This is a given. Any political order seeks to destroy *something*.

*Your concern is that Communists would be destroying the supposed dignity and order of Nature. To that, Communists say 'no shit Sherlock'.*

We are out to destroy gods.

We want to remove the crowns of the ghostly ideas which we shackle ourselves to; we want to destroy any excuses using which any misidentification of struggles as being exclusive struggles can be made and sustained in practical decisions.

And with that, yes, we will need to absolutely smash present modes of life. *This is a given, in human society this happens all the time, only without our conscious organisation of the processes which drive this phenomenon.*

Such a course of action is necessary in order to get to a political position where people can express themselves and become ever-more autonomous.

```I really dont see how you could converse or argue with against this contradicting insanty. That btw leads to him going complete avoidance mode every time you move to a point
```

I only 'avoid' it because I've already sorted this mess out. I did not argue that people would have an ultimate, frozen 'freedom'. The contours of 'doing what one fucking pleases' are themselves owed to the present circumstances which we find ourselves in, from what physical materials and industrial processes we have at that given time through what bodies of thought we've built all the way to what we can imagine.

In other words, even 'doing what one fucking pleases' is a *historical* thing. Our own conceptions of what's feasible, what's 'ultimately' possible and even what's imaginable are not fixed.

*You would most likely already have latched onto this and corrected me there if you were a Communist, or at least in the Marxist Communist tradition. Instead, you went straight for the 'impossibility' argument, almost like the post-Marxists do when asserting the impossibility of 'democracy' as a frozen absolute state of affairs.*

Unlike Mouffe and Laclau, though, you don't show that these absolutes are abstractions which are ultimately meaningless with regards to any political cause. You defend the *bourgeois* position: namely, that we're stuck with class, a lack of democracy and identity politics - *and that (crucially) to keep struggling against that would be 'unproductive' and in vain because it cannot satisfy this prevailing order which we are doomed to*.

**And before you say that you didn't talk about idpol: you may not have mentioned it by name, but you were busy talking about how people will always be separated into groups which can act exclusively in their own interests and nothing else, which was the point of your defence of biological determinism.**

All of this is why I say that I have infinitely more reasons to call myself a Communist than you do, and that you would be better off calling yourself a reactionary syndicalist.

trash

He is saying, "i am a communist because you arnt" (incase you didnt wanted to read all that)

"We are out to destroy gods.
We want to remove the crowns of the ghostly ideas which we shackle ourselves to; we want to destroy any excuses using which any misidentification of struggles as being exclusive struggles can be made and sustained in practical decisions."
"We stomp because it is the key to our freedom"
:D

```He is saying, "i am a communist because you arnt" (incase you didnt wanted to read all that)```

Your following quotations dodge the points that I was making, but okay. Let's fucking rip them to shreds anyway.

```"We are out to destroy gods.
We want to remove the crowns of the ghostly ideas which we shackle ourselves to; we want to destroy any excuses using which any misidentification of struggles as being exclusive struggles can be made and sustained in practical decisions."```

As already explained:

***Only in our minds do we fight 'exclusively as [insert identity here], unconditionally-so'. In reality, we fight as subjects who are having to relate to the world, which just so happens to include an entire social framework. Our relations to each other are indirect in class society; our consciousness of our battles is by default in terms of interests which we think are exclusive. __Regarding this, Communism seeks to remove this false consciousness and contextualise struggles as being part of a larger, universal struggle.__***

How is this equivalent to genocides and crap like that? People are not equivalent with the struggles that they follow and their own conceptions of those struggles. It's rather telling that you seem to be so obsessed with upholding this bourgeois politics.

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.

**That's the only reason why I say 'we stomp because it is the key to our freedom' (and again, this is not an ultimate and frozen heavenly state of 'freedom' - which is impossible - it is instead a provisional process).**

Ultimately, you would only understand this if you were a Communist, and in fact you'd be able to remind me of some of the most commonly-used terminology and even cite bits and pieces from books in the rich Communist tradition to support all of this.

```>fascism page screenshot```

**The irony of this is that it is you who sides more closely with the Italian Fascists, or more generally, third-positionist movements in general such as Volkism, than with Communism.**

The Communists seek to practice ruthless criticism and they spare nothing from the sheer engineering of the world to suit the needs of all. *The third-positionists, on the other hand, seek to pursue a particular goal - a much narrower one.*

Your comparison of Communism with 'Fascism' amounts to seizing upon the fact that both seek to obtain a hegemony over the means of production and the state, by violent means if necessary.

Of course, according to you, the genuine Communism is not a *true* Communism.

But let's have a look at your article:

```Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[11]```

>'mixed economy' as opposed to the dissolution of private property as a legal institution

>national economic self-sufficiency as opposed to internationalism

inb4 muh Stalin said 'socialism in one country'

***The point of third-positionist ('fascist') movements is __class collaborationism__, imbecile.***

People are meant to struggle *as classes* and work together in a set, highly specialised manner.

The efforts of those involved are spent towards a struggle which is conceived of in terms of an identity which embodies an exclusive interest which is what all are either there to struggle for or be shot.

With Communism, this kind of ultra-authoritarian politics can only ever be temporary; the hegemonies that bring forth revolution must abolish themselves in a self-conscious manner with the support of all involved - moreover, the motive for defending revolutions against hostile forces is not because those forces cannot listen, but because they consciously deny that they can listen to those who seem to threaten their ways of life.

**Your politics, on the other hand, presupposes that bourgeois politics will never go away and that there will always be classes.**