Anti-Civ thought and Fredy Perlman's "Against His-story" [Archive]

Ricemilk

25th November 2015, 04:24

I'm just assuming he uses 'civilization' in a way generally meaningful to most other people until I can read this specific anticiv work after getting some sleep later. In so doing, I'll address a brief personal impression of anticiv work at large, so my biases are made known.

Destroying civilization is a romantic idea if you don't personally happen to need medicine or reliable vision correction or transportation, and any nuclear plants and other dangerous enterprises have been safely and correctly shut down by trained and dedicated people, and you can get far enough away from people not to die of preventable sanitation-related diseases, but close enough not to die of suicidal insanity from the isolation. (ETA: This will be an especially turbulent time as the nuclear plants require a clearly civilized and educated modern workforce to continue doing work they are accustomed to being paid for, necessitating a transitional state during which some of your comrades will die and/or be rubbed the wrong way by requirements this project and authority burden them with.)

The process of drastically reducing the easy availability of food, fuel, medicine, diagnostic equipment and services will kill a constant stream of suicidal and insufficiently physically supported comrades. Terrible human tragedy, the growing ranks of dissidents will say; no great loss, eugenicist-anarchists will counter.

As corpses pile up and the many people victimized by capitalism and then exploited by your org/tendency to overturn it, are reduced to a 'life' of torment and dependence, living no higher than lame horses, the already underproductive society will generate instability through the masses being horrified at the slow genocide that nobody possesses the power to stop, and through a distinct lack of sanitation which could well give Anticivland the distinction of living in the 1840s all over again.

You know, back when people in wealthy cities and nations died of being members of a species that still lived in its own shit and festering blood and flesh.

As life expectancy drops, a mass exodus will leave your anticiv project down to you and a small handful of your comrades, polluted by maybe months or years of unsanitized human life, weighed down by more and more sanitation labor with fewer people to do it. You live short, stressful lives, catch treatable diseases, fail to diagnose them, and after a long and treacherous cleanup effort, the revolution will soon be safe from this particular mystical retreat-to-the-forests protofascist/apoliteic tendency. [1]

(ETA: Then the people wise enough to have stayed with the writhing mass of doctors, janitors, ports, fields, power plants, labs, and so on will simultaneously face the horror of learning that their friends and family died painfully in a forest cult, and the logistical and political problems of compensating sanitation workers with an unprecedented set of particular skills who managed to survive the cleanup mission without making them or all the other workers feel slighted.)

Until the next person decides providing for people's needs is a strain on a presumably unelected government-in-denial that should instead be laying out their eugenics program more efficiently. Then the true anticapitalist revolution will live again, assuming they can convince enough people. Might just be themself, in which case, you know...good luck, pack a big bursting sandwich, a reliable gun you know how to maintain and repair, and a big bag of water, fuel, tools you already know how to use, sturdy clothes, medicine and ammo.

That'll be my particular set of prejudices going in to this tomorrow ;)

[1] Open access internet: Anton Shekhovtsov's website
"Apoliteic music: Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and ‘metapolitical fascism’"

Published as: Anton Shekhovtsov, ‘Apoliteic music: Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and “metapolitical fascism”’, Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 43, Issue 5 (December 2009), pp. 431-457

Spectre of Spartacism

25th November 2015, 14:15

So, RiceMilk, I take it you don't consider anti-civ thought to be a left tendency.

The Feral Underclass

25th November 2015, 14:29

Is the objective of this thread to determine whether or not anti-civ thought can be considered a "left tendency"?

Ele'ill

25th November 2015, 14:46

@ SoS, you specifically addressed BIXX in the op, do you want a general discussion with input from other users? In any event, do you think it's possible to hold a discussion on this topic instead of a constant state of debate/disagreement, and since (my) politics don't revolve around this essay, how do you think we could go about doing this from each of our general tendencies?

Spectre of Spartacism

25th November 2015, 15:30

Is the objective of this thread to determine whether or not anti-civ thought can be considered a "left tendency"?

No, the objective is to discuss anti-civ thought generally and the Perlman text specifically. Just because the topic of whether anti-civ is left or not might come up doesn't mean that it is the purpose of the thread. Since that would be an administrative topic, and threads aren't allowed to be started about those matters, your question appears designed to find a pretext to close the thread. If we didn't know any better, we might think that your purpose here was to "control" quite capriciously what people can and cannot say.

@ SoS, you specifically addressed BIXX in the op, do you want a general discussion with input from other users? In any event, do you think it's possible to hold a discussion on this topic instead of a constant state of debate/disagreement, and since (my) politics don't revolve around this essay, how do you think we could go about doing this from each of our general tendencies?

Although I addressed those questions to BIXX specifically, I'd love to hear answers from other users familiar with the Perlman text. Since TFU thanked BIXX's suggestion that I read the essay, I am guessing he finds value in the text as well. He is also welcome to answer these questions.

If you want to share your thoughts about anti-civ more generally, that is also cool.

BIXX

25th November 2015, 17:43

1) What, specifically, do you find most important theoretically about this work?
The detailing of civilization as being perpetuated solely through domestication (which is active capturing and enslaving), and the history of resistance to said violence.

2) Are there any places where you disagree with Perlman? If so, where/how?
Perlman does describe pre-civ communities in a car more utopian way than I would actually consider them to be (I'm not even willing to say that there was ever or will ever be a perfect anti-social existence that didn't contain a leviathan. That is by and large my greatest disagreement with perlman. However I think it would be a mistake to pretend that what perlman is describing here isn't an unbiased story but a story told from the point of view of the terrorists.

3) Do you consider Perlman to be a "primitivist"? Why or why not?
If he is a primitivist then he is a primitivist of a different sort than there currently exists. Primitivism currently largely takes the form of either zerzan worshipping nerds who feel the need to hone their survival skills or a liberal eco-anarchist framework which seems to me to strip itself of an actual anti-civ position and render itself as a more egalitarian "harmonious" place within civ (like folks who run into the woods to start some commune, or, more realistically, folks who claim to want to do that).

4) How do you think Perlman would define civilization based on the contents of his essay? Do you agree with this definition? And what explanation does Perlman give for why civilization developed?
Before I get started here I want to say that I think your last question of these three is the least important, it doesn't really matter why civ appeared.

I think it's hard to say that fredy had a single sentence long definition as to what civ is, particularly because I think his whole book was a look at the what civ is from the eyes of someone trying to comprehend it. However I think it suffices to say that civ is the creature composed of violence he described in his book. That violence taking the form of work, gender, actual physical attacks on living beings, race, class, the economy, with trials, etc... Which are all domestication. I'd say I do agree with that.

Now regarding the third question, its simple: civ was not developed, but it sprang into existence with the first attack and enslavement of outside beings as a way of life.

5) What is your opinion on how Perlman depicts "pre-civilization" (not his term) people like the !Kung?
I think he is a little utopian about the !Kung, but I also think his depiction is a little more realistic than most people are willing to accept. I think if you were to combine his telling of the !Kung with the telling provided by Kaczynski (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism) you'd get a picture a lot closer to the truth. Kaczynski paints a much dimmer point of view which I think is important to undertsand, as both pieces are biased. In perlman's piece, all that is indigenous is good, and in Ted kaczynski's piece, he takes a negative view toward the "primitivist" view, and as it is a critique of that, even himself claims he does not give the most neutral account. So I would be willing to assume, hat somewhere between what the two wrote would be reality. I think it is telling that there are indeed tribes that had different realities oin terms of their sharing and independence. But whether or not we find a tribe that is "ideal" and this supports the primitivist thesis, I still don't think that matters to my brand of anti-civ thought- we are looking at the domination of living beings inherent to civ and on that basis oppose it, not because we think what came before it was better (though I'm with kaczynski on this on- I think there are aspects which would certainly be more enjoyable for me).

6) How do you think Perlman perceives the relationship between nature and humanity prior to the development of "Leviathan"?
Probably a lot more "in tune", I think that though the idea of nature is something inherent to civ- nature as an idealized thing. I think that pre-civ people just experienced it as there very existence, respected it and possibly loved it as part of their own community of life. A friend of mine posed this in-sync-ness as magic, and I can't say I disagree.

These are just a few important topics that I wanted to bring up initially (others like religion, monotheism, etc., can be discussed as the convo unfolds). Hopefully this will serve as an adequate foundation for discussion.

I think it may.

I'm just assuming he uses 'civilization' in a way generally meaningful to most other people until I can read this specific anticiv work after getting some sleep later. In so doing, I'll address a brief personal impression of anticiv work at large, so my biases are made known.

Destroying civilization is a romantic idea if you don't personally happen to need medicine or reliable vision correction or transportation, and any nuclear plants and other dangerous enterprises have been safely and correctly shut down by trained and dedicated people, and you can get far enough away from people not to die of preventable sanitation-related diseases, but close enough not to die of suicidal insanity from the isolation. (ETA: This will be an especially turbulent time as the nuclear plants require a clearly civilized and educated modern workforce to continue doing work they are accustomed to being paid for, necessitating a transitional state during which some of your comrades will die and/or be rubbed the wrong way by requirements this project and authority burden them with.)

The process of drastically reducing the easy availability of food, fuel, medicine, diagnostic equipment and services will kill a constant stream of suicidal and insufficiently physically supported comrades. Terrible human tragedy, the growing ranks of dissidents will say; no great loss, eugenicist-anarchists will counter.

As corpses pile up and the many people victimized by capitalism and then exploited by your org/tendency to overturn it, are reduced to a 'life' of torment and dependence, living no higher than lame horses, the already underproductive society will generate instability through the masses being horrified at the slow genocide that nobody possesses the power to stop, and through a distinct lack of sanitation which could well give Anticivland the distinction of living in the 1840s all over again.

You know, back when people in wealthy cities and nations died of being members of a species that still lived in its own shit and festering blood and flesh.

As life expectancy drops, a mass exodus will leave your anticiv project down to you and a small handful of your comrades, polluted by maybe months or years of unsanitized human life, weighed down by more and more sanitation labor with fewer people to do it. You live short, stressful lives, catch treatable diseases, fail to diagnose them, and after a long and treacherous cleanup effort, the revolution will soon be safe from this particular mystical retreat-to-the-forests protofascist/apoliteic tendency. [1]

(ETA: Then the people wise enough to have stayed with the writhing mass of doctors, janitors, ports, fields, power plants, labs, and so on will simultaneously face the horror of learning that their friends and family died painfully in a forest cult, and the logistical and political problems of compensating sanitation workers with an unprecedented set of particular skills who managed to survive the cleanup mission without making them or all the other workers feel slighted.)

Until the next person decides providing for people's needs is a strain on a presumably unelected government-in-denial that should instead be laying out their eugenics program more efficiently. Then the true anticapitalist revolution will live again, assuming they can convince enough people. Might just be themself, in which case, you know...good luck, pack a big bursting sandwich, a reliable gun you know how to maintain and repair, and a big bag of water, fuel, tools you already know how to use, sturdy clothes, medicine and ammo.

That'll be my particular set of prejudices going in to this tomorrow ;)

[1] Open access internet: Anton Shekhovtsov's website
"Apoliteic music: Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and ‘metapolitical fascism’"

Published as: Anton Shekhovtsov, ‘Apoliteic music: Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and “metapolitical fascism”’, Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 43, Issue 5 (December 2009), pp. 431-457

Anti-civ is not pre-civ only. Don't contribute til you know what we are taking about.

Ricemilk

25th November 2015, 23:00

So, RiceMilk, I take it you don't consider anti-civ thought to be a left tendency.
I wouldn't go quite that far, unless you mean specifically its impact on politics rather than the intent of its thinkers/sympathizers. I accept as left a number of positions I believe would lead to counterrevolution if actually enacted (or have done so before). I just think they're misguided. This particular tendency shares oddly much of its symbolism and apparent goals with some protofascist types, but I wouldn't call them rightists or centrists as such.

But I still haven't read the thing, so take this all with a grain of salt I guess.

BIXX

26th November 2015, 01:09

I wouldn't go quite that far, unless you mean specifically its impact on politics rather than the intent of its thinkers/sympathizers. I accept as left a number of positions I believe would lead to counterrevolution if actually enacted (or have done so before). I just think they're misguided. This particular tendency shares oddly much of its symbolism and apparent goals with some protofascist types, but I wouldn't call them rightists or centrists as such.

But I still haven't read the thing, so take this all with a grain of salt I guess.

Well again not all primitivism is equal, and not all anti-civ is equal, so your post realistically might apply to some people but won't to the vast majority that consider themselves against civilization.

Ricemilk

26th November 2015, 20:00

Well again not all primitivism is equal, and not all anti-civ is equal, so your post realistically might apply to some people but won't to the vast majority that consider themselves against civilization.
It has redeemable aspects, sure. "Vast majority" is probably debatable but in any case I do think even some of the worst have something to offer in their analyses or theories. Even Jensen has had some influence on me (and his fiction was less awful than expected, so there's that). I still think based on the particular kinds of anarchists I've seen support it IRL alone, there's a nonzero chance of an actual implementation leading to certain human disasters recalling earlier stages of capitalism.

Armchair Partisan

26th November 2015, 20:23

So hey, here are some issues I have with anti-civ thought and the article in question:

The article seems to be largely a load of esoteric hogwash from beginning to end, filled with all kinds of mysticism, the kind that usually serves only to obfuscate. Seriously, I don't recall a single Marxist text that comes even close to this level of opaqueness. Maybe I'll read it later, or at least skim through it, right now I'm supposed to be studying for an exam tomorrow and I've no idea what's wrong with me that I'm still wasting time on Revleft.
I still don't see why uncivilized society should be appealing to me, or anyone else in particular. Yeah, apparently you say that anti-civ isn't about replicating pre-civ conditions, but then I don't see what it's really meant to accomplish.
The whole anti-civ thing seems to stem from an abstract notion of "FREEEEEDOOOOOM!!!1!" to me, really. (Especially given some of BIXX's posts, which seem to be all about civilization "enslaving" and "dominating" and "controlling" people. By whom? To what purpose? In what ways? Maybe I'm just being obtuse, or maybe this is left totally vague.) There is literally no other benefit to it that I can see, whereas the idea of civilized communism promises plenty of tangible, useful benefits (even to those who would also see a lot of drawbacks from it, e.g. the bourgeoisie). Just like with the idea of anarcho-capitalism, "freedom" to choose between the shitty present system and something else that is less shitty really is no freedom at all. I don't really see any use for the freedom to drive the living standards of human society into the ground if you so choose, with the consolation at the end being that you weren't coerced into it.

Ele'ill

26th November 2015, 20:29

So hey, here are some issues I have with anti-civ thought and the article in question:

[LIST]
The article seems to be largely a load of esoteric hogwash from beginning to end, filled with all kinds of mysticism, the kind that usually serves only to obfuscate. Seriously, I don't recall a single Marxist text that comes even close to this level of opaqueness. Maybe I'll read it later, or at least skim through it, right now I'm supposed to be studying for an exam tomorrow and I've no idea what's wrong with me that I'm still wasting time on Revleft.

Good idea

Bala Perdida

26th November 2015, 21:42

All the marxist stuff I've read put me to sleep on the bus. Getting the driver shaking me awake in Palo Alto. I still haven't gotten through 'Against His-stoy...' It's okay though. I keep it in my gym bag and read through it when I can.

Antiochus

26th November 2015, 22:25

Anti-civilization, anti-intellectualism, a garbage heap of meaningless and totally pointless ideas that have, quite literally, no merit. At the end of the day the anti-civilization advocate has to advocate that children with polio should remain crippled, that people with genetic conditions should just die and so forth.

IMHO it is worse than fascism. I truly don't know how the fuck leftists or at least people that claim to be such can take these "ideas" seriously.

Ele'ill

26th November 2015, 22:35

Anti-civilization, anti-intellectualism, a garbage heap of meaningless and totally pointless ideas that have, quite literally, no merit. At the end of the day the anti-civilization advocate has to advocate that children with polio should remain crippled, that people with genetic conditions should just die and so forth..

can you point to where any of that has been said

Antiochus

27th November 2015, 00:28

BIXX

27th November 2015, 03:23

We never suggested that we abandon everything we've learnt during the reign of civilization. Do you think it was civ that gave us those things, or human study of the world around them?

BIXX

27th November 2015, 03:26

BIXX

27th November 2015, 03:29

Ugh more "that isn't what I said!!!!". At least be intellectually honest. Off course someone with a serious medical condition is just going to die without proper treatment, treatment which cannot be administered without "civilization".

Mumps, measles, polio to name a few cannot be treated with a witch doctor. So off course the ONLY logical conclusion is that these people should just die.

Do you really think that humans would simply forget about everything theyver learned over the past 8000-10000 years if civ was abandoned? I don't. But I don't equate civ to technology which you would know if you actually took the time to understand what I say. As it stand you're an obtuse moron.

BIXX

27th November 2015, 03:48

I'd like to point out that this is the exact reaction that I get every time I attempt to explain my opinions in a non hostil way, with as much clarification and niceness as possible: dishonest dismissal, no real engagement with what I'm saying. I do have an interest in honest discussion but I guess you guys, when you get the chance, don't.

Antiochus

27th November 2015, 07:54

Given that technology is a product of the way society is organized and NOT simply about "remembering" things, yes, off course almost every bit of technological progress would be discarded in a civilization collapse.

The notion that people can simply "remember" to produce highly complex drugs without infrastructure that inevitably must be built with a high-level of organization and integration (i.e "civilization") is at best a fantasy. The reality is, what I said was 100% correct and any argument I've seen from "anti-civ" individuals is a totally disingenuous "that's not my position".

And no, we didn't simply invent vaccines and invent a plethora of technology SIMPLY by "studying the world around us". After all, anatomically modern humans have existed for 150k+ years but life expectancy has only risen in a statistically significant manner in the past ~200 or so years. This alone should put your little fantasy about the individual human being some sort of Aristotle capable of "inventing" and "discovering" things per ipsum as if he was an autonomous machine and not a social animal.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th November 2015, 11:49

However I think it suffices to say that civ is the creature composed of violence he described in his book. That violence taking the form of work, gender, actual physical attacks on living beings, race, class, the economy, with trials, etc... Which are all domestication. I'd say I do agree with that.

