Sure. You said Communism can’t exist because it requires a state yet is Stateless. There’s the semantics, because Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state.
As for the state, Marx never said it would happen immediately, or that it wouldn’t grow in the short term.
All in all you again show ignorance of State Capitalism and mald. Typical.
Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state
State: a territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
We’re talking about the same thing, but you’re saying it’s different. That’s what arguing semantics is.
You can pull dictionary.com, or you can read what Marx means by a state, in which it’s an instrument by which one class oppresses the other via threat of violence. The state, for Marx, is separate from government.
Again, you can call whatever the fuck Marx was referring to a state as whatever the fuck you want. You can call it pizazz instead of a state if you wish, in which case the definition of Communism becomes a Pizazzless, Classless, Moneyless society. It still has your definition of a State, because Marx wasn’t referring to the entire apparatus with which a populace governs itself, just the part where one class oppressed the other.
You’re trying to semantically beat Marx because you can’t actually argue with his logic.
Sure. You said Communism can’t exist because it requires a state yet is Stateless. There’s the semantics, because Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state.
As for the state, Marx never said it would happen immediately, or that it wouldn’t grow in the short term.
All in all you again show ignorance of State Capitalism and mald. Typical.
State: a territory considered as an organized political community under one government. We’re talking about the same thing, but you’re saying it’s different. That’s what arguing semantics is.
You can pull dictionary.com, or you can read what Marx means by a state, in which it’s an instrument by which one class oppresses the other via threat of violence. The state, for Marx, is separate from government.
Again, you can call whatever the fuck Marx was referring to a state as whatever the fuck you want. You can call it pizazz instead of a state if you wish, in which case the definition of Communism becomes a Pizazzless, Classless, Moneyless society. It still has your definition of a State, because Marx wasn’t referring to the entire apparatus with which a populace governs itself, just the part where one class oppressed the other.
You’re trying to semantically beat Marx because you can’t actually argue with his logic.