I don't think "theoretically" is the right word to use here -- it is literally the theory of Communism that it is without a state. Semantic quibbling aside, th

I don't think "theoretically" is the right word to use here -- it is literally the theory of Communism that it is without a state. Semantic quibbling aside, there are, as stated in my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7887756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7887756), plenty of decidedly non-"theoretical" cultures which have very Communist features and no entity which fits most conceptions of a state (certainly not your original stated concept of a state as something with a "crap-ton of government bureaucracy, rules and regulations to tell people exactly how to live") Additionally, there is plenty of theory about how one would have a system that has the features of Communism without a state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism being the most direct and pure version. Frankly, asserting flippantly to the contrary makes your whole line of reasoning in these threads very hard to take seriously. There are piles upon piles of books, research, etc. about the intersection of the market and the state, and none of them really try to say, as you have, that without a state there must be private property. Indeed, most works in the space (including the original Locke, etc.) assert precisely the contrary -- that one of the main reasons the state exists is to enforce private property. More broadly, of course, it really depends on how you define "state". Are all systems of non-interpersonal power a "state"? Is even organized interpersonal power a state? Is it even at all possible for there to be no state? etc.