, but let us for the sake of argument say that it is a valid description of Paleolithic humanity. Bear in mind that if our species of humans, homo sapiens sapiens, have existed for 200,000 years, and the Neolithic revolution occurred about 10,000 years or so ago, that means the human race lived without warfare being a major feature for over 95% of humankind’s existence.

Now consider that a common cultural assumption of capitalist ideology is that going to war is human nature. Doesn’t this undermine some of the ideological underpinnings that apologists for militarism make?

No, because there was still interpersonal conflict, and war can be taken as an extension of conflict into the social sphere.


If we lived for the first 95% of our existence without much war, why could we not build a socialist or communist future that abolishes war? The usual bourgeoise answer to that question is that it’s contrary to human nature unless we have some kind of big international policeman, like an imperialist superpower, no?

Just because a society lacks organised warfare in the sense we've some to know it doesn't mean that said society is peaceful. Combine that with the lack of a formal system of redress for righting wrongs, and you've got a recipe for people coming up with their own personal vigilante-style solutions.

I don't see what's so comforting about having one's head bashed in for personal reasons, rather than for reasons of inter-tribal conflict. Either way one ends up dead and/or maimed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No, because there was still interpersonal conflict, and war can be taken as an extension of conflict into the social sphere.

Just because a society lacks organised warfare in the sense we've some to know it doesn't mean that said society is peaceful. Combine that with the lack of a formal system of redress for righting wrongs, and you've got a recipe for people coming up with their own personal vigilante-style solutions.

I don't see what's so comforting about having one's head bashed in for personal reasons, rather than for reasons of inter-tribal conflict. Either way one ends up dead and/or maimed.

Well, for one thing, a personal dispute isn't a microcosm of a war, since, historically, most wars have been fought by armies of conscripts. And, for that matter, "bashing" and vigilantism doesn't really seem to be the typical model of resolution in non-state societies. Good try, though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, for one thing, a personal dispute isn't a microcosm of a war, since, historically, most wars have been fought by armies of conscripts.

You've got my point backwards. Conflicts on the personal scale come before conflicts on the social scale (war being one if its manifestations), therefore the latter is a macrocosm of the former.


And, for that matter, "bashing" and vigilantism doesn't really seem to be the typical model of resolution in non-state societies. Good try, though.

Considering that the vast majority of non-state societies no longer exist and don't leave many traces behind, I'm not sure how you can say that with any certainty.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You've got my point backwards. Conflicts on the personal scale come before conflicts on the social scale (war being one if its manifestations), therefore the latter is a macrocosm of the former.

The thing is, you're wrong. The similarity is superficial, since war, esp. in early state society is fought by conscripts. In particular, in early states, war was primarily a bigger version of slave-raiding - since maintaining a population at a grain-farming state core could be difficult when uppity peasants/slaves could say, "Fuck it!" and leave for adjacent spaces of weak/no state power. When two people have a conflict, the "loser" doesn't become a serf - war is related to particular economic and political formations, whereas not getting along isn't.


Considering that the vast majority of non-state societies no longer exist and don't leave many traces behind, I'm not sure how you can say that with any certainty.

There's are whole books written in a field called "Historical Anthropology" or "Ethnohistory". It's a thing.

Also - there are remarkable numbers of peoples who, if no longer outside of states, persist in large numbers of their non-state traditions. They're probably a good place to look.

[Revenant]

I don't know, don't anthropologists etc put forward the theory that Neanderthals were "wiped out" by modern humans as being the most likely explanation of their extinction?

Is modern human society driven by war, or is war (like modern society) driven by profits (personal or national interests)?

[slum]

I don't know, don't anthropologists etc put forward the theory that Neanderthals were "wiped out" by modern humans as being the most likely explanation of their extinction?

there are multiple theories on this, many of which are considered valid- it's not a clear question in anthro. in any event out-competing neanderthals does not necc imply some kind of 'warfare'