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```

'Destroy a revolution in a person'? No, the point would be to use whatever 'revolutions within people' there are, whatever that means (inb4 you say 'that's not what I meant, muh nuance' - then you grant me just as much opportunity to hide behind that excuse for the sake of consistency).

It would need to be used for the sake of advancing universal causes as a platform for individual causes and group causes.

```because he thinks he should destroy```

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.