Uh-huh. I think this defense-by-belittlement speaks for itself.

So, in other words, “I made it up.”

I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.

And I am telling you that the Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.

Ignoring 99% of what you said, while hyper-focusing on a single matter that they choose, asking you to provide your references yet not providing ones in turn (or more commonly by the more prepared ones, the references that are provided turn out to support your position even, if read properly or possibly even at all!!!) is a common tactic. Don’t let yourself be distracted from whatever it is that you true goal is. You cannot win an argument against someone who refuses to engage in good faith. Moreover, by trying you simply give them a platform to continue.

Whatever you say, they declare “victory”, and those who refuse to realize the difference… well, that’s on them.

no

Pinko commie he self-admits to being indeed! (I recall him saying such in one of them)

I freaking love every video that I’ve seen of his. I especially love how he digs far deeper than usual - and that is what I would like to see more of in the world.

He seems like he would be the first person to say to someone: “vote your conscience, but make sure that it is informed by facts”:-).

I have no idea how he plans to vote. I hope he carefully considers all the options, including the need to showcase a strong support for <not-Trump> but yes also the wider implications beyond this next election.

Edit: also, “monogamist ally”!? Does the person who said that have NO IDEA who this is? Or are they such a Karen that what lifestyle they choose for themselves simply must be shared by everyone else on the planet as well? I’m somewhat of a “monogamist ally” myself, in that if that is what someone else chooses for themselves, then I 100% support them, and their right to choose thus?! Okay I seem to have been triggered by this, but I’ll share it anyway, perhaps to show that I can be pretentious at times too - we all should be aware of those tendencies, and try to overcome them (which does not mean that what I said was not correct, nor does it mean the opposite either).