[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…peace that needs defending is not peace, but a very slow waging war[/quote]
This is one of those things that sounds nice but means nothing.
Every peace has to be defended.
I can guarantee that without us defending our peace, the Soviets would have been on American soil by 1960. Then we would have defended their peace
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
War is the natural state of Man. A permanent peace can only be attained with absolute totalitarianism, where each person is in absolute terror of disturbing the system.
China today is the world of tommorow.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” --Orwell[/quote]
I just read a book called “We” by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Orwell ripped this guy off in a big way. That said, I love that one-liner.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
War is the natural state of Man. A permanent peace can only be attained with absolute totalitarianism, where each person is in absolute terror of disturbing the system.
China today is the world of tommorow.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” --Orwell
I just read a book called “We” by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Orwell ripped this guy off in a big way. That said, I love that one-liner.
mike[/quote]
I read We back in college (twenty years ago) for a course on Russian science fiction. The Russians invented the dystopian novel, which makes sense, because they lived in a dystopian society. Funny bit of trivia: Orwell, in reviewing We, concluded that Aldous Huxley ripped Zamiatin off in writing Brave New World.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
War is the natural state of Man. A permanent peace can only be attained with absolute totalitarianism, where each person is in absolute terror of disturbing the system.
China today is the world of tommorow.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” --Orwell
I just read a book called “We” by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Orwell ripped this guy off in a big way. That said, I love that one-liner.
mike
I read We back in college (twenty years ago) for a course on Russian science fiction. The Russians invented the dystopian novel, which makes sense, because they lived in a dystopian society. Funny bit of trivia: Orwell, in reviewing We, concluded that Aldous Huxley ripped Zamiatin off in writing Brave New World.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/weorwellreview.shtml[/quote]
laugh I read that in the wikipedia article. Incredible. Some balls on that guy. 1984 is light years closer to We than BNW.
“We” has continued in this pattern of dystopic novels that I’ve noticed.
We – Zamyatin – Socialist – Ends on a downer
BNW – Huxley – Socialist – Ends on a downer
1984 – Orwell – Socialist – Ends on a downer
Harrison Bergeron – Vonegut – Socialist – Ends on a downer
Farenheit 451 – Bradley – NOT A SOCIALIST – Hopeful ending
Next up will be Jack London’s “The Iron Heel”. I’m curious to see how London’s (who was also a socialist) dystopic novel ends.
Unfortunately what with law school now, that may take a while.
mike
Peace exists in the minds of men. War exists as machinery of the state. Any questions?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Peace exists in the minds of men. War exists as machinery of the state. Any questions?[/quote]
I’d say that the state exists as a direct result of war. You can’t have civilization without aggressive war, just as you can’t have “elbow room” without genocide.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Peace exists in the minds of men. War exists as machinery of the state. Any questions?
I’d say that the state exists as a direct result of war. You can’t have civilization without aggressive war, just as you can’t have “elbow room” without genocide.[/quote]
Then why not always be in a constant state of total war if civilization requires destruction to be civilized?
On the contrary, civilization depends on peaceful trade between individuals regardless of the borders they happen to live within.
“When goods don’t cross boarders armies do.”
War is the product of the state only. Without the state war does not happen. Think about it. Individuals do not band together to go to war with each other but rather to go to war against the state. When conflicts exists between individuals armies are not necessary. They only become necessary when the state’s interests are compromised. And the state’s interests are never the interests of the individuals made to fight.
War does not spontaneously happen because man is evil and or has the propensity to do bad things. War is the product of state machinery and therefore requires active and willing participants both in its planning and being carried out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’d say that the state exists as a direct result of war. You can’t have civilization without aggressive war, just as you can’t have “elbow room” without genocide.
Then why not always be in a constant state of total war if civilization requires destruction to be civilized? [/quote]
Total war isn’t always required. Again, show me a time in history when a “peaceful nation” didn’t maintain that peace through superior military force.
[quote]On the contrary, civilization depends on peaceful trade between individuals regardless of the borders they happen to live within.
