We’re looking for submissions for a new radical journal, Post-Civilized. Post-Civilized will be--we expect--how-to heavy, theory light, and useful to a wide range of sustainability activists. We want to move towards an eco-anarchist future, one that critiques alienating technology but refuses to reject appropriate solutions. An eco-anarchist future that recognizes that 6+ billion people aren’t going away anytime soon.
We want to describe how we can live now, how we can live the world we dream of. We want propaganda of the deed: that is to say, we want to live as anarchists, as sustainably and as freely as we can, and have those actions speak loudly.
This isn’t about back-to-the-land, for many or most of us. This is about varied solutions for varied environments: what works in the cities, and what works in the forests? What works for families with children, and what works for travelers? What works for us scattered groups here and now, and what would work for entire revolutionary cities or post-collapse populations?
Post-Civilized, as a journal, will be propaganda, but it will also be a manual of skills for living a post-civilized life. And obviously, we can’t do it without you contributing what you know.
contribute [a] postcivilized.net
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Post-Civilized
23 comments:
Peak oil, overshoot, climate change, the most rapid mass extinction ever recorded, mass destruction and toxicication of the planet's life support systems...who's calling for genocide again? Oh yeah - Civilization, the system responsible for all of the above. Anarcho-primitivists don't call the shots. Collapse-or-conquest is built into this system, and when the Leviathan runs out of blood to drink or landbases to rape, imagine that, people who are addicted to it will die en masse. The blood is on the hands of those in power, those who profit. Our fucking critique of this deathmachine feeding off of us all and our desire for a desirable, sustainable world isn't what's insane, what's insane is calling omnicide "Progress".
-AutumnPhoenix
Well, first off, I think we all agree that the fact that we've all been born into a society that's overshot its carrying capacity and sabotaged its ecological future is the primary problem. Civilization is the problem, and it needs to go.
However, "There are too many people alive today to resume a hunter/gatherer lifestyle" is an absolutely true statement. There's no way that 6 billion people, or even 1 billion people for that matter, could survive on Earth with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It seems to me that when people discuss practical solutions, like this post-civ magazine is in terms of requesting submissions on that issue, they are thinking about permaculture and other transitory things that will greatly reduce the harm being done to the biosphere without endorsing wiping out 99% of the current human population. (I think it's worth noting that few people who advocate a mass reduction in human population volunteer themselves to be offed first).
I think by "we won’t be the ones calling for a genocide in the name of some imaginary utopia" they are referring to that fact, and the fact that virtually none of the more dogmatic anarcho-primitivist writers railing against anything other that hunter-gatherer lifestyles live as hunter-gatherers themselves.
"We need to stop looking at ways of trying to keep a population that has overshot carrying capacity and look towards reducing it to a sustainable level and living a sustainable way of life."
I didn't disagree with this anywhere.
"It's a great thing to look at as far as transitioning I think, but as far as an actual solution to the problem that we are in, it seems that it's just the same as calling for agriculture. So gee, pseudo-civilizations vs civilizations. I'd rather not have either."
Neither would I, but I don't intend to starve myself to death anytime soon either, so just like I rely on industrial agriculture to feed myself right now, I will hopefully be able to feed myself with food that I grow, forage, or hunt myself in the future. This is the entire point.
"The genocide argument is the same strawman that pro-civers use against us."
Do you even understand what a "Strawman argument" is? It's when somebody props up a false argument that the other person didn't say (a "strawman") and then knocks it down. It's precisely what you've done several times in this thread, and it's definitely not what I've done. Demanding that everyone must go to a hunter-gatherer way of life is akin to calling for genocide because almost everyone would die in the process, including most likely you and I and everyone we know. As I said before, I have no intention of starving myself any time soon. If you want to starve, then go ahead and start the die-off with yourself. This is precisely why things like organic gardening and permaculture are PRACTICAL and REALISTIC ways of people to wean themselves off the industrial system while also not starving themselves to death, or critically over-hunting the few healthy ecosystems that remain. What, exactly, are you proposing that ALL 6+ billion people in the world do?
