Anarchism

Finally had the time to read these. While yes, zip is correct in that in communism¹ a state owned and operated by the politburo would form, it's praxis from ending oppression creates oppression between the politburo and the workers themselves.

If practiced today, you would need the input of your entire localities to distribute all the means to folks that can exercise their freedoms. Disabled folks are completely omitted from both essays.

Tweet or not, Zoë has a blog I linked¹ that presents the information which communists cognitively dissonance societies would form statelessly. The means have to be executed whether by collective effort or non at all: which is the point Ziq is trying to enlighten. Communists require enforcement of collectively selected delegation of how the means get distributed, meaned, and defined. This is the dissonance communists either ignore, or do not conceptualize.

Now, the question is if anarchist societies can deal without states. In praxis, Zapatistas still form states. Syndicalists still form states. Do I have an answer? I wish I did. But for sure, I hate being oppressed😭.