First, *the full screenshot*:

in that screenshot you litteraly say that you do have to submit

Second, of course we agree that your idea of 'submission' is unavoidable. I'm saying that it's meaningless for that reason.

and now in text

so why are you still talking

im right

you dioo have to submit in communism

'Submit'

Do you know why you're still not a Communist?

when you submit you are not " free to do what you want"

>he still thinks I said this, even though nothing shows up in the search results

Again you imply and assume because i critise

Okay bud.

Here's why you're not a Communist:

Anything more interesting to discuss?

It doesnt shows up in the results as its way back theer , this denail of you started somehwer just go to the source

>way back there

<:svt:312032528129327106>

Doesn't matter. It would've got picked up.

Garbage is what?

then why dont you post that line

Politicaly?

**You assume that because there is this absolutised submission and a lack of an absolute 'freedom to do whatever you want, that a State is impossible to get rid of.**

@Deleted User

Because that line does not exist.

Then what started this then 😄

What started it is you assuming what I meant by 'submission' and 'freedom' when I never brought them up before you did.

I brought the submission up because you said that communism is free

Slavs resisted kingdomhood for so long

I did not even mention 'free' or 'freedom' before you did.

And then mongol came

Mongol rape

mkay, but wasnt that mostly tribes and such

Is strong

i guess when your state and govrenment gets raped all the time you would have anarchy for the most part

We agree that your notion of 'submission' - namely having to work within a collective and against unwilled processes to deal with present material conditions - is unavoidable.

Idealism and a lack of it

An absolute, heavenly state of freedom is impossible too, yes.

But that does not mean that there cannot be partial, time-dependent freedoms which relate to how we organise and use the world.

Ruling political programmes must become as neutral as possible and also as fertile for the growth of freedoms as possible.

To do that, they must always be changing, abolishing their past selves.