This thread is against civilization and "progress." Everything before the Anthropocene era - the first agricultural revolution, the birth of states, hierarchy, and private property - is before civilization. Back then, which was the vast majority of human history, people lived in primitive communism - egalitarian, stateless, classless, moneyless tribes based on a sharing economy of mutual aid. With this in mind, this thread is partly made in the spirit of the previous socialist thread >>240753
. Some of the guiding conduct rules for that thread, which will also apply for this thread, were as follows:>no bootlickers>no statists. >industrial socialism outside of the statist conception was encouraged
Now, since this is an anti-civilization thread, I also want to disallow all industrial apologia. This includes all forms of industrial socialism (including humanism over bio-centrism. Anti-natalists and efilists, however, are welcome too). Of course, I doubt people will respect these rules and the thread will likely be trashed with propaganda and straw mans just like the thread that this is based on.
Luddites, anti-vegans (in context of industrialism), localists, primitivists, tribalists, perma-culturalists, rewilders, ecologists, anthropologists, and anyone else against civilization should post here. I haven't read him, but I have heard Ted Kaczynski is a sort of "eco-fascist", and so I discourage against posting any of his bigoted ideas.
Like the last thread, this will be made up mostly of videos. To start, Here is a video with the self-explanatory title "Introduction to Anarcho-Primitivism (ft. Socrates, Plato, Rousseau and Nietzsche)."
*uses technological devices*
>>244373>the "just go live in the woods" argument
Civilization is a totalizing system, it is inescapable. It is a leviathan. You can not hide in the woods without the police harassing you to pay taxes, which you need money for, and money is a creation of civilization. Just look what they did to the main hermit, this isn't anything new here (vid related). Furthermore, civilization is constantly expanding and destroying the natural world, and because of this going back to our hunter-gatherer past is impossible at this point. This is why anarcho-primitivism is above all a philosophical critique, not an agenda to go to the past. We can only go forward and fight from within, just like all other radical leftist tendencies suggest, anti-civilization or not. The best we can do now is practice rewilding, permaculture, eco-"terrorism", direct action, continue studying primitive hunter-gatherer cultures to see what we can learn from them, and wait for the inevitable collapse of civilization (because it is inherently unsustainable). Every other day I see tribes being kicked out of their terrirories because civilization needs mines and logs, constantly encroaching on and destroying the land to extract all the life from it. Civilization is a culture of exctravism and parasitism on the earth and the ecosystem. You can not simply disconnect from it, because it will come after you when you try to escape, as we have seen time and time again. Thus, our only option is to resist from within it.
>Back then, which was the vast majority of human history, people lived in primitive communism - egalitarian, stateless, classless, moneyless tribes based on a sharing economy of mutual aid.
And how do you know this?
Your claim of how humans lived before civilization as "primitive communism - egalitarian, stateless, classless, moneyless tribes based on a sharing economy of mutual aid" isn't supported by archaeological evidence nor supported by anthropology.
In fact the only ones to make such a claim tend to be various flavors of agenda pushing communist using heavy historical revisionism and lies in lieu of evidence or even solid logical induction.
This guy again trying to post pol outside pol.
He got bored of his failed communist circle jerk a few months ago so he wanted to try again.
Honestly I strongly suspect he is just the vegantroll with a new gimmick. The behavor and personality is very similar only this time even less people are willing to engage in his non-sense since a good portion of the site doesn't like anything to do with politics at all.
It's a basic fact of anthropology and history. It's not even disputed. The people denying it probably think the world was made 6000 years ago or some crazy deluded shit like capitalists always believe to justify their inhumane system. Even if you're not a socialist like me you can't even deny this, it's not political, it's just a fact of history.
Any cursory search on hunter gatherer societies would reveal this. Here are some links to articles that uses references directly from professional studies for proof https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
That the capitalists here can't even accept a scientific fact that is undeniable shows you how far they will go to deny reality. It's not even worth arguing with morons like this. It's a shame that we don't learn at least a little about hunter-gatherer's in school, because for 99% of human history, this is how we have lived and evolved. civilization has only lasted roughly 12k or so years, and already we are on the brink of ecological collapse. For the entirety of its existence, civilization has been built on the mass systematic enslavement, alienation, domination, oppression, and subjugation of man over man and nonhuman life. Our ancestors didn't evolve like this; we evolved communistically. I think they lived much better lives than us, and civilization has done nothing but rob us of that good life our ancestors used to enjoy.>>244396
Okay dude. I'll be looking forward to all the crazy shit you capitalists will make up to deny the reality of the bulk of existence of humanity then.>>244397
This is not really a political thread, but more of a philosophical thread. Unless you have any practical ways of implementing the theory of anarcho-primitivism, then how can we go back to the past? Do you know how we can convince nearly 8 billion people to give up their technology and learn how to live how our ancestors did? Can you convince them to stop having kids too so that population will be at a level that can sustain itself without industrial agriculture, using only the natural world? I doubt so. Anarcho-primitivism is a CRITIQUE OF CIILIZATION, not a realistic political agenda. Most importantly, at this point in history, its impossible to go back since the climate and ecosystem has likely been irreversibly damaged.>>244398>vegantroll
you fucking dumbass. Did you even read my op. I said welcome anti-vegans, because humans are biologically carnivores and veganism is a phenomena of the industrial world, not a reflection of hunter-gatherer diets. I'm the farthest thing from a vegan than anyone on this site probably, vegans are inhumane, unnatural, regressive, and they can only exist because of industrialization. If they cared about the planet and wildlife, which they don't, then they would become primitivists like me and eat a localized diet from a permaculture or whatever the natural local wildlife can provide of them. If you want to learn something, here is a video on how our ancestors ate from an academic.
Do you have anymore comfy DJ videos?
All the rest i watch were substandard to this one
Where is the previous anti-civ thread?