What do I get from criticizing such a notion of "civilization" that I wouldn't get from an anarchist critique of a society based on oppression? If being anti-civ is merely being opposed to the control of others through powerful institutions and not things like technology, I don't think we're really gaining anything by bringing in this new notion.

Armchair Partisan

27th November 2015, 12:29

If you don't know what anti-civ people want to accomplish then how can you critique it? You've admitted you really don't know shit about it.

Well then, tell me shit about it! As it happens, I do know that possibly, anti-civ people want cancer patients to die because they are leeching off the profits of civilization. At the very least, that is what the very first post of that other anti-civ thread stated, posted by some guy named blackmask or something. Then again, some other anti-civ people in the same thread said that is not what they actually want, without actually saying anything about what they do want. If you are unable to explain anything about your anti-civ ideology (without esoterical bullshit, just easily understandable words that an unskilled worker with limited education would have a chance of understanding), then I can only offer vague criticism. (In fact, one of the things I'm criticising is that your ideology is vague, and the one time someone laid down a more or less concrete vision of de-civilized society, in that other thead, most other anti-civs rushed to disown it.)

Bala Perdida

27th November 2015, 13:26

John Nada

27th November 2015, 17:00

This alone should put your little fantasy about the individual human being some sort of Aristotle capable of "inventing" and "discovering" things per ipsum as if he was an autonomous machine and not a social animal.Lol. Look who's trying to turn the tables. Yeah sure, WE see humans as machines. WE'RE the ones obsessed with productivity. It's actually all of you technophiles that recognize that human beings are living organisms that necessitate freedom. The only way to give them that freedom is by putting them to work in conditions that'll inevetibly cause casualties.Funny, in Against His-story, Against the Leviathan the Leviathan, or the state, is compared to a watch, an automated machine.
Hobbes will know that Ur is no mere city. Ur is a State, maybe even the first State. And a state, Hobbes will say, is an “artificial animal.” It is something brand new, something neither Man nor Nature dreamt of. It is “that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or State, in Latin Civitas, which is but an artificial man.”

Like the thinking Ensi, Hobbes will know that this artificial man has no life of its own, and he will ask, “may we not say, that all automata (engines that move by themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life?”

The Ensi cannot yet visualize a watch. The more advance Hobbes will no longer be able to visualize nature or human beings. He will ask “what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels...?” In a world of watches, the Leviathan will not appear as strange to Hobbes as it appears to the Ensi. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan#toc2
By carrying Leviathan acrss the Ocean, Europeans stretch the beastly integument over the expanse of the entire globe. In the brief span of a few generations, all of Earth falls into the entrails of a single artificial beast. But by encasing all of Earth within one Leviathan, the Europeans do Civilization a disfavor, for they put a term on its further existence.

We’ve seen that earlier Leviathans were always in a state of decomposition. When one decompsed, others swallowed its remains. But when there are no others, when Leviathan is One, the tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing, is almost at an end.

Civilization, synonym of Capital, Technology and The Modern World, called Leviathan by Hobbes and Western Spirit by Turner, is as racked by decomposition as any earlier Leviathan. But Civilization is not one Leviathan among many. It is The One. Its final decomposition is Leviathan’s end. After twenty centuries of stony sleep vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, the sleeper is about to wake to the cadences of a long-forgtten music or to the eternal silence of death without a morrow. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan#toc23

If civilization is a society with a state, property, patriarchy, commodities, classes, ect, what differentiates anti-civilization from other tendencies in anarchism or even Marxism in opposing class and state based societies? What is the difference between post-civilization and anarchy or communism? If anarcho-primativists basically want to destroy modern productive forces, or expect it to destroy itself in the future, towards the level of pre-civilization in order to acquirer the relatively egalitarian productive relations found in the idealized "primitive" communities, what's the non-primativist alternative?

There's a certain theorist who somewhat had a disdain for civilization, or at least how it has eventually played out. He pointed out that since the beginning of civilization, technology and science have advanced beyond the comprehension of earlier societies. The ruling class has never lived so good as they have before imperialist-capitalism. But at the same time, it gets worse and worse for the vast majority of people. Often cited by anti-civilizationists.
The stage of commodity production with which civilization begins is distinguished economically by the introduction of (1) metal money, and with it money capital, interest and usury; (2) merchants, as the class of intermediaries between the producers; (3) private ownership of land, and the mortgage system; (4) slave labor as the dominant form of production The form of family corresponding to civilization and coming to definite supremacy with it is monogamy, the domination of the man over the woman, and the single family as the economic unit of society. The central link in civilized society is the state, which in all typical periods is without exception the state of the ruling class, and in all cases continues to be essentially a machine for holding down the oppressed, exploited class. Also characteristic of civilization is the establishment of a permanent opposition between town and country as basis of the whole social division of labor; and, further, the introduction of wills, whereby the owner of property is still able to dispose over it even when he is dead. This institution, which is a direct affront to the old gentile constitution, was unknown in Athens until the time of Solon; in Rome it was introduced early, though we do not know the date; [4] among the Germans it was the clerics who introduced it, in order that there might be nothing to stop the pious German from leaving his legacy to the Church.

With this as its basic constitution, civilization achieved things of which gentile society was not even remotely capable. But it achieved them by setting in motion the lowest instincts and passions in man and developing them at the expense of all his other abilities. From its first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization; wealth and again wealth and once more wealth, wealth, not of society, but of the single scurvy individual–here was its one and final aim. If at the same time the progressive development of science and a repeated flowering of supreme art dropped into its lap, it was only because without them modern wealth could not have completely realized its achievements.

Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction. Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world. And if among the barbarians, as we saw, the distinction between rights and duties could hardly be drawn, civilization makes the difference and antagonism between them clear even to the dullest intelligence by giving one class practically all the rights and the other class practically all the duties.

But that should not be: what is good for the ruling class must also be good for the whole of society, with which the ruling-class identifies itself. Therefore the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the evils it necessarily creates with the cloak of love and charity, to palliate them or to deny them–in short, to introduce a conventional hypocrisy which was unknown to earlier forms of society and even to the first stages of civilization, and which culminates in the pronouncement: the exploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting class simply and solely in the interests of the exploited class itself; and if the exploited class cannot see it and even grows rebellious, that is the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters. [5] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

BIXX

27th November 2015, 18:30

Well then, tell me shit about it! As it happens, I do know that possibly, anti-civ people want cancer patients to die because they are leeching off the profits of civilization. At the very least, that is what the very first post of that other anti-civ thread stated, posted by some guy named blackmask or something. Then again, some other anti-civ people in the same thread said that is not what they actually want, without actually saying anything about what they do want. If you are unable to explain anything about your anti-civ ideology (without esoterical bullshit, just easily understandable words that an unskilled worker with limited education would have a chance of understanding), then I can only offer vague criticism. (In fact, one of the things I'm criticising is that your ideology is vague, and the one time someone laid down a more or less concrete vision of de-civilized society, in that other thead, most other anti-civs rushed to disown it.)

If you ever bothered asking about my positions rather than making baseless assumptions about them I would do my best to answer. However as it stands fuck you, you aren't here to learn shit you're here to shut down conversation.

BIXX

27th November 2015, 18:36

BIXX

27th November 2015, 18:38

What do I get from criticizing such a notion of "civilization" that I wouldn't get from an anarchist critique of a society based on oppression? If being anti-civ is merely being opposed to the control of others through powerful institutions and not things like technology, I don't think we're really gaining anything by bringing in this new notion.

Anarchists and communists support work though. And furthermore I do think that part of the anti-civ critique is an emphasis on ecological disaster as caused by civ (interestingly enough everywhere civ has arrived there has been ecological damage), which is extremely bad for animals (human and non-human).

LuÃs Henrique

27th November 2015, 18:45

By carrying Leviathan acrss the Ocean, Europeans stretch the beastly integument over the expanse of the entire globe.

Man, I can't stand that stupid brand of pseudo-libertarian orientalism.

As if Mayans and Aztecs and Quichuas hadn't their own, quite oppressive home-made Leviathans.

In the brief span of a few generations, all of Earth falls into the entrails of a single artificial beast. But by encasing all of Earth within one Leviathan, the Europeans do Civilization a disfavor, for they put a term on its further existence.

And this is ridiculous. One of the main characteristics of States is that they thrive on borders, which presuppose the existence of several States.

We’ve seen that earlier Leviathans were always in a state of decomposition. When one decompsed, others swallowed its remains. But when there are no others, when Leviathan is One, the tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing, is almost at an end.

And if Leviathans can only exist in a state of decomposition, how is it that they seem to have an ascendant phase, in which they grow and improve, to the point of being able to swallow the older ones? And if this was true, what would make it impossible for Greece or Nigeria to overtake the US and swallow its remains (as the US have already done to Great Britain, and Great Britain to Spain, all of that after the supposed uniLeviathanisation of the world)?

Civilization, synonym of Capital, Technology and The Modern World, called Leviathan by Hobbes and Western Spirit by Turner, is as racked by decomposition as any earlier Leviathan.

That's gobbledidock, sorry. Capitalism is two or three centuries old, and older civilisations were not synonymous to "Capital" (which they often repressed in very brutal ways). Technology isn't synonimous to capital either; chipping silex is a techonology, language is a techonology, all those things being much older than capital, even pre-capitalist capital. And curious "Modern World" is this, that encompasses the Middle Ages and Altertum. This guy doesn't even know what he is talking about; it is like a randomly generated text, that means anything and means nothing.

But Civilization is not one Leviathan among many. It is The One. Its final decomposition is Leviathan’s end. After twenty centuries of stony sleep vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, the sleeper is about to wake to the cadences of a long-forgtten music or to the eternal silence of death without a morrow.

And why would those cosmic events come to happen? It is merely an automatic process, the Leviathan will decompose, because that is what Leviathans do, regardless of any human agency, resistance, struggle, critical thought. Let's all go to our scheduled activities, tomorrow the Leviathan will fall of itself, regardless of our inaction.

Talk of bromide.

To quote,

Who cares? It is boring!

What a waste of time and energy.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 18:46

If you ever bothered asking about my positions rather than making baseless assumptions about them I would do my best to answer.

Right.

Like you ever answer questions even if asked with good faith. Your position has been asked about frequently. We always get either a "well I come back to it later thanx for asking" or "well if you are not liking my tendency and don't bother about my opinion than fuck you"

However as it stands fuck you, you aren't here to learn shit you're here to shut down conversation.

I'll address this in the next post.

Ele'ill

27th November 2015, 18:49

Ugh more "that isn't what I said!!!!". At least be intellectually honest. Off course someone with a serious medical condition is just going to die without proper treatment, treatment which cannot be administered without "civilization".

Mumps, measles, polio to name a few cannot be treated with a witch doctor. So off course the ONLY logical conclusion is that these people should just die.

so in other words "no i can't point to where anybody said these things but I am going to continue to make noises"

LuÃs Henrique

27th November 2015, 18:50

Anarchists and communists support work though.

I cannot speak for all communists (and much less for all anarchists, since I'm not even one), but I certainly am against "work".

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 18:53

This is a general warning to EVERYBODY in this thread already participating or thinking about participating after this post.

This thread is going to be conducted nice and civil.

This means we don't tolerate flaming, personal insults and other means of detracting from the topic of this thread. And after this post those things won't exist unless users want an infraction. I won't give any more warnings.

* You want anti-civs to finally explain themselves...then you give them the goddamned opportunity without immediately wanting to lynch and deport them before they had to opportunity to say anything...I am sure there will be plenty of sectarian bullshit to be found to grind your axes later.

* You want people to finally get your tendency...then for the love of god stop saying we don't understand you and we need to bugger off acting like some emo-lifestylist wannabe crying in some corner...and finally explain yourself.

This is a political forum. People are going to have ideological issues with your tendency regardless of your tendency.

Now keep it freaking clean for once.

From now on:

Consider this thread to be under learning forum rules and guidelines.

Ele'ill

27th November 2015, 18:55

This thread is going to be conducted nice and civil.

:glare:

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 19:02

I think it would be valuable to define civilization and what is considered civilization in terms of anti-Civ.

Seems to be that the definitions of what is and isn't civ are completely different. When BIXX says we (humans) aren't social creatures this strikes me as an oddity in the face of the entirety of history, pre-civ and after civ. When CIV is defined back to a form of coercive force then this needs to be explained.

I can't think of any other logical reason as to why these two very evidently strange conclusions exist beyond a difference of definition and interpretation.

So why won't we start at the beginning.

What is CIV and what is "Social"?

Lord Testicles

27th November 2015, 19:21

I don't think humans are inherently social, and even if they were I don't think civ (which forces cooperation) would be required for people to produce medicine.

I don't see how you can make medicine without some kind of social organisation. There are only so many hours in a day, you can't sow the crops you need to eat, mine the metal you need for the plough, fashion the plough out of the metal after you've finished processing it and produce aspirin on your own or in a small group.

What I am opposed to is forcing people to make medicine, etc... Which is what everyone here seems to be positing we should do.

I don't think any anarchists / communists here is proposing that we force anyone to do anything.

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 19:36

Just to clarify and acting a bit in the way of the devils advocate.

Anti-Civ does not necessarily state that people are anti-social or not social. This is not in inherent part of anti-Civ and needs to, imo, be seen more as a personal interpretation.

I don't see how you can make medicine without some kind of social organisation

Social organization =/= civilization though.

Armchair Partisan

27th November 2015, 19:43

If you ever bothered asking about my positions rather than making baseless assumptions about them I would do my best to answer. However as it stands fuck you, you aren't here to learn shit you're here to shut down conversation.

No, actually you are the one shutting down conversation. Notice that you are the one who is impeding the flow of our conversation here, not me. But hey, I won't talk to you then. You are singularly unpleasant no matter where you post, no matter what you post.

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 19:57

But hey, I won't talk to you then. You are singularly unpleasant no matter where you post, no matter what you post.

Yeah...I just five posts ago said this is a zero tolerance thread. So sorry...but this is going to get an infraction

Your initial point could have been made without the ad hominem.

LuÃs Henrique

27th November 2015, 20:29

Yeah...I just five posts ago said this is a zero tolerance thread. So sorry...but this is going to get an infraction

Your initial point could have been made without the ad hominem.

Do you really think that humans would simply forget about everything theyver learned over the past 8000-10000 years if civ was abandoned? I don't. But I don't equate civ to technology which you would know if you actually took the time to understand what I say. As it stand you're an obtuse moron.

Many points could be made without "ad hominens" - ie, without personal insults.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 20:33

Many points could be made without "ad hominens" - ie, without personal insults.

Luís Henrique

I know. And that is why I made the post.

The post you are quoting was before it.

If he makes another one...he will get an infraction as well.

Armchair Partisan

27th November 2015, 20:36

Many points could be made without "ad hominens" - ie, without personal insults.

Luís Henrique

Eh, it's alright, comrade. I recognize how telling someone that they are unpleasant is worse than anything that's been said so far, and honestly, it's my fault that I didn't post one hour earlier. Although I would like to note that what I did was flaming, not an ad hominem - given that I was making no argument, I could commit no fallacy in the process.

PhoenixAsh

27th November 2015, 20:53

Eh, it's alright, comrade. I recognize how telling someone that they are unpleasant is worse than anything that's been said so far, and honestly, it's my fault that I didn't post one hour earlier. Although I would like to note that what I did was flaming, not an ad hominem - given that I was making no argument, I could commit no fallacy in the process.

It isn't about what is worse. It isn't about agreeing with anybody. It isn't about whatever your point was being right or wrong.

It is about me having given a general warning and having drawn a line. You posted after that line.

A Revolutionary Tool

27th November 2015, 23:52

Do you really think that humans would simply forget about everything theyver learned over the past 8000-10000 years if civ was abandoned? I don't. But I don't equate civ to technology which you would know if you actually took the time to understand what I say. As it stand you're an obtuse moron.

Yes, you can easily forget what people have learned over the last 8-10 thousand years, especially when you don't know everything they've learned over those years yourself. Imagine being born in a world where there is no place to get education like a school to learn about physics and biology because that is domination against children and work for teachers. You act like knowledge hasn't been lost by people before like when Europe fell into the dark ages. Knowing what's on the inside of an engineering book and having theoretical knowledge that that book exists are two completely different things. So how would education happen post-civilization in a non-dominating way?

BIXX

27th November 2015, 23:59

BIXX

28th November 2015, 00:00

Also have you considered why the info in Europe was lost? It wasn't just people forgetting but actively forcing people to not know certain things.

PhoenixAsh

28th November 2015, 00:15

I think that the coercive elements which you assume to be there actually requires explanation and clarification...right now that coercive element is not clear how it came to be and what it is.

Two side notes:

We have a whole lot of horrible examples of people teaching themselves things and then applying it to others. Even with modern means of ways to educate your self. In fact most coercive elements stem from people thinking they understand stuff and basing lives on it.

Second.

We forgot a whole lot in Europe because of the loss of expertise, communication, access to information and the loss of means of production. In fact this period is a period where people thought themselves stuff and basing their lives on tradition and oppression as a result of this....it was a period where people were actively oppressed and oppressed people on the basis of this new found experienced ignorance.

A Revolutionary Tool

28th November 2015, 00:45

I'm on break so this will be short but I imagine that if someone wanted to learn something they can teach themselves or find someone to teach it to them. If you think that to learn there has to be coecion then I feel bad for you, you obviously have very little imagination.

How do I teach myself about the cell wall if I don't know anything about it? Is there internet so I can research this stuff myself? A library I can go to to check out books(are people going to be printing books still)? What I'm getting at is just filling up a book with our scientific understanding of physics itself requires a whole lot of human labor to research these things, with technology I'm not even sure will exist(I doubt people are going to be building Hadron Colliders still), which will then have to be distributed somehow through books or Internet or whatever, and then maybe taught to me by someone who actually knows about the subject(which implies they had to go through some education too). You say we should break down civilization but we will keep the knowledge we have picked up from it. How? You just say we will but I don't see how. Reading through this essay the thread is about they seem to have no understanding of how evolution works(tree shews learning how to fly because they want to fly as if if enough successive generations of humans wanted to fly and leave the conservative majority we could sprout wings and fly away). Why am I to believe the future post-civilization isn't some weird psuedo-scientific culture that misleads and miseducates people. I know a lot of these anti-civ types who are hippy folks who believe in spirit science but I'm supposed to believe with the breakdown of society and a rejection of organization and technology some of this knowledge isn't going to be lost?

