We are quite happy to release our latest short political theory zine, entitled “Post-Civ!”. This zine is the closest we have yet come to a ‘manifesto’ or statement-of-purpose or whathaveyou, and lays out some of the groundwork for the exciting new concept of post-civilized theory and action. Freely downloadable, of course. The printable files are set up to print off two copies at once: simply print the PDFs doublesided (short-edge binding), staple and then cut the result in half.
| USA | World | Interweb | |
3 Comments
I think you are straw maning the primitivist critique. Civilization is the antithesis of real human community. Technology is a product and reinforcer of civilization and is both unrealistic and largely undesirable in a non-civilized world. regardless of weather some “tribes” were socially conservative, that does not mean all will be. the productive forces present in primitive economies simply allow (though in some i.e. horitcultural do not guarantee) for anarchy to exist, whereas the productive forces under civilization will always simply work to reinforce capital and domination.
we are not idiots. we all know that if tomorrow every single person started foraging that in a week we would all be dead. I personally want to live as a forager, but have no qualms with primitive horticulturalists and I realize that agriculture/permaculture/horticulture will be entirely necessary in realizing my ultimate desire to live as a nomad.
you say our critique is un-nuanced, i would argue yours is thoroughly lacking in any substance. if your against civilization you are for the primtive. it is that simple. weather or not in the interim period you attempt to actualize your steampunk fantasies with the remaining technology, to properly realize the goal of any anti-civlization critique means that eventually technology will be destroyed. the huge technoinfastrucutre necessary to maintain and continue technological production is simply incompatible with anarchy and is only possible under the state-level organization of civilization. i think you really need to rethink what your saying and do some more reading of primitivist authors and i think you will come to see that your probably on board. perlman, zerzan, watson, tucker.
I’ve read a lot of what Tucker has to say, actually. Most of what I’ve read of his involves scatalogical comments posted our way. I let your comment up because it is sincere and strikes me as reasonable debate instead of some of the words that some of the authors you mention have put towards us.
That said. It’s exactly this thought that technology can only exist with massive, state-sponsored infrastructure that I take problem with in primitivist theory. I suggest that it comes from a lack of imaginiation. I can think of a number of scenarios that would allow us to have technology without massive infrasctructure. It’s amazing, for example, what one can do with bamboo.
Further, although I have no love for red anarchism, they have, for 150 years now, offered a solution to the “no state but still technology” thing that you deny as possible. Now, post-civ theory has a lot more in common with other green anarchist theories (including primitivism) than it does with anarcho-communism and other red anarchist theories, even though it’s the primitivists who feel attacked by us and not the reds. But we don’t want massive infrastructure and industry. We want appropriate solutions to various problems (and whims).
And I deny this “if you are against civilization then you are for the primitive” idea. I think that yes, it is un-nuanced. I think that, even if those were the only possibilities (I don’t think that they are), I believe that it is fair to say “well, I like this part of primitivism and this part of civilization, but I hate this and this and this” and figure out how to develop this synthesis. But to say that we have only two options? It reminds me of when I tell people I hate capitalism and they’re like “well, it’s that or communism.” and that clearly isn’t the case either.
But here’s the deal: I don’t think that post-civilized theory needs to convert primitivists. I believe that in the society that we imagine, there is plenty of room for people with different ideas to live side-by-side. Solidarity among diverse elements, not unity of theory. That’s one of the things we’re going for here.
thanks for posting the comment, I appreciate respectfulness and I’m sorry you haven’t received that from others.
I don’t really think that the red and black really has found a “solution” to the issue of technology. Industrial syndicalism, no matter how democratic, will never be anarchistic in nature. I think that its pretty basic economics that says that the sort of institutions (division of labor, large population centers etc) required to maintain that sort of economy demand hierarchy, but also in general I think many technologies, as products of civilization, only will lead to conditions which create civilization. I mean so many fetishize the spanish civil war, but lets be completely honest with ourselves, even though all the bosses may be dead and the “workers” had control over their factories, do you really think everyone was truly free from the totality? Direct control of people’s lives remained out of their hands. Its quite evident that domination continued to be daily part of life for those people. The CNT alliance and later cooption by statist anti-facist forces i think makes it pretty clear essentially the invalidity of any sort of true anarchistic community in the presence of industrialism. And i mean i think it makes total sense, industry is the product of capital, it is the product of the theft of the surplus value and continued domination of humanity by capitalism, why would it do anything else but promote itself?
i really feel you though, when you say we are promoting a false dichotomy between the civilized and the primitive. there is an excellent essay by jason mcquinn from AJODA called why I am not a primitivist which kidna discusses that as well. I think many people within the primtivist discussion have a tendency to start creating a program out of a critique, but i think in general when I say we are for the primtivie we simply mean we want nothing to do with civilization. There are infinite number of ways primal anarchy can exist. the primitivst critique doesn’t say anything about which one of those is the best for any one person.
Post a Comment