...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.

***My point has always been that this 'hegemony' does not have to be that of a group which is hellbent on keeping society a certain way in accordance with an exclusive set of interests. Instead, it must be changed at the fastest possible pace and must be as inclusive and revolutionary as possible at any given time.***

It's not the same as submitting to a political force which wants to bag the means of production for itself in an exclusive matter: it is supposed to be a ground upon which mutual solutions can be established. Moreover, any hegemony that does exist must be consciously self-abolishing - it must struggle to dissolve its own identity and uphold only the commons of reason and language that we have. The commons of subjectivity!

I was unsure about how to use the term 'submit' because at the time you were busy screaming that I was assuming what you had meant and I wanted you to explain yourself to an advanced extent.

why australia

Lol, now you are avoiding again, talking about submitting and skipping over the comment at hand, in which you said that communism is free to do what ever you want. 😄 yur such a jew

did you delete that comment yet

```" 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 :smile: you are just skipping around it not posting it, if you havent already deleted it :smile:```

This is literally what you drew my attention to. First, that comment that I made does not exist. Second, it doesn't matter given my 'new' position. Third, you changed the word again and all three of your keywords have resulted in nothing.

I have not gone back and edited my comments after considerable time since you've made another round of responses let alone delete anything. The only times where I went back was when I was trying to catch up with you after you ran ahead with an argument that was already debunked while I was still typing.

You can ask the admins to bring up the logs.

Nevertheless, even if I concede anything there, your situation is still terrible. **Here's what happened if I *did* backpedal:**

<You're not a Communist

<Proposition A and Proposition B = Communism, you don't seem to be supporting either of those

>Proposition A and Proposition B are incompatible, pick one

<What do you mean by that? Here's what I mean.

>You said Proposition A, do you agree?

<No

>You're backpedalling! What about Proposition B?

<I don't agree with that either

>Still backpedalling! Fucking Jew!

<Why aren't you dealing with my new argument?

*You can do one of two things here: you can argue about how anything I say would imply that I'm talking about 'freedom' and 'submission' in the senses that you mean them and prove that I don't know what I'm talking about. You chose to do the second thing:*

>Dude you argued points A and B, you must agree with either one of those!

**As it happens, I don't support either one. Absolute, static freedom does not exist. Absolute, static submission does not exist either. The point of Communism is to expand freedom and remove grounds on which submission is possible, but this is an infinite process.**