The USSR and China have never been communist societies

It seems that it's you who has the wrong definition of communism

I'm surprised, your wrong definition is of communism and not of facism. I kinda expected you to go the nazi route and say that "it isn't true fascism" if there wasn't any flavor of racial superiority to it

"a classless and stateless society seems very different from a highly authoritarian and nationalistic state"
Genius, I would like to know what made you reach such conclusion

So then our disagreement here is just on the definition of communism

you can only keep a society classless by force, and you can't do it without a state

anarcho-communism has to assume that everyone agrees with you

Why don't you give me your definition of communism if you think I've got it wrong because I don't think you'll be able to provide me with a coherent definition if you think the USSR and China are communist societies

you can't have communism without a big state, also authoritarian, otherwise it wouldn't be communism for a long time

there also is close to no private ownership, and seizing of property is a thing if the state so decides

the only version of communism that isn't fascist is an anarcho-communism where everyone agrees to play with it. It's even more of an utopia than the typical communism

So to you, communism is just when an authoritarian state significantly limits private property rights?

I wouldn't define it just by that

but imo there can't be any communism without an authoritarian state

Anarcho-communism is technically the only kind of communism, and is generally the end goal for anyone who calls themself a communist

it would also have to be nationalistic, otherwise it wouldn't be communist for long

Even MLs will tell you that the USSR had not yet achieved communism and was in a transitional state

What you're saying is inherently contradictory

@LustrousMandrill I'm ok with that version of communism. It only works at small scale and small communities anyway

You're basically saying "you can't maintain a stateless society without an authoritarian state"

the only think contradictory is that you are calling Anarcho-communism, just communism

yep

exactly

If you don't think communism means a stateless, classless society, you haven't yet provided your alternative definition - you've listed characteristics that you consider to be associated with it, but you even said yourself that you wouldn't define communism based on those characteristics

I told you from the start. Communism was never stateless

and I explained exactly why it can never be

to have true redistribution, you are required to do it by force, otherwise you would never have redistribution

Anarchists and other communists like MLs share the same end goal of the classless, stateless society, they just disagree on how to get there - "communism was never stateless" is once again a contradiction, because a society that isn't stateless can't be communistic

what do you mean by MLs?

Marxist-Leninists

communism already is an utopia by itself. But to believe that it could be achieved without a state goes to quite funny extreme of utopia

@Danacrag why would you ping me with that? when did i even state an opinion on that topic

ofc that you can believe that it would be ideal if everyone agrees on it. But it is required for everyone to believe the same thing as you

imagine if I said capitalism would work 100% if everyone agreed with my version of "true capitalism"

@beepcash wut

a system has to work even when it has enemies

In order for an anarchist society to work out, the vast majority of the people in that society have to be anarchists, sure, I never claimed that it would be easy to achieve

@Danacrag

I don't think everyone has to agree on everything 100% but they have to agree on some basic anarchistic principles at least

even if true anarchy would exist. The ancaps would ruin you =p

idk why its so hard to go back and see what you pinged ppl with but w/e