It is not

You still have no source lmao

Well, that was fun.

Retards always say definitions are subjective to allow for their narrative

Nazis do the same exact thing

They say the definition of socialism is subjective

Aaaaaand typing agian

@olev I don't think it is subjective

still no source

OMG I'm pulling up your source for you! STFU

mad

Fuck

Off to gulag with me

Why do you still have no source

Kiernan, Ben (1997). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge,

I'm going into full caps rage

Okay let me just order the book

I have no mouth, but I must scream

Yes, you go order this book and learn all about Cambodia

You obviously have not read it yourself

I have only read snippets

Only what I can find on book review sites

lol

Give me an actual source

That I can deal with

I believe this book will tell you everything about how Pol Pot made Cambodia utterly classless

That Cambodia was classless, from each according to his contribution, to each according to his ability

They failed, but I think they did achieve that, to some extent

Regardless, the widely accepted simple definition of communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society

I disagree

"Widely accepted"

Your definition of communism is incorrect

pffft

Widely accepted by actual communists

Widely accepted by Liberal Intellectuals

Why do you even want to call yourself a communist

You're obviously not one

You make yourself look like a moron

You know what? Maybe I should just settle with "Socialist."

That's less autistic

But you probably still don't have the correct definition of socialism