"And no, none are living as hunter-gatherers, but that is a stupid fucking argument to put against anyone."
No, it's not. It's a totally legitimate point. If the solutions these people, or you, were putting forward were practical for most people, you yourselves would be doing them. It's hypocritical to endorse a way of life that would effectively kill off most people while still feeding yourself with industrial agriculture. No, that doesn't mean that civilization isn't going to wipe out the biosphere if it isn't taken out. It doesn't mean that agriculture, including permaculture, won't lead to sedentism and probably inequality and hierarchy. Nobody is disgareeing with that fact here. What it means is that your attacks against other peoples' solutions to help the situation, like permaculture or whatever, is just dogmatic bullshit relegated to the realm of theory and not reality.
"It's impossible for us to live such a way of life so long as this system exists. It's not letting people who have lived this way for millions of years go on living it, their not going to let individual people go through with it."
Who's disagreeing with this argument? Nobody. This is just another of your strawman arguments.
"It's not being talked about as a transitory thing to these people though, it's being talked about as a solution."
I don't speak for them, that may well be the case, in which case, I would likely disagree with them.
"That's all best to just be ignored though as we throw out blind criticisms that don't take that into consideration"
How did I not take into consideration the fact that people are rewilding? Strawman again. You're imagining arguments that others aren't putting out and then refuting them, instead of reading what I'm actually saying.
"This whole post-civ shit has more in common with a leftist ideology then it does with anti-civ thought. It's not against specialism, it's not against technology, reform or abolition of cities becomes a tricky question for them, division of labor is fine, population levels are fine, there is nothing wrong with surplus, amongst other things."
Regarding the criticisms you're raising, those are all legitimate. I am inclined to agree with a number of them, but I am not so restrained by dogma that I am unwilling to hear out other proposed solutions. I have gone through many changes of political opinion in my life, and I am by this point wise enough to know that my opinions will likely continue to evolve in the future, as I live more and learn more. What you were doing - asking me to take this post down because you disagreed with the context in which they were asking for submissions to their zine - was absurd, plain and simple. This is exactly the type of thing that somebody reading a website called "anticiv.net" would probably be interested in.
"What am I calling for 6+ billion people to do? Reduce the fucking population size before it collapses."
How, exactly? Telling everyone (except, presumably, yourself) to roll over and die?
The whole point of me defending things like permaculture is that it will allow the largest number of people to feed themselves, with the least ecological destruction, of any option that has been presented. Is it sustainable in the long term? No, based on deforestation and soil erosion alone. Should hunter-gathering thus be the long term goal? Yes. In the meantime, is permaculture the most reasonable, non-genocidal option for the 6+ billion of us alive right now who want to undo industrial agriculture and start turning things around? Yes.
I'm not disagreeing that there are too many people, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that what you seem to be implying ("hunter-gathering or bust") IS, in practice, an endorsement of genocide. You can call it a "strawman" all you want, but it is a very relevant point for anybody who actually cares about other human beings.
"You act like we can keep on going with this many people, like it's not a necessity that we reduce our population numbers drastically."
No, I never said that or insinuated it anywhere. Again, stop erecting strawman to knock down. Read my words, and respond to them.
"6 billion people can't be fed with non-industrial agriculture, and they certainly can't be fed by permaculture. This is a fucking stupid argument."
Permaculture can feed more people than hunter-gathering. CONSIDERABLY more, in fact. And considering we are discussing an issue that could kill off 5-6 billion people, including probably you and I, it most certainly is not "a fucking stupid argument," though I suppose throwing out an evasive response like that is much easier than actually replying.
"Have you even fucking read what these people are saying or did you just want to make some assumptions because oh my god, they actually said that civilization is a bad thing so they must have the answers?"
Um, nice deflection but you are the only one here claiming to be the lone source of "the answers"(TM). My exact point is to keep an open mind and hear out other options from other anti-civ people, which you are apparently not interested in doing. As I told you in an email, if you object to things, write an article explaining why and submit it to their journal. If it's good, they will probably publish it.
