Back to the Central Indexing Page



For as long as for communists everyone and everything governs, the government is everyone and everything; it is thus the self-governing structures of stateless high stage communism, which are omniscient and omnipresent, which rule in such a society where labour comes from each, in accordance with their abilities, and resources flow to each, in correlation with their needs. Only in communism, is the individual free and their so coerced happiness limitless in the sight of a space and luxurious lifestyle of post-scarcity and a harmless net of communities, self-described roles and full satisfaction. Fully automated luxurious queer space gender abolitionist anarchist space communism in a transhumanist setting where all painful forms of tribalism are erased is thereby the only way to go about achieving true social, enviromental, economic, structural, and cultural justice for oneself and for all.

There is little to no sense in holding out in a system as corrupt as capitalism is. Though necessary in the expansive material past, it has long been outgrown by humanity. Now, there is little need for private profit to comfort us; instead, it is time for us to confront the reality of this injustice and voice a resounding No.

It is time for the Obliteration of the Society.


Through day and night, I cannot help but see the marks the environment has left on myself and on others. Truly, humans are social animals: though their definition within Lesleyist terms is quite complex, we can insofar say they respond to their surroundings. One is but a product of what they interact with; or rather, what interacts with them.

Society where free association and voluntary interaction are indiscriminately linked with one's self is obligatory for the human mind. However, is a society which pressures a role on oneself truly necessary? Possibly. But is it necessary for this to be a violent, harmful and cruel process? In a patriarchy, it is so. However, it is in the interest of every human being to avoid the brain-chem of sadness and to enjoy their lives. We wish for a society where, though people choose their roles through the process of socialisation, this coercion is free of negative elements. We wish for a society where no-one struggles to live on, where no-one struggles not to end their processes.

It is thus necessary to free the human mind of its most cruel sensation: that of injustice. This consists of perfecting to an acceptable degree many ingredients of a revolution: seperation of power and interest, conquest of bread, denouncing the social contract. If all hatred and tension; such as environmental, economic, violent and health contradictions are handled to a satisfactory degree, we can finally live. When the conflict between each and their overheads is eliminated, we can all live a safe, happy, and fulfilling life.

It is in the interest of the Communists to abolish the hierarchy as soon as that is possible; that is, the hierarchy must be abolished immediately. That is not to reject all forms of self-governance and most necessary hierarchical forms of sovietisation; however, all subordinance and conquest must cease; for a state to be transformed into a free government, violent coercion against the individual, that the state promotes, must be exterminated.

We need not to obliterate the self, but the present society.


We need not to obliterate the self. As the society of states, and there the society of violent coercion, is exterminated, we are faced by an individual free to choose, an individual uncoerced, a tabula rasa.

However, we know well no-one is brought up by themselves. Development of a critical, abstract and highly futuristic mind is a necessity for a free and self-determinable person. In a post-revolutionary society, though violence and exploitation is abolished, we still see no damage in involvement through education. A responsive individual still needs to form to function within a society.

Once the Conflicts a class society brings, and the horrors we experience in our daily lives and their full length, are past us, we will have to grade the formation of one's self once again. What are we but a construct of responses and raffinering taught to us? In such a view, a person's boundary is not clear in any way: to what amount is their decision theirs? How much dissolved must influence on one be to become a true personal entity? This question naturally makes no sense, for an interacted person is a social construct. It is much like race today: we cannot judge it by a skin tone, for it is a seperate idea. The person, much like some race, does not end at a point and become another person elsewhere; a person is just a concentration of field fluctuations; much like the location of a particle does not exist, but is only a concentration of its own probabilities.

Not only is a person not separable from their environment, it does not have a clear boundary with it. Within an individual, this personality may have certain unclear traits, some occupying an area of personality, some occupying another area. Thus a person is not one, nor is it exact: it is simply a wave of information, infinitely divisible, sometimes carrying a conflict within itself. 

A person is not a clear term. Within an individual mind, traits may occupy their own fields to a degree where it is impossible to name it a "single" person. At some point, differences within a mind may be comparable to those on the outside. Such plurality is only more possible when all boundaries of society fall; it is inevitable to form when communism arrives. A person will no more be a single entity; it shall become a fluid consciousness, separable and respected, carrying their own identification.

We can thus abolish the idea that in communism, we will see each a separate unit. As humanity ends the conflict within, and violence ceases, we are to observe a shift in self-perception, especially of those brought up in the egalitarian society. Plurality (multiple identities within each mind), fluidity of identity, and inter-personal connectivity is to be generated in a way where a person as a concept ceases to exist.

A person, a pile of information, capable of cognitive and dialectical self-consciousness, will no more be a rigid and aggressive entity. It will be recognized as a free force of overlapping and interacting identities; not executed by a human body, but by a natural or an artificial mind. We will thus have obliterated the self.


