Anti-civ on its own is simply the critique of civilisation. I find the importance lay in ones solution, I prefer post-civ whereas what you’re describing to me sounds more like an anprim approach.
God damn, being a tankie who thinks individualists doesn’t value community and relationships. Cliche understanding, ML. Go read some anarchist theory, you obviously know nothing about it. Probably think egoism is like right-libertarianism as well.
Cool, so you’ve read the basic introductory stuff. Now stop doing the tankie thing of only reading ancient theory and treating it as dogmatic, and look into the modern evolutions. Go read some zines and other publications and understand the zeitgeist. You won’t find deep understanding in 1 or 2 large tomes but in millions of competing and evolving short texts from people with different lived experiences, or form your own belief for a better world and argue for it; be another voice shouting in the chaos of growth.
Because you larp about revolution that will never come. Anarchists recognise that rather than sit on our arses pretending that one day we will all rise up in revolt and until than we should sit back and do absolutely nothing to build the new world or fight, that we can actively create mutual-aid and fight today. And guess what, if the fucking heavens part and the mass revolution starts, we can still join in so it’s not like anything has been lost by us being proactive.
The focus on the individual is in relation to individual actions and ethics. A small group or cell is formidable and very real threat to governments, revolutionary book clubs are not.
We likewise don’t want to throw any individual into the grinder of the system because they didn’t ‘fit in’ as we’ve seen places like the USSR, China, and yes even Cuba (up until recently) do to it’s LGBT peoples and other innocent people. Ethics and morals are up to us to judge, not a state or society as a whole.
That’s what individualism is, it does not mean we hate working together or hate community. That’s tankie propaganda.
Yes, I do a lot in my local community and aid-groups.
it’s not something you could switch to in one lifetime, but who says we have to maintain 8 billion? if people don’t have kids as much and the population slowly declines over several shrinking generations that’s only a problem for capitalists and some religious freaks. Even without the specter of global warming we’ll hit some thermodynamic limit of food output eventually and the population would have to level off.
agriculture supported the population explosion in a self-reinforcing loop. we needed more efficient ag as population grew, which supported more people… you could play some kind of anti-4X game and wind down modern agriculture as population no longer required it. Practices besides european style farming can sustain a population too.
the lack of medicine for juvenile diabetes and stuff is my bigger problem with primitivism, not even the voluntary extinction weirdos advocate for mass death so it doesn’t make sense to me to jacket primitivists with the consequences of the whole world abandoning civilization all at once.
Note though, that the primitivists don’t even want to hear about what you said, and they usually know shit about anything, they want to just press the button.