Message from @Garbage
Discord ID: 596390335756763140
We aim to be the destroyers of identity, of ourselves as fixed beings.
you are alwas a fixed being
you just exchange gods
Nope, I just changed. I'm thinking a different thought.
I construct gods.
I tear them down.
I build new ones.
seems very unproductive
...only to a person who encourages subservience to a single god, maybe any old god, but a single god.
but yor god is the collective and ist will wheer ever yhis is commiuning from
The god is the collective that wants to change itself.
It is identified with us as we actually are to the greatest extent that we can know ourselves at a given time.
Where others do not care, this ghostly 'collective' does not intrude.
Where they do care, the ghost (used to represent the other participants in the social world) wants to talk and work towards a mutual solution rather than enforce something for any length of time beyond an acceptable interim period.
This ghost kills itself and rises again into a new, revitalised form.
And then it dies again at the commands of everyone.
Or at least as many as possible if there is still a lingering incompetence with regards to coming to mutual solutions in all cases.
So ppl kills other ppls gods
again, your view is oppsressive destructive and unproductive
We kill gods ourselves, we advise others on which gods to kill and build.
Smells of idpol.
Oppressive to those who want to keep their gods for no reason. Destructive to those who want to cling onto their ways of life because they've resigned themselves to a certain way of life.
*And unproductive only to those who judge 'on behalf of' their gods.*
If you insist on actively obstructing everyone else for the sake of propping up an order which will always leech off you despite everything you tell yourself as an ordained priest for that order, then yes, since we cannot resolve any dispute with you, you will have to go. You would be representative of a vestige of bourgeois politics.
"We"
So your god is the god then huh
That ego
Just as you are communism
**Like I said, we choose our gods consciously, weaponise them and then rip them apart consciously.**
It's amazing that you talk about (an unsubstantiated, weakly-founded) 'ego' as if I'm really much more pathetic than that. I mean, you're telling me that I overestimate how representative I am of Communists.
And yet here you are, saying 'not true Communism' to me, thinking that you've found the light of revising Communism to fit your defeatist principles of never quite reaching 'freedom' (which is really a Trojan horse argument that you're using to justify the order that you so crave).
Why, yes, I am pathetic. I am but an individual, but even a cadre of a few individuals can do shit if they amass the resources and they have a strong political programme.
The Bolsheviks were a minority within Russia, and Lenin was himself a minority within the Bolsheviks.
Even one of his lovers said that he went mad after reading Hegel and coming back with the April Theses. And yet look at what Lenin managed to do, regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics. The Leninist line became *the dominant line* in the Bolsheviks - the one which held the most power over the party and got implemented in the RSFSR in the days before the USSR was created.
I am not comparable to Lenin. Indeed, I do not do enough for Communism. I have plenty of my own battles to face, and indeed I am not making them any easier.
*You, meanwhile, have positioned yourself as someone who 'merely criticises', 'exposes holes' and does all that in your rhetoric.*
You are the one who's 'woke' to things like racialism and biological determinism, and you have the key to what Communism really is too, you say.
While I spend ages trying to construct walls of text, you are the one priest who doesn't need to read all that and can supposedly BTFO all of that in a few sentences. You command the same of me, but I refuse, so of course I must be merely a mentally-ill butthurt Jewish imp.
**'That ego', he says, as if he isn't just sitting and ignoring much of what I'm saying for few reasons besides his laziness and his confidence in his defeatist worldview.**
***For him, a sheer iconoclasm constitutes nothing more than proclaiming that people are shackled to a force which they can never control while he posits that he knows this and wants to work within the boundaries of that force rather than attack it.***