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```Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond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.**

...and of course, the response to that prognosis which you posit is that it would be in vain to stop the development of classes because otherwise we would have to conduct mass genocides.

**Your understanding is wrong, here. With any set kind of society, differences will show and classes will develop - __but the point is that society itself must be subjected to conscious change__. In Communism, there will never be any 'normalcy' besides in hindsight when looking at a given frozen instant or even an entire slice of history, past and present (but not necessarily the future).**

Is it any wonder that Marx and Engels say 'Communism is not a state of affairs to be established but the real movement which sublates/abolishes the state of affairs'? (It is not the exact quote, but it is the gist of what they're saying.)

__To return from the discussion of the actual difference between Communism and 'Fascism', you say that they're the same because of how they seek to obtain power, but then *why isn't your politics or ANY OTHER POLITICS the same*?__

Think about it. In order for you to establish your 'city state communism', you will need to fight off counterrevolutionary forces too. You will need to stomp on at least *some* of the gods of others, if not all of them.

The divine spectre that is 'globalism', for example.

You can convince people that your (exclusive) struggle is worth backing and joining, but you can't get any use out of those whose struggles will always come into conflict with yours at a particular moment. Integrating them for the sake of that integration is not in your consciously-held interest, and it is the same with *anyone* who conceives of their struggle as being necessarily exclusive.

You'll never get much use out of those who wish to *destroy* the present biological structures which we use now, for example. Or those who wish to see that class becomes a thing of previous history. You could tactically align with them, but they will always be different to you if you keep your present cause and continue with that struggle.

**What are you gonna do with your enemies if they're armed to the fucking teeth?**

What are you going to do with the likes of George Soros, the bourgeois philanthropist?

And all the Antifa kids who just won't listen to your wisdom? All the *Jews*, all the fucking financier rats?

__***You have no choice but to slaughter most if not all of them. They will NEVER be completely on your side.***__

***It follows from all of this that the link that you've made between Communism, or at least what I am putting forward regarding it, and 'Fascism', is a link that could be made between your 'Communism' and actual third-positionist movements, or between any two movements on the political landscape today which do not have a very large hegemony.***

__***For your politics to be any different using this metric, you would in fact have to be A BOURGEOIS LIBERAL, which you are clearly not!***__

So how's it going, Sargon? Why not just endorse horseshoe theory for the sake of rhetoric while continuing to also promote reactionary ideas on the basis that they're good for a kind of grown-up liberalism?

You really are just a souped-up Carl at this point: pretending to be a Communist (similarly to how Sargon says he's left-wing) and yet spouting very reactionary ideas and political solutions to what we face while also calling Communists 'Fascists'.

" Regarding this, Communism seeks to remove this false consciousness and contextualise struggles as being part of a larger, universal struggle." and you get to decide what is which in your mind, whilst not being sibjected to this yoursefl

>in your mind

jup

and its you who dodges

Wow, it's almost as if I can say things that others can agree with...!