Many MLs believe that communism ends on a stateless goal but that it requires a state to get there

Is that not true?

Definitions don’t mean anything if they don’t represent how it functions in practice

The state will never dissolve itself.

You need a state for communism, no?

Any historical examples as for what communism actually is?

What is it? I’m not clicking on clickbait.

Zakat is probably the most progressive thing from within that system for its time, but note that banning interest doesn’t automatically make it better in that regard — shariah-compliant options still need to manage risk and they do that by simply charging higher upfront (compared to interest options), amongst other means.

Metaphysically, poor people have also had the religion weaponized against them by saying that they are poor because of their actions or those of their forefathers, etc, and that this is divine judgment. It was essentially used to justify the riches of the rich.

…with bombs?

Mostly intended as a joke, though I did read some thing about bombs there.

Patriarchy and religious institutions occur to me as the most immediately obvious answers, but otherwise I’m not sure.

There are “less” hierarchial countries?

What’s this, terrorism?

Except there’s nothing to stop people from doing those things even without those laws.

The laws against violent hate crime make a more compelling case than employment laws imo.

Laws against hate crime significantly lower their rate of occurrence. Compare countries where it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexuality, or in housing, or where hate crimes are taken seriously by the law versus countries where it isn’t taken seriously by the law.

It’s intuitive to know that if you can kill a minority member and routinely get away with it scot-free, you will be seeing it more often than if it was appropriately punished.

It’s not merely about social exclusion or bullying, but actively being hate crimed. Gay men are frequently targeted in violent attacks, lynching, often killed in sadly a significant portion of the world (Africa, the Middle East, South Asia). That is what I’m concerned about.

I’m not sure if simply leaving would be a realistic solution given that the nearest safe place could easily be several countries away, and international transport is very expensive

On disagreements: If you look at political discourse and voting in parliamentary discussions, there is always disagreement. It is rarely the case that everyone agrees 100-0 (numbers arbitrary) in favour of any decision. Leftists are infamous for their constant disagreements and splintering into different factions

In addition to my other reply to this comment:

• How does anarchism protect minority rights, especially in countries where the majority discriminates against the overwhelming minority as the norm?

• Is anarchism realistically likely to replace existing political structures any time soon?

How do you even reach decisions with (I’m assuming complete) consensus? I would expect that someone or the other is always opposed to practically anything that is being attempted to be passed.

Given that, in many places where homophobia is the norm, most people would push for anti-gay laws, wouldn’t that keep gay rights at an impasse, at best?

Doesn’t the government structure work on majority rule?

Anarchic societies exist/have existed? In recent times I mean, not back when we were hunter-gatherers or something.

One could argue that’s a skill in itself, but I get what you mean.

No but you said hierarchy would likely be cemented, which suggests other forms of political systems are more likely

That’s fair.

The question of minority rights comes to mind. It’s not really a collective interest for cishet people to support gay rights.

Although some argue that it is and that liberation requires everyone to be free, and there may be some truth to that, the fact is that in practice, this is not what most people believe or feel towards discriminated minorities.

I’m not sure how compelling exclusion is as a response to crime.

For one, prison sentences vary widely as all crimes aren’t equal, such as from a year for petty theft to life imprisonment for murder. Though I suppose the period of exclusion could be varied similarly.

Secondly, usually people criticizing prison systems tend to vie for a form of rehabilitation that leads to reforming the person so that they can eventually re-integrate into society. Abandoning prison systems yet retaining punitive models that lead to the same consequence of barring them from society in the long run seems to be pointless.