BIXX

28th November 2015, 01:38

Your entire understanding of why my idea of education assumes civ is progress. That is not what civ is, at all. I feel I've been pretty clear.

PhoenixAsh

28th November 2015, 03:43

Your entire understanding of why my idea of education assumes civ is progress. That is not what civ is, at all. I feel I've been pretty clear.

No actually you haven't been clear at all.

You stated that:

I think it suffices to say that civ is the creature composed of violence he described in his book. That violence taking the form of work, gender, actual physical attacks on living beings, race, class, the economy, with trials, etc... Which are all domestication.

This does not however define CIV. Because if it does then CIV =/= society and =/= civilization but is only a subjective part of society.

So you are using a radically different definition of civ than we do.

What you however have not shown is how this is interlinked with social interactions and social constructions such as science and study.

There is absolutely no real argumentative foundation made here that goes beyond: well...civ is coercion because some aspects of civ are coercive and because of that all aspects are coercive because civ is coercion.

It is circular logic so far. Unless of course you can show us the interlinking of the mentioned aspects and the entirety of civ and social life.

blake 3:17

28th November 2015, 07:28

I mostly came across Perlman in relation to the Red and Black Press in Detroit and never read any of his own writings. I've only had a chance to skim parts of Against His-story, Against Leviathan

I am intrigued by his reading of Lewis Henry Morgan, who was a major influence on Marx and Engels. Another reading of Marx and Morgan by the great Chicago Surrealist Franklin Rosemont can be found here: http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/docs/marx_iroquois.html

BIXX

28th November 2015, 08:33

I'm willing to give most of you the benefit of the doubt (however I think some of you legitimately do know what I'm talking about and are purposefully responding to things I'm not saying, or are doing your very best to not understand what I'm saying) and assume that this is the problem:

The notion that something as complex as a religion can be understood in terms of cheap 'definitions', rather than a thorough, critical assessment of it in relation to a wider context, is enough of a crime - but nevermind 'religion', liberals, idealist 'logicians', and bourgeois ideologues in general by default are not capable of critical thinking. Instead, they are only capable of mixing and matching formally established, pre-conceived, and uncritically accepted rules, expressed through cheap abstractions like "definitions".

I think rafiq got this right, actually. And I think the same applies to civ to some extent. Of course I can throw out definition after definition but none of that will mean shit to y'all without a thorough examination of the context from which these ideas emerge. These ideas emerge precisely from a tradition of resistance older than leftism, from the first people fleeing and fighting civ. Those individuals, from then til now, are the context from which these ideas emerge. So perhaps tomorrow (as I'm too tired to post more in depth about that currently) that is where this conversation should go.

Idk if any of what I said is what rafiq would have meant but that's how I interpreted it.

PhoenixAsh

28th November 2015, 09:37

Hmm.. well this isn't quite odd since Perlman has no problem distinguishing what he is talking about. Community and Civilization are placed at diametrical odds by him. then again... never actually examined on any evidence based critical analysis but on generalized and romantical notions.

But in order to be able to critique something you absolutely do need to have an idea what the concept is you are talking about. More or less what you said when others tried to critique anti-CIV.

Now...personally...I am getting a bit tired of hearing "we" don't understand anti-CIV and "we" don't want to engage it honestly or with the right intent. Perhaps this is true in a general sense. But I for one do understand anti-CIV...and I am going to counter pose that most anti-CIV's don't actually understand anti-CIV and create some individually collected set of theories loosely based on anti-CIV ideas and concepts.
Anti-CIV is the (anarcho)-primitivist tendency. It developed. What YOU may see as anti-CIV maybe something different. Which is why "we" continuously ask what your ideas actually are and ask for an explanation....since you keep on insisting that you are not primitivism.

PhoenixAsh

28th November 2015, 10:59

A Revolutionary Tool

28th November 2015, 11:06

Your entire understanding of why my idea of education assumes civ is progress. That is not what civ is, at all. I feel I've been pretty clear.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. I feel like you may have meant to type something else in that first sentence of yours or maybe it's just going over my head but I'm genuinely confused as to what it means. Your idea of education assumes civ is progress? That's what it looks like to me but that can't be what you were saying.

I understand you don't think civ is progress but when you say we need to be anti-civ you're talking about stuff like the production of food and how people are educated radically changing so it needs a little more thought than "idk, people are going to get educated themselves," it does not hold weight. You say people in the dark ages lost a lot of knowledge because of force (which is true) but you don't think knowledge can be lost simply by omission? If you're never told about cells and black holes how are you going to know anything about them?

Ele'ill

28th November 2015, 18:18

Now to give you a good starting point.

Perlman juxaposes community vs civilization. This means that there need to be distinguishing features between both. Communities according to Perlman were harmonious groups of people who lived in tune with nature and spend their time playing developing nothing but themselves for themselves and based their social relations (which are of extreme and vital importance for anti-CIV by the way...which defines humans very much as being naturally social) on sharing. They did not ever work. They hunted and gathered (two terms rejected by Perlman as being civ labels) This was a happy time of abundance.

He opposed this to civilization which he loosely defines as everything more complex than what is said before but never actually defines into detail. Much less does he explain how it came to be and how it developed. And the transition between community he descrbes as the period that started when fixed settlements arose and land and animals became kept....and people stored MORE than 1 season worth of food.

And then of course there was an accident between communities. One community got angry (Ur) and sought revenge. They fought and killed the members of the other community and imprisoned others and extracted their resources and labour as their own. This enabled the Ur community to become socially more stratisfied and hierarchical based on coercing others outside of their community. Which is loosely what Perlman sees as Civilization. Civilization is made synonymous with force and forceful extraction in favor of one community over another.

This...apparently did not happen before Ur.

Feel free to expand on this.

I'll have to revisit the text but I don't think it was Perlman's intent to dress up pre-civ as a lengthy stretch of rainbows and love. I think it was his intention to illustrate that human communities before civ had both problems and progress. I believe he addresses technology at one point after the pre-civ community narrative, as if to point out that as a species we were making progress via developments towards life whereas progress within civ was for the reproduction of civ and not life (the parts in the text regarding spirituality being tied directly towards acts of living being replaced by broken religious rituals, the use of slaves and the concept of work, standing armies, the sprawling metropolis (at the time) with a rotten and literally starving core, etc..)

BIXX

28th November 2015, 22:51

But I for one do understand anti-CIV...

I find that doubtful. What do you think it is though?

I mean, all of the critique of anti-civ criticisms seems to be predicated on the fact that those criticizing it know more than those who agree with criticisms of civilization or have their own criticism of civilization and have actually spent, in a lot of cases, years and years thinking and researching about these specific criticisms.

This is the only particularly important part of your post, I didn't find the rest intriguing at all.

BIXX

28th November 2015, 23:06

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. I feel like you may have meant to type something else in that first sentence of yours or maybe it's just going over my head but I'm genuinely confused as to what it means. Your idea of education assumes civ is progress? That's what it looks like to me but that can't be what you were saying.
For real i have no idea what happened when I was typing that. I was trying to say that the way you criticize my position of education assumes civ is progress.

I understand you don't think civ is progress but when you say we need to be anti-civ you're talking about stuff like the production of food and how people are educated radically changing so it needs a little more thought than "idk, people are going to get educated themselves," it does not hold weight. You say people in the dark ages lost a lot of knowledge because of force (which is true) but you don't think knowledge can be lost simply by omission? If you're never told about cells and black holes how are you going to know anything about them?

I am not saying knowledge can't be lost by omission, I'm.saying I find it extremely doubtful that people will lose said knowledge. It's not liek everyone's knowledge banks will suddenly disappear if civ were to disappear right now, there'd still be physicists and chemists and English majors and all sorts of other people. I doubt they'd suddenly stop ever referring to their interests. And I doubt that if someone were interested (which they could hear about from friends, family, these physicists/chemists/etc...) They would just say "well, guess civ isn't around anymore couldn't possibly pursue learning this".

You asked at some point if internet or whatever would exist, and I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm not I'm the business of prefiguring what kind of existence will happen, I'm far more interested in what kind of existence humans themselves will come up with. I highly doubt they'd do certain things (fast food, office work, large scale production are just a few things I think people would abandon given the choice), but I am not interested in saying "this is how things will work!" Anti-civ is a critique, not an answer.

PhoenixAsh

28th November 2015, 23:07

I find that doubtful. What do you think it is though?

I mean, all of the critique of anti-civ criticisms seems to be predicated on the fact that those criticizing it know more than those who agree with criticisms of civilization or have their own criticism of civilization and have actually spent, in a lot of cases, years and years thinking and researching about these specific criticisms.

This is the only particularly important part of your post, I didn't find the rest intriguing at all.

So far your attitude on this site has been to dismiss any question and any debate about your position because people do not understand anti-CIV or aren't open to anti-CIV thought or seem hostile to it and when you are confronted with criticism of anti-CIV you dismiss this because people don't understand it.

You seem to be incapable of formulating your position beyond:

* "Interestig question, I'll get back to it" (and never do)
* This is uninteresting/boring/irrelevant or any other variation along the same lines you repeated ad nauseum.

You act like you are the only one who holds the key of knowledge to this mystical idea and concept of anti-CIV....which I highly doubt given your complete lack of responsiveness outside of dismissive attitudes, dodging questions, half baked explanations and statements which are diametrically opposed to anti-CIV thought (such as the statement that humans aren't naturally social creatures)

You don't seem to be able to fathom the fact that people may be very aware of the "secret little books you drew your knowledge from" and actually reject anti-CIV ideology because it is based on flawed analysis, incorrect conclusions drawn from half baked research based on incorrect assumptions...and base that opinion on years and years of research and experience.

Now...you are of course not seriously appealing to some form of authority from age and "years and years" of thinking. Monks have spend years and years of thinking and researching. I hardly think that "years and years of thinking and researching" actually means you come up with something worthwhile.

So no...I don;t care about what you find doubtfull and I do not care what you do or do not find intriguing.

What I do care about is you finally explaining what YOU think anti-CIV is....not asking us for hints and tips how to answer questions.

Remember...you weren't able to explain CIV and how it differs from the idea of community...which are basically the first TWO chapters of Perlman.

BIXX

29th November 2015, 07:52

Spectre of Spartacism

29th November 2015, 15:26

Perlman does describe pre-civ communities in a far more utopian way than I would actually consider them to be (I'm not even willing to say that there was ever or will ever be a perfect anti-social existence that didn't contain a leviathan. That is by and large my greatest disagreement with perlman. However I think it would be a mistake to pretend that what perlman is describing here isn't an unbiased story but a story told from the point of view of the terrorists.

Well, yes, that is sort of the point I was getting at. He has this image of the !Kung as "free people." In reality, heterosexual marriages between men and, well, younger women are an institutionalized part of life (for obvious reasons: the need to continue the band and provide manpower to support the aging members of the group). Where is this space in this "free" existence for homosexual experimentation and practice? Among the !Kung, as Dennis Werner has shown in his research, there is none. So bear this in mind when you advance Perlman's work as an examplar while simultaneously promoting queer liberation. That's not even getting to the topic of natalist policies (abortion), with which devaluation of homosexuality is strongly correlated. The division of labor is almost universally based on sex in these societies, so if you happen to be born into a sex assigned a particular set of tasks that you would rather not be doing in contrast to what the other sex generally does, well, too bad. Meat is a staple of the diet, so if you really care about the most sentient non-human aspects of nature (non-human animals), too bad again.

In Perlman's narrative, unquestionably written from the perspective of a straight-identifying man, the good aspects of the !Kung's relationships are stressed, their negative aspects never examined. It has all the marks of the methodology I see a lot on this forum, that of developing a set of moral categories, then trying to arrange empirical reality around them, instead of the inverse. In the case of pre-civ societies, this often leads to pointing out that depredation does not assume the form of human-run institutions ("Leviathan"), but this sort of misses the larger point that the lack of human institutionalization reflects not the absence or mitigation of depredation, but rather its universalization and the corollary fact that it has not yet been mediated by humans. Every member of the band is subject in practically every way to the direct dictates of nature. Everybody's life is equally circumscribed, their opportunities for the full and free development of a personality foreclosed.

If he is a primitivist then he is a primitivist of a different sort than there currently exists. Primitivism currently largely takes the form of either zerzan worshipping nerds who feel the need to hone their survival skills or a liberal eco-anarchist framework which seems to me to strip itself of an actual anti-civ position and render itself as a more egalitarian "harmonious" place within civ (like folks who run into the woods to start some commune, or, more realistically, folks who claim to want to do that). Yet if you read Perlman's account of the !Kung (as well as his account of the development of civilization), you'd see that he does exactly what you describe primitivists as doing. He valorizes the social harmony and egalitarian aspects of hunter-gatherer bands, while completely ignoring their negative aspects. He talks about their "one-ness" with nature (a oneness that resembles Victorian-era coverture: the "one" represented in that joining together is really the over-awing power of nature). For the record, the fetishization of nature and the attributing of magical powers to it as something standing above and against all is given its purest and clearest expression in these bands. This only begins to fade when humans begin to demonstrate some capacity to regulate its relations with nature. Anyway, I see no reason not to think of Perlman as a primitivist, and think you can only contend he isn't one by ignoring the content of his work.

I think it's hard to say that fredy had a single sentence long definition as to what civ is, particularly because I think his whole book was a look at the what civ is from the eyes of someone trying to comprehend it. However I think it suffices to say that civ is the creature composed of violence he described in his book. That violence taking the form of work, gender, actual physical attacks on living beings, race, class, the economy, with trials, etc... Which are all domestication. I'd say I do agree with that.He obviously doesn't provide a place in the text where he does the Thomas Hobbes thing and defines each of his terms carefully. He uses the word "civilization" throughout, though, in a way that allows us to infer what his definition is. I think his definition is not simply violence. The !Kung have certainly never been immune from it.

Now regarding the third question, its simple: civ was not developed, but it sprang into existence with the first attack and enslavement of outside beings as a way of life.Here is where history is important, and how it points toward different models of what "human nature" is, if such a thing even exists. Why would one group of humans every attack and enslave others? If you truncate this process into a single moment in time, a single decision or attack, you effectively attribute the enslavement to a Nietzschean will to power. And that leads you down a pretty dark set of corridors that anti-civ thought is really trying to avoid. A big contradiction within anti-civ thought.

PhoenixAsh

29th November 2015, 17:22

I think you're reading too much into thinking a question isn't worth answering or forgetting to get back to them (and in fact I encourage people to remind me to, I don't really spend a lot of time keeping track of what I mean to do on the internet- if you want to keep a planner of all the shit I meant to do on the internet, be my guest).

The reason I mention the years and years is that most people have spent a total of 30 seconds to say the following: anti civ? No fuck that. Personally I think that's not enough time to really understand it.

If you really do understand what anti-civ is then I'd be happy to hear you out, cause as it stands you either are full of it and don't know shit or you do know and aren't willing to come up with constructive criticism.

Given that I have defined time and time again what I mean though I really do think you're being deliberately ignorant of what I'm saying. When I elaborate the post is entirely ignored and instead what everyone (including you) responds to is some imaginary post that doesn't exist where I say "let's kill polio kids and while we're are at it fuck trans people etc..." And honestly that's why I'm reluctant to give it a try in these threads.

Community I think (which I am willing to accept is a very biased understanding based on my experiences and thus that has colored the way I view history) is coercion. Civ is a specific lineage of coercion.

I don't know why I'm bothering tobtry and explain my viewsbto you because you'll respond to positoonsbindont hold but whatever.

First.
Two things:

1). You never explained your views to me. I have asked you questions or expansions on statements and you evaded them. Period.
2). I never attributed to you positions you do not hold and I challenge you to provide any form of evidence for it. In fact my main problem with you is that you never actually say what your position is beyond vague abstractions and saying "that is not my position".
3). I challenge you to provide evidence of me responding to points you did not make including attributing statements to you like killing polio kids. [This is however a legitimate point to bring up in anti-CIv discourse and one very much deflected by anti-CIV]

Second.

You keep saying you have explained your position numerous times. However I found extremely little evidence in your post history that even comes close. What I did find was the attitude I posted above. In fact I don't think you are anti-CIV but anti-SOCIAL individualist with anti-CIV ideas. I base this on the fact that statement you do make are often diametrically opposed to anyi-CIV core ideology.

examples:

anti-CIV core ideology

* humans are naturally social
* community is the foundation of human life nefore and after CIV.

Positions you both rejected in this very thread

Third.

I have not even begun to be critical of anti-CIV given the fact that I first want to discover what YOU think anyi-CIV is as to not be confronted with the usual tactic " O but this is not what I think"

This is however not me having to prove my knowledge of anti-CIV....this is about you.

Ele'ill

30th November 2015, 14:36

This is however not me having to prove my knowledge of anti-CIV....this is about you.

You know just an observation, this is true, and was pretty clearly telegraphed from the very beginning before this thread was even created, and is a big reason there isn't more participation in this thread (and other threads). The approach to this conversation has been that of an interrogation of an individual and not that of a discussion. When there is such a degree of interjection into what could be a discussion, where someone else has jumped in, in a huff, established for another user with contending views what *is* the specific topic of interest to be discussed, established a deadline for responses, etc.., it isn't very inviting.

Antiochus

30th November 2015, 17:25

Its simply because Anti-Civ thought is intellectually dishonest. Sorry, there, said it. Can't really get around it. The fact that you have 3 individuals claiming to uphold this strain of thought, and not 1 of them has even articulated a basic platform for what they 'stand' for, is very telling.

