Why not?

Again, the state loses out too!

Would the state rather that the dissenter didn't dissent?

you cant not be communist, you have to conform and submit.. by your words

this is not comprimising

you have to work to the collective goel

Read the definition I gave you.

there is no comprimise

history of communism also show and support the no comprimise thing

'The collective will allow you to live while you support the collective. If not, we lose you, but you lose your life.'

"the definition you gave me"

A deal.

as if you are the autority

Oh, and *you* were with everything else?

When Wikipedia said something you didn't agree with, you made shit up.

You extrapolated when it fell silent.

'muh absence'

and you imply that i dont know what comprimise is whan i point out several points wheer communism doesnt comprimises. WIth points you mentioned yourself

Again, Mr Nuance, that's a compromise.

It's a deal, even if it's a highly unfair one.

"When Wikipedia said something you didn't agree with, you made shit up."

i never disagreed with wiki

you imply and slander

Yes you did. 'muh anarchists don't like governance and governments'

...when it said nothing about governments on the 'anarchism' page.

Yeah absense of evidence is not confirmation

Wrong. On the government page, it said that it's 'often' a state, not always.

Whoops.

we talked exstenivly on how anarcist dont want government , you said they were not anti government

So you're going against what Wikipedia says.

Round and round we go, the amnesiac wants to tire his opponents to submission. How Jewish.

i never disagreed with wiiki, you said, the anarcy doesnt explicitly informs that anarcisy are not not anti government

You did. You said that states and governments are the same when it said 'often the same', not 'always the same'.

They are mostly the same yes

You said always.

and we went truie the differences

which you forgot despite doing it twice

i said always?

thats vague

>they are the same picture

anarchist dont want government