That one had some great videos
Nah its probably schizenu, the effeminate butthurt rants are a giveaway. He'll run out of steam or get banned again.
>>244402>video doesn't seem to have much to do with anything claimed>Look into the background of the writers of the article as well as the backgrounds of the people who wrote the books referenced since I can't actually get the books themselves>bias everywhere>no references any quantitative research whatsoever >no empirically verifiable evidence at all>in fact it appears to just be assertions and guesses made with little heed payed to physical, biological, or evolutionary psychological evidence
Regardless saying people who have absolutely nothing to the extent that there materially can't be in group inequality since everyone is at rock bottom and almost at deaths door, which even as a claim is suspect since it isn't supported by empirical evidence, isn't compelling to the merit of your point.
If those are the only conditions in which equality could in theory be maintained then maybe your underlying assumption that equality is good/desirable is wrong.
That doesn't make the claim any less ridiculous. Nature is not egalitarian, and if you just remove civilization that's all you're left with, biology dictating who is above and who is below. This is the case in primitive humans and other animals, so even those primitive societies were still societies with inequality, some at the top and others at the bottom. Some people are just more desirable than others, and the group places those above, the undesirables below. The only way you can change that is by removing yourself from all society, becoming one with nature and losing your sense of identity. Even without civilization, if you have people around people, you have identity, comparisons, competition, winners and losers.
I think this is his best video. He has a youtube channel which he uploads to frequently here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTD6qdbJyOKSz4jL0dFl51Q
I don't agree with everything he says, but he's undoubtedly one of the most influential theorists of deep ecology, so I posted him. >>244407
I'm not aware of there being a previous anti-civilization thread. I said in the OP, however, that this thread is based on a previous thread that was pro-civilization ( >>240753
). The only difference is that this one will be against civilization.
I made the theme of this thread anti-civilization because the previous thread was too easy to troll. Corporate/state propaganda/straw mans from the red scare are plentiful if I make a general anti-capitalist thread, even narrowed down to the anarchist strain (not that chuds are smart enough differentiate between theory nuance).
Most capitalist propaganda is based off of industrialization, not the pre-history era (although they try with pseudo-science like evolutionary psychology).
Though that hasn't stopped them from shitting up this thread. Chuds are the same type of people denying climate change and saying the earth is flat, so I shouldn't be surprised. They are already here denying an academic consensus in the field of anthropology; anything that doesn't fit their world view is fake news, without any limit to their own delusion.
They are just saying stuff too with no basis in reality (as seen above, just saying shit with no evidence because there is none. meanwhile I'm constantly backing up my statements with consensus's in academia, but somehow its fake to them). They Don't do any research, don't know history, don't believe in academia if it doesn't fit their political views, because all of that is "cultural marxism" made by jews. This is what they believe. These people lack the intellectual capacity to understand anything that isn't spoon fed to them by their corporate masters.
This is why there is no point in talking to chuds, they are beyond redemption. They are so steeped in ideology that they see a false reality (video related btw); they do not know logic, science, philosophy, unless it can support their dogmatic, religious views that they have been brainwashed into believing by corporate shills and other anti-intellectual mouthpieces.
In this thread I'm going to mostly ignore them. There is not profit in responding to these troglodytes. Fortunately, I think videos that are against civilization will be far more comfortable than the more general anarchist videos of the last thread, especially since chuds don't have as much propaganda to say against it.
>>244402>I said welcome anti-vegans, because humans are biologically carnivores and veganism is a phenomena of the industrial world, not a reflection of hunter-gatherer diets.
Humans are omnivores. We aren't even biologically designed to eat raw meat. Try chewing and digesting raw fresh meat WITHOUT PRIMITIVE FIRE. Damn, your post is disappointing because I do agree with a lot of your original post about how primitive societies are probably better than civilization.
>>244436>humans are omnivores
Yes, we probably are. I don't know why I said we are biologically carnivores, it was an accident and I didn't read over my post. If I believed we were carnivores, then I would be disputing the biologists and anthropologists in the video on the evolution of the human diet that I shared (here is the full video).
My main contention with vegans is that they claim to care about animals and wildlife, but they fail to realize that their way of life could not exist without the domination, industrialization, and destruction of the natural ecosystem, which is also why they are a modern phenomena.
Yes, the hyper-stratification between party insiders who declare who is equal and who is not between the indentured party outsiders that has appeared in *every* experiment into communism or socialism is *exactly* like hunter gather societies.
And Marx wasn't an armchair anthropologist who based his entire theory of cultural development on the hearsay of drunken sailors and equally drunken clerics. Totally…
what exactly in that video can even be radical enough to call fake? that people cooperate?
Don't pretend like you chuds know how to read books, because you don't. But even if you did know how to read, Marx never wrote extensively about anthropology.On the other hand, his buddy Engles wrote "the origin of the family, private property, and the state" which was based on an earlier work of anthropolgy by Lewis H. Morgan called "Ancient society" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Society
. This is what you would learn in a basic anthropolgy 101 course as well, not that chuds are interested in educating themselves. They would just call it "cultural marxism" made by jews and never try to learn anything about the past. But I'll leave this educational video here anyway.
Nevermind that Marx wasn't even a primitivist, which is what this thread is based on. He liked civilization and wanted it to evolve past capitalism.>>244440
I don't have chud brain, so I don't know. Fascists/liberals/capitalist apologists will often see non-hierarchical cooperation and then say that a hierarchical slave/master relationship is the same thing, or falsely claim that all of nature is hierarchical (this is laughably untrue, but you can see them say it in a few comments above this one which I'm ignoring), they say that since dogs or baboons live in hierarchy then humans are the same and should too. I don't understand chud logic, but any rational person would see that they do not operate or care for logic, they are inundated in ideology and can only see what the gospel of their corporate masters tell them to see. Everything that doesn't fit into that gospel is jewish, cultural marxism (and these people have never read marx), fake news, or some other crazy shit. There is no point in talking to these fucking retards, so its best to just ignore them. Their heads are stuck too far up their own asses and they became addicted to eating shit from it, so they'll never get the will to pull it out.
why are you advocating for socialism while being on wizchan?
