I’m not confused because communism does not exists in a vacuum a communist society will be a state.
The “abolishment” of the state under communism does not do so in practice but rather in principle when everyone belongs to the state there is no state but it’s an empty and meaningless starlet.
Communism also outside of some fringe Marxism and anarcho communism is not anarchist at all but rather very centralized.
Communism is by definition stateless, so any society where a state exists is not communism. You might say that this is impossible, and that would quite possibly be right, which is why there is no real-world example of a communist society.
I think the only way that it could possibly work is with post-scarcity or at least much less scarcity that currently exists.
How do you call a group of people with an shared identity and sovereignty?
No real-world example is a coupout and a no true scottsman all in one.
The stateless part is not what you think it means it just means that the state is not a separate entity to the individual mostly because individualism does not exist the only thing that exists is the group.
When everyone is equal then there are no senators or presidents or mayors but everything is still centralized so some governing body forms or it’s total anarchy.
But that doesn’t matter as long as not everyone is commmunist you would have a communist and a none communist state unless due to the authoritarian nature of communism the non communist group is annihilated.
If anything the core principals of communism are much more abhorrent than any implementation of it we had so far.
The “abolishment” of the state under communism does not do so in practice but rather in principle when everyone belongs to the state there is no state but it’s an empty and meaningless starlet.
Communism also outside of some fringe Marxism and anarcho communism is not anarchist at all but rather very centralized.