you were show to be wrong, and the next day you simply carry one with the same lies and bullshit as if the conversation of the previous day never happedned

**resources are finite, communism is not doing hwat ever you want**

**"you have to submit"**

Where did I say that?

And how can you consider it to be 'submission' in the first place? That word refers to something that someone does to serve someone else more than something that one must do to serve themselves.

I mean, you will drag these assumptions of yours out of everything that I say regardless of whether I said it or not.

I never said that 'resources are not finite' (potentially, there is an infinity; at present there is a finitude); I also never said that Communism is where one can do whatever one wants. Freedom does not come for free or all at once.

I said that it is maximal freedom, not an abstract and meaningless 'total' freedom.

The latter does not exist as a stationary thing; it is meaningless.

inb4 he posts another out-of-context quote in his arsehurt search after saying that he wasn't gonna scroll through the walls of text

But it gets even worse too. You see, even if I *did* backpedal, then I can still keep my claim that you don't belong to the same tradition as Marx and Engels (the default 'Communism') and that your revisions of 'Communist' theory are nothing new and have been thrashed many times over by writers from M&E through to Zizek.

Did you know that I could still find a stronger argument and let go of previous ones? *In fact, that's the whole damn reason why I'm here: to use you as a Xenomorph larva does with its host, to strengthen myself on the political front.*

So there are multiple levels of obstacles which you have to traverse to even begin to put me on shaky ground as an opponent, so you can prove to me that I really don't know what it means to be a Communist.

I slip through your fingers because you cannot grasp me, which is ironic because you have declared yourself to be the one who cannot be understood because everyone else is busy perpetuating and instigating a shadowy agenda!

...all while you alone are the most free thinkers of anyone here - the Messianic creature who knows things that others violently refuse to believe. It is nothing short of cheap projection, made meaningful solely by your persistence in repeating this mantra of your self-declared superiority.

You just want to tire your enemy out, point out inconsistencies when they change their minds to a considerable extent or even simply refresh themselves, and then proclaim that you are the only one who can be consistent. But you cannot even do that.

"I said that it is maximal freedom," you never said this, you clearly stated. comunnims is being free do what ever you want. Where did you say this lol, like im going to sroll back. You said it, why are you denying this and talking around it with so many words that i did not read :D?

Do you know what a search tool is?

You could've used that and searched for things like 'free', 'freedom' and 'want', too.

One problem: I've already done that and found fucking nothing that suggests that I've actually said what you're saying I've said.

*Why are __you__ denying that you've been absolutely crushed here?*

So let's get this straight: you tried to quote me but you failed and I caught you with your pants down when you pulled out some out-of-context screenshots.

And then you gave up on quoting me altogether despite repeating yourself over and over again when I was telling you to shut up so that I could explain everything all over again and you kept on interrupting me.

Even *that* didn't work, though! I still remained rock solid on that position, and now you seem to have given up altogether with both of those efforts.

All that you have left is to repeat yourself and ignore much of what I've said, focussing on something which I've repeatedly cleared up. In fact, even if I did not start with my current position, for the last few times that I've brought it up, my 'new' position has not changed.

Your arguments against this 'new' position have simply been attempts at proving your case by assertion.

Your first detour regarding 'anarchy' failed miserably, and now your second detour about what I was initially arguing has collapsed too. The irony is that it's reinforced my initial point: you have no reason to call yourself a Communist because you are completely unfamiliar with what Communism (i.e. Marxist Communism, the dominant 'Communism') is.

Not only that, but you don't know much about capitalism either. Your politics is somewhat similar to 'trade-unionist' identity politics, i.e. a movement of proletarians *as a positive class* with distinct intra-class boundaries who seek to establish a proletarian hegemony which does not dissolve itself after fighting off bourgeois forces.

You've changed the subject at least twice in trying to drag my attention away from *that* particular controversy. Now that your games are over, we must focus on the initial issue at hand.

In the case of the first game, it was about what you meant by 'state' and you threw 'anarchy' into the mix. You gave a definition of 'state' and conflated it with the term 'government', saying 'there's no difference' despite being shown to be wrong about conventional terminology every time a source was brought up either by you or by me.

...but this dodged the whole point of the demarcation that I was making between different kinds of political force, which I identified upon the basis of different kinds of conflict resolution. For me, a 'state' was necessary to provide a foothold for political hegemony so that some groups would win out over others if both claimed a share of the resources including the means of production.

I had brought up an example of a Marxist definition to reinforce this.

A 'government' would be an as-neutral-as-possible social structure which would be used for mutual conflict resolution and empowerment.

The point is that it would avoid any need for one set of groups to have a sustained hegemony over the means of production. In fact, Communism must involve the absolute dissolution of identity (as a process, not as a mode which society sticks with).

Of course there would be a need to cater to an existing order to satisfy an increasingly-inclusive hegemony in Communism *for a given time*, but the point is that people would need to work to abolish that hegemony.

**I know this very well, hence I said that "freedom does not come all at once".**

The source of your confusion regarding all of this comes from your treatment of the present and the indeterminate future.

***Every time I said that I was talking about potential things, you confused this with me saying that those potential things are accessible to us right now.***

You seem to be absolutely stuck in thinking solely about given intervals of time, abstracting qualities of historical processes, hastily-generalising them and then building a deterministic framework out of it. Limitless potentiality is absurd for you because you think that the limits we have are based on a set framework of concepts which are built to describe particular periods of history. You form them into rigid laws which cannot be deviated from regardless of our intentions and actions.

But surely *you* must be part of this too when you approach the present time in this way.

Your grand theory has to account for your own treatment of yourself as a determined thing, acting in accordance with laws which you have come to know. You have to capture your own subjectivity and regard it in a formalised manner, using rigid definitions and set-in-stone demarcations between concepts.