It was literally a Marxist on Original Wizardchan who got me interested in actually reading Marx instead of misattributing liberalism to him. Being virgins doesn't make us into whatever you think it does.
A better question is why he is apparently arguing in favor of Marx and against civilization at the same time despite recognizing that Marx was pro-civilization, since he was the first one to mention Marx and Marxism and it was in a positive sense rather than the critical position that a coherent anti-civilization poster would need to take.
And also why he needs to keep saying "chuds," when calling people libertarians, conservatives, and fascists names like "libertarian" or "conservative" or "fascist" should be insult enough.
>>244432>this thread is based on a previous thread that was pro-civilization
Yep, that's the one, thanks wizbro!
>>244446>he is apparently arguing in favor of Marx
Where am I doing that? Literally in the post right above you I explain that Marx was pro-civilization to that fucking chud that never read him. I'm not even a marxist, I'm an anarchist and I've made that clear throughout the thread. Even so, I'll point out the fascist propaganda against marx like "cultural marxism" that they try to spew when I see it.
>chud is a bad insult
Its nice and simple. Maybe propertarian would be suitable too. Especially in the case of these so-called "libertarians", whom don't really believe in liberty, but believe in property above anything. They shouldn't be called libertarians because then we would be falling for their propaganda. We should call them what they rightfully are - propertarians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarianism
even a wikipedia page on them now). Call these trash "libertarians" is like calling north korea a democracy, which it isn't at all.
Maybe we should call these motherfuckers monarchists, since these are the same type of people that would defend the king during the enlightenment era when liberalism was a radical idea too. I've actually seen propertarians arguing to go back to fuedalism and monarchy before, and that would also be the inevitable outcome if propertarianism is put into practice.
Why do the best threads always fall into degeneracy the fastest?
It's easier to shit into a clean pool of water?
This is why we can't have nice things. Like a stable social order.
Not even animals are egalitarian. I'd consider living alone in the wilds as a better alternative to civilization but I wouldn't live in tribes or primitive social groups. Being an outcast in such a tight knit environment would be hell.
>>244454>some animals are hierarchical
I know that. I don't understand why people keep bringing that up like it is relevant to humans. Are we beasts? Are we no better than dogs and monkeys? We aren't the same as animals, so for what reason do you keep bringing it up?
Also animals that are non-hierarchical (such as ants and probably many more. I mean insect) and egalitarian have survived with considerable success, and that includes HUMAN BEINGS whom have evolved and thrived without hierarchy and in egalitarian social relations for hundreds of thousands of years, while only living under hierarchies for roughly 13k years and already have destroyed most of the fucking planets ecosystem which is on the brink of climate collapse. I recommend you read Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin if you want to learn about egalitarianism in the animal world, specifically the first 2 chapters (read it here https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution#toc2
). Or here is a related video
>I would rather live alone in the woods than in civilization or in hunter-gatherer tribes
Don't get me wrong, as a wizard there is no way in hell that I would want to live in a tribe either. Though I'm also skeptical of the phenomena of wizardy existing in the world of hunter-gatherers - I think wizardry is a modern phenomena caused by the alienation that a "civilized" has on people that is separating us from the environment and social relations that we evolved in through millions of years, just like domesticated animals. And it's a well known fact that domesticated animals are dumber and have all sorts of inferior qualities compared to their wild ancestors, with humans being no exception.
The problem with civilization is - as I posted here >>244378
in replying to a "go live in the woods" response - that it is the culture of cities, and cities can not possibly sustain themselves without extracting resources outside of it, and this implies the constant need for expansion and conquest, complex social structures which coercively administer political, economic and military power, and which are served by mining, deforestation, agricultural domestication and the like. This constant need to extract and rent, sell, and profit from the natural world means that if you can't defend yourself and your land, you get murdered. And we have seen cities conquer and killed all hunter gatherers in the endless search for resources throughout history. They don't even let a harmless person like the Maine hermit live alone. Once you are born into civilization, you are a slave to it, there is no escape, you are forced to pay taxes, be a wage slave, serve under some fucking hierarchy alienated from yourself and the environment.
You would not need to worry about all this crazy fucked up shit though in the hunter-gatherer world of our ancestors. They didn't dominate the world and try to exploit it for everything its worth, they lived in harmony with nature, not separating themselves from it like some sort of god. More than that, they did not have a parasitic extraction culture on the environment, which is why they survived so successfully in it for hundreds of thousands of years without shit like climate change. They were not over-populated, so you would be able to go off into some random part of the woods or desert or rain forest without worrying about seeing another human for the rest of your life - the wizard dream - and you would be fine as long as you had the survival skills (of course the more degenerate wizards would die). You can't do that in civilization where they privatized the entire planet to billionaires, sooner or later you would be arrested for trespassing like the maine hermit and countless other wizards that tried to escape it, forced back into wageslavery. They are constantly cutting down the forests and killing the wild life so they can make money too. So while there is no escape from normies while living in civilization, it is obvious and undeniable how much easier it would be (if you could survive) to escape them in a hunter-gatherer world.