"Am I to take this as an assumption that you feel that I am? Why not make your thoughts known?"
That you are restrained by dogma? Yes. Go to the slums of Rio and jabber on about how everyone there needs to die to make way for your primitivist revolution. I mean, it seems to me that you really need to take a step back and reevalute what you are endorsing here, and why you are so vehemently railing against people proposing ideas that are at least somewhat practical and reasonable, even if they are just considerable improvements instead of permanent solutions.
One of the most important lessons I learned from visiting the third world was that contrary to what I thought going in, I -didn't- have all of the solutions. The real world outside of the internet is infinitely more complicated than any ideology or dogma - and that's precisely what this seems to have become - can account for by itself.
"Post-civ and anti-civ are two different thoughts, hence why there are two different names for it."
Anti-civ is a critique, post-civ is one of the solutions proposed to the critique. There's no inherent opposition to one being discussed on a website about the other.
Cordage has claimed that the strawman was that it was being used to discredit the substance of anti-civ arguments, whereas Tetra has claimed that it was being used to discredit the necessity of modes of transition during collapse. 2 different arguments.
Permaculture as a transition but not as a system? No one disagreed.
Genocide? People can decrease birth rates through higher levels of prolonged activity (think: walking), learning about contraceptive/abortive herbs, increasing the duration of breastfeeding, learning about personal bodily rhythms of fertility...None of those involve genocide, and these will most likely all occur during/after the collapse. Collapse does have genocide in it however, and that is tragic, and we need to do what we can to help folks out & learn about sustainability (speaking for myself, I don't know about everyone else).
In my opinion, most people will die during the collapse from the addiction to industrialism, but new means of living will also arise of course. Post-Civ thought does not really have a unifying idea behind it, and writers from that perspective frequently attack anarcho-primitivist critiques or ideas, so of course there's hesitation about having it posted here, on Anticiv.net.
Additionally, foragers can improve the landscape through land stewardship such as taking down dams and then creating spawning grounds to help heal the damage. Urban Scout wrote about this.
"Anti-civ is a critique, post-civ is one of the solutions proposed to the critique. There's no inherent opposition to one being discussed on a website about the other."
When Post-Civ folk attack Anti-Civ beliefs, I think there's a conflict there, as on the Postcivilized.net site where they call us genocidal utopians. Personally speaking, I have no problem at all with people using necessary means to deal with the problems of the collapse, e.g. using permaculture, the main problem is what we should be moving towards and away from. Anarcho-primitivists would like to see anarchic foraging bands, and to the extent of my knowledge Post-Civ folk have an as of yet unarticulated steampunk vision of the future as the ideal.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents.
"I said permaculture is a good idea for the transition but an unrealistic solution to the problem, which whether you are touting it as a solution or not, some people are, including the people of this journal."
So what are we disagreeing about regarding that topic? If you hadn't ranted on as if me, the person you're emailing from that journal, the other editors involved in that journal, and the people who will submit to that journal, were all the same people with the same ideas, then I wouldn't have had to waste my time arguing here to begin with.
"You're an idiot."
Profound argument you've got there.
"Someone can't disagree with something without being dogmatic or ideological?"
No, I didn't say that anyone who disagrees is being "dogmatic or ideological". What I implied - and what I am getting at - is that someone who requests that a call for submissions to an anti-civ journal be removed from an anti-civ website because it doesn't conform to his frighteningly narrow perspective of things is being "dogmatic [and] ideological".
"Don't preach to me, and don't take some self-righteous attitude when you don't know shit about what I think or what I want."
Uh, you said yourself that you wanted a massive reduction in human population. Actually, I agree with you that that is a necessary thing. However, you have responded with anger and vitriol whenever I - or presumably the people at this journal - have proposed anything but pure hunter-gatherer solutions. Needless to say, that kind of narrows it down a bit regarding "what [you] think and what [you] want".
"If you want to talk about going forth with some pseudo-civilization as a transitional stage then don't blame me for pointing out the contradiction when you claim to be anti-civ."