So off course, the discussion has been people (myself included) pointing out enormous gaps in their ideology using plain-text examples and they simply say "I didn't say that!!". Well lets take that a bit further, lets say someone is critiquing Marxism, and they used a superficial "rofl rofl man u want someone who doesn't work to live the good life off hardworking people", I don't think any serious leftist (Marxist or otherwise) would have trouble countering this.

For me its absurdly simple (feel free to make me look foolish): Without the organs of "civilization" (organization, an intricately connected economy etc...) you CANNOT make life saving medicine. For the sake of argument, lets forget all the diseases that are (supposedly) exacerbated by 'civilization' and all that entails (say diabetes) and simply look at the ones that are totally unavoidable (they have affected humans before the neolithic and similar diseases affect animals): Cancer, mumps, measles, polio etc...

How will they be treated? Is a rejection of the ONLY way to make these medicines not a rejection of these people's lives?

BIXX

30th November 2015, 19:08

Antiochus, can you read? I specifically stated that anti-civ doesn't mean that I'm saying that we ought to "go back". But apparently you're reading comprehension is having issues, I guess it's my bad for assuming you could put out the effort to read what I post.

Antiochus

30th November 2015, 19:17

Yes except this is what I mean by you being genuinely disingenuous...

This is what you said:

It's not liek everyone's knowledge banks will suddenly disappear if civ were to disappear right now, there'd still be physicists and chemists and English majors and all sorts of other people. I doubt they'd suddenly stop ever referring to their interests.

Now obviously for that to be true (take a look at the ENORMOUS amounts of "knowledge" lost in the Bronze Age Collapse for example; a relatively mild disruption of 'civilization') you would need a WILDLY different definition of 'civilization' that what 99% of people have. In such a case, you could make 'civilization' such an abstract concept that no one would 'disagree' with opposing it. In such a case, it just becomes worthless.

So by all means, define 'civilization'. Because so far, the civilization that you are arguing for seems identical to my definition (and that of most people), you just don't want to state it.

More importantly than merely defining it, can you please provide an example of the 'transition' from pre-civ to civ? What characteristics are found in both? How are their societies structured? Do you oppose the neolithic revolution given that it 'caused' civilization? I could go on and on, but until you give an honest sample of your views it becomes a pointless discussion.

Ele'ill

30th November 2015, 19:20

Its simply because Anti-Civ thought is intellectually dishonest.

even articulated a basic platform for what they 'stand' for, is very telling.

What is dishonest about what the 3 users have allegedly not posted?

So off course, the discussion has been people (myself included) pointing out enormous gaps in their ideology using plain-text examples and they simply say "I didn't say that!!".

it's not an ideology

Well lets take that a bit further, lets say someone is critiquing Marxism, and they used a superficial "rofl rofl man u want someone who doesn't work to live the good life off hardworking people", I don't think any serious leftist (Marxist or otherwise) would have trouble countering this.

What does this have to do with your post or the thread?

For me its absurdly simple (feel free to make me look foolish): Without the organs of "civilization" (organization, an intricately connected economy etc...) you CANNOT make life saving medicine. For the sake of argument, lets forget all the diseases that are (supposedly) exacerbated by 'civilization' and all that entails (say diabetes) and simply look at the ones that are totally unavoidable (they have affected humans before the neolithic and similar diseases affect animals): Cancer, mumps, measles, polio etc..How will they be treated? Is a rejection of the ONLY way to make these medicines not a rejection of these people's lives?

Once again, can you post where anybody has stated that we should 'reset the clock'?

The Feral Underclass

30th November 2015, 22:22

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 02:44

You know just an observation, this is true, and was pretty clearly telegraphed from the very beginning before this thread was even created, and is a big reason there isn't more participation in this thread (and other threads). The approach to this conversation has been that of an interrogation of an individual and not that of a discussion. When there is such a degree of interjection into what could be a discussion, where someone else has jumped in, in a huff, established for another user with contending views what *is* the specific topic of interest to be discussed, established a deadline for responses, etc.., it isn't very inviting.

The approach to this conversation was, and I cite OP here,

t was suggested that I read an essay by Fredy Perlman called "Against His-story, Against Leviathan." I have now finished reading this essay and found a lot within it meriting discussion.

Since this book was recommended to me by BIXX, I wanted to open the discussion by posing to him a number of questions pertaining to the essay and his views of it.

Since then we have had a usual pletora of answers that roughly translate as "you are not nice about anti-CIV so fuck off" or "you don't understand anti-CIV"

Perhaps you should reread the thread.

It seems to me that some users think their tendency should be held in great esteem before they even want to answer and that a discussion is people all cooing about it.

It is no problem for certain anti-CIV members to be highly critical and liberally attacking other tendencies but when their tendency and personal politics come under scrutiny or are faced with difficult and critical questions that is suddenly unfair...and we need to treat them with kid gloves. This is especially ridiculous when those personal opinions expressed radically differ from anti-CIV thought or are vague and warrant clarification....or when simple questions that ask for the core of anti-CIV thought (such as: what is considered civilization) can't really be answered.

Very legitimate questions have been posed in this thread about anti-CIV thought. Some of them are critical and some of them are fundamental to understanding anti-CIV thought....most of them are simply dismissed.

What is true is the deflection and unwillingness of participation when faced with any form of criticism....regardless of the intent behind the question. So what is asked for is a teletubbie debate.

Much rather than me proving that I know what anti-CIV is...this thread has become by users posts and statement as serious question of whether they themselves understand what anti-CIV is when they reject the core fundamentals of the concept and can't actually answer others.

And this is not the first time in the last years. This is repeatedly the case.

Now...ironically this ties in neatly with a lot of anti-CIV proactive defense expressed in Against HIStory. Critics are hardened and biased and those posing critical questions are guard dogs....which is utterly dismissive of any form of critical analysis anti-CIV thought...and why a lot of anti-CIV resemble a sect rather than an open community of like minded people....ironic because that position makes them rather the same.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 02:59

I like the way Dauvé alludes to civilisation and for me, it's fairly simple. Civilisation or "Leviathan" are those complexes making up that which we have become dependent on, whether industrial or technological or social, in order that we survive.

This begs the question how survival was achieved before "civilization" if there were no complexes. Another question would be at what point complexes started to develop and why.

Neither of these questions are satisfactory addressed in Againts HIStory. A text which is historically inaccurate and based on a romanticized ideal about pre-CIV communities...and are rarely addressed in other anti-CIV works.

We have constructed these complexes of survival and then offered ourselves over to them as willing dependents, domesticating ourselves to our own creations. We are dependent on our cities, our industrial and technological advancements for survival.

Yet pre-CIV we were dependent on complexes as well. Structures which were often highly traditional and ritualized and often stratified with division of labour and assorted rights and privileges.

With any domesticated situation it means there is something that we have to submit ourselves to in order to survive; we have indentured ourselves to something that now has control over us. And while these things make our survival easier, what is the consequences of all this? What is the consequences of our domestication? That is the question, in my view, that "anti-civ" poses.

Well no. Anti-CIV poses an answer to this question. Anti-CIV does not pose a question....but gives their analysis and conclusion. The question arises through reading anti-CIV work and overthinking what is being said. This can be valid. But anti-CIV is not merely food for thought.

The questions that need to be asked, then, are how much of this domestication is 'good' or 'bad'? How does that domestication inform our social relationships? How has it defined what being a human is? Is that definition significant? Has it had positive or negative consequences? If they are positive, what are they? If they are negative, what are they also?

None of these questions are actually asked consequence free. Anti-CIV assumes to already have the answers to these questions. There is no good vs bad...there is the rejection of CIV in its totality. This rejection disallows discussion about aspects which are good and bad since the answer has already been reached.

The polio vaccine, for example, has been a huge step towards the preservation of human life, but what does it mean to become dependent on modern medicine? To have preserved life? What effect has the preservation of human life had on the planet? These questions are not designed to reject the validity of the polio vaccine or modern medicine, but to challenge how civilisation and our subsequent domestication to it has affected the world in which we live and the world in which other humans are going to live.

Conversely, given the above, a legitimate criticism is that anti-CIV will lead to a decline in medical care and aid...both in quantity and quality. Again...these are not "mere questions" anti-CIV poses...these are questions already answered i anti-CIV theory.

The same goes for questioning the impact of keeping handicapped people alive. A question rarely mentioned by anti-CIV but a question which does neatly tie into the "one with nature" aspect of the theory....and unfortunately a question which is often answered in a less than positive way for handicapped people in by anti-CIV adherents.

To simply say that domestication is good because it has had positive effects on the world is to ignore the huge and devastating impact our domestication has had at the same time, as well as ignoring the possibility for horrifying and far reaching consequences in the future.

The question is whether there is an actual domestication at all that differs from pre-CIV domestication.

Art Vandelay

1st December 2015, 07:18

So due in large part to this discussion, I've spent my spare time the past couple days reading through some articles/authors associated with post-left/anti-civ thought. In particular I've been reading some stuff associated with the journal 'Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed,' as well as some Zerzan/Green Anarchy stuff. I have yet to read any Freddy Perlman, so I realize that this might not be the best place for this post, but figured there were enough tenuous points of contact between the topics/authors for it to be considered relevant.

From what I gather, there seem to be two major lines of argumentation in anti-civ thought, in regards to the end of industrial society. The first argues that civilization is simply an unsustainable venture and the task of anarchists/individuals is to prepare for it's coming collapse. It seems to me, as far as this line is concerned, that whether or not advocates of this line consider the end of civilization a good thing (they appear to think that it is, but that's neither here nor there from a programmatic standpoint) is largely irrelevant. Civilizations downfall is inevitable, so better get yourself, and as many people you can, prepared.

The second tendency that seems to coalesce into anti-civ thought, are those that not only think civilization is an unsustainable venture, but also actively seek to hasten its destruction. While this stance seems to be associated with some folks who identify with the anti-civ anarchist tradition, it's also similar to the analysis put forth by the deep ecology crowd surrounding folks like Derrick Jensen and his transphobic outfit Deep Green Resistance - tangent: I spent some time looking at them as well and wow, what an odd and eclectic mix of views: deep ecology, anti-civ, hierarchical military formations, borderline Maoist influenced PPW, etc.

Now the old canard associated with anti-civ thought is that it advocates the death of billions of people. Admittedly my knowledge/research on the topic is limited, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. In fact, I would argue saying so would be downright intellectually dishonest.

In regards to the first tendency I outlined above, it would appear that their efforts are intended to minimize the damage associated with the downfall of civilization. Here I'm thinking of folks like Zerzan who appear to essentially be arguing, hey this shit is coming down, so we better start learning some damn skills. In effect, the individuals of this camp could/would probably turn the accusation on it's head and say that if you don't acknowledge the unsustainability of civilization and don't seek to prepare people for it, it is you who are going to have blood on your hands when shit hits the fan, due to your inactivity or attempts at prolonging the lifespan of civilization.

In regards to the second tendency, it becomes a bit trickier to defend the implications of their views. The case could be made that by attempting to bring about the end of industrial civilization, knowing full well that people aren't prepared for it and the toll on human life it will take, you are advocating for some horribly indefensible shit. However it appears what they are arguing is that the longer civilization is around, the greater the damage to human and non-human life there will be when things finally do come to a head. To them, it's a situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't. As a result, they choose the path they view as having the least damage associated with it, or (viewed purely from an egoist perspective) as personally liberating.

Now there also seems to be a very vague third tendency within anti-civ thought associated with Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher, which amounts to a non-primitivist critique of civilization, without the clarification of any alternatives. In other words, critique without putting forth a program or viable solution to the problems addressed.

Could someone from the anti-civ/sympathetic crowd let me know if I'm on the right track with my understanding outlined above, maybe point out where I've gotten anything wrong, or fill in some information? It would be appreciated. To be perfectly honest, I still have a hard time understanding how someone would argue these aren't reactionary views (except for Feral Faun's line), but am open to a dialogue with anyone who would like to make that case, or even reading suggestions. Admittedly, I can imagine my understanding of these concepts are probably still pretty simplistic.

Also, somewhere in my internet research the past couple days I came across the claim that Zerzan was highly influenced by Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics.' Has anyone heard this before, or perhaps know the source of it?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

1st December 2015, 08:39

The thing is, the definition of civilization being provided is still profoundly vague, meaning that the solutions proposed are also vague.

What is civilization? Is it a force that domesticates people? Well what is domestication? Isn't that being removed from a wild state and adapted to a civilized state? It seems circular to define civilization as that which domesticates. Is it a system of "complexes"? Now we're just replacing one vague term with another.

What does the end look like? Is it a dialectical overcoming and a moving past of civilization, or is it returning to the iKung lifestyle?

Anti-civ lacks the clarity of socialist theory. With socialism, the problems are specifically identified (dominant classes), the solution to these problems are clear (overturning the political and economic system set up by these classes), and the categories are clearly laid out (classes are defined by their relation to the means of production). There is no reliance on vague and esoteric terms. Anti-civ on the other hand seems to base itself on more emotive tendencies prevalent in the ecological left than on a clear analysis of conditions. There is an appeal to a kind of green "common sense" regarding what ails humanity, which is the existence of a large, highly complex and technologically sophisticated society in which they feel powerless.

Really, I don't see what value it adds.

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 08:49

The thing is, the definition of civilization being provided is still profoundly vague, meaning that the solutions proposed are also vague.

From the definitions that have been provided here, what specifically do you think is vague about them?

What is civilization?

For me, it is the complexes we have constructed to define our existence as humans.

Imagine civilisation as the house in which the cat lives and the systems in the house that are used to maintain the cat.

Is it a force that domesticates people?

Civilisation domesticates people because we become dependent on it in order to be human.

The cat lives in the house and is fed by a human. If it did not live in this house or be fed by this human it would die. Especially because it no longer knows what being a cat in nature is.

Well what is domestication?

Out dependence on civilisation.

Isn't that being removed from a wild state and adapted to a civilized state? It seems circular to define civilization as that which domesticates. Is it a system of "complexes"? Now we're just replacing one vague term with another.

The word complexes isn't vague at all. It's easily defined by language.

You can remove a cat from the wild and bring it into the house. It will live warmly and have food, but at the same time the cat is denatured and becomes dependent upon the existence of systems that it has no control over. This is the issue.

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 08:51

Sinister Cultural Marxist

1st December 2015, 09:29

From the definitions that have been provided here, what specifically do you think is vague about them?

Well, the term "civilization" is a loaded term, and seems to be defined here circularly. The term "complex" is being used in a way unfamiliar with its common usage.

Out dependence on civilisation.

Don't you see how this is circular? Domestication is being defined in relation to civilization, and civilization is being defined in relation to domestication.

The word complexes isn't vague at all. It's easily defined by language.

I'm not exactly sure how it's being used here. You say it's "easily defined by language", but the usage seems distinct from the common usages of the term I've encountered.

noun
noun: complex; plural noun: complexes
ˈkämpleks/

1.
a group of similar buildings or facilities on the same site.
"a new apartment complex"

a group or system of different things that are linked in a close or complicated way; a network.
"a complex of mountain roads"

2.
Psychoanalysis
a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior.

informal
a disproportionate concern or anxiety about something.
"there's no point having a complex about losing your hair"

3.
Chemistry
an ion or molecule in which one or more groups are linked to a metal atom by coordinate bonds.

any loosely bonded species formed by the association of two molecules.
"cross-linked protein-DNA complexes"

You can remove a cat from the wild and bring it into the house. It will live warmly and have food, but at the same time the cat is denatured and becomes dependent upon the existence of systems that it has no control over. This is the issue.

I find the analogy of the cat to be an improvement on defining civilization in terms of domestication, but it's still not unproblematic. What is the difference between being dependent on the house, and being dependent on the natural ecosystem? Aren't both forms of dependence?

That's why I'm saying anti-Civ, at least as it's being presented here, seems to be more obfuscation than theory. I think it would be easy to come up with a relatively clear definition of "capital", "landed property", "wage labor" and so on on this forum, but I haven't seen any definition of terms which isn't esoteric.

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 10:38

Well, the term "civilization" is a loaded term, and seems to be defined here circularly. The term "complex" is being used in a way unfamiliar with its common usage.

If you take what I wrote and then look at the definitions you have provided, the best definition is in fact its primary definition, i.e. "a group or system of different things that are linked in a close or complicated way; a network." In my original post I talked about industry, technology and society. It basically means all of the entities that exist and are linked to make up a thing. The most familiar term using this word might be Eisenhower's the "industrial militaryl complex" phrase.

Don't you see how this is circular? Domestication is being defined in relation to civilization, and civilization is being defined in relation to domestication.

Yes, without one there wouldn't be the other.

I find the analogy of the cat to be an improvement on defining civilization in terms of domestication, but it's still not unproblematic. What is the difference between being dependent on the house, and being dependent on the natural ecosystem? Aren't both forms of dependence?

Do you not see a difference between a cat who lives in nature and has the skills to hunt for itself and survive for itself, and a cat that depends on outside systems and external things it cannot control to survive? This is not about nature and civilisation being the same, but understanding that one is the essence of reality and the other is manufactured.

That's why I'm saying anti-Civ, at least as it's being presented here, seems to be more obfuscation than theory. I think it would be easy to come up with a relatively clear definition of "capital", "landed property", "wage labor" and so on on this forum, but I haven't seen any definition of terms which isn't esoteric.

I would say these definitions aren't clear at all. Marx wrote volume after volume on the subjects just to try and articulate what he meant by wage labour and capital. Anyone who thinks these definitions are clear has never endured Capital :p

By the way, I'm not sure whether my views conform to "anti-Civ." This is just my interpretation of civilisation based on my readings of Dauvé and Camatte, both of whom come from a Marxist perspective.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 13:12

From the definitions that have been provided here, what specifically do you think is vague about them?
For me, it is the complexes we have constructed to define our existence as humans.

What are these complexes and how are these complexes different from what is defined as "pre-CIV"? How did they come into existence? How did pre-CIV society live without these complexes (as you referred to earlier in one of your previous posts).

"Complexes" is as vague as can be.

Imagine civilisation as the house in which the cat lives and the systems in the house that are used to maintain the cat. Civilisation domesticates people because we become dependent on it in order to be human.