"In favor of Marx" was far too strong, but in >>244444
you're oversensitive to the lazy hyperbole of the propertarian you're responding to. And you make it clear that you aren't actually interested in correcting misstatements of fact by addressing him with a level of contempt reserved for cases where you no longer care about the other perspective or find its adherents irredeemable. So it reads like ingrouping Marx and in preference over a propertarian whose stated criticisms of Marxist states are consistent with Anarchist criticisms of Marxist states, while attributing opinions to him which were not stated in that post (indirectly, calling him a chud at the outset groups him with all others whom you have also called chuds). Criticisms of Marx's intellectual background as a Hegelian and of his cultural ignorance are common several ideological lines; that post can be read as saying that nobody in the 19th century could be considered literate in the question of property among indigenous cultures in preindustrial societies targeted by colonial exploitation because the secondary sources they relied on were not interested in the reality of tribal life. Your post intentionally agitates in ways which can be read either as being defensive with regards to Marx or just being full of aggression against chuds but without any particular measure of aggression against Marx. It's understandable to not particularly feel aggression against the dead guy in comparison with the living people who are likely to insult you, but given the subject matter of the thread I had expected there to be more criticism when talking about Marx.
>Its nice and simple.
The reference isn't that simple though. The word is monosyllabic but if that's what counts then we might as well just call them 'fags', or maybe 'swine' since "pig" and "porky" are re-entering general use. The image developed in that movie was the dehumanization of lumpenproletariat exclusion from private property and the processes of capitalism creating inhuman savagery directed against the society that exists above them, which that society reacts to by gassing them. A lot of imageboard propertarians in particular may be lumpenproles, but the problem is not that they break all the morals of their society up to and including cannibalism, nor is there a derangedly hypocritical and self destructive decent society aboveground bent on destroying them; they're just classic lumpenproles.
>>244432>an academic consensus
you mean ivory tower horseshit that has never had any connection to reality
>>244456> Are we beasts? Are we no better than dogs and monkeys?
Yes, yes we are. We evolved from them. We possess similar instincts. We can see parallel between our behaviors. Our brain has similar structures and chemicals. I bring it up because we are indeed beasts that happen to possess non-bestial qualities, or non-beasts that possess bestial qualities however you prefer to look at it.
>Also animals that are non-hierarchical (such as ants and probably many more. I mean insect)
We are mammals, not insects. Even if you put aside the human is not animals argument aside. Nobody would compare insect social behavior with other mammals like wolves. Insects don't even have brains, our behavior are simply different. When I say we are similar to animals I obviously mean those with similar traits, with being in the same Mammalia class at the very least. You ever seen videos of animals ganging up on a low ranking male in the pack? That's animal egalitarianism at work and the instinct that you can control but not take away from humans.
>I think wizardry is a modern phenomena
Nobody in this site even agree on a single definition of wizardry and I wrote in my posts that an outcast can't live in tribes, outcast not necessarily being a wizard. Outcasts has always existed in nature due to genetic variation. It's definitely not solely a product of civilization.
>You would not need to worry about all this crazy fucked up shit though in the hunter-gatherer world of our ancestors
Even Jane Goodall recorded a chimpanzee gang war and the oldest evidence of inter-human conflict dates back to the Paleolithic era. I'd agree if you say that modern civilization has its own share of problem that can be solved by primitivism but it is nowhere near a utopia without its own distinct problems.
Anthropological mental masturbation. Even from burial practices it is known that social stratification existed.
I like how op has his similar pattern of ignoring and avoiding rebuttals to his points and instead just spams out insults until everyone leaves.
Dude is clearly not mentally up to being able to discuss the topic in a rational manner.
I ordered a collection of writings by Henry David Thoreau. Are they any good?
>>244444>Nevermind that Marx wasn't even a primitivist, which is what this thread is based on. He liked civilization and wanted it to evolve past capitalism.
That's not the point. Marxist historiography in general enforces a biased perspective on certain periods/cultures in history, including pre-history, trying to confirm the existence of some sort of egalitarian society often when there is none, because all they care about is confirming some stupid anachronistic political bias. They amplify anything that can be remotely associated with egalitarianism and reduce everything else.
>>244459>So it reads like ingrouping Marx and in preference over a propertarian whose stated criticisms of Marxist states are consistent with Anarchist criticisms of Marxist states
I didn't consider that, but I can see your point. The problem is his emphasizing "every" socialist experiment, as if, like chuds usually think, all of socialism is what you see in China or the USSR, both marxist-leninist states. I already mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm an anarchist, and anyone seriously discussing the history of socialist experiments would know that all socialist experiments are not Leninist, there are many more branches of socialism. I don't see any reason to seriously respond to such an obviously false statement and coming from someone that probably doesn't even know what socialism or communism means to make such a claim. Never mind the drastic difference between an entire fucking state and a tribe.
I could be more critical of Marx, sure, but I didn't make this thread to have any meaningful discussions about theory (it is a casual thread, which is why it's in lounge and not wiz) and I already stated in the OP that this thread is against "industrial apologia" which includes industrial socialism. This implies that primitivists must be anti-communists (in the industrial sense, obviously primitivists must be communists in the strictest sense). Being against industrialism, however, doesn't mean that all primitivsts are against tools, because humans have always had tools. Most primitivists make a distinction between technology and tools, and as far as I'm aware there is currently no standardized distinction among primitivsts between technology and tools. My understanding is that tools are what you can produce yourself in a sustainable manner, and technology is anything produced that requires a division of labour and specialized knowledge, often leading to exploitation and degradation of the environment. The core of primitivist theory is against technology itself, not just industrialization, and I could have made that more clear in the OP, but so far I've had no problems without that clarification. >chud references a movie titled "Chud"
I picked up the insult from socialist spaces on the internet. I Never knew it came from a movie, and I've never seen this movie.> the problem is not that they break all the morals of their society
It is the problem, because a lot of these people are Neo-fascists. They use the same rhetoric that neo-fascists use whenever socialism is brought up and there are numerous cases of them openly admitting to being fascists (that nigel guy being the latest and most famous example).
