It's because you imagine it as something that must be beyond material conditions.

maybe im anarchist

And then you say 'well, we submit to those material conditions'.

communism is that you know

you have a need of the ppl and you need to work to create matirals for the ppl

this is the whole submission

And not to change the material conditions themselves?

'Needs of the people' change, and so do the demands and goals of the people.

Yeah, needs like food and clothing

transportation infrastructure

basic things

that you like need

But we did not need them to survive before or pursue various goals before, now, did we?

To defend their lives, people did not have to rely on a military and maintain it, did they, when states were not in existence...?

And we will not always need things like trains in future.

What use is a train in space, for example?

Our world changes, but not as we consciously want it to. We live in a world of indirect economic and political relations where we aren't conscious of the commonalities between us and we conceive of ourselves as being forever locked into exclusive modes of life by some outside force which we either haven't managed to control yet or simply don't want to (this attitude is *defeatist*).

This imagined outside force is an idol - an embodiment of a big Other into a certain form. It's a reflection of our social world, given a power which we mistakenly take as a force which is supposed to be forever outside of our consciousness and our reach.

'Nature', God, the pixies.

There is something outside of our consciousness of it (this is a development of *materialism*), but it is not something that cannot be known by us. It relates to our own practice and thoughts.

When anyone tries to understand themselves, they must take into account their own history, including them understanding themselves, and the understanding of them understanding themselves and so on. It's an explosive infinite feedback.

So one can never truly capture oneself in thought at a given moment, but they can always be *a step behind* in a sense.

For example, I can understand that I have tried to understand what I am in the past, but I can't capture this process at the present moment.

**You said that I was talking about DID, but this is actually a reference to Lacan's notion of the split subject, or the barred S.**

DID involves a lack of being able to capture oneself at a level which is far greater than this, but also a sense that one does not understand themselves to such a great degree that it is thought that they are not themselves - there is something or someone else in their body that's controlling them.

It means that we must forever be looking at what we're doing and how we can change ourselves as individuals, as groups and as an entire network of reason-capable beings - i.e. as *humanity*.

okay

What are you sying with that

This is a far reach from what you said earlier .

I'm saying that we are not fundamentally determined by an outside force. Let me explain why this matters.

You were talking about a constant revolution that sounded like a forced dictatorship by authority

**It means that the only responsibility for our conditions lies on our shoulders.**

Yet you spoke of we

not only that you spoke of a outside force

What, 'material conditions'?

no the change

It is not something that any responsibility can be placed onto.

the change of being and thought and ideologies

...which we can condition and change ourselves?

The fact that it's currently unconsciously-mediated to a degree that's greater than our inherent lack of keeping up with ourselves does not mean that it's forever locked out of our consciousness.

...and, of course, our control as human beings!