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.
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*.
So much so that *your own politics* doesn't need to have so much of a focus as as those of others must, and those others should just be more concise so that you can drag your Based Interpretations out of what they say and the matter will be swiftly dealt with!
**Using your definitions of words, of course, there are many things that we agree on. The impossibility of 'freedom', the universality of 'authoritarian'-ism, the 'finitude' of the present. - we agree on all of those mentioned things.**
I know that you are referring to static, frozen and highly abstract ideas which are ultimately superficial, but I am not doing the same thing that you are. I explain why your definitions are not just missing the point of what I'm saying but are in fact putting you in the same predicament that I'm supposedly in.
When I say that your 'fascism' is universal in bourgeois politics, I make a distinction between that and whatever the Wikipedia article said about Fascism, and also third-positionist politics in general.
**So when you say 'you're admitting I'm right', I say 'no shit Sherlock, but this doesn't mean what you think it does - it's a big own goal for you too, since you can't justify how you're also not a 'fascist'!'**
@Garbage "If I'm a 'fascist' and 'fascism' does not require genocide, then you'd be wrong to say that my politics requires genocide." ***i never said this**
Nuance recalling what you said. You said that this evolution is ever constant there is no stability , so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described
>so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described
Again: ***we don't want to kill anyone even for the sake of our principles; we only need to enslave their gods as far as that's concerned. __The problem is that the Communist movement is not yet powerful enough to do this, and this has never been true in history leading up to now.__ There are forces who won't listen to us and fight with us because we don't have the means of demonstrating to them that we can fight for them, and so they will fight us to protect their struggles regardless of how accurately they identify themselves as individuals and their struggles too.***
***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. Again, notice how you still dodged the points about this conflict resolution.***
It's really fucking easy since I've demolished all of this before. At this point I'm copying and pasting in what I've previously typed with minimal editing.
**So no, saying that a revolution is never a 'constant' and static thing - i.e. that it is always changing - *does not make my politics the same as that of the Fascists*. The point of the abolition of both classes and more generally the politics where exclusive interests fight *as exclusive interests* rather than as part of a universal movement is that __there would be no need for conflicts to be resolved through the death and/or submission of one interest *exclusively* to another.__**
**I went further: I made it clear why Marxists distinguish between governance/governments and states - the difference relates to the kinds of force that they have to use.**
***Saying that one kind of abstract and frozen form of 'submission' is inevitable and a similarly-frozen state of heavenly 'freedom' is impossible __dodges the point__, because the freedom that I'm talking about is PROVISIONAL; it is something that must grow under Communism.***
__***What makes it different from Fascism or even what you call 'fascism' is that Communists don't say 'freedom is impossible, why bother'. Instead, we say that the impossibility of your frozen idea of 'freedom' does not mean that concrete freedoms are impossible.***__
He takes the position of the laughing child who supposedly knows what people think, using his own set of definitions which even the dictionaries and WIkipedia pages that he brings up do not support.
He is fascinated with frozen concepts which he assumes I'm using, ignoring the history-dependent and concrete nature of what I'm describing. For him, despite all the warnings about how his interpretations of words would lead to things which are usually true but trivially-so, __he continues to use these concepts to drag things out of my words which I did not say and went to great lengths to dispute on my own__.
Even when I clearly say 'what you call 'fascism' can only ever be temporary in Communism', he jumps to 'your 'Communism' is 'fascism' because you said forever changing and provisional revolution' because he assumes that a state of affairs where 'fascism' (i.e. the need for organising and building a hegemony which must establish itself violently, i.e. *state politics*) will be inherent to politics because no nonviolent and mutual means of conflict resolution can ever exist according to him (which is in truth a third-positionist belief)!