A lot of them may be just lumpen-proles and not neo-fascists, but, especially considering I never knew about the movie and I don't think most people using "chud" know either, I mean to use it as a general pejorative against right wingers, not referring to any specific tendency of right winger. I don't say chud in reference to this movie, even though it may have originated there. It is nothing more than an easy to say and memorable derogatory insult directed towards the right in general. If it were once used to refer only to the most detestable of the right, then it is a good thing that the meaning has been diluted to mean the right in general because its one of those words that feel just right. The way it rolls off the tongue, its simplicity, its shortness, and the sound of it are much better than anything more technical. It's right up there with bootlicker as one of the great insults for right wingers.>>244459
You contradict yourself immediately by saying>yes, we are beasts>we evolved from beasts
If we evolved from them, then how are we still beasts? By evolving we usually mean phenotype and genotype changes that have occurred over a significant time span during sexual or asexual reproduction. Are you saying that somehow no changes have occurred in our biology? Do you not understand the basics of evolution or basic biology?>we possess similarities to beasts
Yes, but that does not mean we are beasts. If you are using beasts to mean a general classification for animals, then I still don't see your point, because many mammals have no concept of hierarchy. Many animals are solitary and only meet during mating season. Humans are mammals, but we aren't solitary and we have been shown to exhibit a wide range of social organizations and behaviors from hierarchical to non-hierarchical forms.>You ever seen videos of animals ganging up on a low ranking male in the pack? That's animal egalitarianism at work and the instinct that you can control but not take away from humans.
Yes, but I still don't see how your point is plausible. I never argued that humans don't have the capacity to act like beasts, because that is what civilization has turned us into. You are saying that because acting like a beast is the dominant tendency in civilization, it is impossible to change even without civilization, as if we are incapable of and too stupid to act any other way. The evidence from observing hunter gatherer tribes, however, shows that this proposition is not true (look earlier in the thread I show evidence and it should be easy to discover through any cursory search of hunter-gatherers). There are also more modern examples of social organization that disprove your proposition, such as in worker-cooperatives, but since this is an anti-civilization thread I'm not going to mention them. We are not the same as other animals because we have the ability to learn and increase our knowledge. Just as we learned to end the tyranny of kings and queens or slavery, we can learn to live as socially equals (I do not want perfect equality, that is impossible).>chimpanzee gang war and the oldest evidence of inter-human conflict dates back to the Paleolithic era.
Once again, we are not apes. We may have shared a common ancestor, but we are not the same as baboons. I defer once again to the universal evidence from hunter-gatherers showing that they were egalitarian with very little warfare. I'm not and never have argued that they were a utopia, and utopia is impossible to achieve because humans and the world is not perfect, we never will be. All I'm saying is that in a lot of ways, they had it better than us living in civilization. I realize that I haven't described very much in detail about how they lived better lives, but that is because I made this thread for /lounge/ and not /wiz/ (in the OP I said this will be mostly made of videos). If I get the motivation, which I probably wont, I'll explain a bit more on that, but for now you can at least see the obvious benefit of being able to escape into the wilderness without being dragged back into the world of humans. A lot of my knowledge comes from this book though and the sources the author used in it if you're curious https://www.amazon.com/Free-Learn-Unleashing-Instinct-Self-Reliant/dp/0465025994
. I'm not formally trained in anthropology.>>244461>anthropological mental masturbation
Yeah, everything is fake I guess. All those studies by anthropologists and observations of existing hunter-gatherers are fake Jewish studies made by cultural Marxists. I made it all up in my head somehow.>social stratification existed
Because we are not born as equals, some relative stratification will exist in any form of society. It has been observed in hunter-gatherer tribes that some people hunted better, some people were more liked in the tribe, some people forested better then others, but stratification does not imply hierarchy. Unless we become asexual beings and could make near complete clones of ourselves, there will always be some relative stratification in social groups, but that doesn't change the fact that all hunter-gatherer tribes have been shown to be essentially egalitarian.>>244464
Unlike chuds, I know how to read and have researched the subject matter. I know what I'm talking about and have backed up what I'm saying with academic research throughout the thread. I'm not going to waste my time talking with obvious trolls that just come to argue because the facts don't care about their feelings.
not the one you are replying to; but this part:>trying to confirm the existence of some sort of egalitarian society
is retarded and proves that you haven't read / don't understand what you are talking about. marx analices society and history based on how is value produced and how is surplus value distributed. a primitive "society" doesn't produce surplus value (this is, everyone is on the brink of starvation), and so, there is no point in distributing the (nonexistent) surplus value. the instant an economic agent produces more than what is strictly needed, society stops being primitive (in the marxist sense).
btw marx didn't promote any kind of "egalitarism". marx interest was to analyze the way societies distribute surplus value from a materialistic point of view (this is, assuming that material objects precede culture). therefore, his analysis didn't have a moral standpoint, as morals are a product of material conditions.
there exist this misconception (mainly fueled by retards) that marxist analysis considers capitalism and/or rich people "evil" and egalitarism "good", or even that marxism cares about moral considerations at all. don't be fooled by retards and trolls like >>244475 (probably an underage succubus)
I mean >>244476
This piqued my interest do you have a .pdf?
