No.1836397
>>1836396>Why do Marxists use the term "civilization" They do? Any examples of they using that word?
No.1836400
>In Marxist literature, “civilisation” means class society, the whole epoch which lies between tribal society and the classless, communist society of the future. Thus, for Marxists, the term “civilisation” does not carry the connotation of superiority that it has in bourgeois literature. The word entered the English language with Boswell in 1772 who used the term in contrast to “barbarism”.
No.1836404
>>1836400Aight, I'm okay with that answer.
No.1836407
I dont think theres an official marxist use of "civilization", anon, I think its just an established and neutral term, albeit an imprecise one. obviously "uncivilized" can be very charged, but most the time i see "civilization" used its just generally referring to the largest social unit ("human civilization") or a particularly wide and long lasting cultural complex ("hellenic civilization", "egyptian civilization")
I dont love the term myself because its so vague, but i dont think its problematic or whatever if thats what youre getting at
No.1836454
>>1836407It is problematic for the same reason you recognized the use of uncivilized is. It‘s rooted in the same logic and one implies the other. With the use civilized comes the looming justification for disregarding people‘s sovereignty and humanity when they are deemed uncivilized for not having met an arbitrary Eurocentric threshold.
No.1836623
history doesn't move in reverse
No.1836740
>>1836396"Civilization" is just used to mean "societies based around permanent settlements, especially cities."
It's used to differentiate "city builder" societies from nomadic herdsmen and hunter-gatherers.
It's been used in a somewhat charged way in the past (that "uncivilized" peoples were backwards, wild, savage and lawless), but its still a fairly useful anthropological term.
No.1836866
>>1836740Wouldn‘t it make more sense to speak of civilizing instead of civilized? Because the latter suggests it‘s the people who are civilized, which is problematic, meanwhile your use denotes that it is people who are doing the civilizing by cultivating a piece of land for their use.
No.1836867
>>1836396OP, the word faggot originally meant a bundle of sticks.
That doesn't stop you of being one, though.
No.1836886
i'm so fucking tired of poli sci/philosophy undergrads making these shit tier threads
No.1836941
>>1836866>Wouldn‘t it make more sense to speak of civilizing instead of civilized?Civilisation ultimately comes from civis which comes from proto indo european "Key" which means to lie down or settle.
Civilisation just means a society of settled people, in contrast to nomads.
Its amazing that anglos whine about it being grammatically an ongoing process or a completed process, when other languages have much more problematic words for the same concept.
Compare it to Dutch "beschaving" which means a polished and shaven thing, ie something which has been "perfected", much more explicitly a word that implies superiority.
Or chinese 文明, which means "clear, bright, lifht, understandable language or culture", echoing the "barbarism" concept the greeks had and also equating it to the light.
No.1836966
>>1836740>It's been used in a somewhat charged way in the past (that "uncivilized" peoples were backwards, wild, savage and lawless), but its still a fairly useful anthropological term.ask anybody in anthropology or history and they're bound to tell you using the term is cringe and racist
No.1836987
>>1836941>Civilization ultimately comes from civis which comes from proto indo european "Key" which means to lie down or settle.Not relevant since the word‘s meaning develops beyond it‘s literal derivatives.
>Civilization just means a society of settled people, in contrast to nomads.If that were the case I would see no problem in it, however, the historically problematic use and meaning isn‘t gone. For example, I don‘t think people in the West would see the Sentinelese as civilized despite the fact it matches your definition. There is a reason for that. And I find it plausible to assume people in the West would deem it appropriate to give them „civilization“ which entails the same condescending paternalism and belief in one‘s superiority with which one justifies to ignore the sovereignty of the people one impose one‘s will on. The concept of civilization is very much still defined by the history of European colonialism.
I think the totality of a word‘s meaning is neither the literal meaning of the words it was derived from, nor is it the formal use in certain circles. It‘s total meaning is constructed by the whole social process, and based on that we should choose how to treat the word in question.
>Its amazing that anglos whine about it being grammatically an ongoing process or a completed process, when other languages have much more problematic words for the same concept.Something isn‘t not problematic just because comparatively something else is more problematic. Also, I‘m not an Anglo, we are merely speaking in English.
No.1837078
>>1836987>I don‘t think people in the WestNormies are not sources of truth.
No.1837624
>>1836987> since the word‘s meaning develops beyond it‘s literal derivatives.Every word that has even been used to describe a difference between two catagories of people in which one was more powerfull than the other will have the descriptor for the less powerfull one become a slur colloquially.
No.1837631
civilization is a meaningless moralist term used as a supposed opposite to "barbarism" (aka things/people that i dont like)
unfortunately, early communists/marxists were euroids so they caught some brainworms through pure osmosis
No.1837636
>>1837631white hands typed this post
No.1837661
>>1837631>pure osmosisweird way to spell "being sovl-less yakvbian abominations"
No.1837759
>>1837631Correct
>>1837636Original sin is not an argument
No.1837769
>>1837759>Original sin is not an argumentit is if you're not a white atheist
No.1837780
Since early modern period the term "barbarian" just mean BIPOC people not (yet) colonized
First it was used against Arabs, later Blacks, Native Americans, SEAsians and East Asians
No.1840643
>>1836396I don't see how Hobbes coined the term.
>and are kept in check through "civilization"?Hobbes maintains that people aren't born fit for political states. You have to educate children and teach them mannerisms of the citizen. Somewhat rooted in empiricist beliefs.
>civilization You know they say men are political animals – i.e. civilized animals.
So I don't see the problem with civilization either way, because the alternative suggests man is born fit for civilization nonetheless.
No.1840647
Even in the days of the Greekoids they had notions of barbarism, mind you.
No.1840681
>>1837769Because a black atheist would give credit to original sin?
No.1840851
>>1836966Yes because those two disciplines in particular are (a) well-known for being filled with people who are fucking idiots; and (b) disciplines for whom terms like "cringe" and "racist" are the most complex expressions of several decades of their "intellectual" endeavour.
No.1840862
>>1840851>for whom terms like "cringe" and "racist" are the most complex expressions of several decades of their "intellectual" endeavour.lol I wonder why you might be mad about history and anthropology using the term "racist"?
No.1840881
>>1840862The fact that that's the single thing you picked up on in your little snipe, while your discourse is filled with lol and cringe and Twitteresque "oh I wonder why…?" speaks volumes, cmde.
No.1840887
>>1840881You are getting butthurt over accurate characterizations being summarized in a couple sentences on a post. There's other posts ITT talking about the history of the term "civilization." Notice how you're not complaining about the other posts talking in greater detail, just the one that simply points out that this concept is now widely dismissed and looked down on for being inherently racist.
Unique IPs: 22