“When goods don’t cross boarders armies do.”[/quote]
What this generally means is that the “peaceful traders” lobby the state to “open markets”, “protect trade” in markets they want to trade in, or at very least to protect trading convoys on the way to the markets. This requires armies and navies.
The converse is true. Without war, the state does not happen. And like it or not, “the state” means civilization.
I have. At great length.
Individuals do band together. They band together with people who share their genetics, their skin color, their interests, their ideology, their religion, their language, and their heritage. At one end of the scale, we call these clumps of individuals “families.” At the other end, we call them “nations.” If human beings didn’t have this propensity, we wouldn’t be speaking of war, civilization, and the state, because these things wouldn’t exist. Then again, we likely wouldn’t be speaking about anything at all, because this web site, and indeed the Internet, wouldn’t exist either.
Back to the point, however, the “state” is composed of individuals, who form armies to fight other armies formed by the individuals who comprise other states.
True. and these active and willing participants are, by and large, individuals. Individuals who may or may not desire peace, but who believe that the abstract concept of “peace” is subordinate to the objectives of the war, be they living space, resources, women, or the extermination or suppression of a perceived “enemy.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’d say that the state exists as a direct result of war. You can’t have civilization without aggressive war, just as you can’t have “elbow room” without genocide.
Then why not always be in a constant state of total war if civilization requires destruction to be civilized?
Total war isn’t always required. Again, show me a time in history when a “peaceful nation” didn’t maintain that peace through superior military force.[/quote]
Self defense is not the same thing as starting a war. Maintaining the rifle is part of self defense, too.
[quote]
What this generally means is that the “peaceful traders” lobby the state to “open markets”, “protect trade” in markets they want to trade in, or at very least to protect trading convoys on the way to the markets. This requires armies and navies.[/quote]
Agreed. But lobbying cannot happen without the willing participants of the state. Protectionism is also a product of state machinery. Let those same companies defend themselves like any other law abiding person does I say.
This cannot be true. Civilization is a product of peaceful cooperation. Is the state required to maintain peace or can not it be maintained by free people committed to their own defense?
[quote]
Individuals do band together. They band together with people who share their genetics, their skin color, their interests, their ideology, their religion, their language, and their heritage. At one end of the scale, we call these clumps of individuals “families.” At the other end, we call them “nations.” If human beings didn’t have this propensity, we wouldn’t be speaking of war, civilization, and the state, because these things wouldn’t exist. Then again, we likely wouldn’t be speaking about anything at all, because this web site, and indeed the Internet, wouldn’t exist either.
Back to the point, however, the “state” is composed of individuals, who form armies to fight other armies formed by the individuals who comprise other states.[/quote]
I agree, but conflicts that happen between individuals do not require armies. Only states form armies to march into other states and take over. Individuals do not do this of their own accord. They are mostly forced into doing it unless they take some sort of payment for it.
[quote]
True. and these active and willing participants are, by and large, individuals. Individuals who may or may not desire peace, but who believe that the abstract concept of “peace” is subordinate to the objectives of the war, be they living space, resources, women, or the extermination or suppression of a perceived “enemy.”[/quote]
I think we need to first agree on what war is. It is not self defense. War is the initiation of violence by one or more states against other states.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Civilization is a product of peaceful cooperation. Is the state required to maintain peace or can not it be maintained by free people committed to their own defense?
I think we need to first agree on what war is. It is not self defense. War is the initiation of violence by one or more states against other states.[/quote]
We agree about the definition of war.
What we don’t agree on is the definition of civilization. Yours seems to be “the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced,” whereas mine is “the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities.”
Both are acceptable definitions of the word, but with different implications. While it may be possible (albeit improbable) for a group of intelligent, enlightened individuals to inaugurate an advanced social organization through peaceful cooperation, I don’t think it’s possible for them to go out and build and maintain a city without initiating violence on somebody. The city-states of Greece are, I think, a good example of this.
As for self-defense, when was the last time a war broke out between a purely aggressive nation and another completely blameless nation who was just minding its own business? And don’t say Pearl Harbor or 9/11, because I know you don’t believe it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Civilization is a product of peaceful cooperation. Is the state required to maintain peace or can not it be maintained by free people committed to their own defense?