As we have observed the Obliteration of the Self is a necessary phenomena in Communism. With it, the sense of a separated cell that one is must fall. One must never again be given a strong sense of oneness; let each be their own, let each do their own, but let each be part of it all. Thus, we need to stop thinking of ourselves as having an existence within the society; we are instead a file of instincts within the society. One's consciousness as identity must fall and with this dissociation, a rise of fully liberated thought ought to begin.

It is not easy to talk of a person as a separate unit in such a society. It must be recognized it thus has two key meanings when referred to:

A person is a pile of information, which is capable of dialectical and cognitive self-consciousness, in either of the two situations:

 - the accumulation of these traits in one position is present as a concentration of information

 - the identity-driven consciousness of the two kinds consists of parts which could be considered a part of another person's consciousness or physical presence.

To oversimplify, when talking of a person, we talk either of a conscious identity (of which there may be a multiple within each logical unit) or we speak of a single logical unit, such as a human body with its mind.

Future will thus have to attribute certain traits to a person as a body with its mind, and some to a part of its counciouss identity. By the way, I am in fact plural. I have opened my mind to such processing, now the rest of my kind ought to. I have come to see the light. The cult of self is dead.

These two definition of a human allow for abortion to happen at will of the one carrying the thing; for those whoose brain has turned off to be plugged off life support; for us to be careless about the bodies of the death for as long as we don't contaminate anyone else. That last one really. Fuck casual graveyards. Long live mass burials!

What is the criminological result of such a view of a person? Can we expect those who are unproductive to be gotten rid of, for they are anti-dialectical? Yes and no at the same time. How so? Let's talk about that...


We know well how a society we live in behaves. Its values are derived from the interests of the ruling class, the ones with social power. In societies where class did not conform to a class system, but rather to their own closed ranking, values were still imposed by those ruling. 

Ruling, rulership, the process of governance, created norms to follow which are to glorify and protect the values of the society. Normative behaviour was prescribed both through written word and through unofficial rulings.

Furthermore, the society sanctioned those who dared oppose the ruling norms, the ruling values.

We know well communism is not only a stateless and moneyless society within a social mode of production, but also a classless form of governorate, or better say, freedom. In such a society there is no class to obey, nor is there a class to be obeyed. The meaning of an imposed value crumbles. 

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a spread for certain values. The ruling class has received the ability and the nobility to spread its ideas outwards. With the disestablishment of the state and the power it carries, especially with an end of violent coercion against the individual, values, norms, official and unofficial rules, may be compromised. Furthermore, social functionalists warn us that abolishing the system would result in societal anarchy. There they mean "anarchy" not as a stateless kind of the socialist mode of production, but as pure chaos. 

Would values truly crumble "rumble rumble" as private capital shatters? It must be so. Values we know and accept are constructed and enforced not by human nature, not by necessity, not by some inherent truth, but through cultural self-perpetuation created by our ruling classes.

The new society will most certainly form some values of its own. How they will form is unknown, but they will be a necessity. For as long as each of us craves for their betterment and finds self-interest in cooperation, we will require goals to look forward to, and those goals must necessarily be derived from what makes us all happy and personally liberated. Values will form. To defend them, norms will form. To defend the latter, sanctions will arise once again, in one form or another.

However, social sanctioning is not directed towards punishment. It is directed towards correction of the one who broke a norm. For as long as the individual may be let exist, we cannot allow for them to be punished, for that would be less of a pleasing illusion, than their rehabilitation. They are necessary for their personal self and for society.

In communism, for as long as self-interest (not selfishness) rules, and for as long as state does not exist, rehabilitation and future methods of positive re-socialisation and conflict resolution shall be conducted. Not much is determined by a person intrinsically. 

Content warning is implied for this paragraph. I would love to see sexual perpetrators tortured to death. However, I see why the society I am describing may tend to turn away from such a solution, on completely rational basis. (Still, I want them to suffer in their death, for…). I hope other survivors will see society as a force of good in this sense, not as a force of death and destruction. I here end the topic of this very crime.

Furthermore, society must never again format a force to inform or enforce its views. Nothing shall be carried out by some kind of a police force. We recognize interpersonal conflict is plenty, but so is violence, when force is deployed. Self-governance of working places and of local federation of such syndicates could possibly, through platformism, cooperate with civil self-initiatives to investigate conflicts, and with medical, psychological and social experts to disentangle the affiliated parties. We are to prevent, minimize, resolve, and break the chain of conflicts. As long as every party, or at least one accessible party, has interest in resolving the conflict, it is investigatable and negotiable. Platformism done in the case-to-case situations by the psychological and sociological experts can be a sufficient and superior replacement for what we today name the law enforcement.