I've only read his most famous essay "civil disobediance," but I haven't yet read Walden. The essay was good literature and it has been influential in resistance to government oppression, but he is no philosopher- I didn't gain any new insights from reading it and I don't think there is anything to gain from reading it again. I'm looking forward to reading Walden when I have the spare time, mostly for the emotional benefit of his literature.>>244469> trying to confirm the existence of some sort of egalitarian society often when there is none
Marx was not a fucking egalitarian. You don't even have to read him to understand this, because you can infer it from his most famous quote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Not everyone has the same abilities and not everyone has the same fucking needs. And he recognized different environments having different natural resources, thus there will inevitably be differences in wealth between different geographical regions. These differences can be minimized, but unless you can somehow homogenize all the land like a god, then you can't get rid of them. Anyway just from saying that its obvious you haven't read marx and don't know what you're talking about, so why would anyone seriously bother responding to you? This isn't an educational thread, and even if it was I don't think you came to learn anything, you just came to argue about your misreading of Marx. More importantly, this is a thread about ANTI-CIVILIZATION, not about fucking marx, because as I said before, Marx liked civilization. More relevant philosophers would be people like Fredy Perlman, Murray Bookchin, Arne Næss, Kevin Tucker, John Zerzan ect..>>244477>primitive society doesn't produce surplus (this is, everyone is on the brink of starvation)
This is demonstrably untrue and I don't even think Marx even made this claim (though don't press me on what Marx said as I'm not a Marxist and haven't studied him like a Marxist would). Not all primitives could produce a surplus because of ecological limitations, and they would move around to more fruitful environments when food was scarce. However it has been most commonly observed that hunter-gatherers ate better than we do and, albeit it little in quantity, they did have stores of surplus available.>the instant an economic agent produces more than what is strictly needed, society stops being primitive (in the marxist sense).
Yes, when we learned agriculture and produced a significant surplus of food from it, the division of specialized labour started and civilization started to form from cities.>don't be fooled by retard trolls lik3 >>244475
Are you coming here to grasp at straws to discredit me or are you someone that is trying to better explain Marx to chuds, even though he is irrelevant to the theme of this thread as I have said over and over again; it looks like both. Anyways, please stop talking about him, it is derailing the thread.
More relevant to this thread, and I hesitate here because this is a /lounge/ thread and not a /wiz/ thread, I am aware that many marxists, along with capitalists, try to discredit anarchists by saying that we base our ideas on an ideal of the "noble savage". I am well aware of the limitations of primitive communist societies when I look to them as an example of desirable anarchism in action. However, there is no fault in informing our analysis of current events with the experiences of the past. We aren't backward looking and worshiping a past that will never come back (as I've said early on in the thread here >>244378
). Rather, we analyze both the present and the past and draw on their positive features, then see how we can constructively apply them to the present and future. Studying history, pre-history in the age of hunter gatherers and the process of how civilization developed (which is where it all went downhill) and how people resisted civilization enriches our critique of capitalism, hierarchy, civilization, the problems it can face in the future and possible solutions to them (which for a primitivist are futile as I explained here >>244378
which is why anarcho-primitivism is mainly philosophical and not political)
Hierarchy, slavery, coercion, patriarchy, and so on far outdate capitalism and it is hardly enough to just analyse the economic system of capitalism, which is merely the current and most insidious form of hierarchical civilisation. Anti-civilizationalists argue that the root of all these injustices is when civilization began. For this reason, historical analysis and a positive view of hunter-gatherer tribal societies is critical to anti-civilization theory.
>>244486> commonly observed that hunter-gatherers ate better than we do
Holy shit, post discarded.
I guess its subjective (you may be too accustomed to modern foods like hot dogs and shit), but the idea that all hunter-gatherers are all starving is a myth that has been debunked. They ate what their local environments provided for them and moved when food was hard to find. I'm sure that at times they could have nearly starved because of changes in the weather messing with the local food supply of berries to forage or animals to hunt, and then they would have moved to an area where food is more abundant. I'm not just saying this, earlier in the thread I linked to direct research on their diets by academics researching them. If you want more evidence, here you go: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/3/682/4729121 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12785 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503
If they lived in an environment without many choices of consumable plants or animals, then it must've sucked I suppose. I think we can benefit from taking advantage of learning perma-culture practices by growing plants that may not otherwise be able to grow in certain environments though to mitigate this problem.
>>244490>I guess its subjective
No, it is objectively and laughably wrong.
Analysis of their bones shows that their diets were almost universally worse from a caloric and nutritional standpoint when compared to the modern civilized world.
Also you seem to be conflating modern hunter-gatherers with per-civilization counterparts despite them not being even close to the same populations.
Do you have any source on this? I'm not a professional anthropologist so I admit that I could be interpreting the information incorrectly, but I don't think I am. At least its not obvious to me.
And yes, the most credible information we have on them are based on the few surviving tribes left today. Regardless of this, we can practice perma-culturing techniques to grow food forests if we ever want to realize anti-civilizational theory today (see video). Permaculture is one of the few good things that civilization has brought. >>244500>pre-civilization compared to modern hunter-gatherers have different populations which effect the food supply
Pre-civilization the entire planet also wasn't colonized and turned into monoculture's to sustain people that don't work exclusively to acquire food. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The population of hunter-gatherers back then was of course larger, but they had the entire planet to scavenge, hunt, and forage for food unlike today where they are confined to the edges of where civilization hasn't decided to plunder yet.
I just googled "hunter gatherers have thinner bones" and all I'm getting is information that supports my claims and not yours. Research papers saying that human bones got thinner and weaker since we started agriculture, not the other way around. such as this study https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222165033.htm https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/17/1418646112.abstract
or this https://www.pnas.org/content/112/23/7147
I'm still genuinely curious about your claim though, after all I'm just an amateur anthropologist and looking to learn more if there is something wrong with my understanding of pre-history.
Now you are comparing hunter-gatherers of prehistory to early agriculturalist of the same time in prehistory forgetting that you were first claiming that that hunter-gatherers of prehistory had healthier diets to modern civilized people today.
Modern civilized people of today don't have a comparable diet to prehistoric agriculturalist doing rudimentary subsistence farming.
>>244486>This is demonstrably untrue
It isn't. Primitive society in marxist analysis is just a label for that, a society without surplus value. That is what marx refers as primitive society. A society with primitive technology that produces surplus value is not primitive in marxist terms.
>albeit it little in quantity, they did have stores of surplus available
Storage =/= surplus. It's not surplus if you are going to need it to survive winter/dry months/etc. If it's really surplus (this is, you don't need it to survive), the creation and distribution of that surplus (in whatever fashion it may happen) is, in fact, a system. It doesn't matter what kind of system it is, as long as it's based on scarcity it will develop contradictions (intrinsic conflicts between agents). Therefore, your only option for a "technologically primitive" way of life is to not produce surplus value at all; as any society with the inherent contradictions of surplus value will inevitably progress or collapse.
