Chimx' sig

  1. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    "We can either passively continue on the road to utter domestication and destruction or turn in the direction of joyful upheaval, passionate and feral embrace of wildness and life that aims at dancing on the ruins of clocks, computers and that failure of imagination and will called work. Can we justify our lives by anything less than such a politics of rage and dreams?"
    - John Zerzan

    Yeah, so this is not an attack and I'm not accusing you of being a primmie. I'm merely curious about what scrapping computers is going to help us achieve..?

    OK, I know that you are going to say that it's the spirit of the quote you are agreeing with or something similar, and that computers and clocks symbolise the evil civilisation, which of course actually is just another word for capitalism.

    But you do realise that Zerzan meant that quite literally? After all, the guy wants to abolish all technology as well as written and spoken language, making us into grunting hairless apes..

    Perhaps we could use this opportunity to discuss the difference between anti-civilisationism and primitivism, as the line between them seems quite blurred at times and is confusing to us who don't speak the code language.

    I'm also curious on how anti-civilisationism relates to marxism -- you identify as a marxist, correct?
  2. Module
    Module
    I ask because of the last sentence from the above post - Is Chimx anti-civilisation? (Or have I misunderstood something.)
  3. piet11111
    piet11111
    perhaps he has it in his sig more as a warning then as something he supports.
  4. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    I ask because of the last sentence from the above post - Is Chimx anti-civilisation? (Or have I misunderstood something.)
    Well I'll let him reply to that himself, but he has constantly been arguing the point that anti-civilisationism and green anarchism aren't primitivist. I'm pretty sure that he has identified with these positions at least at some point, as well.

    That is why he was the only member to be voted into this group, while the others have just been admitted -- his membership request was quite surprising and controversial, but we decided to give him a go.

    I'm pretty sure he isn't a primitivist though -- which hardly can be said of most other green anarchism/anti-civilisationism sympathisers, such as the keepers of sites like www.greenanarchy.org.
  5. Severian
    Severian
    That is why he was the only member to be voted into this group, while the others have just been admitted -- his membership request was quite surprising and controversial, but we decided to give him a go.
    Are you serious? Chimx is in here?

    Look, he's a borderline troll at best, and never gives a straight answer to anything.

    I can tell you why he has a Zerzan sig, and heck, probably why a primitivism-tinged poster like him joined in the first place.: he's trolling again, to provoke a reaction, and hopefully a big debate over whether to let him stay.

    Hopefully I can restrain myself from participating in that any further. Either immediately kick him out, or just ignore him.
  6. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    Chimx is the only user here with such views though, so there's not a big chance he can stir up a lot of trouble. Besides, we agreed to let him in on probation -- if it doesn't work we just remove him. There have not been any controversies so far.

    It would be interesting to see a comment by him in this thread.
  7. chimx
    chimx
    This used to be Marmot's signature. He and I were talking in livechat, and he brought up this quote that he told me he loved (and how he used it in some award winning short story he wrote). I read it, I agreed it was pretty and made it as my signature. I like it on an emotional level -- not a political level, in the same way that I am happy to quote Lord Byron or William Blake and not feel ideologically aligned with them.

    It's like if a tried to suggest the new movie Into the Wild to someone, which is basically trying (too hard) to be some modern Transcendentalist work -- i.e.: fetishizes nature, attacks industrial materialism, etc.

    If my actual participation in this forum has been contradictory to what this group stands for, kick me out. If you just don't like my signature, follow severian's advice and just ignore it.

    p.s.: it's nice to see you again too Severian.
  8. chimx
    chimx
    anti-civilization question

    An anti-civilization critique has occurred within anarchism from the beginning, and long before the birth of anarcho-primitivism in the 1970s/80s(?). Bakunin clearly spoke of the necessity of "destroying bourgeois civilization". But other anarchists didn't make the bourgeois qualifier. The French anarchist Ernest Coeurderoy, who lived during the time of Bakunin, famously said, "In civilization, I vegetate; I am neither happy, nor free; why then should I desire this homicidal order to be conserved? There is no longer anything to conserve of that which the earth suffers."

    This was pretty common. The anarchism that took influence from Bakunin always seemed to emphasize the necessity of destruction.

    Anyway, the reason that one can call ones self an "anti-civilizationist" and not be an anarcho-primitvist (though I suppose it is a bit confusing with primitivists stealing the phrase), is that many defined civilization as being class society. Marx's "primitive communalism" was pre-civilization, with the rise of class society came civilization, and communism would therefore be "post-civilization". Marx of course always fancied the "end of history" idea himself, but it's all the same.

    Some anarchists today still do identify with the anti-civilizationist history within anarchism and completely reject anarcho-primitvism. The most famous dude today is probably Wolfi Landstreicher. He's on wikipedia, look him up!
  9. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    An anti-civilization critique has occurred within anarchism from the beginning, and long before the birth of anarcho-primitivism in the 1970s/80s(?). Bakunin clearly spoke of the necessity of "destroying bourgeois civilization". But other anarchists didn't make the bourgeois qualifier. The French anarchist Ernest Coeurderoy, who lived during the time of Bakunin, famously said, "In civilization, I vegetate; I am neither happy, nor free; why then should I desire this homicidal order to be conserved? There is no longer anything to conserve of that which the earth suffers."
    But you and other 'anti-civilisationists' do want a new type of civilisation, as opposed to no civilisation at all, right? (Right? ) So, why call oneself anti-civilisation, it doesn't logically follow in my opinion?

