yes thatw as sarcasm

but they were though

it wasnt every man for himself

>no chiefs equals no leaders

wtf

early humans worked together

You keep strawmanning my point.

no I'm not

Like as if you CANT have a collective consensus on who's more qualified to make certain decisions

which isn't a state, tard.

There always has to be a leader

and an identity or whatever the fuck

like what?

yes so a collective of people with leaders, thats what we call a state

Read early human history

you want a stateless state

I do read early human history

Again

a strawman.

What's your ideology?

thats not relevant

Yes it is.

Okay which class were in charge of this state? Exactly how'd this state use violence to keep the "proletariat" down?

I'm a Libertarian Communist.

Or slave owners

dont strawman my arguments by using personal attacks and ad hominems

adress what im saying

I am

judge me by the content of my character

It would be an ad hominem if I was simply denouncing your argument by personally attacking you.

I'm not though.

It's relevant because Seedle for example believes in the immediate destruction of the state (I assume) And I believe that when the proletariat has taken over the state and is done with it

it'll die out

Though I'm not too sure how ancom works

but if you remove the state and still have a leadership and a clear direction, a government essentially

Sorry libcom*

how do you not have a state

In which case I'm even more confused

In terms of a political entity, a state is any politically organized community living under a single system of government.[

>how do you not have a state

Because there's no class to enforce their will on you