>he is irrelevant to the theme of this thread […] stop talking about him, it is derailing the thread
Look at this foundless claims! This strong anarchist succubus cannot be bothered to explain her baseless claims! You keep disregarding things you haven't bothered to read/understand, be it Marx, be it Kaczynski. Maybe you should cope with your insecurities and get your head out of your ass so you can actually discuss the topic with people.
I'm comparing hunter-gatherers to people of civilization, no matter what point in time they have lived in civilization. Also here is the sci-hub of the first bone study I found https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418646112
since the fully study isn't available on pnas. It seems to suggest more about physical activity than diet, yes, but I don't think hunter-gatherers bones would be stronger just because they were more physical if they were starving all the time or had poor diets. I'm not a doctor and I may be wrong here, but this just seems to be common sense to me. And this is besides the main point, which is that industrial agriculture can only be done through the mass domination and exploitation of the natural world, destroying its rich complexity into a simplified and impoverished resource for the sole utility of human beings, disregarding all other life that depend on that complex ecology.>>244512
So surplus value as a marxist term can only be applied to the excess commodities produced under capitalism or by capital? Okay, then, as there was no capital to produce excess in pre-history, there was no surplus in the marxist sense. Now stop mentioning Marx. As I said before, I'm not a fucking marxist and I'm not an expert on him like a marxist would be, but you don't need to know every detail about fucking marx to know that he liked civilization. He never wanted to go back to pre-civilization, or else he wouldn't have talked about developing the means of production so that we could live industrial communism. I made an anti-capitalist thread linked in the OP and I would have liked to talk about Marx there as he would be relevent there, but he isn't explicitly relevant to anti-civilizaiton, which is against TECHNOLOGY. And wtf are you talking about kaczynski for like you need to read every single primitivist to under stand primitivism? Its like you're saying you need to read every single anarchism or capitalist philosopher to understand the basics of those philosophies, but thats obviously not true, elitist, and exclusionary to people that aren't academics and don't have the time to read every single fucking primitivst philosopher. With that statement I can't help but feel like you're just coming in here to troll and stir up trouble instead of contributing relevant and positive anti-civilizational posts to the thread. Fucking asshole. It's obvious that I'm saying that I don't condone any racism/sexism/homophobia that I've heard Kaczynski's right wing tendencies, just as any decent socialist should be against that isn't a class reductionist scum. If anyone has read him and has ideas to share about him that don't stoke bigotry, then they shouldn't hesitate to post about those ideas.
Existing hunter-gatherers are not always good examples, but even primitive hierarchies are pretty common regardless.
>>244710>primitive hierarchies are common regardless
evidence? People keep making baseless about hunter-gatherers being hierarchical but you never show any evidence.
do you have any idea how much fuel it takes to run a bloomery and then carburize the iron into a crude steel, you can just pick up a rusty chunk of a car crash and have 10x the quality a piece of steel
Why can't i live comfy live this??
Seriously suifuel to watch this kind of thing were one innawoods wiz gets to live y himself unbothered by the herdcattle
It takes too much work and being around people in a community. Take these videos as a hobby, not as actual set of instructions to survive in the wild or when society collapses or whatever larp survivalists come up with
Like you want equations or was that rhetorical?
How does it take too much work? He literally gives you the step by step.
What you need is>food>water>shelter>heat
and he has all four in abundance
The main problem is other people, that's why competition and fighting occurs, if everyone could be happy with a simple wizhut, we could live like this
>>244764>What you need is>food>water>shelter>heat
No shit, and how do you go about getting these things, you wait for them to magically pop up out of nowhere?
yikes! *le shrug*
That flag carries a nice message and it could be libertarian, but unfortunately its not. because the people who fly it don't apply its message consistently and it is a creation of civilization. They say "dont tread on me" to the government but they let corporations step all over them, and they aren't even consistent with the govermnent because they only want a small govermnent instead of getting rid of it all together. On top of that, this is a flag waved by people who like private property, and private property did not exist in primitive hunter gatherer society. Property was a creation of civilization. After agriculture started people needed to stay in one place to grow their crops and quickly as time passed military forces were created to dominate that land and the surplus population that could exist because of it, with that surplus population being in the city. You're at least right about cities being anti-human. The culture of the is the culture of civilization. Civilization started with cities and because cities can not possibly support themselves, they must conquer rural lands to grow food for them and all of the natural world for resources. This "dont tread on me" flag is actually pro-civilization and more properterian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarianism
) than libertarian.
Usually anarcho-primitives use this green and black flag. The green represents nature, and the black represents anarchy. Any other flag used by anarchists (besides anarcho-transhumanists or any other explicitly pro-technology/pro-civilization current) could technically be a very suitable choice of symbolism for anti-civilization because they don't necessarily imply pro-civilization, such as this more standard and general anarchist black flag, or even the red/black anarcho-communist flag (though most people that fly it are for industrial communism, not primitive-communism, so I think its best to not use if you are anti-civilization so you wont confuse people).
>>244772>private property did not exist in primitive hunter gatherer society
Archaeological record contradicts your delusions. The hunter gatherers always were and still are buried with their private belongings. Brainlet.
Why are you antagonising in an otherwise intelligent thread?
Take your shitposting somewhere else
>>244773>Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattractive to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftist types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.
