You didn't respond to what was commented, you extrapolated a nonexistent stance about states being not perfect enough for supporting and decided that was in there. Why are you being smarmy over your own inability to respond to something without creating an additional epistemic theory for them to possess in your mind? Literally only you decided that it had to do with "all states are bad" and then created ** fictional exchange** so you can dunk on pretend anarchists. You didn't even try in the first place, no investigation, no right to speak. you realize Bad Empanada has in depth videos on Cuba, debunking slander against it right? Almost like the comment has nothing to do with disliking states on principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBYlC4-0bQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sReF9RBVHs&t=4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7_wTqDUCU is literally the same as

“Stop right there, that’s all I need to know. No, I do not support Cuba, even critically.”

You come off as bitching about strawmen anarchists who don't support anything with the word state. it is bad out of context, and I don't know why the OP clipped the quote that way, but who the heck looks at that and creates a whole "states are bad so if a thing is a state I refuse to support it" person? Pretty sure he does more qualitative good in terms of Cuba than most of us here, but yeah he doesn't tout himself as a "supporter" so he must hate Cuba cause it is a state. :brainworms:

If you would like to try again now with rudimentary reading comprehension and without imaginary sectarian opponents, feel free