What’s wrong with these statements?

Genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about.

This is exactly what happened, how it happened. The idiot I was arguing with kept going back and forth in his arguing, in some comments he would say there is a state in communism, then two comments later he said communism has no state. So yes, the person I was talking to was an idiot, not uncommon (hello my username.)

If this blurb offends you, maybe I was wrong about the conservatives calling us snowflakes.

I’m not who you responded to, but they have a good point. The difference being who is favored and who is not. In fascism there are in groups and out groups. The real life forms we have today of communism follow that same rule. I think the distinction is who is being targeted. Try to speak out against the Russian government in Russia, it won’t go well. The same thing would certainly happen in a fascist state. Pointing out the small differences between the two is akin to making the distinction between a pedophile and a hebephile. They are both authoritarian in nature.

This doesn’t really answer any of my questions, only raises more. Unless of course he is making the point that an authoritarian government is the “saving up for the house” but it’s clear with his next statements in the interview, that’s not the case.

Well this was kinda my opinion going in, so I wanted a different perspective lol.

I see. So there is supposed to be an authoritarian state in the transitionary period, is what you are saying?

Interesting, I was under the impression the real life forms had just failed; one group got into power and just said “naw” and then stayed in that authoritarian ‘state.’

That doesn’t answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?