I think we need to first agree on what war is. It is not self defense. War is the initiation of violence by one or more states against other states.
We agree about the definition of war.
What we don’t agree on is the definition of civilization. Yours seems to be “the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced,” whereas mine is “the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities.”
Both are acceptable definitions of the word, but with different implications. While it may be possible (albeit improbable) for a group of intelligent, enlightened individuals to inaugurate an advanced social organization through peaceful cooperation, I don’t think it’s possible for them to go out and build and maintain a city without initiating violence on somebody. The city-states of Greece are, I think, a good example of this.[/quote]
Mises disagrees with your definition of civilization.
“What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor.”
“Civilization is a product of leisure and the peace of mind that only the division of labour can make possible.”
“Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence.”
“Civilization is a work of peaceful co-operation.”
“The foundation of any and every civilization, including our own, is private ownership of the means of production. Whoever wishes to criticize modern civilization, therefore, begins with private property.”
“Western civilization is based upon the libertarian principle and all its achievements are the result of the actions of free men.”
All I know is not one war in the history of war was started by an individual person but rather was committed and made possible by the efforts of many participants. Individuals do not wage war against each other for as soon as one person is annihilated the war is over; this is not true for the state.
“The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”
“What the incompatibility of war and capitalism really means is that war and high civilization are incompatible.”
“Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys.”
“All the materials needed for the conduct of a war must be provided by restriction of civilian consumption, by using up a part of the capital available and by working harder. The whole burden of warring falls upon the living generation.”
“Men are fighting one another because they are convinced that the extermination and liquidation of adversaries is the only means of promoting their own well-being.”
All quotation by Ludwig Von Mises
Mises disagrees with one definition, which is the Oxford Dictionary of English’s, not exclusively mine.
And every civilization may think that it is founded on the principle of private ownership of property, but more likely it was founded on the theft of somebody else’s private property.
How do you build a civilization without enslaving free people, stealing their land, and corralling a large number of them into slums? How many civilizations can you name that have not been built using theft, murder and enslavement?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How do you build a civilization without enslaving free people, stealing their land, and corralling a large number of them into slums? How many civilizations can you name that have not been built using theft, murder and enslavement?[/quote]
Every prehistoric tribe exhibited a process of civilization.
Civilization is built by peaceful cooperation directed at common ends. An army cannot take what does not first exist; in fact, armies cannot exist without civilization in the first place. Civilization is what results when men interact peacefully with each other – e.g., property; learning and technology; culture, etc.
There are no civilizations that have ever been built by theft, murder, and enslavement. What these are are violations of civility. We do not call people who do these things, civil.
The Greeks, for example, did not create their civilization with warfare. Their civilization started long before they even called themselves Greeks (just pretend for a second they ever did). What the Greeks and others did was destroy other civilizations to further their own. This does not mean what the Greeks did to advance their civilization was necessary. It was just one of many roads that could have been traveled. It did not make civilization as a whole better off.
A better illustration: Two individuals isolated on an island build civilization by working together – so much the better if the two individuals are of the opposite sex. If one kills the other or is constantly stealing from the other civilization will not happen on this island. Cooperation is a requirement and without more than one person working cooperation does not exist.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mises disagrees with one definition, which is the Oxford Dictionary of English’s, not exclusively mine.
And every civilization may think that it is founded on the principle of private ownership of property, but more likely it was founded on the theft of somebody else’s private property.
How do you build a civilization without enslaving free people, stealing their land, and corralling a large number of them into slums? How many civilizations can you name that have not been built using theft, murder and enslavement?[/quote]
And yet civilizatin developes in leaps and bounds when governments are weak.
Athens, Italy during the renaissance and England during the industrial revolution.
Lifticus, a civilization is what results when people live in a city, and their economy and culture is centered around a city. For good or ill. You may not agree, but that’s what it is. Barbarian (in the original sense of rural or agrarian) tribesmen have elaborate codes of conduct, and may treat one another with what we might call “civility,” but this does not mean they are “civilized,” nor that they have “civilization,” because they don’t have cities.
