In order to create a stateless society, wouldn’t you first have to conquer all other states? Otherwise you still have a de facto state, whether you call it that or not.
Ah, so you’ve invented your own definition of the word “state”. And if a “state” is defined by the mere existence of violence, than a stateless society is an impossibility.
In order to create a stateless society, wouldn’t you first have to conquer all other states? Otherwise you still have a de facto state, whether you call it that or not.
No. You wouldn’t first have to conquer all other states.
What make a state exist in your society is the existence of violence, not the existence of other states.
Ah, so you’ve invented your own definition of the word “state”. And if a “state” is defined by the mere existence of violence, than a stateless society is an impossibility.
Ah, no, that in my comment is not a definition. You are misreading it.
You just defined it as such, right there… Or at least tried to?
No, he said that a state exists because of violence.
Definition: A human is a featherless bipedal Reasoning: Humans exist because of sex
I guess in theory that’s where the socialist state comes in to transition from capitalism to communism