Civilization and savagery

[Comrade Latino]

Ok, I've heard american saying this all the time and it just enrages me. I'm sure everyone has heard it : "Oh my God, those people are savages" They always say that towards foerigners. In my opinion civilized and savages people don't exist, there are only different culture with different tradditions. Well, I'm sure people call american savages when they bombed iraq for oil...I mean, to "liberate them"
Opinion?
PS: Sorry for my worst spelling.

[DaCuBaN]

This is an interesting one... something I really do have no straight answer for.

Obviously people are no more 'savage' than one another, but could it be justified that a culture is more savage? Take the US compared to the UK as an example... the former has a large gun culture, capital punishment, mandataroy drug sentencing, whereas the latter has banned firearms, banned capital punishment and has fines rather than imprisonment for 'lighter' drugs. This would seem, as far as rehabilitation is concerened, that the former is more savage and the latter more 'civilized' - though this is not strictly true.

Perhaps it is the goalposts that need redefined: Perhaps savagery and civilised aren't as clean cut as they appear, but instead are rather murky 'cultural' terms.

Generally though, it's just another put-down used by those who feel the need to 'exercise their superiority' so to speak.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It based on the fact that generally civalisation is defined by how progessive a society is, the West as the most progressed society views itself as civislised and others as not.

Take a look at the history of Islam and you will see that once they were more civilised and used similar terms.

[Faceless]

Agree with Geist. Civilisation, whatever connotations it is given, depends upon the advances in the mode of production. In such a sense I believe in savage and civilised societies. That is not to say that savage societies are inferior. They are the necessary products of the state of productive forces. In the context you have given though the difference between Iraq and the West is not so large as that between Industrial and non-Industrial societies all though there is a development gap. It represents simple xenophobia. It is racist.

True though, the Arabic states were among the richest in the world before the Rennaisance. Baghdad was the richest city in the world during the crusades. I sense that the nature of Imperialism has changed on scale only!

But savage nations have and do exist in the interpretation of primeval primitive communism/Barbarism. I would say that few peoples fit in such categories today.

[iloveatomickitten]

"That is not to say that savage societies are inferior" - Well that is what makes them savage the fact that the civilized societies are the more powerful societies and therefore determine international law and morality through their power.

And even if you avoid that one culture is always going to look down on another as "worse" in someway or another (or at least to our wonderful enlightenment which I'm in no doubt someone will bring up).

[The idealist]

Personally I only think civilisation can be judged in terms of how the moral and ideological values of a "civilisation" affects other people and the earth in general.
A clean peaceful country giving international aid would then be more civilised than a polluting dictatorial country that is at war.

Civilisation is therefore the combination of benevolence, understanding and want for the common good.

Some people seem to think that civilisation can be judged by tecnology and "law and order".

The ancient Aboriginals could then be considered more civilised than some present americans.

[redstar2000]

I would imagine that following a few centuries of communism, all pre-communist human societies will "blur together" in people's minds as six millennia of barbarism. Only historians will make distinctions between Attila the Hun and George W. Bush.

The general impression among most people will be...

1. Savagery (pre-class society) -- c.150,000BCE to 4,000BCE

2. Barbarism (class societies) -- 4,000BCE to c.2,200CE

3. Civilization (classless society) -- c.2200CE to present

My estimate could be overly optimistic, of course. :)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Freud makes no distinction between the two, I agree.

Simply put, savagery and civilization do not differ--the former being that which more technologically/whatever progessed societies lable as low and bad, etc. in their arrogance.

The distinction should be made between nature and civilization--at which point did man begin to build moral/etc law in order to repress instincts to allow survival and defense against nature. Nature exists without moral law, whereas human civilization exists with it and around this focal point survival twines itself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Although the word 'savage' has negative connotations, in my mind it describes a society that may very well be advanced socially, philosophically and culturally, but lacks 'civilised' amenities such as cities, regular water supply, means of production, or any significant technology base.
Examples of such societies include the aborigines and the Inuit.

'barbarian' societies are ones that look and/or proport to be genuinely 'civilized', but in actuality have a degenerate culture, a tendency to tread on other 'barbarian' civilisations, and a have a very top-down (leader-oriented) societal structure.
Examples include the USA, UK, and most of the world's nations.

None of us have achieved the zenith of human societal achievement; True Civilisation. this is where Anarchist Communism comes in, being the only sensible paradigm so far for running a True Civilisation.

Pretty much what Redstar said.

[elijahcraig]

None of us have achieved the zenith of human societal achievement; True Civilisation. this is where Anarchist Communism comes in, being the only sensible paradigm so far for running a True Civilisation.

What the hell is a "True Civilisation"?

You anarchists are something else, always ready to preach.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What the hell is a "True Civilisation"?

You anarchists are something else, always ready to preach.

I'd have thought it was obvious... A civilisation that really is civilised.

[elijahcraig]

What is "civilized"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A civilisation that really is egalitarian, non-aggressive and progressive.

Dammit.

[elijahcraig]

THat's ridiculous. That has NOTHING to do with the question, THAT is all about your personal preference over a society.

[Daymare17]

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/barbarism1.html

This article puts an end to the discussion IMO.

[elijahcraig]

That article does nothing but restate the old tired arguments of the left, you might as well have just requoted NiOxon in stead of posting to an essay by Alan Woods.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:05 AM
That article does nothing but restate the old tired arguments of the left
Mind to counter them?

If you have already, then please direct me.

[elijahcraig]

Mind to counter them?

If you have already, then please direct me.

I'd rather not, as my views differ so much from the dogmatic position you are taking.

Let's just say I take a Freudian view of this, while you take a social view of it, in terms of justice, "freedom," equality, etc.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:52 PM

I'd rather not, as my views differ so much from the dogmatic position you are taking.
Well that's one way to win a discussion :blink:

[elijahcraig]

If you want to know my definition, read Freud's "Future of an Illusion", where he defines civilization and culture as the human building of structures to defend themselves against the forces of nature, designing morality, law, family, institutions, etc. This differs with animals, who lack these societal structures.

I make no separation between barbarism and "true civilization" because I don't analyze this in a morally-driven way the way you or the marxists do. I see no difference between the civilization that has slaves and cannibalism and the one that is classless, both are forms of civilization.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:03 PM
If you want to know my definition, read Freud's "Future of an Illusion", where he defines civilization and culture as the human building of structures to defend themselves against the forces of nature, designing morality, law, family, institutions, etc. This differs with animals, who lack these societal structures.

I make no separation between barbarism and "true civilization" because I don't analyze this in a morally-driven way the way you or the marxists do. I see no difference between the civilization that has slaves and cannibalism and the one that is classless, both are forms of civilization.
I haven't read that, I will try to check it out. Thanks!

[Faceless]

"That is not to say that savage societies are inferior" - Well that is what makes them savage the fact that the civilized societies are the more powerful societies and therefore determine international law and morality through their power.

I was reading some Rousseau a while back, "The Social Contract and the Discourses". Good stuff though I dont agree with it all. He argues, quite to the contrary, that savage societies were infact far superior to the "civilised" one. He suggests that savages are the only ones who can have real virtue because after this stage society splits into class-based poor-rich polarisation. We lose all innocence. We are cursed to despotism and hardship because of "civilisation".

Interesting. But then I am a Marxist so I don't quite agree.

There is virtue in savagery. More than can be found in people of the bourgeois era.

"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said, "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society."
Well, almost.