That statement of Wayne's was singled out because it is the basis of his (and most anarchist-communists who revere militarism and technology) entire argument against anti-civ thought. 'Consider X under anarchist-communism' is an impossible spook to pin down and discuss.
"Like the neo-primitivists and anti-civilizationists, he never considered the possibilities of an alternate development of technology under anarchist-communism."?
Specifically, what do you see being a "possibility of an alternative development of technology under anarchist-communism" that Ted, neo-primitivists, and anti-civ anarchists should consider? What does "under anarchist-communism" mean as you are applying it here?
A related question: under anarchist-communism would thecollective retain authoritarian control over conversations and be the deciders of who can and can not express their views on subjects? Or would perhaps there be an alternative development of technology that would allow anarchists to express themselves on subjects and also say "fuck thecollective!"?
aludd OP wrote
Reply to comment by GoddamnedVoodooMagic in 'Unabomber & Anarchism Today' comment by Wayne Price by aludd
Agreed.
That statement of Wayne's was singled out because it is the basis of his (and most anarchist-communists who revere militarism and technology) entire argument against anti-civ thought. 'Consider X under anarchist-communism' is an impossible spook to pin down and discuss.