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.***

And to top it all off, he says that the butchers of gods are themselves worshipping a god at any given moment and always will be - throwing a banality into the mix, a frozen absolute which is really fucking obvious.

As if this was the focus of Communists in the first place.

__***If you claim that you're a Communist and that everything else is not a true Communism (e.g. the USSR), then are you not showing your 'ego' by claiming to be a representative of a true ideology?***__

You tell me that I'm speaking as if I *am* Communism, or at least a representative of it. My entire argument all this time is __not__ that *I am the ultimate Communist*, ***it's that you have less reasons to call yourself one than I do***.

You say you support 'city state Communism', that you argue against 'capitalism' and so on.

What makes that different from *syndicalism*?

Or Volkism? Or even mutualism?

My point has been that when you argue further, you reveal that you advocate things which are inconsistent with the dominant form of Communism: Marxist Communism, the *default* 'Communism'.

There's no point in saying ''Marx and Engels argued this' is your only point here about me not being a Communist' because what you argue in favour of is already largely if not totally captured by an ideology of a different name altogether - one in which you'd be able to find a much larger base of sincere individuals who accurately reflect the heights of that political tradition.

If I sincerely want to belong to a political movement, then there's no point in calling myself a monarchist if what I believe in is in fact *against* the developments of monarchist theory and is instead more in line with republican theory.

***Since you insist on having beliefs which fundamentally contradict the highest developments of what's usually referred to as 'Communism' (which would be the Marxist sort) and you haven't gone off to call yourself a 'fascist', a 'third-positionist' or anything else of that sort, then this leaves only one possibility left.***

__***Whether you know it or not, you're an infiltrator.***__

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?

That the proletariat has no struggle as a class is itself evidence of a universal struggle. The point is to act as the class of no class.

The use of the state to fight off the bourgeoisie is a necessity because those forces - being ultimately composed of people who wield machines of blackmails and exploitation - define their existence as literally being the embodiment or representative of a given idol which becomes a part of the identity which they mould themselves into.

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.