> The defining feature of Communism is the State owns everything in a classless society. I invite you to consult any reference. The difference is not semantic;

> The defining feature of Communism is the State owns everything in a classless society. I invite you to consult any reference. The difference is not semantic; it is a completely different system. What you are talking about is not Communism by any definition, including Marx's. You may as well have said 'coprophagia'. This is absolutely incorrect. It is obvious you yourself haven't consulted any reference whatsoever. Communism aims for a stateless society. From the very first line in wikipedia "Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology and current within the socialist movement[1] whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the state.[10][11][12]" And even as a colloquialism it is well known that Communism means that "the workers own the means of production". Further https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society "Some political philosophies, particularly anarchism, consider the state an unwelcome institution and stateless societies the ideal, while Marxism considers that in a post-capitalist society the state would be unnecessary and wither away. " Your statement about Marx and Communism is clearly absolutely false. The utopian Marxist communist society is stateless. The only purpose of a state like entity in a Marxist society is to hold democratic elections to arrive at consensus, in particular the state-analogous entity cannot bear any weapons or use violence and judges and courts will be democratically elected and not run by "professionals" (aka bourgeoisie). This is explicitly described as a utopian society. > See the afore-cited Mondragon Corporation, larger even than Amul, Simple yes/no question - do the workers own the means of production in Mondragon? > It isn't specifically Catholic Of course, I explicitly said that I was being pedantic. I only said that to hold a mirror to your pedantry, where you refuse to acknowledge that workers owning the means of production is the defining characteristic of a communist collective. Instead, you go off on tangents about how marx himself said that a communist society implies centralized state power, which is clearly false. It is infact the opposite.