Without this identity, they think there's nothing. They're right, insofar as nothing is *no specific thing* to cluster around and raise to the status of a big Other.

If one considers themselves to *be* a certain way, then they presuppose that those who infringe on letting them continue the project of being that way cannot possibly have their reasons for being a certain way can be placed onto their moral compass.

If I say that I am a member of a certain race and that my identity hinges upon, among other factors, the ancestry and traditions whose attribution to me I uphold, then of course given that others have different ancestries and heritages attributed to them, I can't see any possible compatibility between what they have and what I have. So I will *always* be at war with them according to this worldview.

And yet I am changing that tradition, and that ancestry is meaning less and less with every advance of technology and every establishment of the commons of language and reason.

That attribution is not owed to any alien force, it's owed to people who taxonomise the world and say that it follows a certain pattern.

A pattern which they cannot help but change and cultivate. Even those who say they are 'letting Nature do its thing' still have to actively *hold themselves back* to do so.

**The Communist struggle is not powerful enough to deal with these people yet. They are too armed, too enveloped in fighting *as exclusive identities and with exclusive interests in mind*, and they can mobilise millions of people to die for them with a propaganda movie or two.**

They can realise that they are misidentifying themselves and that they're moulding themselves to fit something which they are ultimately not and do not have to be.

But this consideration would be at the expense of falling in line with the already-existing struggles - which involve people who are sufficiently powerful that they don't have to recognise their fundamental self-misrecognition because *they are propped up by the existing order*.

The bourgeois feminists are wrong, for example: the powerful man is not powerful simply because he is a man, but because there is something about him engaging in a political movement *as a man* which he reaps the benefits from.

It is beneficial to struggle in this way *purely because it is consistent with accelerating the reproduction of capital* and keeping profit rates up. To continue to be a man and assume the same social position is productive for the ruling order - it sustains the hegemony which sits atop the hulking structure of capital, and it feeds capital itself.

**So of course, to continue to struggle *as a man* it would be really stupid to give up that seat of power.**

Similarly, to continue to struggle as a *bourgeois citizen* (which is the common point around which one struggles 'as an identity' without any immediate consequences), one would be stupid to fight for a movement which aims to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class distinction, thus bringing an age where identities lose their grounds for being things which can be practically upheld for the sake of survival and maintaining livelihoods.

Communism is the death of the politics of exclusive, supposedly untranslateable interests.

It involves but is not limited to the pursuit of such interests as particular instances of a universal condition of people, which is itself reinvented and changed.

***At first, the movement must become powerful enough to provide a political force to which people can relate their struggles.*** In that stage of revolution, 'come with us or fight against us' is something which all movements proclaim, but only the Communist movement would attempt to be ruthlessly assimilative and universalise political struggles. It might be done through solving XY problems (people might actually want something but assume that it can only be done in a certain way), for example.

It always involves locating particular interests in the context of general interests, universalisable ones, rather than simply tactically aligning with a different interest which is assumed to always be an alien interest.

**This is the crux of your problem. You assume that there is always going to be a set of alien interests which cannot be found to be part of a universal interest and a common struggle.**

You are not commie and your ego is massive

Why do you write in full paragraphs

If everyone who writes in full paragraphs is full of themselves and writes hot garbage then when somebody with a good idea comes along nobody will listen

>literally named garbage
>"y-your ego is massive!"

@Deleted User you can't even put up an argument

you are completely and utterly destroyed

Implying i even read a single thing of all that. Argument to what btw. This maybe "But anyway, let's get back to the thing about destroying other people's gods. Why can't people give up their identities and contextualise their struggle as being part of a universal struggle?
" in which he clearly states that he wants to destroy other ppls ideology. First he was like, "do what ever the fuck you want" meaing ou could go true a constant development, ut now he is saying that he wants to destroy these revolution in a person, because he thinks he should destroy. 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

```You are not commie and your ego is massive```

'You're not a Communist if you don't respect idpol!'

'My idpol is special because class will never go away and biological determinism!'

```Implying i even read a single thing of all that.```

>proceeds to pick out a point and try to argue against it anyway

Nice inconsistency, big brain.

```in which he clearly states that he wants to destroy other ppls ideology.```

That ideology is not *equivalent* to the struggle that it's tied to. It's based on a misrepresentation and false conception of that struggle.

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.

```First he was like, "do what ever the fuck you want" meaing ou could go true a constant development```

We've been over this, I might as well repeat myself again:

There is no such thing as a 'constant development' even as far as reaching a perfection of 'doing whatever one pleases' is concerned, in fact!

Would that not be subject to change too, meaning that it can't even be modelled as something 'constant' in any way?

*So even as far as the abstractions which you conjured up go, you don't know what you're talking about.*

``` ut now he is saying that he wants to destroy these revolution in a person```