The cat lives in the house and is fed by a human. If it did not live in this house or be fed by this human it would die. Especially because it no longer knows what being a cat in nature is.

Poor analogy since escaped cats are extremely adapt in surviving on their own.
In fact...escaped cats are called a biological and environmental disaster for the local ecosystem....and cats are scientifically most likely of all domesticated animals to fend for themselves.

But serious

Vague about "complexes" is that this doesn't at all distinguish CIV from pre-CIV. pre-CIV society was stratisfied, had social structures, division of labour and rights and privileges...traditions people depended on for their very survival or would die without.

The argument that CIV simply started to exist, which is an idea coopted by the majority anti-CIV in general, seems to be very poorly researched and ignoring contradicting evidence.

So the specific identification of "complexes" becomes radically important. What are these complexes specifically that differ from complexes in pre-CIV. Were the foundations of these complexes present in pre-CIV communities? How did these complexes become problematic?

In other words...where anti-CIV rejects the notion of "progress" (which is a word associated with a positive connotation) it is perhaps possible that negative complexes "developed" from aspects already present in pre-CIV "complexes" or as a result from pre-CIV conditions which, in pre-CIV, were considered negative.

If this is the case then what is called CIV in anti-CIV thought is merely a contextual change of HOW complexes are structured....rather than a result of complexes

The word complexes isn't vague at all. It's easily defined by language.
You can remove a cat from the wild and bring it into the house. It will live warmly and have food, but at the same time the cat is denatured and becomes dependent upon the existence of systems that it has no control over. This is the issue.

This is an interesting point. Control.

How much control does the cat have over "the wild"? Other than not having to hunt for food the condition of the cat doesn't actually change. For example:

If the cat can't find prey...it won't eat. This isn't radically different from being subjected to the unknown factor of whether or not a cat gets food from its owners/care takers.

If a cat has en eye infection...it can't get medical attention in the wild. Nor can it in a domesticated situation. In the last one it is however more likely (not certain..there are bad caretakers) the cat will be provided medical care at some point.

Extrapolating this to pre-CIV communities...the complex of the communal structure means people were very dependend on the community itself. Without that community they would most likely starve or be unable to get care provided by people within the community with a better knowledge of medical care. Defense is another aspect on which people relied on community....because a complex of war was already present. In fact in pre-CIV society there is a whole complex associated with creating tools and training for using offensive and defensive weaponry...whether used against other animals or competing human communities.

So "complexes" doesn't exactly explain anything. It is a vague notion because it meaning is not distinguished from pre-CIV situations.

(also I can read deleted messages...and these questions are very legitimate to ask. )

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 13:26

Now the old canard associated with anti-civ thought is that it advocates the death of billions of people. Admittedly my knowledge/research on the topic is limited, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. In fact, I would argue saying so would be downright intellectually dishonest.

On the subject of intellectual honesty, I am not aware of anybody in this thread or on the forum who has claimed, at least in serious and sustained way rather than a one-off polemical pot shot, that anti-civ people subjectively want billions to die. So let's not bandy about the word "canard" too liberally, shall we? The argument made by people like Xhar-Xhar Binks is that the state of affairs desired by anti-civ people would implicitly require a population that is billions of people smaller than the current one. How to overcome that disparity is left unexplained, usually because anti-civ people don't acknowledge its obvious existence. You can see it in this thread, where BIXX refuses to concede that scientific knowledge of the kind necessary to treat various diseases will be lost in a transition away from what he calls "civilization."

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 13:39

From the definitions that have been provided here, what specifically do you think is vague about them?

For me, it is the complexes we have constructed to define our existence as humans.Irony of ironies! It's pretty vague to define civilization as "complexes, whether industrial or technological or social." Which complexes, precisely? Which relationships? Which institutions? All of them? Some of them? Is sexuality a "complex" upon which we depend and that you seek to escape? What about commodity production? What about science? Is meteorology a big part of the problem? Which of these complexes are more basic to the others? How/why did humans accept their coming into existence?

The word complexes isn't vague at all. It's easily defined by language.

You can remove a cat from the wild and bring it into the house. It will live warmly and have food, but at the same time the cat is denatured and becomes dependent upon the existence of systems that it has no control over. This is the issue.It's obviously vague enough to force you to define it by analogy rather than directly. What really seems to bother you is mutual co-dependence brought about by an increasing (global, now) division of labor facilitated by the development of technology. This brings us back to square one with the canard above. If you reject this division of labor and attendant technology, you're rejecting the resources necessary to keep alive a population that has now eclipsed seven billion.

The problem with anti-civ thought is encapsulated in the conflation of technology and industrialization with the social relationships that constitute it, technology and civilization being reified in a way that gives capitalism a free pass as just the latest form of this Leviathan. Revolutionary Marxists understand that the problem lies in the way that technology and the division of labor are currently constituted socially and exploitatively. Some "orthodox Trotskyists" out there might think this is an overly harsh judgment to pass, because the people who profess anti-civ haven't explicitly announced that they have reified civilization, but I am standing behind this judgment. After all, isn't politics about who cuts whose throat and all that macho posturing stuff?

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 13:42

Well...it is not so much intellectual dishonesty to indicate that a large section of anti-CIV does indeed "advocate" something along these lines explicit or implicit...

For one example....here. http://destroy.svbtle.com/when-i-say-anticivilization

And it is one of the reasons that (anarcho) primitivism is not tolerated on this site. Anarcho-primitivism is part of anti-CIV.

This does not mean ALL anti-CIV advocates this. NOR does it mean that all anti-CIV say this is a consequence of anti-CIV actions...

...some argue (as 9mm stated and as can be read willingly in the above link) that it is an inevitable result of the natural tide of civilization.

Dark Ages (there have been more) were for example the end result of the natural life span of Roman(ized) Civilization and Christian Civilization in the East and previously Greek Civilization....or Aztecs/Toltecs/Mayan's. These periods are a natural result of the internal dynamics of specific civilizations....and therefor an inevitable situation.

It is one of the same main factors and dynamics that led to the decline of the Dutch empire in favor of the British empire...and the decline of the British empire in favor of the American empire....through a brief phase of German empire. Etc.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 13:59

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 14:05

Irony of ironies! It's pretty vague to define civilization as "complexes, whether industrial or technological or social." Which complexes, precisely? Which relationships? Which institutions? All of them? Some of them? Is sexuality a "complex" upon which we depend and that you seek to escape? What about commodity production? What about science? Is meteorology a big part of the problem? Which of these complexes are more basic to the others? How/why did humans accept their coming into existence?

I said "complexes of survival." I think that's fairly easy to understand. The things that we have constructed to keep us alive are the things I am talking about. I am not saying they are "bad" I'm simply saying they are what they are.

I feel that your contribution here is to try and mystify the conversation by presenting this overcomplicated interrogation. I can't tell if this is some personality flaw or some kind of debating tactic.

It's obviously vague enough to force you to define it by analogy rather than directly. What really seems to bother you is mutual co-dependence brought about by an increasing (global, now) division of labor facilitated by the development of technology. This brings us back to square one with the canard above. If you reject this division of labor and attendant technology, you're rejecting the resources necessary to keep alive a population that has now eclipsed seven billion.

I don't understand why you have come to the conclusion that I have rejected anything?

You have a real problem with engaging in conversations without turning them into some kind of battle for supremacy. I'm not planting my flag. I am not forwarding an ideology. I'm not stood on a barricade. This is a conversation. I'm participating in an exchange of ideas. You need to calm down.

The problem with anti-civ thought is encapsulated in the conflation of technology and industrialization with the social relationships that constitute it, technology and civilization being reified in a way that gives capitalism a free pass as just the latest form of this Leviathan. Revolutionary Marxists understand that the problem lies in the way that technology and the division of labor are currently constituted socially and exploitatively. Some "orthodox Trotskyists" out there might think this is an overly harsh judgment to pass, because the people who profess anti-civ haven't explicitly announced that they have reified civilization, but I am standing behind this judgment. After all, isn't politics about who cuts whose throat and all that macho posturing stuff?

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 14:12

I said "complexes of survival." I think that's fairly easy to understand. The things that we have constructed to keep us alive are the things I am talking about. I am not saying they are "bad" I'm simply saying they are what they are.

Again...basic question which should pose no difficulty...

What are these complexes of survival?
Did pre-CIV not have complexes of survival?
If yes....How do they differ from the complexes of survival in pre-CIV? What changed in the complexes of survival?

If no...How did pre-CIV survive?

This is not interrogation...these are basic issues that arise out of usage of the term "complexes" and are legitimate questions for clarification which should not pose a problem to answer since these questions are asking for CORE concepts of pre-CIV.

They much less warrant such asinine and intellectually dishonest deflections as:

I feel that your contribution here is to try and mystify the conversation by presenting this overcomplicated interrogation. I can't tell if this is some personality flaw or some kind of debating tactic.

Ele'ill

1st December 2015, 14:53

@PA's reply - I don't think I need to reread the thread although I am mostly using it to read (9mm's post was useful, some of your posts right now are getting into the area where I'd want to see more discussion). The posts made around the forum, some of which have been anti-civ some of which have not been, are criticisms or statements about what various users believe, given the topic. That is not an attack on other tendencies. The problem is that a few other tendencies have claimed ownership of various topics where only their position, or their set of discussion points, is correct, and attack individual users/witch hunts.

Now there also seems to be a very vague third tendency within anti-civ thought associated with Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher, which amounts to a non-primitivist critique of civilization, without the clarification of any alternatives. In other words, critique without putting forth a program or viable solution to the problems addressed.

I think this is probably getting closer to where most of the users I see posting on the forum are at. I also don't think you need a program in order to criticise something. Some nihilist texts have gone into their own take on the inocculous nature that civ takes and floats through with various tendencies and poses a concern. I think a lot of people have moved past the specific post-left tendency of FF/WL and have adopted a set of criticisms (posted on the forum, topic oriented) and are communists, asking what those various criticisms can do for communism, not against it. This is why there's a recoil whenever 'primmie' gets thrown around. So another basic question could be, how many of these (any of them) anti-civ concerns, by default, would theoretically be addressed by communism? I think quite a few would be, depending on the current.

Could someone from the anti-civ/sympathetic crowd let me know if I'm on the right track with my understanding outlined above, maybe point out where I've gotten anything wrong, or fill in some information?

It was a good post. I am not sympathetic towards anti-civ as a tendency, I think that's where PA was/is going with their concerns and they are 100% correct in identifying that there is a host of primitivist nonsense (although iirc doesn't F.P. go into this in the text? The longing for that time before civ from the pov of folks who are like one generation away from actually being able to remember what it was thus making it magical and horribly flawed because that would basically be at that point creating another giant battle worm? A helpless position being unable to concieve of our own liberation?) but I am interested in criticisms that arise from a place closer to insurrectionary communism.

It would be appreciated. To be perfectly honest, I still have a hard time understanding how someone would argue these aren't reactionary views (except for Feral Faun's line), but am open to a dialogue with anyone who would like to make that case, or even reading suggestions. Admittedly, I can imagine my understanding of these concepts are probably still pretty simplistic.

I have knee jerk reactions too though in regards to anti-civ/ecology etc.. Ever go on @library and search for 'green' or 'ecology'? Last time I checked there's some very strange things.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 14:59

I said "complexes of survival." I think that's fairly easy to understand. The things that we have constructed to keep us alive are the things I am talking about. I am not saying they are "bad" I'm simply saying they are what they are.

"Complexes of survival" adds no clarifying specificity to "complexes" as complexes was understood to mean institutions by which people currently live their lives ... or survive. Pointing out that people require "complexes" of relationships with one another and with nature is not an argument. It's a simple observation that nobody would disagree with. It's certainly not anything specific to anti-civ thought, which is what the person who prompted you to offer that definition was inquiring about.

I feel that your contribution here is to try and mystify the conversation by presenting this overcomplicated interrogation. I can't tell if this is some personality flaw or some kind of debating tactic.

Yes, well, if you think asking a handful of on-point questions about a text, then responding to some of the answers, is overcomplicated or a form of interrogation, then I think you have led a sheltered life, both intellectually and socially.

I don't understand why you have come to the conclusion that I have rejected anything?

I have come to that conclusion by the fact that you have expressed sympathy for Dauvé's definition of civilization. Now, for Dauvé, that definition is a starting move in constructing a longer political argument about it. If I have mistakenly attributed to you an agreement on the essentials of the political argument, when you really just happen to think he is good at defining things, then I stand corrected.

You have a real problem with engaging in conversations without turning them into some kind of battle for supremacy. I'm not planting my flag. I am not forwarding an ideology. I'm not stood on a barricade. This is a conversation. I'm participating in an exchange of ideas. You need to calm down.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

I just checked my pulse, and I seem to be at a state of rest. I think you're confusing disagreement and staking out clear positions with what you call "dick-swinging" and frantically attacking people.

But since you brought the subject of annoying things up, I would like to mention that it's annoying to try to have a discussion with people who refuse to make clear and definite statements and then act like they are being interrogated when people insist on it. It's sort of the foundation of meaningful communication of any kind.

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 15:29

"Complexes of survival" adds no clarifying specificity to "complexes" as complexes was understood to mean institutions by which people currently live their lives ... or survive. Pointing out that people require "complexes" of relationships with one another and with nature is not an argument. It's a simple observation that nobody would disagree with. It's certainly not anything specific to anti-civ thought, which is what the person who prompted you to offer that definition was inquiring about.

I said several times that my views were interpretations of other people's views and did not necessarily conform to "anti-civ." If people want something specific to "anti-civ" then they should direct their comments to those people who adhere to those views and not to someone who has expressly said they do not.

You use the words "relationship" and "institutions." I have used neither of these words to describe civilisation. My definition of civilisation remains the same: it is those complexes -- in their totality -- that we have constructed in order that we can survive. If we can agree on that definition, then that's great. The consequence of our construction of these complexes is humanities domestication and for me, this is where the debate lies. Some seem to think this is a really great thing and others seem to think it's a really terrible thing. My interest is to try and understand what all of this means. I refer you back to my original post.

Yes, well, if you think asking a handful of on-point questions about a text, then responding to some of the answers, is overcomplicated or a form of interrogation, then I think you have led a sheltered life, both intellectually and socially.

But you weren't asking on-point questions about a text, you were involving yourself -- yet again -- in a conversation that wasn't even directed at you. You then went on to overcomplicate that conversation and accuse me of not satisfactorily responding to an argument that i wasn't even invested in.

I have come to that conclusion by the fact that you have expressed sympathy for Dauvé's definition of civilization. Now, for Dauvé, that definition is a starting move in constructing a longer political argument about it. If I have mistakenly attributed to you an agreement on the essentials of the political argument, when you really just happen to think he is good at defining things, then I stand corrected.

Dauvé's political arguments, as far as I can tell (I haven't read everything he has written), have nothing to do with rejecting civilisation, so he and I seem to both be in agreement. So once again, I'm failing to see why you have concluded that I am rejecting anything...

I just checked my pulse, and I seem to be at a state of rest. I think you're confusing disagreement and staking out clear positions with what you call "dick-swinging" and frantically attacking people.

I have no issue with disagreement. I come here specifically for it. What I have issue with is your need to turn every political conversation into a battle. If you you want to be proclaimed the winner of every debate, then please let me save you the effort and say that forthwith you shall be known as the winner of all the debates in all the world and you get to wear the golden crown of debate.

If, however, you wish to have an honest, friendly exchange of ideas, please could you refrain from acting as if this is a matter of life and death.

But since you brought the subject of annoying things up, I would like to mention that it's annoying to try to have a discussion with people who refuse to make clear and definite statements and then act like they are being interrogated when people insist on it. It's sort of the foundation of meaningful communication of any kind.

I have no real desire to communicate with you if I'm perfectly honest, so if I am annoying you, my suggestion to you would be to give up trying and maybe stop talking to me all together...

One can live in hope.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 15:53

@PA's reply - I don't think I need to reread the thread although I am mostly using it to read (9mm's post was useful, some of your posts right now are getting into the area where I'd want to see more discussion). The posts made around the forum, some of which have been anti-civ some of which have not been, are criticisms or statements about what various users believe, given the topic. That is not an attack on other tendencies. The problem is that a few other tendencies have claimed ownership of various topics where only their position, or their set of discussion points, is correct, and attack individual users/witch hunts.

Fair enough. Criticism belongs to discussion however. When criticism of one tendency is allowed so is the criticism of the other. It becomes slightly less honest when your (in a general sense) tendency comes up for debate or discussion to state that users are negative towards it. Especialy when so far the distinction between your specific sub-tendency and the tendency at large has not been clarified.

I think this is probably getting closer to where most of the users I see posting on the forum are at. I also don't think you need a program in order to criticise something. Some nihilist texts have gone into their own take on the inocculous nature that civ takes and floats through with various tendencies and poses a concern. I think a lot of people have moved past the specific post-left tendency of FF/WL and have adopted a set of criticisms (posted on the forum, topic oriented) and are communists, asking what those various criticisms can do for communism, not against it. This is why there's a recoil whenever 'primmie' gets thrown around. So another basic question could be, how many of these (any of them) anti-civ concerns, by default, would theoretically be addressed by communism? I think quite a few would be, depending on the current.

There is no problem with being critical without a program. As is with anti-CIV.

However...when you are critical of, for example...since we are talking about it, civilization in general there needs to be a context what you are posing civilization against (hence why I asked and keep asking...what are the distinguishing features of civ vs non-civ/pre-civ). So far we have established two important terms "domestication" and "complexes of survival" neither of them however are made clear how they substantially differ from pre-CIV or how they developed, or how they can be avoided in post-CIV. When that is the case then legitimate criticism is that you use a generalized label (Civilization) to criticize aspects of that label.

These are essential questions however...because the answer to these questions differentiates anti-CIV fro other civilization critical ideologies/tendencies such as anarchism and to a lesser extend Marxism.

