Lol anarchy is so epic!1! NO RULEZZ xD

...

Communism can never be stateless.
Get over it.
There's nothing wrong with a direct democracy based state enforcing basic human laws (No murder, rape, etc.) and redistributing resources evenly among the population.

So you're an anarcho communist?

Interdasting

Things like the Paris Commune and Catalonia were still infinitely better than anything authoritarian "socialist" shitholes ever produced during their lifetimes.

What definition of state are you using exactly?

You can call it whatever you want, but I wouldn't call it abolition of the state by any means.
It's my understanding (might be strawmaning here, but this is what other Ancoms have told me) that Ancoms would advocate for total abolition of state, and then have local councils to protect the area from outside threats.

I would describe it as a governing body spanning an area of land that it claims for either itself, or the people.

From Google:
State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

And what of an advanced communist society in which all own their means of production and can produce things for themselves, thus lessening the chances of conflict for resources to near-zero levels? What of a society in which no-one can be hurt due to amazing technological progress?

Whole post is an ad hominem

Communism is by definition stateless lel

Ancoms generally understand a state to be a governing body that claims its own legal existence against and separate from the population that comprises it. It's that one tiny little part of the government claiming a priori legitimacy and then enforcing this with mass violence that we go against. It's pretty generally understood that some form of direct democracy is the only way to avoid this while maintaining widespread social order (and separates collectivist communists from individualist communists who are less keen on wider social order)

>looking up a definition for a word after having an argument about what the word denotes

That's all fine and dandy hypothetically, but I would still want a governing body so that the local rapist couldn't walk around having a field day.

Also this picture is evidently people from the third world you fucking idiot.

Pic related was just an anarcho baby,

OK, how would a governing body stop the rapist specifically? Can you walk us through the process?

...

That's not how semantics arguments work.

...

What part of "from Google" doesn't make it clear he/you just went and googled a definition to be able to give one? It's generally a bad idea to start arguing about something if you don't first get people to use the same definitions for their terms, but it's a whole different level if you are making arguments without even having your own definitions.

At what point is a state required in this process?

Literally explained my exact definition here
And then asserted that my definition was correct here

Sectarians get out.

...

Perhaps it's just a different perspective, but I feel like there is no way that it could be done fairly without an (unbiased) state.

Exactly.

The left wing ideology doesnt work without extreme authoritarianism.

If you dont believe me, take a look at a little something called a history book.

This is what anarkiddies actually believe

The M-Ls are here

We've pretty well derailed the thread into a semantic argument at this point, my nigga.

This argument takes the same form as "there is no way to behave morally without a moral God."

There is a reason you have to look in a history book for authoritarian communism and not the news paper

No its means direct worker control of the means of production.

Taken strictly, there's nothing about anarchism that actually says that can't or even shouldn't happen.

That's socialism. Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy, which ultimately includes a hierarchy of workers over non-workers. In anarchist or full communist society, production is determined by everyone.

Anarchists don't understand the definition of a state.

A state is a tool of oppression of one class by another. If you only have one class, its not a state in the marxist sense.

No socialism is a state society attempting to bring about communism either by vanguard or by vote.

Anarchism specifically does not have the socialist stage.

What I described is collectivism.

What an incredibly vague definition.

Using my stunted definition loaded with ideology, obviously you are wrong.

In that case, the institution of banking itself is a state.

The police are a state in themselves

why do they all look like shitskins?

Read a book.

because they are first world babbies

OH NO WAIT THATS WRONG

op's image back story:

anarchists from Egypt revolution, they were fighting heavily in the streets, organizing people and occupied then burned down Muslim Brotherhood's hq, risking their lives while op is sitting on his ass in his mother's home, shitposting. nice pic selection op, they are pretty based.

btw:

good try ayncrap, try harder. 0/10

That's because you are a retard who doesn't understand what is anarchism and you wasted 5 minutes or less on reddit or wikipedia reading about it. Anarchism is not "no rules" nor it is "no state". People that say otherwise are retards such as yourself.
Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the abolition of central government(state=/=central government) and hierarchies. A place with no rules, chaos, lack of order it's called anomie. Do you understand the difference?

I do not wish to end with the state, because the state is something which will for ever exist. The state is everything, it's the people, it's the cities, the land, the government, the corporations, the institutions.
I wish to end with central government and representative democracy(democracy where peopel atre called to participate only every 4 or 5 years). I believe the more descentralized power is, the better it can serve the populations. I believe in a political system of city-states with direct democracy, where people from the city know who their elected leaders are since they were born, what have they achieved in life, because they're all from the same place. It's easier to fight corruption, it's harder to prevent corrupt people to have power.
I believe in natinionalism and isolationism from other cultures. So this city-states dispite having all their own government, they would still be linked together through cultural ties, such as language, thus forming a full nation.

Marxist and other cult of personalities lovers fail to reconginize that massive centralization of power is corruption. Having a proletariat dictatorship is corruption.
For me these people need to be reeducated into becoming decent and productive members of society instead of being blind followers of heroes. Because there are no heroes, there are no perfect leaders.

I fully agree: OP did not do research. He could've used words like Anarcho-Fascism.

You also didn't do your homework, if you think Marxism is all about "perfect leaders".