And an uncivilized barbarian will never be as effective at fighting a war in the long term as a civilized man, because he doesn’t have civilized technology and techniques… unless he obtains them very quickly.
Orion, I will concede that Athens was probably founded with the least amount of land theft, inasmuch as it had been populated since neolithic times (unlike Sparta, which was incontrovertibly founded through a massive land grab and enslavement of the existing tribes by the invading Dorians). Enslavement and murder, however, were definite features in its founding.
And while I agree that culture flourishes when governments are weak, I think that civilization (the synonym being “urbanization”) increases when the government is strong, and particularly after it is successful at war. America became quite civilized after the Revolutionary War, moreso after the Civil War (which wasn’t terribly civil, was it, Lifitcus?) and exceedingly so following the World Wars.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Lifticus, a civilization is what results when people live in a city, and their economy and culture is centered around a city. For good or ill. You may not agree, but that’s what it is. Barbarian (in the original sense of rural or agrarian) tribesmen have elaborate codes of conduct, and may treat one another with what we might call “civility,” but this does not mean they are “civilized,” nor that they have “civilization,” because they don’t have cities.
And an uncivilized barbarian will never be as effective at fighting a war in the long term as a civilized man, because he doesn’t have civilized technology and techniques… unless he obtains them very quickly.
Orion, I will concede that Athens was probably founded with the least amount of land theft, inasmuch as it had been populated since neolithic times (unlike Sparta, which was incontrovertibly founded through a massive land grab and enslavement of the existing tribes by the invading Dorians). Enslavement and murder, however, were definite features in its founding.
And while I agree that culture flourishes when governments are weak, I think that civilization (the synonym being “urbanization”) increases when the government is strong, and particularly after it is successful at war. America became quite civilized after the Revolutionary War, moreso after the Civil War (which wasn’t terribly civil, was it, Lifitcus?) and exceedingly so following the World Wars.
[/quote]
Well that explains it: We do not agree on what civilization means.
To me, and many economists, civilization is a process not an end in of itself. For example, we consider our modern civilization to be more advanced than primitive civilizations precisely because they did not develop what we have been able to develop with the advancement of a division of labor and trade. Cities can only develop out of a wellspring of trade which requires lots of advanced knowledge and capital – i.e., division of labor. Rural areas are typically agrarian and therefore have little to no division of labor compared to cities.
Urbanization is just a process that has to do with capital accumulation which also requires civilization to be in place to be brought about – i.e., a wide division of labor.
But we can definitely say that civilization exists even in places where the division of labor is nothing more than hunter-gatherer. And we can therefore say to be “uncivilized” means nothing more than to be an animal – incapable of the simplest of cooperative efforts.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well that explains it: We do not agree on what civilization means.[/quote]
Shoot, Lifticus, I coulda told ya that. Wait… I did.
No argument there.
Nah, I consider that pretty much all that’s changed is the technology. We can do more, faster, and with shinier gizmos. And as a result, our current civilization can pack more people into a practically unchanged area (the surface of the earth), and keep them alive a little longer, and keep a few more of them out of abject poverty than previous civilizations could. Other than that, not that much has really changed since Roman times. I doubt we’re better people, for the most part.[quote]
Cities can only develop out of a wellspring of trade which requires lots of advanced knowledge and capital – i.e., division of labor. Rural areas are typically agrarian and therefore have little to no division of labor compared to cities.[/quote]
I agree. Rural areas are indeed typically agrarian (although I have seen city farms, on top of buildings). However, if in this area, inhabited by fifteen farming families, the women cook and clean, the men plow the fields and sow the barley, and the children milk the cows, slop the hogs and chase the chickens, they have achieved a rudimentary division of labor. They may even trade their eggs, bread and cheese for fish, salt and pretty abalone shells from a village on the coast. It does not follow, though, that they have built a civilization. [quote]
Urbanization is just a process that has to do with capital accumulation which also requires civilization to be in place to be brought about – i.e., a wide division of labor.[/quote]
You’re saying that urbanization is the natural outcome of civilization. No argument there. The more barbarians you “civilize” into citizens, the more city you need to support them.