It becomes even more pressing when a user identifies as anti-CIV but makes statements about their core believes and opinions that radically oppose the core foundations of the vast majority of anti-CIV ideas. When you reject the social aspect of humans and reject community as the staple of human life then you are departing from anti-CIV into the bounds of Egoism/Individualism and indeed Nihilism. None of which are necessarily anti-CIV.

These issues however are vital for understanding an argument....what the person means and where they are coming from.

It was a good post. I am not sympathetic towards anti-civ as a tendency

I am. A large part of anti-CIV thought is based on Anarchism and Communism....and indeed you can see in the criticism of anti-CIV of these tendencies that the general opinion is that both these tendencies don't go far enough in identifying the problem. I do not necessarily disagree.

However...it is also correct to say that anti-CIV :

, I think that's where PA was/is going with their concerns and they are 100% correct in identifying that there is a host of primitivist nonsense (although iirc doesn't F.P. go into this in the text? The longing for that time before civ from the pov of folks who are like one generation away from actually being able to remember what it was thus making it magical and horribly flawed because that would basically be at that point creating another giant battle worm? A helpless position being unable to concieve of our own liberation?)

As well as gaps and errors in factual analysis about what distinguishes pre-CIV from CIV itself.

PhoenixAsh

1st December 2015, 16:04

My definition of civilisation remains the same: it is those complexes -- in their totality -- that we have constructed in order that we can survive. If we can agree on that definition, then that's great. The consequence of our construction of these complexes is humanities domestication and for me, this is where the debate lies. Some seem to think this is a really great thing and others seem to think it's a really terrible thing. My interest is to try and understand what all of this means.

The above is the ONLY interesting part you are contributing in this debate so far.

And it is a problematic contribution at that in the context of this thread. Whatever your definition of civilization you hold, which is your right to hold, it doesn't actually make any form of sense with regards to anti-CIV.

The reason it doesn't make sense is because it actually has very little to do with anti-CIV in general. The relevance of defining "CIV" is because in anti-CIV thought CIV is diametrically counter posed to "COMMUNITY". This means that your definition fails miserably in this distinguishing aspect.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you....and you fail to actually find a construction of an argument that addresses these issues in a honest way where you do not immediately go on the offensive.

The problem with your definition is that "complexes of survival" apply to what is in anti-CIV thought is called community as well.

It doesn't address how these complexes of survival have become problematic to a point that civilization as a concept needs to be rejected. In fact your definition is so vague the entirety of anti-CIV community (which is counter posed to CIV) actually falls under your own definition.

This means that in this light your definition doesn't actually apply in order to make sense of the anti-CIV ideas. ...and in some schools of thought is radically rejected by anti-CIV as is clearly established in Perlmans text.

In OTHER context your definition could be very valuable. And indeed it is the embodiment of core criticism against anti-CIV thought.

I said several times that my views were interpretations of other people's views and did not necessarily conform to "anti-civ." If people want something specific to "anti-civ" then they should direct their comments to those people who adhere to those views and not to someone who has expressly said they do not.

You use the words "relationship" and "institutions." I have used neither of these words to describe civilisation.

But you weren't asking on-point questions about a text, you were involving yourself -- yet again -- in a conversation that wasn't even directed at you. You then went on to overcomplicate that conversation and accuse me of not satisfactorily responding to an argument that i wasn't even invested in.

Dauvé's political arguments, as far as I can tell (I haven't read everything he has written), have nothing to do with rejecting civilisation, so he and I seem to both be in agreement. So once again, I'm failing to see why you have concluded that I am rejecting anything...

I have no issue with disagreement. I come here specifically for it. What I have issue with is your need to turn every political conversation into a battle. If you you want to be proclaimed the winner of every debate, then please let me save you the effort and say that forthwith you shall be known as the winner of all the debates in all the world and you get to wear the golden crown of debate.
If, however, you wish to have an honest, friendly exchange of ideas, please could you refrain from acting as if this is a matter of life and death.
I have no real desire to communicate with you if I'm perfectly honest, so if I am annoying you, my suggestion to you would be to give up trying and maybe stop talking to me all together...

One can live in hope.

Lol

You always do this exact same thing. Make statements...then when people are critically responding to them you bail because they are dishonest...

Lol.

Art Vandelay

1st December 2015, 16:46

On the subject of intellectual honesty, I am not aware of anybody in this thread or on the forum who has claimed, at least in serious and sustained way rather than a one-off polemical pot shot, that anti-civ people subjectively want billions to die. So let's not bandy about the word "canard" too liberally, shall we? The argument made by people like Xhar-Xhar Binks is that the state of affairs desired by anti-civ people would implicitly require a population that is billions of people smaller than the current one. How to overcome that disparity is left unexplained, usually because anti-civ people don't acknowledge its obvious existence. You can see it in this thread, where BIXX refuses to concede that scientific knowledge of the kind necessary to treat various diseases will be lost in a transition away from what he calls "civilization."

I didn't claim that anyone on this forum accused the anti-civ crowd of advocating the death of billions of people. I simply stated that it was an accusation traditionally associated with primitivist thought, which it is. I was speaking generally about the dialogue that exists on the left in regards to anti-civ/primitivism, which I have spent a bit of time trying to familiarize myself with. I was referring to individuals like Chomsky who, in a letter to the editors of Green Anarchy, said: "Anarcho-primitivism is the call for the genocide of billions of people." This is a fairly common accusation from what I've read. If I had been insinuating that anyone in this thread had been making that claim, then I would have said so outright.

BIXX

1st December 2015, 16:56

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 17:58

Ele'ill

1st December 2015, 19:30

Fair enough. Criticism belongs to discussion however. When criticism of one tendency is allowed so is the criticism of the other. It becomes slightly less honest when your (in a general sense) tendency comes up for debate or discussion to state that users are negative towards it. Especialy when so far the distinction between your specific sub-tendency and the tendency at large has not been clarified.

I thought you had posted that anti-civ as a tendency tends to be actually primitivist but we can glean valid points even from this (depending on the text) albeit rejecting the conclusion. Thus, anti-civ positions are positions that any tendency can take and you can find them scattered around throughout many different tendencies. That is why I was rejecting anti-civ as an entire tendency, because it doesn't represent 'core tendencies' that I feel are more valid. I am willing to tentatively accept that general distiguising between them.

There is no problem with being critical without a program. As is with anti-CIV.

However...when you are critical of, for example...since we are talking about it, civilization in general there needs to be a context what you are posing civilization against (hence why I asked and keep asking...what are the distinguishing features of civ vs non-civ/pre-civ). So far we have established two important terms "domestication" and "complexes of survival" neither of them however are made clear how they substantially differ from pre-CIV or how they developed, or how they can be avoided in post-CIV. When that is the case then legitimate criticism is that you use a generalized label (Civilization) to criticize aspects of that label.

I have a very limited amount of time to reply to this so I am not going to try atm but I'm not disregarding it.

These are essential questions however...because the answer to these questions differentiates anti-CIV fro other civilization critical ideologies/tendencies such as anarchism and to a lesser extend Marxism.

It becomes even more pressing when a user identifies as anti-CIV but makes statements about their core believes and opinions that radically oppose the core foundations of the vast majority of anti-CIV ideas. When you reject the social aspect of humans and reject community as the staple of human life then you are departing from anti-CIV into the bounds of Egoism/Individualism and indeed Nihilism. None of which are necessarily anti-CIV.

I think it is inherently anti-civ because of the inocculous nature that 'we are social' takes on. It again carries with it a coercive force that binds us to a very specific form of living, and to one another in a specific context.

These issues however are vital for understanding an argument....what the person means and where they are coming from.

I agree.

I am. A large part of anti-CIV thought is based on Anarchism and Communism....and indeed you can see in the criticism of anti-CIV of these tendencies that the general opinion is that both these tendencies don't go far enough in identifying the problem. I do not necessarily disagree.

I think that anti-civ thought might be depending on what is being said, however I think when it is presented as program or some primary tendency it runs as primitivism because of the conclusions, and in some texts, conversations, etc.. the 'thoughts' end up being bent pretty severely in order to make the conclusions that I reject, more palatable or seemingly inevitable.

However...it is also correct to say that anti-CIV :

As well as gaps and errors in factual analysis about what distinguishes pre-CIV from CIV itself.

I can interpret this a few different ways could you clarify?

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 19:35

I didn't claim that anyone on this forum accused the anti-civ crowd of advocating the death of billions of people. I simply stated that it was an accusation traditionally associated with primitivist thought, which it is. I was speaking generally about the dialogue that exists on the left in regards to anti-civ/primitivism, which I have spent a bit of time trying to familiarize myself with. I was referring to individuals like Chomsky who, in a letter to the editors of Green Anarchy, said: "Anarcho-primitivism is the call for the genocide of billions of people." This is a fairly common accusation from what I've read. If I had been insinuating that anyone in this thread had been making that claim, then I would have said so outright.

Okay, so you were responding to an argument that wasn’t actually made in the discussion Fair enough. I’ll just point out that Chomsky’s statement which you quoted is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said that people use language like that when taking polemical pot-shots. Chomsky is not making a serious analysis of anarcho-primitivism there. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Chomsky thinks that anarcho-primitivists are sociopaths calling for the murder of billions.

I said several times that my views were interpretations of other people's views and did not necessarily conform to "anti-civ." If people want something specific to "anti-civ" then they should direct their comments to those people who adhere to those views and not to someone who has expressly said they do not.

You use the words "relationship" and "institutions." I have used neither of these words to describe civilisation. My definition of civilisation remains the same: it is those complexes -- in their totality -- that we have constructed in order that we can survive. If we can agree on that definition, then that's great. The consequence of our construction of these complexes is humanities domestication and for me, this is where the debate lies. Some seem to think this is a really great thing and others seem to think it's a really terrible thing. My interest is to try and understand what all of this means. I refer you back to my original post.

Yes, you did not use the exact words relationship or institutions. You did say complexes. Complexes of what, exactly, remains unclear, except that we know it has some relationship (oops, I used that word again) with humans constructing things to survive. Without more specificity, this definition is far from useful. It is not unjustified for people to wonder what use you might find it.

But you weren't asking on-point questions about a text, you were involving yourself -- yet again -- in a conversation that wasn't even directed at you. You then went on to overcomplicate that conversation and accuse me of not satisfactorily responding to an argument that i wasn't even invested in. This entire thread happens to be a conversation that I started. Having tried to find technical reasons to close it down and failed (though I’m sure you’ll deny having done this), you’ve resorted to declaring who is or is not a legitimate participant in a discussion on the basis of whom comments are directed toward. For a moderator of a forum, you have a peculiar ignorance about how discussion forums work. In public threads like this, it is generally considered acceptable and normal for people to response to comments, even if those comments are not directed at them. If the person making those comments wants to seal others off from involvement, they are generally expected to put those comments in a private message.

I have no issue with disagreement. I come here specifically for it. What I have issue with is your need to turn every political conversation into a battle. If you you want to be proclaimed the winner of every debate, then please let me save you the effort and say that forthwith you shall be known as the winner of all the debates in all the world and you get to wear the golden crown of debate.

If, however, you wish to have an honest, friendly exchange of ideas, please could you refrain from acting as if this is a matter of life and death. Which comments of mine are you referring to when you claim I am “acting as if this discussion is a matter of life and death”? The comment where I told you your definition of civilization was vague and needed more specificity to be useful? If you consider those words to be “fighting words,” well, I refer you to my earlier comments about how delicate and sheltered you must be.

I have no real desire to communicate with you if I'm perfectly honest, so if I am annoying you, my suggestion to you would be to give up trying and maybe stop talking to me all together...

One can live in hope. And yet, you continue to communicate with me. If you don't want to, that is fine. As exciting as these ponderous meta-discussions about discussions are, I'm sure I'll find a way to cope. And where did I say you were annoying me?

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 20:10

Yes, you did not use the exact words relationship or institutions. You did say complexes. Complexes of what, exactly, remains unclear, except that we know it has some relationship (oops, I used that word again) with humans constructing things to survive. Without more specificity, this definition is far from useful. It is not unjustified for people to wonder what use you might find it.

I am unclear how more specific I can be than saying the totality of everything we have constructed to survive. I can't be more specific than that. Are you telling me that you don't know what the totality of everything we have created to survive is? Is this the problem you're having? It seems ridiculous to list them but I am talking about: how we eat, what we eat, what we for have shelter, the way we create shelter, the way we keep warm, they way we protect ourselves, maintain our health, the way we have created communities, governance, social order. Presumably you must understand what humans have created in order to survive?

This entire thread happens to be a conversation that I started. Having tried to find technical reasons to close it down and failed (though I’m sure you’ll deny having done this), you’ve resorted to declaring who is or is not a legitimate participant in a discussion on the basis of whom comments are directed toward. For a moderator of a forum, you have a peculiar ignorance about how discussion forums work. In public threads like this, it is generally considered acceptable and normal for people to response to comments, even if those comments are not directed at them. If the person making those comments wants to seal others off from involvement, they are generally expected to put those comments in a private message.

Perhaps if you conducted your self better, it would mean these acceptable norms may be afforded to you without objection.

Which comments of mine are you referring to when you claim I am “acting as if this discussion is a matter of life and death”? The comment where I told you your definition of civilization was vague and needed more specificity to be useful? If you consider those words to be “fighting words,” well, I refer you to my earlier comments about how delicate and sheltered you must be.

It's not individual comments, it is the entire manner in which you engage in conversation. You are adversarial and talking to you is deeply unpleasant. You may not to listen to me, that's your choice, but believe me when I say that you do not conduct yourself in a manner fitting an exchange of ideas. Indeed, exchanging ideas is never really appears to be your objective. The way you go about critiquing and asking questions demonstrates to me that you are only hear to win. If you deny this, then you seriously need to reflect on how you construct your posts.

Now you may find it tiring that I repeat this to you, but it is necessary to repeat it when every single exchange you have with me is somehow predicated on you seemingly being antagonised. I assume you're not a sociopath, so maybe you should pay more attention to how you speak to people.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 20:49

I am unclear how more specific I can be than saying the totality of everything we have constructed to survive. I can't be more specific than that. Are you telling me that you don't know what the totality of everything we have created to survive is? Is this the problem you're having? It seems ridiculous to list them but I am talking about: how we eat, what we eat, what we for have shelter, the way we create shelter, the way we keep warm, they way we protect ourselves, maintain our health, the way we have created communities, governance, social order. Presumably you must understand what humans have created in order to survive?

No, I'm saying that if you view civilization as encompassing the entirety of what humans have constructed to survive, in the context of a discussion about anti-civ, you are muddying the waters. According to this definition, there is no period in which humans have existed in which there was not also civilization, since humans have always modified nature as part of their survival. In fact, this definition actually suggests the possibility of non-human animals also having civilizations of their own, since they certainly modify nature in order to survive.

Perhaps if you conducted your self better, it would mean these acceptable norms may be afforded to you without objection.I'm just pointing out that what you're objecting to falls well within the norms of acceptable behavior in an online forum. Continue objecting to your heart's content.

It's not individual comments, it is the entire manner in which you engage in conversation. You are adversarial and talking to you is deeply unpleasant. You may not to listen to me, that's your choice, but believe me when I say that you do not conduct yourself in a manner fitting an exchange of ideas. Indeed, exchanging ideas is never really appears to be your objective. The way you go about critiquing and asking questions demonstrates to me that you are only hear to win. If you deny this, then you seriously need to reflect on how you construct your posts.

Now you may find it tiring that I repeat this to you, but it is necessary to repeat it when every single exchange you have with me is somehow predicated on you seemingly being antagonised. I assume you're not a sociopath, so maybe you should pay more attention to how you speak to people.I am sure it was far more tiring for you to write that than it was for me to quickly skim it.

You're free to converse with whom you choose, to ignore whom you choose, and give advice to whom you choose. If you wish to take issue with the way I construct my posts in the hopes of actually altering how I construct them, you'll need to show me some specific examples. Otherwise, your advice is just not actionable and comes across as...
http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n538/lushrollinghills/Sour-Grapes-Central.jpg

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 21:08

No, I'm saying that if you view civilization as encompassing the entirety of what humans have constructed to survive, in the context of a discussion about anti-civ, you are muddying the waters.

I am merely offering an opinion on a discussion about civilisation. How this relates to "anti-civ" is a matter for others to decide.

According to this definition, there is no period in which humans have existed in which there was not also civilization, since humans have always modified nature as part of their survival.

Yes, the road to domestication has been a long one. We have developed our civilisation throughout history -- obviously. We have now arguably reached a situation in which our domestication is complete.

In fact, this definition actually suggests the possibility of non-human animals also having civilizations of their own, since they certainly modify nature in order to survive.

I'm not convinced that's generally the case.

I'm just pointing out that what you're objecting to falls well within the norms of acceptable behavior in an online forum. Continue objecting to your heart's content.

That may very well be the case, but it does not fall within the norms of inter-personal skills.

I don't say these things as if I'm some paragon of decorum; I also have to work on being better at communicating my frustrations. I think we would all benefit if we behaved less like angry shouting men in a pub.

You're free to converse with whom you choose, to ignore whom you choose, and give advice to whom you choose. If you wish to take issue with the way I construct my posts in the hopes of actually altering how I construct them, you'll need to show me some specific examples. Otherwise, your advice is just not actionable and comes across as...

I have not witnessed an exchange in which you do not take on this adversarial, competitive attitude. Certainly in all the exchanges we have had, this has been the case. this is the reason why on two separate occasions I have stopped talking to you. I am hoping this is not going to be a third.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 21:13

I am merely offering an opinion on a discussion about civilisation. How this relates to "anti-civ" is a matter for others to decide.

Since anti-civ theorists and supporters are not opposed to humans constructing things to survive, I would say it has no relevance to anti-civ thought. Then again, I'm open to hearing a persuasive counter-case.

That may very well be the case, but it does not fall within the norms of inter-personal skills.

I don't say these things as if I'm some paragon of decorum; I also have to work on being better at communicating my frustrations. I think we would all benefit if we behaved less like angry shouting men in a pub.

I have not witnessed an exchange in which you do not take on this adversarial, competitive attitude. Certainly in all the exchanges we have had, this has been the case. this is the reason why on two separate occasions I have stopped talking to you. I am hoping this is not going to be a third.

