In practice, it was not the case because there were still strong and armed political enemies to revolution.

That does not mean that it can never be the case.

there is no context

you submit

you are not free

I did not say that. I said that you were saying it. Must I keep repeating myself?

even more so

you startedwith communism wil destroy "stomp"

this is not freedom

this is oppresion that you described

Wow, it's almost as if freedom does not exist today!

...and Communists know that it cannot all come at once!

avoidance and misdirection again

"must repeat yourself"

you leep repeating your debunked falacies

No, you're confusing what is there at present with what could be there in future.

>more avoidance

and blame game

We are violent, we need to be. That's the whole point of the state in the Communist movement: a tool for securing political hegemony as part of revolution. When it is not needed, it must go.

Do you know what extrapolation is?

so communism is not free like you said it was

and more so it uses force

It has to *for an interim period*, but not forever.

That's the point.

You would make a great commisar or gulag officer

And you wouldn't, with your preferred hierarchies?

What happens to those who go against your desired order?

You are saying that obtaining such freedom is impossible.

no because they are all ppl in gulag, their state is dirt

gulags are for rebels

not inferiors

Rebels, yes, including those who want to change your system?

lol what are you trying to lead to with that line

Remember: Communism isn't a state of affairs to be established, but the real movement to abolish the ruling state of affairs.

its so pathetiiic '

You want a state of affairs. Rebels would be inferior too, for they would not accept your Big Brain logic, huh?

you cant remove state

So you admit that Communism, as Marx and Engels knew it, is impossible.

communism has a centralized organization

this is the state

like you dont know words, should we carry on in hebrew?