But don't they all want to destroy civilisation and technology? So the reactionary belief is still the same, regardless of minor ideological differences.

Go back to Lemmy.

Define reactionary. This will be good.

Regressive.

So you're a reactionary too?

I'm not regressive... I want a brighter future.

Through magical thinking and class reductionist ideas.

Are you honestly so disillusioned that you think having hope for the future is a bad thing? Or that a bright future would require magic to enact? We don't need magic, we only need revolution.

No, I think you are acting on magical thinking.

Is that what you call hope?

No, it's what I mockingly call people like you.

But don't they all want to destroy civilisation

I want to destroy all forms of dominion. Civilization necessitates dominion in order to function. So, yes. Doesn't mean I can or will; it's doing an apt job doing that on its own.

technology

No. I don't want to destroy all forms of technology, but I think that something needs to be said about how finite the resources that go into making a new Iphone every fucking year are and how the process of making all of this technology is horribly exploitative. If you think Anarcho-Communism will solve this problem of exploitation because everyone will want to share or something, you're naive.

No. Why not read up on it? You seem underinformed about these questions in the same way that liberals are underinformed about anarchism, thinking it's mere chaos, etc.

We wouldn't need a new iphone every year under anarcho-communism because they'd be built to last and would use modular technology so we can upgrade them as we need to.

There wouldn't be exploitation to the workers making the phones because there wouldn't be bosses under anarcho-communism.

We'll still have iPhones under ancom lol

If I knew the answer I wouldn't need to ask the question. If I can't ask questions on a message board, then why have message boards? We could just have wikipedia.

Bad faith, but somehow I'm the troll.

Because the way that you ask the question has included making judgements of 'reactionary' about something you admit you don't know about. So, is it reactionary or do you not know about it?

What would you do to the iphone factories? Burn them down?

What interest would people in another country have in mining for materials to send to a factory elsewhere? Why would they not simply use their newfound time and freedom to develop their own societies towards self-determination? To stop growing cash crops and grow food instead?

You wouldn't?

If their real beliefs are anarcho-primtivism? Of course.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=primmy

I'd liberate them.

Guess you gotta go too. The slave labor and destruction to the environment those places require will not change under communisms.

So, based on a inimical urbandictionary post that clearly reflects no genuine attempt to understand the position, you both know nothing and know enough to call it reactionary, likening it to how nazis have rebranded to the alt-right. You don't seem like you're trying to understand anything. You seem like you've already made your decisions. Is that clear to you or are you just a troll?

Ok I'm done with you. If anybody wants to ban this person for the class-reductionism that suits me fine. I gotta get some work done.

So there would be no trade in your ideal society? That's not very realistic tbh.

People would mine for materials in order to trade them with other ancom communities to procure things they lack. If one community has milk, but not carrots, they would need to cooperate so both communities can have milk and carrots.

I'm simply demonstrating that primitivism is not a popular ideology with anarchists. It's strange that I need to explain that here.

You're blowing a lot of hot air.

Torch those trade caravans.

Destroy the mines.

Communism doesn't have slaves... That's ridiculous.

Communism isn't magic either.

ideal society

retch.

But to answer your question; I don't have any control over what other people near me do, so what I think of trade is irrelevant; it would happen regardless of how I felt about it.

That's not very realistic tbh.

You don't honestly have much ground to stand on when it comes to what is realistic; quite a few of us used to be ancoms, too.

People would mine for materials in order to trade them with other ancom communities to procure things they lack. If one community has milk, but not carrots, they would need to cooperate so both communities can have milk and carrots.

Food is one thing. Material for technology is a whole other beast and also what brought about this conversation to begin with. Why would anyone want to do something as dangerous and laborious as mining when they can put that same energy towards procuring necessities?

Says the reactionary calling me ableist for pointing out my family members were force fed drugs.

Pretty much. Anprimitivism accumulated a lot of ideological baggage over time (read: collectivism) so it needed to be taken back to the basics.

is "ancom" just the new re-brand of "state communism" so they can hide their real authoritarianism that thankfully in the present era has only managed to manifest itself in the form of virtual historical reenactment societies and workerist revolution cosplay tendencies?

oh snap

The truth hurts.