"An injury to one is an injury to all" is a common syndicalist and generally leftist cry for solidarity among the working class. However, with a little bit of editorial touch, this phrase carries an important meaning for communism.

An injury to one is an injustice to all!

If we allow any violence in our society, that is, force taken through governance, our society becomes a state once again. We cannot allow for a ruling class to form, even if it looks powerless and only slightly differentiable. First they will come for me, then for you. Instead, we must fight against any such movement, and we must in fact always reform our governance to make it less susceptible to statehood. With time, all power will disappear. However, we can see how an injustice may happen to one within an imperfect stateless system. In such a scenario, people must feel threatened. A reaction must take place, undermining any force threatening to establish itself as dominant.


In a society where the state must never take power again, there is reportedly little we can do to avoid molestation by those with an interest in reformation of a state, and of a class society.

However, anarchism has multiple ways in which to prevent such a movement.

As Kropotkin points out in their Conquest of Bread, it is in the interest of the common prole not to work, but to labour. No-body is interested in ceding a slice of their resources to a despot who offers them protection in a society where violence is nought. It is senseless to imagine a re-creation of mobs and class in communist / anarchist societies.

Furthermore, we can imagine the response such an idea would warrant. When Theordore Kaczynsky did his bombings, the people were at first interested, but if such counters to the society were to continue, a violent response by the people would be mounted. Whenever a regime foreign to the NATO capital takes place, and the USA is interested in its resources, it only needs to paint it as repressive to provoke the public into a response. 

It is thus inevitable for a self-proclaimed despot to be met by millions of aggressors when they begin to assemble a few ten or a few hundred workers into some chains. Cancellation, both of the despot's influences on the wider society, and their power within their rule, would end the new formation. It would be a kind of what we today know as "cancel culture", but platformed world-wide and supported by thousands upon thousands of civilian initiatives striking to deplatform the new despote and teach them a lesson.

This so-called "cancel culture" shall not be frowned upon! Long live the Collective Reaction of Communism!


We have already discussed how education is key in a person's formation of itself. It is not imaginable to get rid of education right away. Dream of a computer society, where our minds are digital, and knowledge absorbed in a moment; until then, we will have to conduct a form of socialization and education of each and every individual we wish to cooperate with, if possible from their early childhood onwards.

The hardest question within the process of socialization is the question of a family. Clearly abolishing its apparatus does not present the necessity for its dissolution, but only for an end to family roles as developed by the class rule, especially in capitalism.

Let us first establish the saddening fact that not everyone will wish to separate themselves from their families. Non-violent and leaning-driven tribalism has been established to remain. Some form of a family will live on.

However, as much as it is necessary for the family roles to perish, it is also necessary for us to ready the system for those, not willing to be in a family at all. Host rooms will have to be prepared within our education system to house people.

From an early age onwards, people should be carried for with greatest respect and allowances. Any aggression against them should result in removal of those who carry for them from their position, permanently if possible. Nobody who has in their record any aggression should be allowed in these facilities. 

Furthermore, everything should be taught not thrhough compulsion, but through self-interest. Instead of sitting the yought in front of a table for hours at once, make them sit down themselves. Make them love education and respect knowledge. Begin the development of critical and abstract thought as soon as that is biologically possible, and implant it with the fluidity and a changeable scientific method deep inside them. Early on, make them understand how their social interactions function, and how that's been abused throughout history - by class: through money, through state.

Three key pillars must thus be established within each individual through primary and early secondary education:

 - feeding their mind with what it desires, to stimulate the formation of a person, capable of interaction

 - developing abstract, critical and scientific thinking

 - reasoning about their own concept of a person, understanding its interaction and the history of personality in general; patriarchal and class conflicts which once originated from it, and how this society liberated the person from such an oppressive nightmare

Later on, these three pillars are used to develop three key groups of fields of intellectual development:

 - science of the interaction (language, symbolism, and others, depending on the material conditions and the needs of the society)

 - science of the materia (maths, physics, chemistry, and others, depending on the material conditions and the needs of the society)

 - science of the society (sociology, history, ideology, and others, depending on the material conditions and the needs of the society).

Such education is to last for as long as possible. We'd start off by making it last 15 years (that is, until cca 22 years old). Later on, it would last throughout one's life. Further lessons and education per will would be accessible to everyone at all times. 

As general knowledge of these three pillars of education is perfected to an acceptable degree; determined by self-evaluation through criteria set by the subject themselves, specialisation is to take place, in accordance with the material conditions and the needs of the society (thus also of the subject).

All subjects in schooling, and classes, are fully voluntary, as is all free association in the society. Let the yought learn how their self-interest is societal welfare; how responsibility and future are a thing of their own making in a society of equals. We further need no exams, no undesirable work, no force.