Uhh, the options being considered are a sane transition, or a worldwide genocide of the human population. I'm sorry if the concept of gradual change involves "pseudo-civilization," but it's considerably better than the alternative, and the end goal is still the same: ecological sustainability and liberty for all living creatures.
"Go ahead and post on the post-civ shit, and oh, why you're at it, you can post on the syndicalist shit, and the liberal shit, and all of the happy little solutions to our problem that may have the right words put in there to fool you into thinking they are right"
Again, the website is anticiv.net... Post-civ is one of several proposed solutions to the anti-civ critique.
I don't need to agree with everything to find it relevant enough to post here, or in the library. In fact, there are a lot of things all over this site that I disagree with. But they are a part of a broader discussion, which this site is about, and which is why they are posted.
xCordagex is not proposing that EVERYBODY become hunter-gatherers. He is not proposing a social programme.
I think what he is saying is: large numbers of people on this planet are going to die no matter what. Regardless of what the primitivists or the permaculturians do, the bulk of the human population will die. Whether we like it or not.
I think what xCordagex (and many other anarcho-primitivists along with him) is suggesting is that the members of our small audience could adopt hunter-gatherer lifestyles.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT 6 BILLION PEOPLE SHOULD BECOME HUNTER-GATHERERS!!!!!!!! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!!!
We are saying that the small, small number of people who are amenable to such ideas should attempt to live as hunter-gatherers as the civilization around them crumbles, while everyone else most likely clings to the sinking edifice.
"xCordagex is not proposing that EVERYBODY become hunter-gatherers"
"We are saying that the small, small number of people who are amenable to such ideas should attempt to live as hunter-gatherers as the civilization around them crumbles, while everyone else most likely clings to the sinking edifice."
I'm sorry, you're right, you guys aren't advocating that EVERYONE become hunter-gatherers. What you're advocating is that a "small, small number of people" (presumably yourselves) become hunter-gatherers while everyone else dies off. Is that correct?
I want to add something else on top of my previous reply, because I don't think I've made this clear yet... I have no problem with people rewilding and trying to become hunter-gatherers. I think it's fantastic, I think it's exactly what we need people to do right now, and I am trying to learn some of these skills myself. But, as we've all acknowledged, that way of life isn't going to feed even a small minority of the current human population. In lieu of that fact, I'm raising a few issues:
- To advocate that a "Small, small number" of people become hunter-gatherers and effectively turn a blind eye to a "large, large number" of people starving to death is insane. This is exactly where the "genocidal" label gets attached to primitivist thought, and you haven't helped your case at all so far.
- If we care about human life (and I do), then it goes without saying that the work we should be doing is helping people learn to practice permaculture and other forms of organic gardening to help meet their food needs in the future with minimum ecological destruction.
- If there is a "crash" at some point in the future, at least in the apocalyptic vein that most primitivists seem to be discussing it, then the civilized are virtually guaranteed to not simply roll over and die. To assume that people will "cling to the edifice" and starve while a small group of primitivists is off in the forest making the new world is totally, spectacularly naive. As long as it keeps them alive, people will practice whatever forms of agriculture they need to anyways.
So, I mean, rail against "social programmes" all you want, but educating other people and trying to build a bridge between our way of life and a sustainable hunter-gatherer way of life is basically the only remotely plausible option available to us at all, in terms of both short-term and long-term solutions.
"Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that we are going to go and launch some campaign of extermination when civilization collapses?"
Uh, just because the North Korean government's juche economic plans which starved millions of North Koreans were not designed to be mass murder, doesn't mean that the end result doesn't qualify as mass murder. Just because the Chinese communists who orchestrated the Great Leap Forward didn't INTEND to wipe out tens of millions of people, doesn't mean that the end result wasn't mass murder. These types of things are the textbook definition of STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE, and that is precisely what is implied when somebody says something like "small, small number of people who are amenable to such ideas should attempt to live as hunter-gatherers as the civilization around them crumbles, while everyone else most likely clings to the sinking edifice." That is why I, and many many others, point out that this type of argument is a de facto endorsement of genocide and mass murder: because it is.
"What makes these folks anti-civ?"
