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.

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?