I don’t think we can surely say that at all. We can speak of the Mayan civilization, or the Incan civilization, or the Hopi civilization. We cannot, however, speak of the Innuit civilization, the Bedouin civilization, or the Lakota civilization.
Why? because whereas the former three tribes organized their societies into cities, the latter three did not. They had very complex and vibrant societies, and a rich cultures, but not civilizations. A nomadic herder or hunter-gatherer is by definition a barbarian, and thus not civilized. But I would never imply that they are no more than animals.
See, here is where we differ, Lifticus. Where your definition implies insult with the terms “uncivilized” and “barbarian,” mine does not. 'Tis no bad thing, after all, to be a barbarian. Surely the Sioux (simple hunters and gatherers though they were) were capable of quite sophisticated cooperative efforts, as Custer found out, just as an invading Roman legion found out when it was exterminated by the Parthians, and just as the entire civilized world found out when it was invaded by barbarians (nomadic and agrarian herders, for the most part) like the Mongols, Tatars, Goths and Huns, time and time and time again.
Throughout history, the barbarian (homo indomitus) has usually just wanted to be left alone, and not have to deal with the “blessings” of civilization, like urban sprawl, compulsory military service, compulsory education, central banking, bureaucracy and taxes. The trouble only starts when soldiers come to “civilize” him.
Figured that you of all people would understand that. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well that explains it: We do not agree on what civilization means.
Shoot, Lifticus, I coulda told ya that. Wait… I did.
To me, and many economists, civilization is a process not an end in of itself.
No argument there.
For example, we consider our modern civilization to be more advanced than primitive civilizations precisely because they did not develop what we have been able to develop with the advancement of a division of labor and trade.
Nah, I consider that pretty much all that’s changed is the technology. We can do more, faster, and with shinier gizmos. And as a result, our current civilization can pack more people into a practically unchanged area (the surface of the earth), and keep them alive a little longer, and keep a few more of them out of abject poverty than previous civilizations could. Other than that, not that much has really changed since Roman times. I doubt we’re better people, for the most part.
Cities can only develop out of a wellspring of trade which requires lots of advanced knowledge and capital – i.e., division of labor. Rural areas are typically agrarian and therefore have little to no division of labor compared to cities.
I agree. Rural areas are indeed typically agrarian (although I have seen city farms, on top of buildings). However, if in this area, inhabited by fifteen farming families, the women cook and clean, the men plow the fields and sow the barley, and the children milk the cows, slop the hogs and chase the chickens, they have achieved a rudimentary division of labor. They may even trade their eggs, bread and cheese for fish, salt and pretty abalone shells from a village on the coast. It does not follow, though, that they have built a civilization.
Urbanization is just a process that has to do with capital accumulation which also requires civilization to be in place to be brought about – i.e., a wide division of labor.
You’re saying that urbanization is the natural outcome of civilization. No argument there. The more barbarians you “civilize” into citizens, the more city you need to support them.
But we can definitely say that civilization exists even in places where the division of labor is nothing more than hunter-gatherer. And we can therefore say to be “uncivilized” means nothing more than to be an animal – incapable of the simplest of cooperative efforts.
I don’t think we can surely say that at all. We can speak of the Mayan civilization, or the Incan civilization, or the Hopi civilization. We cannot, however, speak of the Innuit civilization, the Bedouin civilization, or the Lakota civilization.
Why? because whereas the former three tribes organized their societies into cities, the latter three did not. They had very complex and vibrant societies, and a rich cultures, but not civilizations. A nomadic herder or hunter-gatherer is by definition a barbarian, and thus not civilized. But I would never imply that they are no more than animals.