Probably the fact that they are criticizing civilization and calling for its end? Anti-civ does not equal primitivist.
"So lets review what we know about them. They are for the following: technology, surplus, as well as division of labor, and specialization."
Okay, so instead of writing a mini-novella to me on the comments section of this website, why don't you do what the article asked - a request for submissions - and write an article for their journal criticizing these things?
"My problem is with you posting on this and passing it off as anti-civ thought. You post it without criticism."
Because I want to foster a diversity of opinions on the matter. I stated this much in a previous post.
"So then he must be an ideological tool too huh? He must be calling for genocide?"
Uhh, if he's jumping on the "hunter-gatherer or bust" bandwagon for a "very, very small" number of people, then yes, he is calling for genocide.
"You act as if I'm against posting on diverse ideas"
Your behaviour has never indicated anything to the contrary. I made it VERY CLEAR at the start of this project that I was not interested in some type of ideological purity, which you evidently are interested in regardless.
"and you're some fucking saint who's not. Yeah, you're shit don't stink, just everyone else's huh?"
I haven't said anything about this. You're just getting emotional, angry, and throwing out ad-hominems (I'm "an idiot" according to your previous post). Seriously, I think I told you this when we first met: you need to learn to debate without getting angry. That is still true. That doesn't mean I didn't enter this debate with a defensive tone, or that "my shit doesn't stink," but seriously, you have something you need to deal with here.
"What seems strange to me is that you're willing to take this project where you want it all on your own, based upon what you want, while excluding the rest of us on this."
By "take this project where [I] want" you of course mean "taking down every post that Cordage wanted taken down, except for 1". That about right?
"You'd like to include post-civ stuff on a site based upon anti-civ thought without even being willing to take into consideration others' opinions."
I am here spending way too much time discussing this with you, yet according to you I am not "willing to take into consideration others' opinions." Um, seeing as you were the one who wanted th censor this post to begin with, do you see the irony about not "considering others' opinions"?
"There are national "anarchists" out there which are all about white nationalism, some of them are supposedly anti-civ too. Perhaps we shouldn't question them though because hey, they say civilization is unsustainable and we need to be foragers again or take up permaculture or what have you, so it's dogmatic to question them."
Yes, that is clearly precisely what I have said... Which is why you will find me saying just that if you read my prior posts.
Oh, wait, no you won't, becuase that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.
"Are you really stupid enough to think a large amount of people are going to become foragers or permaculturalists?"
Do you seriously think people won't start growing food when the price or availability of food gets out of reach to them? What a stupid argument. That's the thing that most people are most likely to start doing, especially with people who actually care (by the sounds of things, not you) helping them.
"Just because this system collapses doesn't mean people are going to all come to their sanity. Time you realize this."
No, I clearly referred to this in my last post where I said: "If there is a "crash" at some point in the future, at least in the apocalyptic vein that most primitivists seem to be discussing it, then the civilized are virtually guaranteed to not simply roll over and die. To assume that people will "cling to the edifice" and starve while a small group of primitivists is off in the forest making the new world is totally, spectacularly naive. As long as it keeps them alive, people will practice whatever forms of agriculture they need to anyways."
Try reading my posts before responding to them.
"And you really are confident in permaculture as being a sustainable solution that is anarchic when it isn't even a proven thing. It requires sedentism for one, which is going to bring surplus, which historically is the cause of social stratification."
Again, in a previous post I clearly stated: "It doesn't mean that agriculture, including permaculture, won't lead to sedentism and probably inequality and hierarchy. Nobody is disgareeing with that fact here."
Seriously, stop with the strawman arguments. You aren't even debating me and responding to what I'm saying, you are just angrily ranting about quasi-random topics of your choice. Nobody is even disagreeing with half the things you're saying. READ WHAT I AM SAYING.
"You assume it will keep them alive. With the amount of damage we are doing to the natural world, it is likely sedentism will equal death."
