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😭.
God damn it ziq. You run around planting doubt and suspicion with your highly idiosyncratic approach to anarchism. You develop your ideas on a fringe forum controlled by you with content largely posted by you.
I just don’t think that’s a very serious approach.
If that was the only thing problematic about Ziq it would probably be forgivable.
God Ziq is odd, it makes me never want to touch Raddle.
I find primitivists suspect at the best of times, and ziq is hardly the best of primitivists.
Primitivist who runs internet servers sounds like an oxymoron.
I’ve never been a primitivist. Stop planting doubt and suspicion with your highly idiosyncratic approach to anarchism on this fringe forum. k thx.
I have great respect for Zoey Backer and this response seems to demonstrate not only a grave lack of understanding of Marxism, but political economy in general
Instead of engaging with the points presented, it’s far easier to dismiss the points by claiming a superior understanding of the subject being critiqued, all while neglecting to articulate this supposed superior grasp of almighty Marxist science. Brilliant. Kill your idols, comrade.
Nothing you present is worth engaging with, Ziq.
Get lost, Ziq.
Not a fan of ziq but I do have to admit that I’d agree that marxism and anarchism want something different. I think it’s fair to say they want something similar but not exactly the same. Marxism wants communism that is supported through a marxist like apparatus, with a centralized administration, even after the withering away of the state. And they would still support heighachy and the existence of political power, while anarchists who advocate communism advocate for a decentralized anarchist society with communist economics
Any smart anarchist will have nothing to do with someone pretending to be their friend.
