I know it isn't, because 'fascism' is a broad term.

so all politics are facist

If so, then fascism is *meaningless* as a term.

you change the measuring tape 😄 wwhich explainians your ego

no it isnt meaing less

No, I'm using *your* argumentation again, Sargon.

you just dont know the meaing

you make your own from your believes

You're the one saying that 'fascism' is where 'people stomp on others and their gods'.

your false believes that in your own believes need to be destroyed 😄

See, I didn't even say that what I believe in has to be followed indefinitely, did I?

So that's a straw man.

Its like you dont even know what the word stomp means

or you just pretend you dont, i think its the later considering the matching description by herr hitler in mein campf

inb4 he brings it up again

no it isnt a strawmen you are backpeddeling

You forgot an element of time, fool.

name calling

```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.```

element of time that i forgot

This is what I said.

sure bud

The fact that there must be violent opposition to counterrevolutionary forces is not an eternal fact.

you said so much

and much of it contradicting

you dont follow what you preach as you see yourself as the absolute

Of course it would be if it were taken 'all at once', like how your frozen picture of 'freedom' doesn't exist.

There is a frozen absolute which you are implying that I'm talking about when I never said such a thing.

Communism is the movement which abolishes the present state of things, which would eventually include old iterations of itself.

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.

**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.**

It gets worse, of course.

You talk about my 'ego' and the preaching of the absolute and shit like that.

And yet look at *you*, talking about frozen ideas, saying that we're forever bound to 'submission' and using that to justify the supposed vanity of overcoming *any* kind of concrete submission which you then call a contradiction.

Look at *you* saying that I'm saying that 'all politics are fascist' - when this is the conclusion which I'm using your reasoning to show since you think that fascism is what I call 'Communism' because it's about 'stomping on gods hence on people'.

*And then you tell me that fascism does not require genocide.*

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.