Not really anacy now is t

Again, rules aren't anti-anarchist, and enforcement of those rules is not statist as far as anarchists are concerned.

It can be done in a way which doesn't unnecessarily make a perpetrator suffer more than they need to.

But that would mean that theere is a hiercayy

thate theer is a power greater then the person that controls the person 😄

But that person would be able to control that power too to the greatest extent, the anarchists would say.

No because that person is bansihed by set person with set power

and what causes the person to leave? force perhaps 😄

'set person'

You could even say 'everyone else', but that wouldn't matter to them; it would mean nothing beyond a short term loss for the perpetrator which they'd be able to recover from wholly.

All because they'd find another group.

And I would respond that the perp would run out of groups.

you are diverting and digressing again

You dont seem to understand that the ruleset you ascribe to anarcisht is anti anarchist

Why? What I've actually done is steel man your point, i.e. take down a stronger claim than the one that you've advanced.

But again, you haven't proved that what you say anarchists believe in is what they do believe in.

And in fact, I would say that anarchists are crypto-statists!

if you get banished that institute is not free

And they would say that it is, despite all of the contradictions which come with it.

I am telling you what I think their arguments are regardless of whether they're right or not. I don't buy their arguments.

how are you not seeing all the cheeseholes in your thinking . You dont know the meaing to the terms that you use,. yet just keep digging deeper . Just dig that hole son

I'll be back in a bit.

Yeah just run 😄

i doubt you rember a single point after you are back

me post angry painter man

angry painter man sound smart

angry painter man says you are wrong

@Deleted User Are you American? You argue like Americans do, you scream and wave about misrepresentations of your opponent's arguments while claiming that you're an uncategorisable authority on many things.

Oh, Burger.

Anyway, you didn't prove that any of the situations that I brought up would violate anarchist principles, because that's not what anarchists are arguing in favour of, even as far as your Wikipedia definition-mongering went.

But this entire fucking game was meaningless. I've said over and over again that you need to clarify what you mean by 'state' in the context of you saying that 'states cannot be abolished'. You are claiming that states will never go away and there is always the need for a state, contrary to what Engels said.

So you cannot call yourself a Marxist Communist (which, as nuance would suggest, is what is meant by 'Communist').

You brought up anarchy and said that I'm advocating that. If that's true, then Engels is saying that too, and so is Marx.

...which means that by your standards, Marx and Engels are anarchists.

Lol like i said, he doesnt remebers a single point "what a state is", we been over that twice

you posted wiki yourself

you know about those definiotions

when you state that we have not defined it

you are arguing the meaing of words that you got wrong and dont know the meaing of

I gave you a definition from the Marxists Internet Archive.