Uhh... The reason that people practice agriculture in such large numbers, and the reason that hunter-gatherers are being wiped out so consistently and easily, is because agriculture is considerably easier to practice in the context of damaged ecosystems. Hunter-gathering requires massive, sparesely-populated, healthy ecosystems, which are - obviously - in shorter supply now than ever before. You are delusional if you believe that "sedentism will equal death" anytime in the near future.
"You seem to accept agriculture as something that is going to be practiced for as long as we want, and then eventually we can become foragers again maybe."
No, but what I would say is that as long as I need to grow food to feed myself, I will grow food to feed myself. And I don't expect anyone else to do any less.
"This is from the person that feels that the Foragers on the Northwest Coast were more or less civilized, but doesn't want to accept that agricultural societies were pseudo-civilizations?"
Where did I say that? Seriously, have you even read my posts here? Are you responding to somebody else? I am totally confused.
"And part of being foragers is the attitude that comes with it. It's not just being thrown out into the wild and living off the land, their not mountain men. It's a give and take relationship,"
I know this, agree with this, and haven't denied as much anywhere here. Read my posts before replying to them.
"Minimum being the keyword there. So long as we're not doing as much damage as this system is, that's alright I assume?"
No, but so long as we are doing less damage, we are going in the right direction. I have said everywhere that truly sustainable hunter-gathering should be the long-term goal. You are totally ignoring what I am saying and railing against things that I haven't even said. It's a huge waste of my time to have to sit here, read your mini-novella posts, and point out that few - if any - of your points have anything to do with what I've said to begin with. Read my posts before replying. I do not have time to hold your hand walk you through what I have already said.
"I'd rather live sustainably then go towards goals of "minimizing" our ecological destruction."
So would I, but that doesn't mean I want to kick off a new "Great Leap Forward" and kill billions of people. Thanks.
"Seems as if you're all for agriculture, so you shouldn't have no issue's with contributing to their journal"
Yeah, like when I pointed out that it was not sustainable due to deforestation and soil erosion, and like when I criticized the link between sedentism and hierarchy. I sure am "all for agriculture"! Why don't you just stick to calling me names? Debating is clearly not your forte.
"You should read on the shit you criticize before you make yourself look like just another asshole...Oh wait, it's too late for that isn't it?"
...Says the seething pseudo-primitivist calling other people names over the internet.
"So lets review what we know about them. They are for the following: technology, surplus, as well as division of labor, and specialization. Population levels are assumed to be fine at their current level, no reduction needed. Permaculture is fine (which when we are talking about it on the scale that they are, lets be realistic, it is agriculture and agriculture is the basis for civilization). There is nothing wrong with mediation to them. From my correspondence with the editor of that journal, I've learned that it's even a tricky question as to whether cities need to be abolished or reformed."
I feel like you misunderstood the bulk of what I emailed to you, although that might be my own fault, or the fault of having the internet mediate our discussion. Ironically, I would suggest that the mediation of the internet is a big part of this problem, the arguments that you two are having?
Anyhow... we are for (or rather, not 100% against) a number of the things you said. But we are for them conditionally, under very strict conditions. To say that we have "no problem" with technology, division of labor, specialization, mediation, these sorts of things is untrue. We are incredibly critical of these things, we just don't wish to see them done away with entirely. Hierarchy and environmental destruction are the things we are talking about doing away with entirely, and I believe that talking about destroying those things (as well as rigid social structures in general) is what we are talking about when we are talking about destroying civilization.
I don't expect that this is something you will agree with, and that's fine.
One brief thing... if it isn't sustainable, it isn't permaculture, by definition. If it causes soil erosion, it isn't permaculture. And there is absolutely no need to expand past the currently tilled land to feed people with permaculture. Monocropping is an incredibly inefficient use of land, unless you are talking about centralizing food production for export, which we clearly are not.
We are not talking about any given system being created on a mass scale, and that -includes- permaculture. Rewilding is vital to us as well.
I like the way Tetra put it, mentioned that anti-civ is the critique, and post-civ is one proposed solution. Personally, I don't think there is one solution, anyhow. It's the one we're exploring, one we think will be useful to a large number of people from traditionally anti-civ backgrounds and otherwise.
Post a Comment