>To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.https://genius.com/Unabomber-the-danger-of-leftism-annotated
You are confused about the term "private property" with the way I'm using it. I am a socialist, and socialists distinguish between what is private property and personal property, or rather use rights and what we possess. Private property is something that is used by a community in order for them to live, but it has been privatized in the ownership of a single or a few individuals that do not necessarily even use it. Hunter gatherers used nature and did not stake a permanent claim in any one part of nature; they were mobile people and moved wherever food was more accessible to them and they shared everything communally as well, so private property rights did not exist. Personal property, or rather more accurately having possession over something, is when you have something that you only use yourself and no one else needs it to live, like a toothbrush or a knife or, as you say, personal belongings.
Use rights are when you can "own" something only to the extant you can use it entirely yourself. So if you start a farm you can only have possession over however much land you can work yourself without anyone else. This obviously means that a factory or any other capital that requires collective work can not be possessed by any individual because if it requires collective work then more than one person will have to use it, and thus it turns into a cooperative, and they would have possession rights rather than property rights over the resource because the community would need it to live. However, those in the cooperative of the factory would have direct self-management over the factory and the community would be left to give them more general guidelines of how to use it to ensure they make the proper products or don't pollute the environment or for other matters. Obviously there would be no factory or farm in a primitive world. I just wanted to explain the concept further.
Furthermore, private property does not need use rights, it only needs money, and money was created by civilization, more specifically states. With private property rights, you do not need to use something to "own" it, you can just buy it with money. So private property rights allow someone to own multiple factories and theoretically consolidate all the resources on the planet, growing very wealthy in the process, without even having to step foot on any of these properties.
The point of the distinction is to ensure that the means of creating the goods and services required to create humane standards of living for all the members of society are owned by everyone collectively.
My possession of a toothbrush will not interfere with someone’s ability to eat the way my ownership of farms would.
Hunter gatherers never had private property, but they did have communal possessions and personal possessions.
Earlier in the thread I linked to academic sources that go over the creation of private property, and it is as I said, a creation of civilization and the outcome of a society based around agriculture. In this post: >>244402
and here are the links https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
I hope I explained all of that correctly and clearly…>>244773
finally someone posts ted. I'll give it a read over later.
"McTaggart on Time (Part 1/2)"
description - "McTaggart argued that time is not real. In so doing, he sparked a series of debates in the metaphysics of time, which continue to this day. This video (part 1 of 2) discusses the A-theory and the B-theory, two competing analyses of time.">>244779
also see https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen
for an in depth understanding of property.
Keep writhing low IQ manbaby. It's private property, taken to their graves or passed onto their children as heirlooms. That's inherited wealth and your moving goalposts can't change it.
you're an idiot. get the fuck out of my thread moron if you can't even handle differences in language terms and classifications of conceptions.
You're probably the same dumbass properterian from the last thread that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend even the basics of political theory outside of your properterian dogma. You are devoid of science, reason, logic, and philosophy. You never had intelligence and your eyes and ears are asleep.
>>244437>I don't know why I said we are biologically carnivores, it was an accident and I didn't read over my post.
Thank you for admitting the mistake in your post and having an intelligent response to my previous post unlike the bad faith shitposts in this thread.
>My main contention with vegans is that they claim to care about animals and wildlife, but they fail to realize that their way of life could not exist without the domination, industrialization, and destruction of the natural ecosystem, which is also why they are a modern phenomena.
Yep, you're exactly right and that is a fair critique. You do have a few zero-waste vegans that are slightly better but definitely not as far as you want to take things. Anyway, like I said I'm receptive to your original post in this thread but that openly anti-vegan stance you took was very disappointing. The first post in this thread specifically said anti-vegans should post here. There is nothing natural or ethical about the animal agriculture industry. Slaughterhouses and even "free range" organic meat are a far cry from the natural order of a wild boar roaming free and naturally dieing to primitive hunters or prey. So please don't alienate vegans that would otherwise almost entirely agree with you on anti-civilization and primitivism.
Now having wrote all that I am surprised more wizards aren't more receptive to this thread. I highly doubt there was the alienation, isolation, depression, and unfulfilment with work present in hunter-gatherer societies than our present day industrial modernity.
division of labour
Why is this thread so combative?
It's a very important issue, but i would rather see it displayed as neutral territory rather than a debate or pushing a certain agenda
Lesson 1 : People able to grow crops and raise live stock beat us at the game of evolution. This is a philosophy that doesn't work unless you want every winter to risk being fatal
Then the game of evolution is self-cannabalising and retarded
We must consider what was the best long-term strategy rather than this burst of growth and warfare in the last 10k
If your ideology is so incongruent with reality that even basic truths of how things work offend then maybe your ideology and world view is wrong and more likely then not actively detrimental because it is at odds with reality.
>>245025> Then the game of evolution is self-cannabalising and retarded
Even if you were correct, all I could say is too bad. We’re all playing the game of evolution whether we want to or not.
I don't know mane, I absolutely hate modern civilization as well but without it I wouldn't have my waifu because manga and anime wouldn't exist
Does anyone else struggle between learning recluse tech-skills and learning recluse primitive skills?
There seems to be no in-between for me>Be a recluse city wiz learning to code>Be a recluse forest wiz learning to forage and hunt
>>245356>Be a recluse city wiz learning to code
Everyone says it's impossible if you're not already coding professionally by 24 so that's a no for wizards.
you can code simple stuff, no need to climb mountains from the head start, no?
I mean you kinda do, but not all at once
What inane drivel are you regurgitating, i've seen examples of 50+ completing the justcodebrah memequest successfully
I've seen a fairy once, believe me.
The examples are probably all the same guy, recounted by many sources who never actually saw him but read about his story somewhere, who never actually existed.
Sorry to break it to you, but that was your dad's weiner with wings on it
The fact that you're unable to do simple tasks and get triggered at a 50 year old man doing them doesn't means it's fake
If you're trying to use it to turn your life around and don't have an aptitude for it, you will most likely not be good enough. I've had to deal with ultra normgroids finding out they had a natural aptitude for problem-solving and being way better at it than me. Was the fucking worst.