Communists do not have an open and very politically-active hegemony and neither do third-positionists, hence there is a common factor between them that they need to fight to secure a hegemony in order to survive and expand as movements. It's the same shit with your own politics.

You said this well before you brought up the article:

You were taking the essential characteristic of 'fascism' to be this need for organising and building a hegemony which must establish itself violently - in fact, you were even less precise than that, talking about how people have to 'work together' in a way which solely benefits 'the will of the collective'.

**This is inherent to movements in class politics, therefore you, me and just about everyone else who isn't part of the ruling political paradigm is a 'fascist'.** That's why I called your use of the term 'fascist' meaningless: you've isolated something trivial which says nothing about how your politics and my politics are different, therefore it really is meaningless with regards to telling them apart, *which is what you want to do in the first place when you say that you're a Communist and I'm a 'fascist'*.

**Your use of the term is reminiscent of that stereotype of the confused and angry 'antifascist' who labels any form of politics which requires any kind of force to get itself going as being 'fascist'. Sorry, but this term is not used in such an imprecise manner outside of those circles. Nice try.**

The upshot is that there's *something else* which separates our politics - whichever way you slice it, something which separates Fascism and Communism.

"This is inherent to movements in class politics, therefore you, me and just about everyone else who isn't part of the ruling political paradigm is a 'fascist'. That's why I called your use of the term 'fascist' meaningless: " ;p; sp im right thats why saying it is meaningless ackording to you

you are a facist and you think you are communism and the will of communism

your ego is so lare that you speak of we

I knew you'd do this; I knew you'd continue to use 'fascism' in the same way that you've always done.

Here's the thing: you say that I want to murder gods and people. Yet 'fascism' does not require genocide according to you.

Moreover, you call yourself a Communist while you call me a 'fascist'...

But your politics will require mass murder since those *fucking Jews* won't budge easily, now, will they? What makes you different from a 'fascist'? Furthermore, why would any movement be reducible to 'fascism'?

Oh, and nice try about the 'you think you're communism' part.

L2R.

So what now? Bring up an out-of-context quote with which you drag some meaning out of using your political illiteracy regarding what various terms mean (not just for Marxist Communists, but outside their discourse too)?

Reuse the same definitions for which you can't provide any proof? Bring up a dictionary entry from a non-specialist or otherwise irrelevant website which magically 'proves' that you're using the terminology right?

...all while dodging the actual content of what I'm trying to say and the demarcations which I made between given things to which I have assigned terms, *which you still haven't argued against* given that you've stuck to using frozen absolutes which are either trivial or can never exist in place of the dynamic and history-dependent concepts that I've used?

Implying. and no facism is not kill the jews. You are so fucking delusional

Your ego is massive, you are autoritarian and oppressive. you are a facist.

Fascism = kill white people

Prove me wrong

```
Implying. and no facism is not kill the jews. You are so fucking delusional
```

I wasn't just talking about Jews. Saying 'implying' means nothing on its own, by the way. Notice how you never make any effort to explain your own politics.

My point is very simple: ***If you can ally with people who might, in line with their identities, always be opposed to your politics, then why can't I or anyone else in the same tradition as me do that too?***

If I'm a 'fascist' and 'fascism' does not require genocide, then you'd be wrong to say that my politics requires genocide.

But this is besides the point. You were the first to bring up the topic of 'genocide' when I was talking about going beyond biology because you think that my kind of politics can only be achieved with a homogeneous master race.

It's this straw man of 'ppl cant be dffierent (in what u think communsim is)', which is not what I've argued. It's what *you* argued this entire time!

**If people have 'different traits' (which is what *you* said) and this causes them to inherently act in a certain way (which *you* implied by defending biological determinism)**, then conflict resolution cannot be established on grounds of reasoning and mutual solutions can never be found. People would always be pursuing a subset of a given set of goals and **there would be no option but to kill other people if tactical alliances cannot be made** since people would get in the way of each other if they all demanded more than what resources could allow for.

This follows from your words, not mine.

Are people different? Yes! I have never argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that they cannot relate their own personal struggles to a universal struggle, even if it is simply universal at a present moment.

Notice how you dodged this:

Your only defence was to hide behind words which we simply were not using in the same way and claim that I meant something that I didn't because I was supposedly using your interpretations of those words. That was the whole 'freedom' and 'submission' shitfest. When I say that there *can only be* such authoritarianism in an early stage of Communist revolution - as I've explained before - I mean that Communism would not yet be powerful enough to establish a ground upon which mutual conflict resolution can take place and would therefore most likely need to fight violently. Notice how you still dodged the points about this conflict resolution.

```Your ego is massive, you are autoritarian and oppressive. you are a facist.
```

You mean to say that my ego is unwarranted rather than large, since you position yourself to be among *The Based*. You pretend that you're a fusion between Diogenes and Hitler: you say you certainly know what others are thinking; you have all the possible nuances to hand *apart from when it doesn't benefit your argumentation*.