    This was pretty common. The anarchism that took influence from Bakunin always seemed to emphasize the necessity of destruction.
    OK, but as I have interpreted him, he thought that the institution called state needs to be destroyed, while civilisation rather needs to be changed, ie, it's bourgeois features replaced with anarchist ones. So, he didn't advocate chaos but a new, democratic society (as I've understood it).

    After all, he did make the distinction between bourgeois civilisation and a civilisation in general. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that anti-civilisationist thought originated from him. That Courderoi fellow you mentioned spontaneously seems like a far more credible origin to this kind of thought to me.

    I haven't heard of him before though, and neither am I a Bakunin expert -- I have read far more about him than by him, so to say.

    though I suppose it is a bit confusing with primitivists stealing the phrase
    Okay, so they aren't authentic anti-civilisationists by your definition then?

    Anyway, the reason that one can call ones self an "anti-civilizationist" and not be an anarcho-primitvist (though I suppose it is a bit confusing with primitivists stealing the phrase), is that many defined civilization as being class society. Marx's "primitive communalism" was pre-civilization, with the rise of class society came civilization, and communism would therefore be "post-civilization". Marx of course always fancied the "end of history" idea himself, but it's all the same.
    But if the difference between anti-civilisationists and marxists is purely semantic -- if that indeed is what you claim -- why then use such a term at all? Isn't there a risk that the use of such a controversial label could damage the cause, by alienating people? 'Down with civilisation' just sounds like a little bit ..radical a slogan to really appeal to the average worker.

    Also, according to that logic, we transhumanists -- also known as posthumanists -- should label ourselves 'anti-human'.. don't think that is going to happen.

    Why don't you guys rather start calling yourselves transcivilisationists? A much more fitting and less alienating term imo.
    Some anarchists today still do identify with the anti-civilizationist history within anarchism and completely reject anarcho-primitvism. The most famous dude today is probably Wolfi Landstreicher. He's on wikipedia, look him up!
    I will.
  10. chimx
    chimx
    But you and other 'anti-civilisationists' do want a new type of civilisation
    Well let me first say that I have never called anyone an anti-civilizationist. I once defended anti-civilizationists in the CC when we made a rule for restricting anti-civilizationists because of the history of the term that I just mentioned, but I don't use the term myself.

    OK, but as I have interpreted him, he thought that the institution called state needs to be destroyed, while civilisation rather needs to be changed, ie, it's bourgeois features replaced with anarchist ones. So, he didn't advocate chaos but a new, democratic society (as I've understood it).
    Maybe, but I'm fairly sure Bakunin was always fairly heavily influenced with the praxis of the Narodnichestvo Movement and it's nihilism. He always placed the act of destruction on a pedestal by itself as something to be praised. Thus the famous Bakunin quote, "the urge to destroy is also a creative urge".

    Okay, so they aren't authentic anti-civilisationists by your definition then?
    They are authentic insofar as they have defined "anti-civilization" differently to fit their own ideology. But they are not the originators of the term. That has always had a special little place within anarchism.

    But if the difference between anti-civilisationists and marxists is purely semantic
    Most certainly not. Anti-civilizationists (that aren't primitivists) are not necessarily historical materialists. I'm just saying "anarchy", "communism", "Marxian end of history", "post-civilization" all really mean the same thing: a world without classes.

    Also, according to that logic, we transhumanists -- also known as posthumanists -- should label ourselves 'anti-human'.. don't think that is going to happen.
    If we had readily available bionic shit that could replace human life, I don't think it is that far fetched to hear emotional calls for "destroying the human within us".
  11. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    If we had readily available bionic shit that could replace human life, I don't think it is that far fetched to hear emotional calls for "destroying the human within us"
    Well, it's just that transhumanism doesn't advocate replacing humanity, but transcending, altering, changing us into a new, 'better and improved' kind of species. We wish to free mankind from the shackles and tyranny of our genes and biological limitations, and open up new possibilities and paths of development -- beyond what is traditionally considered 'natural'.

    We wish to become something more than human -- not less.

    As an anarcho-transhumanist I therefore consider myself to stand for the ultimate form of democracy -- a society which provides both political, economic, and biological freedom for everyone.

    Development and change does not equal destruction. Capitalism, the state, patriarchy, and religion should be destroyed, but mankind should transcend -- and so should civilisation.
  12. chimx
    chimx
    I understand all that, but it does have a nihilistic emotional appeal.
  13. Dimentio
    My concern is if civilisation and hierarchies are really inter-changeable. I am really taking the opposite stand-point, and claim that civilisation has not yet occurred, because we still have a rather barbaric and crude class society where your needs is determined by capital, rent and finance manipulation instead of by your physical and mental state. I am not alone in that opinion, which is shared by Jacque Fresco.