See, here is where we differ, Lifticus. Where your definition implies insult with the terms “uncivilized” and “barbarian,” mine does not. 'Tis no bad thing, after all, to be a barbarian. Surely the Sioux (simple hunters and gatherers though they were) were capable of quite sophisticated cooperative efforts, as Custer found out, just as an invading Roman legion found out when it was exterminated by the Parthians, and just as the entire civilized world found out when it was invaded by barbarians (nomadic and agrarian herders, for the most part) like the Mongols, Tatars, Goths and Huns, time and time and time again.
Throughout history, the barbarian (homo indomitus) has usually just wanted to be left alone, and not have to deal with the “blessings” of civilization, like urban sprawl, compulsory military service, compulsory education, central banking, bureaucracy and taxes. The trouble only starts when soldiers come to “civilize” him.
Figured that you of all people would understand that.
[/quote]
No, absolutely I am not trying to imply being uncivilized is an insult. How can an animal be insulted?
I think we can both agree that civilization is a relative term but you are making a categorical error with it. Cities do imply civilization but civilizations must arise first and then cities.
A city is just a place were lots of capital – via the division of labor – have accumulated.
But back to my original point: civilizations cannot come about unless people cooperate with each other which necessitates peace. Try as hard as you can to accumulate capital during a war. More capital is always expended than gained in war.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, absolutely I am not trying to imply being uncivilized is an insult. How can an animal be insulted?[/quote]
He couldn’t, unless he’s a man. Even though humans are, biologically speaking, animals, for some reason they don’t like to be called such. I could be wrong, though. You ought go to the nearest Sioux reservation, find a group of young men, and call them “animals.” See if they mind.
Surely you’re not saying that you think I believe that a civilization arises after a city is built. That would be ridiculous. No, as I said: urbanization is the natural result of civilization, much in the same way, I guess, that a malignant tumor is a natural result of cancer. [quote]
A city is just a place were lots of capital – via the division of labor – have accumulated.[/quote]
Yes, and there has never been a civilization that has not resulted in the construction of cities, and urbanization of the population. Ergo, no cities, no civilization. So your hunter-gatherer society (which does practice division of labor, by the way: men hut, women gather) is not civilized, by definition.[quote]
But back to my original point: civilizations cannot come about unless people cooperate with each other which necessitates peace. [/quote]
Generally, it comes about when people cooperate with each other to take other people’s stuff and force them to work. Who do you think built the city walls, and raised the grain to feed the tough men with pointy sticks whose only job is to guard that wall? Willing participants? Hell no. They were forced to do it by those same tough men with pointy sticks, who get paid by the fat perfumed guys in purple robes who live up on the hill and get all the pretty young girls.
Oh? Did Lysander expend more capital than he gained?
Did Philip and Alexander?
Did Caesar?
Did Genghis and Kublai and Attila?
Did Washington and Jefferson?
When you consider the vast capital gain represented by land, resources, slaves, women, and other lawful plunder of a successful aggressive war, you’ll understand why it has remained so popular throughout history. Why would any civilization in their right mind wage war if they thought they would lose money as a result? The fact is that they wouldn’t. And they don’t.
Aggressive war is armed robbery on a national scale. Robbers don’t rob unless they think that the risks of getting killed or caught are outweighed by the chances of pulling off a successful heist, and becoming wealthy as a result. There have been many, many successful robberies in history, and many, many successful wars of conquest.
The most successful, of course, resulting in a flowering of the civilization that sponsored them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So your hunter-gatherer society (which does practice division of labor, by the way: men hut, women gather) is not civilized, by definition.
[/quote]
Of course they are – relatively speaking. Hunter-gatherer societies are the infant stage of the civilization process. All that is required for civilization to happen (the process) is for animals to cooperate and hence leave their animalistic, present mindedness behind them. To be civil is to be mindful of the future – to plan and direct ones attention to the possibility of a better quality of life. This can happen anywhere and is not just for city folks – but yes, over longs periods of time these locations where humans cooperate en masse do become cities.
And yes, I guess the word “animal” is pejorative when directed at humans. But uncivilized humans haven’t even developed a language yet so they would not understand that term anyway.
I do not think tribal people are uncivilized in the least; they have only achieved a different level of civility. Flushing toilets are “high-civilization” as far as I am concerned.