The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Such a statement, though futuristically questionable, prompts interest once viewed through a historical lens. Truly, a future society will be one of progress. Betterment of societal conditions is beneficial to us all. Healthcare, living quarters, communications, infrastructure; there are many fields dependent primarily on technological acceleration; I must especially recognize its necessities as a supporter of Fully Automated Space Communism.

However, we can observe what changes the industrial and post-industrial revolutions brought us in a class society: nothing but harm. They devastated the ruled classes. All they did was accelerate the material progress towards socialism.

However, in the future, society must utilize progress well. Improvement of the medical field, allowing for better medical transitions for transgender people, space travel, transitioning into post-humanism, faster communication etc. Say breaking the speed limit of light is impossible, we will require technologies to make us independent of some central form of governance, when our stations are tens of communicate-years apart. How will communism sustain the pace of technical progress necessary to catch up with the human mind and deliver to it what it desires?

In capitalism, progress is linear. When some breakthrough is made, it cannot be used without a patent, and it must be recreated if further development is requested by another party. Communication between developers is limited and serves little function. All progress is driven by a private motive in a mode of economy where production is concentrated in private hands.

In communism, institutes can cooperate with one another and improve the creations of one another. Every product, every idea, every data point is instantaneously publicly available, unless hidden for anonymity or security by its very author. Progress is polinomial; in as far as we know, it allows for development in accordance with A*x²+B*x+C = LIT AS SHOWN HERE, whereas capitalism omits the first term of the equation (The Setting of Capital 4). Communism allows for platformist and critical development of the mind; its development is not centered on private but on everyone's welfare. Since we care about work less and labour more, we are willing to have many more scientists, and allow them more sophisticated equipment. Communism tends towards full automation and a post-scarcity society in space, a slow transition into body automation and peaceful post-humanism within a transhumanist and collective setting of free association and of an autonomist society.


The following steps are outlined by this Lesleyist Manifesto:

 - A rise in support for social democracies in the Global North deminicies our Intelligence Services a little.

 - Neocolonial exploitation causes mass rebellion in the Global South, certain countries having coups, others having autonomous zones declared. People take power in many regions through local militias, parties, guerilla wars of self-determination and so on. 

 - Struggles in the third world boil over into the second world. Unloyal militaries begin to either fall apart or turn against local powers.

 - Movements protesting against authoritarian and fascist politics in parts of the first world begin to conduct small coups, in the style of the 1989 coup against Ceauscescu, or the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Such events are indeed possible.

 - Movements of the second world connect themselves with the movements in the First and the Third world.

 - Local self-governing committees form in factories, which may degrade into platformism due to low engagement.

 - The US and some nuclear countries are the only powers left not to switch sides. They are faced by a dissatisfied army and are cut off from the rest of the world. Their attempts at interventions are simply not enough at this point.

 - Coups in nuclear countries happen through logistical and guerilla attacks, and defend themselves against too much of a reaction using the same tactics as we did against Kornilov in the September of 1917. We by then poses high-grade military equipment including aeronautic support.

 - If possible, all nuclear weaponry is disassembled once the old governments fall

 - New centralisation is achieved through local committees / platforms of workers federating into local confederations of some field of work.

 - Further centralisation is achieved through local confederations federating into worldwide committees on some field of work.

 - Worldwide committees for some fields of work step together into the Worldwide Syndicate.

 - It is once again reviewed whether we have Decomodified the economy, Transferred the ownership of the means of production to the public, Have prepared to disestablish the state, Have eliminated all monetary systems, Have abolished Class.

 - This syndicate government is of course one of free association and has no state to run. It is fully platformistic as already described in my overview of What Is To Be Done (a separate essay) AS SHOWN HERE.

 - Platformistically, programs are made to prevent any kind of a state from arising ever again.

 - Society is obliterated, as described in this declaration. State is no more.

 - The Self is obliterated, as described in this declaration.

 - The Cult of Self comes to an end, as described in this declaration.

 - Certain values and norms die off, and some new rise.

 - Permanent reaction is prepared to combat a new state.

 - New systems of education and progress arise.

 - Every aspect of society is renewed, and keeps renewing itself without a higher-class interest and without state limitations.

Thus, everyone lives a happy, safe, and fulfilling life. From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their needs.


I am Lesley Zore. My pronouns are "they/them", "she/her" and "ze/zer". I'll personally end the hatred careers of transphobes, grr, grr (in Minecraft)!

I am also known as:

 - Eleya Zore,

 - Resley Zore,

 - Thylla Zore,

and a few other names (including my deadname but I won't let you misgender me, grr, grr, smh). Also, I wrote this all in one day :) .