>post the original comment

<posts

But now the child will turn into Mr Nuance again and claim that I didn't post 'the first commnet where you said communsim is where ppls have freedom'. Once again, such a comment *does not exist*.

And even if I did say that and I did backpedal, then now I've got a stronger argument which I can still use to justify my original point about you having less reasons to call yourself a Communist than me.

**So whichever way this particular matter goes, *you are the one who is derailing here.***

```you only talk and talk, no one reads this ```

Is that a tacit admission that you haven't read anything, and you've taken shit out of context *as usual*, assuming that I meant something that I never said using your unfounded extrapolations of my reasoning?

**Of course it is. It's always the same with you.**

The fact that - even though you've been given a demonstration on how the search tool works and even after you tried (with that heavily-cropped screenshot in hand) to put words in my mouth - you're still repeating yourself and giving no evidence whatsoever is enough to tell me that you're just another boring 15-year-old troll.

Nothing about 'Communism is absolute freedom' in this screenshot. You said that I was arguing against Communism being about freedom in this screenshot, and I said that Communism is not the pursuit of an abstract freedom, but the building of a freedom with limits which solely correspond with the advancement of the means of production (which is itself something which we modify and advance).

**That means that I simultaneously reject the notion that Communism is submission to other political forces and the notion that Communism is the pursuit of some general principle of 'freedom' which is made into an absolute thing. The context of what constitutes 'freedom' in the first place matters.**

There is no abstract 'freedom' as a static idea, and we cannot realise what is at the very edge of our imagination without doing something about the world: we have to modify the world to suit what we want. Communism is the unification of theory and practice in this regard. We act out our theoretical convictions (i.e. as Communists we cannot say that we recognise no gods but also stick to a set of practices in an uncritical, religious manner) and our practice (i.e. we must carve out our theories to suit how we practically relate to things and what they mean for us).

***You'll gloss over all of this because you don't give a shit about this supposedly-new argument of mine. You only care about this notion that I've backpedalled, and for you this is the ultimate focus of the controversy between us.***

The same old screeching of 'u said tihs' is your way of dodging the points at hand.

Melting through my fingers, always evading capture...

Doesn't that sound familiar, *American*?

" and claim that I didn't post 'the first commnet where you said communsim is where ppls have freedom"
>this
You posted the first comment you made in a attempt to decieve

The whole submittin thing, this came after that comment of yours 😄 you are just skipping around it not posting it, if you havent already deleted it 😄

>b-but burger! you didnt say freedumz, you said sumbission!!!!

That's the second time you've changed your words, idiot. Since I didn't mention 'freedom' in the way that you're alleging, *this was something that you dragged out of my words based on several assumptions that you made*.

...which reminds me: you also assumed what I meant by 'compromising', and when I brought up a definition *from Wikipedia, the source that you seem to love to cite*, I explained that my use of the term was consistent with that definition...

**The whole point of me asking what you meant by 'submission' was that I wanted to see what you meant by it. You made it clear that you were using it to imply that there always has to be some kind of coercion in Communism.**

You kept on saying that there has to be some kind of conformity to the collective's goal due to political pressure and a lack of resources with which to fulfil an infinite field of possible goals.

Your example was *the Russian revolution*, during which capitalist powers never went away and counterrevolutionary forces who were battling for political power (with the ultimate political aim of seizing control of the Soviet state) were still very much extant in and around the Soviet Union.

My point is that the battles for such resources revolve around the struggle to establish hegemony, which is at the root of not just identity politics but *bourgeois politics in general*. It means that you are arguing that bourgeois politics is inescapable, and your supposed proof is that a set ruling hegemony or at least a ruling set of ideas must be submitted to and conformed to in all cases.