I honestly do value your feedback, but I'll repeat what I said in my last post. Without more detail, it is about as actionable as "don't disagree with people."

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 21:39

Since anti-civ theorists and supporters are not opposed to humans constructing things to survive, I would say it has no relevance to anti-civ thought. Then again, I'm open to hearing a persuasive counter-case.

I am also not opposed to humans constructing things to survive.

I honestly do value your feedback, but I'll repeat what I said in my last post. Without more detail, it is about as actionable as "don't disagree with people."

I don't really know how to tell you how not to have an adversarial and competitive attitude. If you don't feel that you have this attitude then my only advise would be to watch your syntax and the manner in which you construct your posts.

Saying this...

"Complexes of survival" adds no clarifying specificity to "complexes" as complexes was understood to mean institutions by which people currently live their lives ... or survive. Pointing out that people require "complexes" of relationships with one another and with nature is not an argument.

...does not create an open environment. If you said this verbatim to a person's face, do you imagine it would invite a particularly pleasant response? Do you think this level of bluntness creates the space to develop ideas? An exchange cannot be edifying if you are just telling someone the things they think and say are wrong without any sort of qualifying explanation or attempt at politeness. All it does is breed hostility.

Saying this...

Irony of ironies! It's pretty vague to define civilization as "complexes, whether industrial or technological or social." Which complexes, precisely? Which relationships? Which institutions? All of them? Some of them? Is sexuality a "complex" upon which we depend and that you seek to escape? What about commodity production? What about science? Is meteorology a big part of the problem? Which of these complexes are more basic to the others? How/why did humans accept their coming into existence?

Again, you are not offering any pedagogical process, you are just telling me that I am wrong and a hypocrite. You then list a collection of questions that gives the impression that I haven't really thought about what I think. Why would anyone want to respond to that kind of attitude?

There are countless other examples from this exchange and others in which you employ this same hostile manner of posting.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 21:57

I am also not opposed to humans constructing things to survive.

I did not say that you were.

I don't really know how to tell you how not to have an adversarial and competitive attitude. If you don't feel that you have this attitude then my only advise would be to watch your syntax and the manner in which you construct your posts.

Saying this...

...does not create an open environment. If you said this verbatim to a person's face, do you imagine it would invite a particularly pleasant response? Do you think this level of bluntness creates the space to develop ideas? An exchange cannot be edifying if you are just telling someone the things they think and say are wrong without any sort of qualifying explanation or attempt at politeness. All it does is breed hostility.We are on the Internet. We don't shake hands or introduce ourselves by our real names on forums like these. This brings me back to my main point: I don't think telling you that I don't find your definition clarifying or helpful to be rude or abnormally blunt by Internet standards. At least not anymore blunt than most people, including you, tend to be on this forum.

It should also be kept in mind that this was not our first exchange, and that my tone toward you, while not beyond the bounds of Internet civility, is certainly not the same tone I take with many other users who, for instance, haven't told me that I am turning an Internet discussion into a life-or-death competition, that my political goal as a Trotskyist is to "control people," or that I am "dick-swinging" by just making my views known. When you inject real hostility into the environment, I don't think you have much room to criticize bluntness while claiming it is hostility.

Again, you are not offering any pedagogical process, you are just telling me that I am wrong and a hypocrite. You then list a collection of questions that gives the impression that I haven't really thought about what I think. Why would anyone want to respond to that kind of attitude?

There are countless other examples from this exchange and others in which you employ this same hostile manner of posting.Bluntness is not hostility, and to be honest it is not possible to have a pedagogical process when the meaning of a concept that is to serve as the basis for learning and discussion either can't be agreed to or is made so broad that it paints a false picture of agreement where there is clearly disagreement. In the second case, removing the facade is necessary for any learning to occur by anybody.

The Feral Underclass

1st December 2015, 22:03

I did not say that you were.

Then I don't understand the point you were making.

We are on the Internet. We don't shake hands or introduce ourselves by our real names on forums like these. This brings me back to my main point: I don't think telling you that I don't find your definition clarifying or helpful to be rude or abnormally blunt by Internet standards. At least not anymore blunt than most people, including you, tend to be on this forum.

And as I have said to you, it's not the question, it is the manner in which it was asked.

It should also be kept in mind that this was not our first exchange, and that my tone toward you, while not beyond the bounds of Internet civility, is certainly not the same tone I take with many other users who, for instance, haven't told me that I am turning an Internet discussion into a life-or-death competition, that my political goal as a Trotskyist is to "control people," or that I am "dick-swinging" by just making my views known. When you inject real hostility into the environment, I don't think you have much room to criticize bluntness while claiming it is hostility.

As you wish.

Bluntness is not hostility, and to be honest it is not possible to have a pedagogical process when the meaning of a concept that is to serve as the basis for learning and discussion either can't be agreed to or is made so broad that it paints a false picture of agreement.

Evidently you do not value my feedback since you have continued the very same problematic attitude in your response.

Bluntness may not be hostility, but that is how it comes across on the internet. If you are unable to see and correct the attitude you insist on employing then this is your shortcoming. I only hope your inter-personal skills are better IRL than they are on the internet.

This will be our last exchange. Good luck to you.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st December 2015, 22:33

Then I don't understand the point you were making.

The point I was making was that, as anti-civ people aren't opposed to humans making things, I didn't see the relevance of your definition to the discussion.

And as I have said to you, it's not the question, it is the manner in which it was asked.And as I have said, the "blunt" manner that has you offended is, by what I have seen on this forum from many users including you, tame behavior. On its own, this fact doesn't mean that it is appropriate, because it might just be that revleft has a lot of ill-mannered people. But I think the bluntness you speak of is probably considered within the bounds of civility all over the Internet, at least in a context where people don't have real-life contact also.

Evidently you do not value my feedback since you have continued the very same problematic attitude in your response.If I didn't value it, I wouldn't have asked for it. I can value somebody giving their opinion, even if I end up not agreeing with that opinion.

Bluntness may not be hostility, but that is how it comes across on the internet. If you are unable to see and correct the attitude you insist on employing then this is your shortcoming. I only hope your inter-personal skills are better IRL than they are on the internet.

This will be our last exchange. Good luck to you.I accept your good wishes and hope that we can one day carry on substantive political exchanges even if you don't like my style.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

1st December 2015, 22:41

If you take what I wrote and then look at the definitions you have provided, the best definition is in fact its primary definition, i.e. "a group or system of different things that are linked in a close or complicated way; a network." In my original post I talked about industry, technology and society. It basically means all of the entities that exist and are linked to make up a thing. The most familiar term using this word might be Eisenhower's the "industrial militaryl complex" phrase.

Perhaps, although I always assumed Eisenhower chose the term "complex" precisely because it was vague and didn't want to confront the military industry and its lobbyists directly.

Yes, without one there wouldn't be the other.

Mutual dependence is not a justification for a circular argument. This isn't a virtuous circle but a vicious one. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot exist without one another, but that does not excuse us defining them merely in terms of the other (i.e the bourgeosie is the person who hires the proletariat, the proletariat is the person hired by the borugeoisie). You want a definition that recognizes the mutually dependent concepts, but you also want a robust definition that does more than just relate two terms (the bourgeoisie is one who owns the means of production, while the proletariat is one who is forced to sell their labor and work to enrich the bourgeoisie).

Do you not see a difference between a cat who lives in nature and has the skills to hunt for itself and survive for itself, and a cat that depends on outside systems and external things it cannot control to survive? This is not about nature and civilisation being the same, but understanding that one is the essence of reality and the other is manufactured.

I think this assumes a difference between the dependence we might have on human artifice and that which we might have on nature. The point is that either way, it needs access to food (if all the mice in a forest are dead, the cat will be no less able to survive), it needs a certain temperature (if there is a bad winter, the cat might die) and it needs a level of predictability (if there is a fire in the forest, the cat might get burned to death). I don't think we can say that the cat is really any more independent when in the wild, it is just dependent on different things. In society, it is dependent on the actions of rational human beings, while in the wild it is dependent on the climate, ecosystem etc. I don't think these two kinds of dependence are as different as we think.

Let's take another example to illustrate this. Certain ants keep fungus in their colonies. This fungus cannot survive at all independently of their colonies. Do the ants have "civilization"? Is their colony a "complex"? Is the fungus "Domesticated"?

I would say these definitions aren't clear at all. Marx wrote volume after volume on the subjects just to try and articulate what he meant by wage labour and capital. Anyone who thinks these definitions are clear has never endured Capital :p

I assure you, I have tortured myself by reading Capital. However, much of Capital is just further analyses of these concepts that go well beyond their strict definition. The definitions of his terms are still clearer. Capital is private property used by the bourgeoisie to accumulate more wealth through the process of exchange. Whether or not that is the clearest definition, it certainly seems clearer to me than saying "Civilization is a collection of complexes that domesticates animals and people"

By the way, I'm not sure whether my views conform to "anti-Civ." This is just my interpretation of civilisation based on my readings of Dauvé and Camatte, both of whom come from a Marxist perspective.

Fair enough. I do think that "civilization" is a large, vague and sweeping term that people use and give meaning, but is never particularly clear. It's not a useless concept, but I don't think it's a good concept to form as the basis for political analysis. It seems more like anti-civ people are people who sympathize with primitivists, but pick a vaguer target than modern technology because they don't like the implications of living without tech (including things like killing most people on earth, which posters like Bixx have distanced themselves from)

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 00:15

The author of that piece explicitly says "When I say anti-civilization, I am not advocating for mass death, as its opponents claim."

This is where it is important to remember my earlier point about the difference between what is subjectively desired and explicitly defended, and the inevitable result of the objective conditions espoused by the anti-civ defenders.

The author also makes the interesting claim that anarchism is not necessarily a left ideology.

Ehm.

Yes, without civilization, people will die…the very people who are NOT dying right now. The very people who are benefitting of the deaths of others. Those who are dying right now will be free to return to their existences before their enslavement, or even create their own existences. They will no longer have to sacrifice themselves for their masters in the developed world.

With that he means just about everybody in the developed world by the way.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 00:25

Just wanna point out that 9mm is doing exactly what I'd expect of someone who is legitimately interested in learning about something rather than criticizing chatacter, repeating the same "people will die!!!!" statements, or trying to interrogate users. This thread itself people have brought up medicine claiming that we want people to die due to lack of medicine.

That's what a conversation should look like. Instead we have this shit.

You are not being prosecuted here in this thread.

You are not interrogated here in this thread.

You are posed with questions about a tendency you claim to adhere to and on statements you made and their meaning....both of which you repeatedly say you want to discuss (but never actually do).

You keep thinking people here don't read and generalize that to eveybody...in doing so you adopt a very hautain attitude that nobody here understands anti-CIV, knows anything about it and that we are therefor not able, much less allowed, to be critical.

And YES. A question and/statement statement about how large swats of anti-CIV do indeed advocate explicitly or implicitly that millions (if not more) people should die is in fact legitimate. You keep ignoring the fact that primitivists do indeed make up a very large section of anti-CIV. In fact Perlman and Zerzan, two names you mentioned, are leading primitivists. So if you suggest their text to understand anti-CIV then yeah...people are going to associate your opinions with those of primitivism. IF you want to distinguish yourself then do so.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 00:37

I thought you had posted that anti-civ as a tendency tends to be actually primitivist but we can glean valid points even from this (depending on the text) albeit rejecting the conclusion. Thus, anti-civ positions are positions that any tendency can take and you can find them scattered around throughout many different tendencies. That is why I was rejecting anti-civ as an entire tendency, because it doesn't represent 'core tendencies' that I feel are more valid. I am willing to tentatively accept that general distiguising between them.

Yes they indeed tend to. But tend does not mean every anti-CIV position is primitivist. Anti-CIV aspects are found in a lot of leftwing tendencies. Anti-CIV developed first through Anarchism...if you want to reduce it to a linear process.

hink it is inherently anti-civ because of the inocculous nature that 'we are social' takes on. It again carries with it a coercive force that binds us to a very specific form of living, and to one another in a specific context.

Very true. Yet interestingly anti-CIV stresses the social bonds people are naturally inclined to and state that these bonds are broken because of the coercive element of civ.

I can interpret this a few different ways could you clarify?

Anti-CIV positioning of CIV vs pre-CIV is based on factual incorrect interpretations of pre-CIV conditions. They also don't make it clear what the distinguishing features are and how they are not present in pre-CIV.

This means that the entire "building" of anti-CIV thought becomes an unclear and vague abstraction obfuscated by a lack of consistency and factual statements.

Some of these instances are highlighted in the questions I asked TFU.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 00:44

Here is by the way an Anarchist response to attacks by primitivists which does include the text by Perlman being addressed:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism/5-primitivist-attacks-on-anarchism

Ironically this contains this passage:

Primitivists regularly advance two notions when defending their views against anarchists. One is that, no matter how many primitive screeds are read, anyone who objects to primitivism "does not understand it" or "has not read enough about it." Presumably, to understand primitivism is to agree with it. (It's common for devout members of religious groups to make the same claim, which highlights the similarities between primitivists and religionists.) Primitivists seem not to be able to grasp the possibility that one could disagree with their views precisely because they are understood.

The second notion is that, although they allow themselves the freedom to polemicize viciously against traditional anarchists, they cannot be criticized in turn. Anarchist criticism of their views is "divisive," "sectarian," or "uncomradely." Anarchists are routinely presented with the pathetic sight of primitivists and post-leftists viciously attacking classical anarchism, only to thereafter run behind the black flag and claim "but we're all in this together" when the fire is returned. In the world of primitive thinking, only primitive thoughts deserve to be advanced.

I personally find that hilarious.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 00:45

Okay, so you were responding to an argument that wasn’t actually made in the discussion Fair enough. I’ll just point out that Chomsky’s statement which you quoted is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said that people use language like that when taking polemical pot-shots. Chomsky is not making a serious analysis of anarcho-primitivism there. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Chomsky thinks that anarcho-primitivists are sociopaths calling for the murder of billions.

Welllll....maybe not in so many words. Here is a very long text:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-oliver-sheppard-anarchism-vs-primitivism

The Feral Underclass

2nd December 2015, 09:21

Mutual dependence is not a justification for a circular argument. This isn't a virtuous circle but a vicious one. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot exist without one another, but that does not excuse us defining them merely in terms of the other (i.e the bourgeosie is the person who hires the proletariat, the proletariat is the person hired by the borugeoisie). You want a definition that recognizes the mutually dependent concepts, but you also want a robust definition that does more than just relate two terms (the bourgeoisie is one who owns the means of production, while the proletariat is one who is forced to sell their labor and work to enrich the bourgeoisie).

But I think that I have provided that definition. I'll try again: Civilisation is the totality of things that we have constructed to allow us to survive. Domestication is the resulting consequence on humanity of that process. Something being the consequence of something is not a tautology.

I think this assumes a difference between the dependence we might have on human artifice and that which we might have on nature. The point is that either way, it needs access to food (if all the mice in a forest are dead, the cat will be no less able to survive), it needs a certain temperature (if there is a bad winter, the cat might die) and it needs a level of predictability (if there is a fire in the forest, the cat might get burned to death). I don't think we can say that the cat is really any more independent when in the wild, it is just dependent on different things. In society, it is dependent on the actions of rational human beings, while in the wild it is dependent on the climate, ecosystem etc. I don't think these two kinds of dependence are as different as we think.

Okay, but I don't think an animal evolving to better suit a climate and ecosystem in order to survive is the same as an animal constructing their means of survival, and then becoming dependent on it. An animal can survive in its climate and ecosystem because it has evolved to do so, a human cannot live in its climate and ecosystem because it depends on technology and so forth to maintain its life.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Our brains have allowed us to construct these things. But the point is that we have now become dependent on them. If there was a disaster of devastating preparations, would the majority of humans know how to survive without supermarkets, cookers or fridges? Would they know how to create shelter without someone building them a house? What about keeping warm without having central heating? Building a fire without matches? No one knows how to do this because we have created things that do it for us and allow us to survive, but at the same time we have become dependent on those things in order to survive. We no longer have any skills to exist in nature without the things we have constructed.

This may not seem relevant or important, but I would contend that there are serious implications for this domestication. Especially when we talk about the domination of capital over humanity. I think Camatte takes this too far, but he has a point about how the domestication of humanity has allowed capitalism "to escape."

Let's take another example to illustrate this. Certain ants keep fungus in their colonies. This fungus cannot survive at all independently of their colonies. Do the ants have "civilization"? Is their colony a "complex"? Is the fungus "Domesticated"?

The fungus didn't construct the ants and the ants didn't construct the fungus.

Fair enough. I do think that "civilization" is a large, vague and sweeping term that people use and give meaning, but is never particularly clear. It's not a useless concept, but I don't think it's a good concept to form as the basis for political analysis. It seems more like anti-civ people are people who sympathize with primitivists, but pick a vaguer target than modern technology because they don't like the implications of living without tech (including things like killing most people on earth, which posters like Bixx have distanced themselves from)

But these implications are profound. There is going to come a point in human history where technology and industry, for example, no longer exist by virtue of being unable to exist. It could be as early as the next 100 years what with climate change, the depletion of natural resources and global conflict. The maturation of the planet will see human society collapse anyway. Even if it takes 10,000 years when the ice caps will have melted, there will come that point. I mean, in 50,000 years the Earth will have receded back into an ice age irrespective of global warming. Human civilisation is unsustainable. The question is for how long.

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 11:56

Again.

Your definition is completely and utterly useless in the light of anti-CIV thought and explaining how anti-CIV see civilization and how this relates to the pre-CIV periods or post-CIV period.

In fact your definition encapsules the totality of humanity throughout its history. There is no pre-CIV period and no post-CIV period...your definition simply means that where ever there are humans in a group surviving they have civilization. And as such civilization in your definition seizes to have any form of meaning. Anti-CIV after all becomes CIV in your definition. It involves everything every human ever existing does with ore than one human.

