So either this 'fascism' of yours is distinct from my 'Communism' in the sense (but not only this sense) that while the former doesn't need bloodlust, the latter does...

...or 'fascism' is universal in today's political landscape and encompasses your politics too.

**Either way, you can't say that my 'Communism' is a bad idea just because it is so authoritarian with regards to our landscape, i.e. it has to weaponise a hegemonic politics - when you say that you're a Communist and in truth, your political position requires the use of hegemony to become the dominant position.**

Yes, either way, you're trying to wriggle out of this mess and say that I don't know shit about Communism despite isolating something that's universal to bourgeois politics and simultaneously saying that this is both my 'Communism' and 'fascism' while also being required for your own politics.

The differences are not in the fact that they must fight as hegemonies at some stage, but in what they seek and how they fight.

Time to repeat, then:

***If you say that your 'Communism' does not require genocide, then why should my 'Communism' require it? 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?***

BTW: me saying "With Communism, this kind of ultra-authoritarian politics can only ever be temporary" does not mean that Communism would have to be in all circumstances, but with regards to our present politics, *it does today*, and this is unlikely to change.

You, with your own big 'ego', dragged that out of my words. You don't understand nuance yet again. 'Can' is a very subtle word, you know. It denotes *possibility*, and to say 'can only ever be' means that if something *does* exist, it must be a certain way.

implying that i made the comment saying you are less of a communist then me. "Remember: even if you somehow rightly say 'that's not what you said before', you must still deal with this stronger argument first and argue why it means that I'm less of a Communist than you.
" i said that you are not a communist you are a deluded facist who thinks he is communism.
>This absolute exist
>but it doesnt
Pick one

You think that you are that absolute, you are seriously drifting

```implying that i made the comment saying you are less of a communist then me.```

> i said that you are not a communist you are a deluded facist who thinks he is communism.

You called me a 'fascist', which is not the same as being a Communist, is it?

Unless you think that Communism *is* 'fascism' (and indeed, your actual conception of Communism is in line with third-positionist politics).

Why else would you bring up the screenshot of the 'Fascism' article?

If I'm a Fascist or a third-positionist, then I'm not a Communist. The page that you brought up says that 'Fascism' is anti-Communist.

And no, I don't have to say that I am *absolutely* a Communist in the static sense that you're implying. It's convenient that you dodged this:

***"So no, even if I were the ultimate Communist (no such thing exists in the first place - my entire claim is that you have less reasons to say that you're a Communist than I do and not that I am the best and ultimate Communist), then I would still have to revise what I say."***

I am not *an entire movement* or an ordained priest which speaks 'for' it as if I'm divinely-inspired or something. I conceive of my own political struggle in line with the framework which was laid down by the Marxist Communist tradition, and as such, I put forward arguments which I endeavour to show are both correct and derivative from that tradition.

The only reason why I could be said to 'absolutely' be a Communist would be in an abstract sense, which would require criteria which distinguish people who are definitely 'Communists' from 'non-Communists'. By some metrics, I would not be a *'true die-hard'* Communist (at least *right now*), but this was not my point. I am saying that I have more reasons to call myself a Communist than you do, and I can use multiple standards upon which I can qualify that.

*And before you say that me setting down a standard is me wielding an 'absolute' idea: **that would be unavoidable for the present moment**. Setting down standards for what counts as a certain thing at a given moment in which we have to make a decision is impossible to avoid. __If you dig deep enough, you'll always find something 'absolute' or binary or whatever - **it depends on how far deep you have to dig, and how deep people shove that 'absolute' thing**.__*

You have been dealing with surface-level 'absolutes' with a lot of what you've said - from 'freedom' and 'submission' through to understanding different stages of Communist revolution.

You're doing it again with me saying that you're not a Communist and that I am.

***But worse still, you're now varying your use of the term 'absolute'. When you used the term to describe how I'm 'the absolute Communist', you were also referring to how I appoint myself as an authority regarding Communism.***

When I was talking about 'absolutes', I was talking about things which envelop and describe the totality of things within a category, often one which is said to be representative of all possible things.

An ultimate state, a *final, perfect* state.

**That's why I said that 'absolute', *frozen* 'freedom' cannot exist or even be conceived of.**

(Hegel's understanding of the term is as a process, a temporary and explosive self-abolishing thing which envelops the entirety of the world. *This kind of __Absolute__, with a capital A to distinguish it, DOES concretely exist!*)

Anyway, nice dodge of my previous question.

__***If you say that your 'Communism' does not require genocide, then why should my 'Communism' require it? 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?***__

***You can't say that my 'Communism' is a bad idea just because it is so authoritarian with regards to our landscape, i.e. it has to weaponise a hegemonic politics - when you say that you're a Communist and in truth, your political position requires the use of hegemony to become the dominant position.***

Not the first time I've had to repeat myself while a certain sophomoric wannabe creature ignores crucial details which betrays his anti-Communism when he fills in the gaps.

inb4 'i didnt read that but heres a qoute from you that haas no nuance'

i brought the screenshot of facism as you are a facist and i showed you that describtion as you think you are a communist

You already told me that, and you're dodging my question again.

You brought up an article which didn't stop at saying 'fascism is authoritarianism and the need for a state', it specifically isolated 'fascism' as an anti-Communist movement in a part of the article that you conveniently didn't screenshot.

Moreover, that article states that 'fascism' argues for a 'mixed economy', which is usually a term used to describe an economy with a large private sector and a similarly-large public sector.

...both of which engage in industrial capitalism, i.e. the generation of profit and capital through the use of labour and the existing capital stock.

Communism, meanwhile, seeks to destroy capitalism in all its forms *including industrial capitalism* and not just forms of financial capitalism such as usury, which many 'fascists' (i.e. third-positionists, including the Volkists of the NSDAP) made ideological commitments to destroy regardless of whether or not they actually did that and practically sought to do that.

The fact that there is a need for some kind of hegemony in the first place to obtain and generate power in the case of *any* political movement is inherent to politics in class society.