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.

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.