In fact your definition also includes large amounts of tool using animals. By merit of your definition and explanation the Chimps have civilization, Orangutans have civilization. Meerkats have civlization Etc. All animals who actively construct their environments, use tools and complex social structures to aid in their survival.

It is not difficult to see the implications of a less than thought through definition you throw around nor does your definition allow for grandiose statements you make in your last post.

Then you drift off in ridiculous histrionics

But these implications are profound.

You fail to explain the implications. You previously made a huge points about linguistics...well...here you make a statement which you do not follow up on.

There is going to come a point in human history where technology and industry, for example, no longer exist by virtue of being unable to exist. It could be as early as the next 100 years what with climate change, the depletion of natural resources and global conflict.

This is an assumption and not a given

The maturation of the planet will see human society collapse anyway. Even if it takes 10,000 years when the ice caps will have melted, there will come that point.

This has NO relevance on any criticism of CIV.

There will be a time that the sun will supernova or when a meteorite larger than 1 km will hit earth. This is not relevant. Nor does it make any criticism of CIV actually true.

I mean, in 50,000 years the Earth will have receded back into an ice age irrespective of global warming. Human civilisation is unsustainable. The question is for how long.

Of course what you are ignoring is that human civilization already survived a few ice ages...

...and I say civilization because that is what your definition says about these humans. They were civilized

PhoenixAsh

2nd December 2015, 12:27

Since the anti-CIV crowd seems to be unresponsive and we are left with TFU explaining us how best to phrase a question and/or criticism as to not upset him into thinking we are hostile...

Here is a post-CIV text for everybody to read:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/usul-of-the-blackfoot-post-civ-a-deeper-exploration

Ele'ill

2nd December 2015, 14:30

Yes they indeed tend to. But tend does not mean every anti-CIV position is primitivist. Anti-CIV aspects are found in a lot of leftwing tendencies. Anti-CIV developed first through Anarchism...if you want to reduce it to a linear process.

Yes, aside from anti-civ development, this is what I said.

Very true. Yet interestingly anti-CIV stresses the social bonds people are naturally inclined to and state that these bonds are broken because of the coercive element of civ.

I have no idea what this means. I don't know if you are repeating back to me what I have said or if you are engaging in wordplay with 'stresses', 'bonds', and 'naturally inclined'. An anti-civ position would be critical of what is natural inclination, and critical of what is intrinsic to us as a species.

Anti-CIV positioning of CIV vs pre-CIV is based on factual incorrect interpretations of pre-CIV conditions. They also don't make it clear what the distinguishing features are and how they are not present in pre-CIV.

I assume you are talking about anti-civ as a tendency but we have taken anti-civ positions without having to glorify pre-civ.

This means that the entire "building" of anti-CIV thought becomes an unclear and vague abstraction obfuscated by a lack of consistency and factual statements.

tbh most of the topics brought up here are abstract and theoretical. If your goal with this last bit is to claim that anti-civ cannot be an actual tendency in itself then I'm fine with that because I have no stakes in preserving or developing it as a tendency

Ele'ill

2nd December 2015, 14:33

Since the anti-CIV crowd seems to be unresponsive and we are left with TFU explaining us how best to phrase a question and/or criticism as to not upset him into thinking we are hostile..

What is 'the anti-civ crowd'? Is it anyone who takes anti-civ positions? Have I not been posting here this whole time?

PhoenixAsh

3rd December 2015, 15:25

What is 'the anti-civ crowd'? Is it anyone who takes anti-civ positions? Have I not been posting here this whole time?

I don't know....are you considering yourself a crowd? And do you consider yourself anti-CIV?

Anti-CIV positions do not exist outside of anti-CIV tendency unless they are anti-CIV specific. Outside that it simply becomes CIV critical. And this is not a word play or pun.

Yes, aside from anti-civ development, this is what I said.

I have no idea what this means. I don't know if you are repeating back to me what I have said or if you are engaging in wordplay with 'stresses', 'bonds', and 'naturally inclined'. An anti-civ position would be critical of what is natural inclination, and critical of what is intrinsic to us as a species.

The social human element is an integral part of anti-CIV...which considers humans social creatures. Rejecting the social element of human nature is not anti-CIV...but nihilist and egoist.

I assume you are talking about anti-civ as a tendency but we have taken anti-civ positions without having to glorify pre-civ.

Well then....what does make a position anti-CIV and how does it distinguish itself from similar positions held by tendencies before anti-CIV was even a thing?

Like I said before...unless it is a positing specific to the anti-CIV tendency then it merely becomes CIV critical by virtue of not having a distinguishing element that separates it from any other similar criticism.

And this distinguishing element is at the core of this debate....as well as of being able to explain amyi-CIV.

tbh most of the topics brought up here are abstract and theoretical. If your goal with this last bit is to claim that anti-civ cannot be an actual tendency in itself then I'm fine with that because I have no stakes in preserving or developing it as a tendency

What I am saying is that anti-CIV is flawed (as is post-CIV)

Btw. Anti-CIV is a tendency. It is encompassed for the largest part by primitivism...and has certain elements that overlap with green anarchism and post-CIV.

The flaws of anti-CIV & post-CIV is, for one, that it is unable to explain what CIV is and how this distinguishes itself from pre- & post-CIV communities (community being at the heart of both). Either a return to pre-CIV communities or constructing post-CIV communities ironically require the construction of CIV itself.

Ele'ill

3rd December 2015, 19:23

I don't know....are you considering yourself a crowd? And do you consider yourself anti-CIV? Anti-CIV positions do not exist outside of anti-CIV tendency unless they are anti-CIV specific. Outside that it simply becomes CIV critical. And this is not a word play or pun.

I have a few problems with this. First, we've spent several posts between the two of us discussing terms, mainly the difference between those people who would look you in the face and state that their tendency is anti-civ and that much of this ends in a primitivist conclusion and those people who would 'sympathize' with anti-civ positions, i.e. criticisms that are unique to civ that people see as being valid, perhaps with no solutions, while rejecting a primitivist conclusion/solution. Taking a position 'critical' of civ could also be 'against' civ, especially since what we are discussing, or exploring, is theoretical. For this reason, I was confused when you stated that 'the anti-civ crowd was unresponsive', given the forum tradition of labeling everyone who asks so much as a question within that realm, as a primitivist. Hence the clarifying question.

The social human element is an integral part of anti-CIV...which considers humans social creatures. Rejecting the social element of human nature is not anti-CIV...but nihilist and egoist.

Why do you think nihilist/egoist reject the social element?

BIXX

3rd December 2015, 19:54

Fuck I told myself I'd stop posting in this thread but I gotta say a few things. Maybe then I'll be able to pull myself away.

On what basis do you think nihilism and egoism aren't able to utilize anti-civ critique? On what basis can you separate the two?

The flaws of anti-CIV & post-CIV is, for one, that it is unable to explain what CIV is and how this distinguishes itself from pre- & post-CIV communities (community being at the heart of both). Either a return to pre-CIV communities or constructing post-CIV communities ironically require the construction of CIV itself.

I think that many folks have adequately explained what they think civ is, with definitions that are not only consistent and cohesive but also correct. I get the feeling that your ignorance of this is purposeful.

Either everything you're trying to do to critique the positions held by those who are against civ here is based on complete ignorance of our positions (which I believe is entirely due to a lack of real engagement with them) or you are exactly aware of what we mean and you are purposefully not responding to the positions we hold.

PhoenixAsh

3rd December 2015, 22:26

Fuck I told myself I'd stop posting in this thread but I gotta say a few things. Maybe then I'll be able to pull myself away.

On what basis do you think nihilism and egoism aren't able to utilize anti-civ critique? On what basis can you separate the two?

Because, BiXX, anti-CIV becomes meaningless outside the anti-CIV collective thought. Something is anti-CIV because it is anti-CIV specific....otherwise there is NO element that distinguishes it as such from other similar criticism.

Nihilism and Egoism are specific lines and collections of thought which are very distinct from anti-CIV.

I think that many folks have adequately explained what they think civ is, with definitions that are not only consistent and cohesive but also correct. I get the feeling that your ignorance of this is purposeful.

You haven't explained shit. You can't even give a coherent definition of CIV. And if you are under the impression that what you (BIXX) said had anything in common with anti-CIV when you are rejecting the core elements of anti-CIV (social and community) then you don't actually understand what anti-CIV is.

Either everything you're trying to do to critique the positions held by those who are against civ here is based on complete ignorance of our positions (which I believe is entirely due to a lack of real engagement with them) or you are exactly aware of what we mean and you are purposefully not responding to the positions we hold.

Lol. I refer back to the text I posted. It is freaking hillarious that you seem to be under the impression that you are the only one who understands anti-CIV and then utilize the exact same tactics posted in the libcom article. It's funny as hell.

I have responded to your comments with legitimate questions and you have been dodging and whining about how you are being prosecuted and how everybody is out to get you.

Rather than doing that you should actually start engaging.

Ele'ill

3rd December 2015, 23:24

Because, BiXX, anti-CIV becomes meaningless outside the anti-CIV collective thought.

Something is anti-CIV because it is anti-CIV specific....otherwise there is NO element that distinguishes it as such from other similar criticism.

Nihilism and Egoism are specific lines and collections of thought which are very distinct from anti-CIV.

BIXX asked the question that I was hoping to not have to ask after your reply to me, which is irrelevant now, but I just wanted to clarify why I would ask that question. I asked the question on how (or why) nihilism and egoism were anti social or reject the coercive elements of the social (that you referred to) or it in its entirety, because I think when you start to identify that you can see how it is not a far cry from anti-civ. As TFU noted regarding the totality of it, of our domestication, of the prisons we've created both physical and non-physical. I am not interested in splitting hairs over the origins of these three, and do not think that they are inherently embraced together, however I also don't know many people who are a pure tendency because theory develops. This is why there are groups of people who may take positions, or contribute writing, that is from a position involving all three.

PhoenixAsh

4th December 2015, 01:09

BIXX asked the question that I was hoping to not have to ask after your reply to me, which is irrelevant now, but I just wanted to clarify why I would ask that question. I asked the question on how (or why) nihilism and egoism were anti social [or reject the coercive elements of the social (that you referred to) or it in its entirety, because I think when you start to identify that you can see how it is not a far cry from anti-civ.

Nihilism rejects any necessity for social structure. Egoism denies the social aspect of humanity. These ideas are not compatible with anti-CIV.

Anti-CIV emphasizes just this social aspect and these social structures...it is a core element of anti-CIV. Anti-CIV does NOT consider social to be coercive. The main criticism of CIV by anti-CIV is just this reduction and breakdown of the social aspect of humanity.

Nihilism and Egoism are in fact entirely separate entities hugely distinct from anti-CIV and fully fledged ideas, ideologies and tendencies on their own. They may be rejecting CIV...but this does not mean that they are anti-CIV.

And that brings us to criticism of CIV and what you mean exactly by "anti-CIV" positions. You seem to be under the impression that whenever CIV is criticized or when CIV is rejected that this means the position argued is anti-CIV. Doing so you abandon the political concept in favor of a literal translation of the word anti. Anti-CIV however is not merely "against CIV" it is a rather specific collection of ideas that as a whole distinguish themselves as "anti-CIV".

Merely rejecting CIV or aspects of it happens in Anarchism, Marxism, Social Democracy, Fascism....and post-CIV (which has overlaps with anti-CIV but is rather different) to some extend or another.

What distinguishes anti-CIV is the core concept of what comes before and after CIV.

So for a position to be labelled anti-CIV it needs to be specific to anti-CIV or tied into it's wider core politics. If it isn't then it is merely CIV critical thought that has no correlation with the term other than through a literal interpretation of the word anti.

For example: When a Marxist says the state is oppressive this is not suddenly an Anarchist position.

In green anarchism there is a whole lot of resistance for example to equate Nihilism with anti-CIV. They reject this notion because the goals are opposed to each other.

When it comes to anti-CIV....Zerzan for example has serious problems with Nihilism. Nihilists and Egoists (Landstreicher/Faun) in turn criticize the emphasize of the social and reject it.

So no. A position is not something by virtue of it sounding the same. A position is something because it belongs to it by virtue of being distinctive or integrated.

And on an interesting side note...neither Zerzan or Faun have any problems identifying what CIV is.

As TFU noted regarding the totality of it, of our domestication, of the prisons we've created both physical and non-physical.

Yeah what TFU said was full of shit and not in any way shape or form linked to any anti-CIV thought by merit of using a definition that is diametrically opposed to anti-CIV

I am not interested in splitting hairs over the origins of these three, and do not think that they are inherently embraced together, however I also don't know many people who are a pure tendency because theory develops. This is why there are groups of people who may take positions, or contribute writing, that is from a position involving all three.

It is not whether or not you are a pure tendency. But if an anarchist embraces the state then they are not an anarchist. It is that simple. If your position is diametrically opposed to core concepts of a tendency then you are not that tendency.

Ele'ill

4th December 2015, 14:34

Nihilism rejects any necessity for social structure. Egoism denies the social aspect of humanity. These ideas are not compatible with anti-CIV.

Anti-CIV emphasizes just this social aspect and these social structures...it is a core element of anti-CIV. Anti-CIV does NOT consider social to be coercive. The main criticism of CIV by anti-CIV is just this reduction and breakdown of the social aspect of humanity.

I don't think nihilism and egoism reject social interaction so much as they identify the innoculous manner in which social coercion exists within civ.

Nihilism and Egoism are in fact entirely separate entities hugely distinct from anti-CIV and fully fledged ideas, ideologies and tendencies on their own. They may be rejecting CIV...but this does not mean that they are anti-CIV.

And that brings us to criticism of CIV and what you mean exactly by "anti-CIV" positions. You seem to be under the impression that whenever CIV is criticized or when CIV is rejected that this means the position argued is anti-CIV. Doing so you abandon the political concept in favor of a literal translation of the word anti. Anti-CIV however is not merely "against CIV" it is a rather specific collection of ideas that as a whole distinguish themselves as "anti-CIV".

This was a distinction made between tendency and position. I would argue that there has been a distinct break in the traditional anti-civ tendency where enough criticisms of civilization have been taken and developed in different directions.

Merely rejecting CIV or aspects of it happens in Anarchism, Marxism, Social Democracy, Fascism....and post-CIV (which has overlaps with anti-CIV but is rather different) to some extend or another.

The development of anti-civ has led to a criticism of those.

What distinguishes anti-CIV is the core concept of what comes before and after CIV.

I think that's what distinguishes a primitivist position from a position that nihilists, as an example, take while criticising what I think is a fine definition, the totality of our domestication. I have talked with people who identify as anti-civ while rejecting a primitivist conclusion.

So for a position to be labelled anti-CIV it needs to be specific to anti-CIV or tied into it's wider core politics. If it isn't then it is merely CIV critical thought that has no correlation with the term other than through a literal interpretation of the word anti.

For example: When a Marxist says the state is oppressive this is not suddenly an Anarchist position.

In green anarchism there is a whole lot of resistance for example to equate Nihilism with anti-CIV. They reject this notion because the goals are opposed to each other.

When it comes to anti-CIV....Zerzan for example has serious problems with Nihilism. Nihilists and Egoists (Landstreicher/Faun) in turn criticize the emphasize of the social and reject it.

So no. A position is not something by virtue of it sounding the same. A position is something because it belongs to it by virtue of being distinctive or integrated.

Yes, but none of this answers to what I posted regarding the similarities and the common line of criticism.

And on an interesting side note...neither Zerzan or Faun have any problems identifying what CIV is.

Yeah what TFU said was full of shit and not in any way shape or form linked to any anti-CIV thought by merit of using a definition that is diametrically opposed to anti-CIV

I think this is an issue of reducing the conversation down to limited definitions and terms that you have personally been exposed to and being unable to accept developed criticisms.

It is not whether or not you are a pure tendency. But if an anarchist embraces the state then they are not an anarchist. It is that simple. If your position is diametrically opposed to core concepts of a tendency then you are not that tendency.

This is what we disagree on. I don't see the massive clash that you are seeing.

PhoenixAsh

4th December 2015, 16:45

The issue is that anti-CIV "positions" is a meaningless term described and labelled from a specific and above all very subjective perspective.

As I said. Nihilism and Egoism are tendencies on their own. They have similarities with anti-CIV. But their positions belong to an entirely different totality of thought. The criticism is similar but not the same.

I gave an example to explain this.

Marxism and Anarchism both criticize the state. However when a Marxist criticizes the state this is a Marxist position and not suddenly an Anarchist position because of similarities. Equally Nazism is anti Capitalist as is Communism. One would hardly argue that a Nazi arguing against capitalism is taking a communist position even when the arguments used are inherently sounding or looking the same.

A position becomes Marxist or Anarchist when measured in respect to the totality (goal etc) and by specificity.

So when a Nihilist or Egoist criticize CIV they do so from a specific set of philosophies, thoughts and goals....from a specific totality.

Arguments sound the same but either aren't because of what I said above or don't distinguish themselves from all other forms of criticism and therefore don't fall under a specific label. This last one is pretty important.

For example...criticizing and rejecting CIV for it's coercive element is not
unique to anti-CIV or Nihilism or Egoism. In fact the vast majority of Anarchism does pretty much the same thing.

And as said...Nihilism and Egoism are specific tendencies on their own...none of their criticism is new and existed before anti-CIV became a thing. Coopting another label, which as you know is specifically rejected by Nihilism, is seriously misrepresenting your actual position. Which is why Zerzan and Faun can't seem to be able to agree on which is which. So the idea of them being similar is rejected within the tendencies themselves...their criticism and goals are separate and rather irreconcilable.

So this doesn't come down to personal exposure. It is in fact something which is contested within the tendencies themselves.

And yes...mutually exclusive core concepts can't become the same...regardless of "political development". Anarchism and Capitalism don't mix. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't actually a thing. The same goes for Anarcho-Nationalism. They are their own specific labels very distinct from what is being coopted. National Socialism is another example. It may call itself socialism, and some of the positions look and sound similar to socialism...but National Socialism will never be socialism. You may call it that but the contradiction is something else. As it is with Nihilism and Anti-Civ.

Off course then we also have an entirely different matter of what "post-CIV" is.